The beginnings of life, embyro = cancer?

[Kulindahr]

The first clue will show up or actually not show up within 28 days

You beat me to it.

That clue can be a false alarm, but it can hardly be missed. Well, if someone is anorexic, maybe, or dealing with one of a few other medical conditions.

 

[bankside]

Keep in mind for some of us this isn't a debate or an engaged discussion at this point, it's just a platform for spin. The desired outcome has been pronounced from on high, and now the foot soldiers are just left to defend it and paper over the illogic as best they can.

I once debated a Catholic on marriage equality for gays. It was 1993 in fact - time flies. He was actually reduced to arguing that a marriage between heterosexuals after menopause was valid while a same-sex marriage was not because "God could re-start her ovaries."

Okay, what about if the missus had already had a hysterectomy then?

When the reply came "Well, she could still get pregnant in theory because they're opposite sex," I knew that it wasn't about making sense any more; it was just an exercise in repeating the catechism.

For the rest of us however, it has been a relatively constructive effort at finding a principled middle ground - except "middle ground" sounds like an unprincipled no-man's-land, so let me call it "common ground" instead.

Small though it may be, it seems to be an island of sanity in the midst of the larger debate. I can feel the hot air blowing and I'm glad I'm ashore.

 

[Kulindahr]

Keep in mind for some of us this isn't a debate or an engaged discussion at this point, it's just a platform for spin. The desired outcome has been pronounced from on high, and now the foot soldiers are just left to defend it and paper over the illogic as best they can.

I once debated a Catholic on marriage equality for gays. It was 1993 in fact - time flies. He was actually reduced to arguing that a marriage between heterosexuals after menopause was valid while a same-sex marriage was not because "God could re-start her ovaries."

Okay, what about if the missus had already had a hysterectomy then?

When the reply came "Well, she could still get pregnant in theory because they're opposite sex," I knew that it wasn't about making sense any more; it was just an exercise in repeating the catechism.

For the rest of us however, it has been a relatively constructive effort at finding a principled middle ground - except "middle ground" sounds like an unprincipled no-man's-land, so let me call it "common ground" instead.

Small though it may be, it seems to be an island of sanity in the midst of the larger debate. I can feel the hot air blowing and I'm glad I'm ashore.

Gack.

I don't even argue such points any more, I cut straight to the real point, and quote:

"Render to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's."

God wants church marriage in the church, and civil marriage at the court clerk or wherever one gets a marriage license, and what Caesar does in his realm is not the business of the church -- period, because Jesus said so.

Though one bizarre individual once at that point decided that only Christians should be allowed to get married!

 

[Kulindahr]

For the rest of us however, it has been a relatively constructive effort at finding a principled middle ground - except "middle ground" sounds like an unprincipled no-man's-land, so let me call it "common ground" instead.

Small though it may be, it seems to be an island of sanity in the midst of the larger debate. I can feel the hot air blowing and I'm glad I'm ashore.

Solid ground in the middle of a swamp.

 

[Stardreamer]

Keep in mind for some of us this isn't a debate or an engaged discussion at this point, it's just a platform for spin. The desired outcome has been pronounced from on high, and now the foot soldiers are just left to defend it and paper over the illogic as best they can.

I once debated a Catholic on marriage equality for gays. It was 1993 in fact - time flies. He was actually reduced to arguing that a marriage between heterosexuals after menopause was valid while a same-sex marriage was not because "God could re-start her ovaries."

Okay, what about if the missus had already had a hysterectomy then?

When the reply came "Well, she could still get pregnant in theory because they're opposite sex," I knew that it wasn't about making sense any more; it was just an exercise in repeating the catechism.

For the rest of us however, it has been a relatively constructive effort at finding a principled middle ground - except "middle ground" sounds like an unprincipled no-man's-land, so let me call it "common ground" instead.

Small though it may be, it seems to be an island of sanity in the midst of the larger debate. I can feel the hot air blowing and I'm glad I'm ashore.

Wellllllll God could change someone's gender....

 

[Kulindahr]

Wellllllll God could change someone's gender....

To quote Bill Cosby portraying God:

"You know I don't work that way."

 

[frankfrank]

The first clue will show up or actually not show up within 28 days

Does that mean, then, that the first clue is that she misses her period? If that's the case and the woman is around 40 or 41 years old, could it be mistaken for the onset of menopause?

 

[Stardreamer]

Does that mean, then, that the first clue is that she misses her period? If that's the case and the woman is around 40 or 41 years old, could it be mistaken for the onset of menopause?

The first (actually not even the first) of many symptoms some of which are associated with menopause, some are not. still a clue one way or the other to see the doctor or at least get a home pregnancy test especially if you were raped or had unprotected sex recently. There could be a hell of a lot more wrong than just pregnancy or menopause. course you can what if the scenario a hundred ways to justify how someone doesn't know they were pregnant and want an abortion right up to the ninth month (or the 21st month if you subscribe to Peter Singer).