raindog, you ARE aware that many fertilized eggs do NOT implant and are simply flushed out of the body, right?
Incorrect. As has been pointed out in numerous threads, a large percentage of fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterine wall. A further 10% are lost to miscarriage.
It would appear you are trying to build a case which states that “pregnancy happens easily and a baby will occur 40 weeks later without complications except from extrernal sources.” This is an incredibly inaccurate assessment.
I think this is the crux of your post, so I’ll just quote that, if you don’t mind. 
I myself would say that the foetus is nourished passively for the most part, but as cravings show, sometimes that passive drain of resources can become as active a demand on the mother as anyone would have when very thirsty, hungry, etc. Should that mother ignore this “above and beyond” appetite, the foetus will become malnourished. Now, that isn’t to say it will die - it may simply become maimed or be smaller for it’s age - but nevertheless, cells which should be grown are not, because of a withdrawal of an active outside source.
You seem to be starting from the position that the increased food intake of a mother is “natural” - that it is included in the “normal passage of what occurs”. This isn’t so. A normal person eats a certain amount. When pregnant, they eat more, to nourish the foetus. The eating more is the change, not the starving of the baby. The mother goes out of their way and performs an outside (to the foetus) action in order for it to create new cells. Again, I don’t see how this is any different from the sperm/egg fertilization.
Ok, Raindog , I note once again you’ve failed to respond, coward that you are. Even if we grant that a fetus is a “human life”, why should we care ? A fetus is a mindless collection of tissue, no matter what you call it. All you do by calling it human is devalue the word “human”.
The raindog, I’ll echo what Maureen said about carrying a child to term not being as easy and automatic as you make it out to be. We had a family friend who had a history of miscarriages. In order to carry her twin daughters to term, or at least long enough for them to survive outside the womb, I’m told she had to spend her last three months of pregnancy on total bed rest, meaning the only time she was allowed out of bed was to use the bathroom. She put up with this because she desperately wanted to be a mother. Without people to bring her food, etc., given her past history, she would have miscarried.
It’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be.
CJ
Viability. No religious views at all.
A woman is not an egg incubator though. Yes she may have put herself in the position where an egg became fertilised but that does not mean the egg becomes ruler of the universe.
For the record, I have been pregnant 3 times. I have one child, a lovely boy. I have had two abortions, one at age 20 and the other at 37. I don’t for a minute regret either. I didn’t for a minute consider them people. One abortion was done at 6 weeks the other at 16.
Though history may have meant that once a woman was up the duff her fate was sealed, happily that is no longer true. IF my religion saw abortion as a crime against god then I wouldn’t have had one. BUT I HAVE NO RELIGION! Anyone that believes abortion is wrong has one choice…Don’t have one!
Please don’t impose your religion on me or my body.
Certainly the fetus is human. What do you suppose he is? An ostrich? A toaster? He’s human by definition. If you’re really trying to define “personhood,” then stick to terms like that. Saying a fetus isn’t human is a non-starter.
A fetus at earliest stages is identical to a temporarily brain-dead adult. He is an individual, with a unique and linear identity that has existed since conception made him a separate human being (albeit one temporarily dependent upon another’s body), temporarily without the capacity for thought, but only temporarily. They are both “blobs of human tissue” in exactly the same sense with regard to their mental capacity. Both have (at certain points) no capacity for thought. Both in time will.
BTW, bub, I’d suggest you refer to Occam’s Razor in assessing a lack of response to your posts in the future. Cowardice probably doesn’t enter into it. The fact that you’re a deliberate provocateur for the sake of provocation, a childish flinger of vacuous pseudo-intellectual poo, is the principal reason most people won’t respond to your nonsense.
Identical in the sense I go on to clarify. I’m not suggesting there aren’t other differences superficial to the “mental capacity” analogy. My sentence was not as clear as it should have been.
Why is this hypothetical fetus always a he?
CMC fnord
No, You did not say “a” human life, but you do say human life. There is no shape of a human in the early stages of pregnancy,It may contain human life like a man’s sperm does but it has not yet developed into a human being. The clump of cells contain human life,just as your sperm does not contain the life of a fish. A pollenated apple blossom or a fertile egg is not an apple or a chicken, and you wouldn’t go to a restautant and ask for a scrambled chicken. Time and circumstance decides it’s developement into what it will become.
Monavis
,
As post script I notice you said it will develope into a baby.“will” is the key word.
Monavis
Actually, I’d argue that instead of “will” it should be “may” or “is likely to” if the fertilized egg impants in the uterus and no miscarriage occurs.
By the way, the raindog, in the process of invitro fertilization, several eggs are fertilized and even allowed to divide a few times. Not all of these eggs are implanted. Of those that are implanted, not all develop successfully. In the US, we’ve had cases where all of the eggs which were implanted continue to develop, resulting in cases where a woman finds herself giving birth prematurely to 6 or 7 children; we’ve also had at least one case where a divorcing couple has sued over the fate of their frozen, unimplanted embryos. Most of the unimplanted ones, I gather will be destroyed or frozen until someone decides their fate. While I’ve heard of moves to adopt and implant them from some pro-lifers, it’s still pretty murky. the raindog, what’s your take on this as it applies to abortion? Are these people, in the process of taking extraordinary measures to give birth to one baby killing others? Do you put them in the same class as a woman who has an abortion because of a one night stand or a broken condom?
I sometimes wish things were as simple as the pro-life movement makes them out to be, but the world I see out my window is messy and complicated and must be coped with as it is, not as I want it to be.
CJ
That’s the convention I was always taught in English class, actually–that a generic person should be limited to a singular pronoun, and “he” is the default. I believe William Strunk himself was an advocate of avoiding the clunky “he or she” convention. This is especially true in a thread like this where it serves to distinguish the fetus from the mother. No hidden message intended.
DerTrihs
I don’t know how to say this in a way that doesn’t look like I’m flaming you, but I sincerely do not mean to. This is constructive, albeit blunt, criticism.
I long ago gave up on your posts, and don’t even waste time on them. When I did, I occasionally saw something that made sense. (note: made sense; not that I would agree. I can’t ever remembering agreeing with something you’ve said. But you may have noticed the only people I talk to are people I don’t agree with.)
I don’t know how many other posters, if any, feel as I do. But I’ve long ago tired with ‘Pro-Lifers hate woman and want to see them die slow deaths in back alley abortions while being eaten alive by jackals’ and ‘George Bush only wants to start WWIII so he can use nuclear bombs on Canada’ type posts.
Dude, that gets so* tiring.* I’ve wondered if it was a maturity, or intelligence issue, or you just like trolling. I suspect you may have some interesting things to say, but if you garnish your posts with abject idiocy, don’t be surprised if people ignore you.
Develop a pattern of sensible posts why don’t ya? In the meantime, I’ll gladly wear the mantle "DerTrihs’s Coward"
Huh? And you call what Der Trihs posts “nonsense”? There’s no such thing as “temporary” brain death, you nit. Once the brain is dead, it is DEAD. I think you are confusing brain death with coma, two very different things. A person has a chance to recover from coma, just for starters.
I understand your reasons for being against abortion, and they’re all about religion and control. If you’re going to argue it from a medical angle, you’d better make sure you get it right. There are too many people in this thread who know what they’re talking about.
Way to keep things civil, asshole.
There are rare instances of a patient who is a flat-liner, zero brain activity, who ultimately recovers. For example, some cases of severe hypothermia have produced this result. If you want to call them some other than “brain dead” (which is the term used in the last reference I saw), feel free. The fact remains they had no brain activity for a short period of time, then recovered it.
So now you’re a mind reader in addition to being a jackass?
Like you? You’re a riot! Try again, dipshit.
Anyone else noticed that of all the anti-choice posters in the thread, not a single one of them is female? Food for thought.
Tell you what. You give me a cite in which someone is declared clinically braindead and recovers, and I’ll take you seriously. Otherwise, you’re talking out your ass and are trying to bluff your way out and I will continue to ignore your blatherings with impugnity.
Yeah, doesn’t “flat line” refer to heart beat?