# Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?



## Lakhota

This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.

NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


----------



## G.T.

First priority in what circumstance?

Equal priority can be done pretty well.


----------



## deltex1

Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Depends. If for medical reasons of course the woman. Otherwise, killing for killing sake isn't exactly a good thing.


----------



## ScienceRocks

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.



That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.


----------



## Avatar4321

The innocent life created by no fault of itself.


----------



## martybegan

Matthew said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
Click to expand...


Most of what we call "birth control" prevents conception. Examples are barriers (condoms, diaphragms), anti-ovulation, (the pill), and ye olde time methods such as the rhythm method, "pull out and pray" and "no, use the other hole"


----------



## deltex1

Matthew said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
Click to expand...


What does politics have to do with it, Homer?


----------



## Avatar4321

Matthew said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
Click to expand...


What does politics have to do with anything?

We have plenty of birth control around. All anyone has to do is use it if they choose to.

What they don't have the right to do is force others to pay for their birth control.


----------



## Avatar4321

BTW you are being completely dishonest by pretending we aren't talking about a child.


----------



## Lakhota

Avatar4321 said:


> BTW you are being completely dishonest by pretending we aren't talking about a child.



I'm not pretending anything.  I'm asking basic questions.


----------



## chikenwing

There are no difference between them,all are alive and genetically coded and unique.

What parent would sacrifice the child over self??


----------



## deltex1

Your question could be posed more clearly.


----------



## Lakhota

chikenwing said:


> There are no difference between them,all are alive and genetically coded and unique.
> 
> What parent would sacrifice the child over self??



Doesn't each woman have a unique set of circumstances - such as mental, physical, and financial health?  There is also the condition of a fetus to consider.


----------



## OriginalShroom

If the mother's life is at risk, she has priority.

Otherwise, the unborn child does.

Look at it this way..   Under the law, all are to be treated equally.   Men, after having sex, have no legal say in what happens if the woman becomes pregnant.  His only option is to prepare to have to pay her money for the 18 to 24 years every month.

Why should women have options afterwards?  If men have to "suffer the consequences" of her becoming pregnant, shouldn't women also have to suffer the consequences?


----------



## Rocko

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.



First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.


----------



## chikenwing

Lakhota said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no difference between them,all are alive and genetically coded and unique.
> 
> What parent would sacrifice the child over self??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't each woman have a unique set of circumstances - such as mental, physical, and financial health?  There is also the condition of a fetus to consider.
Click to expand...


Yes both parents and the child but that still doesn't discount the other living beings .

What parent would sacrifice their child over self?? that is the base of your arguments that a parent is and would be willing to sacrifice one of their own children for their self interest?

What kind of person that would do that really be?


----------



## Lakhota

Rocko said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
Click to expand...


In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?


----------



## Rocko

Lakhota said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
Click to expand...


No I don't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The health of the woman is always paramount.  That of an egg has no primacy.


----------



## BlindBoo

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.



I disagree, it's a crapshoot. 

Fate of a Fertilized Egg: Why Some Embryos Don't Implant


----------



## Lakhota

Abortion is repugnant.  Period.  However, I believe the final decision should be up to the woman - UNLESS she is judged to be legally incompetent to make the final decision.


----------



## SillyWabbit

Avatar4321 said:


> BTW you are being completely dishonest by pretending we aren't talking about a child.



Not everyone sees the mass of cells as a child. For me, the simple meeting of the sperm and egg does not a human being make. Now, exactly when this mass becomes a viable human being, I don't know. Some premies wouldn't continue to live without mechanical assistance. Are they not human beings? Ask mom and dad. And yet, if it comes down to it, if the birth of the child is going to kill mom for sure, but aborting the child will save her, I say save mom. Although, maybe mom would say save baby. It's a good thing I'll never be in that position.


----------



## Peach

Lakhota said:


> Abortion is repugnant.  Period.  However, I believe the final decision should be up to the woman - UNLESS she is judged to be legally incompetent to make the final decision.



Agreed, but a decent woman will consider the the view of the father.


----------



## martybegan

OriginalShroom said:


> If the mother's life is at risk, she has priority.
> 
> Otherwise, the unborn child does.
> 
> Look at it this way..   Under the law, all are to be treated equally.   Men, after having sex, have no legal say in what happens if the woman becomes pregnant.  His only option is to prepare to have to pay her money for the 18 to 24 years every month.
> 
> Why should women have options afterwards?  If men have to "suffer the consequences" of her becoming pregnant, shouldn't women also have to suffer the consequences?



Its not about equality, its about slanting the game against "the others". you keep forgetting that.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.



The poll doesn't include my answer.

The woman and the fetus have equal rights.


----------



## norwegen

Legally, the woman has priority.  She is the citizen.

 Otherwise, they are all God's creation equally.  When a fetus is aborted naturally, that is God's prerogative.


----------



## Lakhota

Peach said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is repugnant.  Period.  However, I believe the final decision should be up to the woman - UNLESS she is judged to be legally incompetent to make the final decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but a decent woman will consider the the view of the father.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  However, that may depend on one's definition of a "decent" woman.  Decent or not, I believe the woman should have final say.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Most people will tell you that you only have the right to end a human life when it presents a clear, present and immediate threat of significant harm - even if then.

Killing for convenience?  There's a right to do that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.

I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.


----------



## M14 Shooter

JakeStarkey said:


> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.


How interesting that I used the term "human life".


----------



## Peach

Lakhota said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is repugnant.  Period.  However, I believe the final decision should be up to the woman - UNLESS she is judged to be legally incompetent to make the final decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but a decent woman will consider the the view of the father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  However, that may depend on one's definition of a "decent" woman.  Decent or not, I believe the woman should have final say.
Click to expand...


Decent as in having a good heart, yes, the final say is with the female, but...................tough question, very tough.


----------



## nodoginnafight

JakeStarkey said:


> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.



and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.

Our laws evolve. 

I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? A banana?

At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:

1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.

2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.


----------



## chikenwing

The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.

I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.


So they found you in the cabbage patch??

So at what time would a fetus not be human??

Can't believe you really posted this.


Its never a gold fish,always a human always from beginning to end. Trying to twist this simple and common sense FACT is well rather stupid and denies one own self.


----------



## chikenwing

nodoginnafight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
Click to expand...


Well put its really rather simple question,its never anything but a human ,just small and innocent.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nodoginnafight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
Click to expand...

By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.

After all, it was a non-person.


----------



## norwegen

nodoginnafight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
Click to expand...

Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?

 Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.


----------



## nodoginnafight

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.
> 
> After all, it was a non-person.
Click to expand...


The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.

But I also wouldn't dream of harassing a woman who is probably already having one of the worst days of her life by heckling her as she walks into a clinic.

The biological realities of procreation create HUGE inequities between men and women imho. And if anyone has an idea about how to level that playing field without taking a life - I'm all ears.


----------



## nodoginnafight

norwegen said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.
Click to expand...


Yes, that argument has been supported legally:

Digital History

(Hence the comment about our laws evolving)

So you say our laws don't protect you unless you're a citizen?

So it's perfectly legal to kill an illegal alien?????

I don't think you thought that post through very well.


----------



## TooTall

JakeStarkey said:


> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.



Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.


----------



## M14 Shooter

norwegen said:


> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.


Interesting.
Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?


----------



## Stephanie

Illegal immigrant children but of course should be first

sicko


----------



## chikenwing

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.
> 
> After all, it was a non-person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.
> 
> But I also wouldn't dream of harassing a woman who is probably already having one of the worst days of her life by heckling her as she walks into a clinic.
> 
> The biological realities of procreation create HUGE inequities between men and women imho. And if anyone has an idea about how to level that playing field without taking a life - I'm all ears.
Click to expand...


You have already answered your own question,the default is life. Yes life is many shades of black and white,untill you back it up to a living being,then is not so fuzzy.


----------



## nodoginnafight

chikenwing said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.
> 
> After all, it was a non-person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.
> 
> But I also wouldn't dream of harassing a woman who is probably already having one of the worst days of her life by heckling her as she walks into a clinic.
> 
> The biological realities of procreation create HUGE inequities between men and women imho. And if anyone has an idea about how to level that playing field without taking a life - I'm all ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already answered your own question,the default is life. Yes life is many shades of black and white,untill you back it up to a living being,then is not so fuzzy.
Click to expand...


In the case of abortion - we are not erring on the side of life.
That is very clear.


----------



## M14 Shooter

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.
> 
> After all, it was a non-person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.
Click to expand...

Seems to me what when you have to lie to yourself to ease your conscious, you pretty much invalidate your own point.


----------



## Stephanie

I think sometimes it's too bad some progressive/liberals weren't considered for abortion

Instead they puke all over us

they deserve to be alive the same they feel about those aborted


----------



## norwegen

nodoginnafight said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong. But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that argument has been supported legally:
> 
> Digital History
> 
> (Hence the comment about our laws evolving)
> 
> So you say our laws don't protect you unless you're a citizen?
> 
> So it's perfectly legal to kill an illegal alien?????
> 
> I don't think you thought that post through very well.
Click to expand...

First, your link doesn't say that _blacks_ were subjects in the 3/5ths clause.  Second, it doesn't mention any legal support for anyone being 3/5ths of a human, but rather that only three out of five persons of some populations shall be considered for representation (and for tax purposes).

 If I kill an illegal alien, do you not think that the government of that person's country will come after me?


----------



## BobPlumb

JakeStarkey said:


> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.



Is an infant (newly born baby) a human being?  Why?


----------



## norwegen

M14 Shooter said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?
Click to expand...

Just like fetuses, cats are not protected by the Constitution, either. However, the difference between fetuses and cats is that cats are protected by animal cruelty laws.

I think it's a shame that a little minnow in California, illegal aliens, and cats enjoy better protection by our government than fetuses do. Induced abortions are barbaric and selfish, and as a Christian, I will always be horrified by them. But we have the laws that we have because we have the government that we have.


----------



## nodoginnafight

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.
> 
> After all, it was a non-person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me what when you have to lie to yourself to ease your conscious, you pretty much invalidate your own point.
Click to expand...


Well - it's just part of the human condition. We all have the capacity for self-deception and I think pretty much everyone uses it from time to time.

But it's helpful when you can recognize it when it slaps you in the face.


----------



## PredFan

It depends in the situation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

norwegen said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like fetuses, cats are not protected by the Constitution, either.  However, the difference between fetuses and cats is that cats are protected by animal cruelty laws.
Click to expand...

So...   your statement that "Laws protect the rights of citizens" is, at best, inaccurate because, as you admit, laws can and do protect things other than the rights of citizens.
Right?


----------



## nodoginnafight

norwegen said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong. But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that argument has been supported legally:
> 
> Digital History
> 
> (Hence the comment about our laws evolving)
> 
> So you say our laws don't protect you unless you're a citizen?
> 
> So it's perfectly legal to kill an illegal alien?????
> 
> I don't think you thought that post through very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, your link doesn't say that _blacks_ were subjects in the 3/5ths clause.  Second, it doesn't mention any legal support for anyone being 3/5ths of a human, but rather that only three out of five persons of some populations shall be considered for representation (and for tax purposes).
> 
> If I kill an illegal alien, do you not think that the government of that person's country will come after me?
Click to expand...




> Second, it doesn't mention any legal support


Did you read this part?

"Of all the compromises on which the Constitution rested, perhaps the most controversial was the Three-Fifths Compromise, an agreement to count three-fifths of a state's slaves in apportioning Representatives, Presidential electors, and direct taxes."




> If I kill an illegal alien, do you not think that the government of that person's country will come after me?


Uh no
 If you kill an illegal alien in the United States - let's say in Texas - then the state of Texas will prosecute you.

If you really don't understand how bad you messed up in the post I was referring to - you may need to re-take your junior high history/civics class over. Or maybe sue your teacher.


----------



## Stephanie

Can you imagine someone who claims to be an intelligent person would spout this? 



> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.



Is all this bs what helps you abortion supporters SLEEP at night? 

really you are sick in heads, minds and souls


----------



## norwegen

M14 Shooter said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?
> 
> 
> 
> Just like fetuses, cats are not protected by the Constitution, either. However, the difference between fetuses and cats is that cats are protected by animal cruelty laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So... your statement that "Laws protect the rights of citizens" is, at best, inaccurate because, as you admit, laws can and do protect things other than the rights of citizens.
> Right?
Click to expand...

Laws _do_ protect the rights of citizens.  Also some "rights" of cats.

 Not of fetuses.


----------



## norwegen

nodoginnafight said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... your statement that "Laws protect the rights of citizens" is, at best, inaccurate because, as you admit, laws can and do protect things other than the rights of citizens.
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Laws _do_ protect the rights of citizens. Also some "rights" of cats.
> 
> Not of fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> So it's legal to get an abortion in the ninth month?
Click to expand...

Yes, really.  So it's legal to kill fetuses.


----------



## nodoginnafight

norwegen said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws _do_ protect the rights of citizens. Also some "rights" of cats.
> 
> Not of fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> So it's legal to get an abortion in the ninth month?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, really.  So it's legal to kill fetuses.
Click to expand...


And many of us are trying to change that.
The argument that "it SHOULD be legal because it IS legal" is silly.
We've pretty clearly shown (at least 3/5ths of folks seem pretty clear on it) that the current law values convenience over ethics.


----------



## Stephanie

notice no Christanity for those aborted babies

only lame ass excues

HOW MANY time's is mother life in danger that we need to carry out, 55MILLION abortions?

what a puke


----------



## Lakhota

I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.


----------



## JakeStarkey

BobPlumb said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is an infant (newly born baby) a human being?  Why?
Click to expand...


If born, an infant is not a fetus.


----------



## Stephanie

worthless trolls should always be aborted


----------



## nodoginnafight

Lakhota said:


> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.



I told you why I didn't.

My position is not listed in the poll.


----------



## norwegen

nodoginnafight said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> So it's legal to get an abortion in the ninth month?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, really. So it's legal to kill fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many of us are trying to change that.
> The argument that "it SHOULD be legal because it IS legal" is silly.
> We've pretty clearly shown (at least 3/5ths of folks seem pretty clear on it) that the current law values convenience over ethics.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that I said abortion should be legal?

 Because I didn't.


----------



## nodoginnafight

norwegen said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, really. So it's legal to kill fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many of us are trying to change that.
> The argument that "it SHOULD be legal because it IS legal" is silly.
> We've pretty clearly shown (at least 3/5ths of folks seem pretty clear on it) that the current law values convenience over ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that I said abortion should be legal?
> 
> Because I didn't.
Click to expand...


OK - whatever skippy.

You go work on your civics workbook and who prosecutes illegal alien killers in Texas.

I'm bored with you.


----------



## Wry Catcher

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.



How do you explain a stillborn, a live child born and lives only a few days or weeks?  Is this God's will?  My guess is your answer will be the same.  So, provide probative proof!


----------



## JakeStarkey

More than 80% of Americans believe in some form of abortion, regulated or not.

Less than one of five Americans believe in no abortion, period, which is idiotic.


----------



## whitehall

Why do liberals think the three issues are separate from each other? Nobody objects to the termination of the unborn fetus if serious medical issues threaten the mother's life. A sudden case of depression does not qualify as a life threatening medical condition and does not justify the murder of a full term baby by stabbing it in the back of the head and sucking it's brain out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yeah, somebodies fully believe fetuses take precedence over mothers with infirmities, whitehall.


----------



## Lakhota

nodoginnafight said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poll doesn't include my answer.
> 
> The woman and the fetus have equal rights.
Click to expand...


I disagree, but I respect your honest opinion.  Just curious, does religion play any part in your opinion?


----------



## Stephanie

from the way Lakhota pushes everything abortion

One can come to the conclusion they are MAKING MONEY off of them


----------



## BobPlumb

Lakhota said:


> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.



You don't have an option for how many people feel.  Also, the fertilized egg and a fetus do not exist at the same time during a pregnancy as they are separate  stages of a human life.  Since they don't exist at the same time, there is no picking of one having priority over the other for the fertilized egg and the fetus.


----------



## Lakhota

BobPlumb said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have an option for how many people feel.  Also, the fertilized egg and a fetus do not exist at the same time during a pregnancy as they are separate  stages of a human life.  Since they don't exist at the same time, there is no picking of one having priority over the other for the fertilized egg and the fetus.
Click to expand...


Then couldn't you vote BOTH?  BTW, the poll assumes "typical" circumstances.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Lakhota said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poll doesn't include my answer.
> 
> The woman and the fetus have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, but I respect your honest opinion.  Just curious, does religion play any part in your opinion?
Click to expand...


I am a Christian - but I am a Christian who believes in the separation of Church and State.

My objection is based on an argument of legal theory that I went into above.

(I just made the mistake of debating a legal theory with another poster who doesn't seem to know too much about legal history or the law in general - my bad)


----------



## Gracie

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gracie said:


> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.



Almost 1 of 4 Americans believe that.


----------



## GHook93

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many variable, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.



Can't vote, because it's a depends:
(1) 1st Trimester - I lean to mother
(2) 2nd and 3rd Trimester and no birth defect nor mother's life is in danger - I lean to the BABY
(3) 3rd Trimester and baby has birth defects and/or the mother's life is in danger - Mother
(4) Rape and/or Incest Victim I am muddied because late term minus birth defects or mother's life is in danger is wrong, but I couldn't imagine forcing a rape victim to have a a child created by a RAPE - Mother
*(5) Black Babies - I lean towards society, I think we should be able to abort them after birth up to when they are 18!!! *  -  Just Kidding!!!


----------



## GHook93

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.



What if the conception was because of rape? What if the mother's life is in danger? What if the mother is a teenager? What if the baby has major birth defects? Sorry there is a grey area!!!


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Lakhota said:


> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.



*I voted, and of course I voted that the woman is in charge of her reproductive system just as a man is in charge of his.  

Men who are sexually active and who do not wish to have children should man up and be 50% of the solution: get a vasectomy.  Put your money where your dick is.

Oh, still not sure about children in the future?  Visit a sperm bank, make quarterly donations for a year, then get a vasectomy.

Men are half of the problem and should act accordingly.  *


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

GHook93 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the conception was because of rape? What if the mother's life is in danger? What if the mother is a teenager? What if the baby has major birth defects? Sorry there is a grey area!!!
Click to expand...


*That stupid fucking Republican Todd Akin feller answered the first question.  He said in a legitimate rape a woman's body had a way of just shuttin' down, doncha' know.*


----------



## Freewill

Abortion is the answer for sure, all hail Satan.

Your question reveals a lot about your character.  You might as well asked who is more important, whites, blacks, Hispanics...ets.  In your world is there room for "all" life and "all" people to be equal and important?  Is this 1865?


----------



## AvgGuyIA

The woman ONLY if the fertilized egg is killing her.  Otherwise, the fertilized egg.  Baby next.  Humans are not fetuses during development.  We are not apes.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

JakeStarkey said:


> The health of the woman is always paramount.  That of an egg has no primacy.


  Inconvenience is not a health issue.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Wry Catcher said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain a stillborn, a live child born and lives only a few days or weeks?  Is this God's will?  My guess is your answer will be the same.  So, provide probative proof!
Click to expand...


*Taking that a step further, how do they explain spontaneous abortions, i.e. miscarriages?  When I was in college I had a part-time job working in a pathology lab doing errands and clerical work.  This lab received about 6-10 miscarried fetuses every single day ranging from 4-5 weeks to 7 months.  So let's hear that shit about how God giveth and then he taketh away....[[[rolling eyes]]]

Postscript:  I was in charge of putting up these contained fetuses for the histopathology by the doctors.  Yes, the 6-7 month fetuses would break our hearts. The 4-5 week fetuses were very small, indistinguishable and the size of a large sesame seed.  No one can tell me that takes precedent over a woman's choice.  A woman can't even know for sure until that time. *


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

AvgGuyIA said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The health of the woman is always paramount.  That of an egg has no primacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Inconvenience is not a health issue.
Click to expand...


*And a woman's inconvenience is none of your business.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*I think this thread is predominantly inhabited by men.  If there were more women on it there would be a preponderance of the woman's right to choose.  Why do men want women to take all the responsibility?  Do they think they are still living in caves?*


----------



## Freewill

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain a stillborn, a live child born and lives only a few days or weeks?  Is this God's will?  My guess is your answer will be the same.  So, provide probative proof!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Taking that a step further, how do they explain spontaneous abortions, i.e. miscarriages?  When I was in college I had a part-time job working in a pathology lab doing errands and clerical work.  This lab received about 6-10 miscarried fetuses every single day ranging from 4-5 weeks to 7 months.  So let's hear that shit about how God giveth and then he taketh away....[[[rolling eyes]]]
> 
> Postscript:  I was in charge of putting up these contained fetuses for the histopathology by the doctors.  Yes, the 6-7 month fetuses would break our hearts. The 4-5 week fetuses were very small, indistinguishable and the size of a large sesame seed.  No one can tell me that takes precedent over a woman's choice.  A woman can't even know for sure until that time. *
Click to expand...


I hear you, abortion is the answer, all hail Satan.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The health of the woman is always paramount.  That of an egg has no primacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Inconvenience is not a health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And a woman's inconvenience is none of your business.*
Click to expand...

  Preventing Murder due to inconvenience is the business of Society.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only a follower of satan would write, "Abortion is the answer for sure, all hail Satan."  What I just wrote, freewill, makes no more sense than what you wrote.  Go for a walk, think about it, and come back and talk adult like, please.  This is a serious issue.


----------



## Lakhota

I see a few more posters voted.


----------



## BobPlumb

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I voted, and of course I voted that the woman is in charge of her reproductive system just as a man is in charge of his.
> 
> Men who are sexually active and who do not wish to have children should man up and be 50% of the solution: get a vasectomy.  Put your money where your dick is.
> 
> Oh, still not sure about children in the future?  Visit a sperm bank, make quarterly donations for a year, then get a vasectomy.
> 
> Men are half of the problem and should act accordingly.  *
Click to expand...


So are you for women that don't want to have a baby having their tubes tied?


----------



## JakeStarkey

BobPlumb said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I voted, and of course I voted that the woman is in charge of her reproductive system just as a man is in charge of his.
> 
> Men who are sexually active and who do not wish to have children should man up and be 50% of the solution: get a vasectomy.  Put your money where your dick is.
> 
> Oh, still not sure about children in the future?  Visit a sperm bank, make quarterly donations for a year, then get a vasectomy.
> 
> Men are half of the problem and should act accordingly.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you for women that don't want to have a baby having their tubes tied?
Click to expand...


bobby bob, you don't ever to get to make that type of choice.

step along, son.


----------



## Lakhota

Should women have the final say in making laws that affect their reproductive rights - instead of mostly men making those decisions for them?


----------



## BobPlumb

JakeStarkey said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I voted, and of course I voted that the woman is in charge of her reproductive system just as a man is in charge of his.
> 
> Men who are sexually active and who do not wish to have children should man up and be 50% of the solution: get a vasectomy.  Put your money where your dick is.
> 
> Oh, still not sure about children in the future?  Visit a sperm bank, make quarterly donations for a year, then get a vasectomy.
> 
> Men are half of the problem and should act accordingly.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you for women that don't want to have a baby having their tubes tied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bobby bob, you don't ever to get to make that type of choice.
> 
> step along, son.
Click to expand...


Are you afraid of the question Jake?  If not, STFU.  On the other hand, STFU even if you are afraid!


----------



## Freewill

JakeStarkey said:


> Only a follower of satan would write, "Abortion is the answer for sure, all hail Satan."  What I just wrote, freewill, makes no more sense than what you wrote.  Go for a walk, think about it, and come back and talk adult like, please.  This is a serious issue.



Only a democrat operative wouldn't understand mocking.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a follower of satan would write, "Abortion is the answer for sure, all hail Satan."  What I just wrote, freewill, makes no more sense than what you wrote.  Go for a walk, think about it, and come back and talk adult like, please.  This is a serious issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a democrat operative wouldn't understand mocking.
Click to expand...


You are acting stupidly and inappropriately.

This subject is serious, and you need to take it so or step off until you cool down.


----------



## deltex1

A poorly worded question makes for garbled answers.  Tonto should withdraw the poll and try again.


----------



## Lakhota

deltex1 said:


> A poorly worded question makes for garbled answers.  Tonto should withdraw the poll and try again.



I worded it exactly like I wanted it.  The poll wasn't meant to address all variables, and it assumes "typical" circumstances.


----------



## deltex1

Lakhota said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poorly worded question makes for garbled answers.  Tonto should withdraw the poll and try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worded it exactly like I wanted it.  The poll wasn't meant to address all variables, and it assumes "typical" circumstances.
Click to expand...


"Priority" in what context?  People are all over the place depending on the circumstances...they may be typical but they are nowhere near the same.

    Personal preference?
    Rape?
    Incest?
    Life of mother?
    Deformity of baby?
    Income?


----------



## PratchettFan

There are two rights involved here.  The right to life and the right to personal sovereignty.  When someone is forced to place their body in the service of another that is called involuntary servitude.  That is the definition of slavery. 

Regardless of how I might feel about the child, the body of the woman must be under the sole control of the woman.  Anything less than that is slavery.


----------



## Lakhota

deltex1 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A poorly worded question makes for garbled answers.  Tonto should withdraw the poll and try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worded it exactly like I wanted it.  The poll wasn't meant to address all variables, and it assumes "typical" circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Priority" in what context?  People are all over the place depending on the circumstances...they may be typical but they are nowhere near the same.
> 
> Personal preference?
> Rape?
> Incest?
> Life of mother?
> Deformity of baby?
> Income?
Click to expand...


When I used the word "typical" - none of those variables are assumed to be determining factors.  In other words, it's a superficial poll that assumes "normal" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.


More likely, its because your poll options do not cover enough of the possible responses.


----------



## Lakhota

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.
> 
> 
> 
> More likely, its because your poll options do not cover enough of the possible responses.
Click to expand...


It isn't meant to.


----------



## Noomi

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many variable, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.



The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.
> 
> 
> 
> More likely, its because your poll options do not cover enough of the possible responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't meant to.
Click to expand...

Then you should not be surprised, much less whine about, the fact that many people have posted and not voted.


----------



## Noomi

Stephanie said:


> worthless trolls should always be aborted



Why are you still here then?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Noomi said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many variable, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
Click to expand...

Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?


----------



## Noomi

M14 Shooter said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many variable, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
Click to expand...


Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.


----------



## Gracie

What Noomi said. 

When you guys can carry a fetus...then you might have a say. You can't, so you don't. And you wouldn't like it if the government and others wanted to put their paws on your body and dictate what you can do with it.


----------



## Freewill

Gracie said:


> What Noomi said.
> 
> When you guys can carry a fetus...then you might have a say. You can't, so you don't. And you wouldn't like it if the government and others wanted to put their paws on your body and dictate what you can do with it.



an unborn child is not your body, it isn't even part of your body, different DNA.


----------



## Freewill

Noomi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
Click to expand...


Correct you are responsible for that unborn child residing IN your body but not OF your body and the man is equally responsible.  

Plus I assume you agree that you must be responsible from what is inserted into your body.


----------



## Wildman

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



WOW ! another fucking "GOTTCHA" post, no matter how one replies.., you will be wrong....., if you are a conservative that is.


----------



## Wildman

AvgGuyIA said:


> The woman ONLY if the fertilized egg is killing her.  Otherwise, the fertilized egg.  Baby next.  Humans are not fetuses during development.  We are not apes.



excuse me Sir, but liberapes claim their ancestry comes from the simian family.., most Christian Conservatives believe we were created in GOD's likeness......,* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."*

but the atheist libersatans do not believe there is a GOD, yet*HATE* GOD !

makes a lot of sense..., right ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?



The right to privacy should take priority, prohibiting the state from interfering in matters both personal and private.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

M14 Shooter said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many variable, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
Click to expand...


This fails as a straw man fallacy. 

Moreover, citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right, such as the right to privacy, as a prerequisite to indeed do so.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thhnk you should have the right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...

Apparently you do not understand that "strawman" means.



> Moreover, citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right


Good thing I didn't ask her do do that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Noomi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
Click to expand...

So...   You should have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?
Why?


----------



## Noomi

Freewill said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct you are responsible for that unborn child residing IN your body but not OF your body and the man is equally responsible.
> 
> Plus I assume you agree that you must be responsible from what is inserted into your body.
Click to expand...


The man is not responsible for anything in my body. I am.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gracie said:


> What Noomi said.
> 
> When you guys can carry a fetus...then you might have a say. You can't, so you don't. And you wouldn't like it if the government and others wanted to put their paws on your body and dictate what you can do with it.


You complain about someone putting paws on your body while at the very same time arguing that you should have the right to do that the same thing.
Funny.


----------



## Noomi

M14 Shooter said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...   You should have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because it is my body.


----------



## Newby

Noomi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
Click to expand...


If you have something in your body that you didn't want in it, then you obviously acted irresponsbily to end up in that situation.  And the very reason for killing your unborn child is so that you don't have to be responsible for it.  'Needing' an abortion is the very essence of irresponsibility from beginning to end.


----------



## martybegan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. She is the only one who experiences life, and the only one capable of making choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> Moreover, citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right, such as the right to privacy, as a prerequisite to indeed do so.
Click to expand...


So i shouldn't have to justify to the NYPD why I need a concealed carry permit, right?


----------



## martybegan

Noomi said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct you are responsible for that unborn child residing IN your body but not OF your body and the man is equally responsible.
> 
> Plus I assume you agree that you must be responsible from what is inserted into your body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The man is not responsible for anything in my body. I am.
Click to expand...


But, wait for it, once its OUT of the body, THEN he has to support it, right?


----------



## Lakhota

As of this minute, 75% of voters believe the woman should have first priority.  This is good - and better than I expected.


----------



## Stephanie

omg, why give this troll free rein to puke their ugly BS all over us?


----------



## OriginalShroom

Lakhota said:


> As of this minute, 75% of voters believe the woman should have first priority.  This is good - and better than I expected.



Most of us are saying it is conditional upon the Mother's life being at risk.  Not her "I'm not ready to be mother" or "I'm too busy at work" feelings.


----------



## Stephanie

Democrats are some sick freaks...Can't let a PRO-LIFE person stand in the way of getting RID of those babies..

SNIP:
Abortion, Politics - U.S.Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 5:02 pm EST 

Congresswoman visits Planned Parenthood, thanks escorts for protecting women from pro-life message 

Congresswoman Katherine Clark, D-MA, visited a Planned Parenthood abortion facility Saturday to thank its volunteer abortion &#8220;escorts&#8221; for helping pregnant women evade pro-life sidewalk counselors who might offer them alternatives to abortion.  She made the visit after the Supreme Court struck down the state&#8217;s &#8220;buffer zone&#8221; law, which required sidewalk counselors and pro-life protesters to stay at least 35 feet away from the clinic.

In a statement, Clark slammed the Supreme Court for its decision, and likened the prayers and assistance offered by most sidewalk counselors to &#8220;harassment and intimidation.&#8221;

&#8220;The Court&#8217;s ruling means patients are forced to choose between the medical care they need and being within arm&#8217;s length of potential harm, harassment or intimidation,&#8221; said Clark. &#8220;The walk from a car to a doctor&#8217;s office is a very long one for the women who face this fear. Volunteer escorts provide compassion and safety so that these women can access the health care they need and deserve.&#8221;

all of it here
Congresswoman visits Planned Parenthood, thanks escorts for protecting women from pro-life message | News | LifeSite


----------



## Lakhota

OriginalShroom said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of this minute, 75% of voters believe the woman should have first priority.  This is good - and better than I expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are saying it is conditional upon the Mother's life being at risk.  Not her "I'm not ready to be mother" or "I'm too busy at work" feelings.
Click to expand...


The poll was intentionally not designed to address such variables.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Freewill said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you thnk you should have thw right to end a human life for no other reason than it is convenient for you to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct you are responsible for that unborn child residing IN your body but not OF your body and the man is equally responsible.
> 
> Plus I assume you agree that you must be responsible from what is inserted into your body.
Click to expand...


false, false, and false


----------



## M14 Shooter

Noomi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am the only one who can make a choice, and I am responsible for my body and anything residing in it.
> 
> 
> 
> So...   You should have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is my body.
Click to expand...

The human life that you chose to end for your convenience is -not- your body.
And so, I ask again
Why should you have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?


----------



## chikenwing

M14 Shooter said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...   You should have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is my body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The human life that you chose to end for your convenience is -not- your body.
> And so, i ask again
> Why should you have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?
Click to expand...


What kind  parent would end the life of their own child,for their convenience,what kind of person is that??


----------



## M14 Shooter

chikenwing said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is my body.
> 
> 
> 
> The human life that you chose to end for your convenience is -not- your body.
> And so, i ask again
> Why should you have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind  parent would end the life of their own child,for their convenience,what kind of person is that??
Click to expand...

Not sure that "extraordinarily selfish" is strong enough a term.
How about "irresponsibly self-important"?


----------



## chikenwing

M14 Shooter said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human life that you chose to end for your convenience is -not- your body.
> And so, i ask again
> Why should you have the right to end a human life for no other reason that it is convenient for you to do so based on where that human life happens to be?
> 
> 
> 
> What kind  parent would end the life of their own child,for their convenience,what kind of person is that??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure that "extraordinarily selfish" is strong enough a term.
> How about "irresponsibly self-important"?
Click to expand...


Its all about ME!!


----------



## ClosedCaption

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  *If it begins it was God's will*...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.



Unless its cancer


----------



## chikenwing

ClosedCaption said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  *If it begins it was God's will*...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless its cancer
Click to expand...


Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience??

Respond to that question in a rational logical way and you might have some credibility otherwise,its just......................................................


----------



## ClosedCaption

chikenwing said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  *If it begins it was God's will*...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless its cancer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience??
> 
> Respond to that question in a rational logical way and you might have some credibility otherwise,its just......................................................
Click to expand...


So Cancer is Gods will and just let it do what it do?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The following is a question immaterial to this discussion: "Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience?"

Answer: not your business


----------



## chikenwing

JakeStarkey said:


> The following is a question immaterial to this discussion: "Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience?"
> 
> Answer: not your business



Its very material,as shown by your response.

Now address the question,what kind of person would sacrifice their own child for their conveniences.


----------



## chikenwing

ClosedCaption said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless its cancer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience??
> 
> Respond to that question in a rational logical way and you might have some credibility otherwise,its just......................................................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Cancer is Gods will and just let it do what it do?
Click to expand...


If you say so,I sure don't,but then you do like to pull shit out of your ass. Injecting cncer into the equation is irrelevant.

What kind of person would sacrifice one of their own children for their convenience,its a simple as hell question.


----------



## Gracie

chikenwing said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a question immaterial to this discussion: "Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience?"
> 
> Answer: not your business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its very material,as shown by your response.
> 
> Now address the question,what kind of person would sacrifice their own child for their conveniences.
Click to expand...



How would you know if it is a convenience or not? ANY answer would not suit you because you already think it that way. And guess what? It isn't any of your business. You are not the host to the fetus, right? 

Same o same o bullshit about other people wanting control of someone elses body.


----------



## JakeStarkey

chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.

Thus his comments are immaterial.

He wants to control female bits and pieces.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JakeStarkey said:


> The following is a question immaterial to this discussion: "Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience?"
> 
> Answer: not your business



The 'question' also fails as a straw man fallacy.


----------



## chikenwing

JakeStarkey said:


> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.



Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.

The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.

Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.


----------



## Gracie

All this is, is someone trying very hard to sway others to their way of thinking and it will never happen. Ever. So it's an excuse to troll.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

chikenwing said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience??
> 
> Respond to that question in a rational logical way and you might have some credibility otherwise,its just......................................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Cancer is Gods will and just let it do what it do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so,I sure don't,but then you do like to pull shit out of your ass. Injecting cncer into the equation is irrelevant.
> 
> What kind of person would sacrifice one of their own children for their convenience,its a simple as hell question.
Click to expand...


What kind of person would seek to expand the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty? 

It's a simple question.


----------



## Gracie

chikenwing said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.
> 
> The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.
> 
> Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.
Click to expand...


stfu. When you get to be host to something you don't want growing in you, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.


----------



## chikenwing

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a question immaterial to this discussion: "Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience?"
> 
> Answer: not your business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'question' also fails as a straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...


So how many time have you used that justt today,don't you have more than the fall back straw man fail?

What kind of person would sacrifice one of their own for any reason,particularity convenience.


----------



## Gracie

btw...how many children that were not wanted but carried to term did you adopt? Hmm? Do tell.


----------



## Gracie

chikenwing said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a question immaterial to this discussion: "Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience?"
> 
> Answer: not your business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'question' also fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many time have you used that justt today,don't you have more than the fall back straw man fail?
> 
> *What kind of person would sacrifice one of their own for any reason,particularity convenience*.
Click to expand...


Me.

Next question or is it just another lame troll attack?


----------



## ClosedCaption

chikenwing said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience??
> 
> Respond to that question in a rational logical way and you might have some credibility otherwise,its just......................................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Cancer is Gods will and just let it do what it do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you say so,*I sure don't,but then you do like to pull shit out of your ass. Injecting cncer into the equation is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


What I say goes.  Thats awesome.


----------



## chikenwing

Gracie said:


> All this is, is someone trying very hard to sway others to their way of thinking and it will never happen. Ever. So it's an excuse to troll.



So you aslo can't respond without a defection,got it,make you uncomfortable??

Its a simple feaking question,about a very black and white subject,a person will or will not die.


Lets put it in very simple terms, you are trapped in a fire,you have only one choice,you or one of your kids,what would you choose?


----------



## Gracie

chikenwing said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this is, is someone trying very hard to sway others to their way of thinking and it will never happen. Ever. So it's an excuse to troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you aslo can't respond without a defection,got it,make you uncomfortable??
> 
> Its a simple feaking question,about a very black and white subject,a person will or will not die.
> 
> 
> Lets put it in very simple terms, you are trapped in a fire,you have only one choice,you or one of your kids,what would you choose?
Click to expand...


You are an idiot.

Have you ever put a pet down? Murderer!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gracie said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a question immaterial to this discussion: "Nice try,what kind of parent would kill their own children for their convenience?"
> 
> Answer: not your business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its very material,as shown by your response.
> 
> Now address the question,what kind of person would sacrifice their own child for their conveniences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know if it is a convenience or not?
Click to expand...

 Absent a threat to the life of the mother or a case of incest/rape, all that's left is convenience.

Not sure why more people aren't shaken to the core at the idea of having the right to end a human life for nothing more convenience.


----------



## Gracie

Gracie said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'question' also fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many time have you used that justt today,don't you have more than the fall back straw man fail?
> 
> *What kind of person would sacrifice one of their own for any reason,particularity convenience*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Next question or is it just another lame troll attack?
Click to expand...


Hello? I already answered your question. Next?


----------



## Gracie

M14 Shooter said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its very material,as shown by your response.
> 
> Now address the question,what kind of person would sacrifice their own child for their conveniences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know if it is a convenience or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absent a threat to the life of the mother or a case of incest/rape, all that's left is convenience.
> 
> Not sure why more people aren't shaken to the core at the idea of having the right to end a human life for nothing more convenience.
Click to expand...



You a male? If so, stfu.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gracie said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know if it is a convenience or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Absent a threat to the life of the mother or a case of incest/rape, all that's left is convenience.
> 
> Not sure why more people aren't shaken to the core at the idea of having the right to end a human life for nothing more convenience.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You a male? If so, stfu.
Click to expand...

The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.

Two questions:
Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

I am a Christian and I find abortion repugnant.

Problem is, I can't support another woman's child. I can't afford to. I do well to support my family. All these people who are pro-life, I am all for them, but, they need to put their money where their mouth is.

Adopt children, how many orphans are in America right now? 

I can comfort expectant mothers, and counsel them, but I can't raise the child for them, I can't say to a mother "put it up for adoption, because you can't afford to raise it" Why should I? So the child can grow up in a children's home as an orphan? 

Instead of arguing about Pro-life and pro-choice, we should be using our intelligence to figure out a way to get those children who are orphans adopted and into a better life.

As far as women goes who use abortion as birth control, they need to be neutered, a simple condom will work most times for birth control, there are one a day pills, and there is always abstinence, but they would rather get pregnant, and have another abortion, like I say, neuter them.


----------



## Gracie

M14 Shooter said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absent a threat to the life of the mother or a case of incest/rape, all that's left is convenience.
> 
> Not sure why more people aren't shaken to the core at the idea of having the right to end a human life for nothing more convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You a male? If so, stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.
> 
> Two questions:
> Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
> How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?
Click to expand...



It does not bother me one iota because it is MY body. I CHOOSE what grows in it or does not grow in it. 

It comes down to others wanting control of the only thing anyone has left. Control of their OWN BODY.

And there are many..MANY like me.


----------



## chikenwing

Gracie said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many time have you used that justt today,don't you have more than the fall back straw man fail?
> 
> *What kind of person would sacrifice one of their own for any reason,particularity convenience*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Next question or is it just another lame troll attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello? I already answered your question. Next?
Click to expand...


No you din't but its understandable,you can't


----------



## Gracie

Yer a moron and you have proved you are just a fucking troll.

Continue on with your strawman tactics. Someone will play with ya.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gracie said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You a male? If so, stfu.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.
> 
> Two questions:
> Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
> How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It does not bother me one iota because it is MY body. *I CHOOSE what grows in it or does not grow in it. *
> 
> It comes down to others wanting control of the only thing anyone has left. Control of their OWN BODY.
> 
> And there are many..MANY like me.
Click to expand...


You have never met cancer have you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cancer is not a human telling another human what can be done or not with his or her body.

False equivalency.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gracie said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You a male? If so, stfu.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.
> 
> Two questions:
> Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
> How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not bother me one iota because it is MY body.
Click to expand...

The human life that you kill for convenience is -not- your body.



> I CHOOSE what grows in it or does not grow in it.


And you're willing to kill a human life for your convenience.



> It comes down to others wanting control...


Aaaahhh....   control.  There we go.
You're willing to end a human life so you can maintain some feeling of control.

How is your need to feel in control more valuable than a human life?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Cancer is not a human telling another human what can be done or not with his or her body.
> 
> False equivalency.



You are right, cancer is God telling a human what will grow in their body.


----------



## Gracie

lol.


----------



## Gracie

M14 Shooter said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.
> 
> Two questions:
> Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
> How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?
> 
> 
> 
> It does not bother me one iota because it is MY body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The human life that you kill for convenience is -not- your body*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOOSE what grows in it or does not grow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you're willing to kill a human life for your convenience.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to others wanting control...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aaaahhh....   control.  There we go.
> *You're willing to end a human life so you can maintain some feeling of control.
> *
> *How is your need to feel in control more valuable than a human life?*
Click to expand...


It is growing IN my body. Without my body, it would not come to fruitition.

Yup

Yup

Because..again...pay attention McFly...its MY BODY.


----------



## Taz

I give priority for a job to the woman. The egg won't accomplish anything and the fetus would just kick everyone.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is not a human telling another human what can be done or not with his or her body.
> 
> False equivalency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, cancer is God telling a human what will grow in their body.
Click to expand...


Were you born with your cognitive disability or were you injured later on?

Your statement is non-factual, unprovable, and offensive to true Christians.


----------



## Noomi

chikenwing said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this is, is someone trying very hard to sway others to their way of thinking and it will never happen. Ever. So it's an excuse to troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you aslo can't respond without a defection,got it,make you uncomfortable??
> 
> Its a simple feaking question,about a very black and white subject,a person will or will not die.
> 
> 
> Lets put it in very simple terms, you are trapped in a fire,you have only one choice,you or one of your kids,what would you choose?
Click to expand...


What? Save myself or one of my kids? Well if I saved one of the kids I would also be saving myself, douche.


----------



## Gracie

He is an idiot. 

Of course one would save the child they WANTED and gave birth to and raised because they WANTED that child. Duh. Its a strawman argument and only was asked to troll for the answer he wants. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Noomi

Gracie said:


> He is an idiot.
> 
> Of course one would save the child they WANTED and gave birth to and raised because they WANTED that child. Duh. Its a strawman argument and only was asked to troll for the answer he wants. Ain't gonna happen.



Ask him the same question. A live baby and a jar of frozen embryos. Which does he save? He won't answer because he can't admit that a live person is worth more than an embryo.


----------



## Kosh

To the far left the fetus is a cancer that must be prevented and must be removed all costs like cancer..


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is not a human telling another human what can be done or not with his or her body.
> 
> False equivalency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, cancer is God telling a human what will grow in their body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you born with your cognitive disability or were you injured later on?
> 
> Your statement is non-factual, unprovable, and offensive to true Christians.
Click to expand...


Like you would know what a Christian is Jake... You bribed your own son to quit church, so you could watch football on Sunday...


----------



## chikenwing

Noomi said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is an idiot.
> 
> Of course one would save the child they WANTED and gave birth to and raised because they WANTED that child. Duh. Its a strawman argument and only was asked to troll for the answer he wants. Ain't gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask him the same question. A live baby and a jar of frozen embryos. Which does he save? He won't answer because he can't admit that a live person is worth more than an embryo.
Click to expand...


I can't admit that live person is worth more than frozen embryo's? You can't admitt that the unborn are worth anything.

So unwanted people are worthless got it,thats the base you people work off of,the unwanted are to be disposed of.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The Constitution affords everyone the right to express his opinion concerning abortion, and to act accordingly with regard to his personal beliefs and in good conscience.  

For those who believe an embryo/fetus is a 'person,' they are at liberty to not have an abortion, and to counsel against having an abortion to others in an appropriate manner and venue. 

The Constitution also prohibits the state from dictating to citizens whether they may have a child or not; where those opposed to abortion may not seek to use the authority of the state to compel conformity to their personal beliefs concerning the matter. (See:_ Griswold v. Connecticut_ (1965), _Eisenstadt v. Baird_ (1972),  _Roe v. Wade_ (1973}, _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_ (1992)).


----------



## chikenwing

Noomi said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this is, is someone trying very hard to sway others to their way of thinking and it will never happen. Ever. So it's an excuse to troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you aslo can't respond without a defection,got it,make you uncomfortable??
> 
> Its a simple feaking question,about a very black and white subject,a person will or will not die.
> 
> 
> Lets put it in very simple terms, you are trapped in a fire,you have only one choice,you or one of your kids,what would you choose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Save myself or one of my kids? Well if I saved one of the kids I would also be saving myself, douche.
Click to expand...


Hard time with reading don't you,you had one choice you or the child,you don't get both,now try again.


----------



## Stephanie

Harry Reid wailed how men had a say on Hobby lobby

but notice all the men who feels they have a right to jump on abortion, for women?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Stephanie said:


> Harry Reid wailed how men had a say on Hobby lobby
> 
> but notice all the men who feels they have a right to jump on abortion, for women?



That is really easy to fix. 

If women don't want a man to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.


----------



## NYcarbineer

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.



God's will????

What happened to the will of the People in your equation?


----------



## jillian

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Reid wailed how men had a say on Hobby lobby
> 
> but notice all the men who feels they have a right to jump on abortion, for women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is really easy to fix.
> 
> If women don't want a man to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.
Click to expand...




nice try. but child support isn't for mom. it's for the child. and knowing what I know about the rates of deadbeat-dadism, every man would say "well, I wanted her to abort" if he had to ante up.

the reality is that someone has to have the last say. it isn't your body so you lose that battle. but I do love the constant effort by men on the right to control women, whether it be by making it harder to obtain birth control or get equal pay.... 

there is a reason that 80% of anti-choice activisits are men.... it's about control and punishing the harlots. it's a battle that's gone on forever, but particularly the 60's when women became financially independent and took charge of their bodies. 

I think it was best expressed by the imbeciles on your side of the aisle who think men are superior to women.


----------



## Taz

Only people with a high enough IQ should be allowed to have children.


----------



## Stephanie

omg, anti-choice activist are majority men

it couldn't be they might WANT a say on the baby they HELPED CREATE now could it

good grief you oh so independent women want to control everything...you want to make the baby with the help from a MAN, then you also get to play g-d over the man and the child you HELP CREATE

sick individuals


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

jillian said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Reid wailed how men had a say on Hobby lobby
> 
> but notice all the men who feels they have a right to jump on abortion, for women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is really easy to fix.
> 
> If women don't want a man to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice try. but child support isn't for mom. it's for the child. and knowing what I know about the rates of deadbeat-dadism, every man would say "well, I wanted her to abort" if he had to ante up.
> 
> the reality is that someone has to have the last say. it isn't your body so you lose that battle. but I do love the constant effort by men on the right to control women, whether it be by making it harder to obtain birth control or get equal pay....
> 
> there is a reason that 80% of anti-choice activisits are men.... it's about control and punishing the harlots. it's a battle that's gone on forever, but particularly the 60's when women became financially independent and took charge of their bodies.
> 
> I think it was best expressed by the imbeciles on your side of the aisle who think men are superior to women.
Click to expand...


As I said, if women don't want men to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary. 

There are some men who would rather have a woman have an abortion than have a child. There are some women who have kids just to make the dad 'pay up'. 

Bad people run on both sides of gender. I have never said men are superior to women. If anything I believe women to be superior to men, because men cannot grow a human being inside of them, and the pain of childbirth would probably kill many men. 

If women are so in charge of their own bodies, then don't get pregnant! Yes, it takes 2 to do the deed, but women need to realize one thing that is paramount above all. 'All men are dogs, and dogs act better'. Do whatever it takes not to get pregnant if you do not want to have a child. If that means abstinence, then abstain. Take control of your bodies and make abortion a "non-issue".

I do not stand at abortion clinics, trying to talk women out of abortions. I counsel women who have had abortions, and far to many times, the regret of that decision eats away at them. So, I hate the fact that abortion exists. I also hate the fact that so many children are orphans. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, instead of far right and far left, why can't we work it out, on a person by person level, and make the best decision for each person?


----------



## Taz

UllysesS.Archer said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is really easy to fix.
> 
> If women don't want a man to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice try. but child support isn't for mom. it's for the child. and knowing what I know about the rates of deadbeat-dadism, every man would say "well, I wanted her to abort" if he had to ante up.
> 
> the reality is that someone has to have the last say. it isn't your body so you lose that battle. but I do love the constant effort by men on the right to control women, whether it be by making it harder to obtain birth control or get equal pay....
> 
> there is a reason that 80% of anti-choice activisits are men.... it's about control and punishing the harlots. it's a battle that's gone on forever, but particularly the 60's when women became financially independent and took charge of their bodies.
> 
> I think it was best expressed by the imbeciles on your side of the aisle who think men are superior to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, if women don't want men to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.
> 
> There are some men who would rather have a woman have an abortion than have a child. There are some women who have kids just to make the dad 'pay up'.
> 
> Bad people run on both sides of gender. I have never said men are superior to women. If anything I believe women to be superior to men, because men cannot grow a human being inside of them, and the pain of childbirth would probably kill many men.
> 
> If women are so in charge of their own bodies, then don't get pregnant! Yes, it takes 2 to do the deed, but women need to realize one thing that is paramount above all. 'All men are dogs, and dogs act better'. Do whatever it takes not to get pregnant if you do not want to have a child. If that means abstinence, then abstain. Take control of your bodies and make abortion a "non-issue".
> 
> I do not stand at abortion clinics, trying to talk women out of abortions. I counsel women who have had abortions, and far to many times, the regret of that decision eats away at them. So, I hate the fact that abortion exists. I also hate the fact that so many children are orphans. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, instead of far right and far left, why can't we work it out, on a person by person level, and make the best decision for each person?
Click to expand...


The best decision for each person is to let them choose for themselves what they want to do.


----------



## paperview

jillian said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Reid wailed how men had a say on Hobby lobby
> 
> but notice all the men who feels they have a right to jump on abortion, for women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is really easy to fix.
> 
> If women don't want a man to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice try. but child support isn't for mom. it's for the child. and knowing what I know about the rates of deadbeat-dadism, every man would say "well, I wanted her to abort" if he had to ante up.
> 
> the reality is that someone has to have the last say. it isn't your body so you lose that battle. but I do love the constant effort by men on the right to control women, whether it be by making it harder to obtain birth control or get equal pay....
> 
> there is a reason that 80% of anti-choice activisits are men.... it's about control and punishing the harlots. it's a battle that's gone on forever, but particularly the 60's when women became financially independent and took charge of their bodies.
> 
> I think it was best expressed by the imbeciles on your side of the aisle who think men are superior to women.
Click to expand...

Get a load of this one: 'Legitimate Rape' Akin is Back! Might Consider Exception For Tubal Pregnancies

Oh brother!

'Legitimate Rape' Akin Says He Might Consider Exception For Tubal Pregnancies | Crooks and Liars

Todd "legitimate rape" Akin was back out there, hoping for some more  book sales on Chuck Todd's show this Thursday, and to Chuck Todd's  credit, he did push Akin on his statements about "legitimate rape" and  for trying to pretend he was taken out of context for his remarks.

  Akin pulled the same stunt we saw during other interviews  where he tried to portray his previous statements as just a "poor  choice of words" and then turn the conversation to one where he's  pretending that the Democrats are actually the ones waging a "war on  women" ...<snip>



> If Republicans would like to run on the platform Akin just laid out here, by all means, please proceed, wingnuts:TODD: Do you believe there's ever an instance that abortion should be legal?
> 
> AKIN: I think that what doctors should do is to try to save life,  okay? And as I earlier in that interview, I made it clear, there's a  thing that's I believe called a tubal pregnancy, where the child has no  chance to live and the child will kill the mother if the child grows  there.
> 
> Now I believe that what you do is optimize life, you save the  mother's life. Your objective is not to kill the child. Your objective  is to save the mother's life.
> 
> I think that's the... if you'd call that an exception, then that  would be an exception. but the points is you try to optimize life,  because I believe that little children are special.​


Gee, isn't that nice of him to consider that _exception_.

<shaking my head>


----------



## GISMYS

BOTTOMLINE=WHY WOULD YOU KILL YOUR OWN BABY??? BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND PARTY?? Because your new boyfriend does not want you if you have a child?? Because you just don't want the "bother"?? YOUR mother could have thought the same about you!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Gracie said:


> Because..again...pay attention McFly...its MY BODY.


_That's_ your answer to the question of how your need to feel in control is more valuable than a human life?

Wow...  that's -far- more petulant than my expectation.


----------



## GISMYS

THINK!!! THINK!!! WHO AND WHAT WERE YOU  THE DAY OR WEEK BEFORE YOU WERE BORN?? WERE you a baby human or a blob of cells? IF you were not wanted by your mother should she have had you killed??? what about the week after you were born???


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

It is quite an amazing, that everyone who supports abortion, has already been born!  Oh!  The irony!


----------



## chikenwing

paperview said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is really easy to fix.
> 
> If women don't want a man to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice try. but child support isn't for mom. it's for the child. and knowing what I know about the rates of deadbeat-dadism, every man would say "well, I wanted her to abort" if he had to ante up.
> 
> the reality is that someone has to have the last say. it isn't your body so you lose that battle. but I do love the constant effort by men on the right to control women, whether it be by making it harder to obtain birth control or get equal pay....
> 
> there is a reason that 80% of anti-choice activisits are men.... it's about control and punishing the harlots. it's a battle that's gone on forever, but particularly the 60's when women became financially independent and took charge of their bodies.
> 
> I think it was best expressed by the imbeciles on your side of the aisle who think men are superior to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this one: 'Legitimate Rape' Akin is Back! Might Consider Exception For Tubal Pregnancies
> 
> Oh brother!
> 
> 'Legitimate Rape' Akin Says He Might Consider Exception For Tubal Pregnancies | Crooks and Liars
> 
> Todd "legitimate rape" Akin was back out there, hoping for some more  book sales on Chuck Todd's show this Thursday, and to Chuck Todd's  credit, he did push Akin on his statements about "legitimate rape" and  for trying to pretend he was taken out of context for his remarks.
> 
> Akin pulled the same stunt we saw during other interviews  where he tried to portray his previous statements as just a "poor  choice of words" and then turn the conversation to one where he's  pretending that the Democrats are actually the ones waging a "war on  women" ...<snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Republicans would like to run on the platform Akin just laid out here, by all means, please proceed, wingnuts:TODD: Do you believe there's ever an instance that abortion should be legal?
> 
> AKIN: I think that what doctors should do is to try to save life,  okay? And as I earlier in that interview, I made it clear, there's a  thing that's I believe called a tubal pregnancy, where the child has no  chance to live and the child will kill the mother if the child grows  there.
> 
> Now I believe that what you do is optimize life, you save the  mother's life. Your objective is not to kill the child. Your objective  is to save the mother's life.
> 
> I think that's the... if you'd call that an exception, then that  would be an exception. but the points is you try to optimize life,  because I believe that little children are special.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, isn't that nice of him to consider that _exception_.
> 
> <shaking my head>
Click to expand...


So you single out one guys comments out of millions,and its supposed to be significant?


----------



## Stephanie

Jeremiah said:


> It is quite an amazing, that everyone who supports abortion, has already been born!  Oh!  The irony!



BINGO
so what the HELL DO THEY CARE
And then we get threads like so they JUSTIFY the killing of ones offspring and be able to stand themselves


----------



## chikenwing

Taz said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice try. but child support isn't for mom. it's for the child. and knowing what I know about the rates of deadbeat-dadism, every man would say "well, I wanted her to abort" if he had to ante up.
> 
> the reality is that someone has to have the last say. it isn't your body so you lose that battle. but I do love the constant effort by men on the right to control women, whether it be by making it harder to obtain birth control or get equal pay....
> 
> there is a reason that 80% of anti-choice activisits are men.... it's about control and punishing the harlots. it's a battle that's gone on forever, but particularly the 60's when women became financially independent and took charge of their bodies.
> 
> I think it was best expressed by the imbeciles on your side of the aisle who think men are superior to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, if women don't want men to have a say in abortion, then make child support totally voluntary.
> 
> There are some men who would rather have a woman have an abortion than have a child. There are some women who have kids just to make the dad 'pay up'.
> 
> Bad people run on both sides of gender. I have never said men are superior to women. If anything I believe women to be superior to men, because men cannot grow a human being inside of them, and the pain of childbirth would probably kill many men.
> 
> If women are so in charge of their own bodies, then don't get pregnant! Yes, it takes 2 to do the deed, but women need to realize one thing that is paramount above all. 'All men are dogs, and dogs act better'. Do whatever it takes not to get pregnant if you do not want to have a child. If that means abstinence, then abstain. Take control of your bodies and make abortion a "non-issue".
> 
> I do not stand at abortion clinics, trying to talk women out of abortions. I counsel women who have had abortions, and far to many times, the regret of that decision eats away at them. So, I hate the fact that abortion exists. I also hate the fact that so many children are orphans. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, instead of far right and far left, why can't we work it out, on a person by person level, and make the best decision for each person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best decision for each person is to let them choose for themselves what they want to do.
Click to expand...


What about the one that's doing the dying? So you agree they should have a choice also?


----------



## Care4all

chikenwing said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no difference between them,all are alive and genetically coded and unique.
> 
> What parent would sacrifice the child over self??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't each woman have a unique set of circumstances - such as mental, physical, and financial health?  There is also the condition of a fetus to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes both parents and the child but that still doesn't discount the other living beings .
> 
> What parent would sacrifice their child over self?? that is the base of your arguments that a parent is and would be willing to sacrifice one of their own children for their self interest?
> 
> What kind of person that would do that really be?
Click to expand...

A mother that has other children that would be left without a mother, would be one situation where the mother would choose to live over her child in womb, especially if the child in womb is going to kill her.

Mother's life takes priority over a fertilized egg and over a fetus, unless the mother and father decide on their own, to let the Mother die.

during Katrina, a Clinic with Frozen embryos was being flooded and all workers were going to drown if the fire dept had not gotten there to save them....the firemen saved the already birthed and living employees FIRST and then once all of the employees were rescued and saved, the firemen went back in, to remove and save as many canisters as they could, with frozen embryos in them....

If these firemen had chosen to save the frozen embryos first and was unable to save the lives of all of the employees, it would have been NEGLIGENT of them.....

they did not disregard the frozen embryos as non life, they saved them because they were living, but they knew a birthed human being has greater value, than a frozen embryo, and they saved the employees first.


----------



## rdean

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



Our responsibility is to the woman.  The fertilized egg and the fetus is her responsibility.  We should support her decisions.  It's her body.


----------



## Avatar4321

rdean said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our responsibility is to the woman.  The fertilized egg and the fetus is her responsibility.  We should support her decisions.  It's her body.
Click to expand...


So you have absolutely no responsibility for your children? Really?

You no longer have any right to complain about people wanting to eliminate entitlement programs. You've just said we have no responsibility for our children. Why exactly would we have any for our neighbors?


----------



## BobPlumb

I've got good news.  In most cases of pregnancy, both the woman and her offspring can live, so there is no need for one to have priority over the other.  That being said, if only one may live , either mother or the unborn, due to medical reasons then the mother should make the choice.


----------



## chikenwing

Care4all said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't each woman have a unique set of circumstances - such as mental, physical, and financial health?  There is also the condition of a fetus to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes both parents and the child but that still doesn't discount the other living beings .
> 
> What parent would sacrifice their child over self?? that is the base of your arguments that a parent is and would be willing to sacrifice one of their own children for their self interest?
> 
> What kind of person that would do that really be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mother that has other children that would be left without a mother, would be one situation where the mother would choose to live over her child in womb, especially if the child in womb is going to kill her.
> 
> Mother's life takes priority over a fertilized egg and over a fetus, unless the mother and father decide on their own, to let the Mother die.
> 
> during Katrina, a Clinic with Frozen embryos was being flooded and all workers were going to drown if the fire dept had not gotten there to save them....the firemen saved the already birthed and living employees FIRST and then once all of the employees were rescued and saved, the firemen went back in, to remove and save as many canisters as they could, with frozen embryos in them....
> 
> If these firemen had chosen to save the frozen embryos first and was unable to save the lives of all of the employees, it would have been NEGLIGENT of them.....
> 
> they did not disregard the frozen embryos as non life, they saved them because they were living, but they knew a birthed human being has greater value, than a frozen embryo, and they saved the employees first.
Click to expand...


So basically they would be better off dead??!! a frozen embryo,and a live person that just hasn't been born yet are two different things but good try.

The argument that they wouldn't be loved,or not enough money is chilling at least,supoer sefish at best.

When we start killing people over money we are doomed.That small unique person has just as many rights as all you freaking animals that are willing to kill the most innocent put together.


----------



## Lakhota

Birth Control vs. Population Control

Foreign Policy: Without Birth Control, Planet Doomed : NPR


----------



## Noomi

chikenwing said:


> So basically they would be better off dead??!! a frozen embryo,and a live person that just hasn't been born yet are two different things but good try.



You say they are not the same thing, yet why do you want each to be treated equally?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Birth Control vs. Population Control
> 
> Foreign Policy: Without Birth Control, Planet Doomed : NPR


All of which is hooey.  The world will not end because of overpopulation.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman is currently polling at 80%.  That is good...


----------



## Taz

Lakhota said:


> The woman is currently polling at 80%.  That is good...



Too bad you couldn't choose "squaw". Or horse.


----------



## Care4all

chikenwing said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes both parents and the child but that still doesn't discount the other living beings .
> 
> What parent would sacrifice their child over self?? that is the base of your arguments that a parent is and would be willing to sacrifice one of their own children for their self interest?
> 
> What kind of person that would do that really be?
> 
> 
> 
> A mother that has other children that would be left without a mother, would be one situation where the mother would choose to live over her child in womb, especially if the child in womb is going to kill her.
> 
> Mother's life takes priority over a fertilized egg and over a fetus, unless the mother and father decide on their own, to let the Mother die.
> 
> during Katrina, a Clinic with Frozen embryos was being flooded and all workers were going to drown if the fire dept had not gotten there to save them....the firemen saved the already birthed and living employees FIRST and then once all of the employees were rescued and saved, the firemen went back in, to remove and save as many canisters as they could, with frozen embryos in them....
> 
> If these firemen had chosen to save the frozen embryos first and was unable to save the lives of all of the employees, it would have been NEGLIGENT of them.....
> 
> they did not disregard the frozen embryos as non life, they saved them because they were living, but they knew a birthed human being has greater value, than a frozen embryo, and they saved the employees first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically they would be better off dead??!! a frozen embryo,and a live person that just hasn't been born yet are two different things but good try.
> 
> The argument that they wouldn't be loved,or not enough money is chilling at least,supoer sefish at best.
> 
> When we start killing people over money we are doomed.That small unique person has just as many rights as all you freaking animals that are willing to kill the most innocent put together.
Click to expand...

Why are they 2 different things?  Do you not believe that life begins at conception?  Or is it that you believe life does not begin until Pregnancy, which is when the fertilized egg or zygote attaches to the uterus?  

If life begins at conception, then that frozen embryo IS LIFE....no less life than any fertilized egg out there that has not yet attached to the uterus...so what is it that you believe???


----------



## chikenwing

Noomi said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically they would be better off dead??!! a frozen embryo,and a live person that just hasn't been born yet are two different things but good try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say they are not the same thing, yet why do you want each to be treated equally?
Click to expand...


a froze embryo and a person with a beating heart,you do see the difference right,or are you being obtuse as always


----------



## chikenwing

Care4all said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mother that has other children that would be left without a mother, would be one situation where the mother would choose to live over her child in womb, especially if the child in womb is going to kill her.
> 
> Mother's life takes priority over a fertilized egg and over a fetus, unless the mother and father decide on their own, to let the Mother die.
> 
> during Katrina, a Clinic with Frozen embryos was being flooded and all workers were going to drown if the fire dept had not gotten there to save them....the firemen saved the already birthed and living employees FIRST and then once all of the employees were rescued and saved, the firemen went back in, to remove and save as many canisters as they could, with frozen embryos in them....
> 
> If these firemen had chosen to save the frozen embryos first and was unable to save the lives of all of the employees, it would have been NEGLIGENT of them.....
> 
> they did not disregard the frozen embryos as non life, they saved them because they were living, but they knew a birthed human being has greater value, than a frozen embryo, and they saved the employees first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically they would be better off dead??!! a frozen embryo,and a live person that just hasn't been born yet are two different things but good try.
> 
> The argument that they wouldn't be loved,or not enough money is chilling at least,supoer sefish at best.
> 
> When we start killing people over money we are doomed.That small unique person has just as many rights as all you freaking animals that are willing to kill the most innocent put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they 2 different things?  Do you not believe that life begins at conception?  Or is it that you believe life does not begin until Pregnancy, which is when the fertilized egg or zygote attaches to the uterus?
> 
> If life begins at conception, then that frozen embryo IS LIFE....no less life than any fertilized egg out there that has not yet attached to the uterus...so what is it that you believe???
Click to expand...


So you do agree life begins at conception,that good,if your ass was on fiire and you had a box of frozen embryos and a little kid,you had one choice save one or the other,what would you do?

Talking in circles looking for a trip up is rather childish.


----------



## Care4all

chikenwing said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically they would be better off dead??!! a frozen embryo,and a live person that just hasn't been born yet are two different things but good try.
> 
> The argument that they wouldn't be loved,or not enough money is chilling at least,supoer sefish at best.
> 
> When we start killing people over money we are doomed.That small unique person has just as many rights as all you freaking animals that are willing to kill the most innocent put together.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they 2 different things?  Do you not believe that life begins at conception?  Or is it that you believe life does not begin until Pregnancy, which is when the fertilized egg or zygote attaches to the uterus?
> 
> If life begins at conception, then that frozen embryo IS LIFE....no less life than any fertilized egg out there that has not yet attached to the uterus...so what is it that you believe???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do agree life begins at conception,that good,if your ass was on fiire and you had a box of frozen embryos and a little kid,you had one choice save one or the other,what would you do?
> 
> Talking in circles looking for a trip up is rather childish.
Click to expand...

the living person who is already breathing, HAS priority over a fertilized egg and an embryo, and a fetus, if doctors had to choose between the two, on saving a life.

A living breathing human being has priority, period, unless they themselves are willing to give up their own life, in order to save their fetus's life.

A fertilized egg, and an embryo and a fetus do not have priority over the life of a living and breathing human being, to answer the question in the title of this thread.

that being said, of course a doctor should try to save both the mother and her baby to be, if at all possible.


----------



## chikenwing

that being said, of course a doctor should try to save both the mother and her baby to be, if at all possible.

True statement.If it is truly life or death for one or the other.never for convenience. A fetus is just as human and alive as you are at this very moment.


----------



## Taz

Life begins when my swimmers come tumbling out. THEY'RE ALIVE!!!


----------



## Care4all

chikenwing said:


> that being said, of course a doctor should try to save both the mother and her baby to be, if at all possible.
> 
> True statement.If it is truly life or death for one or the other.never for convenience. A fetus is just as human and alive as you are at this very moment.


But even God, if you believe in God, separated and distinguished between Life being Formed, and the Breath of Life, itself....

God said he *formed* Adam, and then he breathed life in to him...with his first breath.

He didn't twinkle his nose like Bewitched and Adam just appeared...God said he formed man, then gave humans life, with breath.  _God separated the two._  Forming, and Breathing humans...(but both humans)

There is no 'man', Adam, or 'human' life, without that *forming  *period, in our cases, in the womb....

Yet, taking that first breath, making us have 'life' according to God, can not take place without the *forming..*.(in the womb)

And pretty much, Science says the same thing...we have to be formed in the womb, before we can ever take our first breath of life.

So, For me, and my personal opinion, a living and breathing human being, if in a real pickle, takes priority with doctors...on saving first....not the unborn child....

but the unborn child of this mother to be, should still be given every opportunity, and if at all possible, the ability to live and breath as well as the mother.

Again, this is just how I see it....


----------



## chikenwing

Care4all said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> that being said, of course a doctor should try to save both the mother and her baby to be, if at all possible.
> 
> True statement.If it is truly life or death for one or the other.never for convenience. A fetus is just as human and alive as you are at this very moment.
> 
> 
> 
> But even God, if you believe in God, separated and distinguished between Life being Formed, and the Breath of Life, itself....
> 
> God said he *formed* Adam, and then he breathed life in to him...with his first breath.
> 
> He didn't twinkle his nose like Bewitched and Adam just appeared...God said he formed man, then gave humans life, with breath.  _God separated the two._  Forming, and Breathing humans...(but both humans)
> 
> There is no 'man', Adam, or 'human' life, without that *forming  *period, in our cases, in the womb....
> 
> Yet, taking that first breath, making us have 'life' according to God, can not take place without the *forming..*.(in the womb)
> 
> And pretty much, Science says the same thing...we have to be formed in the womb, before we can ever take our first breath of life.
> 
> So, For me, and my personal opinion, a living and breathing human being, if in a real pickle, takes priority with doctors...on saving first....not the unborn child....
> 
> but the unborn child of this mother to be, should still be given every opportunity, and if at all possible, the ability to live and breath as well as the mother.
> 
> Again, this is just how I see it....
Click to expand...


For me religion has nothing to do with it,its common sense,we were ALL at one time very small and vulnerable,but just as human and alive at any moment in his or hers time ,be it one hour or 100 years,it never a cat or bird,always a person that should have the same respect and afford the same protections,we should default to life ,not convenience.


----------



## Noomi

chikenwing said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically they would be better off dead??!! a frozen embryo,and a live person that just hasn't been born yet are two different things but good try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say they are not the same thing, yet why do you want each to be treated equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a froze embryo and a person with a beating heart,you do see the difference right,or are you being obtuse as always
Click to expand...


What about a live embryo and a live baby? Which would you save then?


----------



## Newby

Gracie said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.
> 
> The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.
> 
> Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
Click to expand...


Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???


----------



## Newby

JakeStarkey said:


> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.



If women would control their own damn 'bits & pieces' in the first place, it would be a non issue.


----------



## Newby

Gracie said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'question' also fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many time have you used that justt today,don't you have more than the fall back straw man fail?
> 
> *What kind of person would sacrifice one of their own for any reason,particularity convenience*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Next question or is it just another lame troll attack?
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why you defend it.


----------



## Newby

Gracie said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You a male? If so, stfu.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.
> 
> Two questions:
> Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
> How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It does not bother me one iota because it is *MY body. I CHOOSE what grows in it or does not grow in it. *
> 
> It comes down to others wanting control of the only thing anyone has left. Control of their OWN BODY.
> 
> And there are many..MANY like me.
Click to expand...


If the bolded were true, you wouldn't get pregnant to begin with if you didn't want a child.  So apparently what you are saying is that you do NOT have control over your own body.


----------



## Newby

M14 Shooter said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.
> 
> Two questions:
> Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
> How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?
> 
> 
> 
> It does not bother me one iota because it is MY body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The human life that you kill for convenience is -not- your body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOOSE what grows in it or does not grow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're willing to kill a human life for your convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to others wanting control...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aaaahhh....   control.  There we go.
> You're willing to end a human life so you can maintain some feeling of control.
> 
> How is your need to feel in control more valuable than a human life?
Click to expand...


Where was the need for control when she was having unprotected sex?


----------



## Darkwind

The Brain.

If you exercise this first, the other issues become moot.


----------



## Newby

Gracie said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not bother me one iota because it is MY body.
> 
> 
> 
> *The human life that you kill for convenience is -not- your body*.
> 
> 
> *And you're willing to kill a human life for your convenience.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to others wanting control...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aaaahhh....   control.  There we go.
> *You're willing to end a human life so you can maintain some feeling of control.
> *
> *How is your need to feel in control more valuable than a human life?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is growing IN my body. Without my body, it would not come to fruitition.
> 
> Yup
> 
> Yup
> 
> Because..again...pay attention McFly...*its MY BODY*.
Click to expand...


Yet you lack control over it, and allow yourself to become pregnant?  What kind of assinine logic is that?  Seriously?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Meaningless question without context. 

In a medical emergency situation you try and save the baby along with the mother, but sometimes you have to triage and save the mother at the expense of the baby (saving the baby but not the mother might happen but generally not.)  But that doesn't then mean the baby had a lower priority. 

Whole abortion question is temporal in nature. Meaning it's about picking a time during the pregnancy to base all your assumptions and conclusions upon. But if you leave the process alone, and things go as they're supposed to, you get a baby. 

The pro-abortion side is using abortion as birth control. If a woman gets raped and become pregnant then absolutely she should be allowed to kill that baby since making victims of crimes like rape carry their attacker's children is completely unfair. And not allowing abortions to save the life of the mother or her good health so she can have another later on is also unfair since without the important mother, the baby wouldn't be getting born in the first place. But for reasons other than those, opting to kill the baby is purely economic and selfish. "I can't raise another child, I'm dirt-poor already." That's not a legitimate reaosn to kill babies. Sometimes killing is necessary as in wars, or to maintain law and order, or to protect women who through no fault of their own became pregnant or are going to die themselves if the baby isn't instead. But because you're poor, or simply don't wanna be pregnant isn't an 'affirmative defense.' Or at least, shouldn't be.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

M14 Shooter said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absent a threat to the life of the mother or a case of incest/rape, all that's left is convenience.
> 
> Not sure why more people aren't shaken to the core at the idea of having the right to end a human life for nothing more convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You a male? If so, stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that I am a male in no way invalidates my point of view, especially given that point of view.
> 
> Two questions:
> Why does does the idea of someone having a right to end a human life for nothing more convenience not bother you?
> How is your convenience more valuable than a human life?
Click to expand...


Since we are talking a human life. I would assume that when an aging adult can no longer care for themselves, is not coherent, becomes a financial burden as well as an inconvenience.... we should just consider ending their life as well to make it easier for the sake of "others" involved. How self centered is that line of thinking over the responsible care of someone else?


----------



## Lakhota

> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*



The woman!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.




The first priority should be sterilizing you

The next priority should be getting you some qualified mental help

Step two may involve shock therapy


----------



## Lakhota

The woman leads in the poll at 74%.  That's good.


----------



## Stephanie

already been posted, you didn't list in your poll

who the hell care's if all of you kill off you offspring. You have to live with it so lets just pretend it a walk in the park picking flowers.......... we are sick and tired of hearing you whine about abortion

none of you care the after affects most women deal with when they thought is was going to be nothing, then SUFFER GUILt the rest of lives.

sick and twisted how little you care about the UNBORN. 55MILLION destroyed since roe vs wade

that should make all you abortion supporters proud


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

I would have voted both fertilized egg and fetus but the poll says I am not permitted to vote on that poll.  Guess they need to keep the women vote ahead so Lakhota can claim a victory that isn't actually a victory at all.  Amazing how some folks are proud of what they should be ashamed of!  I would want my unborn childs life saved before mine!  What is wrong with you people?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


 No it isn't!  You blocked me from being able to vote on this poll, Lakhota!  I would have  voted the fertilized egg and fetus.  Exactly how many people did you block from voting on this poll so that you could claim the vote - woman - was ahead?


----------



## Lakhota

Jeremiah said:


> I would have voted both fertilized egg and fetus but the poll says I am not permitted to vote on that poll.  Guess they need to keep the women vote ahead so Lakhota can claim a victory that isn't actually a victory at all.  Amazing how some folks are proud of what they should be ashamed of!  *I would want my unborn childs life saved before mine!*  What is wrong with you people?



Pro-choice women should have that choice.


----------



## Lakhota

Jeremiah said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't!  You blocked me from being able to vote on this poll, Lakhota!  I would have  voted the fertilized egg and fetus.  Exactly how many people did you block from voting on this poll so that you could claim the vote - woman - was ahead?
Click to expand...


I didn't block anything, dumbass.  All I can do is view poll results.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Lakhota said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't!  You blocked me from being able to vote on this poll, Lakhota!  I would have  voted the fertilized egg and fetus.  Exactly how many people did you block from voting on this poll so that you could claim the vote - woman - was ahead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't block anything, dumbass.  All I can do is view poll results.
Click to expand...

 Look at this notice when I tried to vote, Lakhota:

*The following error occurred:*
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.

What does that mean?  I am not allowed to view this page or perform this action?  I can comment here but I cannot vote. It will not let me vote.  Do not call me names because I am confronting you about this. Find out why it is happening and explain it to the rest of us when you figure it out.  - Jeri


----------



## Lakhota

Jeremiah said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't!  You blocked me from being able to vote on this poll, Lakhota!  I would have  voted the fertilized egg and fetus.  Exactly how many people did you block from voting on this poll so that you could claim the vote - woman - was ahead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't block anything, dumbass.  All I can do is view poll results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at this notice when I tried to vote, Lakhota:
> 
> *The following error occurred:*
> You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.
> 
> What does that mean?  I am not allowed to view this page or perform this action?  I can comment here but I cannot vote. It will not let me vote.  Do not call me names because I am confronting you about this. Find out why it is happening and explain it to the rest of us when you figure it out.  - Jeri
Click to expand...


I reported it. My guess is the poll is either closed or there may be a problem relating to the recent upgrade.  I don't know.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Lakhota said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't!  You blocked me from being able to vote on this poll, Lakhota!  I would have  voted the fertilized egg and fetus.  Exactly how many people did you block from voting on this poll so that you could claim the vote - woman - was ahead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't block anything, dumbass.  All I can do is view poll results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at this notice when I tried to vote, Lakhota:
> 
> *The following error occurred:*
> You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.
> 
> What does that mean?  I am not allowed to view this page or perform this action?  I can comment here but I cannot vote. It will not let me vote.  Do not call me names because I am confronting you about this. Find out why it is happening and explain it to the rest of us when you figure it out.  - Jeri
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reported it. My guess is the poll is either closed or there may be a problem relating to the recent upgrade.  I don't know.
Click to expand...

 
Thank you.  that is so much better than I didn't block anything, dumb****.   Seriously.


----------



## Moonglow

I occasionally get scrambled text in the message boxes...


----------



## Flopper

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


The child.   The world would be a lot better place if paid more attention to born rather than the unborn.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Moderation Message:*

*In response to request -- I've edited and checked the poll.*
*Seems to be working correctly.  Set the expiration date to *
*10 days.. *

*FCT*


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


Three of your four choices end in the death of the child. When exactly is that typical? You removed any extenuating circumstances and yet give the child only a one in four chance of life.


Lakhota said:


> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman!
Click to expand...

I will give you that option. With one exception. She must wait until the birth of the child and then will be handed a shiv to shove in the child's neck within the next 24 hours. No doctor doing it, No excuse it's just a fetus. Once it's born then kill it, you have 24 hours to do so without prosecution.


----------



## Lakhota

AzMike said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Three of your four choices end in the death of the child. When exactly is that typical? You removed any extenuating circumstances and yet give the child only a one in four chance of life.
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will give you that option. With one exception. She must wait until the birth of the child and then will be handed a shiv to shove in the child's neck within the next 24 hours. No doctor doing it, No excuse it's just a fetus. Once it's born then kill it, you have 24 hours to do so without prosecution.
Click to expand...


A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg.  A fetus is a fetus.  A baby is a baby.  The choice isn't yours to make - it's the woman's.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Yes and yours too because you can vote while I still cannot!  The moderator checked the Poll and it is working just fine and still open for business except for my vote!  Things are getting stanger by the minute on this thread.  I'm going to bed.  Goodnight and you can repent to the LORD for promoting the murder of the unborn and for calling me a dumb**** too.  It will help you sleep better to clear your  conscience. There is no rest for the wicked.

- Jeri


----------



## Lakhota

Jeremiah said:


> Yes and yours too because you can vote while I still cannot!  The moderator checked the Poll and it is working just fine and still open for business except for my vote!  Things are getting stanger by the minute on this thread.  I'm going to bed.  Goodnight and you can repent to the LORD for promoting the murder of the unborn and for calling me a dumb**** too.  It will help you sleep better to clear your  conscience. There is no rest for the wicked.
> 
> - Jeri



Goodnight, Jeri.  Give my regards to Sky Daddy.


----------



## Care4all

Jeremiah said:


> I would have voted both fertilized egg and fetus but the poll says I am not permitted to vote on that poll.  Guess they need to keep the women vote ahead so Lakhota can claim a victory that isn't actually a victory at all.  Amazing how some folks are proud of what they should be ashamed of!  I would want my unborn childs life saved before mine!  What is wrong with you people?


Well, for one, not all circumstances are the same Jeremiah....if you are a woman with 3 small children in tow, who need you as a mother, to be alive, to take care of them....as much as you want it to be your fetus to be the one saved, if only one of you could be saved, it could be irresponsible of you to do that.....


----------



## Plasmaball

Avatar4321 said:


> BTW you are being completely dishonest by pretending we aren't talking about a child.



well its not a child, but hey why be honest


----------



## Lakhota

Most women know the GOP neanderthals are stuck in the past.

*GOP Poll: Women Think Republican Party Is 'Stuck In The Past'*


----------



## Plasmaball

Newby said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.
> 
> The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.
> 
> Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
Click to expand...


Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am personally against abortion except for rape or incest or health of the mother.

But I don't believe anyone else morally has the right to legislate for others on this matter.

A true conservative and a true libertarian will agree with my philosophy.


----------



## Lakhota

According to the poll - 75% say the woman has first priority.  That is good.


----------



## Flopper

JakeStarkey said:


> I am personally against abortion except for rape or incest or health of the mother.
> 
> But I don't believe anyone else morally has the right to legislate for others on this matter.
> 
> A true conservative and a true libertarian will agree with my philosophy.


Very few people are in favor of abortions, but they are in favor of a women having the right to choose.  There's big difference.  Sadly,  there are many that don't see the difference.


----------



## Piss Bucket

The egg, the fetus, or the woman?  Do you REALLY want to know the truth?  Well today is your lucky day, my wacky leftist comrade.  I am going to answer your question. 

The answer is the fetus, but with a qualification.  Let me explain why.  First, in terms of value the male is clearly more important.  He earns more than the woman.  Also, he wields more power and influence.  Let us not forget that America is not alone in this world.  In many - dare I say most? - cultures the woman is viewed as inferior.  Across the world they are unequal to men in the eyes of the law.  Is this "right"? That is not the issue.  Is it fact that culturally women are not equal? Yes.  

Now to address your hypo.  With a fertilized egg it is not yet determined what the sex will be.  Therefore, there is the risk that the sex will be female.  At the other end of the spectrum is the woman.  We already know where she stands in the social order - right smack at the bottom. 

Finally, there is the fetus.  Clearly, based on the foregoing the male fetus is more valuable than the female fetus.  It would also have to be considered more valuable than the woman for obvious reasons.  

Thus, the answer is that the male fetus is more important than the woman, a female fetus, and a mere fertilized egg.  Next in priority is the egg, for it's sex is not yet determined; it may turn out to be male.  After that I would say that the female fetus is next, for its earning capacity is more than the adult woman because it still has its whole adult life in front of her and for reasons of dowry.  Finally, at the bottom of the heap is the adult woman.  She is female, some of her earning potential is already exhausted, she is a much higher liability risk as far as health care, she has already been de-flowered, and so forth.  

There you have it.  If you insist on imposing a hierarchy on life, then you had better be ready for the consequences.  My analysis is entirely consistent with women's role in civilized society for centuries.  Frankly, I do not find it very constructive to impose such a hierarchy on life, but apparently you leftists do.


----------



## Lakhota

Piss Bucket said:


> The egg, the fetus, or the woman?  Do you REALLY want to know the truth?  Well today is your lucky day, my wacky leftist comrade.  I am going to answer your question.
> 
> The answer is the fetus, but with a qualification.  Let me explain why.  First, in terms of value the male is clearly more important.  He earns more than the woman.  Also, he wields more power and influence.  Let us not forget that America is not alone in this world.  In many - dare I say most? - cultures the woman is viewed as inferior.  Across the world they are unequal to men in the eyes of the law.  Is this "right"? That is not the issue.  Is it fact that culturally women are not equal? Yes.
> 
> Now to address your hypo.  With a fertilized egg it is not yet determined what the sex will be.  Therefore, there is the risk that the sex will be female.  At the other end of the spectrum is the woman.  We already know where she stands in the social order - right smack at the bottom.
> 
> Finally, there is the fetus.  Clearly, based on the foregoing the male fetus is more valuable than the female fetus.  It would also have to be considered more valuable than the woman for obvious reasons.
> 
> Thus, the answer is that the male fetus is more important than the woman, a female fetus, and a mere fertilized egg.  Next in priority is the egg, for it's sex is not yet determined; it may turn out to be male.  After that I would say that the female fetus is next, for its earning capacity is more than the adult woman because it still has its whole adult life in front of her and for reasons of dowry.  Finally, at the bottom of the heap is the adult woman.  She is female, some of her earning potential is already exhausted, she is a much higher liability risk as far as health care, she has already been de-flowered, and so forth.
> 
> There you have it.  If you insist on imposing a hierarchy on life, then you had better be ready for the consequences.  My analysis is entirely consistent with women's role in civilized society for centuries.  Frankly, I do not find it very constructive to impose such a hierarchy on life, but apparently you leftists do.



Thanks for your input.  I believe it's the woman's right to choose.  I believe the anti-choicers should stop trying to undermine Roe v. Wade through the back door.


----------



## Lakhota

According to the thread poll above, 75% believe the woman should have first priority.  I agree!


----------



## deltex1

Lakhota said:


> According to the thread poll above, 75% believe the woman should have first priority.  I agree!


First priority in what situation...who gets the liver versus who gets the heart versus who gets the kidneys...and who gets the money?


----------



## Lakhota

75% say the woman should have first priority.


----------



## deltex1

Woman finds out the sperm donor was cheating...decides to kill the baby...first priority is?


----------



## Kondor3

> Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?



The man.


----------



## GHook93

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


Abortion rights are not black and white my opinion. In certain circumstances the mother and other's the baby. At some point in the pregnancy the right shifts from mother to kid. Sometimes it might shift back: mother's life is in jeopardy or the baby has birth defects.


----------



## Lakhota

Check out the poll at top.  Most voters (75%) give the woman first priority.


----------



## GHook93

Lakhota said:


> Check out the poll at top.  Most voters (75%) give the woman first priority.



Point?

I remain pro-choice because I never want to see what just happened in Paraguay happen here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakhota

The thread poll still shows that 75% favor the woman as having first priority.


----------



## g5000

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


Since about 98 percent of all abortions have nothing to do with the health of the mother, or health of the child, or rape, or incest, then the child takes precedence.


----------



## g5000

Lakhota said:


> The thread poll still shows that 75% favor the woman as having first priority.


This is the first I have seen the topic, and the poll is closed.


----------



## David_42

g5000 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Since about 98 percent of all abortions have nothing to do with the health of the mother, or health of the child, or rape, or incest, then the child takes precedence.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the abortion is done for the health/rape/incest, whatever, if you're perfectly fine with an abortion in cases of health/rape/incest then you should be perfectly fine with women having a right to privacy and making their own decisions.


----------



## Lakhota

Well, the poll still says the woman has first priority.


----------



## Lakhota

Well, 75% say the woman has first priority.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

the woman, but this has little to do with the abortion argument.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

The woman should always have priority unless she chooses otherwise.  This really shouldn't be a debate.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> The woman should always have priority unless she chooses otherwise.  This really shouldn't be a debate.


In cases of an unmarried couple becoming pregnant, how would you feel about the man having the right to deny responsibility or support if he does it in time for an abortion to be performed.
If she has the baby anyway, he would have no legal responsibility to pay for the next 18 years.
does that sound fair? it does to me.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman should always have priority unless she chooses otherwise.  This really shouldn't be a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> In cases of an unmarried couple becoming pregnant, how would you feel about the man having the right to deny responsibility or support if he does it in time for an abortion to be performed.
> If she has the baby anyway, he would have no legal responsibility to pay for the next 18 years.
> does that sound fair? it does to me.
Click to expand...


That wasn't the OP's question


----------



## rdean

I'm not a woman.  I don't have the right to legislate her body.  Only Republicans feel they have that right.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman should always have priority unless she chooses otherwise.  This really shouldn't be a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> In cases of an unmarried couple becoming pregnant, how would you feel about the man having the right to deny responsibility or support if he does it in time for an abortion to be performed.
> If she has the baby anyway, he would have no legal responsibility to pay for the next 18 years.
> does that sound fair? it does to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the OP's question
Click to expand...

how can one honestly answer a question without first considering all of the variables?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maryland Patriot said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman should always have priority unless she chooses otherwise.  This really shouldn't be a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> In cases of an unmarried couple becoming pregnant, how would you feel about the man having the right to deny responsibility or support if he does it in time for an abortion to be performed.
> If she has the baby anyway, he would have no legal responsibility to pay for the next 18 years.
> does that sound fair? it does to me.
Click to expand...

Of course it does.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



I'm somewhere in the middle on abortion

I think that at some point during gestation we have to call the fetus a baby.

I think in the first trimester abortion should be available without question statistically most miscarriages happen during this time frame
It's the second and third trimester elective abortions that I think become a concern ethically. And in this day and age where women can know they are pregnant within days of missing a period I think 90 days is sufficient time to decide whether to abort or not

This goes without saying that if the mother's life is ever in danger that an abortion at anytime of the pregnancy should remain an option


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

David_42 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Since about 98 percent of all abortions have nothing to do with the health of the mother, or health of the child, or rape, or incest, then the child takes precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if the abortion is done for the health/rape/incest, whatever, if you're perfectly fine with an abortion in cases of health/rape/incest then you should be perfectly fine with women having a right to privacy and making their own decisions.
Click to expand...


I can't see how it can be viewed as anything but selfish to place so little concern and regard towards the unborn life she's carrying.  Was this nation not founded upon the belief that we  are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [the right to] *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Since about 98 percent of all abortions have nothing to do with the health of the mother, or health of the child, or rape, or incest, then the child takes precedence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if the abortion is done for the health/rape/incest, whatever, if you're perfectly fine with an abortion in cases of health/rape/incest then you should be perfectly fine with women having a right to privacy and making their own decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't see how it can be viewed as anything but selfish to place so little concern and regard towards the unborn life she's carrying.  Was this nation not founded upon the belief that we  are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [the right to] *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
Click to expand...

Abortion has always been a fact in American history, and women have not much worried about the law concerning it.


----------



## rdean

rdean said:


> I'm not a woman.  I don't have the right to legislate her body.  Only Republicans feel they have that right.


Notice that when I made that satiric comment, no Republican disagreed.


----------



## Lakhota

The thread poll still says that 75% believe the woman has first priority.


----------



## Londoner

Avatar4321 said:


> The innocent life created by no fault of itself.



Why strip all the welfare services that provide care to infants born to poor meth addicts living on the streets - especially in regions where Churches and the private sector are not fixing the problem?

At what point do you side with the compassion of Christ over his corrupt Republican interlocutors?


----------



## Lakhota

Londoner said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The innocent life created by no fault of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why strip all the welfare services that provide care to infants born to poor meth addicts living on the streets - especially in regions where Churches and the private sector are not fixing the problem?
> 
> At what point do you side with the compassion of Christ over his corrupt Republican interlocutors?
Click to expand...


Their talk is cheap.


----------



## Chuz Life

Lakhota said:


> The thread poll still says that 75% believe the woman has first priority.



I wonder what the percentage is of that 75% is made up of people (hypocrites) who *claim* to be for equal rights and for children's rights.


----------



## Billy000

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


Oh right because "God's will" has always been part of constitutional law.


----------



## OKTexas

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



Ask the hildabitch, her spawn is preggos, is it a mass of cells or her future grandchild?


----------



## ninja007

how about have the innocent baby born and the idiot selfish libtard women die the minute she has the baby? win/win.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Betty Bowers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 America's Number One Christian 

"Religious Freedom" legislation, GOP style...

Violation: Forcing a baker to deliver a gay-wedding cake.

*Not a Violation: Forcing her to deliver a rapist's baby.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


There are a ton of God s which of the God's will are you channeling ?  I worship all the Gods no sense taking a chance because they are all very sensitive about being worshiped and have a bad temper..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ninja007 said:


> how about have the innocent baby born and the idiot selfish libtard women die the minute she has the baby? win/win.


How about we put you in a toilet bowl to wait for Armageddon there in the porcelain Temple...


----------



## TooTall

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



I get slammed by both sides of the argument because I believe if you can put your ear to a woman's stomach and hear two heartbeats, one of them is hers and the other is a baby.  An abortion would be killing a baby.  If only one heartbeat, go for it.
I do have a question about Planned Parenthood harvesting "baby" parts and selling them.  Were they selling fertilized eggs or fetus parts?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Chuz Life said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poll still says that 75% believe the woman has first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what the percentage is of that 75% is made up of people (hypocrites) who *claim* to be for equal rights and for children's rights.
Click to expand...

All of them except the hypocrites and there are not any of those, only you.


----------



## Chuz Life

JakeStarkey said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poll still says that 75% believe the woman has first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what the percentage is of that 75% is made up of people (hypocrites) who *claim* to be for equal rights and for children's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them except the hypocrites and there are not any of those, only you.
Click to expand...


Congrats, you finally earned your own spot on my ignore list. 

You have been a good foil for me to use to educate others but now you are nothing more than static noise.

Just like the others on my list.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

Londoner said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The innocent life created by no fault of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why strip all the welfare services that provide care to infants born to poor meth addicts living on the streets - especially in regions where Churches and the private sector are not fixing the problem?
> 
> At what point do you side with the compassion of Christ over his corrupt Republican interlocutors?
Click to expand...

So do you want our laws written to reflect Christianity or not? cant have it both ways you know.
 and if you do want it to reflect Christianity, you might want to consider what Christ would have to say about abortions in the first place.
 Dont be a hypocrite


----------



## g5000

There simply is almost no excuse for having an unwanted pregnancy in the United States of America any more.  Contraception is widely available and extremely cheap.

One must take responsibility for one's actions.  It's popular to talk about the "moral hazard" of bailing out a bank, but the Left steadfastly refuses to accept the moral hazards of irresponsible sexual behaviors.

Half of all abortions are the result of *NO birth control of any kind** being used *during the sex act which led to the unwanted pregnancy.  Another fifth are the result of the inconsistent or improper use of birth control.

There is no excuse for that.  In fact, the Left is thoroughly complicit in that kind of reckless behavior, and expect everyone else to pay for the consequences! 

It's extortion.  "Pay for my baby, or I'll kill it."

The result of this refusal to address the moral hazards of irresponsible behaviors has led directly to the fact that 80 percent of all black children are now being born out of wedlock, creating a whole class of people dependent on the government for their existence.

Good job!


----------



## g5000

Lakhota said:


> Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?



If you are waiting until AFTER a woman is pregnant "which should have first priority", then your priorities are already seriously fucked up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Chuz Life said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread poll still says that 75% believe the woman has first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what the percentage is of that 75% is made up of people (hypocrites) who *claim* to be for equal rights and for children's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them except the hypocrites and there are not any of those, only you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congrats, you finally earned your own spot on my ignore list.  You have been a good foil for me to use to educate others but now you are nothing more than static noise.  Just like the others on my list.
Click to expand...



Trolls like Chuz simply cannot handle the facts, and one of those facts are that his opinions are not factual evidence.

The strength of Chuz's posts reveal the gaping weaknesses in the the pro-fetus movement.


----------



## Redfish

If you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts or murder.   That says it all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> If you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts or murder.   That says it all.


Murder of a woman and murder of a fetus (not a child). That says it all.


----------



## Chuz Life

(1)

Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.


(d)

As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts or murder.   That says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder of a woman and murder of a fetus (not a child). That says it all.
Click to expand...

certainly does say it all, I agree with you.
 cant kill something thats not alive. so if you get charged with murder of a fetus, that means its alive. Now you have agreed on a starting point to outlaw abortions.
 Its good to see those like you come around


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maryland Patriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts or murder.   That says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder of a woman and murder of a fetus (not a child). That says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> certainly does say it all, I agree with you.
> cant kill something thats not alive. so if you get charged with murder of a fetus, that means its alive. Now you have agreed on a starting point to outlaw abortions.
> Its good to see those like you come around
Click to expand...

Don't make your living by logic, you will die of hunger.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two counts or murder.   That says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder of a woman and murder of a fetus (not a child). That says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> certainly does say it all, I agree with you.
> cant kill something thats not alive. so if you get charged with murder of a fetus, that means its alive. Now you have agreed on a starting point to outlaw abortions.
> Its good to see those like you come around
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't make your living by logic, you will die of hunger.
Click to expand...



if that was true, you would already be dead.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman rules.


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> The woman rules.




what would you say if your momma was pro choice 6 months before you were born?   oh, that's right, you wouldn't exist so you couldn't say anything.

but if abortion is ok up to the moment of birth,  why is killing a 1 year old illegal?   If the kid becomes a burden why not just eliminate him or her?


----------



## amrchaos

Sarcasm


Where is my ego and my rights over the woman!

Surely she is not an independent free thinking human being---and to teach women that is dangerous!!!

Women are our pretty little helpmates.  They are too make us meals and sit quietly until we talk to them!  Not make decision, but to do as we say!!

Women rights? Bah! That's lesbian madness! Only rights women have are the ones we men gave them!

And Lesbos are ugly cows that stab each other with plastic dildos--no one listen to them.


----------



## Pop23

Priorities are different

In the case of an illegal act causing the pregnancy, as horrible as it is, the woman has priority. 

This is really no different than anyone robbing a bank because their child is being held hostage, and the takers demand a bank be robbed as ransom. 

It's duress

In the case of the woman's life being threatened, then that also creates a situation of ultimate duress, and those are nearly always excused in the law. 

In all other cases, it's the fetus that should be priority.


----------



## Dragonlady

Plasmaball said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.
> 
> The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.
> 
> Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
Click to expand...


No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.  

The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make your living by logic, you will die of hunger.
> 
> 
> 
> if that was true, you would already be dead.
Click to expand...


See, that is your example that proves my point. Your comparison fallacy is obvious. I own you.


----------



## Redfish

Dragonlady said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.
> 
> The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.
> 
> Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.
> 
> The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?
Click to expand...



its about taking responsibility for your actions.   If the condom breaks, have the child, then if you don't want it, give it up for adoption,  don't kill it.


----------



## Pop23

Dragonlady said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing's simply twists evidence to his philosophy.
> 
> Thus his comments are immaterial.
> 
> He wants to control female bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.
> 
> The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.
> 
> Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.
> 
> The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?
Click to expand...


It appears that you think most women don't know that sex can lead to pregnancy.

Hmmmmm


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make your living by logic, you will die of hunger.
> 
> 
> 
> if that was true, you would already be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that is your example that proves my point. Your comparison fallacy is obvious. I own you.
Click to expand...



you have never owned anyone, except maybe your sock jake snarkey.  you are the forum joke, no one takes anything you post seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make your living by logic, you will die of hunger.
> 
> 
> 
> if that was true, you would already be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that is your example that proves my point. Your comparison fallacy is obvious. I own you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have never owned anyone, except maybe your sock jake snarkey.  you are the forum joke, no one takes anything you post seriously.
Click to expand...

Says our own little blowfish.    You are here for grins and giggles, nothing more.

When you blowfreeks commit yourself to pre-natal to post-natal, housing, food, medical, and educational support for Mom and Child, if they need it, then I will listen to you.


----------



## Pop23

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make your living by logic, you will die of hunger.
> 
> 
> 
> if that was true, you would already be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that is your example that proves my point. Your comparison fallacy is obvious. I own you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have never owned anyone, except maybe your sock jake snarkey.  you are the forum joke, no one takes anything you post seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says our own little blowfish.    You are here for grins and giggles, nothing more.
> 
> When you blowfreeks commit yourself to pre-natal to post-natal, housing, food, medical, and educational support for Mom and Child, if they need it, then I will listen to you.
Click to expand...


Economic based Justice system?

Interesting.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Infant and child based economic system.


----------



## Pop23

JakeStarkey said:


> Infant and child based economic system.



So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?

What else?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infant and child based economic system.
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
Click to expand...

Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.


----------



## Pop23

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infant and child based economic system.
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
Click to expand...


No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infant and child based economic system.
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope but nice fall back on the same old talking points,that pop up when you have nothing.
> 
> The only person that matters is the one that looses his or hers life.
> 
> Its about saving the most innocent,but your love of self,blinds you,you can't address the question,I understand that,your head might blow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.
> 
> The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its about taking responsibility for your actions.   If the condom breaks, have the child, then if you don't want it, give it up for adoption,  don't kill it.
Click to expand...


A condon IS taking responsibility for one's actions.  Beyond using it correctly - what further responsibility should be required?


----------



## Pop23

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infant and child based economic system.
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
Click to expand...


The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infant and child based economic system.
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
Click to expand...

The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.


----------



## Pop23

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
Click to expand...


The governments food truck at your door?

Did it pick your spouse for you?

Time for a new car, visiting the free goverment car lot today?

No, not always


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
Click to expand...



except its unborn ones, right?


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.
> 
> The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its about taking responsibility for your actions.   If the condom breaks, have the child, then if you don't want it, give it up for adoption,  don't kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A condon IS taking responsibility for one's actions.  Beyond using it correctly - what further responsibility should be required?
Click to expand...



there is a degree  of risk involved.   when you slip it on you accept the risk that it may break.   If it breaks, you should take responsibility for the results of your actions.  

If you don't want any responsibility ever, don't have sex ever.


----------



## Pop23

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.
> 
> The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its about taking responsibility for your actions.   If the condom breaks, have the child, then if you don't want it, give it up for adoption,  don't kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A condon IS taking responsibility for one's actions.  Beyond using it correctly - what further responsibility should be required?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is a degree  of risk involved.   when you slip it on you accept the risk that it may break.   If it breaks, you should take responsibility for the results of your actions.
> 
> If you don't want any responsibility ever, don't have sex ever.
Click to expand...


Or sterilization


----------



## hazlnut

martybegan said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what we call "birth control" prevents conception. Examples are barriers (condoms, diaphragms), anti-ovulation, (the pill), and ye olde time methods such as the rhythm method, "pull out and pray" and "no, use the other hole"
Click to expand...



The morning after pill - don't forget.

Plan B.  No conception.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pop23 said:


> The governments food truck at your door?  Did it pick your spouse for you?  Time for a new car, visiting the free goverment car lot today?  No, not always


Your deflection reveals your weakness of argument.  We are talking about the welfare of the pre- and post-born and their mothers.  Why do you resist doing good?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
Click to expand...

That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"If it breaks, you should take responsibility for the results of your actions" is the statement of a man who cannot critically think.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
Click to expand...



illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?


----------



## Maryland Patriot

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the poor can rob banks, insurance fraud?  What else?
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
Click to expand...

define the limits of welfare.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> "If it breaks, you should take responsibility for the results of your actions" is the statement of a man who cannot critically think.




so should the condom company be held liable and forced to take responsibility for the child for the next 18 years.  

Why do you libs refuse to ever be responsible for anything?   Why do you want to be sheep and slaves to the all-knowing government?


----------



## Redfish

Maryland Patriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, Pop.  Those are your silly words, which logically do not derive from my comments.  If we are going to forbid abortion, we have a community responsibility morally for mother and baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you imply that an act should not be criminal due to economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> define the limits of welfare.
Click to expand...



according to libs there are no limits.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> stfu. When you get to be* host to something you don't want growing in you*, then you might have a say since you ARE the host. Until then...fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.
> 
> The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its about taking responsibility for your actions.   If the condom breaks, have the child, then if you don't want it, give it up for adoption,  don't kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A condon IS taking responsibility for one's actions.  Beyond using it correctly - what further responsibility should be required?
Click to expand...


Of course you are responsible for using a condom and it failing.  When you have sex, you know the odds and decide to accept the risk. That you aren't responsible because to tried?  Ridiculous.  Welcome to being an adult


----------



## kaz

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If it breaks, you should take responsibility for the results of your actions" is the statement of a man who cannot critically think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so should the condom company be held liable and forced to take responsibility for the child for the next 18 years.
> 
> Why do you libs refuse to ever be responsible for anything?   Why do you want to be sheep and slaves to the all-knowing government?
Click to expand...


If libs took responsibility for anything, there wouldn't be a Democrat party


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> 
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
Click to expand...

Your deflection and failure is so noted here.

We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
Click to expand...

I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
 Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
 Very rude of me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



You realize that, in any real way, the fertilized egg and the fetus are the same entity, right?  I assume you listed it this way for the sake of people who somehow think "time elapsed" is a relevant concern, but just to be clear, saying, "the fertilized egg or the fetus" is like saying, "the toddler or the teenager".


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
Click to expand...



None, unless you participated in the act that caused the pregnancy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rocko said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
Click to expand...


Actually, most people DON'T agree on that.  Where they agree is that, in the extremely rare case where it's a choice between the mother's life or the child's, the unimaginably horrible choice should reside with the woman and her family.  There's no "most" about those women and their families choosing to sacrifice the child.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
Click to expand...


I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlindBoo said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, it's a crapshoot.
> 
> Fate of a Fertilized Egg: Why Some Embryos Don't Implant
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, people also die randomly at every other stage of life.  Doesn't make it okay to deliberately kill them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Abortion is repugnant.  Period.  However, I believe the final decision should be up to the woman - UNLESS she is judged to be legally incompetent to make the final decision.



Why?  Specifically, why do you believe THIS killing is a personal choice, as opposed to all other killings?


----------



## Cecilie1200

SillyWabbit said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW you are being completely dishonest by pretending we aren't talking about a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone sees the mass of cells as a child. For me, the simple meeting of the sperm and egg does not a human being make. Now, exactly when this mass becomes a viable human being, I don't know. Some premies wouldn't continue to live without mechanical assistance. Are they not human beings? Ask mom and dad. And yet, if it comes down to it, if the birth of the child is going to kill mom for sure, but aborting the child will save her, I say save mom. Although, maybe mom would say save baby. It's a good thing I'll never be in that position.
Click to expand...


Not everyone sees a lot of things, but ignorance of reality doesn't change reality.  This isn't a matter of religious belief, however fanatically you support it.  It's a matter of scientific fact:  a human being is what it is, whether recognizing and respecting that fact fits your personal priorities or not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Peach said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is repugnant.  Period.  However, I believe the final decision should be up to the woman - UNLESS she is judged to be legally incompetent to make the final decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but a decent woman will consider the the view of the father.
Click to expand...


A decent man won't impregnate a woman with whom he does not have that sort of relationship bond.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TooTall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
Click to expand...


And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.



No, I just don't vote in polls.  Typically, they're much too simplistic.  You need only read my posts to know what I think (I spend very little time making decisions based on 'feelz').


----------



## WelfareQueen

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



If the baby is viable and it is killed that is murder.  Period.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
Click to expand...


None.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BobPlumb said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more posters would vote in the poll.  So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters.  It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have an option for how many people feel.  Also, the fertilized egg and a fetus do not exist at the same time during a pregnancy as they are separate  stages of a human life.  Since they don't exist at the same time, there is no picking of one having priority over the other for the fertilized egg and the fetus.
Click to expand...


I believe Lakhota is basically leaving the option of "No priority at THIS stage of development, but priority at THAT stage".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Gracie said:


> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.



No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.


----------



## Cecilie1200

GHook93 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the conception was because of rape? What if the mother's life is in danger? What if the mother is a teenager? What if the baby has major birth defects? Sorry there is a grey area!!!
Click to expand...


No, there's no grey area for "but the circumstances are bad!"  Life is life, and it either all matters, or it all doesn't.  I can't kill YOU if I think the circumstances of your existence are bad.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AvgGuyIA said:


> The woman ONLY if the fertilized egg is killing her.  Otherwise, the fertilized egg.  Baby next.  Humans are not fetuses during development.  We are not apes.



You absolutely lost me on the last two sentences.  Made no sense that I could glean.

If the unborn baby itself is endangering the woman's life, then it's highly unlikely he would survive, anyway (ectopic pregnancy, for example).


----------



## Cecilie1200

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain a stillborn, a live child born and lives only a few days or weeks?  Is this God's will?  My guess is your answer will be the same.  So, provide probative proof!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Taking that a step further, how do they explain spontaneous abortions, i.e. miscarriages?  When I was in college I had a part-time job working in a pathology lab doing errands and clerical work.  This lab received about 6-10 miscarried fetuses every single day ranging from 4-5 weeks to 7 months.  So let's hear that shit about how God giveth and then he taketh away....[[[rolling eyes]]]
> 
> Postscript:  I was in charge of putting up these contained fetuses for the histopathology by the doctors.  Yes, the 6-7 month fetuses would break our hearts. The 4-5 week fetuses were very small, indistinguishable and the size of a large sesame seed.  No one can tell me that takes precedent over a woman's choice.  A woman can't even know for sure until that time. *
Click to expand...


How would you LIKE to explain it?  Old people drop dead in job lots, but I'm pretty sure you don't think that justifies other people in stuffing a pillow over their faces.


----------



## Cecilie1200

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *I think this thread is predominantly inhabited by men.  If there were more women on it there would be a preponderance of the woman's right to choose.  Why do men want women to take all the responsibility?  Do they think they are still living in caves?*



I'M a woman, sweet cheeks, and I'm vehemently against killing children.  How about you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maryland Patriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
Click to expand...

I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Should women have the final say in making laws that affect their reproductive rights - instead of mostly men making those decisions for them?



Society at large should have the final say in making laws that degrade the value society at large puts on human life.  Society's interest in the death of unborn children is exactly the same interest it has in whether a woman kills her husband for the insurance money.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"saying, 'the fertilized egg or the fetus' is like saying, 'the toddler or the teenager'" is the silliest comment of the day so far.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ClosedCaption said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  *If it begins it was God's will*...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless its cancer
Click to expand...


Are you really ignorant enough to not know the difference between a fetus and a tumor?  Damn, I hope you consult your doctor before so much as taking an aspirin, then, because you really should not be trusted with medical autonomy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  *If it begins it was God's will*...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless its cancer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really ignorant enough to not know the difference between a fetus and a tumor?  Damn, I hope you consult your doctor before so much as taking an aspirin, then, because you really should not be trusted with medical autonomy.
Click to expand...

Cecilie1200, your opinion is your opinion, nothing more.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

JakeStarkey said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with anything. 
 if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maryland Patriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
Click to expand...

We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

JakeStarkey said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights.  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> 
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.
Click to expand...

where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
 as far as the responsibility? how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs.
 and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maryland Patriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
> as far as the responsibility? how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs.
> and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.
Click to expand...

You will have to take that up with the courts and our legislatures.  Since you are neither expert nor authority on these issues, you have no right to demand anything of anybody on taking care of infants and mothers if we require birth  instead of abortion.  Once again your opinion is your opinion, your feelings.  That means nothing in this OP.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Typical.
Abortion, like many controversial topics, are not black and white issues. As much as the activist fringe on both sides want it to be.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control, or don't have sex, it's really quite simple!  You act like women are victims of pregnancy when they have total control over that, 100% complete and total control!  Quit trying to portray women as stupid, helpless victims!  Women are powerful, strong, intelligent, independant....  UNTIL they get pregnant, then all of a sudden they're a poor, helpless, victim and have the role of 'host' forced on them.  So why don't you STFU and control your own damn body and quit whining like a helpless victim when you're anything but!   If a woman gets pregnant, it's exactly because she didn't exert control over her own body, don't you dumbasses ever get it???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on her Birth control. I broke right through them. condoms break, Pills don't always work, and sometimes its just none of your damn business what a couple or woman decides to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No birth control is 100% effective, so no, women don't have 100% control by using birth control.
> 
> The majority of women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships. Do you think married women should deny their husbands sex to avoid pregnancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its about taking responsibility for your actions.   If the condom breaks, have the child, then if you don't want it, give it up for adoption,  don't kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A condon IS taking responsibility for one's actions.  Beyond using it correctly - what further responsibility should be required?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is a degree  of risk involved.   when you slip it on you accept the risk that it may break.   If it breaks, you should take responsibility for the results of your actions.
> 
> If you don't want any responsibility ever, don't have sex ever.
Click to expand...


Taking responsibility includes having an abortion or taking a morning after pill.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying if you are going to make women have babies regardless, then you got an obligation to the infant, podjo.
> 
> 
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
Click to expand...


Birth.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
Click to expand...


Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
Click to expand...


In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.


----------



## Coyote

Maryland Patriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your deflection and failure is so noted here.
> 
> We are discussing whether if we force all women to carry the baby to birth, then what responsibility do we have for mother and baby.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
> as far as the responsibility? *how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs*.
> and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.
Click to expand...


Or the father unzipped his pants.


----------



## deltex1

The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.


----------



## Coyote

deltex1 said:


> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.



That absolutely diminishes her.


----------



## deltex1

Coyote said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
Click to expand...

Ask the normal mother who has priority.


----------



## Coyote

deltex1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
Click to expand...


Ask any woman.


----------



## Yarddog

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



This poll is unanswerable because your not clear on wether this is a life or death situation for the mother. If the mother had a medical condition of some sort, just about everyone would pick the woman in your poll


----------



## JakeStarkey

Coyote said:


> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?





Ask Cecilie1200!


----------



## TooTall

Cecilie1200 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
Click to expand...


According to science, no one human being has two hearts.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


----------



## Yarddog

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.
Click to expand...


----------



## Yarddog

TooTall said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
Click to expand...



except for a pregnant mother,   they are attached by an embillical cord,  they share everything


----------



## I amso IR

G.T. said:


> First priority in what circumstance?
> 
> Equal priority can be done pretty well.



Unh, I think the OP mentioned "typical" along with no other problems. Hope that helps.


----------



## TooTall

Yarddog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> except for a pregnant mother,   they are attached by an embillical cord,  they share everything
Click to expand...


Exactly, and that was my point.


----------



## Yarddog

Cecilie1200 said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
Click to expand...



well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us


----------



## Coyote

Yarddog said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Ouch!


----------



## I amso IR

norwegen said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like fetuses, cats are not protected by the Constitution, either. However, the difference between fetuses and cats is that cats are protected by animal cruelty laws.
> 
> I think it's a shame that a little minnow in California, illegal aliens, and cats enjoy better protection by our government than fetuses do. Induced abortions are barbaric and selfish, and as a Christian, I will always be horrified by them. But we have the laws that we have because we have the government that we have.
Click to expand...


I disagree with the statement "because we have the government we have". From my perspective it is, "because the modern American people are the opportunists they are". The Government does enact the will of the people, after all. Exterminate all people 45 and younger and the problem of abortion goes away. See how easy that was?


----------



## deltex1

Coyote said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any woman.
Click to expand...

I did...she said the baby.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
Click to expand...


Mother Nature.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.
Click to expand...


Then she probably shouldn't have created it.

If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive.  Tread carefully.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
> as far as the responsibility? *how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs*.
> and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the father unzipped his pants.
Click to expand...


So what's the riff now?  That the majority of unwanted pregnancies occur through rape?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
Click to expand...


Are YOU a woman?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any woman.
Click to expand...


I'm a woman.  I don't consider pregnancy to diminish me at all, nor does the natural maternal instinct to protect a helpless baby.

Got something to say to THAT?  Or do you know more about what women think in your efforts to pander to us than I do in actually being one?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Yarddog said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This poll is unanswerable because your not clear on wether this is a life or death situation for the mother. If the mother had a medical condition of some sort, just about everyone would pick the woman in your poll
Click to expand...


Lakhota already said "typical circumstances".  Life-threatening situations are not "typical", so no sob stories to hide behind.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TooTall said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
Click to expand...


Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Yarddog said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> except for a pregnant mother,   they are attached by an embillical cord,  they share everything
Click to expand...


They don't share much of anything, actually.  Separate organs, separate blood type, separate DNA . . .

You clearly flunked high school health class.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

JakeStarkey said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should apologize for not thanking you for the donation to raise my daughter when she was born.
> Im sure you sent a rather substantial check.
> Very rude of me.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
> as far as the responsibility? how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs.
> and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to take that up with the courts and our legislatures.  Since you are neither expert nor authority on these issues, you have no right to demand anything of anybody on taking care of infants and mothers if we require birth  instead of abortion.  Once again your opinion is your opinion, your feelings.  That means nothing in this OP.
Click to expand...

and the same would go with your opinion. Its basically worthless on a site such as this. 
 So spout your murderous bullshit all you want. But its clear that you want everyone else to take care of your mistakes.


----------



## MaryL

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


Philosophers  have been arguing this for a millennium. Framed a little differently . Which comes first, the Woman or the Egg? Why did the woman cross the road? Deep questions I can't answer.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Yarddog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
Click to expand...


No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?


----------



## Yarddog

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This poll is unanswerable because your not clear on wether this is a life or death situation for the mother. If the mother had a medical condition of some sort, just about everyone would pick the woman in your poll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lakhota already said "typical circumstances".  Life-threatening situations are not "typical", so no sob stories to hide behind.
Click to expand...



In this curcumstance,  I'd leave it up to a woman to decide,  she has to live with the consequences, however I think if its a young girl she should have the opportunity to at least talk to other women who have had abortions as well as women who have kept their babies.  Its really not a light matter.   it will affect the rest of their life either way.
Having said that,  the aborted baby still would have been a unique one of a kind life,  its not just an organism


----------



## Coyote

deltex1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did...she said the baby.
Click to expand...


Strange.

I get different answers.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature.
Click to expand...


Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring.  Not sure she's a good authority here.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then she probably shouldn't have created it.
> 
> If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive.  Tread carefully.
Click to expand...


She didn't choose to.  Having sex doesn't equal "choosing" to have a baby.

I categorize anything that assumes tenancy in my body as remaining in my body by my choice, whatever that choice may be.

And, if my mother had made a different choice - I would neither know nor care.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know you were an unwed pregnant mother to be.  And if you were, what help did you get?
> 
> 
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
> as far as the responsibility? *how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs*.
> and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the father unzipped his pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's the riff now?  That the majority of unwanted pregnancies occur through rape?
Click to expand...


No.  It's a bit more fundamental than that.  It takes two to tango.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a woman.  I don't consider pregnancy to diminish me at all, nor does the natural maternal instinct to protect a helpless baby.
> 
> Got something to say to THAT?  Or do you know more about what women think in your efforts to pander to us than I do in actually being one?
Click to expand...


I'm a woman.  We weren't talking about "pregnancy" diminishing the mother.  The comment was referring to prioritizing lives - prioritizing the fetus' life over the mothers does indeed diminish her.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
Click to expand...


You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.


----------



## deltex1

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring.  Not sure she's a good authority here.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between instinct and intelligence.  Humans have intelligence....most anyway.


----------



## chikenwing

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
Click to expand...

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Yarddog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This poll is unanswerable because your not clear on wether this is a life or death situation for the mother. If the mother had a medical condition of some sort, just about everyone would pick the woman in your poll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lakhota already said "typical circumstances".  Life-threatening situations are not "typical", so no sob stories to hide behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In this curcumstance,  I'd leave it up to a woman to decide,  she has to live with the consequences, however I think if its a young girl she should have the opportunity to at least talk to other women who have had abortions as well as women who have kept their babies.  Its really not a light matter.   it will affect the rest of their life either way.
> Having said that,  the aborted baby still would have been a unique one of a kind life,  its not just an organism
Click to expand...


Yeah, um, that's what "organism" MEANS.


----------



## Chuz Life

Yarddog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
Click to expand...

Someone skipped a lot of biology classes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring.  Not sure she's a good authority here.
Click to expand...


Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring.  Not sure she's a good authority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.
Click to expand...


You're the one bringing up Mother Nature as an authority


----------



## Yarddog

Chuz Life said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone skipped a lot of biology classes.
Click to expand...



Hahaha  thank you


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then she probably shouldn't have created it.
> 
> If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive.  Tread carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She didn't choose to.  Having sex doesn't equal "choosing" to have a baby.
> 
> I categorize anything that assumes tenancy in my body as remaining in my body by my choice, whatever that choice may be.
> 
> And, if my mother had made a different choice - I would neither know nor care.
Click to expand...


Having sex DOES equal choosing to make it a possibility.  You know the risks and do it anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself when your dice roll comes up snake eyes.

No one's talking about your body, Chuckles, unless you have a uterus.  Do you?

I didn't say a thing about your mother.  I was talking about right now.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> what does that have to do with anything.
> if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.
> 
> 
> 
> We all do, through our social contract.  You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point.  Hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
> as far as the responsibility? *how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs*.
> and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the father unzipped his pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's the riff now?  That the majority of unwanted pregnancies occur through rape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It's a bit more fundamental than that.  It takes two to tango.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but since fathers are given no legal say in the consequences, I'd say that shifts the responsibility onto the one claiming all the choices.


----------



## Coyote

chikenwing said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
Click to expand...


An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a woman.  I don't consider pregnancy to diminish me at all, nor does the natural maternal instinct to protect a helpless baby.
> 
> Got something to say to THAT?  Or do you know more about what women think in your efforts to pander to us than I do in actually being one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a woman.  We weren't talking about "pregnancy" diminishing the mother.  The comment was referring to prioritizing lives - prioritizing the fetus' life over the mothers does indeed diminish her.
Click to expand...


Lives are always prioritized, hon.  Sorry if you just now noticed that fact of reality.

Do you also hate and resent the fact that born children are ALSO prioritized over their parents?


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then she probably shouldn't have created it.
> 
> If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive.  Tread carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She didn't choose to.  Having sex doesn't equal "choosing" to have a baby.
> 
> I categorize anything that assumes tenancy in my body as remaining in my body by my choice, whatever that choice may be.
> 
> And, if my mother had made a different choice - I would neither know nor care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having sex DOES equal choosing to make it a possibility.  You know the risks and do it anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself when your dice roll comes up snake eyes.
> 
> No one's talking about your body, Chuckles, unless you have a uterus.  Do you?
> 
> I didn't say a thing about your mother.  I was talking about right now.
Click to expand...


Having sex equals a possibility of pregnancy.  It is not an acceptance of pregnancy.  If that pesky sperm and egg had the audacity to connect, then it's my choice to flush them from my body.


----------



## chikenwing

Coyote said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
Click to expand...

DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
Click to expand...


Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.

I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.

You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb.  Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.

Let me spell this out for you:  when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic".  I mean SCIENCE.  That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a woman.  I don't consider pregnancy to diminish me at all, nor does the natural maternal instinct to protect a helpless baby.
> 
> Got something to say to THAT?  Or do you know more about what women think in your efforts to pander to us than I do in actually being one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a woman.  We weren't talking about "pregnancy" diminishing the mother.  The comment was referring to prioritizing lives - prioritizing the fetus' life over the mothers does indeed diminish her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lives are always prioritized, hon.  Sorry if you just now noticed that fact of reality.
> 
> Do you also hate and resent the fact that born children are ALSO prioritized over their parents?
Click to expand...


Sweetheart, you are once again missing the point...try to follow the conversation you jumped into.

No one is saying lives are NOT prioritized.  The differences revolve around WHICH lives are prioritized over other lives.  I hope that clarifies your confusion


----------



## Coyote

chikenwing said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce
Click to expand...


DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.


----------



## Maryland Patriot

chikenwing said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> , once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the welfare crowd
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring.  Not sure she's a good authority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one bringing up Mother Nature as an authority
Click to expand...


Yes, because it is.  Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do, and neither you nor Hillary Clinton nor every fucking liberal in America is big enough to change it.

Nevertheless, what Nature does and does not dictate for other species is irrelevant to humans, who do NOT have a biological imperative to kill their young, defective or not.  Witness the fact that YOU are here.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
Click to expand...


One more time:  cite the science.  "I say it's not, because I see it that way" only tells us the scientific fact that you're uneducated.  We got that; let's move on.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> *We're talking about a separate organism entirely*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then she probably shouldn't have created it.
> 
> If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive.  Tread carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She didn't choose to.  Having sex doesn't equal "choosing" to have a baby.
> 
> I categorize anything that assumes tenancy in my body as remaining in my body by my choice, whatever that choice may be.
> 
> And, if my mother had made a different choice - I would neither know nor care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having sex DOES equal choosing to make it a possibility.  You know the risks and do it anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself when your dice roll comes up snake eyes.
> 
> No one's talking about your body, Chuckles, unless you have a uterus.  Do you?
> 
> I didn't say a thing about your mother.  I was talking about right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having sex equals a possibility of pregnancy.  It is not an acceptance of pregnancy.  If that pesky sperm and egg had the audacity to connect, then it's my choice to flush them from my body.
Click to expand...


The fact that you don't accept the consequences of your act doesn't negate that you made the choice to create the baby, nor does it convey onto you the right to choose to kill him.

I realize you think "I don't WANT that" should somehow give you the right and power to reorder the universe, but it's not a persuasive argument.


----------



## Yarddog

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
Click to expand...



well you wernt born at the same time as your brother,  but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ?  Siamese twins.    they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they??   see it gets complicated is all.

 A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one.   The sperm has all the DNA from the father ,  the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father.  If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA?     technically they are still a part of each other,.   well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
Click to expand...


DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.

Chiken stated a scientific fact.  You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis.  You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate:  location, location, location.  You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence.  It doesn't.

You're 0 for 2 so far.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Yarddog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you wernt born at the same time as your brother,  but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ?  Siamese twins.    they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they??   see it gets complicated is all.
> 
> A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one.   The sperm has all the DNA from the father ,  the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father.  If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA?     technically they are still a part of each other,.   well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers
Click to expand...


That's an awful lot of blather to obscure a lack of an answer.

The egg does NOT have all the DNA from the mother, Mensa Boy.  By definition, it has HALF her DNA.  Likewise the sperm and the father's DNA, otherwise you would have people walking around with twice as many chromosomes.

Technically, something technical cannot be "just your opinion", and vice versa.  Technically, a baby is a unique organism, separate from both the mother and father.

You don't want to ruffle my feathers?  Learn some science, or stop commenting on it.  Ignorance pisses me off, especially when it tries to present itself as fact.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
> 
> I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
Click to expand...


I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.



> You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb.  Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.



A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc.  It does not function as an independent being until it's born.  It has NO rights to the mother's body.

All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false.  For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.  



> Let me spell this out for you:  when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic".  I mean SCIENCE.  That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.



  My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> 
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
> 
> Chiken stated a scientific fact.  You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis.  You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate:  location, location, location.  You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence.  It doesn't.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 so far.
Click to expand...


DNA is irrelevant.  There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization.  The offspring it carries is genetically identical.   Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you wernt born at the same time as your brother,  but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ?  Siamese twins.    they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they??   see it gets complicated is all.
> 
> A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one.   The sperm has all the DNA from the father ,  the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father.  If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA?     technically they are still a part of each other,.   well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of blather to obscure a lack of an answer.
> 
> The egg does NOT have all the DNA from the mother, Mensa Boy.  By definition, it has HALF her DNA.  Likewise the sperm and the father's DNA, otherwise you would have people walking around with twice as many chromosomes.
> 
> Technically, something technical cannot be "just your opinion", and vice versa.  Technically, a baby is a unique organism, separate from both the mother and father.
> 
> You don't want to ruffle my feathers?  Learn some science, or stop commenting on it.  Ignorance pisses me off, especially when it tries to present itself as fact.
Click to expand...


If it's seperate from it's mother and father than seperating it from it's mother should not be an issue.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring.  Not sure she's a good authority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one bringing up Mother Nature as an authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is.  Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do, and neither you nor Hillary Clinton nor every fucking liberal in America is big enough to change it.
> 
> Nevertheless, what Nature does and does not dictate for other species is irrelevant to humans, who do NOT have a biological imperative to kill their young, defective or not.  Witness the fact that YOU are here.
Click to expand...


You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You can't say on the one hand that Mother Nature Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will then turn around and disregard the fact that Mother Nature also has the right to force a whole lot of other things.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
> 
> I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb.  Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc.  It does not function as an independent being until it's born.  It has NO rights to the mother's body.
> 
> All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false.  For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me spell this out for you:  when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic".  I mean SCIENCE.  That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
Click to expand...



Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"

Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.

_Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.   Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary_

See anything in there about dependence?  Me neither.

_"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]_

Hmmm.  Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.

_"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]_

Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.

So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".  

All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment.  Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it.  Likewise for marine mammals.  Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types:  some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt.  Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure.  If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.

Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity.  If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die.  Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.

Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land.  While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations.  Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.

Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage.  Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic.  During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water.  When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.

There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism.  If you remove them from that environment, they will die.

In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.

This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp:  it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform.  It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them:  because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you wernt born at the same time as your brother,  but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ?  Siamese twins.    they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they??   see it gets complicated is all.
> 
> A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one.   The sperm has all the DNA from the father ,  the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father.  If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA?     technically they are still a part of each other,.   well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of blather to obscure a lack of an answer.
> 
> The egg does NOT have all the DNA from the mother, Mensa Boy.  By definition, it has HALF her DNA.  Likewise the sperm and the father's DNA, otherwise you would have people walking around with twice as many chromosomes.
> 
> Technically, something technical cannot be "just your opinion", and vice versa.  Technically, a baby is a unique organism, separate from both the mother and father.
> 
> You don't want to ruffle my feathers?  Learn some science, or stop commenting on it.  Ignorance pisses me off, especially when it tries to present itself as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's seperate from it's mother and father than seperating it from it's mother should not be an issue.
Click to expand...


Wow, you don't understand even the most basic biological concepts, do you?


----------



## Yarddog

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
> Her body. Her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you wernt born at the same time as your brother,  but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ?  Siamese twins.    they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they??   see it gets complicated is all.
> 
> A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one.   The sperm has all the DNA from the father ,  the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father.  If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA?     technically they are still a part of each other,.   well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of blather to obscure a lack of an answer.
> 
> The egg does NOT have all the DNA from the mother, Mensa Boy.  By definition, it has HALF her DNA.  Likewise the sperm and the father's DNA, otherwise you would have people walking around with twice as many chromosomes.
> 
> Technically, something technical cannot be "just your opinion", and vice versa.  Technically, a baby is a unique organism, separate from both the mother and father.
> 
> You don't want to ruffle my feathers?  Learn some science, or stop commenting on it.  Ignorance pisses me off, especially when it tries to present itself as fact.
Click to expand...


I think just about everything pisses you off.   I didnt say anything was fact, I did say it was my opinion.  Does not all the DNA in the egg come from the mother?   and does not all the DNA in the sperm come from the father?  So baby is a mix of the mother and father,  its pretty basic. I should have used the word It's instead of " the"  in describing DNA content. Its a moot point anyway,   if you don't like someones comments, your free to correct them,leave comments of your own thats cool, but telling people not to comment seems to border on thought police or is it arrogance?    again, I said it was my opinion , .. translation..." i could be wrong,  dont take it as fact"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring.  Not sure she's a good authority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one bringing up Mother Nature as an authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is.  Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do, and neither you nor Hillary Clinton nor every fucking liberal in America is big enough to change it.
> 
> Nevertheless, what Nature does and does not dictate for other species is irrelevant to humans, who do NOT have a biological imperative to kill their young, defective or not.  Witness the fact that YOU are here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You can't say on the one hand that Mother Nature Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will then turn around and disregard the fact that Mother Nature also has the right to force a whole lot of other things.
Click to expand...


First of all, the saying is CORRECTLY quoted as "Eat your cake and have it".  Anyone can have cake and eat it; eating it and still having it is more difficult.

Second of all, I never said Nature had "rights".  It's NATURE.  It has no use for human concepts such as "rights".  It is, and it does what it does, and no amount of legislation or bitching about "rights" is going to change the implacable reality of it.  Nature doesn't "have a right" to "force" a woman to do something:  it simply functions, and you exist in it, and that's that.

Furthermore, I disregarded nothing.  I stated facts.  Nature determines that human reproduction works the way it works.  You can like that arrangement, or you can hate and resent it.  Won't change anything.  Nature also determines that humans do not have a biological imperative to destroy their offspring, and what other species do or do not do is irrelevant to that fact.


----------



## chikenwing

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
> 
> Chiken stated a scientific fact.  You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis.  You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate:  location, location, location.  You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence.  It doesn't.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant.  There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization.  The offspring it carries is genetically identical.   Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
Click to expand...

You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrong


----------



## Cecilie1200

Yarddog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you wernt born at the same time as your brother,  but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ?  Siamese twins.    they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they??   see it gets complicated is all.
> 
> A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one.   The sperm has all the DNA from the father ,  the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father.  If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA?     technically they are still a part of each other,.   well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of blather to obscure a lack of an answer.
> 
> The egg does NOT have all the DNA from the mother, Mensa Boy.  By definition, it has HALF her DNA.  Likewise the sperm and the father's DNA, otherwise you would have people walking around with twice as many chromosomes.
> 
> Technically, something technical cannot be "just your opinion", and vice versa.  Technically, a baby is a unique organism, separate from both the mother and father.
> 
> You don't want to ruffle my feathers?  Learn some science, or stop commenting on it.  Ignorance pisses me off, especially when it tries to present itself as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think just about everything pisses you off.   I didnt say anything was fact, I did say it was my opinion.  Does not all the DNA in the egg come from the mother?   and does not all the DNA in the sperm come from the father?  So baby is a mix of the mother and father,  its pretty basic. I should have used the word It's instead of " the"  in describing DNA content. Its a moot point anyway,   if you don't like someones comments, your free to correct them,leave comments of your own thats cool, but telling people not to comment seems to border on thought police or is it arrogance?    again, I said it was my opinion , .. translation..." i could be wrong,  dont take it as fact"
Click to expand...


No, stupidity pisses me off.  The fact that so many people exhibit it about so many topics doesn't change the base fact of what bothers me.

We're talking about facts; your opinion is not requested and is not meaningful.  This topic is not philosophy, or creative writing.  It's biology.  So please do not tell me what your "opinion" of biological fact is, because I don't care any more than Nature does.

Please try to keep the discussion straight, as well.  You started with "the egg has all the DNA from the mother".  Now you're trying to talk about whether or not the mother is the sole source of the DNA the egg has.  If you can't convey what the hell you're talking about clearly from one post to the other, I reiterate that you have no business discussing science, and should stop trying to make statements about it.

Yes, a baby is a combination of genetic material from two different sources, making it a separate, unique organism.

There's no "thought police" about saying that you are unqualified to comment on science, since you clearly know nothing about it.  It's equally clear that the meanings of words, particularly when strung together into sentences, is also an area you're weak in.  "Learn science, or shut up about it" means "you are unqualified in this area".

At the point where you said, "This is my opinion", you should have either gone back and changed all of your sentences from statements of "This is how reality is" to "This is my half-assed and uninformed guess about how I FEELZ it is", or just deleted the post, because that qualifier made the entire post useless bullshit.

This is me leaving my comments, since you don't seem to get that:  You're ignorant, and pretty much everything you believe about biology and embryology is wrong.


----------



## oreo

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.




Well obviously, the woman because none of the rest would exist without her.

What Reich wingers fail to realize and why they can't win National elections anymore, is because they fill the debate platform with abortion, planned parenthood and who's going to defund it--LOL.  _Basically debating a 45 year old already settled U.S. Supreme court issue, that belongs no where on a political platform.  Something no politician in this country could do anything about anyway._

In 2012 Republicans chased off women by double digits, younger women by 36 points which secured a second term for Barack Obama.  This by making their platform again about abortion, that went into who's not going to pay for birth control pills, to what is legal--legitimate rape questions.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

In 2016--not learning anything from 2012 they did it again.  1st debate was about guess what?  Abortion, and who's tougher on defunding planned parenthood.  They lined the stage with several knuckle dragging neanderthals again Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, & Rick Perry.  _Who don't give the 3 exceptions, or want to require sonogram testing on pregnant women prior to an abortion.  Ted Cruz and Rand Paul actually promising their supporters a "personhood" amendment to the U.S. Constitution--LOL_

_There is no candidate in this country that can win the Presidency if he/she doesn't give exception for the life of the mother, rape and incest.  They wouldn't make it too the starting line and would  creamed in a National election.  Women are the largest voting block in this country, and you have to take them seriously._

*That's one thing about Republicans, they never learn anything from past mistakes and prior loss's, they just pick up and double down on them.*  In 2012 it was women, in 2016 it's still women but now add to that Hispanics, when they needed 46% of this block to win the White House, Trump is polling at a negative 80%.
GOP Win Will Need More Than 40 Percent Of Latino 2016 Vote, Says Study
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him
Poll: 75% of Latinos Have Negative View of Donald Trump

And for those reasons, I doubt the next Republican President has even been born yet.


----------



## amrchaos

MaryL said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophers  have been arguing this for a millennium. Framed a little differently . Which comes first, the Woman or the Egg? Why did the woman cross the road? Deep questions I can't answer.
Click to expand...

But you are a woman!  You can at least tell us why you crossed the road!!


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about her body.  She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care.  She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.
> 
> We're talking about a separate organism entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
Click to expand...


Being able to live completely independent is not one of the requirements to be recognised as a seperate being. Conjoined Twins are a perfect example of this. . . They are two organisms which happen to be joined together and in most cases need to remain that way for survival.


----------



## Dragonlady

Redfish said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what would you say if your momma was pro choice 6 months before you were born?   oh, that's right, you wouldn't exist so you couldn't say anything.
> 
> but if abortion is ok up to the moment of birth,  why is killing a 1 year old illegal?   If the kid becomes a burden why not just eliminate him or her?
Click to expand...


I've been pro-choice all of my life and I have three children, one of whom was a "surprise".  I've never had an abortion.  

To suggest that if your mother is pro-choice, she would never want or have a child is a total fallacy.


----------



## dannyboys

The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.


----------



## TooTall

Cecilie1200 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
Click to expand...


You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats."  That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.

"As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Being able to live completely independent is not one of the requirements to be recognised as a seperate being. Conjoined Twins are a perfect example of this. . . They are two organisms which happen to be joined together and in most cases need to remain that way for survival."

. . . which has nothing to do with a fetus and personhood.

‘The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `*person*' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that *that word "has application only postnatally*." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state doesn't participate in the child's creation.
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
Click to expand...



So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
Click to expand...



who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
Click to expand...

Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TooTall said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats."  That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
> 
> "As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
Click to expand...


Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.

One more time for the _cojone_-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time:  on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat?  If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it?  And whatever your answer to that second question, what is the science for THAT?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
Click to expand...

Read the SCOTUS ruling above.  After birth, the personhood of the child is a fact.

I understand you don't like the ruling, but that does not matter.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.
Click to expand...



I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth. 

I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.
> 
> I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.
Click to expand...

The ruling is clear that their is no person hood for a fetus.  The moment of birth would confer that recognition.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the SCOTUS ruling above.  After birth, the personhood of the child is a fact.
> 
> I understand you don't like the ruling, but that does not matter.
Click to expand...



Yes, I understand the SCOTUS ruling.   What I don't understand is why you liberals care only about your personal comfort and convenience and care nothing about the comfort, convenience, or life of anyone else.   You are very much like ISIS in that regard.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.
> 
> I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ruling is clear that their is no person hood for a fetus.  The moment of birth would confer that recognition.
Click to expand...



Define "moment of birth".   from an vaginal birth aspect and a caesarean birth aspect.   Who makes the "this fetus is now a human being" call?


----------



## Chuz Life

In a l late term / life of the mother situation.  . . Could someone explain what the medical benefit is to the mother, for the abortionist to kill the child instead of delivering it alive? 


No?


I didn't think so.


----------



## Chuz Life

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.
> 
> I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ruling is clear that their is no person hood for a fetus.  The moment of birth would confer that recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Define "moment of birth".   from an vaginal birth aspect and a caesarean birth aspect.   Who makes the "this fetus is now a human being" call?
Click to expand...


If you want to really confound and confused them. . . Ask them to consider how conception is the actual "birth" of an organism and what most people think of as birth is actually called parturition.  

Conception,  not parturition is the moment that the organism came into being,  existence, etc. 

Conception,  not parturition is when aging begins,  etc.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.
> 
> You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.
> 
> Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it.  I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation.  Yet I can't find anything.
> 
> Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.




have you heard of partial birth abortions?   The child is half way BORN and then a hole in punched in his/her head and the brains sucked out.   Is that murder by your definition?


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.
> 
> You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.
> 
> Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it.  I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation.  Yet I can't find anything.
> 
> Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.




We fully understand that you cannot defend your position using logic, biology, or common sense.  So, like all liberals, when confounded, resort to name calling.   We get it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here.  Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.

Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.

You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.

Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.

Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.

The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.

Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.


----------



## 2aguy

If it is the life of the mother if she carries the baby to full term...the mother....but she can choose to try to give birth...That is called Triage, and you are trying to save at least one life.  If there is no danger to the life of the mother, then the baby.......


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here.  Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.
> 
> Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.
> 
> You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.
> 
> Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.
> 
> Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.
> 
> The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.
> 
> Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.




you are probably right, our society is on the way down, following the path of the Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, and others.   When human life loses significance and personal comfort prevails over all else, then the society is doomed.

We aren't there yet, but we are on the way.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the SCOTUS ruling above.  After birth, the personhood of the child is a fact.
> 
> I understand you don't like the ruling, but that does not matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand the SCOTUS ruling.   What I don't understand is why you liberals care only about your personal comfort and convenience and care nothing about the comfort, convenience, or life of anyone else.   You are very much like ISIS in that regard.
Click to expand...


Liberalism is the current ultimate in Western civilization of childish narcissism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Chuz Life said:


> In a l late term / life of the mother situation.  . . Could someone explain what the medical benefit is to the mother, for the abortionist to kill the child instead of delivering it alive?
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.



Generally speaking, those situations are more often a matter of something ELSE threatening the life of the mother, treatment of which would be dangerous and/or harmful to the unborn child.  Cancer is the one which most often seems to show up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here.  Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.
> 
> Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.
> 
> You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.
> 
> Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.
> 
> Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.
> 
> The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.
> 
> Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are probably right, our society is on the way down, following the path of the Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, and others.   When human life loses significance and personal comfort prevails over all else, then the society is doomed.
> 
> We aren't there yet, but we are on the way.
Click to expand...

Show me a doctor who aborted a viable fetus five second before delivery if the mother was healthy enough to have the child.

An example would be nice instead of the what if?


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here.  Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.
> 
> Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.
> 
> You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.
> 
> Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.
> 
> Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.
> 
> The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.
> 
> Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are probably right, our society is on the way down, following the path of the Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, and others.   When human life loses significance and personal comfort prevails over all else, then the society is doomed.
> 
> We aren't there yet, but we are on the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a doctor who aborted a viable fetus five second before delivery if the mother was healthy enough to have the child.
> 
> An example would be nice instead of the what if?
Click to expand...



I gave you one,  partial birth abortion has been practiced in the USA on a large scale.  Hillary supports it as a method of "birth control".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your example was five seconds before birth.

Give us that example.  Link to it.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Your example was five seconds before birth.
> 
> Give us that example.  Link to it.




NO, I was responding to the clown who said that personhood occurred at the moment of birth.  So using his definition, partial birth abortion is murder.  Or does the "partial" part of it prevent personhood?  Since only the head is "born" ?


----------



## easyt65

Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?

You left out, in you list of selections, 'Unborn PERSON' (as per Hillary)...

- Mother
- Unborn Person
- Fetus
- Fertilized Egg


----------



## Cecilie1200

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example was five seconds before birth.
> 
> Give us that example.  Link to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I was responding to the clown who said that personhood occurred at the moment of birth.  So using his definition, partial birth abortion is murder.  Or does the "partial" part of it prevent personhood?  Since only the head is "born" ?
Click to expand...


Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?  Because they knew science and anything involving facts directly and categorically disagreed with them, and they needed something that was as much a matter of meaningless opinion as their position was.


----------



## easyt65

Cecilie1200 said:


> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?



The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy.  Not true for the baby.  So the "priority" is the baby.  No brainer.  Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases.  That's true no matter what Hillary says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That absolutely diminishes her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the normal mother who has priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any woman.
Click to expand...


Deltex is spot on with this.


----------



## Cecilie1200

easyt65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
Click to expand...


Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?

I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.


----------



## easyt65

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?


I didn't say they don't attack the 'personhood' issue. I said / meant pro-abortionists do not feel the same way as Hillary and are pissed Hillary just gave pro-lifers 'ammo' by ADMITTING some BABIES (not fetus) being killed ARE 'Persons'.


----------



## Cecilie1200

easyt65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they don't attack the 'personhood' issue. I said / meant pro-abortionists do not feel the same way as Hillary and are pissed Hillary just gave pro-lifers 'ammo' by ADMITTING some BABIES (not fetus) being killed ARE 'Persons'.
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware we were talking about Hillary and her personal positions.  I could have sworn we were talking about an issue, not personality politics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The meaningless opinion is what you are dishing Cecilie1200.

I asked him to qualify his rant.   He won't because he can't.


----------



## easyt65

Cecilie1200 said:


> I wasn't aware we were talking about Hillary and her personal positions.  I could have sworn we were talking about an issue, not personality politics.




Since Hillary has the potential to be the next President, thus the potential opportunity to nominate the next USSC Justice who will have a major say in this issue, I would say Hillary is extremely pertinent to this conversation, wouldn't you?


----------



## easyt65

JakeStarkey said:


> The meaningless opinion is what you are dishing Cecilie1200.
> 
> I asked him to qualify his rant.   He won't because he can't.


Thanks for defending me, Jake, right before proving how wrong you are regarding qualifying my statement. What you meant to say is that I would never be able to quantify my statement to your personal standard. Not my problem - I could care less what you think or what your standard is, Have a nice day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

easyt65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meaningless opinion is what you are dishing Cecilie1200.
> 
> I asked him to qualify his rant.   He won't because he can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for defending me, Jake, right before proving how wrong you are regarding qualifying my statement. What you meant to say is that I would never be able to quantify my statement to your personal standard. Not my problem - I could care less what you think or what your standard is, Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Lying to yourself means nothing to the rest of us.  You can't argue intelligibly is your problem. Always has been.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And if easydoosh wants to bring in HRC, I would remind him that most Americans agree with her position generally than doosh's.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
Click to expand...


Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.
Click to expand...

The law is what counts.


----------



## Coyote

chikenwing said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
> 
> 
> 
> DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
> 
> Chiken stated a scientific fact.  You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis.  You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate:  location, location, location.  You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence.  It doesn't.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant.  There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization.  The offspring it carries is genetically identical.   Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrong
Click to expand...


It makes no difference when it comes to rights - otherwise, how would you handle cloning?


----------



## Dragonlady

dannyboys said:


> The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
> Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.



No matter how many times you attempt to equate terminating a pregnancy with murdering a child and it's not.  Child is a living breathing entity.  Ending a pregnancy is preventing the fertilized egg from becoming a child.

One third of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.  God never intended every fertilized egg to end in a live birth.

Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential.  As it stands, conservatives care about children only as long as they are in t


Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
Click to expand...


In Bibilical times, children under one year of age, weren't counted in the census.

Babies aren't aborted 5 seconds before birth.  The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy.  Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy are usually because of fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body.  If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
> however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism"  like the rest of us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
> 
> I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb.  Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc.  It does not function as an independent being until it's born.  It has NO rights to the mother's body.
> 
> All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false.  For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me spell this out for you:  when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic".  I mean SCIENCE.  That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
> 
> Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
Click to expand...


You seem to  be the only one throwing tantrums around here.



> _Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.   Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary_
> 
> See anything in there about dependence?  Me neither.
> 
> _"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
> [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]_



It says nothing one way or the other about "dependency".  It also says nothing a out DNA.  I have to laugh at your pretention to "science" since all you are doing is spouting quotes without context, which most likely means you cut and pasted them from a pro-life source, correct?  Some of them are 40 years old even.  Is this where you found them? (they're all there....) 41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception

Let's look at what constitutes an organism:

Homeostasis:
_

*Homeostasis, *any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail._
_
...The control of body temperature in humans is a good example of homeostasis in a biological system. In humans, normal body temperature fluctuates around the value of 37 °C (98.6 °F), but various factors can affect this value, including exposure, hormones, metabolic rate, and disease, leading to excessively high or low temperatures. The body’s temperature regulation is controlled by a region in the brain called the hypothalamus. Feedback about body temperature is carried through the bloodstream to the brain and results in compensatory adjustments in the breathing rate, the level of blood sugar, and the metabolic rate. Heat loss in humans is aided by reduction of activity, by perspiration, and by heat-exchange mechanisms that permit larger amounts of blood to circulate near the skin surface._​

Can a blastocyst maintain essential homeostasis necessary for survival? An embryo? A fetus?  It can not regulate it's own body temperature the mother's body does that for it.  It's referred to as a "developing organism" isn't it?




> Hmmm.  Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
> 
> _"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
> [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]_
> 
> Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.



...again..."the development of"...  if it doesn't implant, it can not maintain life.  Is a zygote an independent organism?




> So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
> 
> All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment.  Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it.  Likewise for marine mammals.  Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types:  some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt.  Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure.  If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
> 
> Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity.  If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die.  Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
> 
> Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land.  While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations.  Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
> 
> Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage.  Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic.  During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water.  When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
> 
> There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism.  If you remove them from that environment, they will die.



I'm in total agreement with the above, though "natural environment" is much broader than you put forth.



> In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.



So..you are essentially saying it is a parasite.
_...an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense._​


> This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp:  it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform.  It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them:  because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.



Fair point


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
Click to expand...


Because birth defines the moment at which it has rights as an independent organism according to our laws.


----------



## dannyboys

Dragonlady said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
> Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you attempt to equate terminating a pregnancy with murdering a child and it's not.  Child is a living breathing entity.  Ending a pregnancy is preventing the fertilized egg from becoming a child.
> 
> One third of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.  God never intended every fertilized egg to end in a live birth.
> 
> Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential.  As it stands, conservatives care about children only as long as they are in t
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Bibilical times, children under one year of age, weren't counted in the census.
> 
> Babies aren't aborted 5 seconds before birth.  The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy.  Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy are usually because of fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother.
Click to expand...

You ought to have sent your sermon about how three month old babies aren't human beings to BONOBO.
He's had almost eight years to "ensure better education". The asshole went on family vacations which cost the 'MAKERS"!!! also a billion dollars! 
How many school supplies would that billion dollars have bought for inner city kids?
Ya fucking right!
BONOBO could have played golf a couple of miles where he lives.
What a fucking pathetic 'First AA president' POS he turned out to be.


----------



## dannyboys

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
> 
> I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb.  Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc.  It does not function as an independent being until it's born.  It has NO rights to the mother's body.
> 
> All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false.  For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me spell this out for you:  when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic".  I mean SCIENCE.  That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
> 
> Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to  be the only one throwing tantrums around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.   Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary_
> 
> See anything in there about dependence?  Me neither.
> 
> _"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
> [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says nothing one way or the other about "dependency".  It also says nothing a out DNA.  I have to laugh at your pretention to "science" since all you are doing is spouting quotes without context, which most likely means you cut and pasted them from a pro-life source, correct?  Some of them are 40 years old even.  Is this where you found them? (they're all there....) 41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception
> 
> Let's look at what constitutes an organism:
> 
> Homeostasis:
> _
> 
> *Homeostasis, *any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail._
> _
> ...The control of body temperature in humans is a good example of homeostasis in a biological system. In humans, normal body temperature fluctuates around the value of 37 °C (98.6 °F), but various factors can affect this value, including exposure, hormones, metabolic rate, and disease, leading to excessively high or low temperatures. The body’s temperature regulation is controlled by a region in the brain called the hypothalamus. Feedback about body temperature is carried through the bloodstream to the brain and results in compensatory adjustments in the breathing rate, the level of blood sugar, and the metabolic rate. Heat loss in humans is aided by reduction of activity, by perspiration, and by heat-exchange mechanisms that permit larger amounts of blood to circulate near the skin surface._​
> 
> Can a blastocyst maintain essential homeostasis necessary for survival? An embryo? A fetus?  It can not regulate it's own body temperature the mother's body does that for it.  It's referred to as a "developing organism" isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
> 
> _"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
> [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]_
> 
> Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...again..."the development of"...  if it doesn't implant, it can not maintain life.  Is a zygote an independent organism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
> 
> All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment.  Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it.  Likewise for marine mammals.  Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types:  some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt.  Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure.  If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
> 
> Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity.  If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die.  Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
> 
> Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land.  While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations.  Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
> 
> Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage.  Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic.  During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water.  When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
> 
> There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism.  If you remove them from that environment, they will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm in total agreement with the above, though "natural environment" is much broader than you put forth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..you are essentially saying it is a parasite.
> _...an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense._​
> 
> 
> 
> This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp:  it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform.  It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them:  because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair point
Click to expand...

Your deep quilt is showing.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens.  Always.
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
Click to expand...

 
My personal opinion is that once the child is viable and can survive outside the mother's body, it has *some *rights.  That is why late term abortions are very restricted and very rare.

Birth is the only clearly defined moment - when the baby's head clears the birth canal - that it has full fledged rights on it's own.

If you start to apply rights before...how far back do you go?  If, as some claim, it's an independent organism from the moment of conception then...when did that occur?  At what point can the mother be sued for criminal neglect if she smokes or drinks alcohal or goes bungie jumping and has a miscarriage?

If it has full fledged rights then you can not ethically EVER abort it, even if the mother's life is in danger - even if it's incest or rape.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats."  That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
> 
> "As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
> 
> One more time for the _cojone_-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time:  on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat?  If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it?  And whatever your answer to that second question, *what is the science for THAT*?
Click to expand...


There is no science for that - it is a ethical/religious/philosphical question. Science can only answer the question of what species it is.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.
> 
> I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.
Click to expand...


Did you miss the post natal part?  That is a defined term.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.


----------



## Dragonlady

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the SCOTUS ruling above.  After birth, the personhood of the child is a fact.
> 
> I understand you don't like the ruling, but that does not matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand the SCOTUS ruling.   What I don't understand is why you liberals care only about your personal comfort and convenience and care nothing about the comfort, convenience, or life of anyone else.   You are very much like ISIS in that regard.
Click to expand...


And conservatives are so concerned for others that they want to build a wall to keep them out.


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
Click to expand...



I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative. *

Simple Definition of science*

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation


: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science


: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
* Full Definition of political science *

:  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."

Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so. 

* Full Definition of anthropology *

_1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture


_2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings


----------



## TooTall

Cecilie1200 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a _potential_ human being.  I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats."  That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
> 
> "As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
> 
> One more time for the _cojone_-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time:  on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat?  If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it?  And whatever your answer to that second question, what is the science for THAT?
Click to expand...


I gave you my opinion and if you have to resort to insults you can kiss my ass.


----------



## Coyote

JakeStarkey said:


> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.




Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
> 
> *Simple Definition of science*
> 
> : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
> 
> 
> : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
> 
> 
> : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
> * Full Definition of political science *
> 
> :  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
> The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."
> 
> Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
> 
> * Full Definition of anthropology *
> 
> _1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
> 
> 
> _2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
Click to expand...


Tell me how the scientific method can be applied to personhood and rights.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
_noun_
noun: *science*
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing *the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.*

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The _Oxford English Dictionary_ defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[4]


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
> 
> *Simple Definition of science*
> 
> : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
> 
> 
> : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
> 
> 
> : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
> * Full Definition of political science *
> 
> :  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
> The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."
> 
> Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
> 
> * Full Definition of anthropology *
> 
> _1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
> 
> 
> _2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
Click to expand...


I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
> 
> *Simple Definition of science*
> 
> : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
> 
> 
> : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
> 
> 
> : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
> * Full Definition of political science *
> 
> :  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
> The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."
> 
> Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
> 
> * Full Definition of anthropology *
> 
> _1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
> 
> 
> _2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".
Click to expand...



Westchester Institute White Paper
When Does Human Life Begin?
A *Scientific* Perspective

"Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.

This article considers the current *scientific* evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted *scientific* criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of *a human organism*. Thus, the *scientific *evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is *a human organism* and that the life of *a new human being *commences at a *scientifically* well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."

"Most *human beings* are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new  organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of *“personhood”* to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - *The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
> 
> *Simple Definition of science*
> 
> : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
> 
> 
> : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
> 
> 
> : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
> * Full Definition of political science *
> 
> :  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
> The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."
> 
> Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
> 
> * Full Definition of anthropology *
> 
> _1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
> 
> 
> _2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Westchester Institute White Paper
> When Does Human Life Begin?
> A *Scientific* Perspective
> 
> "Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.
> 
> This article considers the current *scientific* evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted *scientific* criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of *a human organism*. Thus, the *scientific *evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is *a human organism* and that the life of *a new human being *commences at a *scientifically* well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
> 
> "Most *human beings* are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new  organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
> These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of *“personhood”* to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - *The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person*
Click to expand...

This is all that is need in response to Chuz.

‘The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because birth defines the moment at which it has rights as an independent organism according to our laws.
Click to expand...



I have asked you abortionists for a definition of birth and not one of you can provide one. 

I have also asked why a person who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder, you cant answer that one either. 

so, lets try this one:   at what point between conception and leaving the mothers body does one become a person?


----------



## Redfish

Coyote said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.
> 
> I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the post natal part?  That is a defined term.
Click to expand...



then you oppose partial birth abortion, which Hillary Clinton approves of?  yes or  no.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have asked you especially, Redfish, for an example of any doctor performing an abortion in the last five minutes on a healthy mother.

You have ducked.  As long as you, you have fail.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And Trump is not going to do a thing for the pro-life movement.

Donald Trump: Don’t Change Abortion Laws, “The Laws are Set, We Have to Leave it That Way”


----------



## Cecilie1200

easyt65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware we were talking about Hillary and her personal positions.  I could have sworn we were talking about an issue, not personality politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Hillary has the potential to be the next President, thus the potential opportunity to nominate the next USSC Justice who will have a major say in this issue, I would say Hillary is extremely pertinent to this conversation, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


Not really, since this conversation is about the opinions of the posters on this board as to the issue in general.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.
Click to expand...


Well, not the way liberals apply them.  But then, very little has to do with science with liberals.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
> 
> Chiken stated a scientific fact.  You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis.  You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate:  location, location, location.  You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence.  It doesn't.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant.  There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization.  The offspring it carries is genetically identical.   Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes no difference when it comes to rights - otherwise, how would you handle cloning?
Click to expand...


You didn't ask me personally, but I'd handle it the same way I'd handle identical twins:  a separate organism is a separate organism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
> Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you attempt to equate terminating a pregnancy with murdering a child and it's not.  Child is a living breathing entity.  Ending a pregnancy is preventing the fertilized egg from becoming a child.
> 
> One third of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.  God never intended every fertilized egg to end in a live birth.
> 
> Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential.  As it stands, conservatives care about children only as long as they are in t
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> except its unborn ones, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Bibilical times, children under one year of age, weren't counted in the census.
> 
> Babies aren't aborted 5 seconds before birth.  The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy.  Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy are usually because of fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother.
Click to expand...


Yeah, um, you know we're supposed to refer to historic tradition for philosophical views, not for scientific ones, right?  I'm thinking the Bible is not the cutting edge in biological info.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense.  Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them.  I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
> 
> If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
> 
> I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb.  Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc.  It does not function as an independent being until it's born.  It has NO rights to the mother's body.
> 
> All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false.  For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me spell this out for you:  when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic".  I mean SCIENCE.  That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
> 
> Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to  be the only one throwing tantrums around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.   Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary_
> 
> See anything in there about dependence?  Me neither.
> 
> _"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
> [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says nothing one way or the other about "dependency".  It also says nothing a out DNA.  I have to laugh at your pretention to "science" since all you are doing is spouting quotes without context, which most likely means you cut and pasted them from a pro-life source, correct?  Some of them are 40 years old even.  Is this where you found them? (they're all there....) 41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception
> 
> Let's look at what constitutes an organism:
> 
> Homeostasis:
> _
> 
> *Homeostasis, *any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail._
> _
> ...The control of body temperature in humans is a good example of homeostasis in a biological system. In humans, normal body temperature fluctuates around the value of 37 °C (98.6 °F), but various factors can affect this value, including exposure, hormones, metabolic rate, and disease, leading to excessively high or low temperatures. The body’s temperature regulation is controlled by a region in the brain called the hypothalamus. Feedback about body temperature is carried through the bloodstream to the brain and results in compensatory adjustments in the breathing rate, the level of blood sugar, and the metabolic rate. Heat loss in humans is aided by reduction of activity, by perspiration, and by heat-exchange mechanisms that permit larger amounts of blood to circulate near the skin surface._​
> 
> Can a blastocyst maintain essential homeostasis necessary for survival? An embryo? A fetus?  It can not regulate it's own body temperature the mother's body does that for it.  It's referred to as a "developing organism" isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
> 
> _"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
> [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]_
> 
> Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...again..."the development of"...  if it doesn't implant, it can not maintain life.  Is a zygote an independent organism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
> 
> All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment.  Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it.  Likewise for marine mammals.  Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types:  some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt.  Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure.  If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
> 
> Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity.  If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die.  Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
> 
> Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land.  While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations.  Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
> 
> Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage.  Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic.  During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water.  When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
> 
> There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism.  If you remove them from that environment, they will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm in total agreement with the above, though "natural environment" is much broader than you put forth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..you are essentially saying it is a parasite.
> _...an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense._​
> 
> 
> 
> This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp:  it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform.  It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them:  because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair point
Click to expand...


Nice, unreadable blur you got going there.

Not sure I was the one all that focused on DNA as an indicator of being a separate organism, although it is a fact that babies have distinctive DNA from either of their parents.  But no, because the general definition of organism is intended to apply across a very broad spectrum of scenarios (like indentical twins, for example), it's not included there.

I actually gave you the links for the sources I quoted, so your attempt to write them off as "some pro-life site" is lame.  The fact that other people, including "pro-life websites", are capable of doing the same Google search I am means nothing whatsoever about the findings.  

How old scientific knowledge is is irrelevant to whether or not it's true.  Isaac Newton's work was what, 400ish years ago?  If I remember correctly, I was referred to the textbook citations by the Princeton University website.  Feel free to take it up with them.  

If a zygote does not implant, it dies, so no, it's not alive at that point.  I fail to see what your point is.  All things die.  Doesn't mean they were never alive at all.

Yes, fetuses maintain homeostasis as much as adult human beings do.  I can't maintain my own body temperature without assistance from my environment, either, which is why I live in a house with a heater and air conditioner, and why I wear clothing.  Nevertheless, barring extremes of some sort, the fetus does regulate its own body functions, just as I do.  A fetus is, admittedly, a less sturdy organism than I am, but so is my 7-year-old son.  So is my 2-month-old granddaughter, etc.

Yes, natural environment is a very broad and complex discussion, and this is a message board post, not me trying to teach a class on something leftist baboons should already know.  I'm not getting paid for tutoring, here.

Fetuses are more symbiotes than parasites, since they aren't harmful to the mother unless something goes very wrong with the pregnancy.  Whichever way you want to describe them, it doesn't negate the fact that they're alive, and that they're separate organisms.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats."  That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
> 
> "As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
> 
> One more time for the _cojone_-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time:  on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat?  If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it?  And whatever your answer to that second question, *what is the science for THAT*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no science for that - it is a ethical/religious/philosphical question. Science can only answer the question of what species it is.
Click to expand...


Yeah, um, there IS science for all the questions I asked.  Medical science deals with these questions all the time.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TooTall said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats."  That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
> 
> "As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
> 
> One more time for the _cojone_-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time:  on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat?  If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it?  And whatever your answer to that second question, what is the science for THAT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you my opinion and if you have to resort to insults you can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...


I saw that you gave me your opinion.  Twice.  Problem is, I didn't ask for your opinion.  I asked you for the science.  Hence the insults, hence the "Oh, thank GOD, I can get my panties in a ruffle and storm away before I'm forced to answer questions!" non-response.

Look, if you pulled your beliefs out of your ass without reference to science, just say so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
Click to expand...


Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.


----------



## tinydancer

When my baby started kicking. And I went what the hell is that. Whoa geeze its my baby.


----------



## tinydancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
Click to expand...

I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.


----------



## Chuz Life

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
Click to expand...


Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.


----------



## tinydancer

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
Click to expand...


What disturbs me the most is not being to talk about it. I've got stupid chicks age 18 telling me I can't have a voice in this. Kiss my ass.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
Click to expand...



Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....

well...

zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.

ZERO.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.
Click to expand...


Ah...so with women getting abortions you have a visable person to demonize.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they did?  The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"?  What was the fetus before?  And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats."  That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
> 
> "As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
> 
> One more time for the _cojone_-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time:  on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat?  If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it?  And whatever your answer to that second question, *what is the science for THAT*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no science for that - it is a ethical/religious/philosphical question. Science can only answer the question of what species it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, um, there IS science for all the questions I asked.  Medical science deals with these questions all the time.
Click to expand...


Medical science deals with "personhood"?  Do tell.  And, specifically - how do you apply the scientific method to questions involving personhood?


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
> 
> Chiken stated a scientific fact.  You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis.  You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate:  location, location, location.  You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence.  It doesn't.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant.  There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization.  The offspring it carries is genetically identical.   Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes no difference when it comes to rights - otherwise, how would you handle cloning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't ask me personally, but I'd handle it the same way I'd handle identical twins:  a separate organism is a separate organism.
Click to expand...


Again though, it blows the whole DNA thing out of the water.  If a unique DNA is the requesite for being a seperate organism, then a clone can not be.


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
> Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you attempt to equate terminating a pregnancy with murdering a child and it's not.  Child is a living breathing entity.  Ending a pregnancy is preventing the fertilized egg from becoming a child.
> 
> One third of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.  God never intended every fertilized egg to end in a live birth.
> 
> Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential.  As it stands, conservatives care about children only as long as they are in t
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> illogical argument.   Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't.   Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being *entitled to constitutional rights.*  Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Bibilical times, children under one year of age, weren't counted in the census.
> 
> Babies aren't aborted 5 seconds before birth.  The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy.  Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy are usually because of fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, um, you know we're supposed to refer to historic tradition for philosophical views, not for scientific ones, right?  I'm thinking the Bible is not the cutting edge in biological info.
Click to expand...


I'm not discussing the science of when life begins.  Life begins at birth.  I don't know why that's so hard for conservatives to understand.  They're very big on claiming the immorality of abortion, even though the Bible is mute on the subject.

Conservatives want to shrink the size of government, and yet they want to intrude on women's private decisions based on THEIR religious beliefs, not the beliefs of the women.  That violates the freedom of religion conservatives are claiming to hold so dear.

The issues of when to have a child, how many to have, and whether or not you are in a position to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term, are among the most personal and difficult decisions a woman must make in her life.  My choice was to have the child, and for me and my family, this was the right choice.  Anyone who thinks abortion is wrong, immoral or in opposition to God's will, can do the same thing.


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
> 
> Chiken stated a scientific fact.  You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis.  You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate:  location, location, location.  You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence.  It doesn't.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is irrelevant.  There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization.  The offspring it carries is genetically identical.   Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes no difference when it comes to rights - otherwise, how would you handle cloning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't ask me personally, but I'd handle it the same way I'd handle identical twins:  a separate organism is a separate organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again though, it blows the whole DNA thing out of the water.  If a unique DNA is the requesite for being a seperate organism, then a clone can not be.
Click to expand...


No clone or "identical " twin is ever  absolutely  identical genetically in every way.

No matter how close a match is or can be created. . . A genetic test that is sophisticated enough would be able to find a difference.

This is because comparisons are generally made using common genetic markers and the total comparison between the two different DNA samples will rarely if ever go any more in depth than that.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a seperate organism until you are born.  It's pretty obvious.  If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
> 
> I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb.  Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc.  It does not function as an independent being until it's born.  It has NO rights to the mother's body.
> 
> All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false.  For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me spell this out for you:  when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic".  I mean SCIENCE.  That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
> 
> Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to  be the only one throwing tantrums around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.   Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary_
> 
> See anything in there about dependence?  Me neither.
> 
> _"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
> [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says nothing one way or the other about "dependency".  It also says nothing a out DNA.  I have to laugh at your pretention to "science" since all you are doing is spouting quotes without context, which most likely means you cut and pasted them from a pro-life source, correct?  Some of them are 40 years old even.  Is this where you found them? (they're all there....) 41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception
> 
> Let's look at what constitutes an organism:
> 
> Homeostasis:
> _
> 
> *Homeostasis, *any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail._
> _
> ...The control of body temperature in humans is a good example of homeostasis in a biological system. In humans, normal body temperature fluctuates around the value of 37 °C (98.6 °F), but various factors can affect this value, including exposure, hormones, metabolic rate, and disease, leading to excessively high or low temperatures. The body’s temperature regulation is controlled by a region in the brain called the hypothalamus. Feedback about body temperature is carried through the bloodstream to the brain and results in compensatory adjustments in the breathing rate, the level of blood sugar, and the metabolic rate. Heat loss in humans is aided by reduction of activity, by perspiration, and by heat-exchange mechanisms that permit larger amounts of blood to circulate near the skin surface._​
> 
> Can a blastocyst maintain essential homeostasis necessary for survival? An embryo? A fetus?  It can not regulate it's own body temperature the mother's body does that for it.  It's referred to as a "developing organism" isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
> 
> _"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
> [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]_
> 
> Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...again..."the development of"...  if it doesn't implant, it can not maintain life.  Is a zygote an independent organism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
> 
> All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment.  Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it.  Likewise for marine mammals.  Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types:  some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt.  Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure.  If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
> 
> Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity.  If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die.  Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
> 
> Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land.  While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations.  Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
> 
> Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage.  Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic.  During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water.  When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
> 
> There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism.  If you remove them from that environment, they will die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm in total agreement with the above, though "natural environment" is much broader than you put forth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..you are essentially saying it is a parasite.
> _...an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense._​
> 
> 
> 
> This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp:  it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform.  It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them:  because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice, unreadable blur you got going there.
Click to expand...


Put your glasses on.



> Not sure I was the one all that focused on DNA as an indicator of being a separate organism, although it is a fact that babies have distinctive DNA from either of their parents.  But no, because the general definition of organism is intended to apply across a very broad spectrum of scenarios (like indentical twins, for example), it's not included there.



You certainly mention unique dna often enough.



> I actually gave you the links for the sources I quoted, so your attempt to write them off as "some pro-life site" is lame.  The fact that other people, including "pro-life websites", are capable of doing the same Google search I am means nothing whatsoever about the findings.



  sure...the same "links" (ie references to sources, not actual links) that the website used...even the exact same partial quotes (and nothing more) and exact same method of attribution...how odd.



> How old scientific knowledge is is irrelevant to whether or not it's true.  Isaac Newton's work was what, 400ish years ago?  If I remember correctly, I was referred to the textbook citations by the Princeton University website.  Feel free to take it up with them.



In the realm of biology especially, the science changes rapidly - new data becomes available and new theories are developed.  If you were so scientific, you would realize that instead of relying on pro-life selective quoting.



> If a zygote does not implant, it dies, so no, it's not alive at that point.  I fail to see what your point is.  All things die.  Doesn't mean they were never alive at all.
> 
> Yes, fetuses maintain homeostasis as much as adult human beings do.  I can't maintain my own body temperature without assistance from my environment, either, which is why I live in a house with a heater and air conditioner, and why I wear clothing.  Nevertheless, barring extremes of some sort, the fetus does regulate its own body functions, just as I do.  A fetus is, admittedly, a less sturdy organism than I am, but so is my 7-year-old son.  So is my 2-month-old granddaughter, etc.



You can maintain your body temperature without assistance from a biological host - without artificial constructs.  In the arctic, you might not last long - but your body would be doing it's best to maintain homeostasis.  So would your 7 yr old.  An embro cannot maintain it at all, on it it's own.



> Yes, natural environment is a very broad and complex discussion, and this is a message board post, not me trying to teach a class on something leftist baboons should already know.  I'm not getting paid for tutoring, here.



That's good since you really haven't shown yourself capable of teaching much.



> Fetuses are more symbiotes than parasites, since they aren't harmful to the mother unless something goes very wrong with the pregnancy.  Whichever way you want to describe them, it doesn't negate the fact that they're alive, and that they're separate organisms.



Symbiosis typically implies a mutually beneficial relationship.  Parasitism typically implies a relationship where one organism benefits to the detriment of the other.

The difference is whether the organism is wanted.  There is no argument that the fetus takes nutrients from the mother, at her expense, even when she is in a state of starvation.  It's symbiotic when the fetus is wanted.  It's parasitic, when it is unwanted.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.
Click to expand...


Where are the mass protests outside invitro clinics?


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the mass protests outside invitro clinics?
Click to expand...


You totally ignored what I  just said.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not the way liberals apply them.  But then, very little has to do with science with liberals.
Click to expand...


Actually, very little seems to involve science when it comes to you.  How does the scientific method address "personhood"?


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years?  Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because birth defines the moment at which it has rights as an independent organism according to our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you abortionists for a definition of birth and not one of you can provide one.
Click to expand...


1.  I'm not an abortionist.
2.  I provided one.



> I have also asked why a person who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder, you cant answer that one either.



Yet *not consistently*.



> so, lets try this one:   at what point between conception and leaving the mothers body does one become a person?



When, exactly, does conception occur?

One becomes a person when one is born.


----------



## Coyote

Redfish said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does?   Do you really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the court's ruling above.  Your silly question has no merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.
> 
> I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the post natal part?  That is a defined term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then you oppose partial birth abortion, which Hillary Clinton approves of?  yes or  no.
Click to expand...


I don't across the board oppose it.  How I feel about it depends on whether the fetus is viable (how late it occurs) and the reasons for it.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
> 
> *Simple Definition of science*
> 
> : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
> 
> 
> : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
> 
> 
> : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
> * Full Definition of political science *
> 
> :  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
> The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."
> 
> Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
> 
> * Full Definition of anthropology *
> 
> _1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
> 
> 
> _2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Westchester Institute White Paper
> When Does Human Life Begin?
> A *Scientific* Perspective
> 
> "Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.
> 
> This article considers the current *scientific* evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted *scientific* criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of *a human organism*. Thus, the *scientific *evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is *a human organism* and that the life of *a new human being *commences at a *scientifically* well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
> 
> "Most *human beings* are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new  organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
> These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of *“personhood”* to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - *The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person*
Click to expand...


That is a nice bit of writing but it is completely lacking an important point - how does science explain personhood?  How can the scientific method be applied to determine what "personhood" is, when it begins, who it applies to?

A human being is a species.  That can be proved through science.  Explain how *personhood* can be.


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"?  Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
> 
> I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person.  In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
> 
> *Simple Definition of science*
> 
> : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
> 
> 
> : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
> 
> 
> : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
> * Full Definition of political science *
> 
> :  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
> The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."
> 
> Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
> 
> * Full Definition of anthropology *
> 
> _1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
> 
> 
> _2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Westchester Institute White Paper
> When Does Human Life Begin?
> A *Scientific* Perspective
> 
> "Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.
> 
> This article considers the current *scientific* evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted *scientific* criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of *a human organism*. Thus, the *scientific *evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is *a human organism* and that the life of *a new human being *commences at a *scientifically* well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
> 
> "Most *human beings* are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new  organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
> These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of *“personhood”* to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - *The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a nice bit of writing but it is completely lacking an important point - how does science explain personhood?  How can the scientific method be applied to determine what "personhood" is, when it begins, who it applies to?
> 
> A human being is a species.  That can be proved through science.  Explain how *personhood* can be.
Click to expand...


Google the word synonymous.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personhood and rights have *nothing* to do with science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.
> 
> *Simple Definition of science*
> 
> : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
> 
> 
> : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
> 
> 
> : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
> * Full Definition of political science *
> 
> :  a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
> The legal definition for a "*natural* person" is simply "*a human being*."
> 
> Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.
> 
> * Full Definition of anthropology *
> 
> _1_ :  the *science* of human beings; _especially_ :  the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
> 
> 
> _2_ :  theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Westchester Institute White Paper
> When Does Human Life Begin?
> A *Scientific* Perspective
> 
> "Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.
> 
> This article considers the current *scientific* evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted *scientific* criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of *a human organism*. Thus, the *scientific *evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is *a human organism* and that the life of *a new human being *commences at a *scientifically* well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."
> 
> "Most *human beings* are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new  organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
> These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of *“personhood”* to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - *The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a nice bit of writing but it is completely lacking an important point - how does science explain personhood?  How can the scientific method be applied to determine what "personhood" is, when it begins, who it applies to?
> 
> A human being is a species.  That can be proved through science.  Explain how *personhood* can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google the word synonymous.
Click to expand...


Explain how the scientific method can be applied to "personhood" -  a concept that has no scientific meaning, or even definition accepted across the board.

Personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_*Personhood* is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic* in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty.* According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]


Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate and has been questioned critically during the abolition of human and nonhuman slavery, in theology, in debates about abortion and in fetal rights and/or reproductive rights, in animal rights activism, in theology and ontology, in ethical theory, and in debates about corporate personhood and the beginning of human personhood.[2]


*Processes through which personhood is recognized socially and legally vary cross-culturally, demonstrating that notions of personhood are not universal.* Anthropologist Beth Conklin has shown how personhood is tied to social relations among the Wari' people of Rondônia, Brazil.[3] Bruce Knauft's studies of the Gebusi people of Papua New Guinea depict a context in which individuals become persons incrementally, again through social relations.[4] Likewise, Jane C. Goodale has also examined the construction of personhood in Papua New Guinea.[5]
._


----------



## Wyatt earp

Just seen this.


----------



## Chuz Life

bear513 said:


> Just seen this.
> 
> 
> View attachment 70280



That's hilarious.  . She doesn't know the difference between haploid gamtes cells and an actual human organism that gamtes cells have the potential to become....


Man thats funny.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Chuz Life said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just seen this.
> 
> 
> View attachment 70280
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious.  . She doesn't know the difference between haploid gamtes cells and an actual human organism that gamtes cells have the potential to become....
> 
> 
> Man thats funny.
Click to expand...



Funny in a sad type of way I think.

Justification for murder in a humorous fashion?

Does it seem she is just trying to convince herself? 

So many questions about that one picture.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tinydancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.
Click to expand...


It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Chuz Life said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.
Click to expand...


No, I'm pretty sure most people know even less about IVF procedures than they do about human anatomy and physiology in general.  And let's face it, people today are abysmally ignorant about the workings of their own bodies.


----------



## Redfish

Cecilie1200 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.
Click to expand...



very true, but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tinydancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What disturbs me the most is not being to talk about it. I've got stupid chicks age 18 telling me I can't have a voice in this. Kiss my ass.
Click to expand...


Tell them, "Welcome to life in a free society, where EVERYONE gets a say in the laws.  Now butch up, buttercup."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....
> 
> well...
> 
> zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> ZERO.
Click to expand...


Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....
> 
> well...
> 
> zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.
Click to expand...


Yes, the inherent hypocrisy in your position was addressed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.


Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.


----------



## rdean

*Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*

Ask women.


----------



## Pop23

bear513 said:


> Just seen this.
> 
> 
> View attachment 70280



She can...........

Eat me


Sorry, it had to be said


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....
> 
> well...
> 
> zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the inherent hypocrisy in your position was addressed.
Click to expand...


You talk like you think you're some sort of moral arbiter to whom I must justify my beliefs and priorities.  You aren't, and I don't.  You say, "Well, why don't you do THIS then?"  The answer is, "Who the fuck asked you?"

Speaking of inherent hypocrisy, how about an avowed supporter of infanticide trying to dictate how pro-lifers should fight their battles?


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....
> 
> well...
> 
> zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the inherent hypocrisy in your position was addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk like you think you're some sort of moral arbiter to whom I must justify my beliefs and priorities.  You aren't, and I don't.  You say, "Well, why don't you do THIS then?"  The answer is, "Who the fuck asked you?"
> 
> Speaking of inherent hypocrisy, how about an avowed supporter of infanticide trying to dictate how pro-lifers should fight their battles?
Click to expand...


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
Click to expand...



euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage. 

You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
Click to expand...




Bet you saw this...

* "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"*
*”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*


----------



## Redfish

PoliticalChic said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
Click to expand...



I didn't but it doesn't surprise me one bit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am not living in Sweden, and I am not worried in the least by Redfish's proof of assertion fallacy.


----------



## Coyote

PoliticalChic said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
Click to expand...



A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Coyote said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?
Click to expand...



Did you see the word "Liberal"?
...means what exactly?

So....embarrassment brings you here?


----------



## Coyote

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the word "Liberal"?
> ...means what exactly?
> 
> So....embarrassment brings you here?
Click to expand...


You mean like "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is....democratic?


----------



## boilermaker55

If you do believe that ,ultimately, why or how can one freeze a human being for months?
They freeze embryos...Blastocyst & Embryo Freezing in IVF, Vitrification & Cryopreservation.
So!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


----------



## Dragonlady

Redfish said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."
> 
> When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> very true, but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
Click to expand...


As long as Americans refuse to address the woefully inadequate supports for working pregnant women in terms of job security or maternity leave, women living at or below the poverty line have to choose between the living children they have, and the potential child she is carrying. 


If she doesn't have the resources to care for her living children, how can she feed and clothe another child?  What about daycare?  If she is fired for being pregnant she has no recourse and then what happens to her and her family?  These are fairly desperate questions. 

The US has such a high rate of abortion precisely because of the lack of mandated maternity leave with job security for working families.  

For these families, taking care of their living children IS taking responsibility.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Coyote said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?
Click to expand...

because Redfish has a tiny little mind, for creep's sake.


----------



## Lakhota

*




*

*Women are calling the governor to protest tighter restrictions to abortion access in Indiana.*

Women are flooding Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s phone lines to protest his decision to sign a bill into law that will severely restrict abortion rights in the state.

But instead of voicing their disagreement in conventional ways, they’re providing detailed accounts of their menstrual cycles.

The creators of the “Periods for Pence” Facebook page explained their reasoning in a March 28 post, making the tongue-in-cheek observation that “any period could potentially be a miscarriage without knowledge,” and that “just to cover our bases, perhaps we should make sure to contact Governor Pence’s office to report our periods.”

The new law also requires women to listen to a fetal heartbeat and view an ultrasound 18 hours before getting an abortion. This will likely impose a significant travel burden on many women, since only four out of Indiana’s 92 counties have abortion clinics.

Additionally, doctors at abortionclinics will have to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. “Admitting privileges” have nothing to do with whether or not a hospital will accept a particular patient. Instead, they enable a clinic doctor to admit their patient for a stay in a hospital without another doctor at the hospital weighing in. As Slate notes, the fact that some hospitals are unwilling to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers may force some clinics will close.

If you’d like to tell Pence about your period, call (317) 232-4567, or 317–569-0709. Some Facebook users have reported busy signals, but you can still fill out a form on the governor’s website or leave a message on his Facebook page.

*More: You Know You Want To Tell Indiana Gov. Mike Pence About Your Period*

Governor Mike Pence is a religious nut - and batshit crazy!  He's also very dangerous to female reproductive rights.


----------



## Chuz Life

Pence 2016!


----------



## Redfish

Dragonlady said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the ultimate irony is?  These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions.  Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed.  In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> very true, but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Americans refuse to address the woefully inadequate supports for working pregnant women in terms of job security or maternity leave, women living at or below the poverty line have to choose between the living children they have, and the potential child she is carrying.
> 
> 
> If she doesn't have the resources to care for her living children, how can she feed and clothe another child?  What about daycare?  If she is fired for being pregnant she has no recourse and then what happens to her and her family?  These are fairly desperate questions.
> 
> The US has such a high rate of abortion precisely because of the lack of mandated maternity leave with job security for working families.
> 
> For these families, taking care of their living children IS taking responsibility.
Click to expand...



amazingly ignorant.  Sure, poor mothers abort their children,  so do the very rich Hollywood liberals and the girlfriends of DC politicians. 

To blame the abortion rate on maternity leave is really really dumb.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because Redfish has a tiny little mind, for creep's sake.
Click to expand...



the point, which you and your libtardian buddies are too stupid to grasp, is that liberalism is destroying societies in every country.  The cite above was just one example. Damn, but you have to be one of the most ignorant humans on planet earth.


----------



## Dragonlady

Redfish said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we peep about it quite a bit.  We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it.  We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.
> 
> Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos.  But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> very true, but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Americans refuse to address the woefully inadequate supports for working pregnant women in terms of job security or maternity leave, women living at or below the poverty line have to choose between the living children they have, and the potential child she is carrying.
> 
> 
> If she doesn't have the resources to care for her living children, how can she feed and clothe another child?  What about daycare?  If she is fired for being pregnant she has no recourse and then what happens to her and her family?  These are fairly desperate questions.
> 
> The US has such a high rate of abortion precisely because of the lack of mandated maternity leave with job security for working families.
> 
> For these families, taking care of their living children IS taking responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> amazingly ignorant.  Sure, poor mothers abort their children,  so do the very rich Hollywood liberals and the girlfriends of DC politicians.
> 
> To blame the abortion rate on maternity leave is really really dumb.
Click to expand...


To blame the US abortion rate on anything but poverty is really, really dumb.

40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line.  Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line.  Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children.

Induced Abortion in the United States

Abortions rates in other first world countries where abortions are paid for by health insurance with no co-pay, have much lower abortion rates, but those countries also have far more supports for poor pregnant women, including higher minimum wages, mandated maternity leave and job security.  Many women cite these supports as the reason they are able to keep their children.


----------



## Redfish

Dragonlady said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> very true, but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Americans refuse to address the woefully inadequate supports for working pregnant women in terms of job security or maternity leave, women living at or below the poverty line have to choose between the living children they have, and the potential child she is carrying.
> 
> 
> If she doesn't have the resources to care for her living children, how can she feed and clothe another child?  What about daycare?  If she is fired for being pregnant she has no recourse and then what happens to her and her family?  These are fairly desperate questions.
> 
> The US has such a high rate of abortion precisely because of the lack of mandated maternity leave with job security for working families.
> 
> For these families, taking care of their living children IS taking responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> amazingly ignorant.  Sure, poor mothers abort their children,  so do the very rich Hollywood liberals and the girlfriends of DC politicians.
> 
> To blame the abortion rate on maternity leave is really really dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To blame the US abortion rate on anything but poverty is really, really dumb.
> 
> 40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line.  Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line.  Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children.
> 
> Induced Abortion in the United States
> 
> Abortions rates in other first world countries where abortions are paid for by health insurance with no co-pay, have much lower abortion rates, but those countries also have far more supports for poor pregnant women, including higher minimum wages, mandated maternity leave and job security.  Many women cite these supports as the reason they are able to keep their children.
Click to expand...



most abortions in the US are done by or through planned parenthood.   The founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, said that "colored people are human weeds that must be removed"   PP was founded to reduce the black birth rate. 

Hillary Clinton said that she respects Margaret Sanger and her work with PP. 

Soooooo, Hillary Clinton wants to control the black population by killing unborn black babies, but blacks support her in large numbers------------do you see the contradiction there?

The rest of your post is nothing but liberal bullshit talking points.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dragonlady said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> very true, but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right,  it only addresses what feels good at the moment.   Euthanasia is next, watch.   If a person is too expensive to keep alive,  just give them a shot and put them in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as Americans refuse to address the woefully inadequate supports for working pregnant women in terms of job security or maternity leave, women living at or below the poverty line have to choose between the living children they have, and the potential child she is carrying.
> 
> 
> If she doesn't have the resources to care for her living children, how can she feed and clothe another child?  What about daycare?  If she is fired for being pregnant she has no recourse and then what happens to her and her family?  These are fairly desperate questions.
> 
> The US has such a high rate of abortion precisely because of the lack of mandated maternity leave with job security for working families.
> 
> For these families, taking care of their living children IS taking responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> amazingly ignorant.  Sure, poor mothers abort their children,  so do the very rich Hollywood liberals and the girlfriends of DC politicians.
> 
> To blame the abortion rate on maternity leave is really really dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To blame the US abortion rate on anything but poverty is really, really dumb.
> 
> 40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line.  Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line.  Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children.
> 
> Induced Abortion in the United States
> 
> Abortions rates in other first world countries where abortions are paid for by health insurance with no co-pay, have much lower abortion rates, but those countries also have far more supports for poor pregnant women, including higher minimum wages, mandated maternity leave and job security.  Many women cite these supports as the reason they are able to keep their children.
Click to expand...



As revealed in your post...
"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real."
Prager



As conservatives understand, the real problem is values.
And, what I mean to say, is your lack of same.
There is no excuse for killing a living unborn human being for the convenience of the individual who is responsible for creating same.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Above is an excellent example of *Proof by Assertion Fallacy*: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because Redfish has a tiny little mind, for creep's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the point, which you and your libtardian buddies are too stupid to grasp, is that liberalism is destroying societies in every country.  The cite above was just one example. Damn, but you have to be one of the most ignorant humans on planet earth.
Click to expand...

Good morning, my little fool fish.  A tiny weirdo group in a country far away does not represent almost anyone in America except for a few pedophiles, who know no political boundary.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.

That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.

Stay with the facts, fool fish.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next  logical step from gay marriage.
> 
> You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you saw this...
> 
> * "Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
> ”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because Redfish has a tiny little mind, for creep's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the point, which you and your libtardian buddies are too stupid to grasp, is that liberalism is destroying societies in every country.  The cite above was just one example. Damn, but you have to be one of the most ignorant humans on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good morning, my little fool fish.  A tiny weirdo group in a country far away does not represent almost anyone in America except for a few pedophiles, who know no political boundary.
Click to expand...



once again you miss the point,  not the least bit surprising.  so let me try again, liberalism results in the degradation of society, no matter where it is practiced.   History verifies that.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.
> 
> Stay with the facts, fool fish.




So, lets take your argument to its logical conclusion.   If the federal government guaranteed every American citizen an annual income of 100K there would be zero abortions????


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.
> 
> Stay with the facts, fool fish.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets take your argument to its logical conclusion.   If the federal government guaranteed every American citizen an annual income of 100K there would be zero abortions????
Click to expand...

That is your fool conclusion, fool fish.  

The proper conclusion is to support women with educational training, with pre- and post-natal support, shelter, food, etc.  We the taxpayer are going to pay one way or another if women have children the which they cannot or have real difficulties in supporting.  We will pay up front or in the back.

You, fool fish, want women to have children then blame the mothers if they can 't raise their offspring well because of final difficulties.  Let's make them good tax payers instead.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


 
I'll answer it......but first tell me- am I the woman, the egg or the fetus.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.
> 
> Stay with the facts, fool fish.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets take your argument to its logical conclusion.   If the federal government guaranteed every American citizen an annual income of 100K there would be zero abortions????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your fool conclusion, fool fish.
> 
> The proper conclusion is to support women with educational training, with pre- and post-natal support, shelter, food, etc.  We the taxpayer are going to pay one way or another if women have children the which they cannot or have real difficulties in supporting.  We will pay up front or in the back.
> 
> You, fool fish, want women to have children then blame the mothers if they can 't raise their offspring well because of final difficulties.  Let's make them good tax payers instead.
Click to expand...



Wrong,  you and the other fool said that abortions occur because of economic problems whereby the mother thinks she cannot support another child.  I gave you a solution.  You reject it because your original premise is bullshit.   We get it.


----------



## dannyboys

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.
> 
> Stay with the facts, fool fish.


Any negro women can get BC pills for free from the nearest clinic. They can get all the condoms they want for free.
But what's the point of getting condoms? NO negro 'real man' would ever wear a condom!
And forget the idea that negro women will bother taking the 'pill'.
Negro women use abortions as their preferred method of birth control.
When they go to the PP baby murder clinic they even get a free donut and a coffee thrown in.
 Can't beat that!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.
> 
> Stay with the facts, fool fish.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets take your argument to its logical conclusion.   If the federal government guaranteed every American citizen an annual income of 100K there would be zero abortions????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your fool conclusion, fool fish.
> 
> The proper conclusion is to support women with educational training, with pre- and post-natal support, shelter, food, etc.  We the taxpayer are going to pay one way or another if women have children the which they cannot or have real difficulties in supporting.  We will pay up front or in the back.
> 
> You, fool fish, want women to have children then blame the mothers if they can 't raise their offspring well because of final difficulties.  Let's make them good tax payers instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,  you and the other fool said that abortions occur because of economic problems whereby the mother thinks she cannot support another child.  I gave you a solution.  You reject it because your original premise is bullshit.   We get it.
Click to expand...

My premise is correct.  You continue to see the world through a discredited ideology, while I see it realistically.  Your type of wishful stupidity is why we cannot allow a Trump to be President.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.
> 
> Stay with the facts, fool fish.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets take your argument to its logical conclusion.   If the federal government guaranteed every American citizen an annual income of 100K there would be zero abortions????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your fool conclusion, fool fish.
> 
> The proper conclusion is to support women with educational training, with pre- and post-natal support, shelter, food, etc.  We the taxpayer are going to pay one way or another if women have children the which they cannot or have real difficulties in supporting.  We will pay up front or in the back.
> 
> You, fool fish, want women to have children then blame the mothers if they can 't raise their offspring well because of final difficulties.  Let's make them good tax payers instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,  you and the other fool said that abortions occur because of economic problems whereby the mother thinks she cannot support another child.  I gave you a solution.  You reject it because your original premise is bullshit.   We get it.
Click to expand...



The stupidity is astounding.....it validates


Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish above completely ignored, "40% of the American women who have abortions live below the poverty line. Another 27% have income over the poverty line but under 200% of the poverty line. Fully 75% of women who have abortions cite financial reasons for their abortions. Only 20% of abortions are obtained by women with the means to support their children" by dragonlady.
> 
> That has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Redfish, you the reader, or me.
> 
> Stay with the facts, fool fish.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets take your argument to its logical conclusion.   If the federal government guaranteed every American citizen an annual income of 100K there would be zero abortions????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your fool conclusion, fool fish.
> 
> The proper conclusion is to support women with educational training, with pre- and post-natal support, shelter, food, etc.  We the taxpayer are going to pay one way or another if women have children the which they cannot or have real difficulties in supporting.  We will pay up front or in the back.
> 
> You, fool fish, want women to have children then blame the mothers if they can 't raise their offspring well because of final difficulties.  Let's make them good tax payers instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,  you and the other fool said that abortions occur because of economic problems whereby the mother thinks she cannot support another child.  I gave you a solution.  You reject it because your original premise is bullshit.   We get it.
Click to expand...




As the saying goes, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limitations.

It is a defining characteristic of Leftists that they accept materialism, which explains their acceptance of communism/socialism.



Remember this moron from Obama's administration who blamed terrorism on lack of jobs....

"State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Monday night on MSNBC that 'we cannot win this war by killing them, we cannot kill our way out of this war.'

Instead, she said, the administration should 'go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups' – including *'lack of opportunity for jobs.'*

'We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance,' Harf insisted. 'We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.'"
State Dept. says 'we cannot win this war' vs ISIS 'by killing them'


Looking at the prevalence of Liberals, I have no doubt that the number of IQ points remains constant, and must be divided among an ever increasing population.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC is the most materialistic poster on the Board.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> PC is the most materialistic poster on the Board.




and you are the most stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC is the most materialistic poster on the Board.
> 
> 
> 
> and you are the most stupid.
Click to expand...

and that is why we call you blow fish


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC is the most materialistic poster on the Board.
> 
> 
> 
> and you are the most stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that is why we call you blow fish
Click to expand...



"you can call me ray, or you can call me jay, or you can call me RJ,  or you can call me ray jay, but you don't have to call me Johnson."

you are so foolish that I can only revert to an old skit on Ed Sullivan.


----------



## Dragonlady

Redfish said:


> once again you miss the point,  not the least bit surprising.  so let me try again, liberalism results in the degradation of society, no matter where it is practiced.   History verifies that.



That's both foolish and false. Countries with conservative values where abortion is illegal, have some of the highest abortion rates. The Phillipines is a conservative Catholic country with the strictest abortion laws in the world. With a population less than 1/3 that of the US, Phillipine women have close to 600,000 per year.  Every year 100,000 Phillipine women are hospitalized for complications of botched illegal abortions. 

Canada, a very liberal country, has abortion rate half of that in the US. Abortion is paid for with tax dollars here and is fully legal. The same can be said of Western European countries. All of the countries have mandated maternity leaves and day care supports for low income families but strong supports for families are part of our social safety net. 

These are not coincidences. These countries also teach birth control as part of the school curriculum. No opting out.


----------



## Chuz Life

Dragonlady said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again you miss the point,  not the least bit surprising.  so let me try again, *liberalism results in the degradation of society, no matter where it is practiced*.   History verifies that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's both foolish and false. Countries with conservative values where abortion is illegal, have some of the highest abortion rates. The Phillipines is a conservative Catholic country with the strictest abortion laws in the world. With a population less than 1/3 that of the US, Phillipine women have close to 600,000 per year.  Every year 100,000 Phillipine women are hospitalized for complications of botched illegal abortions.
> 
> Canada, a very liberal country, has abortion rate half of that in the US. Abortion is paid for with tax dollars here and is fully legal. The same can be said of Western European countries. All of the countries have mandated maternity leaves and day care supports for low income families but strong supports for families are part of our social safety net.
> 
> These are not coincidences. These countries also teach birth control as part of the school curriculum. No opting out.
Click to expand...


You are making his point. 

It is because of the liberalism attitude and the actions of the people that runs counter to the more conservative government and policies of the Philippines - that the numbers are high.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC is the most materialistic poster on the Board.
> 
> 
> 
> and you are the most stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that is why we call you blow fish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "you can call me ray, or you can call me jay, or you can call me RJ,  or you can call me ray jay, but you don't have to call me Johnson."
> 
> you are so foolish that I can only revert to an old skit on Ed Sullivan.
Click to expand...

You and your socks are the comedy show on the Board.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Chuz Life said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again you miss the point,  not the least bit surprising.  so let me try again, *liberalism results in the degradation of society, no matter where it is practiced*.   History verifies that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's both foolish and false. Countries with conservative values where abortion is illegal, have some of the highest abortion rates. The Phillipines is a conservative Catholic country with the strictest abortion laws in the world. With a population less than 1/3 that of the US, Phillipine women have close to 600,000 per year.  Every year 100,000 Phillipine women are hospitalized for complications of botched illegal abortions.
> 
> Canada, a very liberal country, has abortion rate half of that in the US. Abortion is paid for with tax dollars here and is fully legal. The same can be said of Western European countries. All of the countries have mandated maternity leaves and day care supports for low income families but strong supports for families are part of our social safety net.
> 
> These are not coincidences. These countries also teach birth control as part of the school curriculum. No opting out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making his point.
> 
> It is because of the liberalism attitude and the actions of the people that runs counter to the more conservative government and policies of the Philippines - that the numbers are high.
Click to expand...

Youa re a confused young man.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer it......but first tell me- am I the woman, the egg or the fetus.
Click to expand...


Well, that's honest, but the premise is actually that you're you, just as you are now.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer it......but first tell me- am I the woman, the egg or the fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's honest, but the premise is actually that you're you, just as you are now.
Click to expand...

Then I vote for the woman.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer it......but first tell me- am I the woman, the egg or the fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's honest, but the premise is actually that you're you, just as you are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I vote for the woman.
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer it......but first tell me- am I the woman, the egg or the fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's honest, but the premise is actually that you're you, just as you are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I vote for the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


First, let me preface by saying I have no religious view on the subject. I have no recollection of anytime I spent in the womb. Perhaps my soul was in another fetus which was aborted, but I have no sense of it. I suspect a young fetus has no sense of what is occurring as well. So are you harming something that doesn't sense anything. Of course there is a line of demarcation. For me, that line is fuzzy, but I think it exist in the first trimester, and if a fetus is medically viable outside of the womb, then I can abort it. 

I hate the question and the topic as it pertains to the federal government. Let states and local governments allow or not as they see fit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer it......but first tell me- am I the woman, the egg or the fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's honest, but the premise is actually that you're you, just as you are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I vote for the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, let me preface by saying I have no religious view on the subject. I have no recollection of anytime I spent in the womb. Perhaps my soul was in another fetus which was aborted, but I have no sense of it. I suspect a young fetus has no sense of what is occurring as well. So are you harming something that doesn't sense anything. Of course there is a line of demarcation. For me, that line is fuzzy, but I think it exist in the first trimester, and if a fetus is medically viable outside of the womb, then I can abort it.
> 
> I hate the question and the topic as it pertains to the federal government. Let states and local governments allow or not as they see fit.
Click to expand...


You know that didn't make a whole lot of linear sense, right?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer it......but first tell me- am I the woman, the egg or the fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's honest, but the premise is actually that you're you, just as you are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I vote for the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, let me preface by saying I have no religious view on the subject. I have no recollection of anytime I spent in the womb. Perhaps my soul was in another fetus which was aborted, but I have no sense of it. I suspect a young fetus has no sense of what is occurring as well. So are you harming something that doesn't sense anything. Of course there is a line of demarcation. For me, that line is fuzzy, but I think it exist in the first trimester, and if a fetus is medically viable outside of the womb, then I can abort it.
> 
> I hate the question and the topic as it pertains to the federal government. Let states and local governments allow or not as they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that didn't make a whole lot of linear sense, right?
Click to expand...

You mean it didn't make sense to you. So what is the right answer in a linear sense?


----------



## Dragonlady

Chuz Life said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again you miss the point,  not the least bit surprising.  so let me try again, *liberalism results in the degradation of society, no matter where it is practiced*.   History verifies that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's both foolish and false. Countries with conservative values where abortion is illegal, have some of the highest abortion rates. The Phillipines is a conservative Catholic country with the strictest abortion laws in the world. With a population less than 1/3 that of the US, Phillipine women have close to 600,000 per year.  Every year 100,000 Phillipine women are hospitalized for complications of botched illegal abortions.
> 
> Canada, a very liberal country, has abortion rate half of that in the US. Abortion is paid for with tax dollars here and is fully legal. The same can be said of Western European countries. All of the countries have mandated maternity leaves and day care supports for low income families but strong supports for families are part of our social safety net.
> 
> These are not coincidences. These countries also teach birth control as part of the school curriculum. No opting out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making his point.
> 
> It is because of the liberalism attitude and the actions of the people that runs counter to the more conservative government and policies of the Philippines - that the numbers are high.
Click to expand...


Countries with restrictive abortion laws can't stop abortion.  If you want people to Chuz Life, it has to a viable choice for the woman and her family.  One where she can keep her job and have affordable child care available, as well as a living wage. 


The more liberal the country, the lower the abortion rate. Abortion rates are higher in conservative countries because they have fewer family supports.


----------



## Redfish

Dragonlady said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again you miss the point,  not the least bit surprising.  so let me try again, *liberalism results in the degradation of society, no matter where it is practiced*.   History verifies that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's both foolish and false. Countries with conservative values where abortion is illegal, have some of the highest abortion rates. The Phillipines is a conservative Catholic country with the strictest abortion laws in the world. With a population less than 1/3 that of the US, Phillipine women have close to 600,000 per year.  Every year 100,000 Phillipine women are hospitalized for complications of botched illegal abortions.
> 
> Canada, a very liberal country, has abortion rate half of that in the US. Abortion is paid for with tax dollars here and is fully legal. The same can be said of Western European countries. All of the countries have mandated maternity leaves and day care supports for low income families but strong supports for families are part of our social safety net.
> 
> These are not coincidences. These countries also teach birth control as part of the school curriculum. No opting out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making his point.
> 
> It is because of the liberalism attitude and the actions of the people that runs counter to the more conservative government and policies of the Philippines - that the numbers are high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countries with restrictive abortion laws can't stop abortion.  If you want people to Chuz Life, it has to a viable choice for the woman and her family.  One where she can keep her job and have affordable child care available, as well as a living wage.
> 
> 
> The more liberal the country, the lower the abortion rate. Abortion rates are higher in conservative countries because they have fewer family supports.
Click to expand...



abortion and birth rates are lower in liberal countries because the people are miserable and don't screw much.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's honest, but the premise is actually that you're you, just as you are now.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I vote for the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, let me preface by saying I have no religious view on the subject. I have no recollection of anytime I spent in the womb. Perhaps my soul was in another fetus which was aborted, but I have no sense of it. I suspect a young fetus has no sense of what is occurring as well. So are you harming something that doesn't sense anything. Of course there is a line of demarcation. For me, that line is fuzzy, but I think it exist in the first trimester, and if a fetus is medically viable outside of the womb, then I can abort it.
> 
> I hate the question and the topic as it pertains to the federal government. Let states and local governments allow or not as they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that didn't make a whole lot of linear sense, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean it didn't make sense to you. So what is the right answer in a linear sense?
Click to expand...


I'm not saying it was the "wrong" answer.  I'm saying that it didn't make _grammatically _linear sense.  As in, beyond the general theme of - I guess - that you only consider the woman of value, I really didn't clearly understand what you said.


----------



## Lakhota

A good day for women's reproductive rights.  Thank you, SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law, Breathing New Life Into Roe v. Wade

Court Rules 5-3 Against TX Anti-Abortion Law... 

‘Undue Burden’...Ginsburg: ‘Beyond Rational Belief’ That Law Could Protect Women’s Health... 

A Decision Against Texas, For Science... 

How The Ruling Will Affect Abortion Access... 

Watch The Epic Filibuster That Put The Texas Law In The National Spotlight...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Poorly worded question......  wanna try again Pocahontas?


----------



## Lakhota

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Poorly worded question......  wanna try again Pocahontas?



Why don't you just "reword" it for us.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poorly worded question......  wanna try again Pocahontas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just "reword" it for us.
Click to expand...


Uhm, its your thread.  Not to mention my Carnac turban is at the cleaners.


----------



## Lakhota

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poorly worded question......  wanna try again Pocahontas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just "reword" it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm, its your thread.  Not to mention my Carnac turban is at the cleaners.
Click to expand...


Well, here's a question for you and your kind:

Why don't the rabid anti-choice zealots ever show any compassion or concern for pregnant women who choose to exercise their legal rights to have an abortion for various reasons - such as convenience, mental, physical, and/or financial reasons?  It's like they only view women as birthing pods.


----------



## deltex1

Stupid prickindian.  The fertilized egg, the fetus, the baby, the child, the grandchild, the great grandchild are one and the same.  Caesar says the woman can kill all of them.  God says no, you may not.


----------



## bendog

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


If we're talking biology, I'll go with the woman option.


----------



## Dragonlady

Avatar4321 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does politics have to do with anything?
> 
> We have plenty of birth control around. All anyone has to do is use it if they choose to.
> 
> What they don't have the right to do is force others to pay for their birth control.
Click to expand...


Birth control is part of health care and is rightfully paid for by health care insurance. 

Birth control isn't 100% effective. Fully half of the women seeking abortions used birth control, which failed. So to suggest that using birth control would prevent abortions, that's just not true.


----------



## JoeMoma

norwegen said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.
Click to expand...

Does that mean I can use my shotgun to solve the illegal immigration problem by terminating noncitizens?


----------



## Lakhota

JoeMoma said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that mean I can use my shotgun to solve the illegal immigration problem by terminating noncitizens?
Click to expand...


Is that covered under Roe v. Wade?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The personal responsibility bit is nonsense, as DragonLady explained immediately above

Avatar4321 is LDS, which makes his opposition nonsensical.  LDS doctrine states every soul must acquire a physical body.  Abortion before birth obviously requires the soul to be sent to a new body.

You LDS don't do theology well at all, with the exception of Teryl Givens and Patrick Mason.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeMoma said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that mean I can use my shotgun to solve the illegal immigration problem by terminating noncitizens?
Click to expand...

If you want to be executed, sure.


----------



## JoeMoma

Lakhota said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that mean I can use my shotgun to solve the illegal immigration problem by terminating noncitizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that covered under Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...

Try reading the post I replied too if you want to try to understand.


----------



## g5000

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


It's not an either/or situation.  

Abortion is not necessary for the survival of the species, idiot.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.


----------



## Lakhota

JoeMoma said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.
> 
> I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that mean I can use my shotgun to solve the illegal immigration problem by terminating noncitizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that covered under Roe v. Wade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading the post I replied too if you want to try to understand.
Click to expand...


Oh, honey, I did read it.  Does Roe v. Wade allow you to legally kill immigrants with your shotgun?


----------



## JoeMoma

Lakhota said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.
> 
> Our laws evolve.
> 
> I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?
> 
> At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:
> 
> 1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.
> 
> 2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong.  But has that argument really ever been legally supported?
> 
> Laws protect the rights of citizens.  Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States.  That doesn't include fetuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that mean I can use my shotgun to solve the illegal immigration problem by terminating noncitizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that covered under Roe v. Wade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading the post I replied too if you want to try to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, honey, I did read it.  Does Roe v. Wade allow you to legally kill immigrants with your shotgun?
Click to expand...

The post I was replies too was not about Roe vs. Wade.  The poster stated that the law protected U.S. citizens, thus it's okay to kill fetuses.  Well, based on that logic, it should be okay to kill illegal immigrants.  Well, It is not okay to just kill illegal immigrants, even though they are not citizens of the United states.  Roe vs. Wade is not relevant to my post.........so the answer to your irrelevant question is no.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poorly worded question......  wanna try again Pocahontas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just "reword" it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm, its your thread.  Not to mention my Carnac turban is at the cleaners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here's a question for you and your kind:
> 
> Why don't the rabid anti-choice zealots ever show any compassion or concern for pregnant women who choose to exercise their legal rights to have an abortion for various reasons - such as convenience, mental, physical, and/or financial reasons?  It's like they only view women as birthing pods.
Click to expand...


Here's a question for you and YOUR kind:  How come the most rabid baby-killing supporters are younger men?  How much concern are YOU showing for women when your big "cause" seems to be turning them into vaginas on legs for any and every cad that comes along.


----------



## yiostheoy

Holy thread resurrections Batman !!!


----------



## yiostheoy

Lakhota said:


> A good day for women's reproductive rights.  Thank you, SCOTUS.
> 
> Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law, Breathing New Life Into Roe v. Wade
> 
> Court Rules 5-3 Against TX Anti-Abortion Law...
> 
> ‘Undue Burden’...Ginsburg: ‘Beyond Rational Belief’ That Law Could Protect Women’s Health...
> 
> A Decision Against Texas, For Science...
> 
> How The Ruling Will Affect Abortion Access...
> 
> Watch The Epic Filibuster That Put The Texas Law In The National Spotlight...


Ok I see -- you were rubbing their faces into the latest SCOTUS ruling.

Probably better to let this crazy far right thread die though.


----------



## Lakhota

yiostheoy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good day for women's reproductive rights.  Thank you, SCOTUS.
> 
> Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law, Breathing New Life Into Roe v. Wade
> 
> Court Rules 5-3 Against TX Anti-Abortion Law...
> 
> ‘Undue Burden’...Ginsburg: ‘Beyond Rational Belief’ That Law Could Protect Women’s Health...
> 
> A Decision Against Texas, For Science...
> 
> How The Ruling Will Affect Abortion Access...
> 
> Watch The Epic Filibuster That Put The Texas Law In The National Spotlight...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I see -- you were rubbing their faces into the latest SCOTUS ruling.
> 
> Probably better to let this crazy far right thread die though.
Click to expand...


Nope, women's reproductive rights should never die.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poorly worded question......  wanna try again Pocahontas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just "reword" it for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm, its your thread.  Not to mention my Carnac turban is at the cleaners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here's a question for you and your kind:
> 
> Why don't the rabid anti-choice zealots ever show any compassion or concern for pregnant women who choose to exercise their legal rights to have an abortion for various reasons - such as convenience, mental, physical, and/or financial reasons?  It's like they only view women as birthing pods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a question for you and YOUR kind:  How come the most rabid baby-killing supporters are younger men?  How much concern are YOU showing for women when your big "cause" seems to be turning them into vaginas on legs for any and every cad that comes along.
Click to expand...

Then let every woman decide for herself, Cecilie, is where you logic is headed.


----------



## Lakhota

Protect Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood.


----------



## Norman

The man's wallet has the first priority.

If you are going to accidentally fall pregnant besides all the protection in the world available - prepare to pony up.


----------



## Redfish

the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.

There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?


----------



## PredFan

Priority should be: 

Woman's life, infants life, fertilized egg.

Woman's Choice is not in consideration.


----------



## BlindBoo

Redfish said:


> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?



I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.


----------



## Redfish

BlindBoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
Click to expand...



no "we" have not decided.   passing laws does not change what we are allowed to believe.  abortion is murder,  it may be legal murder but its still murder.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman always comes first.  She has first priority.


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> The woman always comes first.  She has first priority.




If the pregnancy endangers  her life, yes.   If not, no.   There are two human lives involved.  Killing one for convenience is murder.


----------



## Dragonlady

Redfish said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman always comes first.  She has first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the pregnancy endangers  her life, yes.   If not, no.   There are two human lives involved.  Killing one for convenience is murder.
Click to expand...


If you lose your job and your home because your employer fires you for being pregnant it is VERY inconvenient. If you can't afford to take care of your existing children because you've be fired for being pregnant, you're putting their lives at risk, or they have to go into foster care as a result, that's totally irresposible. 

I would also point out that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. During times of famines, wars and plagues, miscarriage rates are higher. It's the natural way of ensuring the mother has the best chance of survival during such difficult times.

If it were necessary to our survival that every fertilized egg become a baby, women wouldn't miscarry. Women are the best judges of when is the best time to increase their families. Not you, not the state. 

Having a baby shouldn't be treated as a punishment for having sex or the result of failed birth control. Having a baby is a completely life altering event. Every child has a right to more than just an existence in a poverty household where he wasn't even wanted. Every child has a right to be loved, wanted, well cared for and given the opportunity to achieve his or her potential. 

Forcing women to have babies they can't afford and don't want is no way to achieve that goal. As for "she can always put it up for adoption", tell that to the millions of kids whose parents have had their parental rights terminated and are waiting for "forever homes". 

Conservatives only care about babies in the womb. Once they're outside and are real children, they're someone else's problem.


----------



## Desperado

No question the woman


----------



## Redfish

Dragonlady said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman always comes first.  She has first priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the pregnancy endangers  her life, yes.   If not, no.   There are two human lives involved.  Killing one for convenience is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you lose your job and your home because your employer fires you for being pregnant it is VERY inconvenient. If you can't afford to take care of your existing children because you've be fired for being pregnant, you're putting their lives at risk, or they have to go into foster care as a result, that's totally irresposible.
> 
> I would also point out that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. During times of famines, wars and plagues, miscarriage rates are higher. It's the natural way of ensuring the mother has the best chance of survival during such difficult times.
> 
> If it were necessary to our survival that every fertilized egg become a baby, women wouldn't miscarry. Women are the best judges of when is the best time to increase their families. Not you, not the state.
> 
> Having a baby shouldn't be treated as a punishment for having sex or the result of failed birth control. Having a baby is a completely life altering event. Every child has a right to more than just an existence in a poverty household where he wasn't even wanted. Every child has a right to be loved, wanted, well cared for and given the opportunity to achieve his or her potential.
> 
> Forcing women to have babies they can't afford and don't want is no way to achieve that goal. As for "she can always put it up for adoption", tell that to the millions of kids whose parents have had their parental rights terminated and are waiting for "forever homes".
> 
> Conservatives only care about babies in the womb. Once they're outside and are real children, they're someone else's problem.
Click to expand...



here's a better idea.   If a pregnancy would be inconvenient, DON'T SCREW!.  Keep your legs together.   Take BC pills, insist that your screwer use a condom, buy a diaphragm. 

Murdering an unborn child because your instant pleasure is more important than a human life makes you a poor excuse for a human being.


----------



## Redfish

Desperado said:


> No question the woman




Actually there are two lives involved.  This is about taking responsibility for your actions and not expecting someone else to bail you out of your "screw ups".


----------



## Some Guy

Without extenuating circumstances, there's no differentiation needed between embryo and fetus.  It's a human life, so he/she should be brought to term and then put up for adoption if necessary.

In cases where the mother's life is in danger, rape/incest or the fetus has a severe deformity or disease that would lead to no quality of life, then an abortion could be suitable.  Of course all IMO.


----------



## g5000

Dragonlady said:


> I would also point out that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.


 Not in the US.


----------



## PeterJ89

Desperado said:


> No question the woman



Always and only.  A fetus isn't worth the time of day to nature.  Just cake batter searching for an oven.


----------



## Redfish

PeterJ89 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question the woman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always and only.  A fetus isn't worth the time of day to nature.  Just cake batter searching for an oven.
Click to expand...



too bad your mother didn't think that way.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> The woman always comes first.  She has first priority.



Why?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PredFan said:


> Priority should be:
> 
> Woman's life, infants life, fertilized egg.
> 
> Woman's Choice is not in consideration.



Honestly, if we're talking about LIVES, as opposed to just convenience, I'd say the priority is determined by the pregnant woman, the father/next of kin, and the doctor.

I would not personally save my own life by killing my unborn child, but these blessedly rare occasions are about the only time I sympathize with a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlindBoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
Click to expand...


So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.


----------



## BlindBoo

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
Click to expand...


I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?


----------



## Bonzi

They are all equal, just at different stages of human life.  However, a newly fertilized human and a human fetus have no way to defend themselves and no voice, so it is our duty to defend and protect them


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlindBoo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
Click to expand...


First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.


----------



## Redfish

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.
> 
> That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.
> 
> Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.
Click to expand...



I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb.   Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.


----------



## BlindBoo

Redfish said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.
> 
> That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.
> 
> Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb.   Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.
Click to expand...


So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?  

I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.


----------



## Redfish

BlindBoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.
> 
> That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.
> 
> Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb.   Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?
> 
> I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.
Click to expand...



I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Redfish said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer depends on when you believe that life begins.   If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.
> 
> If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer.   Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote.   So lets put abortion up to a national referendum.   Any objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my life began at conception.  I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth.  We have decided.  Choice until viability for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.
> 
> That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.
> 
> Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb.   Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I don't see what line you think exists and "needs to be drawn", fine or otherwise.

It sounds like you're trying to make more or less the same argument pro-abortion people do between _in utero_ and born: location, location, location.  Unfortunately, we aren't discussing real estate, so this doesn't work.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Redfish said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.
> 
> That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.
> 
> Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb.   Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?
> 
> I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.
Click to expand...


Couple of things here.

First of all, this is a false distinction to make, since embryos for _in vitro_ fertilization are frozen and stored at a stage of development FAR before the development of a heart.

Second of all, I would honestly have to say that temperature is hands-down the strangest benchmark for life and not-life I have ever heard in the abortion debate.  It's also not one that's going to hold up over time and the advancement of technology.  If and when we learn to cryogenically preserve adults with life-threatening diseases until cures can be found (just as an example), is your position then going to be that they are too cold to be considered alive?


----------



## BlindBoo

Redfish said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?
> 
> Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.
> 
> That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.
> 
> Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb.   Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?
> 
> I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.
Click to expand...


At that stage the cells have not differentiated.


----------



## Redfish

BlindBoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children.  Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First thing:  I don't have much patience with buzzwords.  I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication.  Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion.  For the moment, abortion is legal.
> 
> That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.
> 
> Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos.  There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb.   Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?
> 
> I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At that stage the cells have not differentiated.
Click to expand...



the DNA is formed, cellular life is happening, a tiny heart is beginning to beat.  

I think abortion is murder, you don't.    That's fine, we disagree.   When civilized people disagree they put the issue to a vote and the majority opinion prevails.   So, do you support a national referendum on this?


----------



## Lakhota

Women have first priority.  NaziCons should stop fucking with their personal lives.


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> Women have first priority.  NaziCons should stop fucking with their personal lives.




That is your OPINION.   Others have different OPINIONS.   You cannot dictate your opinion on everyone.   This whole issue should be put to a national referendum and settled once and for all.   Let the people vote, I am willing to accept the vote of the people, are you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Women have first priority.  NaziCons should stop fucking with their personal lives.



Amazing how the only subject on which the "Your huge soda is illegal!" leftists object to government interference is killing babies.


----------



## Lakhota

Women have first priority!


----------



## oreo

Without the woman, none of the rest can exist.


----------



## Billy000

The woman. End of story.


----------



## buttercup

An excerpt from an article on: Libertarians for Life - Abortion, Choice, and Libertarian Principles


Anyone who denies that conception is Day One for personhood has the burden of pinpointing when Day One is. And they must show why it is _this _day rather than one day earlier, or one day later. Our need for exactness on when personhood begins is inescapable, for *we must not step on either a woman's or a child's rights.* We need a sharp dividing line. There is no moral class between "person" and "non-person."

Abortion-choice theory, absent proof, sits on the horns of an impossible dilemma. Drawing a line even one day before personhood begins unjustly limits a woman's choice to destroy her property. To draw a line even one day after personhood begins is to permit unjust homicide.

Personhood is an either-or, an all-or-nothing, proposition because the right to be free from aggression is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. The right not to be killed cannot be put on a degree scale, because one cannot be "a little bit alive," or a "little bit dead." Killed or not killed is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. You are either dead or alive. You exist or you don't.

Thus, a so-called potential, partial, or lesser right to life—a right that can be set aside—is, in effect, no right at all. Persons have the right to life. If a being may be killed at whim, this being is not a potential person: this being is a non-person.

"Person" or "non-person" are constants. A person can have a better, or a poorer _personality _than other persons, but no human being has more, or less, _personhood _than any other. Just as the law has no power to give or withhold unalienable rights, it cannot give or withhold personhood. To be an actual person, human beings need do nothing _but be alive_.

When one human being can dictate whether another human being is a person, we should worry about our own prospects. I wouldn't want my personhood to be conditional under the law, subject to the arbitrary opinions of others. Would you? Yet, two tiers of humanity is precisely what abortion choicers support.

The answer to who decides when personhood begins is: Personhood is inseparable from the right to be free from aggression and both are inseparable from our life. We don't _become _persons; we simply _are _actual persons from Day One.​


----------



## MindWars

Your right to be irresponsible
Your right to kill a human
Your right to screw like rabbits because getting pregnant isn't an option just getting some penis is. 

You fems are so indoctrinated and have been sold such bs weak minds are easy to manipulate though.


----------



## ScienceRocks

The women....


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fetus has no priority or parity with the mother.


----------



## GHook93

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



It is not so black and white.

I think in the first trimester the mother right has preference. Make no mistake abortion is still the killing of a baby. Nevertheless I think the mother’s right rule. A women should have the right to kill her baby for whatever reason. Furthermore, I think free Gov abortion clinic should be run ghetto and Indian reservations.

In the second & third trimester I think the right shifts to the baby, unless there birth defects detected or the mother’s life is in danger.

However free tax payer funded late term abortions should still be available to all minorities.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Dragonlady

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.



The right continues to feed this false notion that abortion is an easy out for promiscuous women despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary. The thing that boggles the mind for me is that even in cases where this is true, which is a small fraction of the abortions performed, why would you want to force such an immature, selfish and uncaring person to become a parent?  Do you think that forcing such a person to become a parent will suddenly change them into a living responsible adult who will take good care of the baby?

I want children to have a loving caring family. The right calls them a "consequence". Babies deserve so much more than to be deemed a "consequence" of immoral behaviour. 

The same right wingers who oppose abortion, oppose maternity leave, job protections for pregnant women, mandated sex education and unfettered access to birth control - all things that reduce abortions in other be first world countries. 

Right wingers go on and on about innocent lives lost while decrying those who have babies they are in no position to support financially or raise properly. But it all comes down to the right wingers belief that women's sexuality must be controlled. That a woman who has sex for pleasure, even if it's with her husband, is be a wanton be slut who should be punished.


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> Women have first priority!




then explain why when a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is charged with two counts of murder.  Doesn't matter how far along the pregnancy was, two lives were taken, according to the laws of every state in the USA.


----------



## Redfish

GHook93 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not so black and white.
> 
> I think in the first trimester the mother right has preference. Make no mistake abortion is still the killing of a baby. Nevertheless I think the mother’s right rule. A women should have the right to kill her baby for whatever reason. Furthermore, I think free Gov abortion clinic should be run ghetto and Indian reservations.
> 
> In the second & third trimester I think the right shifts to the baby, unless there birth defects detected or the mother’s life is in danger.
> 
> However free tax payer funded late term abortions should still be available to all minorities.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...



your opinion is very racist.  you and Margaret Sanger want to kill the unborn children of minorities.   She called blacks, human weeds.  Do you share her view on that?


----------



## Redfish

Dragonlady said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right continues to feed this false notion that abortion is an easy out for promiscuous women despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary. The thing that boggles the mind for me is that even in cases where this is true, which is a small fraction of the abortions performed, why would you want to force such an immature, selfish and uncaring person to become a parent?  Do you think that forcing such a person to become a parent will suddenly change them into a living responsible adult who will take good care of the baby?
> 
> I want children to have a loving caring family. The right calls them a "consequence". Babies deserve so much more than to be deemed a "consequence" of immoral behaviour.
> 
> The same right wingers who oppose abortion, oppose maternity leave, job protections for pregnant women, mandated sex education and unfettered access to birth control - all things that reduce abortions in other be first world countries.
> 
> Right wingers go on and on about innocent lives lost while decrying those who have babies they are in no position to support financially or raise properly. But it all comes down to the right wingers belief that women's sexuality must be controlled. That a woman who has sex for pleasure, even if it's with her husband, is be a wanton be slut who should be punished.
Click to expand...



it has nothing to do with sex for pleasure or procreation.   It has to do with personal responsibility.   If you aren't in a position to care for a child-----------don't screw!  or use proper protection when screwing.   Take responsibility for your actions,  it is not the government's role to bail you out for bad decisions or lack of responsibility.


----------



## Dragonlady

Redfish said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right continues to feed this false notion that abortion is an easy out for promiscuous women despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary. The thing that boggles the mind for me is that even in cases where this is true, which is a small fraction of the abortions performed, why would you want to force such an immature, selfish and uncaring person to become a parent?  Do you think that forcing such a person to become a parent will suddenly change them into a living responsible adult who will take good care of the baby?
> 
> I want children to have a loving caring family. The right calls them a "consequence". Babies deserve so much more than to be deemed a "consequence" of immoral behaviour.
> 
> The same right wingers who oppose abortion, oppose maternity leave, job protections for pregnant women, mandated sex education and unfettered access to birth control - all things that reduce abortions in other be first world countries.
> 
> Right wingers go on and on about innocent lives lost while decrying those who have babies they are in no position to support financially or raise properly. But it all comes down to the right wingers belief that women's sexuality must be controlled. That a woman who has sex for pleasure, even if it's with her husband, is be a wanton be slut who should be punished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it has nothing to do with sex for pleasure or procreation.   It has to do with personal responsibility.   If you aren't in a position to care for a child-----------don't screw!  or use proper protection when screwing.   Take responsibility for your actions,  it is not the government's role to bail you out for bad decisions or lack of responsibility.
Click to expand...


Because abstinence has been so effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies?  Said no person with half a brain ever!

Expecting poor married couples to eschew sex because they can’t afford another baby is beyond ridiculous. Denying your husband sex is grounds for divorce in many states. 

Try coming up with a realistic solution.


----------



## Redfish

Dragonlady said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right continues to feed this false notion that abortion is an easy out for promiscuous women despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary. The thing that boggles the mind for me is that even in cases where this is true, which is a small fraction of the abortions performed, why would you want to force such an immature, selfish and uncaring person to become a parent?  Do you think that forcing such a person to become a parent will suddenly change them into a living responsible adult who will take good care of the baby?
> 
> I want children to have a loving caring family. The right calls them a "consequence". Babies deserve so much more than to be deemed a "consequence" of immoral behaviour.
> 
> The same right wingers who oppose abortion, oppose maternity leave, job protections for pregnant women, mandated sex education and unfettered access to birth control - all things that reduce abortions in other be first world countries.
> 
> Right wingers go on and on about innocent lives lost while decrying those who have babies they are in no position to support financially or raise properly. But it all comes down to the right wingers belief that women's sexuality must be controlled. That a woman who has sex for pleasure, even if it's with her husband, is be a wanton be slut who should be punished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it has nothing to do with sex for pleasure or procreation.   It has to do with personal responsibility.   If you aren't in a position to care for a child-----------don't screw!  or use proper protection when screwing.   Take responsibility for your actions,  it is not the government's role to bail you out for bad decisions or lack of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because abstinence has been so effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies?  Said no person with half a brain ever!
> 
> Expecting poor married couples to eschew sex because they can’t afford another baby is beyond ridiculous. Denying your husband sex is grounds for divorce in many states.
> 
> Try coming up with a realistic solution.
Click to expand...



free condoms.   problem solved.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Women have first priority!



Why?


----------



## Cecilie1200

oreo said:


> Without the woman, none of the rest can exist.



So what?


----------



## Cecilie1200

ScienceRocks said:


> The women....



Again, why?


----------



## Cecilie1200

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.



The majority will say that?  How do you know?  And WHY would they?


----------



## Cecilie1200

GHook93 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not so black and white.
> 
> I think in the first trimester the mother right has preference. Make no mistake abortion is still the killing of a baby. Nevertheless I think the mother’s right rule. A women should have the right to kill her baby for whatever reason. Furthermore, I think free Gov abortion clinic should be run ghetto and Indian reservations.
> 
> In the second & third trimester I think the right shifts to the baby, unless there birth defects detected or the mother’s life is in danger.
> 
> However free tax payer funded late term abortions should still be available to all minorities.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Hmmm.  Exactly what is it about the first trimester that you think somehow conveys an ultimate and pre-eminent right to kill a baby?  Also, why exactly should taxpayers fund abortions for anyone, let alone ghetto dwellers and American aborigines?

And if one is accepting that there is ever a right to kill a baby, why is it that suddenly that right is less valid in the second and third trimester?  And why is it that that right is only less valid for white people?  What is it about non-white people that entitles them to rights others don't have?  What ever happened to "equal protection under the law"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Redfish said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right continues to feed this false notion that abortion is an easy out for promiscuous women despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary. The thing that boggles the mind for me is that even in cases where this is true, which is a small fraction of the abortions performed, why would you want to force such an immature, selfish and uncaring person to become a parent?  Do you think that forcing such a person to become a parent will suddenly change them into a living responsible adult who will take good care of the baby?
> 
> I want children to have a loving caring family. The right calls them a "consequence". Babies deserve so much more than to be deemed a "consequence" of immoral behaviour.
> 
> The same right wingers who oppose abortion, oppose maternity leave, job protections for pregnant women, mandated sex education and unfettered access to birth control - all things that reduce abortions in other be first world countries.
> 
> Right wingers go on and on about innocent lives lost while decrying those who have babies they are in no position to support financially or raise properly. But it all comes down to the right wingers belief that women's sexuality must be controlled. That a woman who has sex for pleasure, even if it's with her husband, is be a wanton be slut who should be punished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it has nothing to do with sex for pleasure or procreation.   It has to do with personal responsibility.   If you aren't in a position to care for a child-----------don't screw!  or use proper protection when screwing.   Take responsibility for your actions,  it is not the government's role to bail you out for bad decisions or lack of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because abstinence has been so effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies?  Said no person with half a brain ever!
> 
> Expecting poor married couples to eschew sex because they can’t afford another baby is beyond ridiculous. Denying your husband sex is grounds for divorce in many states.
> 
> Try coming up with a realistic solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> free condoms.   problem solved.
Click to expand...


Yes, because the lack of condom usage is because the damned things are just too expensive.  OBVIOUSLY the problem here is that no one is giving them away, and they're just so damned difficult to lay hands on.


----------



## Redfish

Cecilie1200 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right continues to feed this false notion that abortion is an easy out for promiscuous women despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary. The thing that boggles the mind for me is that even in cases where this is true, which is a small fraction of the abortions performed, why would you want to force such an immature, selfish and uncaring person to become a parent?  Do you think that forcing such a person to become a parent will suddenly change them into a living responsible adult who will take good care of the baby?
> 
> I want children to have a loving caring family. The right calls them a "consequence". Babies deserve so much more than to be deemed a "consequence" of immoral behaviour.
> 
> The same right wingers who oppose abortion, oppose maternity leave, job protections for pregnant women, mandated sex education and unfettered access to birth control - all things that reduce abortions in other be first world countries.
> 
> Right wingers go on and on about innocent lives lost while decrying those who have babies they are in no position to support financially or raise properly. But it all comes down to the right wingers belief that women's sexuality must be controlled. That a woman who has sex for pleasure, even if it's with her husband, is be a wanton be slut who should be punished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it has nothing to do with sex for pleasure or procreation.   It has to do with personal responsibility.   If you aren't in a position to care for a child-----------don't screw!  or use proper protection when screwing.   Take responsibility for your actions,  it is not the government's role to bail you out for bad decisions or lack of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because abstinence has been so effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies?  Said no person with half a brain ever!
> 
> Expecting poor married couples to eschew sex because they can’t afford another baby is beyond ridiculous. Denying your husband sex is grounds for divorce in many states.
> 
> Try coming up with a realistic solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> free condoms.   problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the lack of condom usage is because the damned things are just too expensive.  OBVIOUSLY the problem here is that no one is giving them away, and they're just so damned difficult to lay hands on.
Click to expand...



the problem is that we have developed a culture where no one is responsible for their acts.   The Steinle verdict in SFO is a perfect example, and a disgrace to the US legal system.


----------



## Lakhota

Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.

Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court


----------



## Thinker101

Lakhota said:


> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court



Maxine, is that you?


----------



## Lakhota

*
TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS*

It's getting serious.  Really serious.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



The issues here for me are this.

1) There are far too many people on this planet. 
2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life. 
3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.


----------



## Lakhota

This about sums it up...


----------



## there4eyeM

Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.


----------



## Lysistrata

Lakhota said:


> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court



Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lysistrata said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
Click to expand...


You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.

Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.

How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> *
> TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS*
> 
> It's getting serious.  Really serious.



You are getting even more stupid.

Really really stupid.

Toobin knows better.

Live in Kansas...can't get an abortion ?  Go to Colorado where it will be legal.

Most "Bans" will have all kinds of outs.  

There were a million abortions before Roe.......

Moron.


----------



## Lysistrata

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.
> 
> Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.
> 
> How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.
Click to expand...


The ensuing risk of loss of Americans' rights. As I said, a pattern of "free states" and "slave states" will emerge. Once the government takes over a person's rights to control her/his own body and establishes a state religion to which all of us are compelled to adhere, what else will be destroyed next.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lysistrata said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.
> 
> Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.
> 
> How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ensuing risk of loss of Americans' rights. As I said, a pattern of "free states" and "slave states" will emerge. Once the government takes over a person's rights to control her/his own body and establishes a state religion to which all of us are compelled to adhere, what else will be destroyed next.
Click to expand...


What ensuing risk of what rights.

The 10th amendment allows for differences in states.  

46 states had laws against abortion but people were still killing off fetuses at the rate of a million a year.

There were no slave states then.

You guys have to get a better argument than this.


----------



## Lysistrata

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS*
> 
> It's getting serious.  Really serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting even more stupid.
> 
> Really really stupid.
> 
> Toobin knows better.
> 
> Live in Kansas...can't get an abortion ?  Go to Colorado where it will be legal.
> 
> Most "Bans" will have all kinds of outs.
> 
> There were a million abortions before Roe.......
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Dear Marie Antoinette: How many people have the means to travel to a free state if they live in a slave state to have a safe procedure instead of a back-alley botch job? You are being highly unrealistic. Look at what the Irish were forced to do, travel to England at a cost many could not afford. "Let them eat cake" doesn't cut it.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lysistrata said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS*
> 
> It's getting serious.  Really serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting even more stupid.
> 
> Really really stupid.
> 
> Toobin knows better.
> 
> Live in Kansas...can't get an abortion ?  Go to Colorado where it will be legal.
> 
> Most "Bans" will have all kinds of outs.
> 
> There were a million abortions before Roe.......
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Marie Antoinette: How many people have the means to travel to a free state if they live in a slave state to have a safe procedure instead of a back-alley botch job? You are being highly unrealistic. Look at what the Irish were forced to do, travel to England at a cost many could not afford. "Let them eat cake" doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...


Dear Saul Alinsky.

Bullshit.  

The myth of the back alley job is alive and well in the minds of the frantic left.

There were a million abortions before Roe and that number hardly changed afterwards.

Keep it up Saul.


----------



## Lakhota

If abortion is made illegal again? “We’d use a coat hanger, like our grandmothers did.”

*We Already Know What A Post-Roe World Looks Like*

Scary.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> If abortion is made illegal again? “We’d use a coat hanger, like our grandmothers did.”
> 
> *We Already Know What A Post-Roe World Looks Like*
> 
> Scary.



Are you ignorant or do you just need to post bullshit to feel better.

The Pre-Roe world saw 1 million abortions a year.  That didn't change must after Roe.

At least 30 states will make abortion legal.  

Is this the best you have ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> If abortion is made illegal again? “We’d use a coat hanger, like our grandmothers did.”
> 
> *We Already Know What A Post-Roe World Looks Like*
> 
> Scary.



She should stick that coat hanger through her nose.


----------



## Political Junky

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion is made illegal again? “We’d use a coat hanger, like our grandmothers did.”
> 
> *We Already Know What A Post-Roe World Looks Like*
> 
> Scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ignorant or do you just need to post bullshit to feel better.
> 
> The Pre-Roe world saw 1 million abortions a year.  That didn't change must after Roe.
> 
> At least 30 states will make abortion legal.
> 
> Is this the best you have ?
Click to expand...

Then why do you want to end Roe v Wade?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Political Junky said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion is made illegal again? “We’d use a coat hanger, like our grandmothers did.”
> 
> *We Already Know What A Post-Roe World Looks Like*
> 
> Scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ignorant or do you just need to post bullshit to feel better.
> 
> The Pre-Roe world saw 1 million abortions a year.  That didn't change must after Roe.
> 
> At least 30 states will make abortion legal.
> 
> Is this the best you have ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you want to end Roe v Wade?
Click to expand...


Please show me where I said that I did.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.




I don't have a vagina do you?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Political Junky said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If abortion is made illegal again? “We’d use a coat hanger, like our grandmothers did.”
> 
> *We Already Know What A Post-Roe World Looks Like*
> 
> Scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ignorant or do you just need to post bullshit to feel better.
> 
> The Pre-Roe world saw 1 million abortions a year.  That didn't change must after Roe.
> 
> At least 30 states will make abortion legal.
> 
> Is this the best you have ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you want to end Roe v Wade?
Click to expand...



 Translation ~ you are all girls ?


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues here for me are this.
> 
> 1) There are far too many people on this planet.
> 2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
> 3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
> 4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.
Click to expand...



There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Lakhota said:


> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court





Seems that this is what you are 'fighting hard' for:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


----------



## Lysistrata

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.
> 
> Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.
> 
> How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ensuing risk of loss of Americans' rights. As I said, a pattern of "free states" and "slave states" will emerge. Once the government takes over a person's rights to control her/his own body and establishes a state religion to which all of us are compelled to adhere, what else will be destroyed next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ensuing risk of what rights.
> 
> The 10th amendment allows for differences in states.
> 
> 46 states had laws against abortion but people were still killing off fetuses at the rate of a million a year.
> 
> There were no slave states then.
> 
> You guys have to get a better argument than this.
Click to expand...


No state has a right to violate a right held by an individual pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. One's body is not the property of the state. One's choice of religion, if any, is not to be encroached upon by the state. One's right to privacy is not to be encroached upon by the state.

All of these rights are being threatened, and, thus liberty is being threatened. 

Nazism and theocratic dictatorship should not be allowed to take hold in our nation.


----------



## Lysistrata

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS*
> 
> It's getting serious.  Really serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting even more stupid.
> 
> Really really stupid.
> 
> Toobin knows better.
> 
> Live in Kansas...can't get an abortion ?  Go to Colorado where it will be legal.
> 
> Most "Bans" will have all kinds of outs.
> 
> There were a million abortions before Roe.......
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Marie Antoinette: How many people have the means to travel to a free state if they live in a slave state to have a safe procedure instead of a back-alley botch job? You are being highly unrealistic. Look at what the Irish were forced to do, travel to England at a cost many could not afford. "Let them eat cake" doesn't cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Saul Alinsky.
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The myth of the back alley job is alive and well in the minds of
> the frantic left.
> 
> There were a million abortions before Roe and that number hardly changed afterwards.
> 
> Keep it up Saul.
Click to expand...


It's no myth, moron. You cannot ignore history. You are just trying to shove your religion down other Americans' throats and up our genitals. The state has no legitimate interest in citizens' personal lives. We women are not second class citizens, regardless of what sicko ideas some of you have.


----------



## deanrd

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


Rape is God's will?

Your God.  Not mine.


----------



## iamwhatiseem




----------



## Lysistrata

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues here for me are this.
> 
> 1) There are far too many people on this planet.
> 2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
> 3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
> 4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....
Click to expand...


There are too many people on the planet:

World Population Growth

It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?


----------



## Redfish

there4eyeM said:


> Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
> There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
> The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.




your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being. 

your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex.   But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created.   There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings.  But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.

When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails.  A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all.  So lets vote on it.  OK?


----------



## Redfish

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues here for me are this.
> 
> 1) There are far too many people on this planet.
> 2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
> 3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
> 4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
Click to expand...



how about preventing the pregnancy before it happens?   wouldn't that be a better way to control the population?


----------



## there4eyeM

Redfish said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
> There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
> The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being.
> 
> your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex.   But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created.   There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings.  But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.
> 
> When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails.  A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all.  So lets vote on it.  OK?
Click to expand...

Let's vote on the beginning of life.
Does anyone want to dispute that life began billions of years ago?
Does anyone want to dispute that life is genetically transmitted?
Does anyone want to dispute that all humans share mitochondrial DNA?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women are born with all their eggs?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women alive today are direct descendants of the mitochondrial "Eve", and the, consequently, that genetic line has been alive for some tens of thousands of years?
Does anyone want to dispute that genetic combinations are always occurring?
Does anyone want to dispute that an egg and a sperm form another new combination of genes?
So, what is really being questioned is at what point we want to disconnect the continuity of life.
This, added to the hypocrisy of people wanting to interfere in a woman's bodily functions over a potential human being while they pay taxes for bombs to kill actual human babies, makes the entire abortion matter rather difficult to take seriously as a voting matter.
Better just to leave it up to the woman.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman decides!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> *
> TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS*
> 
> It's getting serious.  Really serious.



Ehrmagerd!  Soon you may not be able to kill infants with impunity!  The HORROR!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I fear for your sanity.  The meds are inadequate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.
> 
> Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.
> 
> How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.
Click to expand...


Because their agenda depends on taking all choices out of the hands of voters.


----------



## Death Angel

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


ALL living things have the right to life AND the right of SELF-DEFENSE.

Once you understand that basic principle, this debate becomes easy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues here for me are this.
> 
> 1) There are far too many people on this planet.
> 2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
> 3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
> 4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
Click to expand...


Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?


----------



## Death Angel

Lysistrata said:


> There are too many people on the planet


Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
> There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
> The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being.
> 
> your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex.   But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created.   There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings.  But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.
> 
> When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails.  A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all.  So lets vote on it.  OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's vote on the beginning of life.
> Does anyone want to dispute that life began billions of years ago?
> Does anyone want to dispute that life is genetically transmitted?
> Does anyone want to dispute that all humans share mitochondrial DNA?
> Does anyone want to dispute that all women are born with all their eggs?
> Does anyone want to dispute that all women alive today are direct descendants of the mitochondrial "Eve", and the, consequently, that genetic line has been alive for some tens of thousands of years?
> Does anyone want to dispute that genetic combinations are always occurring?
> Does anyone want to dispute that an egg and a sperm form another new combination of genes?
> So, what is really being questioned is at what point we want to disconnect the continuity of life.
> This, added to the hypocrisy of people wanting to interfere in a woman's bodily functions over a potential human being while they pay taxes for bombs to kill actual human babies, makes the entire abortion matter rather difficult to take seriously as a voting matter.
> Better just to leave it up to the woman.
Click to expand...


You think scientific fact is decided by vote?

Not only your input is invalid; YOU are invalid.


----------



## there4eyeM

Death Angel said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL living things have the right to life AND the right of SELF-DEFENSE.
> 
> Once you understand that basic principle, this debate becomes easy.
Click to expand...

When one understands that words are human creations that express subjective human concepts, one understands the absurdity of assigning "rights"  where no human is involved. Animals have 'rights' if humans believe thus. Humans have 'rights' when humans believe that way. We created 'rights'. We ascribe 'rights'. 'Rights' do not exist somewhere out there in the universe; they exist in the mind of mankind.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cecilie1200 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
> There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
> The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being.
> 
> your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex.   But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created.   There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings.  But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.
> 
> When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails.  A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all.  So lets vote on it.  OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's vote on the beginning of life.
> Does anyone want to dispute that life began billions of years ago?
> Does anyone want to dispute that life is genetically transmitted?
> Does anyone want to dispute that all humans share mitochondrial DNA?
> Does anyone want to dispute that all women are born with all their eggs?
> Does anyone want to dispute that all women alive today are direct descendants of the mitochondrial "Eve", and the, consequently, that genetic line has been alive for some tens of thousands of years?
> Does anyone want to dispute that genetic combinations are always occurring?
> Does anyone want to dispute that an egg and a sperm form another new combination of genes?
> So, what is really being questioned is at what point we want to disconnect the continuity of life.
> This, added to the hypocrisy of people wanting to interfere in a woman's bodily functions over a potential human being while they pay taxes for bombs to kill actual human babies, makes the entire abortion matter rather difficult to take seriously as a voting matter.
> Better just to leave it up to the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think scientific fact is decided by vote?
> 
> Not only your input is invalid; YOU are invalid.
Click to expand...


I see a lot of "you're so funny" ratings with no responses.  I always take that to mean "You're right, I can't dispute you, but I'm too dishonest to admit it".

Thank you for your surrender, There.  You may stop waving your white flag now.


----------



## Richard-H

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.




Obviuosly the Chicken.


----------



## Death Angel

there4eyeM said:


> We created 'rights'. We ascribe 'rights'. 'Rights' do not exist somewhere out there in the universe; they exist in the mind of mankind.


No, real rights ce from the Creator.

aWLL innocent living things have the right and the drive to exist.

Because you may not recognizing ze or honor another being'd rights does not mean they don't exist. The Jews still had the right to life even if the Nazis didn't honor them.


----------



## there4eyeM

Jews, and all others who were victims of fascist and other authoritarian crimes, definitely share the same rights we ascribe to ourselves. Most persons in America would agree, it would seem.
People need to recognize and give proper attention to the fact that words and concepts are human. We give away whatever power we might otherwise have when we sacrifice the mind to images, religious or otherwise.


----------



## Lysistrata

Death Angel said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.
Click to expand...


Why should I leave? I have always been a supporter of ZPG. The ignorant jerks who opposed ZPG should be the ones to pay the price for their stupidity, given their major part in creating the sorry circumstances the world facts today They need to take responsibility for their actions and policies, but they never do. They will just lay down some cult BS about how people shouldn't have sex and it's all these people's fault for having it.


----------



## there4eyeM

Lysistrata said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I leave? I have always been a supporter of ZPG. The ignorant jerks who opposed ZPG should be the ones to pay the price for their stupidity, given their major part in creating the sorry circumstances the world facts today They need to take responsibility for their actions and policies, but they never do. They will just lay down some cult BS about how people shouldn't have sex and it's all these people's fault for having it.
Click to expand...

The responsibility of individuals for their acts should not be overlooked. Anyone reasonable could look about and see that either each human lives a drastically lesser impact life, or life for humans is in immediate danger.
The organizations that refused to heed wisdom horribly exacerbated the situation, and it continues unabated.


----------



## Lysistrata

there4eyeM said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I leave? I have always been a supporter of ZPG. The ignorant jerks who opposed ZPG should be the ones to pay the price for their stupidity, given their major part in creating the sorry circumstances the world facts today They need to take responsibility for their actions and policies, but they never do. They will just lay down some cult BS about how people shouldn't have sex and it's all these people's fault for having it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The responsibility of individuals for their acts should not be overlooked. Anyone reasonable could look about and see that either each human lives a drastically lesser impact life, or life for humans is in immediate danger.
> The organizations that refused to heed wisdom horribly exacerbated the situation, and it continues unabated.
Click to expand...


I do agree with you. Personal responsibility does come into play here. But some people refuse to accept that people have sex for reasons far from a desire to procreate. Having sex involves BOTH a human drive second only to hunger, and also a human desire to be close to another human being. These fundamental truths are being ignored and rejected by these "conservatives."

I wish that we could do an honest poll as to whether every person who has ever had heterosexual sex did so with the allowance and expectation that a baby might result. Casual sex does happen. Some folks go on R&R in the military or other endeavors, or those who just got looking because anyone is attractive at closing time, and just want to get laid without any concern for the results.

But what also happens, and what happens so much more of the time is that couples get together, with important emotional and intimate involvement, and don't want children until they are sure of their relationships, have formed stable relationship in which each voices readiness to carry out _together_ the raising of the children born between them, want to space their children, can't cope with abnormalities in their fetal offspring that would result either in immediate death of the fetus if it is brought to term or require them to cope with the care, _mostly unsupported in U.S. society _but supported in other foreign societies that provide ample help to parents in such circumstances. The U.S. does not.

Yes, heterosexuals DO settle among the pillows and whisper things to each other at at 2:00 a.m. that the rest of us human beings have absolutely NO right to overhear.

I would love to see a poll, although I know that it is impossible, that asks people to respond to these sort of questions, with the results tabulated according to whether the respondents are men or women. For example, would a man who has premarital sex, be willing to love and raise any child he has fathered with any woman he chooses to have sex with? Would a man who has sex with his wife or his girlfriend be willing to form a sealing family bond with this woman to raise their family together in a loving home? Is every man prepared to be a Duggar for any child and all children he produces? Even if he must support, and of course support, his wife and any number of children they produce together in their sexual congress?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lysistrata said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.
> 
> Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.
> 
> Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.
> 
> How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ensuing risk of loss of Americans' rights. As I said, a pattern of "free states" and "slave states" will emerge. Once the government takes over a person's rights to control her/his own body and establishes a state religion to which all of us are compelled to adhere, what else will be destroyed next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ensuing risk of what rights.
> 
> The 10th amendment allows for differences in states.
> 
> 46 states had laws against abortion but people were still killing off fetuses at the rate of a million a year.
> 
> There were no slave states then.
> 
> You guys have to get a better argument than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No state has a right to violate a right held by an individual pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. One's body is not the property of the state. One's choice of religion, if any, is not to be encroached upon by the state. One's right to privacy is not to be encroached upon by the state.
> 
> All of these rights are being threatened, and, thus liberty is being threatened.
> 
> Nazism and theocratic dictatorship should not be allowed to take hold in our nation.
Click to expand...


We've already discussed this on other boards.  

States were making abortion laws prior to 1973 and will continue to do so if Roe is repealed.  

There is no such thing as a right to an abortion.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lysistrata said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS*
> 
> It's getting serious.  Really serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting even more stupid.
> 
> Really really stupid.
> 
> Toobin knows better.
> 
> Live in Kansas...can't get an abortion ?  Go to Colorado where it will be legal.
> 
> Most "Bans" will have all kinds of outs.
> 
> There were a million abortions before Roe.......
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Marie Antoinette: How many people have the means to travel to a free state if they live in a slave state to have a safe procedure instead of a back-alley botch job? You are being highly unrealistic. Look at what the Irish were forced to do, travel to England at a cost many could not afford. "Let them eat cake" doesn't cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Saul Alinsky.
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The myth of the back alley job is alive and well in the minds of
> the frantic left.
> 
> There were a million abortions before Roe and that number hardly changed afterwards.
> 
> Keep it up Saul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no myth, moron. You cannot ignore history. You are just trying to shove your religion down other Americans' throats and up our genitals. The state has no legitimate interest in citizens' personal lives. We women are not second class citizens, regardless of what sicko ideas some of you have.
Click to expand...


You are the one ignoring history as it was spelled out to you before.

Like a  true left winger....you pretend to represent the intentions of others.  

You don't.  So why don't you take that part of your rant and shove it up your ass.

Nobody called women second class citizens.  It's obvious you have been called one and the way you post...it's no wonder.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

deanrd said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is God's will?
> 
> Your God.  Not mine.
Click to expand...


Yes, your god ===> federal government.

It's what feeds you and keeps you safe from the boogeyman.


----------



## Rosy

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


I am just grateful that Hillary Clinton was able to abort all of Bills kids.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues here for me are this.
> 
> 1) There are far too many people on this planet.
> 2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
> 3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
> 4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
Click to expand...


So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.


----------



## Lysistrata

Rosy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just grateful that Hillary Clinton was able to abort all of Bills kids.
Click to expand...


How do you know anything of the sort? You are the one making the assertion that Sen. Clinton aborted any pregnancy that she and her husband started, so it is up to you to explain how you know this. You must have been Sen. Clinton's closest friend, so spill the beans.


----------



## KGB

frigidweirdo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues here for me are this.
> 
> 1) There are far too many people on this planet.
> 2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
> 3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
> 4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
Click to expand...


Biology would disagree with you.

And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.


----------



## John Shaw

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



The answer is;

I don't care.

I'm not a woman. It's not my problem.


----------



## frigidweirdo

KGB said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issues here for me are this.
> 
> 1) There are far too many people on this planet.
> 2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
> 3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
> 4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
Click to expand...


But we should have war, executions and guns because.....


----------



## KGB

frigidweirdo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
Click to expand...


War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.

We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.

We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.

Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.


----------



## bodecea

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


So this is a human life?


----------



## Lysistrata

KGB said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.
> 
> We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.
> 
> We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.
> 
> Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.
Click to expand...


You are incredibly stupid if you think that this is just "convenience." Most normal people understand that methods of birth control do have failure rates. How can you be so moronic as to think that a person would rather undergo a surgical procedure than avoid the problem in the first place? You must be nuts. You are even more nuts if you are one of those people who believe that people should not have access to and use technology to avoid unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

You sound as if you are a follower of a monkey religion.


----------



## frigidweirdo

KGB said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.
> 
> We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.
> 
> We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.
> 
> Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.
Click to expand...


Wars happen for many reasons, and how many of the US's wars have been started by the US?

When was the last time the US was attacked by another country? 1941. That was the last time the US went to war for defensive reasons. 

For example with the Iraq War in 2003 the US lied, claimed it was about something it wasn't. It was all about getting at OPEC, and it worked and the US has become richer because of that war. 

Executions are needed because you're "pro-life"? The US has executions and one of the largest prison populations in the world per capita AND higher crime rates. Louisiana is the prison capital of the WORLD, and has the highest murder rate in the US. 

It's clearly not working, is it?

Let's try this. 
Texas has executed 7 people this year.
Georgia has executed 2 people this year.
Alabama has executed 2 people this year.
Florida has executed one person this year. 

Alabama is 3rd in the list of states by murder rate.
Georgia is 14th.
Florida is 22nd
Texas is 23rd. 

Now, according to your logic they should be 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th. Yet they're all in the top half. Why?

Yes, you have guns because there are assholes. 

I'm not asking for reasons why these things exist. 

How can someone be "pro-life" and then support executions. That's a massive contradiction. Same with wars. 

This is the issue here. You're talking about saving lives and then talking about ending lives. 

The problem is the abortion issue is a religious issue. There's no other reason to oppose abortions in the modern world.

Back in the day babies died in their thousands. In bad years countries could see their population dwindle. The plague in Europe was killing an estimated 30% - 60% of the people. 

In 1730 75% of children died before the age of 5. 

Children were vitally important for a society. Humans weren't progressing during the dark ages. 

But this isn't the dark ages.

Today we have a population that has never, ever been reached before. We've a higher population today than yesterday, and yesterday was the highest we'd ever reached. 

We don't need to bring babies into this world just for them to live in misery just with the hope they'd make it to adulthood and reproduce. We can reproduce like rabbits even with abortion.

If we continue on at this rate, we, as humans, are going to suffer. We're already having a massively negative impact on the oceans, which are massively important to life on this planet. 

This is where we have to be a little philosophical.

Here's a question I want you to answer. 

Is it better to die of starvation or better to die with a bullet to the head in war? 

This situation is a little different, but we need to control the population of the world. So abortion becomes a necessary tool. Let's make sure those who are born have the best possible chances.

It's like playing a game where you have limited space but have to make the most of that limited space.


----------



## oreo

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.




The woman will always take priority, because without her the fertilized egg and fetus doesn't exist--

That's like choosing the golden egg, over the golden goose that lays the golden eggs--


----------



## Norman

frigidweirdo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.
> 
> We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.
> 
> We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.
> 
> Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wars happen for many reasons, and how many of the US's wars have been started by the US?
> 
> When was the last time the US was attacked by another country? 1941. That was the last time the US went to war for defensive reasons.
> 
> For example with the Iraq War in 2003 the US lied, claimed it was about something it wasn't. It was all about getting at OPEC, and it worked and the US has become richer because of that war.
> 
> Executions are needed because you're "pro-life"? The US has executions and one of the largest prison populations in the world per capita AND higher crime rates. Louisiana is the prison capital of the WORLD, and has the highest murder rate in the US.
> 
> It's clearly not working, is it?
> 
> Let's try this.
> Texas has executed 7 people this year.
> Georgia has executed 2 people this year.
> Alabama has executed 2 people this year.
> Florida has executed one person this year.
> 
> Alabama is 3rd in the list of states by murder rate.
> Georgia is 14th.
> Florida is 22nd
> Texas is 23rd.
> 
> Now, according to your logic they should be 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th. Yet they're all in the top half. Why?
> 
> Yes, you have guns because there are assholes.
> 
> I'm not asking for reasons why these things exist.
> 
> How can someone be "pro-life" and then support executions. That's a massive contradiction. Same with wars.
> 
> This is the issue here. You're talking about saving lives and then talking about ending lives.
> 
> The problem is the abortion issue is a religious issue. There's no other reason to oppose abortions in the modern world.
> 
> Back in the day babies died in their thousands. In bad years countries could see their population dwindle. The plague in Europe was killing an estimated 30% - 60% of the people.
> 
> In 1730 75% of children died before the age of 5.
> 
> Children were vitally important for a society. Humans weren't progressing during the dark ages.
> 
> But this isn't the dark ages.
> 
> Today we have a population that has never, ever been reached before. We've a higher population today than yesterday, and yesterday was the highest we'd ever reached.
> 
> We don't need to bring babies into this world just for them to live in misery just with the hope they'd make it to adulthood and reproduce. We can reproduce like rabbits even with abortion.
> 
> If we continue on at this rate, we, as humans, are going to suffer. We're already having a massively negative impact on the oceans, which are massively important to life on this planet.
> 
> This is where we have to be a little philosophical.
> 
> Here's a question I want you to answer.
> 
> Is it better to die of starvation or better to die with a bullet to the head in war?
> 
> This situation is a little different, but we need to control the population of the world. So abortion becomes a necessary tool. Let's make sure those who are born have the best possible chances.
> 
> It's like playing a game where you have limited space but have to make the most of that limited space.
Click to expand...


Abortion becomes a necessary tool to control the population of the world?

Which population would that be? The white population that is already below replacement level? Or would that be the black population? Did I just hear a lefty advocating for a genocide again?


----------



## Lakhota

It would be extremely helpful if anti-choice zealots cared about children _after_ they are born.


----------



## oreo

Lakhota said:


> It would be extremely helpful if anti-choice zealots cared about children _after_ they are born.


----------



## Lysistrata

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.
> 
> Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.
> 
> How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ensuing risk of loss of Americans' rights. As I said, a pattern of "free states" and "slave states" will emerge. Once the government takes over a person's rights to control her/his own body and establishes a state religion to which all of us are compelled to adhere, what else will be destroyed next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ensuing risk of what rights.
> 
> The 10th amendment allows for differences in states.
> 
> 46 states had laws against abortion but people were still killing off fetuses at the rate of a million a year.
> 
> There were no slave states then.
> 
> You guys have to get a better argument than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No state has a right to violate a right held by an individual pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. One's body is not the property of the state. One's choice of religion, if any, is not to be encroached upon by the state. One's right to privacy is not to be encroached upon by the state.
> 
> All of these rights are being threatened, and, thus liberty is being threatened.
> 
> Nazism and theocratic dictatorship should not be allowed to take hold in our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've already discussed this on other boards.
> 
> States were making abortion laws prior to 1973 and will continue to do so if Roe is repealed.
> 
> There is no such thing as a right to an abortion.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is. There is a fundamental right to control one's own physical body. No one's body can be owned by the state unless one is incarcerated for committing a crime.


----------



## Lysistrata

KGB said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are too many people on the planet:
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.
> 
> We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.
> 
> We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.
> 
> Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.
Click to expand...


How many people who have open access to other birth-control methods and know that these methods are available use abortion as a birth-control method? How would you even know this? 

Your idea that a person would more likely choose to undergo an expensive and invasive medical procedure in places in which absurd restrictions are imposed on it by big-brother government than to choose to take a pill or have a preventive device implanted is illogical and absolutely ridiculous. Where do you folks get this stuff from? Do you just make it up?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> It would be extremely helpful if anti-choice zealots cared about children _after_ they are born.



It would be extremely helpful if leftists didn't insist that we treat their delusional prejudices as reality.


----------



## Cecilie1200

oreo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be extremely helpful if anti-choice zealots cared about children _after_ they are born.
Click to expand...


You advocate killing babies.  There's literally no accusation you can level at us that's EVER going to sink us to that level of evil, or raise you out of it.


----------



## KGB

frigidweirdo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying?  Why don't YOU go first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.
> 
> We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.
> 
> We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.
> 
> Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wars happen for many reasons, and how many of the US's wars have been started by the US?
> 
> When was the last time the US was attacked by another country? 1941. That was the last time the US went to war for defensive reasons.
> 
> For example with the Iraq War in 2003 the US lied, claimed it was about something it wasn't. It was all about getting at OPEC, and it worked and the US has become richer because of that war.
> 
> Executions are needed because you're "pro-life"? The US has executions and one of the largest prison populations in the world per capita AND higher crime rates. Louisiana is the prison capital of the WORLD, and has the highest murder rate in the US.
> 
> It's clearly not working, is it?
> 
> Let's try this.
> Texas has executed 7 people this year.
> Georgia has executed 2 people this year.
> Alabama has executed 2 people this year.
> Florida has executed one person this year.
> 
> Alabama is 3rd in the list of states by murder rate.
> Georgia is 14th.
> Florida is 22nd
> Texas is 23rd.
> 
> Now, according to your logic they should be 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th. Yet they're all in the top half. Why?
> 
> Yes, you have guns because there are assholes.
> 
> I'm not asking for reasons why these things exist.
> 
> How can someone be "pro-life" and then support executions. That's a massive contradiction. Same with wars.
> 
> This is the issue here. You're talking about saving lives and then talking about ending lives.
> 
> The problem is the abortion issue is a religious issue. There's no other reason to oppose abortions in the modern world.
> 
> Back in the day babies died in their thousands. In bad years countries could see their population dwindle. The plague in Europe was killing an estimated 30% - 60% of the people.
> 
> In 1730 75% of children died before the age of 5.
> 
> Children were vitally important for a society. Humans weren't progressing during the dark ages.
> 
> But this isn't the dark ages.
> 
> Today we have a population that has never, ever been reached before. We've a higher population today than yesterday, and yesterday was the highest we'd ever reached.
> 
> We don't need to bring babies into this world just for them to live in misery just with the hope they'd make it to adulthood and reproduce. We can reproduce like rabbits even with abortion.
> 
> If we continue on at this rate, we, as humans, are going to suffer. We're already having a massively negative impact on the oceans, which are massively important to life on this planet.
> 
> This is where we have to be a little philosophical.
> 
> Here's a question I want you to answer.
> 
> Is it better to die of starvation or better to die with a bullet to the head in war?
> 
> This situation is a little different, but we need to control the population of the world. So abortion becomes a necessary tool. Let's make sure those who are born have the best possible chances.
> 
> It's like playing a game where you have limited space but have to make the most of that limited space.
Click to expand...


Executions occur after due process & countless appeals for the condemned.  It’s a well spelled out process & part of our legal code.  Last time I checked, we don’t have state-sponsored death squads roaming the streets indiscriminately killing people.

Tell me, what crime did an unborn child commit to deserve death without hearing, without appeal?

Abortion is barbaric & an affront to our society.  The Founding Fathers would recoil in horror if they were alive for Roe vs Wade.  Over 40 million of our own people slaughtered for the sake of convenience....it’s disgusting.


----------



## beagle9

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg ??  The egg of course.


----------



## frigidweirdo

KGB said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should never have abortion because it's someone else dying, even though they not really alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.
> 
> We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.
> 
> We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.
> 
> Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wars happen for many reasons, and how many of the US's wars have been started by the US?
> 
> When was the last time the US was attacked by another country? 1941. That was the last time the US went to war for defensive reasons.
> 
> For example with the Iraq War in 2003 the US lied, claimed it was about something it wasn't. It was all about getting at OPEC, and it worked and the US has become richer because of that war.
> 
> Executions are needed because you're "pro-life"? The US has executions and one of the largest prison populations in the world per capita AND higher crime rates. Louisiana is the prison capital of the WORLD, and has the highest murder rate in the US.
> 
> It's clearly not working, is it?
> 
> Let's try this.
> Texas has executed 7 people this year.
> Georgia has executed 2 people this year.
> Alabama has executed 2 people this year.
> Florida has executed one person this year.
> 
> Alabama is 3rd in the list of states by murder rate.
> Georgia is 14th.
> Florida is 22nd
> Texas is 23rd.
> 
> Now, according to your logic they should be 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th. Yet they're all in the top half. Why?
> 
> Yes, you have guns because there are assholes.
> 
> I'm not asking for reasons why these things exist.
> 
> How can someone be "pro-life" and then support executions. That's a massive contradiction. Same with wars.
> 
> This is the issue here. You're talking about saving lives and then talking about ending lives.
> 
> The problem is the abortion issue is a religious issue. There's no other reason to oppose abortions in the modern world.
> 
> Back in the day babies died in their thousands. In bad years countries could see their population dwindle. The plague in Europe was killing an estimated 30% - 60% of the people.
> 
> In 1730 75% of children died before the age of 5.
> 
> Children were vitally important for a society. Humans weren't progressing during the dark ages.
> 
> But this isn't the dark ages.
> 
> Today we have a population that has never, ever been reached before. We've a higher population today than yesterday, and yesterday was the highest we'd ever reached.
> 
> We don't need to bring babies into this world just for them to live in misery just with the hope they'd make it to adulthood and reproduce. We can reproduce like rabbits even with abortion.
> 
> If we continue on at this rate, we, as humans, are going to suffer. We're already having a massively negative impact on the oceans, which are massively important to life on this planet.
> 
> This is where we have to be a little philosophical.
> 
> Here's a question I want you to answer.
> 
> Is it better to die of starvation or better to die with a bullet to the head in war?
> 
> This situation is a little different, but we need to control the population of the world. So abortion becomes a necessary tool. Let's make sure those who are born have the best possible chances.
> 
> It's like playing a game where you have limited space but have to make the most of that limited space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executions occur after due process & countless appeals for the condemned.  It’s a well spelled out process & part of our legal code.  Last time I checked, we don’t have state-sponsored death squads roaming the streets indiscriminately killing people.
> 
> Tell me, what crime did an unborn child commit to deserve death without hearing, without appeal?
> 
> Abortion is barbaric & an affront to our society.  The Founding Fathers would recoil in horror if they were alive for Roe vs Wade.  Over 40 million of our own people slaughtered for the sake of convenience....it’s disgusting.
Click to expand...


Ah, because executions are done after due process, it's not taking away life? What?

No one innocent has ever been executed in the US? 

What crime did a fetus commit? None. What crime did a cow commit? 

Well, you think abortions are barbaric. 

How many billions of animals die a year to keep the human appetite sated?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

frigidweirdo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biology would disagree with you.
> 
> And we shouldn’t have abortion because it’s murder & barabaric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we should have war, executions and guns because.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War occurs for many reasons.  There is just war & unjust war.  If you are attacked you have the right to self defense.
> 
> We have executions because there needs to be a deterrent to criminal behavior & to see justice served.  However this isn’t summary execution, it follows due process.
> 
> We have guns because there are assholes in the world who covet what other people have or seek to do harm to others.  It’s also a tool meant to hunt & to protect a nation.
> 
> Abortion serves no need other than the fact it offers convenience.  Yes I get the whole rape, incest & life to the mother (those are reasonable), but a person who uses it as a birth control method is barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wars happen for many reasons, and how many of the US's wars have been started by the US?
> 
> When was the last time the US was attacked by another country? 1941. That was the last time the US went to war for defensive reasons.
> 
> For example with the Iraq War in 2003 the US lied, claimed it was about something it wasn't. It was all about getting at OPEC, and it worked and the US has become richer because of that war.
> 
> Executions are needed because you're "pro-life"? The US has executions and one of the largest prison populations in the world per capita AND higher crime rates. Louisiana is the prison capital of the WORLD, and has the highest murder rate in the US.
> 
> It's clearly not working, is it?
> 
> Let's try this.
> Texas has executed 7 people this year.
> Georgia has executed 2 people this year.
> Alabama has executed 2 people this year.
> Florida has executed one person this year.
> 
> Alabama is 3rd in the list of states by murder rate.
> Georgia is 14th.
> Florida is 22nd
> Texas is 23rd.
> 
> Now, according to your logic they should be 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th. Yet they're all in the top half. Why?
> 
> Yes, you have guns because there are assholes.
> 
> I'm not asking for reasons why these things exist.
> 
> How can someone be "pro-life" and then support executions. That's a massive contradiction. Same with wars.
> 
> This is the issue here. You're talking about saving lives and then talking about ending lives.
> 
> The problem is the abortion issue is a religious issue. There's no other reason to oppose abortions in the modern world.
> 
> Back in the day babies died in their thousands. In bad years countries could see their population dwindle. The plague in Europe was killing an estimated 30% - 60% of the people.
> 
> In 1730 75% of children died before the age of 5.
> 
> Children were vitally important for a society. Humans weren't progressing during the dark ages.
> 
> But this isn't the dark ages.
> 
> Today we have a population that has never, ever been reached before. We've a higher population today than yesterday, and yesterday was the highest we'd ever reached.
> 
> We don't need to bring babies into this world just for them to live in misery just with the hope they'd make it to adulthood and reproduce. We can reproduce like rabbits even with abortion.
> 
> If we continue on at this rate, we, as humans, are going to suffer. We're already having a massively negative impact on the oceans, which are massively important to life on this planet.
> 
> This is where we have to be a little philosophical.
> 
> Here's a question I want you to answer.
> 
> Is it better to die of starvation or better to die with a bullet to the head in war?
> 
> This situation is a little different, but we need to control the population of the world. So abortion becomes a necessary tool. Let's make sure those who are born have the best possible chances.
> 
> It's like playing a game where you have limited space but have to make the most of that limited space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executions occur after due process & countless appeals for the condemned.  It’s a well spelled out process & part of our legal code.  Last time I checked, we don’t have state-sponsored death squads roaming the streets indiscriminately killing people.
> 
> Tell me, what crime did an unborn child commit to deserve death without hearing, without appeal?
> 
> Abortion is barbaric & an affront to our society.  The Founding Fathers would recoil in horror if they were alive for Roe vs Wade.  Over 40 million of our own people slaughtered for the sake of convenience....it’s disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, because executions are done after due process, it's not taking away life? What?
> 
> No one innocent has ever been executed in the US?
> 
> What crime did a fetus commit? None. What crime did a cow commit?
> 
> Well, you think abortions are barbaric.
> 
> How many billions of animals die a year to keep the human appetite sated?
Click to expand...


Google "food chain"


----------



## Lakhota

Women make the decision!


----------



## mikegriffith1

Which should have first priority: a person's right to control his own property as he sees fit or the person's partially human property, which is not fully human and is not capable of making an informed decision on the matter and is not capable of surviving on his/her own in a civilized manner? It is both amazing and sad to see the parallels between the antebellum pro-slavery arguments and the modern pro-abortion arguments. The core of both is to deny the humanity of the victim.


----------



## dspahn

I say we start by asking the “Fetus” which is really called a “baby”... are we asking about the well-being over a long time for the woman or are we talking about a hasty decision being made in a moment of crisis?  From what I have heard, the best thing to do is sit the crisis woman down and help her figure out possibilities for the future so we slow down and get past the panic. Prioritize all three by looking at the long-term best option. FWIW, I am pro-life...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mikegriffith1

Lakhota said:


> Women make the decision!



Slaveholders make the decision! Neither the slave nor the baby has any rights because they are not fully human! So slaves and babies have no say in how they are treated or if they even get to live! 

You refuse to admit the medical fact that a baby is not "part of the woman's body." The baby is IN the woman's body but he or she has their own DNA, their own blood supply, their own heart beat, their own brain and brain waves, their own body, their own arms, legs, feet, eyes, toes, etc., etc.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman has first priority!  Her mental/physical/financial health come first.  It's her choice.  It's her right.


----------



## Chuz Life

Lakhota said:


> The woman has first priority!  Her mental/physical/financial health come first.  It's her choice.  It's her right.



Can you explain why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does? 

A man's?

I didn't think so.


----------



## 22lcidw

Chuz Life said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman has first priority!  Her mental/physical/financial health come first.  It's her choice.  It's her right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain why a woman's rights should not begin when her life does?
> 
> A man's?
> 
> I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Its called slutosis! Only whores can give us a million abortions a year. Spreading those legs without any guilt at all for personal pleasure or thinking some guy is going to stick with them is ludicrous. A million a year. Now there are people who live by laws passed down for thousands of years as humans learned civility and ways of living through responsible ways. It may have been more boring and tenacious in male/female relationships but most people bought into this with hetero marriage even with flaws. Now understand this. Most men would die for a woman at one time. Get it. In an imperfect world most men would defend women. Feminism through that away. Only the human ingram that males defend females in our DNA keeps this up. I would not dfend any of those extreme feminists. I would watch someone or tens of thousands or hundrds of thousands of males take a knife and slice their faces up as to their selfish ways taking more from the system then it can provide to others. They are destroying males. Some need it. And it can be dealt with in other ways. You can't have all to your own ladies. Very few of you have had a real beatdown in life.


----------



## SweetSue92

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



Dumb poll. There is no "priority". You don't kill one for the convenience of another. That's called murder. It's illegal in ALL civilized societies.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Which should come first--the slave buyer, the slave trader, or the slave?  You cannot pretend to be a civilized person and then turn around and support elective abortion. The sin of abortion makes the sin of slavery look like child's play.


----------



## Lakhota

mikegriffith1 said:


> Which should come first--the slave buyer, the slave trader, or the slave?  You cannot pretend to be a civilized person and then turn around and support elective abortion. The sin of abortion makes the sin of slavery look like child's play.



No applicable.  Sin is a superstitious religious term.  We are governed by a Godless Constitution - not some goofy Bible.  A woman is free to have as many abortions as she wishes - for whatever reason.


----------



## JWBooth

martybegan said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what we call "birth control" prevents conception. Examples are barriers (condoms, diaphragms), anti-ovulation, (the pill), and ye olde time methods such as the rhythm method, "pull out and pray" and "no, use the other hole"
Click to expand...

Fellatio is a perfectly acceptable alternative.


----------



## JoeMoma

Problems is the pro-choice don't give the unborn any priority what so ever.  The unborn are the voiceless unseen.


----------



## skews13

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.





Without the woman, you don’t have an egg.

Without the man, the egg doesn’t get fertilized.

According to your bible God made the man first with no eggs involved

According to that same bible God made the woman from the mans rib

Doesn’t sound to me like your well versed in either biology or religion


----------



## martybegan

JWBooth said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what we call "birth control" prevents conception. Examples are barriers (condoms, diaphragms), anti-ovulation, (the pill), and ye olde time methods such as the rhythm method, "pull out and pray" and "no, use the other hole"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fellatio is a perfectly acceptable alternative.
Click to expand...


I believe that falls under "using another hole"


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb poll. There is no "priority". You don't kill one for the convenience of another. That's called murder. It's illegal in ALL civilized societies.
Click to expand...


No, I can accept that there's a heirarchy of priorities.  Not all lives have the same claim upon us, depending on a variety of factors.  

The problem with the poll is twofold.  First, it assumes that there's a blanket priority that always applies; second, Lakhota clearly assumes that IF you think the woman's life takes precedence on the priority heirarchy at any time, for any reason, that somehow means that the baby is "not alive".

I mean, if I were in a burning building with Lakhota and one of my children and I could only save one of them, Lakhota'd be a charcoal briquette.  That doesn't mean Lakhota isn't - technically - a living human being.  It just means she has next to no claim on my priorities, while my children are the most important people in the world to me.


----------



## sakinago

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


What if the Fetus is a woman...(queue up the twilight zone music)


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Is the woman a Democrat?  Democrats should never be allowed to reproduce.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.




Does a parent have a right  to brainwash his/her own children with their own beliefs?

or do children have a right to think for themselves?


----------



## anynameyouwish

Tipsycatlover said:


> Is the woman a Democrat?  Democrats should never be allowed to reproduce.




"ALLOWED"  means force, laws, punishments....

now please explain how you are NOT a fascist nazi......


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Why don't liberal women just have themselves sterilized? *


----------



## Cecilie1200

anynameyouwish said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does a parent have a right  to brainwash his/her own children with their own beliefs?
> 
> or do children have a right to think for themselves?
Click to expand...


Actually, a parent who declines to "brainwash" their child and expect them to pop out of the womb, knowing everything and ready to run their own lives without control and guidance, is a lazy, abusive piece of crap who shouldn't have been allowed to reproduce.

Shocking, I know, but parenthood entails a great deal more than just screwing without adequate protection.


----------



## there4eyeM

As it is a uniquely female situation to be in, what happens is 'on' the woman. It is up to her.
Abortion is a very poor choice when there were others, but it is only a choice a woman should make.


----------



## TheDude

Prog "logic"...........

We're the keepers of human rights.

A fetus isn't human until after the umbilical cord is cut, which is like magic.  Until then it's more like an eggplant.  This makes us feel better about our poor dispositions, and after all, we always project and or apply false labels when we're wrong. 

Murdering rapists are human, and must be saved from capital punishment by an unsophisticated dangerous public.  Show these people love, understanding and responsibility, and even let them feed off your titty.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


/----/ Now in New York State


----------



## Lakhota

Cellblock2429 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Now in New York State
Click to expand...


For the health and life of the woman!  She has first priority!


----------



## Likkmee

He who squirteth/payeth


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Now in New York State
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the health and life of the woman!  She has first priority!
Click to expand...


There is no late-term abortion that is ever necessary to protect the mother's life and health.  That is not a thing.  And there is absolutely no medical difference or benefit to the mother between a late-term abortion and giving birth.  Literally the only difference is whether or not the child survives it.


----------



## U2Edge

Lakhota said:


> Abortion is repugnant.  Period.  However, I believe the final decision should be up to the woman - UNLESS she is judged to be legally incompetent to make the final decision.



Abortion is repugnant. In some situations though it might be necessary. Abortion is the taken of a life and you should be able to morally justify it if it is done. Saving the life and health of the mother can meet that justification. Getting pregnant by the neighbor after a wild night would certainly not meet that justification. As awkward and difficult a situation that could present, it does not meet the standard for taking another human life. 

If a women became pregnant through rape then the choice should be left up to the women because she was robbed of her choice to become pregnant. Hopefully the women would still choose life, but that is the only circumstance where I think the women should have sole discretion to decide what happens.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Lakhota said:


> The woman has first priority!  Her mental/physical/financial health come first.  It's her choice.  It's her right.




Nope.  Part of a woman's responsibility is to protect the life growing inside her.  All mothers have that instinct.  If they did not human beings would not exist.   

Only an incredibly selfish woman would ignore the responsibility of bringing life into the world.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman comes first.


----------



## Blackrook

Lakhota said:


> The woman comes first.


Unless she was raped by Bill Clinton.


----------



## Blackrook

Why does the left insist on pitting people against each other?

Black against white, gay against straight, poor against rich, woman against man, woman against unborn child.

Leftists always promote hatred and division.  Always.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman comes first.  It's her choice.


----------



## Norman

It's women's responsibility to defend life and not to fall on a dick repeatedly unless planning to have a child. With big rights come big responsibilities, I hope Lakhota can handle it.

"What comes first, a man or a car?"

Well if a man is trying to steal my car, the car comes first. The big leftist lie here is that every woman having an abortion is somehow in danger, completely unrelated to her actions. This is obvious bullshit.

Finally I must point out that my wallet comes much before these leftist skanks or their fetuses.


----------



## Lakhota

The woman comes first.  It's her choice.


----------



## MedfordMan

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.


----------



## Chuz Life

MedfordMan said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
Click to expand...


Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?


----------



## BWK

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


The woman. There exists no Biological evidence that an egg or a fetus is a developed human being capable of performing human born feelings or emotions because of the undeveloped neurological brain.


----------



## BWK

OriginalShroom said:


> If the mother's life is at risk, she has priority.
> 
> Otherwise, the unborn child does.
> 
> Look at it this way..   Under the law, all are to be treated equally.   Men, after having sex, have no legal say in what happens if the woman becomes pregnant.  His only option is to prepare to have to pay her money for the 18 to 24 years every month.
> 
> Why should women have options afterwards?  If men have to "suffer the consequences" of her becoming pregnant, shouldn't women also have to suffer the consequences?


Men don't have to suffer the consequences. Just don't get women pregnant. You act like the door only swings open one way.


----------



## BWK

Avatar4321 said:


> BTW you are being completely dishonest by pretending we aren't talking about a child.


What child?


----------



## BWK

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "human being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed human being right? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Lakhota

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.


----------



## Chuz Life

Lakhota said:


> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.



This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.

Your red herring is herby dismissed.


----------



## BWK

Chuz Life said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
Click to expand...

 Who is they again?
*      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*


----------



## Chuz Life

BWK said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is they again?
> *      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*
Click to expand...


How fascists can you be?

A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood. Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one. 

Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.


----------



## BWK

Chuz Life said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is they again?
> *      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fascists can you be?
> 
> A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood.
Click to expand...

  And who is talking about a fully functioning brain? I'm talking about a fully developed brain? You know, the one that recognizes feelings and emotions?  





> Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.
> 
> Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.


 You aren't getting the argument I'm afraid. "Children in the womb"? According to who? The fetus becomes a child when?


----------



## deltex1

BWK said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "human being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed human being right? Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

A marathon begins with the first step off the starting line....


----------



## Chuz Life

BWK said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is they again?
> *      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*
Click to expand...


How fascists can you be?

A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood. Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one. 

Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.


----------



## Chuz Life

BWK said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is they again?
> *      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fascists can you be?
> 
> A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who is talking about a fully functioning brain? I'm talking about a fully developed brain? You know, the one that recognizes feelings and emotions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.
> 
> Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't getting the argument I'm afraid. "Children in the womb"? According to who? The fetus becomes a child when?
Click to expand...


I suggest you google the personhood status of children with underdeveloped brains (anencephalia]

While you are at it. You might google fetal HOMICIDE laws,  too.


----------



## MedfordMan

Chuz Life said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
Click to expand...


Sure you do. Great question.

I'm thinking legally, not morally.

Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother. 

Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.

That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.


----------



## MedfordMan

BWK said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> The woman. There exists no Biological evidence that an egg or a fetus is a developed human being capable of performing human born feelings or emotions because of the undeveloped neurological brain.
Click to expand...

 
The brain doesn't stop developing until the mid 20's should we allow the killing of children and young adults because they don't have fully developed brains.

What about people with developmental disabilities who are otherwise healthy, but due to circumstances beyond their control may not be able to have fully developed brains. Should we allow the killing of them at any time?

God forbid.


----------



## Chuz Life

MedfordMan said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. Great question.
> 
> I'm thinking legally, not morally.
> 
> Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> *That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line*, from a legal perspective.
Click to expand...




So according to you, the ability to live separately is (should be) the legal diving line for which human beings are persons and which ones are not? 

Let's be clear. 

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## beautress

Lakhota said:


>


Your Poster girl is a thorough idiot. I paid $4,500.00 per year to the 12-year-school system through property taxes for the privilege of footing the bill for my county's schoolchildren, some of whom live on a reservation, and all of whom are otherwise diverse in backgrounds of every niche in the world. It took me 25 years to understand why people were so adamant that abortions are wrong. When you're more mature, you understand why tomorrow's nation needs every child. Because the 58 million unborn Citizens were replaced by another culture that has people dependent on truly mind-and DNA-altering drugs and come here to continue to pay for the habit if not proliferate it through sales and contacts with lands in which bad drugs grow on crops. Laws of mercy.


----------



## MedfordMan

Chuz Life said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. Great question.
> 
> I'm thinking legally, not morally.
> 
> Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> *That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line*, from a legal perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, the ability to live separately is (should be) the legal diving line for which human beings are persons and which ones are not?
> 
> Let's be clear.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...


I am a born again Christian that believes that abortion, as the killing of unborn children, is morally wrong.

So according to God's law, viability is not an issue and abortion is sin. God will judge that sin at the great white throne of judgement.

However, we live in the world. A world in which God allows any of us to reject his will and choose to serve their own selfish will (and sin). It's not my job to judge (that's God's job) and I must not challenge God's sovereignty by trying to take away the ability for mankind to sin.

I see abortion in this light. I hate it and I grieve for the innocents killed, but God has allowed some to choose to sin by killing their unborn children.

I didn't come up with the viability standard, Harry  Blackmun came up with it in Roe vs Wade. It makes sense to me as a worldly (not a Godly) standard. Imagine the unintended consequences of granting legal standing to children, separate (independent) from their parents?

Because of the symbiotic relationship between mother and unborn child, I don't see how we force a woman to nurture a non viable unborn child, which could not survive outside her womb. Once the unborn child could survive outside the womb,  I would argue legally it has a right to be born.


----------



## MedfordMan

Lakhota said:


>


 
I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.

Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.

Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?


----------



## Natural Citizen

When a woman is pregnant, the doctor is taught that he or she is treating two patients.

I believe this answers the question. So, poll needs more options.


----------



## gtopa1

ScienceRocks said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be idiotic politics as we need birth control.
Click to expand...

Birth control is abortion? What about "no"?

Greg


----------



## Lakhota

MedfordMan said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.
> 
> Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.
> 
> Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?
Click to expand...


Yeah, choice is nice.


----------



## Conservative65

MedfordMan said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.
> 
> Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.
> 
> Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?
Click to expand...


The left believes you, I, and other taxpayers should be forced to support children we didn't produce.  Their argument can be summed up as the woman should have the choice but if she can't afford it, taxpayers that were told to butt out of what she did with her body should be forced to support the result.


----------



## Conservative65

Lakhota said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.
> 
> Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.
> 
> Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, choice is nice.
Click to expand...


Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?


----------



## Moonglow

Conservative65 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.
> 
> Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.
> 
> Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, choice is nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?
Click to expand...

Have you gone broke yet?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Chuz Life said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
Click to expand...


I'm going to say the left has totally abandoned "viability" as the fig leaf it always was, with the advent of state bills proposing abortion up to and even beyond delivery.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.



"We can't stop killing babies until you give us money!  You'll never be taken seriously by baby-killers you view with disgust anyway!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

MedfordMan said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. Great question.
> 
> I'm thinking legally, not morally.
> 
> Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.
Click to expand...


So what's your position on NY's new law?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


>



I think if you support abortion in any way, you're arrogantly deluded to think you have ANYTHING to say to me about morality, much less to think I'm going to listen to you and value your opinion.

At some point, you amoral leftist animals need to abandon the fantasy that people respect you or in any way look to you for approval.  YOU need to justify your existence to the rest of us, not hand down lofty pronouncements and condemnations and demand that we justify ourselves to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Natural Citizen said:


> When a woman is pregnant, the doctor is taught that he or she is treating two patients.
> 
> I believe this answers the question. So, poll needs more options.



Anyone who tells you that the law can't be expected to conform to scientific fact is completely out of his/her mind.


----------



## Conservative65

Moonglow said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.
> 
> Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.
> 
> Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, choice is nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you gone broke yet?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.


----------



## Lakhota

We must protect women from pro-birth fanatics!  Women come first.


----------



## Lakhota

Pregnant women have rights.  Choice is one of them.


----------



## keepitreal

Moonglow said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.
> 
> Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.
> 
> Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, choice is nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean you believe when a woman makes the choice to have a child she can't afford, those of us she told to butt out of the choice should be able to say no when she demands the government force us to support HER choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you gone broke yet?
Click to expand...




Moonglow said:


> Have you gone broke yet?


Seriously?

There is no such thing as free,
except to the one getting something for nothing 

The only reason people were forced to buy health insurance 
is because the government can not keep up paying for it

That’s why programs and funding get cut or eliminated 

Here in Chicago, the CPS bought every Catholic school
that closed its doors and added annexes to existing schools,
in addition to building multiple new schools...why?

To handle the influx of Hispanics in the city

That costs money

Where is this money coming from?
New taxes, service fees, property taxes and cuts

That’s what Trump should be talking about...
What immigrants are costing this country


----------



## Chuz Life

Lakhota said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with Sister Joan. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christian's should use the Government to meet our obligations to our brothers\sisters. According to the bible we are to take action individually where we see a need and collectively through our church family.
> 
> Like many Christians, my wife and I give to our church.
> 
> Like many Christians we know, my wife and I raised two children we didn't produce. Does that make us pro-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, choice is nice.
Click to expand...


Do you favor choice for all child molesters or only those who molest with abortions?


----------



## MedfordMan

Cecilie1200 said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. Great question.
> 
> I'm thinking legally, not morally.
> 
> Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's your position on NY's new law?
Click to expand...


Morally, it is offensive and wrong, under any standard of  human behavior, which is ironic as there are numerous threads on this forum where atheists and agnostics argue they are more moral than Christians.

Spiritually, it's clearly ungodly. It's not a unheard of situation to bible believing Christians or their ancestors as the Caananites sacrificed children to Moloch back in Jesus' day, so the Bible does weigh in on the issue of killing children.

Legally, it goes beyond Roe v. Wade and thus it is ripe for challenge. I don't such a law could survive a challenge based upon current legal precedent with the current court.

Ironically, the laws ability to withstand legal challenge is stronger if the precedent represented by Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Politically, it highlights the way those on the left lie to advance their agenda.

 During the recent hearing for  justice Brett Kavanaugh I kept reading how if the supreme court (with his help) overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion would once again be illegal in the US.

On a more than  likely basis,  Roe would be overturned on the basis that the constitution simply does not guarantee a woman's right  to end the life of an unborn  child. This will free each state to write it's own law. Since NY (and other states) already have abortion statutes, in place, abortions can continue there unabated regardless of Roe.

With Roe gone challenging abortions rights will get much more difficult as a Conservative leaning  court is unlikely to grant rights to children enabling them to challenge their parents.

Prophetically, it is a sign to me that the end times are at hand.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Cecilie1200

MedfordMan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. Great question.
> 
> I'm thinking legally, not morally.
> 
> Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's your position on NY's new law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morally, it is offensive and wrong, under any standard of  human behavior, which is ironic as there are numerous threads on this forum where atheists and agnostics argue they are more moral than Christians.
> 
> Spiritually, it's clearly ungodly. It's not a unheard of situation to bible believing Christians or their ancestors as the Caananites sacrificed children to Moloch back in Jesus' day, so the Bible does weigh in on the issue of killing children.
> 
> Legally, it goes beyond Roe v. Wade and thus it is ripe for challenge. I don't such a law could survive a challenge based upon current legal precedent with the current court.
> 
> Ironically, the laws ability to withstand legal challenge is stronger if the precedent represented by Roe v. Wade is overturned.
> 
> Politically, it highlights the way those on the left lie to advance their agenda.
> 
> During the recent hearing for  justice Brett Kavanaugh I kept reading how if the supreme court (with his help) overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion would once again be illegal in the US.
> 
> On a more than  likely basis,  Roe would be overturned on the basis that the constitution simply does not guarantee a woman's right  to end the life of an unborn  child. This will free each state to write it's own law. Since NY (and other states) already have abortion statutes, in place, abortions can continue there unabated regardless of Roe.
> 
> With Roe gone challenging abortions rights will get much more difficult as a Conservative leaning  court is unlikely to grant rights to children enabling them to challenge their parents.
> 
> Prophetically, it is a sign to me that the end times are at hand.
> 
> Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think so.  That was a very complete, thoughtful, and coherent response.  Thank you.


----------



## Lakhota

*Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*

Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple

Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.

*More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*

Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.


----------



## Lakhota

Dina Zirlott and her daughter, Zoe, in 2007.

*I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter*

I was raped when I was 17 years old. I had a baby when I was 18 years old. My baby died when I was 19 years old.

I cannot recall the color of the sky when I woke up the morning I was raped, or what I did in the hours leading up to the assault. I think of it in terms of _Before_ and _After,_ and I’m caught right in between the two.

_Warning: Details in this story could be triggering to some readers._

*More: I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter*

Heartbreaking story.  Yet another reason why women must have first priority.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> *Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
> 
> Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.
> 
> *More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.



Very telling that the left only likes Israel when they're aborting babies.

Other than that, I'm really not sure what your point is, other than, "Killing babies is goood!  Because . . . REASONS!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Dina Zirlott and her daughter, Zoe, in 2007.
> 
> *I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter*
> 
> I was raped when I was 17 years old. I had a baby when I was 18 years old. My baby died when I was 19 years old.
> 
> I cannot recall the color of the sky when I woke up the morning I was raped, or what I did in the hours leading up to the assault. I think of it in terms of _Before_ and _After,_ and I’m caught right in between the two.
> 
> _Warning: Details in this story could be triggering to some readers._
> 
> *More: I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter*
> 
> Heartbreaking story.  Yet another reason why women must have first priority.



Heartbreaking stupidity.  Yet another reason why glandular halfwits like you should not be taken seriously.  

Learn to think with the organ designed for that purpose, you embarassment to humanity.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Yet again, Lakhota has waved the leftist surrender flag.  Twice.  Duly noted.  Dismissed.


----------



## MedfordMan

Lakhota said:


> *Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
> 
> Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.
> 
> *More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.


 
Even though Israel is the homeland for Jews, the majority of Jews there are secular and do not actually practice Judaism.

This leads to some interesting contradictions. 

The Rabbis agree that abortion is prohibited by Jewish religious law. Still, since Israel is a democracy where most of the residents of don't practice Judaism, the lack of hue and cry over abortion rights is hardly surprising.


----------



## Lakhota

MedfordMan said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
> 
> Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.
> 
> *More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Israel is the homeland for Jews, the majority of Jews there are secular and do not actually practice Judaism.
> 
> This leads to some interesting contradictions.
> 
> The Rabbis agree that abortion is prohibited by Jewish religious law. Still, since Israel is a democracy where most of the residents of don't practice Judaism, the lack of hue and cry over abortion rights is hardly surprising.
Click to expand...


And your point is...?  American Christians worship Israel.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
> 
> Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.
> 
> *More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Israel is the homeland for Jews, the majority of Jews there are secular and do not actually practice Judaism.
> 
> This leads to some interesting contradictions.
> 
> The Rabbis agree that abortion is prohibited by Jewish religious law. Still, since Israel is a democracy where most of the residents of don't practice Judaism, the lack of hue and cry over abortion rights is hardly surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is...?  American Christians worship Israel.
Click to expand...


No, it just looks that way to anyone who rabidly hates Jews and anything related to them.


----------



## deanrd

Once the egg becomes fertilized then it is a fetus. And Republicans only care about the fetus. 

At least they pretend to care about the fetus. 

They don’t care about children so why should they care about a fetus?

What it is, is that it’s about power over women. Legislating their bodies. 

If they can get Americans to legislate women’s bodies, who knows what their next bit of evil is going to be?


----------



## Lakhota

Alabama is just the latest Republican attack on women's reproductive freedom and rights.

*Every Senate Vote For Alabama’s Abortion Ban Was From A White Man*

The Alabama state Senate just passed the country’s strictest abortion ban, which criminalizes nearly all abortions including in cases of rape and incest.

*THE PUNISHERS: AL. ABORTION BANNED BY 25 WHITE GUYS
*
Women have first priority!


----------



## BWK

Lakhota said:


> Alabama is just the latest Republican attack on women's reproductive freedom and rights.
> 
> *Every Senate Vote For Alabama’s Abortion Ban Was From A White Man*
> 
> The Alabama state Senate just passed the country’s strictest abortion ban, which criminalizes nearly all abortions including in cases of rape and incest.
> 
> *THE PUNISHERS: AL. ABORTION BANNED BY 25 WHITE GUYS
> *
> Women have first priority!


Alabama never got out of the nineteenth century.


----------



## BWK

Lakhota said:


> Alabama is just the latest Republican attack on women's reproductive freedom and rights.
> 
> *Every Senate Vote For Alabama’s Abortion Ban Was From A White Man*
> 
> The Alabama state Senate just passed the country’s strictest abortion ban, which criminalizes nearly all abortions including in cases of rape and incest.
> 
> *THE PUNISHERS: AL. ABORTION BANNED BY 25 WHITE GUYS
> *
> Women have first priority!


They have to have that power over women. They aren't pro-life, they are pro -power over women. If they truly cared about life, they wouldn't jeopardize a woman's health this way. They are nothing but liars high on  a power trip. Truly demonic, disgusting people.


----------



## BWK

deanrd said:


> Once the egg becomes fertilized then it is a fetus. And Republicans only care about the fetus.
> 
> At least they pretend to care about the fetus.
> 
> They don’t care about children so why should they care about a fetus?
> 
> What it is, is that it’s about power over women. Legislating their bodies.
> 
> If they can get Americans to legislate women’s bodies, who knows what their next bit of evil is going to be?


Power over brown and black people are next. They've already tried to silence their vote. They are going back, and everyone else wants to see sunshine through what's right by moving forward. Truly disgusting people.


----------



## BWK

Natural Citizen said:


> When a woman is pregnant, the doctor is taught that he or she is treating two patients.
> 
> I believe this answers the question. So, poll needs more options.


What do you think it answers?


----------



## SweetSue92

Lakhota said:


> Alabama is just the latest Republican attack on women's reproductive freedom and rights.
> 
> *Every Senate Vote For Alabama’s Abortion Ban Was From A White Man*
> 
> The Alabama state Senate just passed the country’s strictest abortion ban, which criminalizes nearly all abortions including in cases of rape and incest.
> 
> *THE PUNISHERS: AL. ABORTION BANNED BY 25 WHITE GUYS
> *
> Women have first priority!



What does being a WHITE man have anything to do with it? 

Explain that to me


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alabama is just the latest Republican attack on women's reproductive freedom and rights.
> 
> *Every Senate Vote For Alabama’s Abortion Ban Was From A White Man*
> 
> The Alabama state Senate just passed the country’s strictest abortion ban, which criminalizes nearly all abortions including in cases of rape and incest.
> 
> *THE PUNISHERS: AL. ABORTION BANNED BY 25 WHITE GUYS
> *
> Women have first priority!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does being a WHITE man have anything to do with it?
> 
> Explain that to me
Click to expand...




Me, me, me!  I can explain it!

It means La-Cooter is racist as well as being apparently transphobic.  Note the way she ALSO talks as though male and female are objective, absolute terms that indicate there's some sort of real, immutable difference between the two.

Shocking and offensive, isn't it?


----------



## Natural Citizen

BWK said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman is pregnant, the doctor is taught that he or she is treating two patients. I believe this answers the question. So, poll needs more options.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think it answers?
Click to expand...

How many patients there are. Two. As I said.


----------



## BWK

Natural Citizen said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman is pregnant, the doctor is taught that he or she is treating two patients. I believe this answers the question. So, poll needs more options.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think it answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many patients there are. Two. As I said.
Click to expand...

What if the woman decides it is one?


----------



## BWK

Chuz Life said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is they again?
> *      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fascists can you be?
> 
> A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood. Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.
> 
> Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lakhota

*THE BATTLE FOR ROE IS HERE*

ACLU Gears Up To Fight Alabama’s Near-Total Ban On Abortion

Women first!


----------



## Lakhota

If men want to control women's reproductive rights - then women should be able to control men's reproductive rights.


----------



## Lakhota

*Alabama’s Abortion Bill Is Great News For White Supremacists*

The strict abortion bill that passed the Ala. Senate represents a victory in their effort to propagate the “white race.”

I agree!


----------



## BWK

Chuz Life said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is they again?
> *      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How fascists can you be?
> 
> A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to who? You? And you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what are we debating then? It's up in the air for anyone to decide right? So who are you to decide? Exactly, nobody! So let the woman carrying the fetus decide what she wants for her body. These pro-lifers come on here and make the most ridiculous, factless, claims about abortion, and haven't a clue of what they are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Children in the womb"? There's a fully developed child in there?
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> If men want to control women's reproductive rights - then women should be able to control men's reproductive rights.



There you go with the cisnormative, transphobic hate speech again.


----------



## BWK

Chuz Life said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children -  AFTER THEY ARE BORN.  They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods.  Pregnant women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.
> 
> Your red herring is herby dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is they again?
> *      Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fascists can you be?
> 
> A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who is talking about a fully functioning brain? I'm talking about a fully developed brain? You know, the one that recognizes feelings and emotions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.
> 
> Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't getting the argument I'm afraid. "Children in the womb"? According to who? The fetus becomes a child when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you google the personhood status of children with underdeveloped brains (anencephalia]
> 
> While you are at it. You might google fetal HOMICIDE laws,  too.
Click to expand...

I've read that and many articles beyond that one. And? What is your point? Call it human, a child, whatever your philosophical mind tells you to call it. But in science, the brain, in whatever you want to call it, has not developed to prove the fetus is experiencing something that humans/persons/children who are actually born, experience. That said, you can label the fetus any way you like, and the science continues to tell us that an undeveloped brain in a developing fetus doesn't go through the same after birth experiences most of us feel. And that scientific fact has not been rebutted. Until it does, all you have are your own philosophical/religious views.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Alabama is just the latest Republican attack on women's reproductive freedom and rights.
> 
> *Every Senate Vote For Alabama’s Abortion Ban Was From A White Man*
> 
> The Alabama state Senate just passed the country’s strictest abortion ban, which criminalizes nearly all abortions including in cases of rape and incest.
> 
> *THE PUNISHERS: AL. ABORTION BANNED BY 25 WHITE GUYS
> *
> Women have first priority!




Let me fix you post....

This bill outlaws the murder of babies, even if the baby is created in an act of rape or incest...which means it is innocent of any wrong doing, and is now protected from the death penalty due to the crimes of the man....


----------



## BWK

MedfordMan said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.
> 
> However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.
> 
> Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral,  the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.
> 
> However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn  child to have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do. Great question.
> 
> I'm thinking legally, not morally.
> 
> Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.
> 
> *That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line*, from a legal perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you, the ability to live separately is (should be) the legal diving line for which human beings are persons and which ones are not?
> 
> Let's be clear.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a born again Christian that believes that abortion, as the killing of unborn children, is morally wrong.
> 
> So according to God's law, viability is not an issue and abortion is sin. God will judge that sin at the great white throne of judgement.
> 
> However, we live in the world. A world in which God allows any of us to reject his will and choose to serve their own selfish will (and sin). It's not my job to judge (that's God's job) and I must not challenge God's sovereignty by trying to take away the ability for mankind to sin.
> 
> I see abortion in this light. I hate it and I grieve for the innocents killed, but God has allowed some to choose to sin by killing their unborn children.
> 
> I didn't come up with the viability standard, Harry  Blackmun came up with it in Roe vs Wade. It makes sense to me as a worldly (not a Godly) standard. Imagine the unintended consequences of granting legal standing to children, separate (independent) from their parents?
> 
> Because of the symbiotic relationship between mother and unborn child, I don't see how we force a woman to nurture a non viable unborn child, which could not survive outside her womb. Once the unborn child could survive outside the womb,  I would argue legally it has a right to be born.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute here chief. You said that God's law, that God made, was that abortion was a sin, yet "God allowed some to choose to sin by killing their unborn children?" Huh? You just admitted that God was talking out of both sides of God's mouth. Boss, when a God like that talks out of mouth sides of he, she, its, mouth, I think it's past time you need to be looking for another God.


----------



## Natural Citizen

BWK said:


> What if the woman decides it is one?



The obstetrician is still treating two patients irrelevant of whether one patient chooses to kill the other patient.


----------



## BWK

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alabama is just the latest Republican attack on women's reproductive freedom and rights.
> 
> *Every Senate Vote For Alabama’s Abortion Ban Was From A White Man*
> 
> The Alabama state Senate just passed the country’s strictest abortion ban, which criminalizes nearly all abortions including in cases of rape and incest.
> 
> *THE PUNISHERS: AL. ABORTION BANNED BY 25 WHITE GUYS
> *
> Women have first priority!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me fix you post....
> 
> This bill outlaws the murder of babies, even if the baby is created in an act of rape or incest...which means it is innocent of any wrong doing, and is now protected from the death penalty due to the crimes of the man....
Click to expand...

If it isn't a fully developed human being with a fully developed brain, scientifically, how is it murder?


----------



## BWK

Natural Citizen said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the woman decides it is one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obstetrician is still treating two patients irrelevant of whether one patient chooses to kill the other patient.
Click to expand...

So, the doctor is calling it a patient, while science is calling it a fetus that does not have all the development organs to call it a fully developed human being, with a fully developed brain. And that's on the doctor, not the actual patient who has already been born, with a developed brain who responds to stimulus. That is the patient that counts as it pertains to Biological science. Get it? 

In other words, you are making a case for a so called patient that is undeveloped, is not conscious, and does not respond to  stimuli based on the fetus/patients undeveloped brain,  and give it priority over the patient that does. That's about as dumb and insensitive of a case that you could possibly come up with. I mean, you are trying to take away 100%, the actual born patients rights to protect that born patient, over the undeveloped one that feels nothing. Boss, that is total insanity.


----------



## Desperado

Lakhota said:


> If men want to control women's reproductive rights - then women should be able to control men's reproductive rights.


They do when they say no


----------



## Lakhota

Abortions should remain legal, safe - and accessible for women!  Like V-iagra, penis pumps and other erectile dysfunction devices and medications for men.  What if women controlled what men have access to?


----------



## sparky

Lakhota said:


> What if women controlled what men have access to?



well i'd probably be dull & listless ....which the dog might appreciate

~S~


----------



## BWK

Lakhota said:


> Abortions should remain legal, safe - and accessible for women!  Like V-iagra, penis pumps and other erectile dysfunction devices and medications for men.  What if women controlled what men have access to?


They don't want to hear about that.


----------



## Lakhota

*In Economic Terms, Alabama Was Already A Terrible Place For Women*

The extreme abortion bill that passed the state Senate on Tuesday is just the latest troubling development.

*THE WORST PLACE IN AMERICA TO BE A WOMAN*

Alabama must be very proud to be the worst place in America for women.


----------



## Lakhota

The Alabama governor has now signed the horrendous and unconscionable abortion bill. Unbelievable!


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the woman decides it is one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obstetrician is still treating two patients irrelevant of whether one patient chooses to kill the other patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the doctor is calling it a patient, while science is calling it a fetus that does not have all the development organs to call it a fully developed human being, with a fully developed brain. And that's on the doctor, not the actual patient who has already been born, with a developed brain who responds to stimulus. That is the patient that counts as it pertains to Biological science. Get it?
> 
> In other words, you are making a case for a so called patient that is undeveloped, is not conscious, and does not respond to  stimuli based on the fetus/patients undeveloped brain,  and give it priority over the patient that does. That's about as dumb and insensitive of a case that you could possibly come up with. I mean, you are trying to take away 100%, the actual born patients rights to protect that born patient, over the undeveloped one that feels nothing. Boss, that is total insanity.
Click to expand...


If you think you have science on your side you are flatly wrong.   Scientifically, the preborn baby is a human being, whether you like it or not.... it’s simply in a different stage of life.  Yes the preborn is still developing, but so is a newborn, and a child, and a teenager.    We are human beings from the moment we come into existence until the moment we die. You’ve just believed the lies promoted by those who  are making a lot of money in the business of killing.


----------



## Lakhota

If men could get pregnant - abortions would be legal at Walmart.


----------



## Mr Natural

Lakhota said:


> If men could get pregnant - abortions would be legal at Walmart.



It’d be like getting a haircut.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
> 
> Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.
> 
> *More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Israel is the homeland for Jews, the majority of Jews there are secular and do not actually practice Judaism.
> 
> This leads to some interesting contradictions.
> 
> The Rabbis agree that abortion is prohibited by Jewish religious law. Still, since Israel is a democracy where most of the residents of don't practice Judaism, the lack of hue and cry over abortion rights is hardly surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is...?  American Christians worship Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it just looks that way to anyone who rabidly hates Jews and anything related to them.
Click to expand...


Gawd you're stupid


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Lakhota said:


> If men could get pregnant - abortions would be legal at Walmart.



I'm surprised you idiot loons are not all for that...oh wait.

Don't breed LaCooCoo.....society can't support another one as stupid as you are


----------



## Lakhota

*






It’s Official: Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey Signs Nation’s Strictest Abortion Bill*

Unbelievable!


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the woman decides it is one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obstetrician is still treating two patients irrelevant of whether one patient chooses to kill the other patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the doctor is calling it a patient, while science is calling it a fetus that does not have all the development organs to call it a fully developed human being, with a fully developed brain. And that's on the doctor, not the actual patient who has already been born, with a developed brain who responds to stimulus. That is the patient that counts as it pertains to Biological science. Get it?
> 
> In other words, you are making a case for a so called patient that is undeveloped, is not conscious, and does not respond to  stimuli based on the fetus/patients undeveloped brain,  and give it priority over the patient that does. That's about as dumb and insensitive of a case that you could possibly come up with. I mean, you are trying to take away 100%, the actual born patients rights to protect that born patient, over the undeveloped one that feels nothing. Boss, that is total insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think you have science on your side you are flatly wrong.   Scientifically, the preborn baby is a human being, whether you like it or not.... it’s simply in a different stage of life.  Yes the preborn is still developing, but so is a newborn, and a child, and a teenager.    We are human beings from the moment we come into existence until the moment we die. You’ve just believed the lies promoted by those who  are making a lot of money in the business of killing.
Click to expand...

You are speaking directly to emotions and feelings. You aren't arguing your case through the lens of scientific analysis or logical reasoning. Being a human being, is not being a fully developed human being in the womb. Scientifically, it is a developing fetus with no developed brain, and the only risk taker is the female carrying that fetus. Whether you like it or not. 

And other "human beings making a lot of money in the business of killing"? Really? Explain that logically from a scientific approach how it is killing a fully developed human being? Otherwise, I have no idea what it is they are killing? 

Let's ask it like this; was the chicken killed in the egg, or was the yoke from the chicken egg killed before you bought it? Or maybe it was never killed at all? Maybe it was just prevented from developing, by putting it at a temperature that stopped development, seeing that it was never a fully developed chicken? 

Biologically speaking, it is very easy to understand, that to stop a developing fetus, isn't much different than stopping a developing yoke turn into a chicken. Did either one have the developed brain to know the difference? Biologically speaking, science says no. So, you will need to clarify this "killing" claim of yours.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> If men could get pregnant - abortions would be legal at Walmart.



May I direct you to this?

Progressive Gender Theory:  Just Wanted To Share This

_But if you don't have a uterus then you shouldn't be giving your opinion on women's rights. No uterus, no opinion. That's the motto. We're tired of men making decisions about women's bodies.

But there is no such thing as a woman's body. Transwomen are women, too. A transwoman is just a much a woman as any other woman. There is absolutely no difference between the two and to suggest otherwise is the height of bigotry.

But anti-abortion laws are sexist because they specifically target women, who are the ones having babies. If men could have babies, abortion would be completely legal everywhere.

But men can have babies. And women can be fathers. And fathers can be mothers. And mothers can be men. And men can be women. And women can be men who are mothers. _

So are you now, definitively, telling us that there's an inherent difference between men and women?  And are you at all concerned that your fellow leftists will string you up for such subversive, cisnormative, transphobic language?


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
> 
> Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.
> 
> *More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Israel is the homeland for Jews, the majority of Jews there are secular and do not actually practice Judaism.
> 
> This leads to some interesting contradictions.
> 
> The Rabbis agree that abortion is prohibited by Jewish religious law. Still, since Israel is a democracy where most of the residents of don't practice Judaism, the lack of hue and cry over abortion rights is hardly surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is...?  American Christians worship Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it just looks that way to anyone who rabidly hates Jews and anything related to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd you're stupid
Click to expand...


Pardon me?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Despite its conservative leanings, government approves free pregnancy termination for nearly all women, and it barely causes a ripple
> 
> Israel, a nation with a forceful religious lobby and a conservative prime minister, is poised to offer its female citizens some of the most liberal abortion coverage in the world.
> 
> *More: Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal*
> 
> Israel seems to be leading the world on abortion.  Great for women's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Israel is the homeland for Jews, the majority of Jews there are secular and do not actually practice Judaism.
> 
> This leads to some interesting contradictions.
> 
> The Rabbis agree that abortion is prohibited by Jewish religious law. Still, since Israel is a democracy where most of the residents of don't practice Judaism, the lack of hue and cry over abortion rights is hardly surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is...?  American Christians worship Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it just looks that way to anyone who rabidly hates Jews and anything related to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pardon me?
Click to expand...


I was talking to that loon Squawking Chicken


----------



## Mr Natural

Lakhota said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s Official: Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey Signs Nation’s Strictest Abortion Bill*
> 
> Unbelievable!



Is Alabama now in contention with Mississippi for being the most backward state in the country?


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Israel is the homeland for Jews, the majority of Jews there are secular and do not actually practice Judaism.
> 
> This leads to some interesting contradictions.
> 
> The Rabbis agree that abortion is prohibited by Jewish religious law. Still, since Israel is a democracy where most of the residents of don't practice Judaism, the lack of hue and cry over abortion rights is hardly surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is...?  American Christians worship Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it just looks that way to anyone who rabidly hates Jews and anything related to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pardon me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking to that loon Squawking Chicken
Click to expand...


Ah.  Carry on.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr Clean said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s Official: Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey Signs Nation’s Strictest Abortion Bill*
> 
> Unbelievable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Alabama now in contention with Mississippi for being the most backward state in the country?
Click to expand...


Is anyone looking for you to judge the competition?  You're the resident expert on being backward.


----------



## DJT for Life

To answer your original question.

What should come first is the answer to this question.  "When does Life Begin/"

Don't believe the Supreme Court has ever established that.

Once life begins...Due Process begins.

I believe that's why all these states are going to Heartbeat Laws.  They are going to force SCOTUS to
rule on that.

Ruling that life begins with a Heartbeat wouldn't automatically prevent a woman from getting an abortion,
but she couldn't just show up at a clinic, she would first have to go to court and the State would have to
provide an attorney to speak on behalf of the unborn citizen.


----------



## Likkmee

That all depends what you're involved in the conflict over.
If it goes on film the cumshot fills the bank,.


----------



## Andylusion

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



Case by case basis.  I'd have to know the circumstances in each individual case.  

Saying normal....

Implies that there is no danger to the mother, nor to the infant.

In which case, there is no 'priority'.

In any other case, you would not put a priority on one person over another, would you?  You would never say "Ok this guys life, is a priority over that girls life".     Right?  You would never do that.

So you have two lives.  The life of the mother, and the life of the baby.  Why would I prioritize one life over another in a "normal" situation, where no one's life is in danger?

Now in times gone past, the moral values of the culture, would prioritize other's over oneself.    So in a moral society, a mother would instinctively prioritize the life of the baby, over herself.

Even a chicken will cover their young to protect them from a fire, killing the hen, to protect the chicks. 

However, in our society, we kill our young, even when their is no danger at all to the mother.

Obviously this is a terrible moral crash.


----------



## NoVote

This is a faulty poll. In most circumstances, I would say the fetus. But when is it a fetus? 1 day, 6 weeks, heart beat? Any time up to a detectable heartbeat, it's a blob and up to the mother, ater the heart beats, it's a person.

The question of rape or incest is just plain bogus. If raped, the hospital will do a D&C and scrape it out, or give a pill. In the case of incest, virtually anyone can get a pill to end it.

To get an abortion cause the woman did nothing is just too bad, live with it.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the woman decides it is one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obstetrician is still treating two patients irrelevant of whether one patient chooses to kill the other patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the doctor is calling it a patient, while science is calling it a fetus that does not have all the development organs to call it a fully developed human being, with a fully developed brain. And that's on the doctor, not the actual patient who has already been born, with a developed brain who responds to stimulus. That is the patient that counts as it pertains to Biological science. Get it?
> 
> In other words, you are making a case for a so called patient that is undeveloped, is not conscious, and does not respond to  stimuli based on the fetus/patients undeveloped brain,  and give it priority over the patient that does. That's about as dumb and insensitive of a case that you could possibly come up with. I mean, you are trying to take away 100%, the actual born patients rights to protect that born patient, over the undeveloped one that feels nothing. Boss, that is total insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think you have science on your side you are flatly wrong.   Scientifically, the preborn baby is a human being, whether you like it or not.... it’s simply in a different stage of life.  Yes the preborn is still developing, but so is a newborn, and a child, and a teenager.    We are human beings from the moment we come into existence until the moment we die. You’ve just believed the lies promoted by those who  are making a lot of money in the business of killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are speaking directly to emotions and feelings. You aren't arguing your case through the lens of scientific analysis or logical reasoning. Being a human being, is not being a fully developed human being in the womb. Scientifically, it is a developing fetus with no developed brain, and the only risk taker is the female carrying that fetus. Whether you like it or not.
> 
> And other "human beings making a lot of money in the business of killing"? Really? Explain that logically from a scientific approach how it is killing a fully developed human being? Otherwise, I have no idea what it is they are killing?
> 
> Let's ask it like this; was the chicken killed in the egg, or was the yoke from the chicken egg killed before you bought it? Or maybe it was never killed at all? Maybe it was just prevented from developing, by putting it at a temperature that stopped development, seeing that it was never a fully developed chicken?
> 
> Biologically speaking, it is very easy to understand, that to stop a developing fetus, isn't much different than stopping a developing yoke turn into a chicken. Did either one have the developed brain to know the difference? Biologically speaking, science says no. So, you will need to clarify this "killing" claim of yours.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but from a scientific standpoint, the preborn is a human being, a member of the human species, that has nothing to do with emotion, it's a undeniable scientific fact.  Here are a few quotes for you:


“….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”

From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”

*********

“The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)

*********


“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”

*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”

*********

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

*********

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the woman decides it is one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obstetrician is still treating two patients irrelevant of whether one patient chooses to kill the other patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the doctor is calling it a patient, while science is calling it a fetus that does not have all the development organs to call it a fully developed human being, with a fully developed brain. And that's on the doctor, not the actual patient who has already been born, with a developed brain who responds to stimulus. That is the patient that counts as it pertains to Biological science. Get it?
> 
> In other words, you are making a case for a so called patient that is undeveloped, is not conscious, and does not respond to  stimuli based on the fetus/patients undeveloped brain,  and give it priority over the patient that does. That's about as dumb and insensitive of a case that you could possibly come up with. I mean, you are trying to take away 100%, the actual born patients rights to protect that born patient, over the undeveloped one that feels nothing. Boss, that is total insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think you have science on your side you are flatly wrong.   Scientifically, the preborn baby is a human being, whether you like it or not.... it’s simply in a different stage of life.  Yes the preborn is still developing, but so is a newborn, and a child, and a teenager.    We are human beings from the moment we come into existence until the moment we die. You’ve just believed the lies promoted by those who  are making a lot of money in the business of killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are speaking directly to emotions and feelings. You aren't arguing your case through the lens of scientific analysis or logical reasoning. Being a human being, is not being a fully developed human being in the womb. Scientifically, it is a developing fetus with no developed brain, and the only risk taker is the female carrying that fetus. Whether you like it or not.
> 
> And other "human beings making a lot of money in the business of killing"? Really? Explain that logically from a scientific approach how it is killing a fully developed human being? Otherwise, I have no idea what it is they are killing?
> 
> Let's ask it like this; was the chicken killed in the egg, or was the yoke from the chicken egg killed before you bought it? Or maybe it was never killed at all? Maybe it was just prevented from developing, by putting it at a temperature that stopped development, seeing that it was never a fully developed chicken?
> 
> Biologically speaking, it is very easy to understand, that to stop a developing fetus, isn't much different than stopping a developing yoke turn into a chicken. Did either one have the developed brain to know the difference? Biologically speaking, science says no. So, you will need to clarify this "killing" claim of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but from a scientific standpoint, the preborn is a human being, a member of the human species, that has nothing to do with emotion, it's a undeniable scientific fact.  Here are a few quotes for you:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
Click to expand...

Sorry, but a fully developed human being is a scientific impossibility at conception. There exists no fully developed human being at conception. That is a scientific fact.

Also, in some of these publications, they talk about the initiation of life. Yet, no human on this planet has ever definitively defined life, other than to use their own religious or philosophical views about the subject. Wikipedia cannot define life. Meaning of life - Wikipedia   So, how can you or anyone else define it, when in the womb? Answer, you can't. You insist on making the claim to fit what your emotions tell you to believe. But the science still tells us that a fetus at conception, is not a fully developed human being, and we know that fetus is not experiencing life as we know it until after birth. Again, there exists no publication telling us this.

Your articles mention the determination of the sex, and the developing human being after fertilization and the zygote is the beginning of a human being.  AND? What about it? Those things have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a mothers decision and right as a born human being with a functioning brain to determine what is best for her and her own body. The rest of this pro-life talk is just bs.


----------



## Lakhota

*Even Pat Robertson Says Alabama’s Abortion Bill Is Too Extreme*

Wow, even too crazy for Pat Robertson.


----------



## BWK

Lakhota said:


> *Even Pat Robertson Says Alabama’s Abortion Bill Is Too Extreme*
> 
> Wow, even too crazy for Pat Robertson.


These folks are crazy as hell.


----------



## bodecea

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


Ask CRCs....if they were to answer honestly.... ...it would probably be "the sperm".


----------



## bodecea

Avatar4321 said:


> The innocent life created by no fault of itself.


Would you say that life was just as innocent after birth?


----------



## Lakhota

*Why?*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> *Why?*


Lol, says people who think they know what is or isn't a human being. What gall you have lecturing anyone on science.


----------



## I c h i g o

I am Pro-Life for a reason. Because I was adopted. My biological mother could have easily given me up. She could have easily aborted me, and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the life I have now. I wouldn't be able to understand the many complexities to life. I wouldn't be able to learn what it takes "not to take your life for granted". I wouldn't be able to do all those things and more.
Therefore, I cherish my life - since it is the only one I have.
I feel for those who don't have that "choice". Those are the little ones. They are the ones who don't have a voice. They are the ones - whose mom already made the choice for them. For whatever reason - justified or not - they don't have a choice. It has already been made up for them. As if their mom already "spoke for them".

And, that's a shame.

Personally, I have considered adopting a young and beautiful child. Because she/he deserves a life. Because she/he deserves to dream big. And be whoever she/he wants.

Those who are aborted - don't have that choice. It has already been made up for them.


----------



## Billy000

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


Oh gee what a convenient point of view from someone that we are supposed to believe would honor a 9 month pregnancy after getting laid. If it were physically possible for you to be pregnant, your dumbass would whine about your personal freedom above any fetus.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

History shows that amoral cultures always self destruct


----------



## Lakhota

I c h i g o said:


> I am Pro-Life for a reason. Because I was adopted. My biological mother could have easily given me up. She could have easily aborted me, and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the life I have now. I wouldn't be able to understand the many complexities to life. I wouldn't be able to learn what it takes "not to take your life for granted". I wouldn't be able to do all those things and more.
> Therefore, I cherish my life - since it is the only one I have.
> I feel for those who don't have that "choice". Those are the little ones. They are the ones who don't have a voice. They are the ones - whose mom already made the choice for them. For whatever reason - justified or not - they don't have a choice. It has already been made up for them. As if their mom already "spoke for them".
> 
> And, that's a shame.
> 
> Personally, I have considered adopting a young and beautiful child. Because she/he deserves a life. Because she/he deserves to dream big. And be whoever she/he wants.
> 
> Those who are aborted - don't have that choice. It has already been made up for them.



It's interesting that you never once mention anything about the mental/physical/financial welfare of women seeking abortions.  Women come first.  It's their choice.  It's their right.  Women are more than birthing pods.


----------



## I c h i g o

Lakhota said:


> It's interesting that you never once mention the mental/physical/financial condition of women seeking abortions. Women come first. It's their choice. It's their right.



That is 61 million choices being made since Roe vs Wade.


----------



## Lakhota

I c h i g o said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you never once mention the mental/physical/financial condition of women seeking abortions. Women come first. It's their choice. It's their right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is 61 million choices being made since Roe vs Wade.
> View attachment 261113
Click to expand...


So what?


----------



## deanrd

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


 Shame on you. You left out needy billionaires. Needy billionaires are always going to be the Republicans first priority.


----------



## Redfish

this is not, and has never been about "women's rights"  or "reproductive rights".  Its about the rights of an unborn human being.  The issue is when does a conceived human become human.   Right to life people believe its at conception or when the heart starts beating,   pro-choice people believe at the instant or birth, or whenever the mother decides to let the child live, sometimes even after birth.

I think the Alabama law will force the issue to the SCOTUS, the question then becomes whether they will have the balls to take it on and make a decision.  

Or, we could have a national referendum,  true democracy, let the majority view prevail.  Any takers?


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you never once mention the mental/physical/financial condition of women seeking abortions. Women come first. It's their choice. It's their right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is 61 million choices being made since Roe vs Wade.
> View attachment 261113
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...

  aren't you glad you weren't one of those "choices"?


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am Pro-Life for a reason. Because I was adopted. My biological mother could have easily given me up. She could have easily aborted me, and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the life I have now. I wouldn't be able to understand the many complexities to life. I wouldn't be able to learn what it takes "not to take your life for granted". I wouldn't be able to do all those things and more.
> Therefore, I cherish my life - since it is the only one I have.
> I feel for those who don't have that "choice". Those are the little ones. They are the ones who don't have a voice. They are the ones - whose mom already made the choice for them. For whatever reason - justified or not - they don't have a choice. It has already been made up for them. As if their mom already "spoke for them".
> 
> And, that's a shame.
> 
> Personally, I have considered adopting a young and beautiful child. Because she/he deserves a life. Because she/he deserves to dream big. And be whoever she/he wants.
> 
> Those who are aborted - don't have that choice. It has already been made up for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you never once mention anything about the mental/physical/financial welfare of women seeking abortions.  Women come first.  It's their choice.  It's their right.  Women are more than birthing pods.
Click to expand...



can you quote the language in the constitution that makes abortion a right?   

its easy to prevent pregnancy with today's methods.   If you dont want a kid dont screw without protection, its really quite simple.


----------



## Redfish

deanrd said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on you. You left out needy billionaires. Needy billionaires are always going to be the Republicans first priority.
Click to expand...



like the clintons. Kerry, Gates, Zuckerburg, DeBlazio, Whoopi, Oprah, Soros?   those needy billionaires?

to claim that only republicans favor rich people is totally ignorant of reality.  ALL politicians favor rich people, because they are the people that keep them in power and make them rich too.

stop being so fricken naive.


----------



## BS Filter

deanrd said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on you. You left out needy billionaires. Needy billionaires are always going to be the Republicans first priority.
Click to expand...

There are more millionaire democrats in congress than republicans.  Idiot.


----------



## Blues Man

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


I think the order of priority is not constant throughout gestation.

At some point in the womb that fetus is a baby and at that point efforts should be made to protect both the baby and mother with equal vigor.


----------



## EGR one

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obstetrician is still treating two patients irrelevant of whether one patient chooses to kill the other patient.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the doctor is calling it a patient, while science is calling it a fetus that does not have all the development organs to call it a fully developed human being, with a fully developed brain. And that's on the doctor, not the actual patient who has already been born, with a developed brain who responds to stimulus. That is the patient that counts as it pertains to Biological science. Get it?
> 
> In other words, you are making a case for a so called patient that is undeveloped, is not conscious, and does not respond to  stimuli based on the fetus/patients undeveloped brain,  and give it priority over the patient that does. That's about as dumb and insensitive of a case that you could possibly come up with. I mean, you are trying to take away 100%, the actual born patients rights to protect that born patient, over the undeveloped one that feels nothing. Boss, that is total insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think you have science on your side you are flatly wrong.   Scientifically, the preborn baby is a human being, whether you like it or not.... it’s simply in a different stage of life.  Yes the preborn is still developing, but so is a newborn, and a child, and a teenager.    We are human beings from the moment we come into existence until the moment we die. You’ve just believed the lies promoted by those who  are making a lot of money in the business of killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are speaking directly to emotions and feelings. You aren't arguing your case through the lens of scientific analysis or logical reasoning. Being a human being, is not being a fully developed human being in the womb. Scientifically, it is a developing fetus with no developed brain, and the only risk taker is the female carrying that fetus. Whether you like it or not.
> 
> And other "human beings making a lot of money in the business of killing"? Really? Explain that logically from a scientific approach how it is killing a fully developed human being? Otherwise, I have no idea what it is they are killing?
> 
> Let's ask it like this; was the chicken killed in the egg, or was the yoke from the chicken egg killed before you bought it? Or maybe it was never killed at all? Maybe it was just prevented from developing, by putting it at a temperature that stopped development, seeing that it was never a fully developed chicken?
> 
> Biologically speaking, it is very easy to understand, that to stop a developing fetus, isn't much different than stopping a developing yoke turn into a chicken. Did either one have the developed brain to know the difference? Biologically speaking, science says no. So, you will need to clarify this "killing" claim of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but from a scientific standpoint, the preborn is a human being, a member of the human species, that has nothing to do with emotion, it's a undeniable scientific fact.  Here are a few quotes for you:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but a fully developed human being is a scientific impossibility at conception. There exists no fully developed human being at conception. That is a scientific fact.
> 
> Also, in some of these publications, they talk about the initiation of life. Yet, no human on this planet has ever definitively defined life, other than to use their own religious or philosophical views about the subject. Wikipedia cannot define life. Meaning of life - Wikipedia   So, how can you or anyone else define it, when in the womb? Answer, you can't. You insist on making the claim to fit what your emotions tell you to believe. But the science still tells us that a fetus at conception, is not a fully developed human being, and we know that fetus is not experiencing life as we know it until after birth. Again, there exists no publication telling us this.
> 
> Your articles mention the determination of the sex, and the developing human being after fertilization and the zygote is the beginning of a human being.  AND? What about it? Those things have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a mothers decision and right as a born human being with a functioning brain to determine what is best for her and her own body. The rest of this pro-life talk is just bs.
Click to expand...


An infant is not a fully developed human being.  A toddler is not a fully developed human being, a teen is not a fully developed human being, but they are all human beings.  Human life begins at conception, as the human DNA begins to develop a human being.

What is the scientific difference between a baby one day prior to birth and the same baby one day after birth?  The latter is protected by the Constitution, and the former is not.


----------



## I c h i g o

Redfish said:


> can you quote the language in the constitution that makes abortion a right?



 Landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. *Constitution* provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an *abortion*.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> *Even Pat Robertson Says Alabama’s Abortion Bill Is Too Extreme*
> 
> Wow, even too crazy for Pat Robertson.



Amazing how someone can go from "Who gives a fuck what he says" to "Wow, he's saying this, so it must be true" just by virtue of whether or not he's agreeing with you, La-Cooter.

I'm sure Pat Robertson will be thrilled to hear he's your new hero.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> *Why?*



Why is it that leftists respond with memes about things conservatives have never said to avoid having to make a real argument?

Why?


----------



## McRocket

- O-12 weeks (before brain activity) - the mother
- 12 weeks to just before the child can survive without the mother - the mother if her life is in danger OR the child if the mothers life is not in danger (assuming no major birth defects are present).
- after the child can survive without the mother - the child...even if the mother's life is in danger.

I for one believe a child's life is more important then an adult's - in ALL cases (assuming the child does not have some horrible birth defect). And if either the child OR the mother can survive (but not both) - I believe the child's life is the one that should be saved (though how you would enforce such a law is beyond me as it could be a nightmare).

If my woman carried our baby and terminated it when it could survive without her (even if not killing the child risked the mother's life), I would immediately terminate our relationship and I could never respect her again for saving her own neck at the expense of her child.
 Any parent who sacrifices their relatively, healthy child to save their own life is a disgrace as a parent, IMO.


----------



## ph3iron

deltex1 said:


> Life begins at conception.  If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority.  If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.


I thought god recommended kicking a pregnant unfaithful woman in the stomach to get rid of the child?


----------



## BWK

EGR one said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the doctor is calling it a patient, while science is calling it a fetus that does not have all the development organs to call it a fully developed human being, with a fully developed brain. And that's on the doctor, not the actual patient who has already been born, with a developed brain who responds to stimulus. That is the patient that counts as it pertains to Biological science. Get it?
> 
> In other words, you are making a case for a so called patient that is undeveloped, is not conscious, and does not respond to  stimuli based on the fetus/patients undeveloped brain,  and give it priority over the patient that does. That's about as dumb and insensitive of a case that you could possibly come up with. I mean, you are trying to take away 100%, the actual born patients rights to protect that born patient, over the undeveloped one that feels nothing. Boss, that is total insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think you have science on your side you are flatly wrong.   Scientifically, the preborn baby is a human being, whether you like it or not.... it’s simply in a different stage of life.  Yes the preborn is still developing, but so is a newborn, and a child, and a teenager.    We are human beings from the moment we come into existence until the moment we die. You’ve just believed the lies promoted by those who  are making a lot of money in the business of killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are speaking directly to emotions and feelings. You aren't arguing your case through the lens of scientific analysis or logical reasoning. Being a human being, is not being a fully developed human being in the womb. Scientifically, it is a developing fetus with no developed brain, and the only risk taker is the female carrying that fetus. Whether you like it or not.
> 
> And other "human beings making a lot of money in the business of killing"? Really? Explain that logically from a scientific approach how it is killing a fully developed human being? Otherwise, I have no idea what it is they are killing?
> 
> Let's ask it like this; was the chicken killed in the egg, or was the yoke from the chicken egg killed before you bought it? Or maybe it was never killed at all? Maybe it was just prevented from developing, by putting it at a temperature that stopped development, seeing that it was never a fully developed chicken?
> 
> Biologically speaking, it is very easy to understand, that to stop a developing fetus, isn't much different than stopping a developing yoke turn into a chicken. Did either one have the developed brain to know the difference? Biologically speaking, science says no. So, you will need to clarify this "killing" claim of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but from a scientific standpoint, the preborn is a human being, a member of the human species, that has nothing to do with emotion, it's a undeniable scientific fact.  Here are a few quotes for you:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but a fully developed human being is a scientific impossibility at conception. There exists no fully developed human being at conception. That is a scientific fact.
> 
> Also, in some of these publications, they talk about the initiation of life. Yet, no human on this planet has ever definitively defined life, other than to use their own religious or philosophical views about the subject. Wikipedia cannot define life. Meaning of life - Wikipedia   So, how can you or anyone else define it, when in the womb? Answer, you can't. You insist on making the claim to fit what your emotions tell you to believe. But the science still tells us that a fetus at conception, is not a fully developed human being, and we know that fetus is not experiencing life as we know it until after birth. Again, there exists no publication telling us this.
> 
> Your articles mention the determination of the sex, and the developing human being after fertilization and the zygote is the beginning of a human being.  AND? What about it? Those things have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a mothers decision and right as a born human being with a functioning brain to determine what is best for her and her own body. The rest of this pro-life talk is just bs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An infant is not a fully developed human being.  A toddler is not a fully developed human being, a teen is not a fully developed human being, but they are all human beings.  Human life begins at conception, as the human DNA begins to develop a human being.
> 
> What is the scientific difference between a baby one day prior to birth and the same baby one day after birth?  The latter is protected by the Constitution, and the former is not.
Click to expand...

Once again, you do not know what life is, therefore, you have no physical evidence life begins at conception. . You invent your own convenient philosophical and religious reasons, but they are your facts, that do not have any substance of proof. That's just a fact. This law by Alabama is one that was gathered out of thin air, with no intelligent proof to back it up.

 The Constitution separates religion from the state by the way . Life - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BWK

Funny faces just prove you are incapable of debating the obvious. Once again people, there is zero physical  proof that life begins at conception, because life is a philosophical/ religious conclusion made by others out of thin air that has never been established.


----------



## BWK

You gotta love these losers with the funny faces, who are so handicapped from using a keyboard after they got taken out to the woodshed over the  truth, logic, science, and reality. 

But ha Alabama, enjoy your abortion bill you made out of thin air that tries to take away a woman's rights, while these coward Alabama men make the judgment calls on what is physically, mentally, philosophically, and religiously good for women. Can these Alabama law makers be more fos? I don't think so.


----------



## Ambivalent1

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide


----------



## Lakhota

Ambivalent1 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
Click to expand...


Shit happens - including rape and incest.


----------



## Ambivalent1

Lakhota said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
Click to expand...


It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world


----------



## Lakhota

Ambivalent1 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
Click to expand...


It's even odder how you NaziCon birthers don't give a shit about women's rights - and babies AFTER they are born.


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



This is SEXIST Lakhota
Where are MEN on the list for having responsibility in the decision to have sex??

Thanks but NO  THANKS
for perpetuating the myth that this is all women's responsibility

There is no mention of how men are equally responsible for sex and pregnancy
if not more so in cases of coercion, abuse and rape. Shame on you for promoting this disparity in politics!


----------



## Lakhota

*I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion

I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*

Women come first.


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> *I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion
> 
> I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*
> 
> Women come first.



Lakhota so is it the woman's fault she got raped.
Where is the focus on the MEN to take responsibility first
before trying to put it on the women second?

Here are women who choose to have children conceived after rape.
Do you see liberals supporting these women?
www.choices4life.org

Here is the nonprofit that I believe deserves at least equal funding as Planned Parenthood.
The Nurturing Network www.nurturingnetwork.org

Why not focus on supporting women who don't want abortion.
Why is all the support and focus on women to have abortions?


----------



## Lakhota

emilynghiem said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion
> 
> I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota so is it the woman's fault she got raped.
> Where is the focus on the MEN to take responsibility first
> before trying to put it on the women second?
> 
> Here are women who choose to have children conceived after rape.
> Do you see liberals supporting these women?
> www.choices4life.org
> 
> Here is the nonprofit that I believe deserves at least equal funding as Planned Parenthood.
> The Nurturing Network www.nurturingnetwork.org
> 
> Why not focus on supporting women who don't want abortion.
> Why is all the support and focus on women to have abortions?
Click to expand...


Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?  I am defending women's reproductive rights.


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion
> 
> I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota so is it the woman's fault she got raped.
> Where is the focus on the MEN to take responsibility first
> before trying to put it on the women second?
> 
> Here are women who choose to have children conceived after rape.
> Do you see liberals supporting these women?
> www.choices4life.org
> 
> Here is the nonprofit that I believe deserves at least equal funding as Planned Parenthood.
> The Nurturing Network www.nurturingnetwork.org
> 
> Why not focus on supporting women who don't want abortion.
> Why is all the support and focus on women to have abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?  I am defending women's reproductive rights.
Click to expand...


But you make no mention of the men who are equally if not more responsible
for pregnancy!

How is this equal if men are completely off the hook and NOT AFFECTED by legislation
and all this is being put on women in the first place?

You are not addressing the cause of disparity but just complaining about it after the fact.

What is your proposal Lakhota for holding
MEN responsible for their part in getting women into this situation to begin with?

You can yell fire fire after the fire is already started
but what are you doing to prevent fires from breaking out to begin with.
Do you see how nobody is addressing this?
Why aren't MEN being addressed as equally if not more responsible??


----------



## BWK

Ambivalent1 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
Click to expand...

And when they open by force? Do you have a problem with their decision then? And if you do, why?


----------



## BWK

Ambivalent1 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
Click to expand...

When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> I c h i g o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you never once mention the mental/physical/financial condition of women seeking abortions. Women come first. It's their choice. It's their right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is 61 million choices being made since Roe vs Wade.
> View attachment 261113
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...

Can't really say women are being denied their right to choose, given that.


----------



## Ambivalent1

BWK said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
Click to expand...


They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".


----------



## Ambivalent1

BWK said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when they open by force? Do you have a problem with their decision then? And if you do, why?
Click to expand...


Yup I do but it isn't up to me, the law says that they can kill them.


----------



## Lakhota

Sad but true.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ambivalent1 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
Click to expand...


If it was without a care in the world, they wouldn't put so much effort into lying to themselves and everyone else about it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's even odder how you NaziCon birthers don't give a shit about women's rights - and babies AFTER they are born.
Click to expand...


No, what's really odd is that you you leftist baby-killers think you get to imagine how things are, and it magically becomes true, and OTHER people become obligated to defend it.

Killing babies is not "women's rights", and your sorry excuse for a self does not in any way, shape, or form speak for all women and what they want or what is best for them.  You want to rhapsodize about the wonders of fucking men you wouldn't want to keep around and then flushing the innocent victims?  Do it in your own name, not in mine.

And "you don't give a shit about babies after they are born" is not even remotely fact just because you think it makes a neat zinger to accuse people of.  We don't accept your definition of what women want, and we don't accept your definition of "caring about children", aka throwing money at a bureaucracy to handle it so you can forget them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> *I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion
> 
> I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*
> 
> Women come first.



You realize, of course, that when you do this "Here's a headline link, and here's one 'zinger' line cheering it on!" thing, everyone just says, "More La-Cooter partisan bullshit" and ignores it, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion
> 
> I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota so is it the woman's fault she got raped.
> Where is the focus on the MEN to take responsibility first
> before trying to put it on the women second?
> 
> Here are women who choose to have children conceived after rape.
> Do you see liberals supporting these women?
> www.choices4life.org
> 
> Here is the nonprofit that I believe deserves at least equal funding as Planned Parenthood.
> The Nurturing Network www.nurturingnetwork.org
> 
> Why not focus on supporting women who don't want abortion.
> Why is all the support and focus on women to have abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?  I am defending women's reproductive rights.
Click to expand...


Seriously, do you have a grammar problem?  Abortion is not about "reproduction"; that's already happened at that point.  Abortion is a PARENTING decision, and killing the kid as a nuisance just isn't a valid child-rearing option.


----------



## Lakhota

Yes, it's time to start regulating men's bodies!


----------



## BWK

Ambivalent1 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
Click to expand...

You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God? 

 What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?


----------



## BWK

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion
> 
> I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota so is it the woman's fault she got raped.
> Where is the focus on the MEN to take responsibility first
> before trying to put it on the women second?
> 
> Here are women who choose to have children conceived after rape.
> Do you see liberals supporting these women?
> www.choices4life.org
> 
> Here is the nonprofit that I believe deserves at least equal funding as Planned Parenthood.
> The Nurturing Network www.nurturingnetwork.org
> 
> Why not focus on supporting women who don't want abortion.
> Why is all the support and focus on women to have abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?  I am defending women's reproductive rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you have a grammar problem?  Abortion is not about "reproduction"; that's already happened at that point.  Abortion is a PARENTING decision, and killing the kid as a nuisance just isn't a valid child-rearing option.
Click to expand...

"Kid?" What "kid?" When did an abortion happen with a fully developed "kid" in the womb? And by the way, please define "kid" in the womb, because that's a new one on me.


----------



## BWK

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was without a care in the world, they wouldn't put so much effort into lying to themselves and everyone else about it.
Click to expand...

Put this statement of yours in front of a woman who was just raped and impregnated, and she'd cuss you for everything you are worth about the lies you are telling.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
Click to expand...


Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.


----------



## keepitreal

What if the fetus is female?


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.


----------



## buttercup

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m From Alabama And Gave Birth To My Rapist’s Child Because I Couldn’t Get An Abortion
> 
> I GAVE BIRTH TO MY RAPIST’S BABY — AND IT CRUSHED ME*
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota so is it the woman's fault she got raped.
> Where is the focus on the MEN to take responsibility first
> before trying to put it on the women second?
> 
> Here are women who choose to have children conceived after rape.
> Do you see liberals supporting these women?
> www.choices4life.org
> 
> Here is the nonprofit that I believe deserves at least equal funding as Planned Parenthood.
> The Nurturing Network www.nurturingnetwork.org
> 
> Why not focus on supporting women who don't want abortion.
> Why is all the support and focus on women to have abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?  I am defending women's reproductive rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you have a grammar problem?  Abortion is not about "reproduction"; that's already happened at that point.  Abortion is a PARENTING decision, and killing the kid as a nuisance just isn't a valid child-rearing option.
Click to expand...


Again, THANK YOU.  It annoys me when people use that completely deceptive phrase "reproductive rights" which is just something they're parroting from the slick, manipulative ghouls behind the abortion industry.

It's a lie right off the bat, as people already have reproductive rights.  To Lakhota: you _have_ the right to reproduce. And you also have the right to NOT reproduce.    *ONCE YOU BECOME PREGNANT, YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED. * So, at the very least, be honest.  You don't support "reproductive rights" (you already have that) you support "*killing rights."   *


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> 
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.
Click to expand...


I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, it is not a "human" at conception, and "Life" has not been proven as I already linked  earlier. What we have, is a developing fetus that develops into a fully developed human being at birth.

www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/human-being


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> 
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not a "human" at conception, and "Life" has not been proven as I already linked  earlier. What we have, is a developing fetus that develops into a fully developed human being at birth.
> 
> www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/human-being
Click to expand...


You make this too easy.   I'm actually embarrassed for you.


“….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”

From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”

*********

“The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********

Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)

*********


“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”

*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”

*********

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

*********

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"

*********

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
Click to expand...

Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing. 

And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
Click to expand...


Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.

You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.


----------



## emilynghiem

BWK said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs closed and you won't have to decide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
Click to expand...


Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.

Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.

Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
relations with anyone else. 

Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!

By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on 
the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.

The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.

We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not a "human" at conception, and "Life" has not been proven as I already linked  earlier. What we have, is a developing fetus that develops into a fully developed human being at birth.
> 
> www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/human-being
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make this too easy.   I'm actually embarrassed for you.
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> *********
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
Click to expand...

We already went over this before, and there is only one's own definition of life. *There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.  *That comes straight from Wikipedia.


----------



## Vel

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.


I'm not interested in your poll but would love to know where to find the disagree icon that someone rated your post with.


----------



## BWK

emilynghiem said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit happens - including rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
> Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
> enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.
> 
> Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
> becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
> Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.
> 
> Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
> we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
> relations with anyone else.
> 
> Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!
> 
> By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
> this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on
> the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.
> 
> The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
> clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.
> 
> We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
> in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it is best for the problem not to occur, it's going to occur whether we like it or not, as long as humans walk. Rape is never far off in the world of humans. And that's reality.

My issue with beliefs, is the fact that pro-lifers pretend to use their beliefs as a cover for factual information. I do not. I just use the information provided by publications from a scientific acknowledgement. I don't let my personal feelings or emotions cloud my visions for the truth, just so I can push my desired narrative. And pro-lifers do just that.  That's the big difference between the two concepts.


----------



## BWK

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
Click to expand...

Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.


----------



## buttercup

BWK said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he claim that they were "fully developed children" ?   You're making a fool of yourself by repeating that inane phrase that has nothing to do with whether or not the preborn is a human, which it is, and only an ignorant fool would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
Click to expand...


There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.

No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.

Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.  
*
It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.


----------



## emilynghiem

BWK said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd how you people can kill children without a care in the world
> 
> 
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
> Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
> enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.
> 
> Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
> becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
> Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.
> 
> Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
> we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
> relations with anyone else.
> 
> Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!
> 
> By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
> this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on
> the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.
> 
> The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
> clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.
> 
> We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
> in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree that it is best for the problem not to occur, it's going to occur whether we like it or not, as long as humans walk. Rape is never far off in the world of humans. And that's reality.
> 
> My issue with beliefs, is the fact that pro-lifers pretend to use their beliefs as a cover for factual information. I do not. I just use the information provided by publications from a scientific acknowledgement. I don't let my personal feelings or emotions cloud my visions for the truth, just so I can push my desired narrative. And pro-lifers do just that.  That's the big difference between the two concepts.
Click to expand...


Rape doesn't just have to keep happening, @BMK
People who rape already have problems that
can be detected and treated in advance.

Murder and other crimes can also be prevented,
by treating criminal illness like other diseases
that should not go unchecked to the point they become deadly.

If we can catch diabetes and cancer in earlier stages,
we can do the same with criminal disorders, abuse and addictions.

Sure, not all cases have symptoms that are caught early enough,
this happens with other diseases also that aren't always detected in advance
when they could have been treated easier.

So while I agree that not all cases of sickness can be caught and treated in time,
that's not the same as just allowing rape, murder and crime to keep happening.

We still should invest in setting up the most effective means of screening
and treating people for abusive or addictive disorders in advance.

I believe it helps to take the approach that someday ALL diseases and ills
can be caught in time, treated and cured BEFORE they cause worse danger, damages or death.

The more we address the cases we can do something about,
the reduction in crime and violence will save more resources to
invest in prevention, and we can improve on the mental health
process of early screening, treatment and cure to address more difficult cases in the future.

If we don't start now, the backlog on our criminal justice system keeps costing
us more and more, where the waste of billions of dollars in state resources on
legal/court costs and incarceration is taking away from our capacity to invest
in preventative health care, education and medical treatment to prevent crime and abuse in the first place.

Even if we can't catch all cases yet, that's no reason to neglect this approach.

If we are ever going to perfect the science of treating diseases early on,
including criminal sickness, we must start somewhere.  
Instead of acting like there is nothing we can do to prevent it, so why bother?


----------



## Lakhota

emilynghiem said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> When and how did they become fully developed children in the womb again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
> Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
> enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.
> 
> Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
> becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
> Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.
> 
> Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
> we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
> relations with anyone else.
> 
> Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!
> 
> By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
> this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on
> the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.
> 
> The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
> clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.
> 
> We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
> in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree that it is best for the problem not to occur, it's going to occur whether we like it or not, as long as humans walk. Rape is never far off in the world of humans. And that's reality.
> 
> My issue with beliefs, is the fact that pro-lifers pretend to use their beliefs as a cover for factual information. I do not. I just use the information provided by publications from a scientific acknowledgement. I don't let my personal feelings or emotions cloud my visions for the truth, just so I can push my desired narrative. And pro-lifers do just that.  That's the big difference between the two concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rape doesn't just have to keep happening, @BMK
> People who rape already have problems that
> can be detected and treated in advance.
> 
> Murder and other crimes can also be prevented,
> by treating criminal illness like other diseases
> that should not go unchecked to the point they become deadly.
> 
> If we can catch diabetes and cancer in earlier stages,
> we can do the same with criminal disorders, abuse and addictions.
> 
> Sure, not all cases have symptoms that are caught early enough,
> this happens with other diseases also that aren't always detected in advance
> when they could have been treated easier.
> 
> So while I agree that not all cases of sickness can be caught and treated in time,
> that's not the same as just allowing rape, murder and crime to keep happening.
> 
> We still should invest in setting up the most effective means of screening
> and treating people for abusive or addictive disorders in advance.
> 
> I believe it helps to take the approach that someday ALL diseases and ills
> can be caught in time, treated and cured BEFORE they cause worse danger, damages or death.
> 
> The more we address the cases we can do something about,
> the reduction in crime and violence will save more resources to
> invest in prevention, and we can improve on the mental health
> process of early screening, treatment and cure to address more difficult cases in the future.
> 
> If we don't start now, the backlog on our criminal justice system keeps costing
> us more and more, where the waste of billions of dollars in state resources on
> legal/court costs and incarceration is taking away from our capacity to invest
> in preventative health care, education and medical treatment to prevent crime and abuse in the first place.
> 
> Even if we can't catch all cases yet, that's no reason to neglect this approach.
> 
> If we are ever going to perfect the science of treating diseases early on,
> including criminal sickness, we must start somewhere.
> Instead of acting like there is nothing we can do to prevent it, so why bother?
Click to expand...


Gee, that's how most of us feel about gun control.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Lakhota

In general, ALL people under the jurisdiction of States and the US
should be equal under law, and enjoy equal protections, exercise and expression
of their beliefs regardless of creed.

Regardless what any of us BELIEVES about abortion, the laws should
reflect public consensus. States laws should ideally reflect a consensus
of the people under that government. And federal laws, rulings and government
should reflect a consensus of all people and States in the union.

If we do not agree on beliefs about abortion, abortion laws or solutions,
then no laws should be made establishing one belief or bias over others.
Instead of fighting over areas where we disagree, we should allow laws
to focus on  just the areas where we do agree on common public policy and standard.

Where we cannot change or resolve conflicting beliefs, we should respect that 
and agree to separate funding, jurisdiction and terms of policies
so that each person or group has equal freedom and protection for their
own beliefs and doesn't impose this on any other people or groups who disagree,
nor suffer obstruction or oppression by other such groups.

We should all exercise and respect equal rights and freedom of
ourselves and others to adopt and enforce the policies WE believe in,
and not impose these through govt on anyone else until we reach agreement.

That way, the laws of the State are fair and treat and include all people
of that State equally, regardless of creed. And same for the laws of our nation.

www.ethics-commission.net


----------



## Dana7360

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.




That's a very easy question to answer.

The woman.


----------



## Likkmee

Priority ?
 Condoms and/or facials


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> Gee, that's how most of us feel about gun control.



Good point to compare abortion legislation with gun regulation.

Lakhota

1. Trying to ban and regulate guns is like trying to ban or regulate abortion.
2. Instead of addressing the MENTAL HEALTH issues behind gun violence
and the ABUSE of relationships or sex abuse that results in abortion.
3. So in both cases, to be fair:
if you don't believe that banning abortion addresses or solves the real problems causing it,
that's how gun rights advocates argue against regulations that don't solve the cause of gun violence either!

Thank you Lakhota


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Sad but true.



Remember, ladies, that children are always a horrible burden and punishment, and you should view them with hatred, fear, and resentment.  No good can ever come of childbirth unless you're really certain that YOUR personal existence needs a child as an accessory.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Yes, it's time to start regulating men's bodies!



More La-Cooter insane, has-nothing-real-to-say bullshit.  Thanks for admitting your defeat.


----------



## Dragonlady

buttercup said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of "children" or "kid"is not included in any scientific publications describing a fetus in the womb. The only one making the fool, is you. If I'm the fool, show me where the fetus is described as Children or kid. If you can't, then you just walked into your own foolish nonsense proving nothing. So, for these posters to tell us we are "killing children or kids" is just a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
Click to expand...


Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.  

Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.



Unless and until the


----------



## Blues Man

Dragonlady said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
Click to expand...


A newborn is not sentient or aware.

IMO Any reasonable person would realize that there is a point during gestation and before birth when the fetus is a baby.
At that point the lives of both the mother and the baby should be protected with equal vigor.

When that point is is something the experts can debate but viability outside the womb (taking into account modern medical support) and other factors such as the point of development of the brain and nervous system must be considered.

To say that a baby is not a baby 1 hour ( one day) before delivery and can therefore be aborted is an extreme and ridiculous position.


----------



## whitehall

What does "priority" mean in this sense? If a woman is intimidated (or threatened) by a boyfriend or acquaintence into hiring someone to kill her unborn baby, does it translate to "priority"? The dirty little secret is the people who benefit most from abortion are men. They get to see their future responsibilities disappear at the stroke of a scalpel while the women sometimes endures symptoms similar to PTSD for the rest of her life.


----------



## buttercup

Dragonlady said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
Click to expand...


In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:


“….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

*********

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40

*********

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:


*********

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”

Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

*********

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

*********

“The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

*********


National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

*********



Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)

*********


“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

*********

Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”

*********

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”

*********

Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”

*********

Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”

*********

Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”

*********

“The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

*********

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"

Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.


----------



## Lakhota

Women come first.


----------



## Lakhota

Great question. I can't think of any.  Can anyone think of any?


----------



## Lakhota

Some food for thought...

I Had An Illegal Abortion Before Roe v. Wade. This Is Why Women Of My Generation Must Share Our Stories.


----------



## Redfish

I c h i g o said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you quote the language in the constitution that makes abortion a right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. *Constitution* provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an *abortion*.
Click to expand...



thats a legal stretch and everyone knows it.   But I asked for language from the CONSTITUTION.  Why cant you admit that it doesnt exist.  the constitution is silent on abortion.


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are children. They are human. I'll bet you think that there really are 64 "genders".
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't proving they are fully developed children. You are saying they are. Who are you to make that decision? God?
> 
> What scientific proof can you present that tells us they are fully developed children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BWK and Ambivalent1
> Perhaps better terms are "personhood" and when does the "conscious will" of a person
> enter the body or develop as a separate identity from the mother.
> 
> Either way, this spiritual process of when does a separate consciousness enter the body
> becomes FAITH BASED, so BWK is basically justified in contesting this as not something
> Govt or laws can regulate or legislate because it involves personal beliefs.
> 
> Since this issue is going to get into personal beliefs and conflicts, regardless,
> we might as well ask these questions BEFORE anyone gets involved with sexual
> relations with anyone else.
> 
> Let's not wait until AFTER the point of pregnancy to discuss conflicting beliefs!
> 
> By acknowledging IN ADVANCE there are conflicts in beliefs BEFORE sexual relations are engaged in,
> this can prevent people from engaging in sex to begin with if they don't agree on
> the spiritual process and the terms of the sexual relations.
> 
> The more we get nowhere with comparing beliefs, the more
> clear it is that people should be addressing these issues in advance, outside of govt.
> 
> We'd have to form agreements how to AVOID this whole situation from EVER coming up
> in the first place, since we cannot agree how to define or manage the process AFTER pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree that it is best for the problem not to occur, it's going to occur whether we like it or not, as long as humans walk. Rape is never far off in the world of humans. And that's reality.
> 
> My issue with beliefs, is the fact that pro-lifers pretend to use their beliefs as a cover for factual information. I do not. I just use the information provided by publications from a scientific acknowledgement. I don't let my personal feelings or emotions cloud my visions for the truth, just so I can push my desired narrative. And pro-lifers do just that.  That's the big difference between the two concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rape doesn't just have to keep happening, @BMK
> People who rape already have problems that
> can be detected and treated in advance.
> 
> Murder and other crimes can also be prevented,
> by treating criminal illness like other diseases
> that should not go unchecked to the point they become deadly.
> 
> If we can catch diabetes and cancer in earlier stages,
> we can do the same with criminal disorders, abuse and addictions.
> 
> Sure, not all cases have symptoms that are caught early enough,
> this happens with other diseases also that aren't always detected in advance
> when they could have been treated easier.
> 
> So while I agree that not all cases of sickness can be caught and treated in time,
> that's not the same as just allowing rape, murder and crime to keep happening.
> 
> We still should invest in setting up the most effective means of screening
> and treating people for abusive or addictive disorders in advance.
> 
> I believe it helps to take the approach that someday ALL diseases and ills
> can be caught in time, treated and cured BEFORE they cause worse danger, damages or death.
> 
> The more we address the cases we can do something about,
> the reduction in crime and violence will save more resources to
> invest in prevention, and we can improve on the mental health
> process of early screening, treatment and cure to address more difficult cases in the future.
> 
> If we don't start now, the backlog on our criminal justice system keeps costing
> us more and more, where the waste of billions of dollars in state resources on
> legal/court costs and incarceration is taking away from our capacity to invest
> in preventative health care, education and medical treatment to prevent crime and abuse in the first place.
> 
> Even if we can't catch all cases yet, that's no reason to neglect this approach.
> 
> If we are ever going to perfect the science of treating diseases early on,
> including criminal sickness, we must start somewhere.
> Instead of acting like there is nothing we can do to prevent it, so why bother?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, that's how most of us feel about gun control.
Click to expand...



there is no equivalent to the second amendment regarding abortion.   apples and oranges, dude


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> Women come first.




except unborn women, right?


----------



## sakinago

Lakhota said:


> If men want to control women's reproductive rights - then women should be able to control men's reproductive rights.





Lakhota said:


> If men want to control women's reproductive rights - then women should be able to control men's reproductive rights.


Ugh, I’m so tired of this Gloria Steinem non-sensical argument that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. It’s not even close to what clearly observable reality is. Lizard people controlling the levers of power is more believable because you have to prove a negative that the “shadow government” (whoever those people are) are not indeed lizard people. Abortion is clearly not a man vs women debate, that’s 100% provable BS. 

The Abortion Issue Isn’t About ‘The Patriarchy’ - Quillette

“However, polling evidence suggests that American men, overall, are just as likely to be pro-choice as women. True, women are more likely to express support for abortion rights. But, surprisingly, women also are more likely to express opposition. Democrat women are slightly more likely than Democrat men to be pro-choice, but Republican women are more likely than Republican men to be pro-life. In other words, there is no major fault line in the abortion debate between men and women.”

“A feminist might respond with the argument that Christian voters’ support for pro-life positions is merely a symptom of the patriarchal streak embedded within religious doctrine more generally, which has always lent itself to implementing control of women’s lives. But Islam, which in many respects is regarded as more patriarchal in outlook that Christianity (especially when it comes to codes of conduct and dress), is comparatively more supportive of women’s right to abortion than Christianity. Both Sunni and Shia traditions typically prohibit abortion only after 120 days, as this is thought to be the point of “ensoulment,” at which time a human fetus develops its own right to life.”

“Those who support abortion rights in some form should be prepared to argue their case on the terrain that pro-lifers have traditionally claimed as their own: the apparent right to life (or lack thereof) of a human fetus during pregnancy. Continuing to assert a woman’s bodily autonomy is unlikely to progress the abortion debate, because very few people dispute that women should be in charge of their bodies. Nor does it advance the debate to focus on whether it is men or women who are passing laws in this area, since it tends to be religious viewpoint, not sex, that is correlated with attitudes.”


----------



## dudmuck

buttercup said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
Click to expand...

congrats to you...


----------



## Redfish

dudmuck said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> 
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> congrats to you...
Click to expand...



totally inaccurate,  but you knew that and posted in anyway,  typical libtardian


----------



## PoliticalChic

Lakhota said:


> Women come first.





There is no 'first/'

The only danger is to her soul.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'first/'
> 
> The only danger is to her soul.
Click to expand...

Well with saving the woman you can have more kids, killing off the woman not so much..


----------



## denmark

G.T. said:


> Equal priority can be done pretty well.


... If the pregnant woman chooses.


----------



## Redfish

denmark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal priority can be done pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If the pregnant woman chooses.
Click to expand...


and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.


----------



## denmark

Redfish said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal priority can be done pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If the pregnant woman chooses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
Click to expand...

If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.


----------



## I c h i g o

Redfish said:


> thats a legal stretch and everyone knows it. But I asked for language from the CONSTITUTION. Why cant you admit that it doesnt exist. the constitution is silent on abortion.



The Fourteenth Amendment is a layer of "Right to Privacy". Known as The Human Life Amendment. Human life amendments include any amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973), the Supreme Court decision that denied states the authority to prohibit abortion.


----------



## Redfish

I c h i g o said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats a legal stretch and everyone knows it. But I asked for language from the CONSTITUTION. Why cant you admit that it doesnt exist. the constitution is silent on abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is a layer of "Right to Privacy". Known as The Human Life Amendment. Human life amendments include any amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973), the Supreme Court decision that denied states the authority to prohibit abortion.
Click to expand...



I understand that that is the reasoning behind Roe.  But everyone knows that is very shaky from a legal standpoint.  Its a stretch to equate abortion to privacy.  Using that logic it would be OK to murder someone in the privacy of your basement.


----------



## I c h i g o

Redfish said:


> I understand that that is the reasoning behind Roe. But everyone knows that is very shaky from a legal standpoint. Its a stretch to equate abortion to privacy. Using that logic it would be OK to murder someone in the privacy of your basement.



You know they will. And you are correct. I doubt we will ever going to stop Abortion totally. Politicians are going to try to dictate what a woman should do regardless.


----------



## Redfish

denmark said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal priority can be done pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If the pregnant woman chooses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.
Click to expand...



The issue here is when does a fertilized egg become a human being with the right to life.   We can argue the details forever, but until that issue is agreed upon this will go on.

I dont know if SCOTUS will have the guts to take it on based on the Alabama law,  probably not.

How about a national referendum?  you on the left keep screaming that we are a true democracy, then why not put it to a national vote and let the majority view prevail?   Are you ok with that?


----------



## denmark

Redfish said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal priority can be done pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If the pregnant woman chooses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is when does a fertilized egg become a human being with the right to life.   We can argue the details forever, but until that issue is agreed upon this will go on.
> 
> I dont know if SCOTUS will have the guts to take it on based on the Alabama law,  probably not.
> 
> How about a national referendum?  you on the left keep screaming that we are a true democracy, then why not put it to a national vote and let the majority view prevail?   Are you ok with that?
Click to expand...

Ethics and freedom are beyond law.
Slavery was lawful in the past, and women were not allowed to vote, by law.
Are you not grateful that ethics and freedom prevailed over unjust laws?


----------



## Redfish

denmark said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal priority can be done pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If the pregnant woman chooses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is when does a fertilized egg become a human being with the right to life.   We can argue the details forever, but until that issue is agreed upon this will go on.
> 
> I dont know if SCOTUS will have the guts to take it on based on the Alabama law,  probably not.
> 
> How about a national referendum?  you on the left keep screaming that we are a true democracy, then why not put it to a national vote and let the majority view prevail?   Are you ok with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethics and freedom are beyond law.
> Slavery was lawful in the past, and women were not allowed to vote, by law.
> Are you not grateful that ethics and freedom prevailed over unjust laws?
Click to expand...



when did murder become ethical?   when did murder equate with freedom?   Under the third Reich?  

so how about a national referendum?  you ignored that question.  Are you willing to abide by the will of the majority as you libs keep demanding?


----------



## denmark

Redfish said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... If the pregnant woman chooses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is when does a fertilized egg become a human being with the right to life.   We can argue the details forever, but until that issue is agreed upon this will go on.
> 
> I dont know if SCOTUS will have the guts to take it on based on the Alabama law,  probably not.
> 
> How about a national referendum?  you on the left keep screaming that we are a true democracy, then why not put it to a national vote and let the majority view prevail?   Are you ok with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethics and freedom are beyond law.
> Slavery was lawful in the past, and women were not allowed to vote, by law.
> Are you not grateful that ethics and freedom prevailed over unjust laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did murder become ethical?   when did murder equate with freedom?   Under the third Reich?
> 
> so how about a national referendum?  you ignored that question.  Are you willing to abide by the will of the majority as you libs keep demanding?
Click to expand...

Abortion is not “murder”.
Is a miscarriage (natural abortion) murder?
Did Trump get elected by a majority?
You are talking religion & politics.
I care more for ethics and liberty of sentient animals.


----------



## Lakhota

Should a woman forced to carry a fetus receive child support, healthcare, and other benefits?


----------



## Redfish

denmark said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is when does a fertilized egg become a human being with the right to life.   We can argue the details forever, but until that issue is agreed upon this will go on.
> 
> I dont know if SCOTUS will have the guts to take it on based on the Alabama law,  probably not.
> 
> How about a national referendum?  you on the left keep screaming that we are a true democracy, then why not put it to a national vote and let the majority view prevail?   Are you ok with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethics and freedom are beyond law.
> Slavery was lawful in the past, and women were not allowed to vote, by law.
> Are you not grateful that ethics and freedom prevailed over unjust laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did murder become ethical?   when did murder equate with freedom?   Under the third Reich?
> 
> so how about a national referendum?  you ignored that question.  Are you willing to abide by the will of the majority as you libs keep demanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not “murder”.
> Is a miscarriage (natural abortion) murder?
> Did Trump get elected by a majority?
> You are talking religion & politics.
> I care more for ethics and liberty of sentient animals.
Click to expand...



if its not murder why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of murder?

Trump got elected by a majority of the EC, just like Obama, Clinton, Bush, et. al

I explained that this is about a difference of opinion as to when a fertilized human egg becomes a human being with the right to life.  I suggested a national referendum to decide that based on a majority view.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to speak for him, but to me it was obvious he was using that word as a synonym for baby or offspring.   You're either being dense or intentionally dishonest by focusing on that word ("child") instead of the actual point.  The bottom line is, the preborn is a brand new, genetically unique individual, a living human being.    Forget the word "children" and address the actual point.   It seems you can't, because you know (as you were shown) it's an inescapable scientific fact that the preborn is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> Posters on here are claiming that abortion kills children or kids, which is a lie, because there is no established Biological evidence that a fetus in the womb is either one. They hijack the narrative to feed everyone inaccurate information. The same that you are doing.
> 
> And as my previous post points out, the definition of human being, says it is a man, woman, or child. It does not reference the pre-born. Why? Because it can't? And why is that? Because the definition has not established that it is a human being in the womb that is experiencing life? And why is that? Because Life has not been established in the womb from a scientific interpretation. You would tell us it is life based on your own convenient interpretation, but you have zero proof. Therefore, no one can accurately claim life, children, or kid while the fetus is in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
Click to expand...


Your premise, that if you state your viewpoint as fact it will become fact, is utterly false.  A fetus is a living human organism; this is inarguable.  Your arbitrary goalposts of "sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own" appear nowhere in scientific texts as requirements to be a living organism.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with "1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage".  So does that mean that because embryos die on their own, they were never alive?  If so, I should like to point out that ALL living organisms die eventually.  That is, in fact, part of being alive in the first place.

A fetus is a potential adult, but that's not the same thing as "potential human being".  You are yet again using the childish notion of "I think a person is someone who looks like THIS stage of development or THAT stage of development."


----------



## Mr Natural

Let me know when we humanoids make an endangered species list and maybe I’ll start to give a shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Great question. I can't think of any.  Can anyone think of any?



More La-Cooter "I have no real thoughts or arguments" bullshit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Some food for thought...
> 
> I Had An Illegal Abortion Before Roe v. Wade. This Is Why Women Of My Generation Must Share Our Stories.



More La-Cooter "I have no real thoughts or arguments" bullshit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dudmuck said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes and look at the post right above your last one.  Once again, you are making a fool of yourself by denying the scientific fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a brand new human being, regardless of age, size or location.
> 
> You can argue that the preborn is not a _person_ (which would also be incorrect) but to claim the preborn is not a human is blatantly ignorant and false.
> 
> 
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> congrats to you...
Click to expand...


This is the exact moment Dud admitted he had no real arguments and fell back on childish lies and insults.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'first/'
> 
> The only danger is to her soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well with saving the woman you can have more kids, killing off the woman not so much..
Click to expand...


Thanks for contributing that utter irrelevancy to the discussion.  It's so very helpful of you to point out that dead women can't have children - because no one EVER had that brilliant epiphany except you - even though we are not even remotely talking about anything which involves women dying.

We can always count on you for an absolutely meaningless waste of message space.


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'first/'
> 
> The only danger is to her soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well with saving the woman you can have more kids, killing off the woman not so much..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for contributing that utter irrelevancy to the discussion.  It's so very helpful of you to point out that dead women can't have children - because no one EVER had that brilliant epiphany except you - even though we are not even remotely talking about anything which involves women dying.
> 
> We can always count on you for an absolutely meaningless waste of message space.
Click to expand...

*Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal priority can be done pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If the pregnant woman chooses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is when does a fertilized egg become a human being with the right to life.   We can argue the details forever, but until that issue is agreed upon this will go on.
> 
> I dont know if SCOTUS will have the guts to take it on based on the Alabama law,  probably not.
> 
> How about a national referendum?  you on the left keep screaming that we are a true democracy, then why not put it to a national vote and let the majority view prevail?   Are you ok with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethics and freedom are beyond law.
> Slavery was lawful in the past, and women were not allowed to vote, by law.
> Are you not grateful that ethics and freedom prevailed over unjust laws?
Click to expand...


No, as a matter of fact, they are not, and abortion is not beyond law.  The basic purpose OF law is to establish those ethics we as a society require of our members, and the boundaries which protect each person's freedoms from every other person's freedoms.

Neither slavery nor women's rights is an example of "ethics and freedom are beyond law".  They are examples, instead, of how laws reflect ethics and freedom, and thus must be decided carefully, watched closely, and improved regularly.


----------



## Cecilie1200

denmark said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the newly created human being has zero choice in whether he/she lives or dies?   Why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years in age?  if the kid becomes inconvenient, just do away with it.   That would be consistent with the position being taken by the left on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can read, I referred to PREGNANT women. If the “newly created human being” gets PREGNANT, then they can choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is when does a fertilized egg become a human being with the right to life.   We can argue the details forever, but until that issue is agreed upon this will go on.
> 
> I dont know if SCOTUS will have the guts to take it on based on the Alabama law,  probably not.
> 
> How about a national referendum?  you on the left keep screaming that we are a true democracy, then why not put it to a national vote and let the majority view prevail?   Are you ok with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethics and freedom are beyond law.
> Slavery was lawful in the past, and women were not allowed to vote, by law.
> Are you not grateful that ethics and freedom prevailed over unjust laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did murder become ethical?   when did murder equate with freedom?   Under the third Reich?
> 
> so how about a national referendum?  you ignored that question.  Are you willing to abide by the will of the majority as you libs keep demanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion is not “murder”.
> Is a miscarriage (natural abortion) murder?
> Did Trump get elected by a majority?
> You are talking religion & politics.
> I care more for ethics and liberty of sentient animals.
Click to expand...


"Abortion is not murder, because unborn babies die on their own, so that means it's okay to kill them."

Seriously, were all you leftists dropped on your heads as children?  Every damned one of you parrots this "miscarriage" line as though it's some triumphant "Aha!" moment that babies sometimes die in utero on their own.  Is there not a single one of you with the brain wattage to recognize that EVERYONE dies on their own eventually?  And that we don't consider that fact to be justification for killing each other?  

This post is a shining example of what I always say:  Leftists are not sentient enough themselves to safely insist that sentience should be the standard for whether or not someone can be killed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Should a woman forced to carry a fetus receive child support, healthcare, and other benefits?



Was she smart enough to get the guy's real name before she fucked him?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr Clean said:


> Let me know when we humanoids make an endangered species list and maybe I’ll start to give a shit.



Be sure to let your local emergency room and police department know that, so they're aware that they don't need to give a shit if YOUR life is in danger, since "humanoids" aren't on "an endangered species list", so you "don't give a shit".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'first/'
> 
> The only danger is to her soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well with saving the woman you can have more kids, killing off the woman not so much..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for contributing that utter irrelevancy to the discussion.  It's so very helpful of you to point out that dead women can't have children - because no one EVER had that brilliant epiphany except you - even though we are not even remotely talking about anything which involves women dying.
> 
> We can always count on you for an absolutely meaningless waste of message space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
Click to expand...


From the OP:

_This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.

NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but *this poll assumes "typical" circumstances*. In other words, this is a superficial poll that *assumes "normal/average" circumstance*s - meaning *no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues*._

Please note that death would be an "extenuating issue", shitforbrains.


----------



## ThisIsMe

I'm curious, if you will fight for abortion under the premise that a woman should have the right to be able to do what she wants with her own body, does that mean you should also support the legalization of drugs?  After all, as long as a person does it in his own home, they should have the right to do whatever they want with their own body, right?


And before you post the "false equivalence fallacy" or "strawman" statements, please include how you came to that conclusion, afterall, we are talking about the ability to do what you want with your own body, correct?


----------



## dudmuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your biggest problem you have, is understanding your own publication. I already linked the definition of "life" to you through Wikipedia. What your publication is offering to you is this, that the zygote/embryo/ fetus will develop into a fully developed human being, while calling it a human being. It still is not a fully developed human being. And that is what you struggle to understand.You are simply desperate to inject an argument for your desired narrative, when you fail to understand the totality of the meanings from your own publications that you post. You don't get it, because you don't want to get it.  You want to call it a human being? Knock yourself out. But even your own publication does not do that. You need to know how to understand the difference between a developing hb and a fully developed human being. Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> congrats to you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the exact moment Dud admitted he had no real arguments and fell back on childish lies and insults.
Click to expand...

The proof us right here. Gop doest give a shit about kids.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dudmuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, using that ridiculous phrase "fully developed human being" which just shows that you STILL don't get it, and you're still putting forth your own confused ideas as fact.
> 
> No, the quotes are clear.  They're all saying basically the same thing:* human life begins at conception. *There are numerous different stages of life - but in each of those stages, you have a genetically unique individual, living human being.   And I didn't post a "publication" - I posted a variety of quotes, from different people, quotes from medical textbooks.
> 
> Again, a zygote or embryo is not supposed to look like a newborn or a child, *it looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life.
> *
> It's getting boring trying to discuss this with you, because you're being repetitive, ignoring quotes from scientists and medical textbooks, and putting forth your own confused, politically-driven misguided ideas as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> congrats to you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the exact moment Dud admitted he had no real arguments and fell back on childish lies and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proof us right here. Gop doest give a shit about kids.
Click to expand...


So basically, what you want is for me to blindly accept your assumption that one "cares" about people by voting tax dollars to large, faceless, complicated bureaucracies so that one does not ever have to deal with those people oneself, or even think about them except at the ballot box, where one can congratulate oneself on being a "caring, compassionate person" for checking a box?

To me, that sounds like not giving a shit about people, and just wanting to flatter your own ego without earning it.


----------



## LaDairis

This poll is flawed.

The first need is for the human species to survive. 

The #1 threat to that is human overpopulation.

We should strive as a species for zero population growth.

That way, we will demonstrate more intelligence than the snakes which invaded Easter Island long ago...

The problem, of course, is that religious people are really no more intelligent than snakes....


----------



## dudmuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise, that the fetus "looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of life", is utterly false.  It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own.
> 
> Fully 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or "spontaneous abortion".  A fetus is NOT a human being.  It's a potential human being, and a lot of stuff has to go right for that little zygote to make it as a fully formed human being.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless and until the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> congrats to you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the exact moment Dud admitted he had no real arguments and fell back on childish lies and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proof us right here. Gop doest give a shit about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, what you want is for me to blindly accept your assumption that one "cares" about people by voting tax dollars to large, faceless, complicated bureaucracies so that one does not ever have to deal with those people oneself, or even think about them except at the ballot box, where one can congratulate oneself on being a "caring, compassionate person" for checking a box?
> 
> To me, that sounds like not giving a shit about people, and just wanting to flatter your own ego without earning it.
Click to expand...

youre saying we cant support the children because they're being supported by a large, faceless, complicated bureaucracy?


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women come first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'first/'
> 
> The only danger is to her soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well with saving the woman you can have more kids, killing off the woman not so much..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for contributing that utter irrelevancy to the discussion.  It's so very helpful of you to point out that dead women can't have children - because no one EVER had that brilliant epiphany except you - even though we are not even remotely talking about anything which involves women dying.
> 
> We can always count on you for an absolutely meaningless waste of message space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> _This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but *this poll assumes "typical" circumstances*. In other words, this is a superficial poll that *assumes "normal/average" circumstance*s - meaning *no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues*._
> 
> Please note that death would be an "extenuating issue", shitforbrains.
Click to expand...

It is if you want more kids from a dead woman....Now continue to split hairs cause you be bored.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dudmuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your politically-driven, misguided, unscientific opinion.  Honestly, to deny that the preborn is a human makes you look ignorant, I'm trying to help you here:
> 
> 
> “….it is scientifically correct to say that* human life begins at conception*.”
> 
> Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council
> 
> *********
> 
> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; *Human beings begin at conception.*”
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D., the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization, from Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of *a new human being*. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as *a unique individual*.”
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
> 
> 
> *********
> 
> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of *a new human being*.”
> 
> Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> *********
> 
> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a *genetically distinct individual*.”
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> *********
> 
> “The first cell of *a new and unique human life* begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...
> 
> The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of* a new individual is initiated.*”
> 
> Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” 11/18/13
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*”
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of *a new individual.*”
> Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)
> 
> *********
> 
> 
> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of *a new individual*. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> *********
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> *********
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the *individual.*”
> 
> *********
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), *a new life has begun*. ”
> 
> *********
> 
> Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
> 
> “but the whole story does not begin with delivery. *The baby has existed for months before* – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
> 
> *********
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and *a new life* will have begun.”
> 
> *********
> 
> “The development of *a human being* begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> *********
> 
> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of *a new individual.*"
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> congrats to you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the exact moment Dud admitted he had no real arguments and fell back on childish lies and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proof us right here. Gop doest give a shit about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, what you want is for me to blindly accept your assumption that one "cares" about people by voting tax dollars to large, faceless, complicated bureaucracies so that one does not ever have to deal with those people oneself, or even think about them except at the ballot box, where one can congratulate oneself on being a "caring, compassionate person" for checking a box?
> 
> To me, that sounds like not giving a shit about people, and just wanting to flatter your own ego without earning it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youre saying we cant support the children because they're being supported by a large, faceless, complicated bureaucracy?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that your idea of "caring" for people looks remarkably like wanting to SAY you care about them without having to really do anything.  Cheap, easy ego fluffing.

Furthermore, even if it were true that we "only" care about them when they're unborn, I will still happily rank myself higher morally than someone who wants them dead, or just honestly doesn't give a shit whether they live or die.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'first/'
> 
> The only danger is to her soul.
> 
> 
> 
> Well with saving the woman you can have more kids, killing off the woman not so much..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for contributing that utter irrelevancy to the discussion.  It's so very helpful of you to point out that dead women can't have children - because no one EVER had that brilliant epiphany except you - even though we are not even remotely talking about anything which involves women dying.
> 
> We can always count on you for an absolutely meaningless waste of message space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> _This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but *this poll assumes "typical" circumstances*. In other words, this is a superficial poll that *assumes "normal/average" circumstance*s - meaning *no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues*._
> 
> Please note that death would be an "extenuating issue", shitforbrains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if you want more kids from a dead woman....Now continue to split hairs cause you be bored.
Click to expand...


Continue to try to deflect away from a topic you can't address 'cause you're chickenshit.

As usual, you signaled defeat just by opening your mouth.


----------



## dudmuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> congrats to you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the exact moment Dud admitted he had no real arguments and fell back on childish lies and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proof us right here. Gop doest give a shit about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, what you want is for me to blindly accept your assumption that one "cares" about people by voting tax dollars to large, faceless, complicated bureaucracies so that one does not ever have to deal with those people oneself, or even think about them except at the ballot box, where one can congratulate oneself on being a "caring, compassionate person" for checking a box?
> 
> To me, that sounds like not giving a shit about people, and just wanting to flatter your own ego without earning it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youre saying we cant support the children because they're being supported by a large, faceless, complicated bureaucracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that your idea of "caring" for people looks remarkably like wanting to SAY you care about them without having to really do anything.  Cheap, easy ego fluffing.
> 
> Furthermore, even if it were true that we "only" care about them when they're unborn, I will still happily rank myself higher morally than someone who wants them dead, or just honestly doesn't give a shit whether they live or die.
Click to expand...

Trump just killed children's health, so perhaps the redcaps dont really care if they live or die.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dudmuck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the exact moment Dud admitted he had no real arguments and fell back on childish lies and insults.
> 
> 
> 
> The proof us right here. Gop doest give a shit about kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, what you want is for me to blindly accept your assumption that one "cares" about people by voting tax dollars to large, faceless, complicated bureaucracies so that one does not ever have to deal with those people oneself, or even think about them except at the ballot box, where one can congratulate oneself on being a "caring, compassionate person" for checking a box?
> 
> To me, that sounds like not giving a shit about people, and just wanting to flatter your own ego without earning it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youre saying we cant support the children because they're being supported by a large, faceless, complicated bureaucracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that your idea of "caring" for people looks remarkably like wanting to SAY you care about them without having to really do anything.  Cheap, easy ego fluffing.
> 
> Furthermore, even if it were true that we "only" care about them when they're unborn, I will still happily rank myself higher morally than someone who wants them dead, or just honestly doesn't give a shit whether they live or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump just killed children's health, so perhaps the redcaps dont really care if they live or die.
Click to expand...


Just curious:  who do you blame for killing all your brain cells?  Was it a fetal alcohol thing, or some sort of deliberate electroshock situation?

There's no point at which "Look at the taxes we want the government to spend, and the Republicans don't" which is going to counter the accusation that you only "care" about people by voting for someone else to actually do the hard lifting for you to feel good.  You basically just affirmed my assertion about you, so thanks for making my argument.

Also, I still have no intention of justifying my morality to the likes of someone who is championing the right to kill babies.  You keep attempting to pass judgement on me as though you can have the standing to do so just by assuming you do.  I will not defend myself to you or any other putrescent pro-abort, because I reject categorically any pretense that you are good enough to compare to me, let alone criticize me.

To paraphrase one of my favorite TV characters, I'm not questioning your morality; I'm denying its existence.


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well with saving the woman you can have more kids, killing off the woman not so much..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for contributing that utter irrelevancy to the discussion.  It's so very helpful of you to point out that dead women can't have children - because no one EVER had that brilliant epiphany except you - even though we are not even remotely talking about anything which involves women dying.
> 
> We can always count on you for an absolutely meaningless waste of message space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> _This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but *this poll assumes "typical" circumstances*. In other words, this is a superficial poll that *assumes "normal/average" circumstance*s - meaning *no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues*._
> 
> Please note that death would be an "extenuating issue", shitforbrains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if you want more kids from a dead woman....Now continue to split hairs cause you be bored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Continue to try to deflect away from a topic you can't address 'cause you're chickenshit.
> 
> As usual, you signaled defeat just by opening your mouth.
Click to expand...

I said the woman whether you like it or not..


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for contributing that utter irrelevancy to the discussion.  It's so very helpful of you to point out that dead women can't have children - because no one EVER had that brilliant epiphany except you - even though we are not even remotely talking about anything which involves women dying.
> 
> We can always count on you for an absolutely meaningless waste of message space.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> _This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but *this poll assumes "typical" circumstances*. In other words, this is a superficial poll that *assumes "normal/average" circumstance*s - meaning *no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues*._
> 
> Please note that death would be an "extenuating issue", shitforbrains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if you want more kids from a dead woman....Now continue to split hairs cause you be bored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Continue to try to deflect away from a topic you can't address 'cause you're chickenshit.
> 
> As usual, you signaled defeat just by opening your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the woman whether you like it or not..
Click to expand...


I said the utterings of your face anus are useless, and not worthy of liking OR disliking.  By all means, if pretending that being told you're a blathering moron is somehow an acknowledgement of your "incisive wit" keeps you from jumping off a bridge in despair and thus backing up city traffic for people who ACTUALLY matter, then go for it.


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> _This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but *this poll assumes "typical" circumstances*. In other words, this is a superficial poll that *assumes "normal/average" circumstance*s - meaning *no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues*._
> 
> Please note that death would be an "extenuating issue", shitforbrains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if you want more kids from a dead woman....Now continue to split hairs cause you be bored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Continue to try to deflect away from a topic you can't address 'cause you're chickenshit.
> 
> As usual, you signaled defeat just by opening your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the woman whether you like it or not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said the utterings of your face anus are useless, and not worthy of liking OR disliking.  By all means, if pretending that being told your blathering moron is somehow an acknowledgement of your "incisive wit" keeps you from jumping off a bridge in despair and thus backing up city traffic for people who ACTUALLY matter, then go for it.
Click to expand...

Eww,do you kiss God with that mouth? I bet he hates seeing you asking for forgiveness..


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> _This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but *this poll assumes "typical" circumstances*. In other words, this is a superficial poll that *assumes "normal/average" circumstance*s - meaning *no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues*._
> 
> Please note that death would be an "extenuating issue", shitforbrains.
> 
> 
> 
> It is if you want more kids from a dead woman....Now continue to split hairs cause you be bored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Continue to try to deflect away from a topic you can't address 'cause you're chickenshit.
> 
> As usual, you signaled defeat just by opening your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the woman whether you like it or not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said the utterings of your face anus are useless, and not worthy of liking OR disliking.  By all means, if pretending that being told your blathering moron is somehow an acknowledgement of your "incisive wit" keeps you from jumping off a bridge in despair and thus backing up city traffic for people who ACTUALLY matter, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eww,do you kiss God with that mouth? I bet he hates seeing you asking for forgiveness..
Click to expand...


You do realize the futility of denying your approval to someone who just informed you that she considers you vapor in human form, right?  What am I saying, that would take functional thought.

If God has a problem with me, I'm certain He can tell me Himself and does not need your stupid ass to do His job.  While He has used the jawbone of an ass to communicate in the past, that doesn't mean EVERY ass is His spokes-donkey.


----------



## Lakhota

Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
*
What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*

All anti-choice zealots should read this.


----------



## Crixus

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.




So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.


----------



## Dragonlady

Crixus said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
Click to expand...


Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.

The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.


----------



## Lysistrata

Dragonlady said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
Click to expand...


The anti-abortion types seem to think that all unwanted pregnancies stem from closing-time casual sex, which seems to indicate that this is the only type of sex they are familiar with. Abortion is usually driven by economics, the failure of the two parents to agree to cooperate to raise an infant to maturity or abandonment by the male partner, medical problems, and the like.

The emphasis that the anti-abortion types place on casual sex, as opposed to people having sex in marriage or in relationships indicates that the source of their opinions is hostility to the fact that people actually have sex than any concern for "the unborn child" in this gun-totin', "let them eat cake," "stop them at the border," "I hate everybody who isn't like me" world.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> 
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.




It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept.   Killing is not an option.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

New pjw on topic ..pretty much 

Little long


----------



## there4eyeM

Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare. 
Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> 
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.




That may be true, but each of us is responsible for our actions.   If pregnancy would cause debt and bankruptcy, don't screw.   Its not complicated.    But if you screw, don't ask the taxpayers to fund your mistakes.


----------



## Redfish

there4eyeM said:


> Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
> Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.




Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today.   How much more education do you think is necessary?

How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?

I think I get it,  you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.


----------



## Redfish

Lysistrata said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The anti-abortion types seem to think that all unwanted pregnancies stem from closing-time casual sex, which seems to indicate that this is the only type of sex they are familiar with. Abortion is usually driven by economics, the failure of the two parents to agree to cooperate to raise an infant to maturity or abandonment by the male partner, medical problems, and the like.
> 
> The emphasis that the anti-abortion types place on casual sex, as opposed to people having sex in marriage or in relationships indicates that the source of their opinions is hostility to the fact that people actually have sex than any concern for "the unborn child" in this gun-totin', "let them eat cake," "stop them at the border," "I hate everybody who isn't like me" world.
Click to expand...



you are very confused


----------



## Lysistrata

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> n
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept.   Killing is not an option.
Click to expand...


An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.


----------



## there4eyeM

The woman has first priority.
That is not confusing.
Generalizations concerning people whom one knows nothing about are quite futile. Judging out of reflex from limited views and understanding does not improve discourse.
Certainly, adults should take responsibility for their actions.
It would help if those in high positions set a positive example instead of what we see currently.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> 
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.



Yes, we're totally going to be convinced that babies should die because of money, because everyone is a sociopath like you.


----------



## there4eyeM

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> 
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're totally going to be convinced that babies should die because of money, because everyone is a sociopath like you.
Click to expand...

Is that a comment on the lack of affordable health care in the U.S.?


----------



## Blues Man

Lakhota said:


> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> 
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.


Why do you not mention the fact that women who can't get an abortion can give the child up for adoption?

Women are not necessarily forced into financial ruin because of an unwanted pregnancy


----------



## Redfish

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> n
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept.   Killing is not an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.
Click to expand...



the unborn child is ALIVE,  after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD.   So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.


----------



## Blues Man

I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored 

If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.

It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being


----------



## Lysistrata

Redfish said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
> Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today.   How much more education do you think is necessary?
> 
> How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?
> 
> I think I get it,  you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.
Click to expand...


So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent. 

It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.


----------



## Redfish

there4eyeM said:


> The woman has first priority.
> That is not confusing.
> Generalizations concerning people whom one knows nothing about are quite futile. Judging out of reflex from limited views and understanding does not improve discourse.
> Certainly, adults should take responsibility for their actions.
> It would help if those in high positions set a positive example instead of what we see currently.




why should the taxpayers take responsibility for any person's irresponsible acts?   

that's really the issue here.  you libs want the government to absolve you of all responsibility for anything that you do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
Click to expand...


Okay, several things here.  First of all, straw man.  This is not "every time"; it's every time _you listen to_.  We talk about other circumstances all the time.  If you don't pay attention, that's not our problem.

Second, this is the pot calling the kettle black, given the propensity of abortionists to run straight to "rape and incest!" in debates, despite those instances being a tiny percentage of abortions.

Third, "morning after pills are incredibly harmful"?  Abortions kill babies, and YOU talk about THOSE as though the women are getting a mole removed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The anti-abortion types seem to think that all unwanted pregnancies stem from closing-time casual sex, which seems to indicate that this is the only type of sex they are familiar with. Abortion is usually driven by economics, the failure of the two parents to agree to cooperate to raise an infant to maturity or abandonment by the male partner, medical problems, and the like.
> 
> The emphasis that the anti-abortion types place on casual sex, as opposed to people having sex in marriage or in relationships indicates that the source of their opinions is hostility to the fact that people actually have sex than any concern for "the unborn child" in this gun-totin', "let them eat cake," "stop them at the border," "I hate everybody who isn't like me" world.
Click to expand...


The baby-killer types seem to pretend that all abortions stem from rape, incest, and life-threatening illnesses, which seems to indicate that they know the truth makes them appear to be barbarians.  So I think we'll all just continue on with not wanting your approval.


----------



## Lysistrata

It takes months for all of the necessary organs to develop so that there is a baby. Most people have abortions before this process is completed. People who want to terminate a pregnancy usually do not wait this long unless they are somehow denied access to the procedure. Late-term abortions are usually done due to medical complications or the discovery that the normal developmental processes did not occur.

But we live in a world of guns, hatred, violence, and death, so why are the contents of anyone's womb of more vital importance?


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The anti-abortion types seem to think that all unwanted pregnancies stem from closing-time casual sex, which seems to indicate that this is the only type of sex they are familiar with. Abortion is usually driven by economics, the failure of the two parents to agree to cooperate to raise an infant to maturity or abandonment by the male partner, medical problems, and the like.
> 
> The emphasis that the anti-abortion types place on casual sex, as opposed to people having sex in marriage or in relationships indicates that the source of their opinions is hostility to the fact that people actually have sex than any concern for "the unborn child" in this gun-totin', "let them eat cake," "stop them at the border," "I hate everybody who isn't like me" world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The baby-killer types seem to pretend that all abortions stem from rape, incest, and life-threatening illnesses, which seems to indicate that they know the truth makes them appear to be barbarians.  So I think we'll all just continue on with not wanting your approval.
Click to expand...


Nobody is a "baby-killer type." Having an abortion is not killing a baby. A "baby" isn't there yet. If a person wants to have a baby and miscarries, is this the Supreme Being/Mother Nature "killing a baby"? One of my aunts had three miscarriages before she succeeded in giving birth to a son. Who was the "baby killer"?


----------



## 2aguy

Lysistrata said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
> Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today.   How much more education do you think is necessary?
> 
> How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?
> 
> I think I get it,  you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.
> 
> It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.
Click to expand...



Boy, what a stupid post......the racism is on the left.....the democrat party is the party of racism, skin color is the most important issue in that party.  Conservatives, those who support and defend the Constitution, also tend to be more religious, and in that way give more in time and money to help others than you asshat left wing socialists do...and that is after paying the excessive taxes you asshats demand.


----------



## 2aguy

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The anti-abortion types seem to think that all unwanted pregnancies stem from closing-time casual sex, which seems to indicate that this is the only type of sex they are familiar with. Abortion is usually driven by economics, the failure of the two parents to agree to cooperate to raise an infant to maturity or abandonment by the male partner, medical problems, and the like.
> 
> The emphasis that the anti-abortion types place on casual sex, as opposed to people having sex in marriage or in relationships indicates that the source of their opinions is hostility to the fact that people actually have sex than any concern for "the unborn child" in this gun-totin', "let them eat cake," "stop them at the border," "I hate everybody who isn't like me" world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The baby-killer types seem to pretend that all abortions stem from rape, incest, and life-threatening illnesses, which seems to indicate that they know the truth makes them appear to be barbarians.  So I think we'll all just continue on with not wanting your approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is a "baby-killer type." Having an abortion is not killing a baby. A "baby" isn't there yet. If a person wants to have a baby and miscarries, is this the Supreme Being/Mother Nature "killing a baby"? One of my aunts had three miscarriages before she succeeded in giving birth to a son. Who was the "baby killer"?
Click to expand...



If the sperm fertilizes the egg in the womb...it's a baby, and nothing you say changes that.


----------



## Lysistrata

2aguy said:


> Conservatives, those who support and defend the Constitution, also tend to be more religious, and in that way give more in time and money to help others than you asshat left wing socialists do.



Everybody supports and defends the Constitution, and most people help others. Saying that one is "religious" means absolutely nothing, and certainly not that a person is better than others. There are too many batshit-crazy cults. A person can say that they are "religious" when they follow some bozo like frankie graham around. Seriously. You sound like a member of one of these phony, worthless "Christian" monkey cults.


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> 
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're totally going to be convinced that babies should die because of money, because everyone is a sociopath like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a comment on the lack of affordable health care in the U.S.?
Click to expand...


Is that a comment on how determinedly stupid you are?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Redfish said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> n
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept.   Killing is not an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the unborn child is ALIVE,  after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD.   So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.
Click to expand...


Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.


----------



## Crixus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, several things here.  First of all, straw man.  This is not "every time"; it's every time _you listen to_.  We talk about other circumstances all the time.  If you don't pay attention, that's not our problem.
> 
> Second, this is the pot calling the kettle black, given the propensity of abortionists to run straight to "rape and incest!" in debates, despite those instances being a tiny percentage of abortions.
> 
> Third, "morning after pills are incredibly harmful"?  Abortions kill babies, and YOU talk about THOSE as though the women are getting a mole removed.
Click to expand...



It's nothing like getting a mole removed. It's much more easy.


----------



## there4eyeM

An America concerned with the health of its population, and particular its youngest, would have a health care system that reflected that.
Hypocrites about abortion, if you really thought it were murder, you would get down to an abortion clinic and stop it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored
> 
> If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.
> 
> It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being



I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.

We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".

There's no such thing as a "potential human being".  The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other.  Once they are combined, you have a human being.  There is no interim stage.

Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby.  A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing.  It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
> Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today.   How much more education do you think is necessary?
> 
> How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?
> 
> I think I get it,  you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.
> 
> It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.
Click to expand...


Ahh, the ever-popular "humans are just animals, they can't possibly control their baser instincts with their intellect, how DARE you expect them to?!" argument.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> It takes months for all of the necessary organs to develop so that there is a baby. Most people have abortions before this process is completed. People who want to terminate a pregnancy usually do not wait this long unless they are somehow denied access to the procedure. Late-term abortions are usually done due to medical complications or the discovery that the normal developmental processes did not occur.
> 
> But we live in a world of guns, hatred, violence, and death, so why are the contents of anyone's womb of more vital importance?



You've never swayed me with your "Well, I don't think it looks like an adult, so it can't be alive!" arguments before, so what makes you think I'm going to descend to your level of pig-ignorance this time?

Ditto with the "If I just repeat the propaganda ONE MORE TIME . . ."

Did you really just ask me why I should object to killing babies if the world isn't a perfect place?  Just for the record, I can think of one "born human" who's worth less to me than the contents of a toilet bowl, never mind the contents of a womb.  Just sayin' . . .


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The anti-abortion types seem to think that all unwanted pregnancies stem from closing-time casual sex, which seems to indicate that this is the only type of sex they are familiar with. Abortion is usually driven by economics, the failure of the two parents to agree to cooperate to raise an infant to maturity or abandonment by the male partner, medical problems, and the like.
> 
> The emphasis that the anti-abortion types place on casual sex, as opposed to people having sex in marriage or in relationships indicates that the source of their opinions is hostility to the fact that people actually have sex than any concern for "the unborn child" in this gun-totin', "let them eat cake," "stop them at the border," "I hate everybody who isn't like me" world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The baby-killer types seem to pretend that all abortions stem from rape, incest, and life-threatening illnesses, which seems to indicate that they know the truth makes them appear to be barbarians.  So I think we'll all just continue on with not wanting your approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is a "baby-killer type." Having an abortion is not killing a baby. A "baby" isn't there yet. If a person wants to have a baby and miscarries, is this the Supreme Being/Mother Nature "killing a baby"? One of my aunts had three miscarriages before she succeeded in giving birth to a son. Who was the "baby killer"?
Click to expand...


Hey, Chuckles, you want to slap your personal labels on others' beliefs and congratulate yourself on how smart it makes you, I suggest you butch up AND wise up to realize that I have the same right to do that you do.  

Or don't, because listening to you cry about it gives me a warm fuzzy.

And once again, you can state your ignorant, uneducated worldview as fact all the times you want.  Won't make it true, won't make me view you as more intelligent than a wad of gum on my shoe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, those who support and defend the Constitution, also tend to be more religious, and in that way give more in time and money to help others than you asshat left wing socialists do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody supports and defends the Constitution, and most people help others. Saying that one is "religious" means absolutely nothing, and certainly not that a person is better than others. There are too many batshit-crazy cults. A person can say that they are "religious" when they follow some bozo like frankie graham around. Seriously. You sound like a member of one of these phony, worthless "Christian" monkey cults.
Click to expand...


Everybody doesn't support and defend the Constitution.  Some do, and some support and defend what they want by calling it "Constitutional".

You are the last person on Earth who should even approach the subject of some people being less than others, OR the subject of beliefs being wacko.  Call us when you stop believing that wishing something true makes it so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> An America concerned with the health of its population, and particular its youngest, would have a health care system that reflected that.
> Hypocrites about abortion, if you really thought it were murder, you would get down to an abortion clinic and stop it.



I just heard, "Well, well, well . . . you can't defend your beliefs until you agree with XYZ cause I want to shoehorn into this!  And then you have to do it the way I have decided right this second that you should!"

In case you didn't guess it, no one asked you what you thought pro-lifers should think about the healthcare system, no one submitted their plans to oppose abortion for your approval, and no one whatsoever has any interest in whether or not you have a good opinion of them.

Somehow, we will soldier on.


----------



## there4eyeM

No one cares what hypocrites think.


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> n
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept.   Killing is not an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the unborn child is ALIVE,  after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD.   So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.
Click to expand...


You obviously do not have the most elementary knowledge of the human gestational process. 

Moreover, people have the right to choose their religion, if they want to. Your religious beliefs apply only to you. I doubt that people who have abortions agree with your selection of beliefs.

I don't agree with you as to what happens in the universe. I have my own thoughts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> No one cares what hypocrites think.



So what you're telling me is you are incapable of thinking of an original response.

"You don't care what I think?  Well . . . I don't care what YOU think!  So there!"

Mature.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.
> *
> What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions*
> n
> All anti-choice zealots should read this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept.   Killing is not an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the unborn child is ALIVE,  after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD.   So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not have the most elementary knowledge of the human gestational process.
> 
> Moreover, people have the right to choose their religion, if they want to. Your religious beliefs apply only to you. I doubt that people who have abortions agree with your selection of beliefs.
> 
> I don't agree with you as to what happens in the universe. I have my own thoughts.
Click to expand...


I actually do not know what to even do with this level of delusional ignorance that doesn't involve industrial strength psych meds and a straightjacket.

Find a good therapist and send his kids through college.  It's all you're good for.


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept.   Killing is not an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the unborn child is ALIVE,  after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD.   So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not have the most elementary knowledge of the human gestational process.
> 
> Moreover, people have the right to choose their religion, if they want to. Your religious beliefs apply only to you. I doubt that people who have abortions agree with your selection of beliefs.
> 
> I don't agree with you as to what happens in the universe. I have my own thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually do not know what to even do with this level of delusional ignorance that doesn't involve industrial strength psych meds and a straightjacket.
> 
> Find a good therapist and send his kids through college.  It's all you're good for.
Click to expand...


You are just angry with me because I don't buy into your freak show. Have a good time in cult fairyland. Does it have rides like ferris wheels and rollercoasters?
One last question: are you a bottle bible blonde? They are hilarious.


----------



## Redfish

Lysistrata said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
> Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today.   How much more education do you think is necessary?
> 
> How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?
> 
> I think I get it,  you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.
> 
> It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.
Click to expand...



biology is clear, its the woman who gets pregnant,  so biologically its up to her to decide when and if she gets pregnant.   Blaming horny guys for consensual sex is kind of far fetched,  unless you think that women are incapable of controlling their sexual urges.

your attempt to compare military weapons with birth control is foolish and naive.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the unborn child is ALIVE,  after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD.   So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not have the most elementary knowledge of the human gestational process.
> 
> Moreover, people have the right to choose their religion, if they want to. Your religious beliefs apply only to you. I doubt that people who have abortions agree with your selection of beliefs.
> 
> I don't agree with you as to what happens in the universe. I have my own thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually do not know what to even do with this level of delusional ignorance that doesn't involve industrial strength psych meds and a straightjacket.
> 
> Find a good therapist and send his kids through college.  It's all you're good for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just angry with me because I don't buy into your freak show. Have a good time in cult fairyland. Does it have rides like ferris wheels and rollercoasters?
> One last question: are you a bottle bible blonde? They are hilarious.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm way emotionally invested in having one of the dumbest mental patients on Earth agree with me.  You have magically become important for the first time in your life.

Whatever keeps you off the suicide hotline.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored
> 
> If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.
> 
> It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.
> 
> We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential human being".  The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other.  Once they are combined, you have a human being.  There is no interim stage.
> 
> Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby.  A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing.  It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".
Click to expand...

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored
> 
> If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.
> 
> It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.
> 
> We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential human being".  The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other.  Once they are combined, you have a human being.  There is no interim stage.
> 
> Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby.  A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing.  It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But when is it actually viable?
> 
> A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored
> 
> If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.
> 
> It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.
> 
> We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential human being".  The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other.  Once they are combined, you have a human being.  There is no interim stage.
> 
> Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby.  A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing.  It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But when is it actually viable?
> 
> A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored
> 
> If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.
> 
> It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.
> 
> We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential human being".  The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other.  Once they are combined, you have a human being.  There is no interim stage.
> 
> Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby.  A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing.  It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But when is it actually viable?
> 
> A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
Click to expand...


Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored
> 
> If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.
> 
> It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.
> 
> We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential human being".  The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other.  Once they are combined, you have a human being.  There is no interim stage.
> 
> Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby.  A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing.  It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But when is it actually viable?
> 
> A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
Click to expand...


I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.
> 
> We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".
> 
> There's no such thing as a "potential human being".  The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other.  Once they are combined, you have a human being.  There is no interim stage.
> 
> Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby.  A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing.  It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".
> 
> 
> 
> But when is it actually viable?
> 
> A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
Click to expand...


I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.


----------



## Lysistrata

Redfish said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
> Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today.   How much more education do you think is necessary?
> 
> How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?
> 
> I think I get it,  you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.
> 
> It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> biology is clear, its the woman who gets pregnant,  so biologically its up to her to decide when and if she gets pregnant.   Blaming horny guys for consensual sex is kind of far fetched,  unless you think that women are incapable of controlling their sexual urges.
> 
> your attempt to compare military weapons with birth control is foolish and naive.
Click to expand...


No woman can tell at any given moment whether they can get pregnant or not, so it is not a matter of being "incapable" of controlling one's sexual urges. You cannot reject my question as to why men have sex when they don't want children while lecturing women about personal responsibility and controlling their urges. You refer to "horny guys," which makes men sound like people who can't control their urges, but you write as if excusing them from personal responsibility. You blame women, but you don't want men to take any blame. How does this work? According to you, they shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to accept the consequences.

Even more ridiculous, you write as if most people just have casual sex. In fact, most people have sex in committed relationships. They are husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends. Your past in the bars and cars must be really interesting. You sound very promiscuous.

I didn't compare military weapons with birth control or abortion. I just pointed out the incredible hypocrisy of demanding to be allowed to own weapons capable of killing scores of people in seconds, while screaming about birth control and abortion. How full of shit can a person be?


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when is it actually viable?
> 
> A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
Click to expand...


You  also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact. 

This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when is it actually viable?
> 
> A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
Click to expand...

An organism is not necessarily a person 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Redfish

Lysistrata said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
> Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today.   How much more education do you think is necessary?
> 
> How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?
> 
> I think I get it,  you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.
> 
> It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> biology is clear, its the woman who gets pregnant,  so biologically its up to her to decide when and if she gets pregnant.   Blaming horny guys for consensual sex is kind of far fetched,  unless you think that women are incapable of controlling their sexual urges.
> 
> your attempt to compare military weapons with birth control is foolish and naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No woman can tell at any given moment whether they can get pregnant or not, so it is not a matter of being "incapable" of controlling one's sexual urges. You cannot reject my question as to why men have sex when they don't want children while lecturing women about personal responsibility and controlling their urges. You refer to "horny guys," which makes men sound like people who can't control their urges, but you write as if excusing them from personal responsibility. You blame women, but you don't want men to take any blame. How does this work? According to you, they shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to accept the consequences.
> 
> Even more ridiculous, you write as if most people just have casual sex. In fact, most people have sex in committed relationships. They are husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends. Your past in the bars and cars must be really interesting. You sound very promiscuous.
> 
> I didn't compare military weapons with birth control or abortion. I just pointed out the incredible hypocrisy of demanding to be allowed to own weapons capable of killing scores of people in seconds, while screaming about birth control and abortion. How full of shit can a person be?
Click to expand...



so now you are trying to equate self defense with abortion?   what kind of self defense does the unborn human being have?


----------



## Redfish

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An organism is not necessarily a person
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Ok tell us, at what instant between conception and birth does it become a person?   and how do we define and measure that instant?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.
> 
> This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.
Click to expand...


No, hon.  I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts".  And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.

That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.
> 
> If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.
> 
> An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence.  His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An organism is not necessarily a person
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."

Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking".  I get hung up on the hard science.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An organism is not necessarily a person
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."
> 
> Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking".  I get hung up on the hard science.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.

by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.

That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.
> 
> This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, hon.  I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts".  And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.
> 
> That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.
Click to expand...


You aren't stating "facts," you are stating "opinion" and then hilariously demanding that it be accepted as fact. This remains a philosophical question.

What is this "feelz"? Is it part of this mollusk thing that the cults are into? You right-wingers make up an incredible amount of stuff.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An organism is not necessarily a person
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."
> 
> Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking".  I get hung up on the hard science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.
> 
> by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.
> 
> That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.

I get it.  "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything.  I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.

The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING.  Give that a try here.  I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence.  I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".

If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the fuck out of an argument you're not prepared for.

And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!!  I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational.  Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself.  Rationality requires honesty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.
> 
> Very rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.
> 
> This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, hon.  I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts".  And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.
> 
> That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't stating "facts," you are stating "opinion" and then hilariously demanding that it be accepted as fact. This remains a philosophical question.
> 
> What is this "feelz"? Is it part of this mollusk thing that the cults are into? You right-wingers make up an incredible amount of stuff.
Click to expand...


No, dear.  You'd LIKE the facts to be merely my opinion, because God knows you're too uneducated to deal with anything else.  And you'd like this to be a "philosophical question", because you think that means "Whoever bitches and whines loudest wins".

Embryology recognizes that life begins at conception.  This is a fact.  You can tell it's a fact just by reading an embryology textbook.

"It's not really a life until I want it to be" is an opinion.  And a stupid one at that.


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You  also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.
> 
> This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, hon.  I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts".  And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.
> 
> That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't stating "facts," you are stating "opinion" and then hilariously demanding that it be accepted as fact. This remains a philosophical question.
> 
> What is this "feelz"? Is it part of this mollusk thing that the cults are into? You right-wingers make up an incredible amount of stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dear.  You'd LIKE the facts to be merely my opinion, because God knows you're too uneducated to deal with anything else.  And you'd like this to be a "philosophical question", because you think that means "Whoever bitches and whines loudest wins".
> 
> Embryology recognizes that life begins at conception.  This is a fact.  You can tell it's a fact just by reading an embryology textbook.
> 
> "It's not really a life until I want it to be" is an opinion.  And a stupid one at that.
Click to expand...


You know so much less than you think you no.
My opinion is that this issue poses a philosophical question that must be resolved by the only person qualified to do so, the pregnant woman. She is free to consult with whomever she likes. Neither politicians or adherents of various religions are qualified to usurp her place. End of.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo was not genetically human.
> 
> I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An organism is not necessarily a person
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."
> 
> Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking".  I get hung up on the hard science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.
> 
> by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.
> 
> That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.
> 
> I get it.  "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything.  I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.
> 
> The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING.  Give that a try here.  I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence.  I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".
> 
> If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the fuck out of an argument you're not prepared for.
> 
> And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!!  I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational.  Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself.  Rationality requires honesty.
Click to expand...


I know exactly what you are saying.

And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.

But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.

Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.

So at that point I have no problem with abortion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said that.  Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human."  I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence.  You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".
> 
> He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy.  He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him.  He's a living human organism.
> 
> See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion.  It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"
> 
> In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.
> 
> 
> 
> An organism is not necessarily a person
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."
> 
> Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking".  I get hung up on the hard science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.
> 
> by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.
> 
> That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.
> 
> I get it.  "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything.  I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.
> 
> The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING.  Give that a try here.  I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence.  I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".
> 
> If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the fuck out of an argument you're not prepared for.
> 
> And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!!  I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational.  Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself.  Rationality requires honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know exactly what you are saying.
> 
> And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.
> 
> But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.
> 
> Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.
> 
> So at that point I have no problem with abortion.
Click to expand...


Couple of problems with this.

First of all, I got that you "graciously" agreed with the facts up to a certain point.  I just fail to see what relevance that has to anything.  Am I supposed to be grateful?  Give you a cookie?  "Compromise" on the rest of reality as a reward for you being informed that far?

Second, a hallmark of irrationality is replacing hard fact and science with fuzzy colloquialisms like "person".  "Never mind if it's an organism; it doesn't meet the definition of a person, so THAT'S what really matters."  What the fuck is "the definition of a person", Rational Lad?  Give me the hard, cold, definitive, objective answer to that, and maybe we can talk.  Give me your personal opinion or something feeling-based, and we're back to "you can't demand a rational conversation when you don't intend to be rational".

When you gabble brainlessly about "might develop into a person, but might not, so I'm okay with killing them until I feel they've hit that point", you're not rational.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> An organism is not necessarily a person
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."
> 
> Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking".  I get hung up on the hard science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.
> 
> by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.
> 
> That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.
> 
> I get it.  "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything.  I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.
> 
> The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING.  Give that a try here.  I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence.  I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".
> 
> If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the fuck out of an argument you're not prepared for.
> 
> And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!!  I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational.  Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself.  Rationality requires honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know exactly what you are saying.
> 
> And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.
> 
> But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.
> 
> Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.
> 
> So at that point I have no problem with abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couple of problems with this.
> 
> First of all, I got that you "graciously" agreed with the facts up to a certain point.  I just fail to see what relevance that has to anything.  Am I supposed to be grateful?  Give you a cookie?  "Compromise" on the rest of reality as a reward for you being informed that far?
> 
> Second, a hallmark of irrationality is replacing hard fact and science with fuzzy colloquialisms like "person".  "Never mind if it's an organism; it doesn't meet the definition of a person, so THAT'S what really matters."  What the fuck is "the definition of a person", Rational Lad?  Give me the hard, cold, definitive, objective answer to that, and maybe we can talk.  Give me your personal opinion or something feeling-based, and we're back to "you can't demand a rational conversation when you don't intend to be rational".
> 
> When you gabble brainlessly about "might develop into a person, but might not, so I'm okay with killing them until I feel they've hit that point", you're not rational.
Click to expand...

I am pragmatic you are unreasonable 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## emilynghiem

Dragonlady said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
Click to expand...

Plus the arguments and laws are always framed around the woman's responsibility.
What about the man's?

If it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, where is the discussion of how men shouldn't stick their penises somewhere that would risk creating unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion?


----------



## Crixus

emilynghiem said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling.  Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship.  The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low.  Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.
> 
> The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest.  Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus the arguments and laws are always framed around the woman's responsibility.
> What about the man's?
> 
> If it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, where is the discussion of how men shouldn't stick their penises somewhere that would risk creating unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion?
Click to expand...



What about a mans responsibility? You must not know anyone who is delinquent in child support do you? If you are a parent who is delinquent in child support the first thing that happens to you is your drivers license is suspended. As a matter of fact, every state. Have lived in has done this. After that the delinquent person is thrown in jail off and on, but the debt stacks up. Men are only held to account after the fact, but they are held to account unlike the brown and black people who democrats recommend killing fetus's to.


----------



## Lakhota

Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.


----------



## Norman

Men's wallets should have the first priority.

The first priority is always with the people who make everything run.


----------



## there4eyeM

The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education. 
Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.



Well, if a woman wants an abortion.

If a woman chooses to think differently than you do then you and not be a mindless Democrat drone, then you target the bitch.   Women are only allowed to think what you do, cave man.

You can't selectively support a woman's right to choose.  You do or you don't, and you don't


----------



## kaz

there4eyeM said:


> The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education.
> Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.



Well, it's a good definition of oppression.

A better one is that you don't respect a woman's right to choose in politics.   That would be the definition of oppression since politics is how we protect our freedom and set the rules.

Leftists talking about respecting a "woman's right to choose" is just such shallow hypocrisy


----------



## kaz

emilynghiem said:


> Plus the arguments and laws are always framed around the woman's responsibility.
> What about the man's?
> 
> If it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, where is the discussion of how men shouldn't stick their penises somewhere that would risk creating unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion?



Yep.   Men had a choice ... before they did the deed.   He had a choice.   At that point the fetus is in the woman's body and it's her choice


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> I know exactly what you are saying.
> 
> And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.
> 
> But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.
> 
> Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.
> 
> So at that point I have no problem with abortion.



The legal definition of a "natural person" is simply "a human being." 

That's it. 

It is illogical to say that "a human being" is not a "human being."

Agree? 

If you do agree with that, please explain how "a human being" even in the first days of their life is NOT a "human being."


----------



## Chuz Life

there4eyeM said:


> The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education.
> Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.



Even in a free country, Children are either Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws, from the moment their lives begin. . . or they are not. 

I say they are.


----------



## Chuz Life

Lakhota said:


> Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.



Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Democrats do NOT believe that a woman's rights should begin when her life does.

Democrats believe that a woman's rights should *only* begin when we as a society can not justify the denial of her rights (especially by her own biological mother) anymore.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> The legal definition of a "natural person" is simply "a human being."
> 
> That's it.
> 
> It is illogical to say that "a human being" is not a "human being."
> 
> Agree?
> 
> If you do agree with that, please explain how "a human being" even in the first days of their life is NOT a "human being."



A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.



Democrats give their own wallets and their own power ALL priority, and then lie to women that it's for them.


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> Democrats give their own wallets and their own power ALL priority, and then lie to women that it's for them.



This thing that Democrats are pro-choice is just complete since the biggest choice we make is our political views in a free country, and Lakota and the knuckle dragging pasty ass white leftist knuckle draggers in the Democrat party will be the first to demean any woman that dares think differently than they do


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education.
> Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.



Thank you so much for "helpfully" mansplaining to me that I'm oppressed by biology and Mother Nature.  I like being told that the central facet of being a woman is akin to slavery and should be abhorred.  I feel confident that any "education" you wanted to provide on the subject would be equally geared toward biological fact.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is



Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> This thing that Democrats are pro-choice is just complete since the biggest choice we make is our political views in a free country, and Lakota and the knuckle dragging pasty ass white leftist knuckle draggers in the Democrat party will be the first to demean any woman that dares think differently than they do



They don't realize it, but they're demeaning women who agree with them, as well.  They demean womanhood in general.


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> They don't realize it, but they're demeaning women who agree with them, as well.  They demean womanhood in general.



I'd state it slightly differently that the women of the Democrat demean themselves by participating in the electronic lynching of women who dare think for themselves.  Say to a leftist woman, can women think for themselves?   Yes!  Of course!   Can they think differently than you???  Well, no.   So how are leftist women advocating women can think for themselves?   Truly believing someone can think for themselves means you realize they might disagree ... with you ...

Leftist women bless attacking non leftist women.  Frankly it's sick


----------



## there4eyeM

Cecilie1200 said:


> Thank you so much for "helpfully" mansplaining to me that I'm oppressed by biology and Mother Nature.  I like being told that the central facet of being a woman is akin to slavery and should be abhorred.  I feel confident that any "education" you wanted to provide on the subject would be equally geared toward biological fact.


You must have been waiting quite a while to get to use that expression and are no doubt relieved to have gotten it off your, uh, chest. "Explaining" to someone so full of projection and fully formed opinions about unknown persons would be of little probably use.
For anyone else reading this who could conceivably take another meaning from post #1050, the oppression mentioned had not to do with nature, but rather the state (of mind of people who would force a woman to bear).


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> I'd state it slightly differently that the women of the Democrat demean themselves by participating in the electronic lynching of women who dare think for themselves.  Say to a leftist woman, can women think for themselves?   Yes!  Of course!   Can they think differently than you???  Well, no.   So how are leftist women advocating women can think for themselves?   Truly believing someone can think for themselves means you realize they might disagree ... with you ...
> 
> Leftist women bless attacking non leftist women.  Frankly it's sick



No, what I mean is, the leftist agenda on "women's rights" is demeaning to the very core of being a woman.  Somewhere along the way, they got the idea that womanhood and femaleness were inferior, and that the way for women to truly acquire equality with men was to become men, and abandon and despise everything that is inherent to women and makes them different from men.

And then they embraced the new patriarchy of transgenderism, which has done more to set women back towards being second-class citizens and chattel than anything in my lifetime.


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> You must have been waiting quite a while to get to use that expression and are no doubt relieved to have gotten it off your, uh, chest. "Explaining" to someone so full of projection and fully formed opinions about unknown persons would be of little probably use.
> For anyone else reading this who could conceivably take another meaning from post #1050, the oppression mentioned had not to do with nature, but rather the state (of mind of people who would force a woman to bear).



Your respect for women oozes from every word of your condescension to a woman who dares to disagree with your received male wisdom.

I'd recommend some introspection about your own attitudes and posts, but you're too busy "knowing" you're right to try to find out if maybe you aren't.

Run along and patriarch somewhere else, chauvinist.


----------



## there4eyeM

Cecilie1200 said:


> Your respect for women oozes from every word of your condescension to a woman who dares to disagree with your received male wisdom.
> 
> I'd recommend some introspection about your own attitudes and posts, but you're too busy "knowing" you're right to try to find out if maybe you aren't.
> 
> Run along and patriarch somewhere else, chauvinist.


Any lack of logic on your part makes no one other patriarchal.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is



Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.

Firstly, a denial is not an argument. 

Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."

A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact. 

If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being." 

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact. 

I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"

Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> Any lack of logic on your part makes no one other patriarchal.



Any assumption that disagreeing with you is a "lack of logic" is patriarchal.


----------



## Kondor3

If it's a single choice, then my own priorities would be, in order...

1. the woman

2. the fetus

3. the fertilized egg

With protection for (2) where the pregnancy is well-advanced and there is no reasonable medical danger to the woman.


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.


Dear Lakhota The issue is protecting people of both beliefs equally: (1) whether you believe in defending women's due process rights [even at the expense of unborn rights to life if forced to make a choice compromising one of the two] (2) someone else believes in defending unborn rights to life [even at the expense of women's due process rights if forced to choose between the two] (3) I believe in defending both women's due process rights and unborn rights to life EQUALLY where NEITHER is compromised so all 3 beliefs are protected equally. Since Constitutional and Civil Rights laws require people of all beliefs to be treated equally under law, then laws can only be passed and enforced that defend all 3 beliefs equally as cites above. Or else laws biased toward any of the above while excluding any of the others are unconstitutional and discriminate by creed.


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.




really?   does that include black female babies who are killed more than anyone else by abortions?


----------



## Redfish

Kondor3 said:


> If it's a single choice, then my own priorities would be, in order...
> 
> 1. the woman
> 
> 2. the fetus
> 
> 3. the fertilized egg
> 
> With protection for (2) where the pregnancy is well-advanced and there is no reasonable medical danger to the woman.




I agree, I would add:  that when the choice is the unborn child or the woman, the woman should be the one making the choice.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
Click to expand...


Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.
> 
> Firstly, a denial is not an argument.
> 
> Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."
> 
> A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.
> 
> If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."
> 
> Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.
> 
> I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"
> 
> Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you resurrected this thread it's clear we are never going to agree 

I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.

But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.

So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on.  It's a waste of time.


----------



## there4eyeM

It is bewildering that this continues to be brought up when resolution is obviously impossible.
The question of abortion is unique. It is intimate to women and would thus be for them to decide in a rational setting. For better or worse, however, we find ourselves in the setting of present day America.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
Click to expand...


Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.
> 
> Firstly, a denial is not an argument.
> 
> Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."
> 
> A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.
> 
> If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."
> 
> Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.
> 
> I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"
> 
> Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why you resurrected this *thread *it's clear we are never going to agree
> 
> I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.
> 
> But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.
> 
> So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on.  It's a waste of time.
Click to expand...


1. I didn't necro this thread. Scroll back and see.
2. You have yet to provide anything more than your opinion to support your claim that any level of function above that which a zygote has is required for them being recognized as a human being / organism / child / person.
3. Do yourself a favor and learn the actual scientific difference between a "potential" organism and one where that potential has been realized and it now exists.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
Click to expand...

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.
> 
> Firstly, a denial is not an argument.
> 
> Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."
> 
> A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.
> 
> If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."
> 
> Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.
> 
> I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"
> 
> Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why you resurrected this thread it's clear we are never going to agree
> 
> I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.
> 
> But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.
> 
> So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on.  It's a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't necro this thread. Scroll back and see.
> 2. You have yet to provide anything more than your opinion to support your claim that any level of function above that which a zygote has is required for them being recognized as a human being / organism / child / person.
> 3. Do yourself a favor and learn the actual scientific difference between a "potential" organism and one where that potential has been realized and it now exists.
Click to expand...


The post by me that you replied to was from the beginning of February.

So yeah you did


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
Click to expand...


You answered only half the question. 

"IS EVERY CELL IN YOUR BODY AN ORGANISM?"

Yes or no?


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.
> 
> Firstly, a denial is not an argument.
> 
> Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."
> 
> A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.
> 
> If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."
> 
> Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.
> 
> I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"
> 
> Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why you resurrected this thread it's clear we are never going to agree
> 
> I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.
> 
> But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.
> 
> So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on.  It's a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't necro this thread. Scroll back and see.
> 2. You have yet to provide anything more than your opinion to support your claim that any level of function above that which a zygote has is required for them being recognized as a human being / organism / child / person.
> 3. Do yourself a favor and learn the actual scientific difference between a "potential" organism and one where that potential has been realized and it now exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post by me that you replied to was from the beginning of February.
> 
> So yeah you did
Click to expand...


Silly me, I thought you would know the difference between a "Thread" which is what you said and a "post" which is what you are now indicating. 

Since you can't seem to grasp the difference between a potential organism and one that already exists. . . I should know better than to expect much.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
Click to expand...


I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.

Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
Click to expand...


What I said is a fact.

And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.

When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
Click to expand...


No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".

Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"

While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".


----------



## Chuz Life

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
Click to expand...

Thank you so much.


----------



## whitehall

I imagine they used to run polls like that in Germany in the late 30's asking which was more important, the lives of Jews or the Nazi new world order. When you refer to a full term infant, able to live on it's own, as an egg or a fetus you are already skewing the poll. Everybody knows that late term or partial birth abortions are done in such a way that the baby is technically not a person under the law as long as a couple of inches of it's head remains in the birth canal while it is stabbed in the back of the head (without anesthesia) and it's little brain sucked out with a frankenstein machine until it's face looks like a cabbage patch doll. Yet the radical left fights every effort to outlaw the operation that is nothing but infanticide.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Chuz Life said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you so much.
Click to expand...


Oh, it was a pleasure, believe me.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

I have a question. What is the egg/fetus/baby considered once the mother in waiting finally learns that she has something inside of her in the first place?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. No matter what kind of sticker it is given, to me, its a kid and not a cancer that must be removed and discarded as soon as possible.


----------



## there4eyeM

Fortunately, the decision is not in other hands than the woman in this country. That is where it belongs.
Abortion is a poor choice, but it is not "evil". Prevention is more desirable and is highly effective, though not 100%. This fact does not 'justify' the quantity of abortions that take place. Women should be making better choices. That said, the entire population on any number of levels should be making better choices, from elections to food to vehicles and on and on. People today make poor choices with little sense of personal responsibility. The examples are everywhere. For a minority to want to punish young women who may have made one poor choice is not very coherent.
We, as a society, make many decisions that determine life or death. It is hypocritical to set aside collective responsibility for this and apply another standard when a female is faced with the excruciating choice of bearing or not.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
Click to expand...

Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.

And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.

I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high






						What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage?
					

10 to 20 percentages of pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Read on to know more.




					www.epainassist.com
				






_March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage._
_It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy._


  So viability outside the womb matters.

And everyone has an agenda even you.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it was a pleasure, believe me.
Click to expand...

Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?



Speaking of small. . .

Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues? 

If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father. 

Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of small. . .
> 
> Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?
> 
> If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.
> 
> Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.
Click to expand...


For one I am not pro abortion.

If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.

I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end.  At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.

I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.

And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?

We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of small. . .
> 
> Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?
> 
> If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.
> 
> Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one I am not pro abortion.
> 
> If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.
> 
> I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end.  At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.
> 
> I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.
> 
> And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?
> 
> We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.
Click to expand...



If you are a *PRO*ponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is. 

You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you *PRO* on abortion. Pro-abortion. 

As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, *according to you*, is not a child.  So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of small. . .
> 
> Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?
> 
> If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.
> 
> Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one I am not pro abortion.
> 
> If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.
> 
> I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end.  At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.
> 
> I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.
> 
> And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?
> 
> We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a *PRO*ponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is.
> 
> You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you *PRO* on abortion. Pro-abortion.
> 
> As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, *according to you*, is not a child.  So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.
Click to expand...

A zygote is not a child as it is a single cell

How many single cell children have you ever seen walking around?


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of small. . .
> 
> Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?
> 
> If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.
> 
> Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one I am not pro abortion.
> 
> If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.
> 
> I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end.  At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.
> 
> I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.
> 
> And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?
> 
> We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a *PRO*ponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is.
> 
> You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you *PRO* on abortion. Pro-abortion.
> 
> As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, *according to you*, is not a child.  So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A zygote is not a child as it is a single cell
> 
> How many single cell children have you ever seen walking around?
Click to expand...


Can you show me where the ability to walk is a requirement for a child in* ANY *stage of development to be recognized as a child?

No?

I thought not.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?



I absolutely know that I am smarter than most. In the few areas where I am NOT smarter, I am willing to admit that I am wrong , when and where I am proven wrong.

Which is why I ask you (or any other proabort) to explain to me WITH SCIENCE, what it is that makes a biological father a "biological parent" of a child. . .  if the THING he parented (a zygote) is (per *YOUR* claim) NOT a child.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow how small is your life that you get pleasure in such trivialities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of small. . .
> 
> Were you ever a zygote at any point in your life cycle, Blues?
> 
> If your answer is no. . . the, maybe you can explain what it is that makes a child's biological father THEIR biological father.
> 
> Still waiting for any pro-abort to answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one I am not pro abortion.
> 
> If I was then I would be advocating that women get abortions.
> 
> I have always said that there is a point during pregnancy that is the tipping point where the fetus becomes a viable life that can exist outside the womb and it is at that point where the availability of elective abortion procedures should end.  At that point if the life of the mother was at risk from the pregnancy or due to some other illness or accident then the child could be delivered preterm and would have a chance at survival.
> 
> I am comfortable saying that a viable child still in the womb is more important than any any stage of development prior to viability outside the womb.
> 
> And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?
> 
> We all know that a sperm cell and an egg cell have only half of the chromosomes of the father or the mother and that a sperm cell must penetrate the membrane of an ovum to provide the fertilized egg with the complete chromosome set needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a *PRO*ponent for something / ANYTHING, you are by definition "PRO" whatever that thing is.
> 
> You are a proponent for keeping abortions (a sadistic form of child molestation) legal. That makes you *PRO* on abortion. Pro-abortion.
> 
> As for the biology, the father's sperm only helps create a "zygote" which, *according to you*, is not a child.  So (according to you) the guy is only the father of a meaningless zygote / sub human and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A zygote is not a child as it is a single cell
> 
> How many single cell children have you ever seen walking around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me where the ability to walk is a requirement for a child in* ANY *stage of development to be recognized as a child?
> 
> No?
> 
> I thought not.
Click to expand...


OK then show me any single cell child living outside of the womb.

There is no way you will change my mind that a single cell is equivalent to a viable child in the womb.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think because you have a grasp on high school biology that you are more intelligent than everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely know that I am smarter than most. In the few areas where I am NOT smarter, I am willing to admit that I am wrong , when and where I am proven wrong.
> 
> Which is why I ask you (or any other proabort) to explain to me WITH SCIENCE, what it is that makes a biological father a "biological parent" of a child. . .  if the THING he parented (a zygote) is (per *YOUR* claim) NOT a child.
Click to expand...


A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> OK then show me any single cell child living outside of the womb.











Blues Man said:


> There is no way you will change my mind that a single cell is equivalent to a viable child in the womb.



I don't need to change your mind. Especially, when we already have legal language in our nation's more than 130 fetal *HOMICIDE* laws that prove against your fucktarded denials and assertions.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK then show me any single cell child living outside of the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way you will change my mind that a single cell is equivalent to a viable child in the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to change your mind. Especially, when we already have legal language in our nation's more than 130 fetal *HOMICIDE* laws that prove against your fucktarded denials and assertions.
Click to expand...


Still not a child.

OK

So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust



Biology fail on your part, again.

Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.

An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."

When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create a new organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.

You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Still not a child.



Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.




Blues Man said:


> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?



That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.

So much for your *false dilemma*.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology fail on your part, again.
> 
> Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.
> 
> An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."
> 
> When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.
> 
> You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.
Click to expand...






Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.
> 
> So much for your *false dilemma*.
Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma

It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them

But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.

And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.

So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.

You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.

Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology fail on your part, again.
> 
> Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.
> 
> An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."
> 
> When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.
> 
> You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.
> 
> So much for your *false dilemma*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma
> 
> It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them
> 
> But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.
> 
> And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.
> 
> So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.
> 
> You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.
> 
> Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .
Click to expand...

Your tirade begs the question.

What is the *physiological* difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?

Take your time.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.
> 
> And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.
> 
> I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage?
> 
> 
> 10 to 20 percentages of pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Read on to know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.epainassist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage._
> _It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy._
> 
> 
> So viability outside the womb matters.
> 
> And everyone has an agenda even you.
Click to expand...


Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.

Also, I'm not telling you what you think.  YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.

What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages?  People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology fail on your part, again.
> 
> Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.
> 
> An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."
> 
> When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.
> 
> You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.
> 
> So much for your *false dilemma*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma
> 
> It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them
> 
> But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.
> 
> And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.
> 
> So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.
> 
> You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.
> 
> Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your tirade begs the question.
> 
> What is the *physiological* difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?
> 
> Take your time.
Click to expand...


I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.
> 
> And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.
> 
> I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage?
> 
> 
> 10 to 20 percentages of pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Read on to know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.epainassist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage._
> _It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy._
> 
> 
> So viability outside the womb matters.
> 
> And everyone has an agenda even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.
> 
> Also, I'm not telling you what you think.  YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.
> 
> What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages?  People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.
Click to expand...

Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.

Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?

This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said
_
"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"_

I said no such thing.  You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.

So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.
> 
> And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.
> 
> I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage?
> 
> 
> 10 to 20 percentages of pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Read on to know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.epainassist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage._
> _It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy._
> 
> 
> So viability outside the womb matters.
> 
> And everyone has an agenda even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.
> 
> Also, I'm not telling you what you think.  YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.
> 
> What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages?  People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.
> 
> Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?
> 
> This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said
> 
> _"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"_
> 
> I said no such thing.  You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.
> 
> So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up
Click to expand...


You said EXACTLY that.  I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others.  You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.
> 
> And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.
> 
> I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage?
> 
> 
> 10 to 20 percentages of pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Read on to know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.epainassist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage._
> _It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy._
> 
> 
> So viability outside the womb matters.
> 
> And everyone has an agenda even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.
> 
> Also, I'm not telling you what you think.  YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.
> 
> What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages?  People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.
> 
> Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?
> 
> This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said
> 
> _"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"_
> 
> I said no such thing.  You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.
> 
> So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said EXACTLY that.  I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others.  You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.
Click to expand...

I did not say that if I did say "exactly that" ( and you'll notice the quotation marks used correctly) then you should be able to find the post where I said "exactly that" ( once again I'll point out the correct usage of quotation marks) then you should be able to link to the post in which I said "exactly that" ( that's 3 examples of the correct use of quotation marks)


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blues Man said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.
> 
> And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.
> 
> I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage?
> 
> 
> 10 to 20 percentages of pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Read on to know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.epainassist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage._
> _It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy._
> 
> 
> So viability outside the womb matters.
> 
> And everyone has an agenda even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.
> 
> Also, I'm not telling you what you think.  YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.
> 
> What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages?  People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.
> 
> Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?
> 
> This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said
> 
> _"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"_
> 
> I said no such thing.  You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.
> 
> So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said EXACTLY that.  I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others.  You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not say that if I did say "exactly that" ( and you'll notice the quotation marks used correctly) then you should be able to find the post where I said "exactly that" ( once again I'll point out the correct usage of quotation marks) then you should be able to link to the post in which I said "exactly that" ( that's 3 examples of the correct use of quotation marks)
Click to expand...


*yawn* Another illiterate trying to play grammar Nazi at me about what she THINKS she knows.  I used the quotation marks correctly, lackwit.  The problem here is that I used them for a function they serve that your uneducated ass wasn't aware of.  You're like a 3rd-grader trying to tell a college math professor that parantheses can't be used in math, because it's not in his arithmetic book.

Furthermore, we aren't playing this "I focus on half a sentence, and pretend it's the whole post with no context" game of yours.

You just don't like hearing your positions stated in bald, honest terms instead of your weaselly "I get to feel like a good person while being a piece of shit" euphemisms.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school?  Damn, dude.  That's just embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being.  You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat, did you actually attend any of your biology classes in high school?  Or middle school, for that matter?  Because I did, and I distinctly recall some time being spent on explaining the very basic facts about the differences in types of cells, your ignorance of which you are laughably attempting to make a "brilliant" argument about.
> 
> Does it even embarrass you to stand barefaced in public, shouting, "Accept my ignorance as fact!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is a fact.
> 
> And an "rganism" that cannot survive isn't really much to defend. So an embryo, or even a fetus that isn't developed enough to survive outside the womb is of less consequence to me than one that can.
> 
> When a fetus is actually viable outside the womb it  is more important to me from an ethical standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what you said is ignorance you mistook for fact.  The ACTUAL fact is that comparing a zygote to a cheek cell is the equivalent of comparing your left arm to your spleen because "they're both body parts".  And "every cell is the end result of sexual reproduction" is a lame attempt at a dodge by way of "I'll be really obtuse until they give up on me as hopelessly ignorant, and then declare victory".
> 
> Furthermore, moving the goalposts from "a zygote is just a cell like a cheek cell" to "fine, it's an organism, but it's worthless because it's weak" - while trying to rush past any need to admit that you lost the first argument - is epic-level lameness and also dishonest.  If you have to skip from argument to argument to argument while ignoring that they all contradict themselves, maybe it's time you face the fact that your arguments and your position are so much bullshit, based in no more fact than "I want it to be true, so there!"
> 
> While I appreciate you coming out into the open about your REAL agenda of, "I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me", you and I both know you're going to go right back to, "This is science, until I need this to be science, unless I need this to be science!" the instant you think you can get away with pretending nothing happened here.  And don't even get me started on, "Well, I feel completely ethical in advocating a disposable class of people, because . . . I say so."  You must have been skipping English classes the same time you were skipping biology classes, if you think "ethics" means "This is right because I want it that way".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't feel the need to "win" an argument with people on the internet.
> 
> And don't try to tell me what I think or don't think.
> 
> I have repeatedly stipulated that a human zygote is genetically unique but that genetic uniqueness is not a guarantee that that zygote will develop into a human being capable of independent life. In fact the percentage of miscarriages in the first trimester is extremely high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Percentage Of Pregnancies Ends In Miscarriage?
> 
> 
> 10 to 20 percentages of pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Read on to know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.epainassist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _March of Dimes states that 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before a woman have next menstrual flow. Most of them are not aware of their pregnancy. About 15-20% of recognized pregnancy converts into a miscarriage._
> _It is estimated that 80% of miscarriage happen in the first trimester in the first three months of pregnancy. Most of the fetus is lost in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy._
> 
> 
> So viability outside the womb matters.
> 
> And everyone has an agenda even you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike me, you aren't capable of winning an argument, so it's probably good that you've accepted that.
> 
> Also, I'm not telling you what you think.  YOU told ME what you think; that's sorta what happens when you use those word thingies.
> 
> What possible fucking difference is it supposed to make that pregnancies end in miscarriages?  People also die of natural causes, but I would hope you don't think that makes it okay to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but you put in quotes what you think i said.
> 
> Do you not know what quotation marks indicate?
> 
> This is what you posted and attributed to me as what I said
> 
> _"I have no scientific fact, I just view lives as disposable when they don't suit me"_
> 
> I said no such thing.  You made that up put it in quotes and then proceeded to tell me that is what I said.
> 
> So you see you are making shit up and attributing it to me then arguing against the shit you made up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said EXACTLY that.  I just stripped away the euphemisms and justifications and told you what you're conveying to others.  You may not like it, but I defy you to show me how it's substantially different, other than the fact that it doesn't make you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not say that if I did say "exactly that" ( and you'll notice the quotation marks used correctly) then you should be able to find the post where I said "exactly that" ( once again I'll point out the correct usage of quotation marks) then you should be able to link to the post in which I said "exactly that" ( that's 3 examples of the correct use of quotation marks)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yawn* Another illiterate trying to play grammar Nazi at me about what she THINKS she knows.  I used the quotation marks correctly, lackwit.  The problem here is that I used them for a function they serve that your uneducated ass wasn't aware of.  You're like a 3rd-grader trying to tell a college math professor that parantheses can't be used in math, because it's not in his arithmetic book.
> 
> Furthermore, we aren't playing this "I focus on half a sentence, and pretend it's the whole post with no context" game of yours.
> 
> You just don't like hearing your positions stated in bald, honest terms instead of your weaselly "I get to feel like a good person while being a piece of shit" euphemisms.
Click to expand...

My screen name is Blues Man that would imply a masculine pronoun should be used.

You are obviously not as smart or perceptive as you think you are

And what you think my positions are is worthless because you fabricated them rather than using actual quotes.

So not only are you not as smart and perceptive as you think you are you are also dishonest.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology fail on your part, again.
> 
> Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.
> 
> An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."
> 
> When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.
> 
> You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.
> 
> So much for your *false dilemma*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma
> 
> It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them
> 
> But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.
> 
> And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.
> 
> So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.
> 
> You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.
> 
> Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your tirade begs the question.
> 
> What is the *physiological* difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.
Click to expand...



There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.

A (especially temporary) state or physical *condition* does not change what the child *IS*.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology fail on your part, again.
> 
> Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.
> 
> An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."
> 
> When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.
> 
> You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.
> 
> So much for your *false dilemma*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma
> 
> It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them
> 
> But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.
> 
> And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.
> 
> So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.
> 
> You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.
> 
> Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your tirade begs the question.
> 
> What is the *physiological* difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.
> 
> A (especially temporary) state or physical *condition* does not change what the child *IS*.
Click to expand...


A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology fail on your part, again.
> 
> Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.
> 
> An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."
> 
> When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.
> 
> You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.
> 
> So much for your *false dilemma*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma
> 
> It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them
> 
> But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.
> 
> And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.
> 
> So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.
> 
> You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.
> 
> Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your tirade begs the question.
> 
> What is the *physiological* difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.
> 
> A (especially temporary) state or physical *condition* does not change what the child *IS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.
Click to expand...

"Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical *conditions* that a particular organism / creature is going through.

Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.

Agree?

Hint: The answer is yes.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote is a potential child just like a collection of flour yeast and water is a potential pizza crust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology fail on your part, again.
> 
> Let's see if you have enough stray brain cells to comprehend a basic biological fact.
> 
> An *un-united* sperm and egg cell are representative of a "potential child."
> 
> When a sperm and egg cell do unite,* their* "potential" to create anew organism is "realized" and their potential is done. The sperm and egg cell no longer exist. The sperm and egg cells lives are OVER and the new organism that they merged to create now DOES exist.
> 
> You skipped Biology alot. Didn't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denials are boring and tiresome but they don't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> So you're walking down the street and you see a petri dish with a human zygote in it in the middle of the road to your left and you also see a 1 day old infant in the middle of the street to your right.  There are buses speeding toward each and you can only save one which do you pick and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might depend on if it is MY child in the petri dish. Seeing how much money many couples spend trying to get pregnant. . .  I can easily see such a couple saving their own child or children in a petri dish over any other (even an adult) human being.
> 
> So much for your *false dilemma*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a hypothetical question not a false dilemma
> 
> It's hypothetical because it could never happen as a zygote in a petri dish is not something anyone carries around with them
> 
> But I do know I would save the infant because I believe the infant is more important than a single cell.
> 
> And like I said I have agreed with you that a zygote is a uniquely human cell but it is still an undeveloped child with absolutely no chance of being viable outside the womb.
> 
> So I place higher importance to unborn children that are viable outside the womb.
> 
> You think that a single cell is no less important than a newborn infant.
> 
> Thus we are and always will be at an impasse .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your tirade begs the question.
> 
> What is the *physiological* difference between an "undeveloped child" and an actual Child that happens to be developing?
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you the difference is viability outside the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between a VIABLE child and a NON Viable child.
> 
> A (especially temporary) state or physical *condition* does not change what the child *IS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical *conditions* that a particular organism / creature is going through.
> 
> Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.
> 
> Agree?
> 
> Hint: The answer is yes.
Click to expand...


I never said an embryo wasn't an embryo.

But even you have to agree that a 2 day old embryo and a 9 month old embryo are different

and just a question 

Why did you use the term *(sic)

it usually means you are keeping a grammatical or spelling error as written by another.


----------



## JoeMoma

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.


----------



## Blues Man

JoeMoma said:


> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.


except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.


----------



## JoeMoma

Blues Man said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
Click to expand...

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.


----------



## Blues Man

JoeMoma said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.
Click to expand...




Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried


----------



## JoeMoma

Blues Man said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried
Click to expand...

Not entirely different.  Both requires support from a more mature human to survive.  Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.

The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can.  Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.


----------



## Blues Man

JoeMoma said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not entirely different.  Both requires support from a more mature human to survive.  Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.
> 
> The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can.  Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.
Click to expand...


We rationalize everything we do so why should that be any different?


----------



## JoeMoma

Blues Man said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not entirely different.  Both requires support from a more mature human to survive.  Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.
> 
> The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can.  Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We rationalize everything we do so why should that be any different?
Click to expand...

Good point.


----------



## Coyote

JoeMoma said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not entirely different.  Both requires support from a more mature human to survive.  Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.
> 
> The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can.  Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.
Click to expand...



I don't think it's really comparable.  Viable - can live.  It can breathe, regulate it's core functions somewhat, independent of another's biology.  It needs human help to grow and survive, but not to just live (however briefly).

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.  

Ultimately I think that has to be the line because anything else marginalizes the woman's most fundemental rights.   Late term "Abortions" when a fetus is viable are exceedingly rare - they're usually emergency procedures, caesarians.


----------



## JoeMoma

Coyote said:


> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.


Yes, that's how our accounting system works.  The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.


----------



## Chuz Life

JoeMoma said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how our accounting system works.  The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.
Click to expand...


This was just sarcasm.

Right?

Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not entirely different.  Both requires support from a more mature human to survive.  Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.
> 
> The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can.  Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's really comparable.  Viable - can live.  It can breathe, regulate it's core functions somewhat, independent of another's biology.  It needs human help to grow and survive, but not to just live (however briefly).
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> Ultimately I think that has to be the line because anything else marginalizes the woman's most fundemental rights.   Late term "Abortions" when a fetus is viable are exceedingly rare - they're usually emergency procedures, caesarians.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but what you're talking about as "viable" isn't actually "can live" at all.  First, because a baby in the womb does respirate and does regulate its own core functions.  Second, because a newborn is only "independent of another's biology" because women no longer breast-feed.  Up until the 1960s, most newborn babies were still dependent on "another's biology", and they are still wholly dependent on other people.  Third, because what you're really talking about is "able to live IN A SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT".  Unborn babies are designed to live in the environment nature ascribes to them, so naturally they can't live in another environment.  Fish can't live on dry land, and you'd die pretty quickly if I stuck you in the middle of the ocean.  But that doesn't preclude either from being described as "alive".

You really need to quit making up justifications to yourself and then repeating them as fact.  In fact, just as with normal childbirth, third-trimester abortions are performed by hysterotomy (similar to a Caesarian section) only as a last resort.  They're most commonly performed by D&X.  Whether or not you consider 1% of abortions to be "exceedingly rare" is a matter of opinion.


----------



## JoeMoma

Chuz Life said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how our accounting system works.  The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was just sarcasm.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?
> 
> Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.
Click to expand...

It's simply the truth in my opinion.  Whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, for thousands of years of human history, a new citizen is recognized at birth because it is such a landmark event. For most of human history, the gender of the baby was not known until birth.  A government isn't going to be very active in protecting a person's human rights until that government recognizes a person's existence.   Often women have miscarriages with few if any other people knowing about it. We now have abortion pills such as Plan B that a woman can take to force a miscarriage.

Unfortunately, the unborn is unable to protect it's own human rights.  And if the government has not yet counted the unborn as a person/citizen, then it is unlikely the government will do much to protect the human rights of the unborn.

I am claiming that without the government protecting human rights, the weak will have none.  The unborn are the weakest among us.


----------



## Coyote

JoeMoma said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how our accounting system works.  The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that is the point where full rights are conferred...and there is no impact on the mother's rights....


----------



## Coyote

JoeMoma said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how our accounting system works.  The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was just sarcasm.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?
> 
> Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's simply the truth in my opinion.  Whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, for thousands of years of human history, a new citizen is recognized at birth because it is such a landmark event. For most of human history, the gender of the baby was not known until birth.  A government isn't going to be very active in protecting a person's human rights until that government recognizes a person's existence.   Often women have miscarriages with few if any other people knowing about it. We now have abortion pills such as Plan B that a woman can take to force a miscarriage.
> 
> Unfortunately, the unborn is unable to protect it's own human rights.  And if the government has not yet counted the unborn as a person/citizen, then it is unlikely the government will do much to protect the human rights of the unborn.
> 
> I am claiming that without the government protecting human rights, the weak will have none.  The unborn are the weakest among us.
Click to expand...



Unborn - whether fertilized egg up to not yet viable - shouldn't have rights imo.  Any rights would impinge on the rights of women.  And there is no other way than to see it that way....it would reduce us to broodmares with every miscarriage subject to legal action, as someone subject to lawsuits for a less than perfect baby...there is so much there.  And it affects only one class of people - women.  

If people want to stop or reduce abortion, imo, making it illegal is not going to do it.  Making it unnecessary is.  And we've seen reductions in abortions through better education and birth control.  IMO that is the way.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another.  If left to take care of its self alone, it will die.  At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not entirely different.  Both requires support from a more mature human to survive.  Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.
> 
> The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can.  Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's really comparable.  Viable - can live.  It can breathe, regulate it's core functions somewhat, independent of another's biology.  It needs human help to grow and survive, but not to just live (however briefly).
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> Ultimately I think that has to be the line because anything else marginalizes the woman's most fundemental rights.   Late term "Abortions" when a fetus is viable are exceedingly rare - they're usually emergency procedures, caesarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but what you're talking about as "viable" isn't actually "can live" at all.  First, because a baby in the womb does respirate and does regulate its own core functions.
Click to expand...


You made my point.  And with an interesting choice of words.

In utero a fetus can regulate some functions.  It does not however, respirate (which, ironically means to "give artificial respiration").  It gets oxygen through the umbilical cord - from the mother's blood. The mother breaths for the baby.  The mother also "breaths out" for the baby, removing carbon dioxide through the placenta to her blood.  That is the only way respiration occurs until birth.



> Second, because a newborn is only "independent of another's biology" because women no longer breast-feed.  Up until the 1960s, most newborn babies were still dependent on "another's biology", and they are still wholly dependent on other people.



Yes - but ANY woman can fulfill that function.  Or really - any mammal.  The baby after birth, does not require a host body to keep it alive.



> Third, because what you're really talking about is "able to live IN A SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT".  Unborn babies are designed to live in the environment nature ascribes to them, so naturally they can't live in another environment.  Fish can't live on dry land, and you'd die pretty quickly if I stuck you in the middle of the ocean.  But that doesn't preclude either from being described as "alive".



That specific environment is another human being's body and no one has the right to co-op another human's body against their will. 



> You really need to quit making up justifications to yourself and then repeating them as fact.  In fact, just as with normal childbirth, third-trimester abortions are performed by hysterotomy (similar to a Caesarian section) only as a last resort.  They're most commonly performed by D&X.  Whether or not you consider 1% of abortions to be "exceedingly rare" is a matter of opinion.



Who's making up justifications?  It's a matter of rights and birth is the line.

I used the term "late term" abortions as defined by when a fetus is viable.  Third trimester abortions are exceedingly rare and usually for reason's of severe fetal deformity or the mother's health.   1% is not a matter of opinion.  It's exceedingly rare.  They are also in almost all states heavily regulated, the Supreme Court decided in 1973, that after the point in which a fetus might be viable states could regulate it.  That seems reasonable.


----------



## Chuz Life

Blues Man said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.
> 
> 
> 
> "Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical *conditions* that a particular organism / creature is going through.
> 
> Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.
> 
> Agree?
> 
> Hint: The answer is yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo wasn't an embryo.
> 
> But even you have to agree that a 2 day old embryo and a 9 month old embryo are different
> 
> and just a question
> 
> Why did you use the term *(sic)
> 
> it usually means you are keeping a grammatical or spelling error as written by another.
Click to expand...


Okaaaayyy. . . 

Now FOCUS.

Let's see if you can connect the dots. 

An Embryo is the SAME embryo - whether the Embryo is "viable" or NOT.

True or false?

And I used the term *(sic) because the word "embryo" was from YOUR example and NOT an argument that I share. I was trying to make the point using YOUR own terms, rather than my own.


----------



## Blues Man

Chuz Life said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.
> 
> 
> 
> "Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical *conditions* that a particular organism / creature is going through.
> 
> Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.
> 
> Agree?
> 
> Hint: The answer is yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an embryo wasn't an embryo.
> 
> But even you have to agree that a 2 day old embryo and a 9 month old embryo are different
> 
> and just a question
> 
> Why did you use the term *(sic)
> 
> it usually means you are keeping a grammatical or spelling error as written by another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okaaaayyy. . .
> 
> Now FOCUS.
> 
> Let's see if you can connect the dots.
> 
> An Embryo is the SAME embryo - whether the Embryo is "viable" or NOT.
> 
> True or false?
> 
> And I used the term *(sic) because the word "embryo" was from YOUR example and NOT an argument that I share. I was trying to make the point using YOUR own terms, rather than my own.
Click to expand...


I never said it wasn't I said there is a difference between the same embryo at 2 days and at 9 months.  Even you have to be able to see that

You used the term sic incorrectly.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how our accounting system works.  The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that is the point where full rights are conferred...and there is no impact on the mother's rights....
Click to expand...


Yes, I definitely want to live in a world barbaric enough to consider rights dependent on whether or not someone else feels inconvenienced by them.  Because that historically worked out so well.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how our accounting system works.  The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was just sarcasm.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?
> 
> Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's simply the truth in my opinion.  Whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, for thousands of years of human history, a new citizen is recognized at birth because it is such a landmark event. For most of human history, the gender of the baby was not known until birth.  A government isn't going to be very active in protecting a person's human rights until that government recognizes a person's existence.   Often women have miscarriages with few if any other people knowing about it. We now have abortion pills such as Plan B that a woman can take to force a miscarriage.
> 
> Unfortunately, the unborn is unable to protect it's own human rights.  And if the government has not yet counted the unborn as a person/citizen, then it is unlikely the government will do much to protect the human rights of the unborn.
> 
> I am claiming that without the government protecting human rights, the weak will have none.  The unborn are the weakest among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unborn - whether fertilized egg up to not yet viable - shouldn't have rights imo.  Any rights would impinge on the rights of women.  And there is no other way than to see it that way....it would reduce us to broodmares with every miscarriage subject to legal action, as someone subject to lawsuits for a less than perfect baby...there is so much there.  And it affects only one class of people - women.
> 
> If people want to stop or reduce abortion, imo, making it illegal is not going to do it.  Making it unnecessary is.  And we've seen reductions in abortions through better education and birth control.  IMO that is the way.
Click to expand...


Anyone who thinks "there is no other way to see abortion" has absolutely nothing to say on the subject and is not worthy of being listened to, by definition.  Pro-lifers never suggest there isn't another way to see it.  We just consider that other way to be wrong.

If you really believed your position was worthy, you wouldn't have to live in a carefully-constructed bubble to avoid having to hear and think about other views.


----------



## Lakhota

SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!

SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth.  They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions.  They don't care!

What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners.  Maybe states like New York will enact such laws.  It can happen!


----------



## whitehall

If the woman's life isn't in jeopardy as a result of her pregnancy the primary concern should be the unborn baby. What else?


----------



## BS Filter

Lakhota said:


> SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!
> 
> SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth.  They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions.  They don't care!
> 
> What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners.  Maybe states like New York will enact such laws.  It can happen!


That's about the sickest post I've read in a long time.  Unbelievable. Take your pill, cross your fucking legs, get your tubes tied.  Fucking idiot.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!
> 
> SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth.  They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions.  They don't care!
> 
> What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners.  Maybe states like New York will enact such laws.  It can happen!


Is it a bird?  Is it a plane?  It's ... Captain .... Hyperbole !!!

Yeah, all those beheadings in Texas.  Sure thing, stupid fuck


----------



## BlindBoo

Lakhota said:


> What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners. Maybe states like New York will enact such laws.



It's a brave new world.   If this {civil punitive damage enforcement angle} works to circumvent Supreme Court precedent for the States, why not for the Bill of Rights too.  Hell, those weren't for the States anyway, right?


----------



## Lakhota

BlindBoo said:


> It's a brave new world.   If this {civil punitive damage enforcement angle} works to circumvent Supreme Court precedent for the States, why not for the Bill of Rights too.  Hell, those weren't for the States anyway, right?



Amen!  These NaziCon zealots should be careful what they wish for!


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Amen!  These NaziCon zealots should be careful what they wish for!



So you think abortion is in the bill of rights.   OMG you're stupid and a racist


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!
> 
> SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth.  They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions.  They don't care!
> 
> What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners.  Maybe states like New York will enact such laws.  It can happen!


/——-/ Lakhota sez “Keep killing those babies for fun and profit.”


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> Amen!  These NaziCon zealots should be careful what they wish for!


/——-/ We wish that you libtards stop killing babies and selling their body parts.


----------



## BlindBoo

kaz said:


> So you think abortion is in the bill of rights.   OMG you're stupid and a racist


The Supreme Court sets precedent with it's interpretation of the Constitution which includes the all the Amendments.  If a State is allowed to set aside a precedent with a new and arbitrary enforcement process then why shouldn't it apply to other precedent setting decisions the court has made?  Could a state ban some guns and set up a bounty on anyone who turns someone in who has one?  Probably set a bounty on sellers, resellers, manufactures.....Just let anyone sue them too.

It is absurd, of course.  So is the Texas law.


----------



## kaz

BlindBoo said:


> The Supreme Court sets precedent with it's interpretation of the Constitution which includes the all the Amendments.  If a State is allowed to set aside a precedent with a new and arbitrary enforcement process then why shouldn't it apply to other precedent setting decisions the court has made?  Could a state ban some guns and set up a bounty on anyone who turns someone in who has one?  Probably set a bounty on sellers, resellers, manufactures.....Just let anyone sue them too.
> 
> It is absurd, of course.  So is the Texas law.



Show the part in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court can make up Constitutional law much less new rights in the bill of rights.

According to the 10th amendment, the Texas abortion law is up to Texas.  I don't care for the law much either.   But what's absurd is reading the Constitution and thinking it ways anything about abortion.   Hint, it doesn't


----------



## Care4all

In my opinion, and in a life or death situations, in this order...the mother, the fetus, the frozen fertilized embryo.

The woman may choose to take her own life to save the fetus....not certain if doctors would accept that or not, for fear of being sued, later....

If a frozen embryo clinic was on fire, and adults inside, they'd save the living and breathing humans first and foremost, then if possible, without putting the firemen in danger...save the frozen embryos if they can.


----------



## Death Angel

Lakhota said:


> SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!
> 
> SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth.  They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions.  They don't care!
> 
> What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners.  Maybe states like New York will enact such laws.  It can happen!


ALL LIVES MATTER


----------



## Meathead

Was the woman not a fertilized egg and a fetus? You know, in reality the stork doesn't bring babies to mommies and daddies.


----------



## Meathead

Death Angel said:


> ALL LIVES MATTER


Racist! Only black thug's lives matter!


----------



## Care4all

kaz said:


> Show the part in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court can make up Constitutional law much less new rights in the bill of rights.
> 
> According to the 10th amendment, the Texas abortion law is up to Texas.  I don't care for the law much either.   But what's absurd is reading the Constitution and thinking it ways anything about abortion.   Hint, it doesn't



Sure it does.  Women and men, have a right to privacy....it isn't just for men.  It's not the government's business that you may or may not be pregnant.

If I am understanding this correctly, that's why Texas put in no govt penalties for doctors etc to perform an abortion, past the 6 weeks pregnant/ Fetal heartbeat...Texas set up in civil law, for vigilante penalties brought by the citizens....even non citizens, not related to the woman can bring these new suits, and if they win, collect $10,000 per doctor etc lawsuit....and get their court costs paid by the doctor as well....a BOUNTY....  If the doctor wins the case, the doctor still has to pay his own court costs....not the person suing....

Texas legislature did it this way because with certainty, it is unconstitutional for govt to pass this law, but if they give no penalty or $10,000 fine, then the doctor can't file suit for the govt hurting them, because it is not the govt, it is citizens.

I call bull shit on that crazy ass alleged loophole, the Texan legislature thinks is their way around the law and constitution.

States have to follow what is Constitutional... the constitution says so.  Right now, via roe v wade, and several other landmark cases, abortion is legal and constitutional, up until the point of viability.


----------



## BlindBoo

kaz said:


> Show the part in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court can make up Constitutional law much less new rights in the bill of rights.
> 
> According to the 10th amendment, the Texas abortion law is up to Texas.  I don't care for the law much either.   But what's absurd is reading the Constitution and thinking it ways anything about abortion.   Hint, it doesn't



We've talked about legal precedent before.


----------



## Death Angel

BlindBoo said:


> We've talked about legal precedent before.


That ain't how the Constitution works.


----------



## whitehall

A heartbeat means life. People could be arrested for treating dogs the same way as abortionists treat women. Who benefits most from abortions? Surely it isn't a woman who might turn hateful after enduring symptoms similar to PTSD for the rest of her life. The beneficiaries of abortion are the Native American warriors and the CPA's and the rednecks who see their future responsibilities eliminated at the stroke of a scalpel. Women who trust these men are nothing but the walking mental and physically and spiritually wounded.


----------



## kaz

Care4all said:


> Sure it does.  Women and men, have a right to privacy....it isn't just for men.  It's not the government's business that you may or may not be pregnant.
> 
> If I am understanding this correctly, that's why Texas put in no govt penalties for doctors etc to perform an abortion, past the 6 weeks pregnant/ Fetal heartbeat...Texas set up in civil law, for vigilante penalties brought by the citizens....even non citizens, not related to the woman can bring these new suits, and if they win, collect $10,000 per doctor etc lawsuit....and get their court costs paid by the doctor as well....a BOUNTY....  If the doctor wins the case, the doctor still has to pay his own court costs....not the person suing....
> 
> Texas legislature did it this way because with certainty, it is unconstitutional for govt to pass this law, but if they give no penalty or $10,000 fine, then the doctor can't file suit for the govt hurting them, because it is not the govt, it is citizens.
> 
> I call bull shit on that crazy ass alleged loophole, the Texan legislature thinks is their way around the law and constitution.
> 
> States have to follow what is Constitutional... the constitution says so.  Right now, via roe v wade, and several other landmark cases, abortion is legal and constitutional, up until the point of viability.



Sawish!

This is how democrats argue.   It's just slight of hand.

Our privacy is protected by the 10th amendment.  But the 10th amendment is a sledge hammer, you don't like it.  So you ignore it, you literally pretend it doesn't exist.

So now how do you protect your version of privacy which only applies to abortion?    You MAKE IT UP.   You create a tiny  selective right to privacy to replace the sledge hammer privacy protection you destroyed


----------



## kaz

BlindBoo said:


> We've talked about legal precedent before.



Begging the question.   You really aren't smart?   You don't grasp what you just argued, do you?   Be honest


----------



## Care4all

kaz said:


> Sawish!
> 
> This is how democrats argue.   It's just slight of hand.
> 
> Our privacy is protected by the 10th amendment.  But the 10th amendment is a sledge hammer, you don't like it.  So you ignore it, you literally pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> So now how do you protect your version of privacy which only applies to abortion?    You MAKE IT UP.   You create a tiny  selective right to privacy to replace the sledge hammer privacy protection you destroyed


I didn't make it up silly one, the republican leaning supreme court in Roe v wade established such.


----------



## BlindBoo

kaz said:


> Begging the question.   You really aren't smart?   You don't grasp what you just argued, do you?   Be honest


You pretended not to understand then, why should I think you'd do otherwise now?  You are not credible.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Lakhota said:


> This is a sincere poll.  I would appreciate honest answers.  If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons.  I will not criticize your choice.  I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
> 
> NOTE: I know there are many possible variables, but this poll assumes "typical" circumstances.  In other words, this is a superficial poll that assumes "normal/average" circumstances - meaning no rape, incest, health, deformity, financial, or other extenuating issues.



Obstetricians are trained that when they are treating a pregnancy they are treating_ two _patients.

Poll questions are therefore incomplete, rendering discussion irrelevant to scope of the terms of controversy.


----------



## kaz

Care4all said:


> I didn't make it up silly one, the republican leaning supreme court in Roe v wade established such.



Democrats aren't personally responsible for your views or what you argue.   Those decisions are made above your pay grade.   Got it, of course you aren't. 

BTW, yeah you are


----------



## Natural Citizen

Good Morning, btw.


----------



## BlindBoo

Natural Citizen said:


> Good Morning, btw.


----------



## kaz

BlindBoo said:


> You pretended not to understand then, why should I think you'd do otherwise now?  You are not credible.



That's just stupid.    You didn't address the point, hence STRAWMAN you stupid fuck


----------



## BlindBoo

kaz said:


> That's just stupid.    You didn't address the point, hence STRAWMAN you stupid fuck



There you go, a perfect example of you following your standard precedent, a predilection for truly lame insults.  Thanks you.


----------



## kaz

BlindBoo said:


> There you go, a perfect example of you following your standard precedent, a predilection for truly lame insults.  Thanks you.



It wasn't an "insult," you are stupid.  You're the real thing.  Democrats can lie all they want to and you just guzzle it down


----------



## Cecilie1200

Natural Citizen said:


> Obstetricians are trained that when they are treating a pregnancy they are treating_ two _patients.
> 
> Poll questions are therefore incomplete, rendering discussion irrelevant to scope of the terms of controversy.



Well, of COURSE they're trained to treat two patients.  Because they are.    Just because a pregnant woman is in good health doesn't necessarily mean her unborn baby is, and vice versa.

That's right, everyone!  I'm BAAAAACK!!!


----------

