60K Raised for Planned Parenthood.

oftenreading

RYME said:

hedonist said:

I don't know you and give not a shit about popularity (really, what value does that even hold?) but I'm wondering what "yellows" and "reds" and all of that mean.

WHERE IN THE SPECTRUM DO I FALL?

I need to know.

And what the fuck does this mean?
Aborted fetus body parts sold regularly on the baby Parts Market.

I hope you realize many women have lost their lives by attempting to give themselves abortions because they were illegal or unavailable.

Sorry to have taken such toxic bait from you but...comes a time to say fuck it. Not "blasting" you, but I can't imagine harboring that level of hate.

(I wish telling someone "fuck you" on this site wouldn't get me banned - it'd feel great to do so - but, I shall refrain from saying it and allow my thinking it to suffice)

Respectfully here is the answer to your question about aborted fetus body parts sold at marke by Planned Parenthood. If you haven't seen this watch it. It's only 8 minutes.
This is crazy stuff and you will see that I am not crazy and full of hate.

https://youtu.be/Bwn0QBhy2TQ

This has been fairly comprehensively debunked. Multiple investigations found these claims to be false and, in fact, maliciously promoted. The videos have been altered.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

RYME

oftenreading said:

RYME said:

hedonist said:

I don't know you and give not a shit about popularity (really, what value does that even hold?) but I'm wondering what "yellows" and "reds" and all of that mean.

WHERE IN THE SPECTRUM DO I FALL?

I need to know.

And what the fuck does this mean?
Aborted fetus body parts sold regularly on the baby Parts Market.

I hope you realize many women have lost their lives by attempting to give themselves abortions because they were illegal or unavailable.

Sorry to have taken such toxic bait from you but...comes a time to say fuck it. Not "blasting" you, but I can't imagine harboring that level of hate.

(I wish telling someone "fuck you" on this site wouldn't get me banned - it'd feel great to do so - but, I shall refrain from saying it and allow my thinking it to suffice)

Respectfully here is the answer to your question about aborted fetus body parts sold at marke by Planned Parenthood. If you haven't seen this watch it. It's only 8 minutes.
This is crazy stuff and you will see that I am not crazy and full of hate.

https://youtu.be/Bwn0QBhy2TQ

This has been fairly comprehensively debunked. Multiple investigations found these claims to be false and, in fact, maliciously promoted. The videos have been altered.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

Alright I'm open for answers, and I can be corrected what were they talking about at this table? Was it a made up video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwn0QBhy2TQ
I certainly don't claim to know everything. Is this 3% number debunked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgqxvaV-8U

mace1229

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

oftenreading

RYME said:

oftenreading said:

RYME said:

hedonist said:

I don't know you and give not a shit about popularity (really, what value does that even hold?) but I'm wondering what "yellows" and "reds" and all of that mean.

WHERE IN THE SPECTRUM DO I FALL?

I need to know.

And what the fuck does this mean?
Aborted fetus body parts sold regularly on the baby Parts Market.

I hope you realize many women have lost their lives by attempting to give themselves abortions because they were illegal or unavailable.

Sorry to have taken such toxic bait from you but...comes a time to say fuck it. Not "blasting" you, but I can't imagine harboring that level of hate.

(I wish telling someone "fuck you" on this site wouldn't get me banned - it'd feel great to do so - but, I shall refrain from saying it and allow my thinking it to suffice)

Respectfully here is the answer to your question about aborted fetus body parts sold at marke by Planned Parenthood. If you haven't seen this watch it. It's only 8 minutes.
This is crazy stuff and you will see that I am not crazy and full of hate.

https://youtu.be/Bwn0QBhy2TQ

This has been fairly comprehensively debunked. Multiple investigations found these claims to be false and, in fact, maliciously promoted. The videos have been altered.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

Alright I'm open for answers, and I can be corrected what were they talking about at this table? Was it a made up video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwn0QBhy2TQ
I certainly don't claim to know everything. Is this 3% number debunked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgqxvaV-8U

Did you read either of the two links provided? They answer your question about what was being discussed. Woman having an abortion can elect to donate the fetal tissue for research, or can decide not to. If they decide to donate it, PP preserves it. The costs being discussed relate to the preservation and shipping costs, which are paid for by the research lab. The tissue is not sold. 12 different states investigated and none found any evidence of wrongdoing on PP's part. Where they did find evidence of wrongdoing was in the making and distribution of the videos, and two people involved in making the videos were indicted.

my2hands

Fake News!

And we wonder why Trump is president? LOL

RYME

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

Here!! Here!!
Well said.

drakeheuer14

^ agreed

rgambs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

So would it fit your liking if they put the word "human" to fill the full scientific definition? It is a human embryo, human fetus. I would like you to put human in front of all terms now to meet the same "correct" scientific standard that you are trying to apply to the above posters. You are not trying to argue against these embryos and fetuses being human are you? My issue is with the mutilation of developing humans.

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

So would it fit your liking if they put the word "human" to fill the full scientific definition? It is a human embryo, human fetus. I would like you to put human in front of all terms now to meet the same "correct" scientific standard that you are trying to apply to the above posters. You are not trying to argue against these embryos and fetuses being human are you? My issue is with the mutilation of developing humans.

Seems an unnecessary distinction, the discussion is obviously about humans.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

So would it fit your liking if they put the word "human" to fill the full scientific definition? It is a human embryo, human fetus. I would like you to put human in front of all terms now to meet the same "correct" scientific standard that you are trying to apply to the above posters. You are not trying to argue against these embryos and fetuses being human are you? My issue is with the mutilation of developing humans.

Seems an unnecessary distinction, the discussion is obviously about humans.

Do you consider an embryo or fetus to be a living human? Do they have beating hearts, can they feel pain? Just trying to be "correct" and all. Just trying to understand the distinction. Already going to say that I do not agree with the "viability" argument. There are plenty of adult human that could not live without the assistance of medical equipment, does that make a person less alive or human because they are not as "viable" as the next person? And I understand that a life must be ended now and then for certain reasons, sometimes to save another life, but you are still ending a life and I do not think that notion should be minimized or as freely available as it is. I would rather fund adoption/foster care programs than abortion services.

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

So would it fit your liking if they put the word "human" to fill the full scientific definition? It is a human embryo, human fetus. I would like you to put human in front of all terms now to meet the same "correct" scientific standard that you are trying to apply to the above posters. You are not trying to argue against these embryos and fetuses being human are you? My issue is with the mutilation of developing humans.

Seems an unnecessary distinction, the discussion is obviously about humans.

Do you consider an embryo or fetus to be a living human? Do they have beating hearts, can they feel pain? Just trying to be "correct" and all.

An embryo has a "beating heart" in it's latter stages, I don't know to what degree pain is felt, I haven't researched it because I don't find it particularly relevant.
The question of whether or not an embryo is a living human is not one that will likely ever have a definitive answer. If it is insisted that a line be drawn somewhere, science complicates that issue. I tend toward no, it is not a full status living human.
I don't feel that an embryo should be given full human rights, just as I don't feel that little children have full human rights, they do not, and should not, have the right to self-determination.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

So would it fit your liking if they put the word "human" to fill the full scientific definition? It is a human embryo, human fetus. I would like you to put human in front of all terms now to meet the same "correct" scientific standard that you are trying to apply to the above posters. You are not trying to argue against these embryos and fetuses being human are you? My issue is with the mutilation of developing humans.

Seems an unnecessary distinction, the discussion is obviously about humans.

Do you consider an embryo or fetus to be a living human? Do they have beating hearts, can they feel pain? Just trying to be "correct" and all.

An embryo has a "beating heart" in it's latter stages, I don't know to what degree pain is felt, I haven't researched it because I don't find it particularly relevant.
The question of whether or not an embryo is a living human is not one that will likely ever have a definitive answer. If it is insisted that a line be drawn somewhere, science complicates that issue. I tend toward no, it is not a full status living human.
I don't feel that an embryo should be given full human rights, just as I don't feel that little children have full human rights, they do not, and should not, have the right to self-determination.

I said nothing about "full human rights" although I do question at what length you are implying with that statement. But the right to live in a safe, nourishing environment should be awarded to and expected for all children of all ages...do you not agree? A parent does not have the right to end a child's life...is the desire/will to live what you would call self-determination? I consider an embryo as a living human, be it that they are at the very early stages of living. Personally, I think it should require a judges approval on a case by case basis to determine if you can end an embryonic/fetal human life, but that's just me and I do not expect everyone to agree with that. Scientifically, we are all just a bunch of organized cells and composed mostly of empty space...science does not factor in ethical/moral. Science would hold no argument as to whether you ended the life of an embryo nor an adult human, but we as humans determine what is "right or wrong".

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

So would it fit your liking if they put the word "human" to fill the full scientific definition? It is a human embryo, human fetus. I would like you to put human in front of all terms now to meet the same "correct" scientific standard that you are trying to apply to the above posters. You are not trying to argue against these embryos and fetuses being human are you? My issue is with the mutilation of developing humans.

Seems an unnecessary distinction, the discussion is obviously about humans.

Do you consider an embryo or fetus to be a living human? Do they have beating hearts, can they feel pain? Just trying to be "correct" and all.

An embryo has a "beating heart" in it's latter stages, I don't know to what degree pain is felt, I haven't researched it because I don't find it particularly relevant.
The question of whether or not an embryo is a living human is not one that will likely ever have a definitive answer. If it is insisted that a line be drawn somewhere, science complicates that issue. I tend toward no, it is not a full status living human.
I don't feel that an embryo should be given full human rights, just as I don't feel that little children have full human rights, they do not, and should not, have the right to self-determination.

I said nothing about "full human rights" although I do question at what length you are implying with that statement. But the right to live in a safe, nourishing environment should be awarded to and expected for all children of all ages...do you not agree? A parent does not have the right to end a child's life...is the desire/will to live what you would call self-determination? I consider an embryo as a living human, be it that they are at the very early stages of living. Personally, I think it should require a judges approval on a case by case basis to determine if you can end an embryonic/fetal human life, but that's just me and I do not expect everyone to agree with that. Scientifically, we are all just a bunch of organized cells and composed mostly of empty space...science does not factor in ethical/moral. Science would hold no argument as to whether you ended the life of an embryo nor an adult human, but we as humans determine what is "right or wrong".

I agree with the bolded, with the caveat that an embryo is not a child in the same way that a toddler is not an adult.
Conservatives like to say that you can't have rights that require the confiscation of someone else's labor in regards to health care, housing, and food, but that flies out the window when talking about child care.
By self-determination I mean free will and the right to choose and do as you please. Children do not, and should not, have those rights because they have not developed to a sufficient degree to sustain and survive those rights. You can see how closely that parallels the rights of an undeveloped clump of cells that MAY someday grow into a conscious creature.
Judge approval for each case is extreme and impractical.

mace1229

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

Maybe, but my point was it is unfair and inaccurate to discredit someone solely based on them referring to am embryo as a baby. You made the claim they were uninformed and don't understand the science behind it because they used that word in describing an embryo/fetus.
After 2 kids I can't recall a single conversation when any doctor, nurse, ultrasound tech, or anyone who referred to it as anything other than "baby" during any stage of the pregnancy. That really seemed to be your whole argument, "If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?" and "You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous." which I find to be inaccurate statements when even the medical field refers to it as a "baby."
I'm not saying this proves my case, but rather It isn't a lack of understanding or disingenuous, it is common terminology used even by professionals. The only time it is ever an issue is during pro life/choice arguments when there is an emphasis that it is not a human life. Other than that, everyone seems okay with it. And someone shouldn't be dismissed for using that term.

benjs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

Maybe, but my point was it is unfair and inaccurate to discredit someone solely based on them referring to am embryo as a baby. You made the claim they were uninformed and don't understand the science behind it because they used that word in describing an embryo/fetus.
After 2 kids I can't recall a single conversation when any doctor, nurse, ultrasound tech, or anyone who referred to it as anything other than "baby" during any stage of the pregnancy. That really seemed to be your whole argument, "If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?" and "You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous." which I find to be inaccurate statements when even the medical field refers to it as a "baby."
I'm not saying this proves my case, but rather It isn't a lack of understanding or disingenuous, it is common terminology used even by professionals. The only time it is ever an issue is during pro life/choice arguments when there is an emphasis that it is not a human life. Other than that, everyone seems okay with it. And someone shouldn't be dismissed for using that term.

Doctors and nurses who refer to an embryo or fetus as a baby are appealing to emotion, attempting to induce an emotional connection between a parent and future child (you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your embryo vs. you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your child - which sounds more impactful). I'd be shocked if these doctors and nurses would dispute the fact that, technically, they are witnessing the development of an embryo, if asked.

In addition, conversations with professionals involve context. It would feel cold and callused to tell a new set of hopeful parents for them to hear that their embryo is developing adequately, because a medical professional is being sought after not just for a professional opinion, but also emotional guidance and nurturing through a new experience. A medical consultation between a pregnant woman and her doctor is not a scientific inquiry. The discussion about abortion is absolutely scientific inquiry, which should focus on logic over appeal to emotion.

mace1229

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

Maybe, but my point was it is unfair and inaccurate to discredit someone solely based on them referring to am embryo as a baby. You made the claim they were uninformed and don't understand the science behind it because they used that word in describing an embryo/fetus.
After 2 kids I can't recall a single conversation when any doctor, nurse, ultrasound tech, or anyone who referred to it as anything other than "baby" during any stage of the pregnancy. That really seemed to be your whole argument, "If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?" and "You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous." which I find to be inaccurate statements when even the medical field refers to it as a "baby."
I'm not saying this proves my case, but rather It isn't a lack of understanding or disingenuous, it is common terminology used even by professionals. The only time it is ever an issue is during pro life/choice arguments when there is an emphasis that it is not a human life. Other than that, everyone seems okay with it. And someone shouldn't be dismissed for using that term.

Doctors and nurses who refer to an embryo or fetus as a baby are appealing to emotion, attempting to induce an emotional connection between a parent and future child (you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your embryo vs. you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your child - which sounds more impactful). I'd be shocked if these doctors and nurses would dispute the fact that, technically, they are witnessing the development of an embryo, if asked.

In addition, conversations with professionals involve context. It would feel cold and callused to tell a new set of hopeful parents for them to hear that their embryo is developing adequately, because a medical professional is being sought after not just for a professional opinion, but also emotional guidance and nurturing through a new experience. A medical consultation between a pregnant woman and her doctor is not a scientific inquiry. The discussion about abortion is absolutely scientific inquiry, which should focus on logic over appeal to emotion.

I don't disagree. I still stand by my statement though that it is common usage and someone shouldn't be dismissed and considered uninformed because they refer to an embryo as a baby. People use common terms all the time that are not scientifically, or in other ways, accurate. When someone asks for a Kleenex, do you stop them and say "uhh, did you mean a tissue?" Or do you just give them a tissue?
Using the term "baby" to describe any level of development is common usage for many people, and doesn't reflect their knowledge, or lack of, the developmental process.

dignin

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

Maybe, but my point was it is unfair and inaccurate to discredit someone solely based on them referring to am embryo as a baby. You made the claim they were uninformed and don't understand the science behind it because they used that word in describing an embryo/fetus.
After 2 kids I can't recall a single conversation when any doctor, nurse, ultrasound tech, or anyone who referred to it as anything other than "baby" during any stage of the pregnancy. That really seemed to be your whole argument, "If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?" and "You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous." which I find to be inaccurate statements when even the medical field refers to it as a "baby."
I'm not saying this proves my case, but rather It isn't a lack of understanding or disingenuous, it is common terminology used even by professionals. The only time it is ever an issue is during pro life/choice arguments when there is an emphasis that it is not a human life. Other than that, everyone seems okay with it. And someone shouldn't be dismissed for using that term.

Doctors and nurses who refer to an embryo or fetus as a baby are appealing to emotion, attempting to induce an emotional connection between a parent and future child (you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your embryo vs. you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your child - which sounds more impactful). I'd be shocked if these doctors and nurses would dispute the fact that, technically, they are witnessing the development of an embryo, if asked.

In addition, conversations with professionals involve context. It would feel cold and callused to tell a new set of hopeful parents for them to hear that their embryo is developing adequately, because a medical professional is being sought after not just for a professional opinion, but also emotional guidance and nurturing through a new experience. A medical consultation between a pregnant woman and her doctor is not a scientific inquiry. The discussion about abortion is absolutely scientific inquiry, which should focus on logic over appeal to emotion.

I don't disagree. I still stand by my statement though that it is common usage and someone shouldn't be dismissed and considered uninformed because they refer to an embryo as a baby. People use common terms all the time that are not scientifically, or in other ways, accurate. When someone asks for a Kleenex, do you stop them and say "uhh, did you mean a tissue?" Or do you just give them a tissue?
Using the term "baby" to describe any level of development is common usage for many people, and doesn't reflect their knowledge, or lack of, the developmental process.

It does reflect their knowledge or honesty in the context of this conversation on abortion. Proper scientific terminology matters.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

Maybe, but my point was it is unfair and inaccurate to discredit someone solely based on them referring to am embryo as a baby. You made the claim they were uninformed and don't understand the science behind it because they used that word in describing an embryo/fetus.
After 2 kids I can't recall a single conversation when any doctor, nurse, ultrasound tech, or anyone who referred to it as anything other than "baby" during any stage of the pregnancy. That really seemed to be your whole argument, "If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?" and "You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous." which I find to be inaccurate statements when even the medical field refers to it as a "baby."
I'm not saying this proves my case, but rather It isn't a lack of understanding or disingenuous, it is common terminology used even by professionals. The only time it is ever an issue is during pro life/choice arguments when there is an emphasis that it is not a human life. Other than that, everyone seems okay with it. And someone shouldn't be dismissed for using that term.

Doctors and nurses who refer to an embryo or fetus as a baby are appealing to emotion, attempting to induce an emotional connection between a parent and future child (you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your embryo vs. you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your child - which sounds more impactful). I'd be shocked if these doctors and nurses would dispute the fact that, technically, they are witnessing the development of an embryo, if asked.

In addition, conversations with professionals involve context. It would feel cold and callused to tell a new set of hopeful parents for them to hear that their embryo is developing adequately, because a medical professional is being sought after not just for a professional opinion, but also emotional guidance and nurturing through a new experience. A medical consultation between a pregnant woman and her doctor is not a scientific inquiry. The discussion about abortion is absolutely scientific inquiry, which should focus on logic over appeal to emotion.

I don't disagree. I still stand by my statement though that it is common usage and someone shouldn't be dismissed and considered uninformed because they refer to an embryo as a baby. People use common terms all the time that are not scientifically, or in other ways, accurate. When someone asks for a Kleenex, do you stop them and say "uhh, did you mean a tissue?" Or do you just give them a tissue?
Using the term "baby" to describe any level of development is common usage for many people, and doesn't reflect their knowledge, or lack of, the developmental process.

Except when they engage in a debate and resort to 'killing babies' as their argument. Then... their knowledge of the developmental process could be called to question.

An abortion in timely fashion is not killing babies.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

rgambs said:

drakeheuer14 said:

"Sure, as long as "you", ie someone else, is willing to sacrifice of themselves to create and sustain that baby"

I fully intend to adopt. And I wish more people would be open to it to. Usually the response to not adopting is it is too expensive. That should be fixed.


Edit - if it is inconclvenient to you from a monetary standpoint, it is cool to kill a baby?

If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?

What makes you think I dont understand it?

You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous.
You are free to believe that a fetus should not be aborted, but when you use the improper terms, you align yourselves with a crowd that cherishes it's ignorance.

I will always use the term baby instead of embryo or cell, not because I dont understand the science, but by doing so it aligns the psychological part of an abortion to realize what it is you are choosing to do by aborting. Labeling it as anything else causes a disconnect and normalizes the act

An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.
Is a baby an adult?
Labels are functions of distinction, and they matter.

When you choose to use terms you know to be incorrect for psychologic effect you are normalizing irrationality. It's hard to change people's minds from an admittedly biased viewpoint.

Im not disagreeing with your first sentence. Again, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that a baby is developing. You are right, I should be more clear in my terminology so i will now say "developing into a baby" instead of just "baby." I believe everyone should be informed about the science and psychological effects that go along with abortion. I wasn't proposing that people should be brainwashed by any means.

I respect your opinion on the matter, changing your mind is not my goal. But hopefully i will be able to positively change the mind of at least one female going through this dilemma in my lifetime through moral support or however possible.

It's usually not my goal to change minds on this subject either, I just seek to bring honesty to the topic.

First, it is completely normal to refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby." Mothers do it in pretty much every pregnancy I've ever seen. I have never heard a single person ask "how is your embryo today?" to a pregnant mom, they always ask "how is the baby doing?"
The only time anyone objects to this is when the topic is abortion because the goal is to minimize the life.
That is truly what the pro-life/pro-choice debate is really about.
Usually "women's rights" is the main argument for pro-choice. Hasn't been here and that is a first I think. But every other argument for pro-choice, (waiting for better circumstances, too cumbersome, don't want another kid, the cost, etc) is meaningless, just like every other argument for pro-life is as well (some people cant have kids and want to adopt, or whatever the case is). It always comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Is it life?
Every single person I have ever heard of being pro-choice believe life, or at least human life with any rights, does not exist until later. They are not murders or evil people, and it is easy to see if you don't view it as a life, then why should the woman not have the right to chose.
Just like every single pro-life person I have ever known believes it is a life, and the right to live trumps the right to chose. I have never heard of or know of anyone who is pro-life because they believe women are lesser than men and think they don't deserve equal rights.
Here is where I don't understand all the hate and rage against pro-lifers, and are more often than not called bigots or sexists for their views (even though many are women themselves).
If someone believes it is a life, shouldn't it be their duty to voice their opinion? How evil would it be to believe life is being terminated and not care about it enough to at least voice their opinion? That is why arguments on cost involved, or anything unrelated to life are irrelevant. How many have fought so hard for the right of a relatively small population to use a certain bathroom? Shouldn't we be fighting harder for what we believe is life?
I'm pro-life because I can't imagine something with a heartbeat and developing features as anything other than a life. And with advancing medicine the gender can even be determined in several weeks. I don't think science will ever be able to prove one way or another when life begins, we can just debate or beliefs on the matter. Its obvious that some form of life exists in the earliest stages of pregnancy, why would it not be the first stage of human life?

The goal is to be correct. It matters.

Maybe, but my point was it is unfair and inaccurate to discredit someone solely based on them referring to am embryo as a baby. You made the claim they were uninformed and don't understand the science behind it because they used that word in describing an embryo/fetus.
After 2 kids I can't recall a single conversation when any doctor, nurse, ultrasound tech, or anyone who referred to it as anything other than "baby" during any stage of the pregnancy. That really seemed to be your whole argument, "If it is inconvenient to you to understand embryology, should you have an opinion on the matter?" and "You dismissed the technical aspects of fetal development and persist in using the term "baby" which is inaccurate and disingenuous." which I find to be inaccurate statements when even the medical field refers to it as a "baby."
I'm not saying this proves my case, but rather It isn't a lack of understanding or disingenuous, it is common terminology used even by professionals. The only time it is ever an issue is during pro life/choice arguments when there is an emphasis that it is not a human life. Other than that, everyone seems okay with it. And someone shouldn't be dismissed for using that term.

Doctors and nurses who refer to an embryo or fetus as a baby are appealing to emotion, attempting to induce an emotional connection between a parent and future child (you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your embryo vs. you should stop smoking because it will affect the development of your child - which sounds more impactful). I'd be shocked if these doctors and nurses would dispute the fact that, technically, they are witnessing the development of an embryo, if asked.

In addition, conversations with professionals involve context. It would feel cold and callused to tell a new set of hopeful parents for them to hear that their embryo is developing adequately, because a medical professional is being sought after not just for a professional opinion, but also emotional guidance and nurturing through a new experience. A medical consultation between a pregnant woman and her doctor is not a scientific inquiry. The discussion about abortion is absolutely scientific inquiry, which should focus on logic over appeal to emotion.

I don't disagree. I still stand by my statement though that it is common usage and someone shouldn't be dismissed and considered uninformed because they refer to an embryo as a baby. People use common terms all the time that are not scientifically, or in other ways, accurate. When someone asks for a Kleenex, do you stop them and say "uhh, did you mean a tissue?" Or do you just give them a tissue?
Using the term "baby" to describe any level of development is common usage for many people, and doesn't reflect their knowledge, or lack of, the developmental process.

I admit, I was too harsh in my dismissal, I shouldn't let the rubes I encounter on Facebook tint the folks around here, that's not fair.