@hromi So you skip the point of the video, skip the annotations that I put up, skip the description, SKIP THE TOP COMMENTS, skip the video response and make your way to post a comment which lacks any form of willful points or discussion, and I'm the confused one?
Funny thing is that Obama was supposed to be revolutionary because he's the first black president but Ron Paul is the person who is honna lead it. Viva la revolucion
You missed the point on abortion. Although he is against it he feels the Federal Government has no place in the decision. So he would leave it to the states to have it as it should based on their own voters. There is no federal law on the death penalty thus... there should be none on abortion... It's a perfectly reasonable stance to allow personal liberty to be voted for state by state.
IF ANYONE HAS SEEN THIS DUMB ASS BEFORE IN THEIR CITY, PLEASE PUNCH HIM OUT. THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU....OH YEAH RON PAUL 2012!! AND THIS IS FROM CANADA.
@TonyDeLaGullySide Did you even watch the video, or do you even understand English? He is a Ron Paul supporter and he is commenting on another person stance. Also this was made in 2008 and had nothing to do with this election.
yeah hmm ok then, and i guess Ron Paul is a bad candidate cuz he doesn't know much about the internet well if you looked up your facts a little more he also warned the united states about future threats on us cuz the day before Clinton was impeached we bombed iraq, Ron Paul warned us that there would be reciprocations then what happened 9/11, if you dont like your freedom then thats all you but ill be damned if they take mine away
@10woltjty You're going to feel like "such a fucking dumbass" when you realize that this video was from 2007, SUPPORTS Ron Paul and is a response to another user. But I guess you don't read descriptions when you're informed to. It's alright - everyone makes mistakes. :)
"I do think we should value people who speak from the heart and who tell the truth and you should also value people who honor the vision of your founders and respect the most sublime constitution devised by human intelligence."
this video is not what you think it is either judging from the title...id say the internet is the least of many reasons Ron Paul is a better choice than the way things are going and will keep going with any of the other candidates...ask yourself, why is ron paul the only one who wants to change everything?...becasue hes the only one who isnt part of the current system that has bankrupted america and made us hated by people around the world.
You can dance around the issue with double speak all you'd like by trying to make it sound less parasitic then it really is, but that doesn't change reality.
As someone who leans to the left I see Ron Paul as the best chance to cleanse gov't of the terrible greed and underhand corruption that has pulled America down for decades. Even if you don't agree with all he says, I think people know he is genuine and incorruptible. He has no fear and will do the things he says or will die trying. He takes no pension and has no lobbyist. I think he is a genuinely good man who will pull gov't out of the way. Who else could you honestly trust? He is a good start.
Oh, and rapes that end in pregnancy are fewer than 1% of all abortions. So the REAL use of abortions is female convenience. Anyone who can kill another human being out of pure convenience is a murder of the worst kind. Also, anyone who says that it is better to "abort" than to have an "unwanted" child should go talk to someone else who doesn't have 5 adopted family members that they love as dearly as those who are related by blood. That argument is infantile at best.
Women today are forced to work, and if married they will work approx.68 hour weeks, as opposed to the men's 48 hour week. Who takes care of the kids and cleans the house, on less pay?
Try paying then for all women products and makeup and take care of the house, add to that a kid and see if you can even buy a bottle of milk, or have the energy to at the week's end.
Women abort for many reasons and those who want to judge are imbeciles.
@abbienetvision The argument you just supplied ( a woman having to work and raise a child) is the CONVENIENCE argument of which I speak. If you don't have a spouse who will help you and share the load of supporting and raising your children, then maybe you shouldn't be having sex with them in the first place. Stop calling people like me that problem when the problem is clearly that people don't think of the consequences of their own actions before or during the decision process.
Even with birth control, pregnancy can occur! That is FACT, like it or not. I am married and can tell you that I work outside and at home and to think that men are doing half of the housework is just to be deluded. Men do not work at home as much as women, that is just the way it is. Women today are under so much stress, to bring home a salary and keep a house, along with keeping a man happy, and then with kids, the running around, etc
I'd like to ask you why you are for abortion. Are you aware that no woman (aside from Mary if you believe in that stuff) has ever given birth to a child without having sex? This means that unless a woman is raped, she is willfully taking upon herself the risk that she will become pregnant just as all men accept the risk of becoming a father. Also, unless you pick a completely arbitrary day upon which a human being becomes a person, abortion is always the killing of a person. AKA, murder.
RON PAUL SAYS THINGS NO OTHER CANDIDATE DARES TO SAY AND HE MEANS WHAT HE SAYS ! HE IS THE ONLYONE WHO CAN SAVE THE US-SPIRIT AND US-SOCIETY WHILE THE ZIONIST DEMONS AND THEIR PUPPETS DESTROY IT !
DEAR AMERICANS VOTE FOR RAUN PAUL OR YOU WILL LOSE MORE AND MORE ALL YOUR LIBERTY, FACE MORE WARS AND DEEPER FINANCIAL DEBTS UNTIL THE US WILL COLAPSE!
Search for - Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win? - on youtube and watch the movie you get and also the other movies of Brother Nathaniel!
As an Atheist, do you care that Ron Paul will try to get rid of abortion, so that if your girlfriend is raped and gets pregnant from the rape, she will have the rapists baby? Or maybe that is alright with you!
The death penalty also he is against, so watch your girlfriend killed by a maniac or your mom, sister, dad, etc and see that person walking on the streets the next day or living in jail for the next 60 yrs on taxpayer dollars. That is not free, you know!
@abbienetvision First off, he is "pro life" in his own beliefs and that is it. His mission, one that I agree on, is that abortion should be regulated by the states and not by the federal government. When you give the federal government power to regulate, it is draconianly absolute and could be against the will of the People. If a state regulates, they are bound by the will of their constituents - the taxpayers. If a taxpayer doesn't like what is going on in their state, they will move.
Actually, Ron Paul says that Roe vs Wade is one of the worst decisions! Why should a state decide? How many young girls or women who are raped, as in Roe vs Wade may not be able to get to another state, so she will probably do something dangerous, putting her life at risk (as was prior to abortion being made legal.)
How many women are raped in the USA? We both know the answer is MANY. They MUST have the right to decide if they care to carry the baby or not this is not even debatable!
@abbienetvision I believe states should decide because The Constitution doesn't have set articles defining what to do with abortion and wouldn't get a 2/3 vote needed to pass an amendment. I believe most situations where a women needs to do something dangerous would be because of her/her families own inaction - to support & pay a state who openly opposes viewpoints she or her family has. Giving back states' powers would bring back a nation of political knowledge - something we desperately need.
First he does not vote against emergncy contraception, which is available to all women within 72 hours of any sexual act. He does not oppose contraception.
Over 95% of the abortions performed in this country are done so for non medical/rape related reasons. The issue of rape is a minor part of the equation, and with emergency contraception, an even smaller one.
Please look up what Ron Paul said about Roe vs Wade, the landmark case which made abortion legal. Also, if you are pro-life, what is the difference from an abortion or the morning after pill (you are still killing a fertilized egg, or as pro-lifers would say, a life)
How can you be against an abortion at one day, but agree to a pill? What crap! Either an egg which has been fertilized is a life or is not, so what difference does killing it make? Please, get real
He said it was a Big Mistake becuase the Fed Govt overstepped thier constitutionally defiend powers. I invite you to look at what Roe currently says about the issue.
The pill is also not killing an embryo. It is mainly thought to supress ovulation, prevent fertilization or stop poetntial implantation.
There is a difference between that and killing an implanted or growing embryo. How can you support abortion at 12 weeks, and not 39 weeks that is the real inconsistancy.
And if you want to know how many women have died of trying to abort by themselves, you can look it up. The fact is that not every woman wants to have another baby, whether due to finances or health or whatever.
You prefer that abortions are done (they will be done illegally by women, if they are illegal) and many women are also killed? Is that what the pro-life people promote...death to the child and the mother? That is PRO-life? Sounds like pro-death to me!
95% of abortions are performaed for non-medical reasons. Thats more than 1 million/year. The right to become pregnant is not the same as the right to an abortion.
If you suppport the right at 12 weeks, you must also do so at 39 weeks. If you support it for financial and health reasons, you must also support it for reasons like hair color and sex. Also if a fetus is not a life, how can you argue for protecting it through medicais and planned parent hood.
@toephue2002 So you are saying that because the government says that a fetus is a life, a fetus is indeed a life? Who made the government absolute, and all-knowing?
No I'm saying a fetus is a life because it meets all criteria for being alive. You are asking about personhood and yes the govt does decide who deserves rights as a person. Remember that blacks once counted as 2/3 of a person. I'm saying that if you agree that medicaid should cover pregnant mothers, If you believe that doctors should be qulaified and responsible for a developing fetus, if you believe that drug companies should lable drugs as a teatrogenic, you must have a reason to.
In every state, there are laws in place that protect the fetus. This is beacuse from the moment that a woman is pregnant there is a protection provided to that fetus.
You have yet to answer if you think there is a difference between an abortion at 12 weeks and 39 weeks. If Abortion is a "right" then this right must always be defended. Also you must defend abortions for reasons of the sex of the baby, and the eye color of the baby.
The problem with the pro-choicers is they refuse to answer questions about the consequences of their belief. Or they say somthing stupid like a fetus is a parasite.
Medically speaking a fetus is not a parasite. There is nothing pathologic about pregnancy. The ability to become pregnant and all the changes that occur are a normal physiological response. In fact the ability to reproduce is a qualification for life.
The typical answers I get from the questions above have somthing to do with either having to do with the experience of being pregnant/motherhood, or it being each person's choice. If that is true, are you arguning for adjudication of relative moraltiy?
@toephue2002 You can't see a baby's eye color until they are open, which doesn't happen until after they are born. And most babies are born with blue eyes and then the color can change. So good luck aborting a baby because of its eye color, moron. And the personhood movement removes the woman's right to life in favor of the unborn fetus. When did a non yet fully formed child get more rights than the woman who is carrying it in her uterus?
I may be a moron but that in now way affects the validity of my argument. You however have committed the fallacy of the Straw Man. You took one piece of the argument above and picked it apart. Secondly realize that Karyotyping is done for many reasons prior to birth. Are you saying that you support a person't right to abortion on the grounds of sex of the child.
Also personhood movement does not act to remove a woman's right to life. It acts to give equal rights to a developing fetus. No one is suggesting more rights.
@toephue2002 Pro-choice people dont even like to admit to What They Are: its pro-ABORTION. Pro-lifers are Exactly what they say they are. Pro-LIFE.
These pro-choice jerks would have a guy that murdered his girlfriend and fetus inside of her tried for TWO counts of manslaughter. Yet its JUST FINE with them for the MOTHER to choose to kill the baby. - Either way our second silent and COMPLETELY helpless MURDER VICTIM isnt given a chance an opinion or a voice.
The vast majority of pro-lifers are merely 'Pro-fetus' and are the most annoying hypocrites in the world. See the way they're pro-WAR, pro-death penalty, pro-animal abuse (i.e. factory farms), pro-use up all of our resources to produce meat, pro-corporations who pollute and damage our environment and our health (and then pro-give these corporations MORE legal rights to do this), etc.
Wow. Seems like we have another person who failed to read my comment. Hurray.
Your comment: "Pro-lifers are Exactly what they say they are. Pro-LIFE."
My comment, which I will post again in case you forgot, challenges this statement because as I said, "The vast majority of pro-lifers are merely 'Pro-fetus'" which is, indeed, a true statement supported by the various examples cited in my comment and various statistics done on the issue.
You can try to deny it all you would like, (i.e. But I don't support these things!), but the reality of the situation is - The overwhelmingly vast majority of pro lifers are not pro-LIFE, but pro-FETUS.
There IS a difference.
Also, remember that actions speak louder than words. (i.e. many people against, say, animal abuse, still regularly consume animal products produced by factory farms)
My comment (which is still up if you would like to go back a couple of pgs): "The vast majority of pro-lifers are merely 'Pro-fetus' and are the most annoying hypocrites in the world. See the way they're pro-WAR, pro-death penalty, pro-animal abuse (i.e. factory farms), pro-use up all of our resources to produce meat, pro-corporations who pollute and damage our environment and our health (and then pro-give these corporations MORE legal rights to do this), etc."
@toephue2002 Really? You want to argue aborting because of eye color? If someone did that, they would effectively be killing a born child, as the eyes don't open until after the child is born. And most are born with blue eyes and the color changes as the infant gets older.
@toephue2002 They are protections for the mother, not the fetus. If a woman so chooses to have the baby (CHOOSES), then she has a right to make sure that the baby is healthy when it is born by having a medical doctor check the progress. If a person has cancer, they also have a right to a medical doctor to treat the cancer. There is little difference in the right of the person to medical treatment.
@cmadison93 That's just the thing. You can't put a 'value' on human life. That's what they try to do in courts with lawsuits and the person who wins never really wins. The real question is when does the right of the unborn child to life supersede that of the woman carrying it? I say that until the fetus is developed enough that it can survive without being attached to the mother, it has no 'right to life'. A woman has the right to bring said child into the world if she CHOOSES.
Supporting the right of a woman to kill her own child, so she doesn't face the discomfort of pregnancy (she willingly had sex, and is now facing the consequences, she CHOSE to get herself into this situation) is more important than the right of this child to live? What ever happened to responsibility
What makes the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb the defining point of life? Seems more like discrimination against the level of development of the fetus.
Well, for starters, your entire argument is based on the assumption that all women have sex willingly. Obviously (at least for anyone with half a brain cell or more), this is not the case. The fact is that many women have abortions because they are the victims of rape and/or incest, so they clearly didn't choose to get into that situation. In addition, many women have abortions due to complications with the pregnancy that would end up killing her if not treated.
If you knew anything about the reasons why women get abortions, you would understand that the vast majority of abortions are not done for those reasons (98%+).
You can beat around the bush all you want, but lets address that 98% of abortions.
Alright? You want another reason? How about the fact that neither of us have any right to judge what other people do with their bodies. How about that a fetus doesn't really classify as an organism at all. And btw, you did imply that all women have sex willingly, whether you meant to or not.
I stated, "Supporting the right of a woman to kill her own child, so she doesn't face the discomfort of pregnancy (she willingly had sex, and is now facing the consequences, she CHOSE to get herself into this situation)"
The information in parenthesis is classifying which women I am referring to. It in no ways implies that ALL women have sex willingly. You are taking me out of context and throwing up a straw men. Please, stop with the fallacies.
@cmadison93 I also know people who took all the necessary precautions and still got pregnant. 1 woman got pregnant twice while on 2 different birth controls and was not taking antibiotics. I know a man who got his wife pregnant 20 years after having a vasectomy. One of my coworkers knows someone who got pregnant after having her tubes tied. Nothing is fool proof. So you're another one who is saying that only people who want children should have sex. Good luck with that one.
@cmadison93 Here we go again with value. What value do you put on your life? $1? $1M? You can't put a value on life. The baby, once it is born, is no longer attached to the woman who was carrying it for 9 months. It no longer needs her to breathe. That is what gives it more right to life than an unborn fetus.
You are assuming that my definition of value is a monetary value, when this is not true. To avoid further confusion, I'll use the first definition of value from dictionary reference com "relative worth, merit or importance"
Which allows for a 'priceless' value of life
To assume there is monetary connotations is simply fallacious at best and merely throwing up straw men.
Now, why is having the ability to breathe on your own the defining point for when a life begins to be of priceless value/importance? Where is the logic?
Does the degree of dependency on someone/something else really bestow human value? What of those who require insulin, those who have asthma or anyone who's been saved by medicine?
Does the level of development really determine human value? Does an 18 year old have a greater right to life than a 2 year old?
@cmadison93 Stop trying to spew your beliefs on me. I believe that a woman has more right to her life than an unborn child that is growing in HER body. You asked me what I thought. I told you. People like you who use the defense of killing a child who is already living need to get over your holier than thou attitude. You want to see dying children? Go to any third world country and watch a starving child die. It happens every 5 minutes, so you shouldn't have to wait long.
For your information, I have been to third world countries multiple times and I have seen children die of starvation in person. Your foolish assumptions are merely a fallacious attempt to deviate from the discussion at hand - the protection of the right to life for ALL human beings.
What makes the blastocyst not as much of a human being as the mother carrying this child?
@cmadison93 Of course. It's so easy to say that you have been there through a forum post. I believe you. My post was not an attempt to deviate from anything. How many unwanted children are there in the world currently? And you want to force women to bring more into the world simply because birth control didn't work or they were raped? What makes your opinions more correct than that of the person getting the abortion? Again, holier than thou attitude. You must be a guy. I'm done with you.
I'm a woman. Thanks, though. Please, keep making your foolish assumptions, it's quite amusing.
My opinions are 'more correct' because protecting the right to life for all human life is of utmost concern. There is no reason to discriminate towards blastocysts because they are weaker and more dependent on others. Still waiting for an explanation as to why a blastocyst isn't a valid form of human life.
@cmadison93 Oh! NOW I SEE THE LIGHT! How could I be so blinded by my respect of people's right to choose? Wow, I was so wrong! NOT!
You're not going to change your mind. I'm not going to change mine. I think that I am responding logically. You don't see it that way. Let's stop wasting each other's time because neither one of us is going to budge on this issue. I don't need to come up with a scientific reason for my beliefs. It is merely a belief that a woman can choose what is best for her.
The lack of respect for human life is a dangerous ideal that society has adopted. I hope you do further research and criticize your beliefs, particularly the 'it's a woman's choice' argument. What about the choice of the blastocyst? The life of the weak and helpless?
@cmadison93 Again, I have no lack of respect for human life. I actually respect it a lot more than you could even imagine. What I don't agree with is what you consider life. A lump of cells is not a human. It is a lump of cells. An amoeba is a lump of cells, too, but do you give it the same rights as you do a human? How about bacteria? Not all bacteria is bad. You use cleaning products that kill lumps of cells, too. And I very highly doubt that you've never killed a mosquito.
The difference is that it is a human 'lump of cells'. All of the unique features that make you and I human, a *human* blastocyst possesses. I suggest a Biology course if you don't understand that. It is human life. Weak and defenseless human life with no one to defend it. Albeit, not as developed or independent as you or me, but a human life worthy of respect nonetheless.
How is bacteria even relevant to the issue of abortion and defending human life? Just seems like your grasping at straws. Kind of like when people roll with the 'vegans are murdering plants!' attempt at an 'argument'..
Cleaning is used to help guard our own health and is a necessary part of living a healthy life. Given how there is no realistic way to only eliminate the harmful bacteria, it is unfortunate that the beneficial or neutral bacteria must be harmed.
We don't have the technology available to safely and effectively do away with 'bad' bacteria, and as such this issue is largely out of our control. Just because cleaning can't be done 100% perfectly at all times is not justification for abortion..
Still waiting for how this is related to abortion...
@cmadison93 Self righteousness...where are you? Oh, there you are. I bet you agree with Santorum's decision to torture his baby when the doctors told him that it wouldn't survive. It suffered for 2 hours before dying and then he brought the dead fetus back to his house so his other children could bond with it. Talk about fucking up his children.
I agreed with his decision? Since when? Please do inform me. In fact, I don't even know who the hell that is.
After a minute of research though, no I don't agree with his decision. Where did I ever indicate that I would support the torture of a child (and mental torture of his other children) in such a manner?
Why are you getting so off topic? What about the 98%+ abortions that are not for medical necessity, not done in the case of rape, no 'gray areas'?
I actually do keep up on politics. Thanks for your hasty generalization, though.
I haven't watched any of the Republican debates yet. I've snippets here and there, but not of the utmost concern to me as I'm most certainly not voting republican and haven't had too much free time to go watch all of the primaries.
I prefer reading articles and the actual legislation, myself.
@cmadison93 That's where I got the info on Rick Santorum and what he did to his child. It was an article on CNN about the book that he wrote. I don't watch the debates, either. It's all the same thing spewed over and over again. Apparently you're not as up to date on politics as you think you are, since you didn't know who Santorum was.
Right. Since I don't read articles about Rick Santorum, I'm clearly uninformed about politics. Thank you for your appraisal of my level of political knowledge.
Maybe I didn't feel like wasting my time studying up on a Republican who has a minor chance of becoming president?
Also, much more satisfying to read actual legislation and professional, peer-reviewed articles dealing with more relevant subjects to politics.
@cmadison93 It's only 93%, too. 1% is from incest/rape and 6% are for medical reasons. What right do you have to tell someone else what they can do with their body? If someone wanted to get a tattoo, would you tell them that they couldn't because you didn't want them to? It's no different. You are telling a woman that she has to be a baby machine if she gets pregnant, no excuses. Bullshit! If you want to have a kid, great! If I don't, great! It's not your decision. Stay out of my uterus!
I recommend studying the methods behind the collecting of data these statistics you are so eager to site use. Inflated data, at best. As is most statistical data received from a quick Google search. :]
I'm not saying she has to be a 'baby machine' but rather not a brutal murderer? To, gees, respect human life?
Once again, what gives you - or anyone for that matter - the right to kill a human being in the womb?
@cmadison93 "Mommy, who's my daddy?" "Well, honey, your daddy's really your grandpa and I'm really your sister. Daddy raped me, and I was forced to keep you. Also, my mother is your step mother." Great conversation to have with a child. Would you want to have it?
@cmadison93 So forget the hell that the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life knowing that she had her father's child. Who cares about the mother as long as the blastocyst is protected. You claim to care about human life, yet you callously forget that a human has to deal with the pregnancy. If your father raped you, would you be willing to carry his child? Honestly think about that before answering. Think about the emotional impact of what your father hypothetically did to you.
First of all, I have never staid where I stand on the issue of abortion in the case of rape. In fact, if you read any of my previous comments, I have stated repeatedly that I am referring to the 98%+ abortions that are done for the mere convenience of the mother (i.e. not done in the case of rape or medical necessity or whatever crazy story you can pull out of your ass).
Even if you can find justification for a rape victim to have an abortion, what about the other 98%?
@cmadison93 You have your numbers wrong: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). And who the fuck are you to judge what a woman does with her body? Are you God? It is her body...her right. Get over yourself. You have no say in what someone else does to their body.
Who am I to judge what a woman does with her body? The thing is that it is not her body - it is the body of her child with which she is demanding the right to kill.
Same reason I am against murder of any other form. I don't discriminate against the level of development or dependency though.
@cmadison93 Wow...love the contradiction. You said earlier that if you had to kill someone in self defense, that would be okay. Now you're against murder in any form. I don't discriminate based on dependency, either. I have a friend with MS who is in a wheelchair. I have blind friend. I don't think they should be killed because they have to rely on other people. But if something is in my body and I want to get it out, YOU HAVE NO SAY!
The morning after pill is not murder? Do the cells need to be a week old, a month, 2 months in order to be human? Your logic is messed up. If you don't want to abort, don't, but let others have the choice of what they choose for themselves. You should not try to be the Lord or judge, it is not your place!
I don't recall mentioning anything about the morning after pill?
I'm asking why is there some arbitrary defining point for when a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is considered human and where is the logic behind this stance. Why are the 'cells' (at conception) not deserving of basic human rights (namely, the right to life)?
I'm not too sure what you are saying towards the last part of your comment.
Are you assuming that I'm saying the 'lump of cells' needs to be a week old to be human? 2 months? What? Did you read anything I said?
I'm arguing that at conception the 'lump of cells' is human (for instance, it has the whole set of DNA that makes up a human, study biology if you are confused on this subject).
This person I'm talking to is saying it's not human until its 'viable'
I am trying to get you to see the hypocrisy of Ron Paul and all the pro-lifers! While Ron Paul is against abortion, the morning after pill is alright by him. His clear moronic stance on a so many other things make him unable to hold any top position-TX change your legislators
Ron Paul will never be elected and all the Paulbots should stop wasting your time defending a person who knows next to nothing and votes in opposition to his beliefs, defends a news letter then denies knowing
@abbienetvision Hypocrisy? Really? Let me school you on something. Even when a sperm and egg unite to create a diploid cell, there is no guarantee that the blastocyst that then grows will ever implant in the uterus. Current birth control works by preventing this implantation. The "morning after" pill works in the same way. After implantation however, unless there are medical abnormalities, the fetus can be expected to continue to grow and be born. Are you saying birth control=bad
So a sperm and egg unite and they are in a laboratory, is it viable as life or in your usual hypocritical feelings it isn't? Is embryonic research not looked down on by pro-lifers? Is a human embryo a life or no?, Since your back and forth stand is making me dizzy
If an embryo is life, implantation is irrelevant.
You should decide.
I am for birth control and am pro-choice. I believe that no woman should have to suffer (pregnancy and child birth are both) if she doesn't want to.
If my father did rape me and I became pregnant, yes I would have the child because two wrongs to do not make a right.
The rape victim will have to deal with the emotional impact of the rape, yet, but also with the emotional impact of the abortion. Which can be even more devastating to the human psyche (as evidenced by various studies done with rape victims and abortions) when getting and abortion after rape.
@cmadison93 Let's take care of the life that already exists on the planet before we go debating the moral implications of abortion. Until you see a starving child die, you have no idea what the true value of human life is. Priceless doesn't even come close.
How is the blastocyst not considered life? Not considered human life?
The blastocyst IS human life, so why don't we work on protecting human life as opposed to systematically eliminating the weak and helpless in favor of protecting the strong and independent?
How hard is it to ask for some personal responsibility from the mother?
@cmadison93 So I guess that any blastocyst that doesn't attach to the uterine lining would be considered manslaughter. Because the woman's body wasn't strong enough to save the life of a couple cells. Do you kill mosquitoes? Because they're living, too, you know.
@cmadison93 So no one should go through chemo to kill cancer cells because that lump of cells is living, too. If you defend the right to all life, then you must defend the right to all life, including any type of diseases, because if you consider a fertilized egg, which is a lump of cells to be life, then any lump of cells would be considered life.
Their life is forfeit when they are harming the person infected with the disease (i.e. fighting in self defense is justified).
For instance, if someone is stabbing me repeatedly and won't let up I would be justified to act in self defense, even if that means the only way to save my life would be to kill them.
@cmadison93 So based on this remark, if carrying said fetus to term would kill the woman carrying said child, then you would be okay with the abortion because it would save the woman's life, right? Any means necessary to survive is basically what you are saying, so what is the difference if you kill an attacker or abort a fetus that would cause your death?
Self defense and 'any means necessary to survive' are not mutually synonymous.
For the instance of abortion in medical necessity (Which makes up >1% of abortion, so I don't really see how this is relevant since I'm focusing on the 98%+ abortions that are not the 'gray areas' as evidenced by my previous comment) I'm not sure where I stand. Both sides make decent arguments, but neither has really convinced me either way.
@samhain173 -I'm not sure i see your point. A pregnancy dangerous to the life of the mother would be aborted. You do not need abortion laws for these as this was permissible for hundreds of years prior to Roe v Wade.
@samhain173-Again wrong and short sighted. First, pregnancy and all the stages of it are defined by a predictable pattern with a range of normal. Pregnancy is NOT pathologic and has never been medically defined as such. Your doing so is intellectually dishonest.
Second cancer cells are Pathologic. And, since they do not have a normal life cycle (they don't die) it is hard to argue that they qualify as as normal life. You obviously have no background in this.
Currently, there is not enough information to realistically determine whether pregnancy (more specifically, the attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall) is pathologic or parasitic or not. I suggest reading up on recent research about how the B-lymphocytes and antibodies prevent the mother's immune system from attacking the developing embryo because this 'trickery' is required in order for the embryo to survive.
@cmadison93 - having read Robbins Pathology cover to cover I can tell you that Pregnancy is not considered a pathologic. The means by which the fetus evades the immune system is interesting, but is not abnormal. The training of B-lymphocytes in the thymus and lymphatic tissue also involves evading detection from the immune system, but noone would consieder this abnormal. There are also may immune privliged sites in the human such as the eye and the brain.
@cmadisom93- The whole movement to declare a developing fetus either not alive, or parasitic is intellectually dishonest. Even if there is a supression of the immune system that allows the attachment of the embryo, it occurs the by the same mechanism in every normal pregnancy.
Pathologic means abnormal.Words have definitions and should be used correctly.
In addition, saying that a fetus is parasitic is also a mischacterization.
@Cmadison93(see above)- Parastic is a pathologic term useded to describe an infection by a parasite. Many often use the term to describe a dependent relationship, like dependant spoiled children almost as a hyperbole. These two should not be confused. While a developing fetus is depndant on the mother, it is not casued by a parastic infection. I know this may seem like am obvious point but many seem to blur the lines.
Parasitic can be used to describe an infection by a parasite, yes, but parasitic (Note: Parasit-IC, i.e. possessing qualities of a parasite, does not necessarily have to be medically defined as a parasite) also refers to an organism 'leeching' off the host organism.
Since the embryo does 'trick' the mother's immune system into nurturing it to full health, yes this is parasitic. Just because it's a natural and normal process does not dismiss this fact.
@cmadison93-Many things trick hide from the immune system and recruit blood and nutrients so that it may fully develop. For example the brain. It is locked in a bone box without a lymphatic system and no organized immune regulation. But there is nothing really pathologic about this.
As I said using the term parasitic to describe a normal pregnancy is a stretch at best. A fetus does not act as a blood Parasite as it does not lead to hemolytic or the immune related destruction of blood cells.
@cmadison93- In addition it does act as a gut parasite that that absorbs nutrients prior to first pass metabolism. So the only type it can be is a "non-medical" type created to add hyperbole to argument. The definition as you suggest is not standard and should ne be used to strengthen yout argument.
When Parasite is used to decribe leeching it is used Pejoratively and as an insult. That defintion is inappropriate to use in this case.
In addition if a fetus is truly a parasite and leeches please explain the following:
Normal changes in pregnancy include an increase in blood volume as well as hemoglobin and hematocrit. Pregnancy is also accompanied by a weight gain that is more than the weight of the fetus itself.
What type of parasitic behavior acts this way.
Also, parasties don really hide from the immune system. They are ususally accompanied by a shift in homotopoesis and inflammatory cells.
I have never said that the attachment to the uterine wall is parasitic, merely said that there is currently not enough information to really determine the truth of any claims made about it.
I agree that definitions should be used correctly. However, the definition of pathologic is NOT abnormality. Consulting ANY medical book will inform you of this.
@cmadison93- "there is currently not enough information to really determine the truth of any claims made about it." --What?! This is not true. There quite a bit of research about cellular migration and protein/protein interaction that defines normal and abnormal attachment to the uterine wall.
Pathology- means of or relating to changes casued by a disease process. There is no such thing. Pathology should never be used to describe a normal physiology.
That is atleast according to 3 online medical dictionaries, and the MD behind my name. If you are infact a physician, i suggest you to read more carefully. If you are not I suggest the same.
Physiology is the study of normal biological function. Pathology is deviation from normality or disaese. So yes, Pathology is by definition abnormality. If not, please describe somthing that is medically pathologic but normal.
You are trying to broadly define pathology as something that it is not. Having definitions that are this broad (especially when using mainly subjective terms to determine what is 'normal') is simply fallacious.
Still doesn't not get rid of my comments of how the embryo attachment to the uterine wall is parasitic. (Note: Parasit-IC (like I said patholog-IC as well, in my original comment), I am not calling the embryo a parasite).
@cmadison93- I just responded to your parasitic comments.
I am only defining pathology as what it is-as in medical books as you suggested. Words don't have different meanings simply becasue we want them to. And Pathology is not a broad definition-- It deals with disease--how is that broad? --
In response to your comment about the "common cold"--
Normal -medically speaking deals with normal functioning virus/bacteria free cells
Yes the "common cold" is common, but that does mean that it represents the specturm of normal physiology. People with the common cold are infected with a virus and have cellular response to that infection as well as physiological manifestations of infection. Yes, the coomon cold is prevalent, it is not by any means a normal physiologic state.
Yes the "common cold" is common, but that does mean that it represents the specturm of normal physiology. People with the common cold are infected with a virus and have cellular response to that infection as well as physiological manifestations of infection. Yes, the coomon cold is prevalent, it is not by any means a normal physiologic state.
@cmadison93- And in defense. I am not suggesting redefining anything. Pathologic means pathologic. Parasitic means parasitic. These words have specific defintions, and should be used as such. The assumption that pregnancy is "pathologic" is an opinion not grounded in any medical principle. The view that an fetus is a parasite follows the above.
People use these words as though they knew the first thing about physiology or disease when they don't. It is intelelctually dishonest.
Just because the way the fetus evades the immune system is not 'abnormal' or 'unnatural' Does not mean it is not 'pathologic' as these terms are completely unrelated, and trying to redefine pathologic to suit you needs is simply fallacious.
For instance, other pathologic creatures (cancer, HIV, infection, common cold, etc.) are not considered 'abnormal'. In fact, what they do is actually 'normal'. This does not mean they are not pathologic, though.
You seem to be confusing prevalence with normality. There not a physician that would say that HIV, Cancer of any infection is not pathologic or by any means normal. Just because it happens a lot does not mean that it is how the body should function.
And yes-- if somthing happens the way it physiologically should it is by definition non-pathologic. I don't see why this so hard to grasp.
And please tell me how what cancer and HIV is considered "normal." Cancer cells do not have a regulated cell cycle (not normal), Do not die (not normal) and some metastasize( not normal). How is it normal to have lung cells growing in your liver?
HIV infects the cell (Not normal), Takes over normal cellular function (not normal), Inserts genetic information into the DNA (not normal) and lysis the cell (not a normal controlled death)--- Your assumption is rather misguided.
And please tell me how what cancer and HIV is considered "normal." Cancer cells do not have a regulated cell cycle (not normal), Do not die (not normal) and some metastasize( not normal). How is it normal to have lung cells growing in your liver?
HIV infects the cell (Not normal), Takes over normal cellular function (not normal), Inserts genetic information into the DNA (not normal) and lysis the cell (not a normal controlled death)--- Your assumption is rather misguided.
Unless you are saying that cancer and HIV behave in a predictable manner. while that is true, that should not be misinterpreted to assume that they are not pathologic.
If you jump from a building it is predictable that you will die. But death is kinda considered pathologic but doctor types.
There are many medical dictionaries and physicians who use the definitions I have provided you with. Such as a parasite being a creature living off of it's host at the expense of the host. I shall not be held responsible for your biases.
The biological processes of a fetus, embryo or blastocyst are indeed parasitic in nature. You can deny this all you want by trying to hide behind your 'definitions', but that doesn't change reality.
@cmadison93- Then please provide me with one published medical dictionary that would classifys an embryo as a parasite or normal pregnancy as pathologic. Provide one practicing physician who use these definitions.
The figurative use of "parastic in nature" is meaningless if it is taken to it's logical extent. It does not cause any of the problems that a parasite casues. It causes in increase in weight, it causes in improvement in cardia function and blood volume.
Please, stop throwing up your straw man, it's getting old. I have NEVER said that an embryo is a parasite, merely that the biological processes of the embryo are parasitic (study the english language if you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective) 'Leeching' nutrients from the mother, 'tricking' the mother's body into providing for it, etc. These are parasitic acts.
@cmadison93- I would agree that an embryo is dependent, but that is by no means parasitic.
If we used your definition, than every organ in the body would be parasitic. Again, words have specific meanings. Even saying "parasitic in nature" does not mean you can say it's parasitic. For example, lots of antelope and elk are deer like in nature, but they are not deer.
The difference between an organ and a blastocyst is huge. A blastocyst is it's own separate, unique being. An organ is a part of a larger being. This is just poor biology.
You should know this since so many pro-choicers like to use the 'let's protect every cell available, why just the embryo' argument.
@cmadison93- This is my point-- organs by your definition would "parasitic" in nature. They are their own populations of unique cells. and they are leaching of the host. And the brain and the eye hide from the immune system-- they are parasites too.
This is the problem with defining things as they are not.
Defining an embryo as parasitic flies in the face of normal physiology. Deer an elk have a common physiology, a fetus and parasite do not.
This is simply bad biology. An organ is not it's own unique being, it is part of the larger being. You are confusing parts with wholes.The organ is a PART of the host and actively benefits the host.
A fetus and parasite (note: They are whole, unique individuals separate from the host - i.e. they are not the host) have common biological processes as I've noted before - the leeching of nutrients from the host and 'trickery' of the host into supporting it.
@toephue2002- Please tell me how my argument is a straw man. You on the other hand have an invisible army of physicians and medical dictionaries behind you.
You have said that just because somthing is abnormal does not make it pathologic. which is a contradiction.
Genetic mutations are indeed 'abnormal' though. Just because it's functional and doesn't have a particularly harmful effect doesn't mean it's 'normal'.There is nothing normal about these mutations, when using your definition of normal. (normal functioning virus/bacteria free cells)
I'm not saying that these acts are unnatural, abnormal, bad, heinous things that justify abortion, but rather that these biological processes are indeed parasitic processes. We've known of these parasitic processes since we started studying the development of the fetus in utero.
fuck u bitch..u dont know what going on in our goverment..2012 ron paul end the illuminati
MegaChavo19 13 hours ago
dude u r confused like shit!
hromi 17 hours ago
@hromi So you skip the point of the video, skip the annotations that I put up, skip the description, SKIP THE TOP COMMENTS, skip the video response and make your way to post a comment which lacks any form of willful points or discussion, and I'm the confused one?
Shanesan 15 hours ago
@Shanesan
You're a smart guy, don't bother with this lower life form.
xAmericansovereignty 8 hours ago
Funny thing is that Obama was supposed to be revolutionary because he's the first black president but Ron Paul is the person who is honna lead it. Viva la revolucion
MzKGeneration 1 day ago
368 dumb ass Ron Paul supporters didn't even watch the video, and automatically disliked it.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 day ago
You missed the point on abortion. Although he is against it he feels the Federal Government has no place in the decision. So he would leave it to the states to have it as it should based on their own voters. There is no federal law on the death penalty thus... there should be none on abortion... It's a perfectly reasonable stance to allow personal liberty to be voted for state by state.
iwink67 1 day ago
What a douchbag!
MMAExpertKnower 1 day ago
IF ANYONE HAS SEEN THIS DUMB ASS BEFORE IN THEIR CITY, PLEASE PUNCH HIM OUT. THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU....OH YEAH RON PAUL 2012!! AND THIS IS FROM CANADA.
TonyDeLaGullySide 2 days ago
@TonyDeLaGullySide Did you even watch the video, or do you even understand English? He is a Ron Paul supporter and he is commenting on another person stance. Also this was made in 2008 and had nothing to do with this election.
zel2113 2 days ago
this guy is a douchebag!
JacobGaynor3 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm RACIST for criticizing Obama.
TERRORIST because I'm not with Bush.
ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Rothechild Zionism.
TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution.
TRUTH-ER for asking unanswered questions.
TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt Government.
CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts.
TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S.Atrocities.
ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting freedom.
Kurthavasu 3 days ago
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!
MagicGnyus 3 days ago 26
yeah hmm ok then, and i guess Ron Paul is a bad candidate cuz he doesn't know much about the internet well if you looked up your facts a little more he also warned the united states about future threats on us cuz the day before Clinton was impeached we bombed iraq, Ron Paul warned us that there would be reciprocations then what happened 9/11, if you dont like your freedom then thats all you but ill be damned if they take mine away
The12jackson 4 days ago
@The12jackson Did you not watch the video? He supports Ron Paul on everything but pro-life.
zel2113 2 days ago
i can shine some light on the pro life thing he once said it isn't as simple as pro choice pro life sometimes it depends on the situation
joenjoeify53370 4 days ago
You're gonna feel like such a fucking dumbass when Ron Paul is elected president and saves America!
10woltjty 4 days ago
@10woltjty I wonder who's the dumbass.
1. The guy in the video is a Ron Paul supporter who commenting on another person video.
2. This was made back in 2007.
3. you just didn't read the letters RE as in response nor watch the video because he is clearly for Ron Paul.
zel2113 2 days ago 6
@10woltjty You're going to feel like "such a fucking dumbass" when you realize that this video was from 2007, SUPPORTS Ron Paul and is a response to another user. But I guess you don't read descriptions when you're informed to. It's alright - everyone makes mistakes. :)
Shanesan 15 hours ago
"I do think we should value people who speak from the heart and who tell the truth and you should also value people who honor the vision of your founders and respect the most sublime constitution devised by human intelligence."
~Daniel Hannan (British member of Parliment)
danyarger 4 days ago
this video is not what you think it is either judging from the title...id say the internet is the least of many reasons Ron Paul is a better choice than the way things are going and will keep going with any of the other candidates...ask yourself, why is ron paul the only one who wants to change everything?...becasue hes the only one who isnt part of the current system that has bankrupted america and made us hated by people around the world.
strechyoma 4 days ago
355 people voted without watching this video and the last thumbs down was Justin Bieber because he hates freedom.
danielmacroberts 4 days ago 2
Comment removed
keilperry 4 days ago
You can dance around the issue with double speak all you'd like by trying to make it sound less parasitic then it really is, but that doesn't change reality.
cmadison93 5 days ago
this guy is retarded
bustacap1990 6 days ago
As someone who leans to the left I see Ron Paul as the best chance to cleanse gov't of the terrible greed and underhand corruption that has pulled America down for decades. Even if you don't agree with all he says, I think people know he is genuine and incorruptible. He has no fear and will do the things he says or will die trying. He takes no pension and has no lobbyist. I think he is a genuinely good man who will pull gov't out of the way. Who else could you honestly trust? He is a good start.
godfathercwq 6 days ago
Oh, and rapes that end in pregnancy are fewer than 1% of all abortions. So the REAL use of abortions is female convenience. Anyone who can kill another human being out of pure convenience is a murder of the worst kind. Also, anyone who says that it is better to "abort" than to have an "unwanted" child should go talk to someone else who doesn't have 5 adopted family members that they love as dearly as those who are related by blood. That argument is infantile at best.
dlstb 1 week ago
@dlstb
Convenience? Please get your head checked!
Women today are forced to work, and if married they will work approx.68 hour weeks, as opposed to the men's 48 hour week. Who takes care of the kids and cleans the house, on less pay?
Try paying then for all women products and makeup and take care of the house, add to that a kid and see if you can even buy a bottle of milk, or have the energy to at the week's end.
Women abort for many reasons and those who want to judge are imbeciles.
abbienetvision 6 days ago
@abbienetvision The argument you just supplied ( a woman having to work and raise a child) is the CONVENIENCE argument of which I speak. If you don't have a spouse who will help you and share the load of supporting and raising your children, then maybe you shouldn't be having sex with them in the first place. Stop calling people like me that problem when the problem is clearly that people don't think of the consequences of their own actions before or during the decision process.
dlstb 6 days ago
@dlstb
Even with birth control, pregnancy can occur! That is FACT, like it or not. I am married and can tell you that I work outside and at home and to think that men are doing half of the housework is just to be deluded. Men do not work at home as much as women, that is just the way it is. Women today are under so much stress, to bring home a salary and keep a house, along with keeping a man happy, and then with kids, the running around, etc
Open up your mind rather than be shallow
abbienetvision 6 days ago
I'd like to ask you why you are for abortion. Are you aware that no woman (aside from Mary if you believe in that stuff) has ever given birth to a child without having sex? This means that unless a woman is raped, she is willfully taking upon herself the risk that she will become pregnant just as all men accept the risk of becoming a father. Also, unless you pick a completely arbitrary day upon which a human being becomes a person, abortion is always the killing of a person. AKA, murder.
dlstb 1 week ago
hmm can't say much on this one ..but definitely have to do some reading on it now
thanks for giving me something to look into... so no like or dislike sorry cant pick on what i don't know
TheSpsycho 1 week ago
ok so what plastic or something made candidate u wana vote for ?
Freedom2Morocco 1 week ago
I didn't know David Copperfield had been reduce to this!!!
jboles633 1 week ago
Because you are John Kerry's bastard son?
nowaytogofranco 1 week ago
w/e 2012 is here and December is getting close. So the truth comes! Lets just wait and see what happens.
beansemo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL SAYS THINGS NO OTHER CANDIDATE DARES TO SAY AND HE MEANS WHAT HE SAYS ! HE IS THE ONLYONE WHO CAN SAVE THE US-SPIRIT AND US-SOCIETY WHILE THE ZIONIST DEMONS AND THEIR PUPPETS DESTROY IT !
DEAR AMERICANS VOTE FOR RAUN PAUL OR YOU WILL LOSE MORE AND MORE ALL YOUR LIBERTY, FACE MORE WARS AND DEEPER FINANCIAL DEBTS UNTIL THE US WILL COLAPSE!
Search for - Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win? - on youtube and watch the movie you get and also the other movies of Brother Nathaniel!
shabrour 1 week ago
CANY U SAY HORSESHIT
BBallForAll 1 week ago
As an Atheist, do you care that Ron Paul will try to get rid of abortion, so that if your girlfriend is raped and gets pregnant from the rape, she will have the rapists baby? Or maybe that is alright with you!
The death penalty also he is against, so watch your girlfriend killed by a maniac or your mom, sister, dad, etc and see that person walking on the streets the next day or living in jail for the next 60 yrs on taxpayer dollars. That is not free, you know!
abbienetvision 1 week ago
@abbienetvision First off, he is "pro life" in his own beliefs and that is it. His mission, one that I agree on, is that abortion should be regulated by the states and not by the federal government. When you give the federal government power to regulate, it is draconianly absolute and could be against the will of the People. If a state regulates, they are bound by the will of their constituents - the taxpayers. If a taxpayer doesn't like what is going on in their state, they will move.
Shanesan 1 week ago
@Shanesan
Actually, Ron Paul says that Roe vs Wade is one of the worst decisions! Why should a state decide? How many young girls or women who are raped, as in Roe vs Wade may not be able to get to another state, so she will probably do something dangerous, putting her life at risk (as was prior to abortion being made legal.)
How many women are raped in the USA? We both know the answer is MANY. They MUST have the right to decide if they care to carry the baby or not this is not even debatable!
abbienetvision 1 week ago
@abbienetvision I believe states should decide because The Constitution doesn't have set articles defining what to do with abortion and wouldn't get a 2/3 vote needed to pass an amendment. I believe most situations where a women needs to do something dangerous would be because of her/her families own inaction - to support & pay a state who openly opposes viewpoints she or her family has. Giving back states' powers would bring back a nation of political knowledge - something we desperately need.
Shanesan 1 week ago
@abbienetvision
This is a rediculous argument---
First he does not vote against emergncy contraception, which is available to all women within 72 hours of any sexual act. He does not oppose contraception.
Over 95% of the abortions performed in this country are done so for non medical/rape related reasons. The issue of rape is a minor part of the equation, and with emergency contraception, an even smaller one.
toephue2002 1 week ago
@toephue2002
Please look up what Ron Paul said about Roe vs Wade, the landmark case which made abortion legal. Also, if you are pro-life, what is the difference from an abortion or the morning after pill (you are still killing a fertilized egg, or as pro-lifers would say, a life)
How can you be against an abortion at one day, but agree to a pill? What crap! Either an egg which has been fertilized is a life or is not, so what difference does killing it make? Please, get real
abbienetvision 1 week ago
He said it was a Big Mistake becuase the Fed Govt overstepped thier constitutionally defiend powers. I invite you to look at what Roe currently says about the issue.
The pill is also not killing an embryo. It is mainly thought to supress ovulation, prevent fertilization or stop poetntial implantation.
There is a difference between that and killing an implanted or growing embryo. How can you support abortion at 12 weeks, and not 39 weeks that is the real inconsistancy.
toephue2002 1 week ago
@toephue2002
And if you want to know how many women have died of trying to abort by themselves, you can look it up. The fact is that not every woman wants to have another baby, whether due to finances or health or whatever.
You prefer that abortions are done (they will be done illegally by women, if they are illegal) and many women are also killed? Is that what the pro-life people promote...death to the child and the mother? That is PRO-life? Sounds like pro-death to me!
abbienetvision 1 week ago
95% of abortions are performaed for non-medical reasons. Thats more than 1 million/year. The right to become pregnant is not the same as the right to an abortion.
If you suppport the right at 12 weeks, you must also do so at 39 weeks. If you support it for financial and health reasons, you must also support it for reasons like hair color and sex. Also if a fetus is not a life, how can you argue for protecting it through medicais and planned parent hood.
toephue2002 1 week ago
@toephue2002 So you are saying that because the government says that a fetus is a life, a fetus is indeed a life? Who made the government absolute, and all-knowing?
SkanenakS 1 week ago
No I'm saying a fetus is a life because it meets all criteria for being alive. You are asking about personhood and yes the govt does decide who deserves rights as a person. Remember that blacks once counted as 2/3 of a person. I'm saying that if you agree that medicaid should cover pregnant mothers, If you believe that doctors should be qulaified and responsible for a developing fetus, if you believe that drug companies should lable drugs as a teatrogenic, you must have a reason to.
toephue2002 1 week ago
In every state, there are laws in place that protect the fetus. This is beacuse from the moment that a woman is pregnant there is a protection provided to that fetus.
You have yet to answer if you think there is a difference between an abortion at 12 weeks and 39 weeks. If Abortion is a "right" then this right must always be defended. Also you must defend abortions for reasons of the sex of the baby, and the eye color of the baby.
toephue2002 1 week ago
The problem with the pro-choicers is they refuse to answer questions about the consequences of their belief. Or they say somthing stupid like a fetus is a parasite.
Medically speaking a fetus is not a parasite. There is nothing pathologic about pregnancy. The ability to become pregnant and all the changes that occur are a normal physiological response. In fact the ability to reproduce is a qualification for life.
toephue2002 1 week ago
My questions to pro-choicers:
1. Is abortion a right?
2. Is there a difference between an abortion at 12 weeks vs 39 weeks?
3. Should people be able to have an abortion for Any reason including the sex of the baby and eye color?
4.Is there a time when a fetus should not be considered a person and entitled to protection by govt?
5. At what point is a a pregnant woman entileted to qualified health care from medical pregnancy for her pregnancy?
toephue2002 1 week ago
The typical answers I get from the questions above have somthing to do with either having to do with the experience of being pregnant/motherhood, or it being each person's choice. If that is true, are you arguning for adjudication of relative moraltiy?
toephue2002 1 week ago
@toephue2002 You can't see a baby's eye color until they are open, which doesn't happen until after they are born. And most babies are born with blue eyes and then the color can change. So good luck aborting a baby because of its eye color, moron. And the personhood movement removes the woman's right to life in favor of the unborn fetus. When did a non yet fully formed child get more rights than the woman who is carrying it in her uterus?
samhain173 1 week ago
I may be a moron but that in now way affects the validity of my argument. You however have committed the fallacy of the Straw Man. You took one piece of the argument above and picked it apart. Secondly realize that Karyotyping is done for many reasons prior to birth. Are you saying that you support a person't right to abortion on the grounds of sex of the child.
toephue2002 6 days ago
@Samhain,
Also personhood movement does not act to remove a woman's right to life. It acts to give equal rights to a developing fetus. No one is suggesting more rights.
Please answer the questions I posed,
toephue2002 6 days ago
@toephue2002 Pro-choice people dont even like to admit to What They Are: its pro-ABORTION. Pro-lifers are Exactly what they say they are. Pro-LIFE.
These pro-choice jerks would have a guy that murdered his girlfriend and fetus inside of her tried for TWO counts of manslaughter. Yet its JUST FINE with them for the MOTHER to choose to kill the baby. - Either way our second silent and COMPLETELY helpless MURDER VICTIM isnt given a chance an opinion or a voice.
Anyone "pro-choice" is delusional.
emilyrl 1 week ago
@emilyrl
Disagree.
The vast majority of pro-lifers are merely 'Pro-fetus' and are the most annoying hypocrites in the world. See the way they're pro-WAR, pro-death penalty, pro-animal abuse (i.e. factory farms), pro-use up all of our resources to produce meat, pro-corporations who pollute and damage our environment and our health (and then pro-give these corporations MORE legal rights to do this), etc.
That's hardly what I would consider 'pro-life'.
Try again.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 I'm pro-life, yet against everything else that youve listed.
Try again.
emilyrl 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emilyrl
Wow. Seems like we have another person who failed to read my comment. Hurray.
Your comment: "Pro-lifers are Exactly what they say they are. Pro-LIFE."
My comment, which I will post again in case you forgot, challenges this statement because as I said, "The vast majority of pro-lifers are merely 'Pro-fetus'" which is, indeed, a true statement supported by the various examples cited in my comment and various statistics done on the issue.
cmadison93 6 days ago
@emilyrl
You can try to deny it all you would like, (i.e. But I don't support these things!), but the reality of the situation is - The overwhelmingly vast majority of pro lifers are not pro-LIFE, but pro-FETUS.
There IS a difference.
Also, remember that actions speak louder than words. (i.e. many people against, say, animal abuse, still regularly consume animal products produced by factory farms)
Try again.
cmadison93 6 days ago
@emilyrl
My comment (which is still up if you would like to go back a couple of pgs): "The vast majority of pro-lifers are merely 'Pro-fetus' and are the most annoying hypocrites in the world. See the way they're pro-WAR, pro-death penalty, pro-animal abuse (i.e. factory farms), pro-use up all of our resources to produce meat, pro-corporations who pollute and damage our environment and our health (and then pro-give these corporations MORE legal rights to do this), etc."
cmadison93 6 days ago
@toephue2002 Really? You want to argue aborting because of eye color? If someone did that, they would effectively be killing a born child, as the eyes don't open until after the child is born. And most are born with blue eyes and the color changes as the infant gets older.
samhain173 1 week ago
@toephue2002 They are protections for the mother, not the fetus. If a woman so chooses to have the baby (CHOOSES), then she has a right to make sure that the baby is healthy when it is born by having a medical doctor check the progress. If a person has cancer, they also have a right to a medical doctor to treat the cancer. There is little difference in the right of the person to medical treatment.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
When does a human life begin to have value?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 That's just the thing. You can't put a 'value' on human life. That's what they try to do in courts with lawsuits and the person who wins never really wins. The real question is when does the right of the unborn child to life supersede that of the woman carrying it? I say that until the fetus is developed enough that it can survive without being attached to the mother, it has no 'right to life'. A woman has the right to bring said child into the world if she CHOOSES.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
Supporting the right of a woman to kill her own child, so she doesn't face the discomfort of pregnancy (she willingly had sex, and is now facing the consequences, she CHOSE to get herself into this situation) is more important than the right of this child to live? What ever happened to responsibility
What makes the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb the defining point of life? Seems more like discrimination against the level of development of the fetus.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93
Well, for starters, your entire argument is based on the assumption that all women have sex willingly. Obviously (at least for anyone with half a brain cell or more), this is not the case. The fact is that many women have abortions because they are the victims of rape and/or incest, so they clearly didn't choose to get into that situation. In addition, many women have abortions due to complications with the pregnancy that would end up killing her if not treated.
MasterofArda 1 week ago
@MasterofArda
If you knew anything about the reasons why women get abortions, you would understand that the vast majority of abortions are not done for those reasons (98%+).
You can beat around the bush all you want, but lets address that 98% of abortions.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93
Alright? You want another reason? How about the fact that neither of us have any right to judge what other people do with their bodies. How about that a fetus doesn't really classify as an organism at all. And btw, you did imply that all women have sex willingly, whether you meant to or not.
And I'm out.
MasterofArda 1 week ago
@MasterofArda
I stated, "Supporting the right of a woman to kill her own child, so she doesn't face the discomfort of pregnancy (she willingly had sex, and is now facing the consequences, she CHOSE to get herself into this situation)"
The information in parenthesis is classifying which women I am referring to. It in no ways implies that ALL women have sex willingly. You are taking me out of context and throwing up a straw men. Please, stop with the fallacies.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@MasterofArda
What makes a fetus not count as an organism, let alone a human being?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@MasterofArda
And I NEVER said that ALL women have sex willingly. I didn't even imply such an outlandish thing.
I was specifically referring to those who did have sex willingly. (Read over my comment again if you didn't understand this).
cmadison93 1 week ago
Comment removed
samhain173 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 I also know people who took all the necessary precautions and still got pregnant. 1 woman got pregnant twice while on 2 different birth controls and was not taking antibiotics. I know a man who got his wife pregnant 20 years after having a vasectomy. One of my coworkers knows someone who got pregnant after having her tubes tied. Nothing is fool proof. So you're another one who is saying that only people who want children should have sex. Good luck with that one.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
Why doesn't a woman have the right to kill her newly born infant? What makes this life have more value than a fetus, a blastocyst, an embryo?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Here we go again with value. What value do you put on your life? $1? $1M? You can't put a value on life. The baby, once it is born, is no longer attached to the woman who was carrying it for 9 months. It no longer needs her to breathe. That is what gives it more right to life than an unborn fetus.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
You are assuming that my definition of value is a monetary value, when this is not true. To avoid further confusion, I'll use the first definition of value from dictionary reference com "relative worth, merit or importance"
Which allows for a 'priceless' value of life
To assume there is monetary connotations is simply fallacious at best and merely throwing up straw men.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@samhain173
Now, why is having the ability to breathe on your own the defining point for when a life begins to be of priceless value/importance? Where is the logic?
Does the degree of dependency on someone/something else really bestow human value? What of those who require insulin, those who have asthma or anyone who's been saved by medicine?
Does the level of development really determine human value? Does an 18 year old have a greater right to life than a 2 year old?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Stop trying to spew your beliefs on me. I believe that a woman has more right to her life than an unborn child that is growing in HER body. You asked me what I thought. I told you. People like you who use the defense of killing a child who is already living need to get over your holier than thou attitude. You want to see dying children? Go to any third world country and watch a starving child die. It happens every 5 minutes, so you shouldn't have to wait long.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
For your information, I have been to third world countries multiple times and I have seen children die of starvation in person. Your foolish assumptions are merely a fallacious attempt to deviate from the discussion at hand - the protection of the right to life for ALL human beings.
What makes the blastocyst not as much of a human being as the mother carrying this child?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Of course. It's so easy to say that you have been there through a forum post. I believe you. My post was not an attempt to deviate from anything. How many unwanted children are there in the world currently? And you want to force women to bring more into the world simply because birth control didn't work or they were raped? What makes your opinions more correct than that of the person getting the abortion? Again, holier than thou attitude. You must be a guy. I'm done with you.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
I'm a woman. Thanks, though. Please, keep making your foolish assumptions, it's quite amusing.
My opinions are 'more correct' because protecting the right to life for all human life is of utmost concern. There is no reason to discriminate towards blastocysts because they are weaker and more dependent on others. Still waiting for an explanation as to why a blastocyst isn't a valid form of human life.
Why can't you logically defend your argument?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Oh! NOW I SEE THE LIGHT! How could I be so blinded by my respect of people's right to choose? Wow, I was so wrong! NOT!
You're not going to change your mind. I'm not going to change mine. I think that I am responding logically. You don't see it that way. Let's stop wasting each other's time because neither one of us is going to budge on this issue. I don't need to come up with a scientific reason for my beliefs. It is merely a belief that a woman can choose what is best for her.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
The lack of respect for human life is a dangerous ideal that society has adopted. I hope you do further research and criticize your beliefs, particularly the 'it's a woman's choice' argument. What about the choice of the blastocyst? The life of the weak and helpless?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Again, I have no lack of respect for human life. I actually respect it a lot more than you could even imagine. What I don't agree with is what you consider life. A lump of cells is not a human. It is a lump of cells. An amoeba is a lump of cells, too, but do you give it the same rights as you do a human? How about bacteria? Not all bacteria is bad. You use cleaning products that kill lumps of cells, too. And I very highly doubt that you've never killed a mosquito.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
The difference is that it is a human 'lump of cells'. All of the unique features that make you and I human, a *human* blastocyst possesses. I suggest a Biology course if you don't understand that. It is human life. Weak and defenseless human life with no one to defend it. Albeit, not as developed or independent as you or me, but a human life worthy of respect nonetheless.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@samhain173
How is bacteria even relevant to the issue of abortion and defending human life? Just seems like your grasping at straws. Kind of like when people roll with the 'vegans are murdering plants!' attempt at an 'argument'..
Cleaning is used to help guard our own health and is a necessary part of living a healthy life. Given how there is no realistic way to only eliminate the harmful bacteria, it is unfortunate that the beneficial or neutral bacteria must be harmed.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@samhain173
We don't have the technology available to safely and effectively do away with 'bad' bacteria, and as such this issue is largely out of our control. Just because cleaning can't be done 100% perfectly at all times is not justification for abortion..
Still waiting for how this is related to abortion...
cmadison93 1 week ago
@samhain173
Actually, I haven't killed a mosquito. Probably due to the lack of camping/exposure to mosquito-infested areas.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Thank you for confirming that you've never been to an area where children starve to death. They are infested with mosquitoes.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
Right. Because there is no other place where children starve to death other than third world countries infested with mosquitos. You are such a joke.
Just a tip: Children starve to death in the more civilized places of the third world as well, where mosquitos are not such a prevalent issue.
More hasty generalization, please.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Self righteousness...where are you? Oh, there you are. I bet you agree with Santorum's decision to torture his baby when the doctors told him that it wouldn't survive. It suffered for 2 hours before dying and then he brought the dead fetus back to his house so his other children could bond with it. Talk about fucking up his children.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
I agreed with his decision? Since when? Please do inform me. In fact, I don't even know who the hell that is.
After a minute of research though, no I don't agree with his decision. Where did I ever indicate that I would support the torture of a child (and mental torture of his other children) in such a manner?
Why are you getting so off topic? What about the 98%+ abortions that are not for medical necessity, not done in the case of rape, no 'gray areas'?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Guess you don't keep up on politics. Rick Santorum is one of the Republicans running for President in the primaries.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
I actually do keep up on politics. Thanks for your hasty generalization, though.
I haven't watched any of the Republican debates yet. I've snippets here and there, but not of the utmost concern to me as I'm most certainly not voting republican and haven't had too much free time to go watch all of the primaries.
I prefer reading articles and the actual legislation, myself.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 That's where I got the info on Rick Santorum and what he did to his child. It was an article on CNN about the book that he wrote. I don't watch the debates, either. It's all the same thing spewed over and over again. Apparently you're not as up to date on politics as you think you are, since you didn't know who Santorum was.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
Right. Since I don't read articles about Rick Santorum, I'm clearly uninformed about politics. Thank you for your appraisal of my level of political knowledge.
Maybe I didn't feel like wasting my time studying up on a Republican who has a minor chance of becoming president?
Also, much more satisfying to read actual legislation and professional, peer-reviewed articles dealing with more relevant subjects to politics.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 It's only 93%, too. 1% is from incest/rape and 6% are for medical reasons. What right do you have to tell someone else what they can do with their body? If someone wanted to get a tattoo, would you tell them that they couldn't because you didn't want them to? It's no different. You are telling a woman that she has to be a baby machine if she gets pregnant, no excuses. Bullshit! If you want to have a kid, great! If I don't, great! It's not your decision. Stay out of my uterus!
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
I recommend studying the methods behind the collecting of data these statistics you are so eager to site use. Inflated data, at best. As is most statistical data received from a quick Google search. :]
I'm not saying she has to be a 'baby machine' but rather not a brutal murderer? To, gees, respect human life?
Once again, what gives you - or anyone for that matter - the right to kill a human being in the womb?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 "Mommy, who's my daddy?" "Well, honey, your daddy's really your grandpa and I'm really your sister. Daddy raped me, and I was forced to keep you. Also, my mother is your step mother." Great conversation to have with a child. Would you want to have it?
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
Are you saying a child who is the product of incest is not worthy of life? If that is your intent, you are a despicable human being.
What is your point in this comment?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 So forget the hell that the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life knowing that she had her father's child. Who cares about the mother as long as the blastocyst is protected. You claim to care about human life, yet you callously forget that a human has to deal with the pregnancy. If your father raped you, would you be willing to carry his child? Honestly think about that before answering. Think about the emotional impact of what your father hypothetically did to you.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
First of all, I have never staid where I stand on the issue of abortion in the case of rape. In fact, if you read any of my previous comments, I have stated repeatedly that I am referring to the 98%+ abortions that are done for the mere convenience of the mother (i.e. not done in the case of rape or medical necessity or whatever crazy story you can pull out of your ass).
Even if you can find justification for a rape victim to have an abortion, what about the other 98%?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 You have your numbers wrong: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). And who the fuck are you to judge what a woman does with her body? Are you God? It is her body...her right. Get over yourself. You have no say in what someone else does to their body.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
I wouldn't be so eager to accept the abortion statistics off of one of the first few websites from a Google search.
Other statistics
1% rape, 1% fetal abnormality, 3% medical (abortiontv com)
0.3% rape 1% medical (jonstonarchive net)
0.5% rape 4% medical (nrlc org)
Etc. Find any statistic you wish. If you want to use your inflated values, feel free too.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@samhain173
Who am I to judge what a woman does with her body? The thing is that it is not her body - it is the body of her child with which she is demanding the right to kill.
Same reason I am against murder of any other form. I don't discriminate against the level of development or dependency though.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Wow...love the contradiction. You said earlier that if you had to kill someone in self defense, that would be okay. Now you're against murder in any form. I don't discriminate based on dependency, either. I have a friend with MS who is in a wheelchair. I have blind friend. I don't think they should be killed because they have to rely on other people. But if something is in my body and I want to get it out, YOU HAVE NO SAY!
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
Lol. Murder is not synonymous with killing in self defense.
I suggest studying the definition of murder used in legislation. And the English language in general. Might help a bit.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@samhain173
Now, back to the argument at hand of abortion in 98%+ of cases (or 93%+ of cases if that makes you feel better and more knowledgeable).
What makes this 'lump of cells' not considered human life?
Why does this human life not have any value and is undeserving of respect?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93
The morning after pill is not murder? Do the cells need to be a week old, a month, 2 months in order to be human? Your logic is messed up. If you don't want to abort, don't, but let others have the choice of what they choose for themselves. You should not try to be the Lord or judge, it is not your place!
abbienetvision 6 days ago
@abbienetvision
I don't recall mentioning anything about the morning after pill?
I'm asking why is there some arbitrary defining point for when a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is considered human and where is the logic behind this stance. Why are the 'cells' (at conception) not deserving of basic human rights (namely, the right to life)?
cmadison93 6 days ago
@abbienetvision
I'm not too sure what you are saying towards the last part of your comment.
Are you assuming that I'm saying the 'lump of cells' needs to be a week old to be human? 2 months? What? Did you read anything I said?
I'm arguing that at conception the 'lump of cells' is human (for instance, it has the whole set of DNA that makes up a human, study biology if you are confused on this subject).
This person I'm talking to is saying it's not human until its 'viable'
cmadison93 6 days ago
@cmadison93
I am trying to get you to see the hypocrisy of Ron Paul and all the pro-lifers! While Ron Paul is against abortion, the morning after pill is alright by him. His clear moronic stance on a so many other things make him unable to hold any top position-TX change your legislators
Ron Paul will never be elected and all the Paulbots should stop wasting your time defending a person who knows next to nothing and votes in opposition to his beliefs, defends a news letter then denies knowing
abbienetvision 6 days ago
@abbienetvision Hypocrisy? Really? Let me school you on something. Even when a sperm and egg unite to create a diploid cell, there is no guarantee that the blastocyst that then grows will ever implant in the uterus. Current birth control works by preventing this implantation. The "morning after" pill works in the same way. After implantation however, unless there are medical abnormalities, the fetus can be expected to continue to grow and be born. Are you saying birth control=bad
dlstb 6 days ago
@dlstb
So a sperm and egg unite and they are in a laboratory, is it viable as life or in your usual hypocritical feelings it isn't? Is embryonic research not looked down on by pro-lifers? Is a human embryo a life or no?, Since your back and forth stand is making me dizzy
If an embryo is life, implantation is irrelevant.
You should decide.
I am for birth control and am pro-choice. I believe that no woman should have to suffer (pregnancy and child birth are both) if she doesn't want to.
abbienetvision 6 days ago
@samhain173
If my father did rape me and I became pregnant, yes I would have the child because two wrongs to do not make a right.
The rape victim will have to deal with the emotional impact of the rape, yet, but also with the emotional impact of the abortion. Which can be even more devastating to the human psyche (as evidenced by various studies done with rape victims and abortions) when getting and abortion after rape.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Right...you would have your father's kid. Yup. I believe it. (In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.)
samhain173 1 week ago
@cmadison93 Let's take care of the life that already exists on the planet before we go debating the moral implications of abortion. Until you see a starving child die, you have no idea what the true value of human life is. Priceless doesn't even come close.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
How is the blastocyst not considered life? Not considered human life?
The blastocyst IS human life, so why don't we work on protecting human life as opposed to systematically eliminating the weak and helpless in favor of protecting the strong and independent?
How hard is it to ask for some personal responsibility from the mother?
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 So I guess that any blastocyst that doesn't attach to the uterine lining would be considered manslaughter. Because the woman's body wasn't strong enough to save the life of a couple cells. Do you kill mosquitoes? Because they're living, too, you know.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
I don't kill mosquitos, or spider, etc.
And, no, that is not 'manslaughter' because the woman had no realistic control over the inability for a blastocyst to attach to the uterine lining.
Yet again, trying to deviate from topic at hand - the systemic and intentional killing of blastocysts.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 So no one should go through chemo to kill cancer cells because that lump of cells is living, too. If you defend the right to all life, then you must defend the right to all life, including any type of diseases, because if you consider a fertilized egg, which is a lump of cells to be life, then any lump of cells would be considered life.
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
No.
Their life is forfeit when they are harming the person infected with the disease (i.e. fighting in self defense is justified).
For instance, if someone is stabbing me repeatedly and won't let up I would be justified to act in self defense, even if that means the only way to save my life would be to kill them.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@cmadison93 So based on this remark, if carrying said fetus to term would kill the woman carrying said child, then you would be okay with the abortion because it would save the woman's life, right? Any means necessary to survive is basically what you are saying, so what is the difference if you kill an attacker or abort a fetus that would cause your death?
samhain173 1 week ago
@samhain173
Self defense and 'any means necessary to survive' are not mutually synonymous.
For the instance of abortion in medical necessity (Which makes up >1% of abortion, so I don't really see how this is relevant since I'm focusing on the 98%+ abortions that are not the 'gray areas' as evidenced by my previous comment) I'm not sure where I stand. Both sides make decent arguments, but neither has really convinced me either way.
cmadison93 1 week ago
@samhain173 -I'm not sure i see your point. A pregnancy dangerous to the life of the mother would be aborted. You do not need abortion laws for these as this was permissible for hundreds of years prior to Roe v Wade.
toephue2002 6 days ago
@samhain173-Again wrong and short sighted. First, pregnancy and all the stages of it are defined by a predictable pattern with a range of normal. Pregnancy is NOT pathologic and has never been medically defined as such. Your doing so is intellectually dishonest.
Second cancer cells are Pathologic. And, since they do not have a normal life cycle (they don't die) it is hard to argue that they qualify as as normal life. You obviously have no background in this.
toephue2002 6 days ago
@toephue2002
Currently, there is not enough information to realistically determine whether pregnancy (more specifically, the attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall) is pathologic or parasitic or not. I suggest reading up on recent research about how the B-lymphocytes and antibodies prevent the mother's immune system from attacking the developing embryo because this 'trickery' is required in order for the embryo to survive.
cmadison93 6 days ago
@cmadison93 - having read Robbins Pathology cover to cover I can tell you that Pregnancy is not considered a pathologic. The means by which the fetus evades the immune system is interesting, but is not abnormal. The training of B-lymphocytes in the thymus and lymphatic tissue also involves evading detection from the immune system, but noone would consieder this abnormal. There are also may immune privliged sites in the human such as the eye and the brain.
toephue2002 6 days ago
@cmadisom93- The whole movement to declare a developing fetus either not alive, or parasitic is intellectually dishonest. Even if there is a supression of the immune system that allows the attachment of the embryo, it occurs the by the same mechanism in every normal pregnancy.
Pathologic means abnormal.Words have definitions and should be used correctly.
In addition, saying that a fetus is parasitic is also a mischacterization.
toephue2002 6 days ago
@Cmadison93(see above)- Parastic is a pathologic term useded to describe an infection by a parasite. Many often use the term to describe a dependent relationship, like dependant spoiled children almost as a hyperbole. These two should not be confused. While a developing fetus is depndant on the mother, it is not casued by a parastic infection. I know this may seem like am obvious point but many seem to blur the lines.
toephue2002 6 days ago
@toephue2002
Parasitic can be used to describe an infection by a parasite, yes, but parasitic (Note: Parasit-IC, i.e. possessing qualities of a parasite, does not necessarily have to be medically defined as a parasite) also refers to an organism 'leeching' off the host organism.
Since the embryo does 'trick' the mother's immune system into nurturing it to full health, yes this is parasitic. Just because it's a natural and normal process does not dismiss this fact.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93-Many things trick hide from the immune system and recruit blood and nutrients so that it may fully develop. For example the brain. It is locked in a bone box without a lymphatic system and no organized immune regulation. But there is nothing really pathologic about this.
As I said using the term parasitic to describe a normal pregnancy is a stretch at best. A fetus does not act as a blood Parasite as it does not lead to hemolytic or the immune related destruction of blood cells.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@cmadison93- In addition it does act as a gut parasite that that absorbs nutrients prior to first pass metabolism. So the only type it can be is a "non-medical" type created to add hyperbole to argument. The definition as you suggest is not standard and should ne be used to strengthen yout argument.
When Parasite is used to decribe leeching it is used Pejoratively and as an insult. That defintion is inappropriate to use in this case.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@cmadison93-
In addition if a fetus is truly a parasite and leeches please explain the following:
Normal changes in pregnancy include an increase in blood volume as well as hemoglobin and hematocrit. Pregnancy is also accompanied by a weight gain that is more than the weight of the fetus itself.
What type of parasitic behavior acts this way.
Also, parasties don really hide from the immune system. They are ususally accompanied by a shift in homotopoesis and inflammatory cells.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
I have never said that the attachment to the uterine wall is parasitic, merely said that there is currently not enough information to really determine the truth of any claims made about it.
I agree that definitions should be used correctly. However, the definition of pathologic is NOT abnormality. Consulting ANY medical book will inform you of this.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93- "there is currently not enough information to really determine the truth of any claims made about it." --What?! This is not true. There quite a bit of research about cellular migration and protein/protein interaction that defines normal and abnormal attachment to the uterine wall.
Pathology- means of or relating to changes casued by a disease process. There is no such thing. Pathology should never be used to describe a normal physiology.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@cmadison-
That is atleast according to 3 online medical dictionaries, and the MD behind my name. If you are infact a physician, i suggest you to read more carefully. If you are not I suggest the same.
Physiology is the study of normal biological function. Pathology is deviation from normality or disaese. So yes, Pathology is by definition abnormality. If not, please describe somthing that is medically pathologic but normal.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
You are trying to broadly define pathology as something that it is not. Having definitions that are this broad (especially when using mainly subjective terms to determine what is 'normal') is simply fallacious.
Still doesn't not get rid of my comments of how the embryo attachment to the uterine wall is parasitic. (Note: Parasit-IC (like I said patholog-IC as well, in my original comment), I am not calling the embryo a parasite).
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93- I just responded to your parasitic comments.
I am only defining pathology as what it is-as in medical books as you suggested. Words don't have different meanings simply becasue we want them to. And Pathology is not a broad definition-- It deals with disease--how is that broad? --
In response to your comment about the "common cold"--
Normal -medically speaking deals with normal functioning virus/bacteria free cells
toephue2002 5 days ago
@cmadison-
Yes the "common cold" is common, but that does mean that it represents the specturm of normal physiology. People with the common cold are infected with a virus and have cellular response to that infection as well as physiological manifestations of infection. Yes, the coomon cold is prevalent, it is not by any means a normal physiologic state.
You are the one trying to re-define.
toephue2002 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93-
Yes the "common cold" is common, but that does mean that it represents the specturm of normal physiology. People with the common cold are infected with a virus and have cellular response to that infection as well as physiological manifestations of infection. Yes, the coomon cold is prevalent, it is not by any means a normal physiologic state.
You are the one trying to re-define.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
Remember, 'normal' is defined by the 'usual, standard or typical'. The common cold is 'pathologic' but still 'normal' by those definitions.
I suppose that you'll simply try to redefine normal to suit your argument, though.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93- And in defense. I am not suggesting redefining anything. Pathologic means pathologic. Parasitic means parasitic. These words have specific defintions, and should be used as such. The assumption that pregnancy is "pathologic" is an opinion not grounded in any medical principle. The view that an fetus is a parasite follows the above.
People use these words as though they knew the first thing about physiology or disease when they don't. It is intelelctually dishonest.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
Just because the way the fetus evades the immune system is not 'abnormal' or 'unnatural' Does not mean it is not 'pathologic' as these terms are completely unrelated, and trying to redefine pathologic to suit you needs is simply fallacious.
For instance, other pathologic creatures (cancer, HIV, infection, common cold, etc.) are not considered 'abnormal'. In fact, what they do is actually 'normal'. This does not mean they are not pathologic, though.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93-
You seem to be confusing prevalence with normality. There not a physician that would say that HIV, Cancer of any infection is not pathologic or by any means normal. Just because it happens a lot does not mean that it is how the body should function.
And yes-- if somthing happens the way it physiologically should it is by definition non-pathologic. I don't see why this so hard to grasp.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@cmadison-
And please tell me how what cancer and HIV is considered "normal." Cancer cells do not have a regulated cell cycle (not normal), Do not die (not normal) and some metastasize( not normal). How is it normal to have lung cells growing in your liver?
HIV infects the cell (Not normal), Takes over normal cellular function (not normal), Inserts genetic information into the DNA (not normal) and lysis the cell (not a normal controlled death)--- Your assumption is rather misguided.
toephue2002 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93-
And please tell me how what cancer and HIV is considered "normal." Cancer cells do not have a regulated cell cycle (not normal), Do not die (not normal) and some metastasize( not normal). How is it normal to have lung cells growing in your liver?
HIV infects the cell (Not normal), Takes over normal cellular function (not normal), Inserts genetic information into the DNA (not normal) and lysis the cell (not a normal controlled death)--- Your assumption is rather misguided.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@cmadison93-
Unless you are saying that cancer and HIV behave in a predictable manner. while that is true, that should not be misinterpreted to assume that they are not pathologic.
If you jump from a building it is predictable that you will die. But death is kinda considered pathologic but doctor types.
It seems you are using your own definitions again
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
There are many medical dictionaries and physicians who use the definitions I have provided you with. Such as a parasite being a creature living off of it's host at the expense of the host. I shall not be held responsible for your biases.
The biological processes of a fetus, embryo or blastocyst are indeed parasitic in nature. You can deny this all you want by trying to hide behind your 'definitions', but that doesn't change reality.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93- Then please provide me with one published medical dictionary that would classifys an embryo as a parasite or normal pregnancy as pathologic. Provide one practicing physician who use these definitions.
The figurative use of "parastic in nature" is meaningless if it is taken to it's logical extent. It does not cause any of the problems that a parasite casues. It causes in increase in weight, it causes in improvement in cardia function and blood volume.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
Please, stop throwing up your straw man, it's getting old. I have NEVER said that an embryo is a parasite, merely that the biological processes of the embryo are parasitic (study the english language if you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective) 'Leeching' nutrients from the mother, 'tricking' the mother's body into providing for it, etc. These are parasitic acts.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93- I would agree that an embryo is dependent, but that is by no means parasitic.
If we used your definition, than every organ in the body would be parasitic. Again, words have specific meanings. Even saying "parasitic in nature" does not mean you can say it's parasitic. For example, lots of antelope and elk are deer like in nature, but they are not deer.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
The difference between an organ and a blastocyst is huge. A blastocyst is it's own separate, unique being. An organ is a part of a larger being. This is just poor biology.
You should know this since so many pro-choicers like to use the 'let's protect every cell available, why just the embryo' argument.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93- This is my point-- organs by your definition would "parasitic" in nature. They are their own populations of unique cells. and they are leaching of the host. And the brain and the eye hide from the immune system-- they are parasites too.
This is the problem with defining things as they are not.
Defining an embryo as parasitic flies in the face of normal physiology. Deer an elk have a common physiology, a fetus and parasite do not.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
This is simply bad biology. An organ is not it's own unique being, it is part of the larger being. You are confusing parts with wholes.The organ is a PART of the host and actively benefits the host.
A fetus and parasite (note: They are whole, unique individuals separate from the host - i.e. they are not the host) have common biological processes as I've noted before - the leeching of nutrients from the host and 'trickery' of the host into supporting it.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@toephue2002
This is EXACTLY what I am saying.
I am saying antelope and elk are deer-like (or deer-ic) in nature, but they are not deer.
The embryo is parasitic in nature, but is not a parasite. What's the problem?
cmadison93 5 days ago
@toephue2002- Please tell me how my argument is a straw man. You on the other hand have an invisible army of physicians and medical dictionaries behind you.
You have said that just because somthing is abnormal does not make it pathologic. which is a contradiction.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
Red hair is 'abnormal', but not pathologic. Thanks.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@cmadison93- Now who attempting to use the straw man....
Red hair is not abnormal- it is a genetic mutation, albeit a functional one.
There are no other pathologic sequela that we know of associted with red hair.
To say suggest that a normal physiologic process is pathologic is however a differen thing.
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
Genetic mutations are indeed 'abnormal' though. Just because it's functional and doesn't have a particularly harmful effect doesn't mean it's 'normal'.There is nothing normal about these mutations, when using your definition of normal. (normal functioning virus/bacteria free cells)
cmadison93 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93-
Please tell me how my argument is a straw man. You on the other hand have an invisible army of physicians and medical dictionaries behind you.
You have said that just because somthing is abnormal does not make it pathologic. which is a contradiction.
And As i said parasitic is a pejorative misconception
toephue2002 5 days ago
@toephue2002
In fact, many genetic mutations are 'abnormal' but not considered pathologic. Interesting how that works.
cmadison93 5 days ago
@toephue2002
I'm not saying that these acts are unnatural, abnormal, bad, heinous things that justify abortion, but rather that these biological processes are indeed parasitic processes. We've known of these parasitic processes since we started studying the development of the fetus in utero.
cmadison93 5 days ago