Law Requires Ultrasound Before Abortion

Beowulf said:
Sorry if I offended anyone. I could never understand those feelings without experiencing them, which is impossible for me to do since I'm a guy.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's possible to understand feeling sorrow over a miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy. The mother has projected her hopes and desires and anticipations on the developing fetus, so the loss of all of those is almost as strong as (or for some people, possibly even stronger than) the loss of actually imagined loss of the object itself.

Think about when a child dies - at the funeral, many people lament the loss of a future that may have been, in addition to lamenting the loss of what already has been. This is like that, but extended much further.
 
StSapphire said:
No it's not, it's about prenatal development.

Anyhow, you were the one who brought "it looks like a person, therefore it's a person" into it, which is why the discussion leaned towards "do other animals look similar or not to humans during early stages of development" - pointing out that even your extremely silly logic doesn't make sense.

Of course, what Daredevel said is completely right - what something looks like has nothing to do with what it is or the validity of either pro-choice or pro-life arguments.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about person....Netrox did (see http://www.alldeaf.com/current-even...ultrasound-before-abortion-3.html#post1852925 ). I only affirmed that he was talking about a human fetus...not a human embryo.

Simply put, at nine weeks or so and onward, the developing fetus sure looks like a human to me with such distinctive features like fingers, toes, arms, feet and such. In short, a very distinctive human feature which cannot be mistaken for other animal species. Putting out images of embryos do not make sense on determing if it's a human or not. In this case, I'm focusing on the human species, not about other animal species. And Netrox made it clear that he was talking about the fetus as being recognizable as a human in that stage of development. I'm not about to deny that a human fetus at 9, 10, 12, 14 weeks or whatever do not look like a human. You can if you want.
 
kokonut said:
I never said anything about person....Netrox did (see http://www.alldeaf.com/current-even...ultrasound-before-abortion-3.html#post1852925 ). I only affirmed that he was talking about a human fetus...not a human embryo.

Simply put, at nine weeks or so and onward, the developing fetus sure looks like a human to me with such distinctive features like fingers, toes, arms, feet and such. In short, a very distinctive human feature which cannot be mistaken for other animal species. Putting out images of embryos do not make sense on determing if it's a human or not. In this case, I'm focusing on the human species, not about other animal species. And Netrox made it clear that he was talking about the fetus as being recognizable as a human in that stage of development. I'm not about to deny that a human fetus at 9, 10, 12, 14 weeks or whatever do not look like a human. You can if you want.
Click to expand...

You're just repeating the same crap over and over and over and over.

I already responded to this, you didn't respond to anything I mentioned. Case closed.
 
StSapphire said:
You're just repeating the same crap over and over and over and over.

I already responded to this, you didn't respond to anything I mentioned. Case closed.
Click to expand...

lol - don't get sucked into his usual M.O.!!
 
StSapphire said:
You're just repeating the same crap over and over and over and over.

I already responded to this, you didn't respond to anything I mentioned. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Why are you getting so riled up for? All I said that a human fetus (starting at 9 weeks onward) certainly looks like a human because of its distinctive features (i.e. hands, fingers, toes, etc). I also pointed out that I wasn't the one who brought up whether the fetus is considered as a person or not. I was correcting you. All I stated was that the fetus looks human to me.
 
14-1284173754-bg-recycled-love.png
 
kokonut said:
Why are you getting so riled up for? All I said that a human fetus (starting at 9 weeks onward) certainly looks like a human because of its distinctive features (i.e. hands, fingers, toes, etc). I also pointed out that I wasn't the one who brought up whether the fetus is considered as a person or not. I was correcting you. All I stated was that the fetus looks human to me.
Click to expand...

curious - does this look human to you?

25pmo8i.jpg
 
Has ANYONE here gone to the Bodies Exhibition? They have real embryos/fetuses at different stages of development. They even have them as early as 1 week.
 
kokonut said:
It is called a fetus for a reason because that's when the baby becomes recognizable as a human being.
Click to expand...

Dear, you're seeing what you want to see there.

I can't imagine ever being so cavalier in calling something human- but I guess I value the word differently than you do. :)

(Edit: also, the embryonic stage often is taken to include the 9th week, but not often the 10th week. It depends on what literature you're reading.)
 
Back
Top