House passes 20-week abortion ban

House passes 20-week abortion ban

There are 426 comments on the Feministing story from Jun 19, 2013, titled House passes 20-week abortion ban. In it, Feministing reports that:

Yesterday evening the House of Representatives passed the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," a ban on legal abortions 20 weeks or more after fertilization based on dubious evidence that fetuses can feel pain during the second trimester.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Feministing.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#390 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"The fetus isn't an appendage, biologically. It's not part of her body."
It is attached via umbilical cord, which is an anatomical (biological) structure.
"My finger isn't "attached" me-it's part of me."
Incorrect.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Appe...
"A parasite cannot be of the same species as the host."
Incorrect.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Para...
"If it WAS a parasite, there would be no limitations to when she could rid herself of it."
There are only limitations, where they exist, because there are other considerations legally, such as a state's rights as determined by RvW. Which goes to prove that biology isn't the only factor. Modern medicine guarantees that we are no longer slaves to our biology.
"I don't have any legal strictures on when I can take actions to rid myself of a tapeworm."
Your denying that a fetus is parasitic, even biologically speaking, doesn't disprove my point.
Why let me know about "slaves to biology"? I thought you were denying the biology.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#391 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
Well, crap. I must have copied after I'd copied the link to the definition. My apologies.
Here's that link...
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Para...
Biology-online.org is a Wiki site.

Don't make reliance on Wiki sites.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#392 Jul 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not an appendage. It's not part of the woman's body.
It's not a parasite. Parasites are from different species. The definition you looked at isn't complete. Look up a couple more and you'll see.
Again, I know it's legal conditionally.
BTW, Bit, you cannot argue 'appendage' and 'parasite' simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive.
Sorry, but I gave biological definitions, which is what you seemed to want to go by. Don't blame ME if they disprove YOUR argument. I don't have to shop around to find a definition that YOU like, you know.

Either it's part of the woman's body, or it's not, but it really doesn't matter to the issue of reproductive choice. She has an equal right (legal and moral) to have either something that is not a part of her body, or something that is a part of her body, removed FROM her body.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#393 Jul 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why let me know about "slaves to biology"? I thought you were denying the biology.
I'm not denying biology. And YOU were the one who kept bringing it up. What's the matter, now that it's no longer necessarily helping your argument, you want to fuss about me using it?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#394 Jul 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Biology-online.org is a Wiki site.
Don't make reliance on Wiki sites.
Again, I gave you biological definitions for both. I don't have to look around until I find the definition YOU like. That's not how this works.

This is why I typed the symbol for rolling one's eyes when you mentioned "THE" biological definition.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#395 Jul 15, 2013
Don't like biology online? Okay....

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

Or, how about this one....

http://parasitology.com/

Are you getting the point yet?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#396 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I gave biological definitions, which is what you seemed to want to go by. Don't blame ME if they disprove YOUR argument. I don't have to shop around to find a definition that YOU like, you know.
Either it's part of the woman's body, or it's not, but it really doesn't matter to the issue of reproductive choice. She has an equal right (legal and moral) to have either something that is not a part of her body, or something that is a part of her body, removed FROM her body.
You gave me information from a Wiki site. You probably didn't realize it.

You should "shop around" for an accurate definition.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#397 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I gave biological definitions, which is what you seemed to want to go by. Don't blame ME if they disprove YOUR argument. I don't have to shop around to find a definition that YOU like, you know.
Either it's part of the woman's body, or it's not, but it really doesn't matter to the issue of reproductive choice. She has an equal right (legal and moral) to have either something that is not a part of her body, or something that is a part of her body, removed FROM her body.
They don't disprove or prove anything as they aren't sufficient. It's a Wiki site.

Again, I know they have legal right to do it conditionally. I wasn't arguing that.

The point I made was that it's another human life in play, not just the woman's.



“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#398 Jul 15, 2013
Oh, here's an interesting one. You may have to scroll down a bit.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.c...
Dan

Omaha, NE

#399 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
Don't like biology online? Okay....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite
Or, how about this one....
http://parasitology.com/
Are you getting the point yet?
par•a•site (&#712;pær &#601;&#716;sa&#61 8;t)

n.
1. an organism that lives on or within a plant or animal of another species, from which it obtains nutrients (opposed to host).

parasitology.com uses a Wiki source for it's definition.

I hope you're done with the phase of your life where you'll be writing research papers, Bit.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#400 Jul 15, 2013
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/a...

Shall I "shop" some more, or are you getting the point yet?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#401 Jul 15, 2013
Dan

Omaha, NE

#402 Jul 15, 2013
Still has to be of a different species.

Also, afetus, for example, cannot sustain indefinitely inside the uterus. It has to be born. Parasites don't 'age out' of being parasites.

Still, if you insist, then you're affirming that it IS a separate entity, not "her body".
Dan

Omaha, NE

#403 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com /medical/parasite
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary....
If it's something she can have removed by legal and moral right, why can't she do it any time? Why is the timeframe limited?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#404 Jul 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
Still has to be of a different species.
Also, afetus, for example, cannot sustain indefinitely inside the uterus. It has to be born. Parasites don't 'age out' of being parasites.
Still, if you insist, then you're affirming that it IS a separate entity, not "her body".
No, it merely needs to be a different organism.

So long as it is inside her body, attached to her body, using her body, it is not separate. YOU are the one who brought appendages and parasites to the conversation, not I. I'm merely showing you that your arguments have no merit, using the biological definitions YOU insisted on, and which you are now denying.

Again, the point is moot as she has the equal right (legal and moral) to remove things that are, and are not, part of her body FROM her body.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#405 Jul 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's something she can have removed by legal and moral right, why can't she do it any time? Why is the timeframe limited?
She can in about a dozen states.

I already explained this. Why are you ignoring that fact?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#406 Jul 15, 2013
Here we go, Dan. Already addressed. I know you saw it, because you objected to part of it, while ignoring the rest.

"There are only limitations, where they exist, because there are other considerations legally, such as a state's rights as determined by RvW. Which goes to prove that biology isn't the only factor. Modern medicine guarantees that we are no longer slaves to our biology."
Dan

Omaha, NE

#407 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it merely needs to be a different organism.
So long as it is inside her body, attached to her body, using her body, it is not separate. YOU are the one who brought appendages and parasites to the conversation, not I. I'm merely showing you that your arguments have no merit, using the biological definitions YOU insisted on, and which you are now denying.
Again, the point is moot as she has the equal right (legal and moral) to remove things that are, and are not, part of her body FROM her body.
It's separate. "Different organism". YOUR definition says "different organism". The means its not the same organism.

You said "Might as well be an appendage". It's not an appendage. It's not a parasite.

It's not part of her body, the fetus isn't her body and it's not a parasite. She created it.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#408 Jul 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She can in about a dozen states.
I already explained this. Why are you ignoring that fact?
What state can she have it removed at any time?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#409 Jul 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's separate."

Not until it is no longer attached to her body, using her body and inside her body.

"Different organism". YOUR definition says "different organism"."

Which does not mean different species.

Still, again, YOU brought the term parasitism to the conversation, claiming it means different species. I merely corrected you, with proof that it doesn't necessarily have to be a different species.

"The means its not the same organism."

Again, a moot point.

"You said "Might as well be an appendage". It's not an appendage."

I didn't say it was. I said, and here is the part you left off, GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT CONSCIOUS OR AWARE, it may as well be an appendage.

Still, it does fit one of the definitions FOR the word appendage. Just as it fits many definitions of the word parasite.

"It's not a parasite."

I'm not the one who used the word. Still, it does fit many biological/medical/scientific definitions for the word. Are we going by definitions, or not. Make up your mind.

"It's not part of her body, the fetus isn't her body and it's not a parasite. She created it."

A moot point, since she has the legal and moral right to remove anything from her body, whether it's considered part of her body or not.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John McCain Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 3 hr Chilli J 9,799
News McCain: US must be friendly with Egypt amid cha... (Feb '12) Thu Neville Thompson 3
News Rumsfeld Resigns as Defense Secretary Democrats... (Nov '06) Jun 24 Romneycare killed... 14
News Incoming US Africa commander: No 'grand strateg... Jun 22 Was a Democrat NO... 1
News Bachmann Calls Bush's Bailout Decision an Act o... (Nov '11) Jun 20 Mork from Ork 41
News McCain: Obama 'directly responsible' for Orland... Jun 20 Batch 37 Pain Is ... 81
News Democrats, LGBT groups look to McCain to hold t... Jun 13 Le Jimbo 5
More from around the web