The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker

I think you could make an excellent argument that a newborn hasn't reached "personhood" either. As an example:

At about four months or five months, you may notice that your baby starts to become more aware that she is a separate person. She will want to communicate and feel close to you and will respond readily to your voice, smiles, and chatter.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a6577/developmental-milestones-separation-and-independence#ixzz39kNoLC78

seems like an unreasonable way to decide whether or not someone should be killed.

 

I strongly disagree. I believe you are distorting the entire discussion to suit your perspective. I laid out personhood at the extremely low bar of an EEG. Now you are creating a new bar as if that were the only metric discussed in this thread. There is also the matter of something being inside another being and affecting their health and well-being. Once that isn't the case, the now baby can be cared for by anyone.

 

you laid it out as an ekg, but aren't willing to admit we should ban abortions past 25 weeks.

 

I can respect this opinion. I don't share it, but it's logical. The potential for a human person is enough to me. I can't relate so closely to those who think gametes are sacred. Eggs and sperm are extensions of one's own body in my opinion. Once you have a zygote, it becomes something else. I say something because it's not a person yet, but given implantation and no other problems, it will be and deserves to be allowed life.

I came to this opinion sometime during micro or vertebrate physiology or some other such class back years ago. There's actually no religion in it directly.

 

Give me a ****ing break.

 

Agreed; it is not always about religion. For many it is about their desire to control women.

 

Yep. You caught us.

 

I think this thread has reached the lowest point in its 500+ post lifespan. Congrats.

 

The first step to fix a problem is to acknowledge it. I want you to know that I am proud of you and am here to support you.

 

You have it backwards. I am saying it isn't even a debate before then.

"admit." What a asinine word choice.

 

I'm a feminist, moron.

 

Name calling, sweet.

 

Then why are you trying to control women? Seems to be an oxymoron. Aren't you conflicted? I will still support you as you try to find you way.

 

Because the insinuations that go along with posting that picture isn't the same damn thing. Right. Now who's being sanctimonious?

It has nothing to do with controlling the woman, at least in my mind. My opinion wouldn't waiver in the least if men were the carriers of children. You're pulling this out of your ass. Show me a post by myself, Norris, or Droski in this thread that shows this has anything to do with us just wanting to control women. I'll hang up and listen.

 

The prosecution rest.

 

I can't tell if you are/were being serious or not.

The sartalics can't get here fast enough.

 

When you espoused the opinion that women do not have full custody of their bodies. Don't call back.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. Nothing whatsoever.

 

And who made you the person who gets to decide where the debate ends?


Btw you owe someone $40

 

And here I thought you hung up. Awkward.

Okay, so you don't believe anyone has full custody of their own bodies. Got it. No liberty for all. Inspiring.