Jump to content





Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Blood on the hands of pro-abortionists... "deal with it"


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
199 replies to this topic

#193 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 07-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,008
  • Reputation: 382
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2013 - 06:41 PM

This thread is like some other fool creating one after Newtown saying that the blood is on the hands of NRA. G5 is a necessary joke in this forum 



#194 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,267
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:23 AM

This thread is like some other fool creating one after Newtown saying that the blood is on the hands of NRA. G5 is a necessary joke in this forum 

 

No...because no one is arguing that gunning down children should ever be tolerated.

 

Liberals like you want to have accessibility to late term abortions.  Pelosi pretty much reflects the opinion. 

 

And we've been over this in this thread and shown that analogy to be ignorant. 



#195 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • Joined: 27-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,732
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:43 PM

Your definitions, to me, allude to the idea of "survival" when discussing viable. I do not mean "survival without medical care," but survival at all. No child born in under 21 weeks since conception has survived. This suggests that right now there is no ability to save a child much earlier than that. I'm not saying we should abort any child before 21 weeks, nor am I saying that if you've got a premie on a table it should be left to die because it's under that time. I am simply arguing that your statements in this thread re: viability prior to 20 weeks are not substantiated by fact.

Note that the survival rate in the US of early preterm babies is still pretty low; NICU survival is 50% at 24 weeks.

I would disagree that "weeks" are arbitrary. Development is remarkably consistent, which I think is amazing in and of itself. The difference is when one measures conception. Some measure it from the moment of fertilization (difficult to do save for cases of artificial insemination), while most measure based on the mother's last menstrual cycle. The actual development time is very tightly controlled in major ways.

RE: "we have the technology," please supply evidence of this technology which is not being used, otherwise it sounds like you are speculating such technology exists without any real substance behind it.

 Today's episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman highlighted the budding technology concerning human reproduction.  Part of the episode showed a man who had successfully gestated and "birthed" dozens of sharks completely outside of the womb of the mother. According to him the only necessary thing left for him to do this with a human baby is permission, and a deeper understanding of the conditions inside the womb throughout the gestation so that he can properly replicate it safely.

 

"Viability outside of the Womb" is not a valid argument. The entire process can happen without the mother.



#196 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:50 PM

 Today's episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman highlighted the budding technology concerning human reproduction.  Part of the episode showed a man who had successfully gestated and "birthed" dozens of sharks completely outside of the womb of the mother. According to him the only necessary thing left for him to do this with a human baby is permission, and a deeper understanding of the conditions inside the womb throughout the gestation so that he can properly replicate it safely.

 

"Viability outside of the Womb" is not a valid argument. The entire process can happen without the mother.

 

oh ffs.

 

We can't do that with humans, we don't have the technology.  Sharks and humans are quite different (ectotherms have a different gestation process and don't have the same kind of temperature regulations that endotherms do).  Until such point as that scientist actually can do that with a mammal (like a mouse) he would NEVER receive funding to try it on a human.

 

You can't legislate today based on what technology tomorrow might bring tomorrow save for when you are trying to fund research directly.



#197 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • Joined: 27-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,732
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:53 PM

oh ffs.

 

We can't do that with humans, we don't have the technology.  Sharks and humans are quite different (ectotherms have a different gestation process and don't have the same kind of temperature regulations that endotherms do).  Until such point as that scientist actually can do that with a mammal (like a mouse) he would NEVER receive funding to try it on a human.

 

You can't legislate today based on what technology tomorrow might bring tomorrow save for when you are trying to fund research directly.

I have to admit I am surprised, but am thoroughly enjoying your reaction.  Being a scientist, or a scientist in training (no disrespect i just remember you are still going through school) you know that this is proof of concept which is more than enough to satisfy the original argument.



#198 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:57 PM

I have to admit I am surprised, but am thoroughly enjoying your reaction.  Being a scientist, or a scientist in training (no disrespect i just remember you are still going through school) you know that this is proof of concept which is more than enough to satisfy the original argument.

 

A scientist with a theory is most definitely not enough to invalidate abortion today.  Your original argument was that humans could basically develop outside the womb earlier than they could.  I showed that you were wrong, and you still ARE wrong.  In a couple years, you may be right.  I have no idea what future technology will bring, but considering what we are capable of, this decade will likely see artificial wombs for mammals.  But that doesn't mean we will see them for humans in that same time frame.  



#199 2plankingpanther

2plankingpanther

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,080
  • Reputation: 50
HUDDLER

Posted 15 July 2013 - 01:37 AM

test



#200 2plankingpanther

2plankingpanther

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,080
  • Reputation: 50
HUDDLER

Posted 15 July 2013 - 01:44 AM

Gosnell simply provided a service that many pro-aborts support and encourage.  Find one instance where any prolifer in this thread has supported or encouraged the work that Eric Rudolph did. 

test