She is factually correct only if you believe in the premise.... which I do not. An embryo is not human, a chicken is not a chicken until hatched... ad nauseum.
A Human embryo is not "life" unless the mother says so. Once it has drawn breath it is a different story. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > As do I. But I don't believe you can support the rights of one human > at the expense of another. Attempting to portray an unborn fetus as > something less than human (i.e., a parasite) makes this debate easier, > but it's scientifically incorrect. At 28 weeks the fetus is legally > viable and must be considered a human being. Prior to 28 weeks the > debate gets fuzzier, and since I support a policy of compromise, I > tend to not argue that aspect of abortion. > > The point of debate in this thread was the claim that the 12 year old > girl was factually incorrect and I don't believe anyone has made that > case yet. > > > On Feb 18, 12:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> No, I simply support the womans right over her body and all that is >> contained there-in. I support the SAME for men. It is called fairness. >> >> On 2/18/09, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Thanks professor, but I'm quite familiar with what parasites are. I >> > did not 'need' to look it up, but on this board it's usually helpful >> > to provide a reference to support your claim. You might very well find >> > a classification that can be applied to a human fetus, but let's be >> > clear; a parasite is typically of a different species than its host, >> > it usually can not survive without its host and it is typically >> > harmful in some way to its host. There are exceptions to all of these >> > characteristics, but when discussing parasites in animals these are >> > the accepted norms. >> >> > A human fetus is considered legally viable at 28 weeks of development. >> > It is parasitic in nature because it is sharing the mother's >> > bloodstream for nutrition and oxygen. It does this because it has no >> > other means to eat and breathe while constrained in the womb. It is, >> > however, a living human being that can now survive on it's own outside >> > the womb. >> >> > You know damn well that classifying a human fetus as a parasite is a >> > deliberate attempt by the abortion rights crowd to diminish the value >> > of the fetus. People don't take kindly to killing human beings, but >> > eliminating parasites is always acceptable. >> >> > On Feb 18, 12:55 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > Use a biological dictionary. There are Three (3) very different types of >> > > parasites and several very different crosses of those three main groups. >> > > You >> > > have found the "common" definition. Do try to do some homework. It is >> > > simple >> > > junior high school biology. But then the US schools do lack, don't they >> > > ?? Not my fault but definitely a problem for you, I can say that, as you >> > > obviously had to look it up and did not know enough to do so correctly. >> > > In >> > > the future if you are going to choose to argue a point at least please be >> > > rudimentarily informed on the subject or ask for assistance. >> >> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > From dictionary.com: "an organism that lives on or in an organism of >> > > > another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains >> > > > nutriment." >> >> > > > The mother does not define what a fetus is. Science defines what it is >> > > > and it is parasitic, but not a parasite. >> >> > > > I don't need to consult the mother. It's 'definition' does not vary >> > > > from mother to mother. She can apply whatever label she wants but it >> > > > does not change the facts. >> >> > > > And I am not going any extra steps. I am sticking to the facts. If a 5 >> > > > month old fetus is delivered you would call it a human. Therefore, >> > > > unless you can prove physiological changes took place during delivery >> > > > we must assume the 5 month old fetus still in the womb is human as >> > > > well. The little girl is correct. >> >> > > > On Feb 17, 11:50 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > No, it is the Mothers choice as to what it is. It is a parasite by >> > > > > definition. At very best a "humanoid" parasite. >> >> > > > > As to implying a difference, I am not applying ANY definition other >> > > > > than "parasite", "parasitic". It is you that is going the next step >> > > > > without consulting the mother as to "its'" sattus. >> >> > > > > On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > Mark, >> >> > > > > > I think it's more accurate to call a fetus parasitic. A parasite >> > > > > > typically implies a different type of organism than the host it's >> > > > > > feeding off of. Calling a fetus a parasite is a ploy used by >> > > > > > abortion >> > > > > > rights advocates as a means of diminishing the 'value' of the >> > > > > > fetus. >> > > > > > Make no mistake, a fetus IS a human. I think her example of a five >> > > > > > month old fetus that is delivered is spot on. It did not undergo so >> > > > > > magical transformation during its birth; it was human prior to >> > > > > > deliver >> > > > > > just as it is following delivery. >> >> > > > > > On Feb 17, 8:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > It is a parasite until the mother says otherwise. >> >> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:16 pm, Ohio mark <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > how so? >> >> > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:59 pm, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > I am sure the speech was magnificent; however, it isn't >> > > > > > > > > entirely >> > > > > > > > > factual. >> >> > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:07 pm, Ohio mark <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > poor libs just cannot stands opposing points of view. even >> > > > from a 12 >> > > > > > > > > > yr old girl. how pitiful. >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 6:21 am, Ohio mark <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Despite facing threats of disqualification, a 12-year-old >> > > > girl took >> > > > > > > > > > > first place in a speech contest when she eloquently >> > > > > > > > > > > argued >> > > > for the >> > > > > > > > > > > rights of unborn children – after an offended judge quit. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing >> > > > > > > > > > > if >> > > > you were >> > > > > > > > > > > going to live or die?" the seventh-grader begins in a >> > > > > > > > > > > video >> > > > recording >> > > > > > > > > > > of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you that this >> > > > choice wasn't >> > > > > > > > > > > based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done >> > > > > > > > > > > in >> > > > the past or >> > > > > > > > > > > what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, >> > > > > > > > > > > you >> > > > could do >> > > > > > > > > > > nothing about it?" >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified only >> > > > > > > > > > > as >> > > > "Lia," >> > > > > > > > > > > continued: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are >> > > > right now in >> > > > > > > > > > > that very situation. Someone is choosing without even >> > > > > > > > > > > knowing >> > > > them >> > > > > > > > > > > whether they are going to live or die. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "That someone is their mother. And that choice is >> > > > > > > > > > > abortion." >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Despite Lia's enthusiasm for her topic, her teacher >> > > > > > > > > > > "strongly >> > > > > > > > > > > encouraged" her to select a different one for her class >> > > > presentation >> > > > > > > > > > > or she would be considered ineligible for an upcoming >> > > > > > > > > > > speech >> > > > contest. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "[S]everal teachers discouraged her from picking the >> > > > > > > > > > > topic of >> > > > > > > > > > > abortion; she was told it was 'too big,' 'too mature' and >> > > > 'too >> > > > > > > > > > > controversial,'" her mother wrote. "She was also told >> > > > > > > > > > > that if >> > > > she went >> > > > > > > > > > > ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to >> > > > > > > > > > > continue >> > > > on in the >> > > > > > > > > > > speech competition." >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Lia's mother continued, "Initially, I tried helping her >> > > > > > > > > > > find >> > > > other >> > > > > > > > > > > topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She >> > > > just felt >> > > > > > > > > > > she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she >> > > > forfeited >> > > > > > > > > > > her chance to compete in order to speak on something she >> > > > > > > > > > > was >> > > > > > > > > > > passionate about." >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Lia's teacher was so impressed by the speech that she >> > > > > > > > > > > allowed >> > > > her >> > > > > > > > > > > student to advance as the winner. Lia presented her >> > > > > > > > > > > speech to >> > > > judges >> > > > > > > > > > > in front of her entire school on Feb. 10. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The school principal and teachers called Lia's >> > > > > > > > > > > presentation >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > "obvious winner" – but the judges suddenly disqualified >> > > > > > > > > > > her >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > following day "because of the topic and her position on >> > > > abortion," her >> > > > > > > > > > > mother said. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Lia's father later revealed that the judges had a "big >> > > > disagreement." >> > > > > > > > > > > One was offended by the speech and voluntarily stepped >> > > > > > > > > > > down >> > > > while the >> > > > > > > > > > > others reversed their earlier decision – declaring her >> > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > winner. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Now Lia plans to take her message of life to a regional >> > > > speech >> > > > > > > > > > > competition, and more than 100,000 visitors have viewed >> > > > > > > > > > > her >> > > > > > > > > > > presentation online. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or >> > > > > > > > > > > do >> > > > what we >> > > > > > > > > > > do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks in the video. >> > > > > > > > > > > "Some >> > > > babies >> > > > > > > > > > > are born after only five months. Is this baby not human? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on >> > > > 5-month-old >> > > > > > > > > > > fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if >> > > > they're >> > > > > > > > > > > wanted?" >> >> > > > > > > > > > > She continues, "No, fetuses are definitely humans – knit >> > > > together in >> > > > > > > > > > > their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows >> > > > > > > > > > > them >> > > > all by >> > > > > > > > > > > name." >> >> > > >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89135-Hidequot... >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > > -- >> > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com-Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> >> -- >> Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
