"In the fourth month of the Second Trimester, the baby will have developed a strong heartbeat."

I just stated that the baby isn't living until 16 weeks(i.e. four months) into the pregnancy, this seems to only back that up. This seems to indicate, the baby did not have a fully functioning heart(which would be required for 'life'), up until this time.

Also, "The Third Trimester is the seventh month until birth; the baby finishes developing", a lot of people are of the viewpoint that abortion is acceptable if its done at a time in which, the baby would not survive outside of the mother, and it doesnt seem it'd be able to until around 7 months.. however 6 months seems a little late in the pregnancy to perform an abortion, IMO.

Subzeromasta, you and I seem to draw very different conclusions from the same article. Perhaps, this issue comes down to perspective, and your opinion of which stage constitutes life.

Anubis, I apologize. I misunderstood what you meant by the comment.

And about getting 'bitter', I was really referring to born again vampire calling you a moron, although i dont agree with your viewpoint...its not good to fight and call names over these issues, I learned that in the hunting thread.

Ok cool! I retract those last remarks.

*Gives thumbs up*

Yes, that's what it says about a strong heartbeat. Of course you chose not to acknowledge this part:

At around twenty-four days and up until the end of the Trimester, the baby will begin to develop a heartbeat, a nervous system, a skeletal system, muscles and blood will begin to flow through its vascular system. Also, the eyes, ears, nose, fingernails, eyelids (although they are fused shut) and limbs will start to develop. The baby will start moving around in the twelfth week, but the expectant mother will not be able to feel it yet. The baby inhales amniotic fluid and can suck its thumb now also. At the end of the First Trimester the baby is technically no longer an embryo, but is now called a fetus.

16 weeks, no. But it does back what I said about when it has a hearbeat and pumps blood. I would say that's alive.

In any event, you think one way, I think another. I'm risking teh skullz here so I am stopping now.

EDIT: found my original reply on page 2, I must have accidently submitted a message before I typed anything in the reply box. Sorry.

TheTinMan2005 Wrote: I'm really a bleeding heart, unabashed liberal. Like Howard Dean says, the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. I'm pro-Choice, anti-Death penalty, for assault weapons ban, anti-war, pro-legalization of marijauna, athiest, anti-hunting, and I support National health care.

The best way to cure the deep division is to stop the urge to classify onesself as either Republican or Democrat. I agree with all the things you listed there, and then some more things, but I still don't identify myself as a democrat, or as anything else. Like Ralph Nader said, the Democrats and Republicans are "like the same corporate beast with different heads, wearing different makeup."

sub-zeromasta Wrote: Yes, that's what it says about a strong heartbeat. Of course you chose not to acknowledge this part: At around twenty-four days and up until the end of the Trimester, the baby will begin to develop a heartbeat, a nervous system, a skeletal system, muscles and blood will begin to flow through its vascular system. Also, the eyes, ears, nose, fingernails, eyelids (although they are fused shut) and limbs will start to develop. The baby will start moving around in the twelfth week, but the expectant mother will not be able to feel it yet. The baby inhales amniotic fluid and can suck its thumb now also. At the end of the First Trimester the baby is technically no longer an embryo, but is now called a fetus. 16 weeks, no. But it does back what I said about when it has a hearbeat and pumps blood. I would say that's alive. In any event, you think one way, I think another. I'm risking teh skullz here so I am stopping now.

That is what I meant by fully functioning. If it did not have a regular strong heart beat until 16 weeks, then I think that can be considered that its not living yet, but I can see where you are coming from with your opinion as well.

And I really think, now that I have read a detailed article on the process, there is no clear established biological facts that prove either point, because depending on your own views and everything, you might consider when the heart beat becomes strong(i.e. fully functional) the beginning of life, some might consider it 24 days, some 7 months(when it can possibly survive outside the mother), and some, not until the baby takes its first breath outside of the womb. Which is the viewpoint of the Jewish religion.

I don't like that you implied I was trying to use a play of words in my argument, for I wasn't. And why do you think you will get skull points?? You can't control your emotions over the issue and accept someone else's viewpoint? I made that mistake before, and I am learning from it.

It's all to the good. Just a pov thing of when someone considers a baby living.

As far as the emotions go, no I'm more than good. I could debate this all day with you. BUT I think we are extremely close to crossing the line about the discussion. Abortion = no no topic (I'm almost certain) on this board. So I suggest that we end it peacefully here so we can avoid teh skullz.

Oh? I wasn't under the impression it was a banned topic, when I read the FAQs, I didn't see that ruel. Hmm. Maybe its been added since I first registered this user name. Well anyway, I get ya now.

I shall create an Abortion thread then

It's only religious discussion that's banned; as long as religion doesn't become a part of the discussion of abortion, I don't think it would be against the rules (as long as the topic is discussed maturely).

So regarding the abortion topic, I don't think the question is when the embryo is considered alive, but when it is considered a human being. Technically speaking, life occurs on the cellular level; the sperm cell and the egg cell are both living cells at conception, so I think "life" must be said to begin at conception. As I said, the real question is, when is it considered a human being? THAT'S the question for the philosophers.

Oddly, abortion is one of the very few topics on which I agree with my dad (who is very consevative): I'm not a woman, I can't become pregnant, so I'm in no position to tell a woman who is pregnant what to do with her body. Beyond that, I don't believe anyone, male or female, has the right to control the reproductive organs, or any organs, of anyone else, female or male (in the case of men's reproductive organs, I suppose that would constitute either being forbidden to get a vasectomy if the man desires one, or the opposite: being forcibly sterilized).

Back to the topic of "two Americas," I thought what Kerry and Edwards were saying was more along the lines of socioeconomic status: those who had succeeded in the "American dream," and those still trying to succeed, or something to that effect. I don't think that's really accurate. There are innumerable Americas: there are widely varying levels of wealth among even the top fraction of a percent of the population, and even at the bottom there are those struggling to make the monthly rent, or living in a trailer park, and the panhandlers on the street wearing little more than rags. So in the socioeconomic sense, there's no clear division between the haves and the have-nots.

On a political level, however, the division tends to be clearer, although many people tend to straddle the line. The main determinant of this division is whether someone wants to believe Faux News or Michael Moore. Personally, I trust the fat guy from Michigan.

I agree with most of what you said, but it is true that the middle class has shrunk in size over the last 30 years. And also over the last two years, we had the first decline in GNP(Gross National Product) in 50 years.

We can't rely soley on a service economy, we HAVE to save industry. You can't run an economy based on everyone doing everybody else's laundry. Part of the problem is the high taxes on companies, which is the main driving force sending American companies abroad. We should offer tax breaks to companies who move jobs back to the U.S. Also, in order to pick up the slack in money from cutting taxes to the companies, either a)sales taxes could be raised, or b)income taxes, either way, I think it would balance out because the economy would do better from the jobs moving back, and the companies would make more money. Well naturally, if the big whigs are making more money, then the employees of these companies will end up making more than they do now, so the higher taxes(either sales or income) would not negatively effect the general population.


I am not an economist by any means, but I think what I am saying makes pretty good sense. Also, people always detract from National Healthcare by saying it would take a rise in taxes, and that would negatively effect the people it would help(the lower economic bracket that can't afford), i do not think so. The money they would save by not having to spend their's on health care would balance it out, so really have as much money for other things as before, in addition to free health care.


Also, it would save hundreds of millions of dollars for the companies that would no longer have to provide health insurance, they would inturn have higher profit margins, which once again, translates to the employees making more as well. Which means actually, people will come out ahead(end up eventually making more then they did in the first place). Like i said, i am no economist, but I think at least some of what I've presented makes sense.

TheTinMan2005 Wrote: Part of the problem is the high taxes on companies, which is the main driving force sending American companies abroad. We should offer tax breaks to companies who move jobs back to the U.S. Also, in order to pick up the slack in money from cutting taxes to the companies, either a)sales taxes could be raised, or b)income taxes, either way, I think it would balance out because the economy would do better from the jobs moving back, and the companies would make more money. Well naturally, if the big whigs are making more money, then the employees of these companies will end up making more than they do now, so the higher taxes(either sales or income) would not negatively effect the general population.

Whoa, Lefty! I think you looked starboard when you told us port! Consider the following statistic from Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men": "In the most recent year for which there are figures, forty-four of the top eighty-two companies in the United States did not pay the standard 35 percent in taxes that corporations are expected to pay. In fact, 17 percent paid NO taxes at all--and seven of those, including General Motors, played the tax code like a harp, juggling business expenses and tax credits until the government owed THEM millions of dollars!"

The problem with your argument is, it's the big corporations that are fucking the IRS, not t'other way 'round. Besides, look at Enron. Look at Tyco. There are plenty of corporate CEOs and other higher-ups who will gladly sell out their loyal employees to fatten their own wallets.

By the way, just thought I'd add this amusing, yet somewhat disturbing, yet oddly revealing tidbit:

(from www.michaelmoore.com)
August 5th, 2004 5:57 pm
Is George W. Bush Planning to Attack America?


The White House

He sure makes it sound that way:


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
- George W. Bush (AT THE SIGNING OF H.R. 4613, THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005)

Hmmm...

I saw the actual clip of him saying this on the Tonight Show, and, upon checking Mike's site (yes, he's my hero...well, not my "hero" but probably my favorite political voice in America today), found a news update with the aforementioned piece. I wanted to post it before I saw it on the site, but didn't remember the quote verbatim.