next »

[ronkny]

I call Red Herring.

First, the cancer cell has DNA also.  If I were clever, I might be able to clone a human from it.

Also, it's generally accepted that abortion after the first trimester (i.e. 12 weeks) is not covered under Roe v. Wade.  In fact, most abortions occur during this period (first trimester).  Abortions like Partial Birth, etc. are extremely rare and only performed when the fetus is not viable and is a danger to the mother.

The most common form of abortion is Dilatation and Curetage (D and C).  It is intended to remove a blastocyst or other large lump as opposed to cutting somebody out, grabbing a fully formed baby, and drowning it in a pot of water (which is what all of you seem to think it is).

So abortion , if a D&C is used, is vaginalpenetration.  Just like a vaginal ultrasound.  What's the argument?
It's not a blastocyst (only 150 cells up to day 5) once it's implanted.  Now it's an embryo.

[sly fox]

So abortion , if a D&C is used, is vaginalpenetration.  Just like a vaginal ultrasound.  What's the argument? . . .

are you for real 

further answer is not necessary for those with intelligence to see the facts of day

[ddickerson]

So we should make removing a cancer tumor a crime.

So, your point is that a fetus is no different than a tumor. Right?

However, if a cancer tumor is left to its own devices, it will eventually kill the host, and never produces a human baby. Never. Zilch.

But, a fetus, if left to its own devices (not aborted or miscarried), will not kill the host* and does produce a human baby. Yet, you see no difference between the two. 

(*for the sake of argument, just talking about the normal progression as opposed to the 0.001% abnormal condition, where the unborn baby can kill the host.)

[ronkny]

are you for real 

further answer is not necessary for those with intelligence to see the facts of day

So the abortion is ok but not the ultrasound?  Do you have enough intelligence to comprehend?

[BGuttman]

...
But, a fetus, if left to its own devices (not aborted or miscarried), will not kill the host* and does produce a human baby. Yet, you see no difference between the two. 
...

I do see a difference between the two.  I also see a difference between a fetus in a member of my family and a fetus in some woman I wouldn't know if I ran over her with my car.

I can understand wanting to deal with the family member.  I don't believe I have any legal standing dictating my views to the stranger.  And neither do you.

[sly fox]

So the abortion is ok but not the ultrasound?  Do you have enough intelligence to comprehend?

yes, under current law, an abortion in the first trimester is "okay" to use your term, I would say, "legal" instead of "okay", and none of my business

the ultrasound ordered by the state before a woman can exercise her right to choose an abortion during the first trimester, if the proposal became state law , would not be "okay" as it is in direct contradiction of the existing rights of the woman under the current interpretation of the US Constitution.

can you comprehend that?

[ronkny]

I do see a difference between the two.  I also see a difference between a fetus in a member of my family and a fetus in some woman I wouldn't know if I ran over her with my car.

I can understand wanting to deal with the family member.  I don't believe I have any legal standing dictating my views to the stranger.  And neither do you.

The woman should be advised of what is going to happen to her and the baby and how it happens.  Just like with any other medical procedure.

[ronkny]

yes, under current law, an abortion in the first trimester is "okay" to use your term, I would say, "legal" instead of "okay", and none of my business

the ultrasound ordered by the state before a woman can exercise her right to choose an abortion during the first trimester, if the proposal became state law , would not be "okay" as it is in direct contradiction of the existing rights of the woman under the current interpretation of the US Constitution.

can you comprehend that?

You missed the point, again.  The issue that Russ has a problem with is penetration of a vaginal ultrasound.  However to do an abortion you may need a D&C.  (dilation and curettage) of which I have seen around 30-50.  That requires penetration of the curette after dilation of the cervix which is past the opening of the vagina.

[Baron von Bone]

I call Red Herring.

Better to just cut to the chase and call selectively regressed infant mind (i.e. blatant intellectual dishonesty).

[sly fox]

You missed the point, again.  The issue that Russ has a problem with is penetration of a vaginal ultrasound. . . .

I, for one, am wise enough to let Russ speak for himself.  He is quite capable of expressing his opinion

do you have pegged it correctly?

time may tell.

[ronkny]

I, for one, am wise enough to let Russ speak for himself.  He is quite capable of expressing his opinion

do you have pegged it correctly?

time may tell.

Quote from Russ
"
Small government, my ass!!! Virginia is on the verge of passing a law which requires a woman seeking to exercise her rights under the constitution to be forcefully vaginally pentrated before she can access reproductive health care. " 

[ronkny]

Better to just cut to the chase and call selectively regressed infant mind (i.e. blatant intellectual dishonesty).

Don't you have something to do?  Didn't I suggest something for you to do?

[BGuttman]

Don't you have something to do?  Didn't I suggest something for you to do?

I think he was talking about visiting a dental clinic near Seattle and extracting all the teeth of the proprietor without any anesthesia

[Baron von Bone]

I think he was talking about visiting a dental clinic near Seattle and extracting all the teeth of the proprietor without any anesthesia

Wouldn't want to dissuade him from exposing the true colors of the Wingnut set, actually ... though I'm not sure there's any point to that, since almost no one seems to accept the painfully obvious implications for some reason.

[ronkny]

Wouldn't want to dissuade him from exposing the true colors of the Wingnut set, actually ... though I'm not sure there's any point to that, since almost no one seems to accept the painfully obvious implications for some reason.

Translation;
"Uh blah blah blah.  Blahblahblah.  Blah!"

[ronkny]

I think he was talking about visiting a dental clinic near Seattle and extracting all the teeth of the proprietor without any anesthesia

I'd look forward to that.  Seriously. 

[Russ White]

This is the equivalent to the State of Washington requiring that before you  replace a cap in a patients mouth, you first  do a pocket reduction on every tooth. whether the patient needs it or agrees to let you do it.

[RedHotMama]

I thought you were a scientist? 

Yep. This is nothing whatsoever to do with science.

So women are to think of the baby in their belly as a blob?  Makes it easier to dispose of? Like a bad piece of meat in the frig.  Nice.

That's exactly what it is. Up until that group of cells can survive by itself outside the woman's body, it is simply part of her body. The body itself may decide to dispose of it. Only the advance of medical facilities has enabled extremely premature babies to survive and, unfortunately, can also ensure the survival of premature babies which, having had insufficient time in the womb, will never become viable human beings. You can even enable the survival, if only temporarily, of babies which have developed without brains. Revolting.

Human beings have no particular right to survive. They are just animals which, in many parts of the world, are dispatched by other animals (often their neighbours) with no care or thought whatsoever. Indeed, many Americans will blast away at their neighbours and feel themselves completely justified in doing so, and are also happy to see them disposed of by the prison system or in wars, or to let them die because they can't afford medical care. There are far too many human beings in the world anyway, so why so much fuss about a few unwanted blobs of tissue?

And what has ANY of this to do with whether things can be stuffed up inside a woman with no medical justification for the procedure?

[Russ White]

babies which have developed without brains.

They're called Republicans (Sorry, that was just too big a softball not to take a swing at!), or. at least, that blue collar, less than high-school diploma wing of the party that votes Republican, anyway!

[ddickerson]

They're called Republicans (Sorry, that was just too big a softball not to take a swing at

Yeah, but you missed!