AS:First of all....I never said nor did I imply that I "Show disdain" for cells. They're cells for petes sake...not children! Yes, they have the potential to 'become' babies...but the fact is they are NOT babies yet. How can you show disdain to something akin to a blood clot? I will give you the benefit of the doubt though...as I really don't think you mean to be insulting. I just think you become emotional about existence....and I do not...at least not my own existence...and certainly not a bunch of cells....but I am more emotional for other people's existence...and even babies existence. But I just don't see a bunch of cells as a baby yet. And what a bunch of cells doesn't know...can't hurt it/them.
Alex: My point was, that I could get into the philosophical argument of existence, and argue it for the intermediate time that the cells become a baby, but already from the previous post, I said that that I would be referring to the time period after it qualifies as a baby...
AS:Also...what do we know of existence anyway? Why do you think existence is so important? Maybe if we started there I could understand where you are coming from. I mean....Did we know who we are before we were born? Will we remember anything after we are gone? Do you remember anything in the womb or before? Do you remember your birth? And in the grand scheme of everything that has ever existed, 70 or 80 years or so seems so trivial to me....
Alex: But you don’t remember anything about the first couple of years either, at least consciously, that doesn’t mean you did not exist or feel at the time.
Alex:But the basis of our argument is the fact, pretty well known, that the cells become a baby, before birth. And you have admitted it. If you want to retract your argument, please do, and we can argue on an another basis.
AS:No, I don't want to retract my argument. I stand by my statement that a bunch of cells are a bunch of cells...nd nothing else...until which time they become a baby. Which I define as a separate entity which can breathe on it's own and does not need the host body to survive. I even said I thought that was 30 weeks gestation.
Alex:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ness-arise
It seems a bit earlier in this article, and most sources claim it is at least 6 or 7 weeks earlier than you claim, but just searching for this on the net, I was disgusted to see, that this topic of fetal consciousness is taken over by pro-choicer s and pro-lifers yelling “kill it, it doesn’t feel a thing” or “throw the woman in prison, it’s conscious at 8 weeks”. .
Alex:No, you are objectifying babies, with full awareness that you are doing so. It’s just a ‘part of my body’. Well, which part of your body would you sacrifice to avoid the drudgery of motherhood?
AS: Motherhood is not a drudgery for the woman who wants the baby. I don't see the problem here. For aesthetic purposes, have the cut off date for abortions to be around the 25 to 30 week mark. Until of course the world is too over populated to sustain life...then it really doesn't matter anymore does it? People will be dying off anyway. Would you give your spot on earth up so that a bunch of cells could see what existence was all about? Would you give up your existence so that a baby could see what existence is all about? You see...I am trying to take you to a time and place where you would have to make a choice. I am trying to get you to ponder just how much you love 'babies'. Practically speaking,if every cell was allowed to develop into a life for the purpose of experiencing 'existence,' there would be no room for the health of the planet...people would have to consider the dangers of overpopulation and make a choice....either their existence or a bunch of cells. Which do you think they would choose? Which would you choose?
Alex: For ‘aesthetic purposes’? Not for humanitarian ones? This attitude puzzles me..
You say that the cut-off date of 25 to 30 weeks would cause overpopulation and then you ask me if I want to give my position in this earth for a couple of cells. But after 25-30 weeks they are not a couple of cells, and of course I would not stoop down to the level of allowing babies to be killed because they have no say..Just to save ‘my spot’.
But your statement is factually wrong as well.
Quoting from this Wikipedia page:
…‘’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termi ... _pregnancy
• Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[6]
• England and Wales: In 2005, 9% of abortions occurred between 13 to 19 weeks, while 1% occurred at or over 20 weeks.[7]
• New Zealand: In 2003, 2.03% of induced abortions were done between weeks 16 to 19, and 0.56% were done over 20 weeks.[8]
• Norway: In 2005, 2.28% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 1.24% of abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, and 0.20% over 21 weeks.[9] Between February 15, 2010 and December 1, 2011, a total number of ten abortions were performed between 22 to 24 weeks. These have been declared illegal by The Norwegian Directorate of Health. [10]
• Scotland: In 2005, 6.1% of abortions were done between 14 to 17 weeks, while 1.6% were performed over 18 weeks.[11]
• Sweden: In 2005, 5.6% of abortions were carried out between 12 and 17 weeks, and 0.8% at or greater than 18 weeks.[12]
• United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 people’’…
As you see, the people that go through an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy are very few,(thank god!) and if these abortions were banned, it would cause a very small increase in population..
F.e, multiply those percentages with the abortions per year, let’s say, in the U.S.( about a million) and then compare that number(about 15.000) with the number of births.(about 4 million). No real change as far as overpopulation goes..
AS:Are you talking to me? I have had 2 pregnancies and I have 2 children. How many children have you had?
Alex:Zero. But I guess one has to go through motherhood to be qualified to call a baby “a body part’..
Alex:If your argument has to do with ‘ownership’ of what is inside you, well you should not have let it grown into a little baby before that becomes the case. You should be making your decisions earlier. Does that make sense to you?
AS: Of course...it's called personal responsibility. And most everyone to police and punish everyone else. But rare is the person who looks inward...or punishes inward.
Alex: Yes indeed, instead of punishing irresponsible contraception habits, some women choose to punish ..the baby. That is the very definition of punishing..inward..
Alex: Why would you want a man to get pregnant?
AS: Because I am thinking of extraction (you brought it up)...I am simply thinking of how it could be done in the future... the best most logical way it could work. Practically speaking....why should the woman be forced to carry a baby full term if there are 'extractions' available? Right? So then...what is more comforting for a baby? To be in a test tube...or to hear a heartbeat. Now if they can grow a baby to full term in a test tube...they can certainly grow one in the father. So a man...who impregnates a woman who doesn't want a child.....could have his child 'extracted' from her...and implanted in him! It's a win win! Not to mention women who use their bodies for work...like models and athletes and such....they could implant a couples child in the father and he could carry the 'baby' for her! It's just 'practical' as you say.
Alex: The female brain has a vast number of white cells (6 or 7 times more than a male) connecting the two hemispheres , so females have a naturall aptitude towards emotional intelligence(connection of logic with emotions). The memory function is also somewhat different, I little bit more tedious to detail.
All these things were developed through evolution, and are of great help in the motherhood experience.
Men wouldn’t necessarily make bad ‘gestators’ but we are not cut out for this extremely demanding and draining task. Due to brain structure differences. There would be nothing practical about trying it either, one should not experiment with such basic human functions..
Any deviation we tried against the nature of homo sapiens, has kicked as right back in the butt.. But I guess that is jumping to another topic..
Alex:Do you still follow the old dogma that men and women are the same, but the only factors differentiating them are societal ones?
AS: Well, if extractions become possible in the future...wouldn't they be 'equal'? Isn't it practical that they are...I mean since women are fast becoming indispensable to the work force. Don't you see that femininity will never disappear...men and women will always be attracted to each other. Just as they have been down through history. In fact...it is the woman who says what men will be attracted to....as she is always changing herself. If fashion says that blond hair is in...and she dyes her hair blond...ya'll get a boner still. If she get reubensque or twiggy like..ya'll still get a boner. If she doesn't have the right to vote...or she becomes your boss...ya'll still get a boner....don't you see. Whether or not you like the future 'woman' now or not doesn't mean the 'future' guy won't like her...of course he will....because man always follows woman...always has and always will. If she says jump...ya'll say "how high" (with boners of course.) lol
Alex: ‘Equal’ doesn’t mean the ‘same’ and it seems that you have missed that conclusion that is screaming at us in the western world in the last 30 years..Trying to bring pregnancy to men is defying that very basic truth of gender differences..
And, I am sorry to have to bring it out to you, but it seems that men are ‘jumping’ lower and lower with or without boners, wherever in the world your kind of reasoning has been followed, divorce rates have climbed to over 50%..
Many people choose to be single nowadays, at record rates..
And the way you imply that a men’s only reason to be attracted or influenced or ‘controlled’ by a woman, is because of the ‘boner’, is a bit sexist towards.. women..
Alex: I would never, and could never , go through what you go through in a pregnancy, due to factors that have to do with brain structure..
AS: But your type is fast dying out...and a new breed is taking over...men who actually like their children are taking your place. And I am sure...in the future...if things like "extractions" become possible...some men will be either carrying their child...just like they are carrying them , diaper bag and all, now. That is...if they want them...and the woman doesn't. Still...I think the majority of women will want a baby...that won't change... I am only talking about the "mistakes" and one night stands in which the women wants an abortion and the man doesn't.
Alex: No, your ‘type’ is dying fast. After many men were ‘feminized’ in an effort to ‘jump’, then women said they don’t like these ‘pussies’.. ‘Where are the real men?’ ‘Where have the men gone?’..
Alex:But that doesn't mean that even if i could go through it, i would claim, i can end the process at any time during pregnancy, just because i changed my mind.
AS: I didn't say anytime during the process you should be able to change your mind. Don't you remember me agreeing that at 30 weeks or so it is a baby?
Alex: It is at 1 or two months earlier than that, and abortion statistics show that people understand that.(look at the data above).
So, basically, even if your wording is different to mine, we have at least agreed on one thing. Abortions should not happen after the time it qualifies to be a baby..
. 
can go a long way, and of course, lots of abstinence 