rat mothers

Are you saying it's ok to live like rat's?

I don't think so. The issues schraf presented really have little to do with using abortion as birth control. In every instance the rat actually gives birth and then makes a decision from there on what would be best for her survival, and the babies survival.Most of those decisions cannot relate to us, because we have many methods of feeding children, and protecting them from snakes.

Hey whats the difference anyway?

We are talking about rats.

I meant whats the difference between killing an infant, or killing a fetus?

What specifically is the difference between an umbilical cord, and a nursing mother?Are you saying just because the baby is in air, that it can survive on it's own?Woman are not invisible to me, they are the crown of creation.

In what sense?In regards to all living things, there is no difference.(warning the above statement is garaunteed to be taken out of context!!)

Oh crap, I guess all those neo-natal wards I helped build were all for nothing. I don't belong to any particular groups, so I could care less about right-to-life.

If you agree with me, then end the thread.

Let the confusion begin, and the out of context spam wars commence!!!That is not what I said Your like only smart when you want to be?

No, brenna, you know what is really dishonest?They way people around here who claim to be so smart, and know so much about the world, and science (chuckle) and can't even manage to keep the context in which something was said, in context.Then to have someone who has nothing to even do with it, come along and join the parade. I am getting a little sick of it.This whole thread was started on that premise. Schraf took something I said, and the spirit in which I said it, and turn it around, and tried to make me, or what I said look foolish.Then you came along and joined her.The boiling point of water is 212F right? Always right? Given the same conditions. If I don't say it the right way, then it is wrong."A rat's fetus is just as precious to a rat, as a human fetus is to a mother."
This obviously means the same thing right?
"You said that rat mothers feel similarly about their offspring as humans do."Of course not, she changed the meaning to support her side of the arguement. So she could continue to contort the whole thing.How many times has schraf corrected me for calling a fetus a zygote?So since when is a fetus an offspring?Not only that, but the relationship between a rat's fetus, and a human's fetus is almost exactly the same. The only difference is the reasoning us humans do. It's subjective reasoning, and there is no scientific validation for it.Let's rewind the tape, and examine why I said that.It was said because of the picture posted by crash
EvC Forum: anti-abortion folks still get abortions
another attempt at bringing the subject off-topic and out of context.He tried to trick me by showing a rat's fetus, while making appear to be a humans, because of the comparison he was making.To me it made no difference once the truth was told to me, because of the point I was making. So in the spirit, and the context of my train of thought, it made no difference who's fetus he posted. It still doesn't.What I am finding is that the arguement for abortion is extremely inconsistent, and lead by a parade of hypocrites. People only compare apples to apples when it suits their side of the arguement.I would really love to get along with both of you, schraf and brenna.I've taken some leadership courses, and in one of them, I read a book called clear leadership. It talks about the truth of your experience. Many large companys fall to their kness on the inability to communicate this truth to one another.Taking things out of context is that whole process in action. When someone writes somthing in a forum, it can have several meanings sometimes. Instead of picking the one you think it is, why not try to get a clearer answer on what was meant first, then go from there.That would be intelligent conversation in my book.

The context of my point had nothing to do with that. There are just as many with medical expertise that would vote for abortion, as there is against.The decision is not purely medical.You just admited that by stating that you want abortion because you do not want to further the poputlation. That is not a medical decision, but a personal one that plays games with life. So your options are:
1 do have intercourse
2 use protection, and take a risk
3 get your tubes tied
or
4 get an abortion, since it is currently legal. I am against this, as the first 3 should be enough.I can't see the justification, of destroying human life, just because some girl wants a thing between her legs, or some guy wants to his wet. This is not a "right" to me.This is what I learned from my experience with it.Wouldn't you agree that the decisions we make about abortion are a subjective one, not an objective one?

Right, so it's not a medical decision, like I said. I was told my operation would eventually be permanet. ???? Oh right, woman are unimportant, I forgot. Yea, but somehow your view made it become legal. If our views hold equal validity, then why is your view legal?Clearly it is playing games with life, just to get laid. Yes you do. I am pretty sure that every form of over the counter birth control, and ones prescribed also do not come with a 100% garuntee. So it's always a risk. You want to use abortion as birth control, which to me is the worst form of abortion. That's right punish your boyfriend with abortion, that'll show him. Besides it is 100% his right? To me, this is a good reason to have an abortion. This assumes you have a right to intercourse.If I put a boiler in incorrectly, I will have to go back and fix it. The law does not allow me to go back and uninstall it, and give the customer their money back.Having intercourse is like signing a contract agreement. OMG, intercourse is sounding worse, and worse.Are you describing your situation, or the whole worlds?
Because you did mention that the decision was a subjective one, but you turn it into a subjective one, by speaking for everyone else. This is where you are wrong.Maybe we shouldn't even know these women are alive.shhhh! I have a life in my uterus, don't tell anyone so I can dispose of it. I find that line of thinking a bit on the sick side. And we should legalize heroin, to prevent people form getting bad stuff.We should also legalize murder, so that nothing happens to the murderer, we don't want them getting hurt now, do we?That is an illogical train of thought, or reasoning why abortion should be legal. By your own definition, it is not a medical decision.You don't need a doctor to tell you are poor, and do not want to further the population.Exactly, but life is life.

The discussion from the other thread, from before crash posted his pictures, and the point I was trying to make was that, there is no fundemental difference between a fetus, and a born child, in regards that they both rely on an outside source for survival.This is a point that has been argued to me on this forum. That a zygote, or a fetus, is not life, because it cannot survive on it's own. Well neither can a born infant.The word offspring is clearly different than fetus. Offspring, as I read it in the dictionary refers to something that is already born. Fetus is not. So in this discussion we shouldn't be confusing the 2, and bluring definitions.

Yes, I do have an opinion. I am convinced your right now.... Maybe if you spent a little more time with him, to find out if his seed is wrecthed or not, you wouldn't have to worry so much about it. And there are things that can happen as a result. I guess that's where the expression right-to-life came from. It's killing life.
Life you started from selfish needs. SO is cutting you head off for a headache.I think you should give up on the medical procedure BS. By your own definition it is a moral decision first. I hate tradition, God has nothing to do with it, and f@#k James Dobson.