Here ya go:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=429098&in_page_id=1799&ct=5#StartComments
?
"kisses the cheek of her sister "
What a stretch Gwee doe.....where'd you find this absurdity?
What was absurd was showing my 18-year old's frinds similar pictures of the child en utero.
Somehow they were only exposed to the grainy sonogram images in all their years in school.
They were amazed that babies en utero looked . . . human.
And in an incredibly inappropriate personal note, we are having Kiddo #2's delivery induced tommorow morning.
Congratulations.
We induced with our first. It allowed us to pick the date and the doctors/nurses we wanted.
My wife picked a Monday night because she doesn't watch football. I told our son that his birthdate was picked out of the TV guide.
Not sure the story really covered "when life begins" but was more just an explanation of 4d ultrasound. A place in town does them, and many newer machines are capable.
Oh, and an incredibly inappropriate congratulations to Tim.
I am still not getting how the article relates to the title of the thread?
Nice work, TH. Congratulations!
Tim picked up on the point I was trying to make, although I was hoping some choicer/aborter (other than AOX because his general views are well known) would weigh in on the question of when life begins as a matter of law given the very real human images in the photos. Incidentally, I think Discovery Health or another cable health network is running an entire series on 4-D sonograms this week.
I love these 4D scans - - - It's kinda like a womb with a view.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Tim picked up on the point I was trying to make, although I was hoping some choicer/aborter (other than AOX because his general views are well known) would weigh in on the question of when life begins as a matter of law given the very real human images in the photos. Incidentally, I think Discovery Health or another cable health network is running an entire series on 4-D sonograms this week.
It might help if you were a bit more specific on what you mean by "life", "human" and "birth".
Those were pictures of babies that were not born yet. But I would say they were alive, which would be counter to the title of the thread.
My finger is a human finger and its alive. But my finger is not a human being. etc. etc.
Artist: I was being a little sarcastic with the title of this thread. I think the images of those children, and yes they are children, makes it hard for anyone to even suggest that a human life only begins at birth.
Glad to see that this discussion so clarified things.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Artist: I was being a little sarcastic with the title of this thread. I think the images of those children, and yes they are children, makes it hard for anyone to even suggest that a human life only begins at birth.
Didn't know there was anyone who did?
Try the poster right above your last..
Making dumb assumptions about me again, eh, guido?
There is no way this thread won't degenerate into name-calling and insult-posting.
Abortion discussions have nothing to do with anything the TulsaNow forum was started for.
I implore you guys to stop or take it somewhere else.
Are you kidding recycle? You were waist deep in the topic during this thread.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5345&whichpage=4
BTW, RW: My "assumption" was based on your failure to ever answer my question I posed to you in that thread.
I recall trying to make a joke during that thread. I also remember you trying to bait everybody and arguing with every poster.
Now you start another thread and try to do it again.
I also think that calling people who are pro-choice "aborters" is wrong. Do you not understand what the word "choice" means?
My wife and I are both pro-choice, but we chose to have babies and never considered an abortion. I guess we are pro-choice and you are no choice.
Is this topic your idea of public discourse?
Find the most divisive issue you can and then insult everyone else in the room? I bet you don't get invited back to many parties...
Hmmm ... I guess I did fail to answer the question, simply because I got very busy, hardly surfed at all on TulsaNow for a week, came back, forgot about the thread and moved on to others.
Oh, well.
And funny, now that I look over that thread again nearly four weeks later, I see that you, Guido, failed to clearly answer this question that I posed first:
Do you want to ban birth control or not?
^ I never saw that question?
RW: "Do you want to ban birth control or not?" No on banning all birth control. Not practical or enforceable. As I wrote in that thread, use of birth control can sometimes lead to unsafe sexual practices that can lead to STDs. How about an answer to my question now.
Recycle: "My wife and I are both pro-choice, but we chose to have babies." Whatever. You can play your semantics game all you want. If you are pro-choice, you support the "choice" of abortion. If you are comfortable with your pro choice beliefs, you should not have to fear what your belief means in its entirety.
Artist: I think its on page three of the thread.
Here's how to beat abortion: Prove in a court of law (rather than the Tulsa Now Forum) that an embryo or fertilized egg is as much of a human being as you or anyone else. It's not impossible, but it's really complicated. Good luck.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
RW: "Do you want to ban birth control or not?" No on banning all birth control. Not practical or enforceable. As I wrote in that thread, use of birth control can sometimes lead to unsafe sexual practices that can lead to STDs. How about an answer to my question now.
Recycle: "My wife and I are both pro-choice, but we chose to have babies." Whatever. You can play your semantics game all you want. If you are pro-choice, you support the "choice" of abortion. If you are comfortable with your pro choice beliefs, you should not have to fear what your belief means in its entirety.
Artist: I think its on page three of the thread.
Now I am really lost, this is page one isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Here's how to beat abortion: Prove in a court of law (rather than the Tulsa Now Forum) that an embryo or fertilized egg is as much of a human being as you or anyone else. It's not impossible, but it's really complicated. Good luck.
Well, funny you should mention that....
By NICOLE MARSHALL World Staff Writer (Tulsa World)
1/18/2007
In the first case of its kind in Tulsa County, a man was charged Wednesday with two counts of first-degree murder in the homicides of his pregnant girlfriend and their unborn child.
New legislation that provides the basis for a first-degree murder charge in the death of the fetus, which had reached 15 weeks' gestation, was part of a controversial bill that also included measured restrictions on abortions.
One of the provisions of the law, which took effect in November, recognizes an unborn child as a separate victim if a crime is committed against its mother.
A fetus can be a homicide victim from "the moment of conception," based on the definition of an unborn child.
Jesus Francisco Hernandez was charged Wednesday with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Aletheia Kikugawa and her fetus in Tulsa, Assistant District Attorney Bill Musseman said.
"It is the first such case filed in Tulsa County (and) may be the first in the state based on the way the law was defined Nov. 1, 2006," he said.
Hernandez had blood on his clothing and was driving his pregnant girl-friend's car when he was arrested in connection with her stabbing death Jan. 9, police records state.
Kikugawa, 32, was found dead by her ex-husband at her home at the Colonial Park Apartments, 7633 E. 21st St.
Witnesses initially said they thought she was about four to five months' pregnant. However, the medical examiner determined that the fetus had reached about 15 weeks' gestation and died as a result of its mother's death, Detective Vic Regalado said.
"During the investigation, it was found that the suspect was aware of her pregnancy," Regalado said. "Due to recent changes to state law, the unborn child is listed as a victim of first-degree murder."
The new law makes a new class of victim covered by criminal statutes, Musseman explained.
State law defines homicide as the killing of one human being by another. The new law specifies that a "human being" includes an unborn child as defined by state statute.
The statute defines an "unborn child" as "the unborn offspring of human beings from the moment of conception, through pregnancy and until live birth . . . ."
However, the definition of homicide includes an exemption for "acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented."
Similar cases in the past have relied on whether the fetus was viable.
In 1995, a man was sentenced in Tulsa County to life in prison without parole possible for murdering a pregnant teenager and her fetus.
James Ray Collins pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder in the shooting of Valerie Marie Bennett, 18. Bennett was 6 1/2 months' pregnant when she was killed.
At that time, prosecutors said state law and a ruling by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in an Oklahoma County case allowed for criminal prosecution for killing a fetus by inflicting injury upon the mother.
In 1994, the state appeals court had ruled that an "unborn fetus that was viable at the time of injury is a human being, which may be the subject of a homicide."
Gov. Brad Henry signed Senate Bill 1742, which contained the new provisions, in May after receiving more than 700 calls and e-mails concerning the measure.
The calls were about equally divided for and against the measure, the governor's spokesman said previously.
How about this: a perfectly healthy baby is scheduled for the procedure, a group of anti-abortion radicals have vowed to stop it.
Pretend you a cop called to the location: do you arrest the radicals once they have crossed the threshold of the clinic?
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Here's how to beat abortion: Prove in a court of law (rather than the Tulsa Now Forum) that an embryo or fertilized egg is as much of a human being as you or anyone else. It's not impossible, but it's really complicated. Good luck.
Well, funny you should mention that....
All that does is define a fetus as "human" for the specific purposes of prosecuting a homicide. It assumes that the fetus was intended to be born by its mother, which is normally a safe assumption.
You'd have to prove that all are human. Not just that all fetuses intended to be born by their mothers are human, nor that all fetuses have the potential to be human, nor that one should be prosecuted twice for killing a pregnant mother.
So none of them cross-breed freaks that come from stuff depicted in the Sundance horse-man love movie (//%22http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-121sundance,0,6997847.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines%22) are safe nowheres?
Not in 'Merca. Those cross-breed, unwanted horse-man beasts are probably safe in the rest of the civilized world, but in 'Merca, we got better things to spend our money and time on then rearing another wasted suit of skin.
Oh, and all I know about 'inducing labor' is that it is shorthand for 'prepare for a Ceasarian (sic) birth.' Which, I thought, meant I should bring salad and croutons.
Jonathan Swift, where are you?
So a fetus is a human when someone wants it to be and it's not when they don't. Now that is great science!
The point is that a fetus or fertilized egg (or whatever point in the pregnancy process you wish), would have to be given the same rights as a human that has already been born. That's not the case right.
I don't know of anyone that's particulary fond of abortion. But, if you're going to allow the gov't to legislate out a medical proceedure (which is essentially what Pro-Life is asking), you're going to need a very good reason. Something other than "we don't like it" or "we think its murder." You'd have to convince the gov't to afford the same rights across the board.
I personally have gone far beyond given a rip on whether abortion is legal or not. I simply don't care. But if we're going to have these discussions, and we will, might as well talk about the facts on the ground.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
So a fetus is a human when someone wants it to be and it's not when they don't. Now that is great science!
More like great legislating.
Science didn't cause that quirk. I doubt science gives a rip about whether abortion is illegal or not.
Unless it was the inhuman offspring of Brittny Spears and that injured Kentucky Derby winner. THAT could be kind of cool. And if it was an inhuman GIRL crossbreed, we could start her off real innocent-like and then turn the thing into a real naughty horsey!It could be the best thing since Tonaya Harding, all captured on digital video for resell! And we could all laugh at the freak of nature and feel better about ourselves.
So, you see, if it pleases us it is worth giving birth to.
Barbaro and Brittany?
Wow, Tim. You got quite the imagination.
I am kinda afraid to hear the made up nursery rhymes your kid will hear...
This thread should be retitled 'Parents' life ends at birth.' Sleep deprivation kicking in.
When the surly teen was a rugrat I would read 'Bedtime for Francis' (lil' badger scared of the shadows). I really hyped that up, reading low and sinister-like, 'she would grab my shirt and smack me, 'Daddy! Stop!' but wanted me to keep reading anyway. THAT princess is the lead in 'Little Shop of Horrors' in March.
And now there's this:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/20/D8NDJ0O00.html
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_02/Amillia190207_468x316.jpg
Pro-abortion advocates are deeply saddened.
Eww! Those feet look like hot tomoles!
Per abortion laws, I give no credence to the religious nor moral arguments for banning abortion. Governments should not be in the business of promoting my, or anyone else's moral or religious code. If they do, it ceases to have any meaning as an act you are forced to do can hardly be seen as a servitude towards your god(s). not to mention the obvious issue of having to decide who's god(s) and morals are the correct ones.
I am also, , generally, against governmental interference on most levels. The ability to interfere is the ability to chose whom to favor and whom to repress and the opportunity to interfere with my constitutionally protected rights.
However, I also feel that any creature capable of thought deserves protection from wantonly unnecessary pain and suffering. This extends from Humans to Chickens to Frogs. Note the wording of "wantonly unnecessary pain," if a chicken has some pain while being slaughtered for consumption - so be it. But if a procedure is offered that accomplishes the same goal without torturing the bird, I would prefer that.
Being alive is defined as having the ability to reproduce on a cellular level. The cells in my nose are able to reproduce as are the cells of the plant on my desk - they are alive. However, the wood cells of my desk are no longer able to divide and are thus, not living. The question is not when does life begin - but when we are going to afford PROTECTION for that life.
The little world of belief's I have created for myself would indicate protection is afforded when a creature can think. In a fetus, that would mean brain functions on the level of being able to react to surroundings with some sort of spacial awareness (I think, therefor I am). However, my argument would only afford this life the same protection I would the chicken without further examination.
Further protection is provided to humans because it is essential to a functioning society. The most ancient of tribal laws (not Hammurabi, the 10 commandments) provide a good guide for what people have to do in order to live together in a community and not destroy themselves. If we steel from one another, lie in court or kill each other things get ugly (likewise, life is easier if we all worship and believe the exact same thing without question).
In addition to being essential a functioning society we have more recently attributed certain protections to people by virtue of them being human. The idea being that all humans are an advanced race capable of complex thought. The advanced thought setting us apart from animals and making us worthy of protection.
Thus, a fetus should be granted protection when it is capable of advanced thought (ie - self awareness) or when doing so is essential to a functioning society. Society has and is functioning with the current abortion laws in place.
THEREFOR, protection should be granted to an unborn child when they are capable of human-like thought. While it is INCREDIBLY hard to find unbiased information on this, it seems a fetus has a developed brain around 32 weeks. Similarly, some children born at this point have a chance of survival without intervention... which is the current status quo.
So there's my attempt at approaching what is most often viewed as a moral question - logically.
quote:
THEREFOR, protection should be granted to an unborn child when they are capable of human-like thought.
Using your logic we could rightfully abort several adults on this forum...[}:)]
We know guido is pro-life because he regularly gives birth to turds on this forum.
[;)]
I do find the story quite amazing. The pictures are heartbreaking, but at least there was a good end to the story.
CF:I think the medical definition of life is a heartbeat and brainwave function, which happens very early in the pregnancy.
quote:
Governments should not be in the business of promoting my, or anyone else's moral or religious code.
Unfortunately they have to...In the words of GK Chesterton,
"any denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some sort." You can't have society say X is wrong without invoking some sort of moral law by which to differentiate the good act from the bad act...am I saying that we should use the Koran or the Bible, no, but what I am saying is we are most certainly invoking a moral law.
If heartbeat and brain waves are the indication of life then plants, bacteria, viruses (viri?), algae, mold, and paramecium's arent alive. They have neither brain waves nor a heartbeat
An exact definition is nearly impossible to agree upon and actually entails the final exam question in many biology and philosophy classes. From a scientific standpoint, life generally requires at least:
1) the ability to metabolise or change some input into a form of energy
2) The ability to grow
3) the ability to reproduce
Some add they must be able to adapt (through natural selection), respond to stimuli, and achieve motion... but are certainly not included in a minimal definition. Those elements are more generally restricted to the definition of "animal" not life in general.
A single cell with the ability to reproduce fits the generally accepted guidelines as a life form. While your more restrictive definition would severely limit what is alive and merely describe "animals."
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If heartbeat and brain waves are the indication of life then plants, bacteria, viruses (viri?), algae, mold, and paramecium's arent alive. They have neither brain waves nor a heartbeat
An exact definition is nearly impossible to agree upon and actually entails the final exam question in many biology and philosophy classes. From a scientific standpoint, life generally requires at least:
1) the ability to metabolise or change some input into a form of energy
2) The ability to grow
3) the ability to reproduce
Some add they must be able to adapt (through natural selection), respond to stimuli, and achieve motion... but are certainly not included in a minimal definition. Those elements are more generally restricted to the definition of "animal" not life in general.
A single cell with the ability to reproduce fits the generally accepted guidelines as a life form. While your more restrictive definition would severely limit what is alive and merely describe "animals."
I think we're getting far too pedantic in our definition. I am speaking about when a doctor pronounces you dead/alive in a medical sense...
So says the wise man:
"Life begins when the kids move away and the cat dies."
Speaking of that, anyone who owns a cat should be immediately investigated by Homeland Security...especially if they own more than 2.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Speaking of that, anyone who owns a cat should be immediately investigated by Homeland Security...especially if they own more than 2.
Why?
Unless they are on a farm.
My mom owns more than 2, and probably needs some sort of investigation/intervention.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Speaking of that, anyone who owns a cat should be immediately investigated by Homeland Security...especially if they own more than 2.
Why?
They're being dispatched post-haste...I suggest you take only what you can carry with you. That means leave the cat(s)....
I'm allergic to cats so I have a Yorkie who behaves much like a cat.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm allergic to cats so I have a Yorkie who behaves much like a cat.
Why? Does it scratch up your furniture and poop in your bathtub?
I do not currently own any cats, was just curious...
I despise them...I don't want to feed and care for anything that thinks it's too good crap in the yard with the dog. I hate their smug attitude and their weeee beeedy eyes. Plus litter boxes...come on now! Plus I think at least 75% of the world is allergic to them.
(http://inciclopedia.wikia.com/images/thumb/e/ed/Simpsons_CrazyCatLady.jpg/180px-Simpsons_CrazyCatLady.jpg)
Just to finish off this thread... the last episode of "The Simpson's" revealed that the crazy cat lady has an MD from Johns Hopkins and a Law Degree from Yale and was highly successful before she got burned out and had a few drinks... then got a few cats.
and so, the circle of life is complete. We all have A.D.D.
I thought everyone had A.I.D.S.?
(http://www.geekculture.dk/bedler/auto/1118574509lease_musical.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm allergic to cats so I have a Yorkie who behaves much like a cat.
Why? Does it scratch up your furniture and poop in your bathtub?
Very independent and for the most part thinks any piece of furniture in the house is his. Spends most of his time sitting or laying on the back of a chair staring out the window at birds and squirrels. Meet Butch:
(http://store1.yimg.com/I/conansclassics_1806_22589725)
This is another one I used to have with my ex- Sophie the crotch sniffer:
(http://store1.yimg.com/I/conansclassics_1806_26222940)
I like it when Neil Boortz talks about the cat he used to have named "Drop Kick". Best use for a cat I know of.
The only use I have for cats is metaphorical.
The old country adage: "You can't swing a dead cat in the air without hitting (insert ubiquitous object here)."
BIRTH...
The major cause of DEATH
Somebody told me one day that my cat had gills.
They were wrong.
For the record iplaw, I caught the previous reference to So I Married an Ax Murderer.
And as for the pictures of the animal... wow. I thought it was a bobble head at first glance. Wow.
quote:
For the record iplaw, I caught the previous reference to So I Married an Ax Murderer.
(http://www.moviecritic.ca/reviews/1993/so_i_married_an_axe_murderer/myers_father_01.jpg)
Alright, give Helen Thomas a kiss, or I'll kick your teeth in.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
For the record iplaw, I caught the previous reference to So I Married an Ax Murderer.
And as for the pictures of the animal... wow. I thought it was a bobble head at first glance. Wow.
Bobblehead? Talking about Butch? Never thought of that, my mother thinks he looks like a cartoon character (think Wyle E. Coyote), especially when his fur is all grown out around his face.