Actually, it about doubles in size in just the LAST few weeks. i was a very particpant father (as much as i can be) for all three of my children. i don't need a silly weblink for my information.
In no way am i saying pregnancy is a cake walk. i have the utmost respect for women after watching the gestation and birth of my three boys. No man alive could ever endure this.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Actually, it about doubles in size in just the LAST few weeks. i was a very particpant father (as much as i can be) for all three of my children. i don't need a silly weblink for my information.
In no way am i saying pregnancy is a cake walk. i have the utmost respect for women after watching the gestation and birth of my three boys. No man alive could ever endure this.
They also develop a layer of a waxy like substance around that time. In preperation for birth.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
According to the hitchhiker's guide to fetal development:
"By the end of the 7th month, the fetus weighs nearly 4 pounds and is about 16 to 17 inches long. One month later, it has grown to 18 inches and put on another 1 to 2 1/2 pounds. Much of this weight comes from a padding of fat, deposited just beneath the skin, that later helps to insulate the newborn child from changes in temperature."
It doesn't mention any growth in the 9th month. This is however, a general representation of fetal development. Each fetus is going to be different in some respects.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
And all I know about women is what I've heard from women, combined with actually being a woman, so it's a little ridiculous for a man to tell me what women are like. And it's beyond ridiculous for a man to tell me how a pregnant woman feels, since pregnancy is not fully comprehensible to someone who has never been pregnant.
And I agree, it is a shame that it happens at all.
Well don't get all feminist on me: I don't purport to know exactly how women feel about abortion. I'm happy being ignorant of the many feelings that women have on any number of topics.
Still, I was merely noting the fact that I know of women who feel a certain way regarding abortion. No woman has a monopoly on the abortion argument.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Well don't get all feminist on me: I don't purport to know exactly how women feel about abortion. I'm happy being ignorant of the many feelings that women have on any number of topics.
Still, I was merely noting the fact that I know of women who feel a certain way regarding abortion. No woman has a monopoly on the abortion argument.
Exactly! Which is why blanket rules and regulations that affect ALL women are a very bad idea.
I don't have any quarrel at all with anyone's personal opinions or feelings about abortion. My only issue is with those who would take their opinions and turn them into laws that determine what others can and can't do with their own bodies.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Exactly! Which is why blanket rules and regulations that affect ALL women are a very bad idea.
I don't have any quarrel at all with anyone's personal opinions or feelings about abortion. My only issue is with those who would take their opinions and turn them into laws that determine what others can and can't do with their own bodies.
Too many pro-choice people use this argument:
I know what's best for me and no one else can judge my choices with what I do with my own body.
This argument assumes objective moral truth does not exist and that ethical decisions can be right or wrong based on who makes them.
Assume that I am a pregnant woman who cannot afford to raise her child and my name is Nancy. Assume that you are a pregnant woman named Suzie and you cannot afford to raise your child. I decide to abort my child, while you do not. Some poor women decide to keep their children while some do not, as we all know.
We are both in the same situation and our ethical dilemma is the same, although we make different choices based on our own moral belief systems. You would probably argue that this is perfectly okay: having different moral belief systems is fine and what is right for me is not necessarily right for you even though we are in the same situation.
This is simply false, though. There is objective moral truth and what is right for one poor woman who cannot afford her child is right for all poor women who cannot afford children. Therefore, either all poor women who cannot afford their children should abort them or they should keep them. If some abort their children and some do not, this is only pervading the idea that babies can be aborted depending on how moral the person who made them is, which we cannot accept in a civil society.
Moral relativism is a philosophical belief that has been well-proven to be wrong.
In some cultures, it is okay to beat your wife. In ours, it is not. Based on moral relativism, one would be forced to argue that it is okay to beat your wife depending on where you live, which goes against common sense.
Pro-choice people would like to believe that some women can abort their children and others cannot and that there is no moral hypocrisy there, but this is completely false according to logic. Some women die so that their child will live, while some women kill their children so that they may live. Who was morally correct? Were the women who died so their child could live just plain stupid?
The moral hypocrisy present in the pro-choice argument is undeniable.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I know what's best for me and no one else can judge my choices with what I do with my own body.
This argument assumes objective moral truth does not exist and that ethical decisions can be right or wrong based on who makes them.
Assume that I am a pregnant woman who cannot afford to raise her child and my name is Nancy. Assume that you are a pregnant woman named Suzie and you cannot afford to raise your child. I decide to abort my child, while you do not. Some poor women decide to keep their children while some do not, as we all know.
We are both in the same situation and our ethical dilemma is the same, although we make different choices based on our own moral belief systems. You would probably argue that this is perfectly okay: having different moral belief systems is fine and what is right for me is not necessarily right for you even though we are in the same situation.
This is simply false, though. There is objective moral truth and what is right for one poor woman who cannot afford her child is right for all poor women who cannot afford children. Therefore, either all poor women who cannot afford their children should abort them or they should keep them. If some abort their children and some do not, this is only pervading the idea that babies can be aborted depending on how moral the person who made them is, which we cannot accept in a civil society.
Moral relativism is a philosophical belief that has been well-proven to be wrong.
In some cultures, it is okay to beat your wife. In ours, it is not. Based on moral relativism, one would be forced to argue that it is okay to beat your wife depending on where you live, which goes against common sense.
Pro-choice people would like to believe that some women can abort their children and others cannot and that there is no moral hypocrisy there, but this is completely false according to logic. Some women die so that their child will live, while some women kill their children so that they may live. Who was morally correct? Were the women who died so their child could live just plain stupid?
The moral hypocrisy present in the pro-choice argument is undeniable.
You are misunderstanding the entire basis for the debate. You are assuming that I accept your premise that an embryo at, say, 10 weeks of development, is in every way the same thing as a fully-formed human being. That is a premise that I completely reject. Therefore your objective rules about how "children" should be treated do not apply, unless you can prove to me by some objective standard that an embryo and a child are the same thing.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
You are misunderstanding the entire basis for the debate. You are assuming that I accept your premise that an embryo at, say, 10 weeks of development, is in every way the same thing as a fully-formed human being. That is a premise that I completely reject. Therefore your objective rules about how "children" should be treated do not apply, unless you can prove to me by some objective standard that an embryo and a child are the same thing.
No, my premise is that some women abort their fetuses and some do not. If one woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally wrong and the other woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally right, both of them cannot be right. One must be right all of the time and the other must be wrong all of the time, according to moral objectivism. Moral relativism is proven false.
With that said, you can sufficiently respond to the argument.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
You guys should argue about this more. Really, you should. You'll probably come to a solution that everyone can agree to. I mean, sure, people that have doctorates in genome development, evolution, and gynecology can't figure it out, but you guys have a shot. Seriously, talk this out.
No, my premise is that some women abort their fetuses and some do not. If one woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally wrong and the other woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally right, both of them cannot be right. One must be right all of the time and the other must be wrong all of the time, according to moral objectivism. Moral relativism is proven false.
With that said, you can sufficiently respond to the argument.
When you can explain to me why you think a fetus in the early stages of development is exactly the same as, and therefore entitled to be treated exactly the same as, a fully developed human being, then there may be something to discuss. Until then, it's not an issue of morality for me.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
You guys should argue about this more. Really, you should. You'll probably come to a solution that everyone can agree to. I mean, sure, people that have doctorates in genome development, evolution, and gynecology can't figure it out, but you guys have a shot. Seriously, talk this out.
Actually that's not true, the sciences include ethicians that screen procedures for ethics. They wouldn't abort anything unless it was voted as ethical. It works that way for things like stem-cell research as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When you can explain to me why you think a fetus in the early stages of development is exactly the same as, and therefore entitled to be treated exactly the same as, a fully developed human being, then there may be something to discuss. Until then, it's not an issue of morality for me.
That's just my point. You are saying that "it's not an issue of morality for me" but that is moral relativism and moral relativism is false. For some people, it IS an issue of morality. The fact that you believe it is not an issue of morality is still a moral judgment because you have determined that killing a fetus is "okay." Other people do not believe it is "okay." These are moral judgments.
It seems like you are purposely holding false beliefs to support your position. You must've learned that from George W. Bush.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Actually that's not true, the sciences include ethicians that screen procedures for ethics. They wouldn't abort anything unless it was voted as ethical. It works that way for things like stem-cell research as well.
I think people use the term "Fetus" as a broad term meaning anything from the stage of conception. We should really define the term. Because scientifically speaking, fetal stage is a number of weeks into pregnancy. I imagine most abortions would occur fairly soon after conception. When it's more like a blob of cellular matter. If you actually mean a fetus with a pumping heart and a functioning digestive system. Then that's debatable. I wonder how common that is though.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think people use the term "Fetus" as a broad term meaning anything from the stage of conception. We should really define the term. Because scientifically speaking, fetal stage is a number of weeks into pregnancy. I imagine most abortions would occur fairly soon after conception. When it's more like a blob of cellular matter. If you actually mean a fetus with a pumping heart and a functioning digestive system. Then that's debatable. I wonder how common that is though.
I usually define it as fetus/embryo/baby/human/grandma are all the same thing.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Of course there is. There are plenty of people in Texas that don't believe in capital punishment, but the state does it anyway. As long as the majority agrees, there isn't much else you can do.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I usually define it as fetus/embryo/baby/human/grandma are all the same thing.
Ok, what about a fertilized egg, two cells, 4 cells, 8 cells and a blastocyst?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think people use the term "Fetus" as a broad term meaning anything from the stage of conception. We should really define the term. Because scientifically speaking, fetal stage is a number of weeks into pregnancy. I imagine most abortions would occur fairly soon after conception. When it's more like a blob of cellular matter. If you actually mean a fetus with a pumping heart and a functioning digestive system. Then that's debatable. I wonder how common that is though.
Really, you think we should define that term? Are you sure? I mean you're not just saying that because the Supreme Court of the US has been trying to define it since Roe vs. Wade? Not because it's usually the most heated arguement in every conservative election? You're a fucking genius. You grip on the obvious is undeniable.
No, my premise is that some women abort their fetuses and some do not. If one woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally wrong and the other woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally right, both of them cannot be right. One must be right all of the time and the other must be wrong all of the time, according to moral objectivism. Moral relativism is proven false.
With that said, you can sufficiently respond to the argument.
so the woman who things abortion is morally wrong is wrong. but that does not mean we ought to force her to have an abortion.
Really, you think we should define that term? Are you sure? I mean you're not just saying that because the Supreme Court of the US has been trying to define it since Roe vs. Wade? Not because it's usually the most heated arguement in every conservative election? You're a fucking genius. You grip on the obvious is undeniable.
Courts have an interesting way of dragging things out. It would be a lot easier to use the clinical definition.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Of course there is. There are plenty of people in Texas that don't believe in capital punishment, but the state does it anyway. As long as the majority agrees, there isn't much else you can do.
In what world does that constitute an answer. That's a bunch of sounding smart and saying nothing. To paraphrase Ice-T.
In what world does that constitute an answer. That's a bunch of sounding smart and saying nothing. To paraphrase Ice-T.
You can't please everyone.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Actually, it about doubles in size in just the LAST few weeks. i was a very particpant father (as much as i can be) for all three of my children. i don't need a silly weblink for my information.
In no way am i saying pregnancy is a cake walk. i have the utmost respect for women after watching the gestation and birth of my three boys. No man alive could ever endure this.
They also develop a layer of a waxy like substance around that time. In preperation for birth.
"By the end of the 7th month, the fetus weighs nearly 4 pounds and is about 16 to 17 inches long. One month later, it has grown to 18 inches and put on another 1 to 2 1/2 pounds. Much of this weight comes from a padding of fat, deposited just beneath the skin, that later helps to insulate the newborn child from changes in temperature."
It doesn't mention any growth in the 9th month. This is however, a general representation of fetal development. Each fetus is going to be different in some respects.
Well don't get all feminist on me: I don't purport to know exactly how women feel about abortion. I'm happy being ignorant of the many feelings that women have on any number of topics.
Still, I was merely noting the fact that I know of women who feel a certain way regarding abortion. No woman has a monopoly on the abortion argument.
-Enoch Powell
I don't have any quarrel at all with anyone's personal opinions or feelings about abortion. My only issue is with those who would take their opinions and turn them into laws that determine what others can and can't do with their own bodies.
Too many pro-choice people use this argument:
I know what's best for me and no one else can judge my choices with what I do with my own body.
This argument assumes objective moral truth does not exist and that ethical decisions can be right or wrong based on who makes them.
Assume that I am a pregnant woman who cannot afford to raise her child and my name is Nancy. Assume that you are a pregnant woman named Suzie and you cannot afford to raise your child. I decide to abort my child, while you do not. Some poor women decide to keep their children while some do not, as we all know.
We are both in the same situation and our ethical dilemma is the same, although we make different choices based on our own moral belief systems. You would probably argue that this is perfectly okay: having different moral belief systems is fine and what is right for me is not necessarily right for you even though we are in the same situation.
This is simply false, though. There is objective moral truth and what is right for one poor woman who cannot afford her child is right for all poor women who cannot afford children. Therefore, either all poor women who cannot afford their children should abort them or they should keep them. If some abort their children and some do not, this is only pervading the idea that babies can be aborted depending on how moral the person who made them is, which we cannot accept in a civil society.
Moral relativism is a philosophical belief that has been well-proven to be wrong.
In some cultures, it is okay to beat your wife. In ours, it is not. Based on moral relativism, one would be forced to argue that it is okay to beat your wife depending on where you live, which goes against common sense.
Pro-choice people would like to believe that some women can abort their children and others cannot and that there is no moral hypocrisy there, but this is completely false according to logic. Some women die so that their child will live, while some women kill their children so that they may live. Who was morally correct? Were the women who died so their child could live just plain stupid?
The moral hypocrisy present in the pro-choice argument is undeniable.
-Enoch Powell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism#The_divine_and_reason
-Enoch Powell
No, my premise is that some women abort their fetuses and some do not. If one woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally wrong and the other woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally right, both of them cannot be right. One must be right all of the time and the other must be wrong all of the time, according to moral objectivism. Moral relativism is proven false.
With that said, you can sufficiently respond to the argument.
-Enoch Powell
Actually that's not true, the sciences include ethicians that screen procedures for ethics. They wouldn't abort anything unless it was voted as ethical. It works that way for things like stem-cell research as well.
That's just my point. You are saying that "it's not an issue of morality for me" but that is moral relativism and moral relativism is false. For some people, it IS an issue of morality. The fact that you believe it is not an issue of morality is still a moral judgment because you have determined that killing a fetus is "okay." Other people do not believe it is "okay." These are moral judgments.
It seems like you are purposely holding false beliefs to support your position. You must've learned that from George W. Bush.
-Enoch Powell
The point is there is no answer dipshit.
I usually define it as fetus/embryo/baby/human/grandma are all the same thing.
-Enoch Powell
Of course there is. There are plenty of people in Texas that don't believe in capital punishment, but the state does it anyway. As long as the majority agrees, there isn't much else you can do.
Ok, what about a fertilized egg, two cells, 4 cells, 8 cells and a blastocyst?
Really, you think we should define that term? Are you sure? I mean you're not just saying that because the Supreme Court of the US has been trying to define it since Roe vs. Wade? Not because it's usually the most heated arguement in every conservative election? You're a fucking genius. You grip on the obvious is undeniable.
so the woman who things abortion is morally wrong is wrong. but that does not mean we ought to force her to have an abortion.
Courts have an interesting way of dragging things out. It would be a lot easier to use the clinical definition.
Actually, the opposite is true.
In what world does that constitute an answer. That's a bunch of sounding smart and saying nothing. To paraphrase Ice-T.
Why? It's the morally right thing to do! Are you saying society shouldn't attempt to maximize the moral outcomes of its people?
-Enoch Powell
"Walking tightrope high, over moral ground,
Having visions of, falling up somehow."
You can't please everyone.
Not if it means resulting to the immoral, no.
Wait, are you telling me that by doing the morally right thing, it can result in an immoral thing?
Ha! Paradoxical!
-Enoch Powell
It probably would be if you could define 'moral'.