Just after conception the life-form is called a zygote. While migrating down the woman's Fallopian tube to her uterus, it is named a morula, and from days five to 12 post-conception, a blastocyst. The blastocyst implants in the nutrient-rich lining of the mother's uterus. From day 12 through week six, this being is termed an embryo. From week seven until birth, it is named a fetus.
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Just after conception the life-form is called a zygote. While migrating down the woman's Fallopian tube to her uterus, it is named a morula, and from days five to 12 post-conception, a blastocyst. The blastocyst implants in the nutrient-rich lining of the mother's uterus. From day 12 through week six, this being is termed an embryo. From week seven until birth, it is named a fetus.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Because pro-lifer's are the one de-funding those programs such as Planned Parenthood that actually lowers the abortion rate?
Devolution
Member
It's not murky. It's only murky if people are deciding that a baby is one before it's born.
Who do you think? The government does.
CrushDance
Banned
I read the thread title and burst out laughing. Holy shit!
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
It is quite depressing. :/ I can see I'm going to have to have another cupcake.
As for the birthing center, well, women used to have to do it without any aid at all really, so there's that, but if she went there to keep costs down, then this is extra depressing. Even moving a couple of days after you've dropped a bowling ball from your
hooha
Ya, but people are going to do crack and I don't want that legal.
Devolution
Member
No it's not. It's called a fetus until birth.
But it can answer the question about when something becomes a human being.
Freezie KO
Banned
That some pro-lifers support de-funding those programs still doesn't excuse the red herring of social programs or, as earlier posters said, "what about war killing babies?"
I'm pro-choice. Very pro-choice. But a lot of these arguments are terribly illogical.
I do.
What do you want to do about the additional babies being born to poor mothers that can't, won't or dont want to take care of them?
Is a fetus human life or not?
Better adoption programs?
Another massive irony that the Christian pro-lifers fail to see is that when they start taking in weeks, it mean they are completely OK with human designed medical procedure and pre-natal medical science to allow pre-term foetuses to live.
Surely if they are against playing God, the only true birth would be a natural birth. Even c-sections should be on their shit list.
Surely if they are against playing God, the only true birth would be a natural birth. Even c-sections should be on their shit list.
Devolution
Member
That's not what he was asking. He was asking scientifically. Science is not morality. A fetus isn't a fucking baby till it is born.
This strikes me as absolutely correct. If we could establish, for example, that a 1 day old fetus really is a human being, then of course women dont have a "choice" to kill the baby any more than I have a "choice" to kill any human. In other words, the right to life outweighs the right to choice. Of course, exceptions would need to be made when the baby could kill the mother; then it is a choice between one life or the other, and that changes the calculus completely.
The question should be whether that baby is a human, and at what stage this occurs. Virtually all arguments Ive seen which suggest early or even mid term pregnancies are human beings rely on religious arguments, which are obviously unacceptable. You need to make the argument without invoking religion to be credible. This is why I am pro choice.
Yeah I don't get it, my wife needed all kinds of care, as did the baby after the birth. I know that she was a c-section but still. 3 hours and out? That just seems unsafe.
ErasureAcer
Banned
How will Romney wiggle out of this one?
Well here's your options:
Keep abortions legal : Women get safe abortions. Fetus dies, mother remains healthy.
Ban abortions : Women get illegal unsafe abortions. Fetus dies, mother at high risk of death.
Like I referenced before, the legality of abortion has never had any bearing on the rate of abortions in a nation. So banning it would only serve to increase the risk towards the mothers that choose to do it.
Dude, you can't just conjure crack out of nowhere. By making it illegal you make the supply very low, so many people can't just do crack. I mean they can, but it's not as easy to find. By making abortions illegal people will do some crazy shit to themselves to terminate the pregnancy. There's no supply you are limiting. You're just limiting it being done in a safe environment. A lot of the countries that outlaw abortion have way higher rates than those that do not.
That's really murky. A 42 week "fetus" is more baby than my 39 week delivered daughter. lol
Medically speaking anything above 36 weeks is considered "safe" to deliver. But I doubt women are having abortions that late. In fact I doubt anyone would even do it unless life threatening. I could be wrong though.
Freezie KO
Banned
Only if you think there's some magic line between human and not-human that a fetus magically hops across as it nears the end of a race.
"Human being" is a semantic, human-invented term. The fetus undergoes a gradual process, acquiring more and more traits of that of a fully-formed human. Not everything in reality conforms to the terms we use for ease-of-explanation.
SouthernDragon
Member
...
Births cost 5k?
What the blue hell?
Births cost 5k?
What the blue hell?
Devolution
Member
Longer gestation periods don't invalidate the definition.
More than that if you don't have health coverage.
Then I reject the definition. It's bogus and unscientific.
You're logic is flawed. I don't think people have a problem with the procedures and medical science. This debate really comes down to when does life begin and how you define it thereafter. Your statement isn't ironic so much that it's irrelevant.
I think it's a fine assumption, but (I can only speak through my experience) there are people who don't even know how to open a condom. When you tack on poor general education as well, the assumption that they should know by now doesn't really work, what they seem to know is that sex feels good, I can get someone pregnant, condoms suck and I have the option for an abortion.
Devolution
Member
If it's still inside the mother it's a fetus. Your longer gestation period doesn't disqualify the definition.
Freezie KO
Banned
That question may be unanswerable. It assumes some sort of magic line between human and not-human.
"Human" is an invented term. A fetus clearly has the DNA of a human, yet very gradually acquires traits, such as the ability to feel and a beating heart.
We're playing semantics to make ourselves feel better about our morality. Maybe the fetus is a human, but it's just better policy to acknowledge it as a human-fetus that can be aborted. People don't want to hear that though.
it is scientific. it's a parasite living inside the woman's body until the fetus is born into a human being capable of living on their own without the mother's body providing everything to the fetus.
The answer to that question is another question:
When does a foetus gain a soul?
And the answer to that question is:
Never. There is no such thing a s soul.
So now we've rules out a magical moment when a bunch of cells becomes a human being, we can look at it scientifically. And the question when looked at it scientifically again changes to:
When does a foetus become a baby?
And the answer to this is:
When it is born and lives.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
I'm Pro-Choice, you can't force anyone to make the call on someone's body
Next thing it will be the obese, then smokers, then gays all over again
Next thing it will be the obese, then smokers, then gays all over again
Dude, it's still a fucking fetus if it's in the mother. It just has different viability, depending on the situation and health.
I kind of think that this may be a good idea. Sort of like a draft or conscription, namely for blood and plasma or other necessary bodily products that are super low risk to remove.
Devolution
Member
Not sort of, it's the whole fucking point. Who the fuck wants to give birth to a child they aren't fiscally, emotionally, or physically ready for even if they've taken all the necessary precautions? Especially if they can look forward to debt, crappy health care and slashed social programs. I need to leave this discussion before I flip a fucking shit.
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
I do think this argument would go very differently if men were in the position of being told what they could or couldn't do with their bodies.
not psycho
Member
If you cause a car accident in which you are ok but someone else gets hurt, your organs are forcibly harvested and given to them.
The only real difference here is that a fetus is not a person, and that I was lying in the first sentence above.
He will initially support it, then denounce it, possibly in the same sentence.
An embryo or a fetus is scientifically human. What it isn't is a person, and you don't really need science to know this.
The reason the line is murky is because in many ways it's defined by currently available technology and the social expectations surrounding its application. Before modern medicine, sanitation, and nutrition dropped infant mortality rates to current levels, the 'line' could easily be several months after the birth.
There was a Daily Show (or Colbert Report) interview with one of the politicians pushing one of these personhood things that flipped the question on him like this, and he was like "Of course I wouldn't be ok with someone telling me what to do with my body." He didn't get it at all.
TBH, i don't think the males would allow anyone to make rules about what we can and cannot do with our bodies. not unless there are women in charge of a majority of the political institutions.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Also, pro-life is a misnomer. Anti-choice is far more accurate.
Scientifically a fetus is not a baby, it is the development of a human being but in that time of development it crosses two barrier. One is that the fetus no longer can be used for embryonic stem cells, around the 14th day. This is a designation by an embryonic research group..The second is that the fetus can not twin, which is also around the 14th day.
This is when potential becomes human potential. Destroying human potential after this point, is up for the woman to decide.
I know. The 'sort of' was facetious. That was the entire point of the post I made and then drew his attention to. His comment that "I love (hate) how this always turns into an argument about social programs" is hilarious and woefully ignorant because you cannot separate the two. It is one topic.
It may have a benefit to society at the expense of personal freedom.
Abortion disposes of personal freedom with a net negative to society.
- Status