Now let's be real here. Doesn't this kind of blow a giant gaping hole in the "just a clump of cells" argument? The "no different than a tumor" argument? Come on now. Find me one other tumor anywhere that has a penis. If you get a brain tumor, does it grow a wiener? How about an ovarian cyst? Ever had one with a tallywacker? Ever get a breast lump with a ding dong attached to it? How much longer are we going to keep up this ridiculous charade?
Just because you have a weakness for penises does not mean the rest of us do. Abortion is and will continue to be a choice for the implicated parties. Not something you or anyone else is going to decide for others. Put up some penis posters if you care so much about them.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the presence of a penis really isn't all that important (in any situation).......it's still not a viable fetus....it's still inside a woman, it still isn't yours...
Wrong, but close. A penis is not present in every fetus at 11-weeks but is in some. This poor viable fetus' penis would not alter the inalienable right to kill a fetus for 11-weeks even after the 12-week limit for killing the fetus become enforceable law next year. Checking for a fetal penis is not required by Arkansas Act 301. At 11-weeks gestation there is no requirement for checking for anything. There will be LEGAL battles over the accuracy of gestation measurements and allegations. Attempts to claim 12-weeks of gestation had already occurred when refusing to abort will occur. International late-term "destination abortion" visits will become popular. Speaking of bubble-popping; ALL healthy fetuses are viable at 11-weeks, with or without a penis, but are not yet able to be removed from the placenta or womb and be expected to live.
Hmm, well actually teratomas can have a penis, pretty unusual though: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16267680 So I suppose you think that tumor should get a funeral because it has a penis? Now imagine that somehow it were possible for some kind of brain tumor to have a consciousness of its own. Then I might not blame you for wanting to give it a funeral, but fortunately that doesn't seem to be possible.
MOST fetuses are viable if allowed to remain attached to a placenta until fully developed. I wholly reject SCOTUS' use of VIABLE in order to change the meaning of the word and use of this as propaganda. The definition of marriage was NOT recently changed by the court and neither was VIABLE. . . . . Every time you type, attempting to disparage me or Act 301, I am reminded the proper response is to be kind to the mentally challenged. MOD EDIT - Rule 3 LAWs use the meaning of words which these words regularly have in common speech. VIABLE I hope you enjoy the last holiday in the U.S. where abortions of gestation at or after 12-weeks is allowed.
Viability in a fetus is obviously the ability to survive outside the womb...to think otherwise indicates an agenda in play.
Good luck with that....You're gonna need it. I recommend you spend a few minutes working on those communication skills though.
And since anyone who has ever had a penis knows that a penis has its own consciousness and soul, I'm with you, pal. Life begins with penis.
I find it very telling that the OP (and certain others) are obsessed with the fetus having a penis at 11 weeks but don't seem to care at all about the 49.1% of fetus' that have vaginas at 11 weeks. Is there a pattern here?
What if that penis is attached to your wanted pregnancy? Is it really logical or moral to have different answers based on whether it is wanted or not? Be honest.
I think I'm going to take the title of this thread and use it anytime someone posts something ridiculous. So if I see "Obama is an atheist, Muslim!", I'll reply "And a fetus has a penis at 11 weeks old!"
Yes if we assume the fetus isn't a person yet. Then it's the property of the mother as much as any part of her body.
If your wanted pregnancy is with a woman who doesn't want a baby it is your failure. It is not the woman's problem. It is neither logical or moral in either case. It is an individual/relationship based decision that can only be made by the implicated parties. Personally I favour the woman in these circumstances as they have the highest burden to bear.
Logically, yes. But sometimes people only respond to certain things. When facts don't matter to someone, you have to show them the things that awaken their feelings. ^The fact that you can make a post like this with a signature like this.... .....makes me lose all hope for humanity. Years from now these will be grown adults looking back and saying, "Gee, I'm sure glad you didn't crush my skull, rip my limbs apart, and sell my organs for profit. Thanks, Mom!"
I could just as easily say I'm glad my parents were horny on the night I was conceived, or else I'd never have existed at all. It's about the same just without the gory details that are supposed to evoke emotions. It's not blood and gore we should care about. We use garden tools to conduct autopsies, to essentially tear apart the insides of a former person's body apart and figure out what happened. It's especially gross when you open the bowels, or have to saw through the skull. But it's not wrong to do these things because the person is gone, and doing the autopsy can bring closure to the people who are still here. The previous post merely points out that a penis isn't what would make them a person. You know the cliché where they say it's what's inside that counts? They don't mean organs like the heart or lungs.. or penis. They mean it's the person's personality. The mind makes the person and nothing else. If you could get a human brain/mind to function inside a machine, or another animal, they would still be a person because they have feelings, thoughts, and are a unique individual personality. In contrast, an early fetus doesn't yet have a mind, so there is nothing wrong with the mother terminating it for any reason she wants.
So you don't have an actual rebuttal then? Just an appeal to homophobia? Concession accepted. For what it's worth, you could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes by just saying, "I recognize that I'm wrong and I don't care."
I'm referring to the women. It is immoral for her to value the fetus as life when she wants the baby, yet consider it worthless tissue when she does not.
But YOUR morals do NOT apply to her...or anyone else. YOUR morals do not rule, YOUR morals are not better than anyone else's and do not apply to someone else's life or decisions just like you do not want their morals applying to YOUR life and decisions....
