A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Mertex]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

 

[koshergrl]

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Their is nothing hypothetical about calling an unborn a fetus....it is fact. There is nothing hypothetical about fertilized eggs being sold for consumption. And by what statement do you deduct that I don't know that a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards? Where did I say that wasn't the case? Where was "single cell organism" even mentioned in my post?

And you strayed from the OP's original hypothetical statement...so don't use that as an excuse when your ignorance is pointed out.

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

What your baby looks like: 20 weeks | BabyCenter

" The Baby at 20 Weeks

• Your baby is more active. You might feel slight fluttering.
• Your baby is covered by fine, downy hair called lanugo (luh-NOO-goh) and a waxy coating called vernix. This protects the forming skin underneath.
• Eyebrows, eyelashes, fingernails, and toenails have formed. Your baby can even scratch itself.
• Your baby can hear and swallow.
• Now halfway through your pregnancy, your baby is about 6 inches long and weighs about 9 ounces."

Second Trimester (20 Weeks) Picture Image on MedicineNet.com

 

[Mertex]

I want women who made the choice to spread her legs take the responsibility for having done so. That's the real world.

By the same token, a chicken-shit man who spews his sperm should also take responsibility for having done so, if he causes a pregnancy....and we have a lot of these who spew their sperm and disappear....it goes both ways, bubba.

I agree he should. However, unless it was rape, he couldn't have done so unless she made the CHOICE to let him.

And she wouldn't have made the choice unless he was willing.

Don't think that my belief the woman should take responsibility doesn't mean the one that got her pregnant shouldn't do his part. My problem is that when the sperm spewer doesn't do his part financially that the rest of us that didn't spew sperm get the bill. Why should those of us not part of the situation have any responsibility for anything related to it, financial or otherwise?

Because the children are not to blame how and by whom they got here. If you are so in favor of the woman not having an abortion, then you should feel some empathy for the child.

 

[koshergrl]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

You lunatics need to make up your minds..you pretend we don't adopt at high rates, while whining that we adopt too much.

Orphan Fever: The Evangelical Movement's Adoption Obsession

 

[koshergrl]

I want women who made the choice to spread her legs take the responsibility for having done so. That's the real world.

By the same token, a chicken-shit man who spews his sperm should also take responsibility for having done so, if he causes a pregnancy....and we have a lot of these who spew their sperm and disappear....it goes both ways, bubba.

I agree he should. However, unless it was rape, he couldn't have done so unless she made the CHOICE to let him.

And she wouldn't have made the choice unless he was willing.

Don't think that my belief the woman should take responsibility doesn't mean the one that got her pregnant shouldn't do his part. My problem is that when the sperm spewer doesn't do his part financially that the rest of us that didn't spew sperm get the bill. Why should those of us not part of the situation have any responsibility for anything related to it, financial or otherwise?

Because the children are not to blame how and by whom they got here. If you are so in favor of the woman not having an abortion, then you should feel some empathy for the child.

Yes, hm, well tearing them apart isn't exactly "empathy", dear. In fact, it's torture. And murder. Not typically considered the actions of someone who is "empathizing" with the victim.

 

[Mertex]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

You seem to be a tad confused. I'm not talking about her having an abortion.If she chooses to do so as of today, she can have one and what I think doesn't stop her.

That's true, but Republicans are trying to change that. Maybe not you directly, but your party.

I want the woman if she chooses to have a kid to quit expecting the rest of us to support her choice she told us to butt out of.

So, you want to stop all aid to poor women and children. That's nothing new coming from a conservative.

I'm living in what IS happening today. If she chooses to have a child and there is other options, she pays.

So, you're okay with the woman who doesn't want to have a baby because she can't afford it to have an abortion. There's no law against that, as long as she does it before the time limit given by her state or any state she may go to have the abortion.

It's not anyone else's responsibility, outside of the sperm donor, to do so. If she can't, there are two options. Get people like you to voluntarily help her or tough shit.

You only gave one option.....get people like me to voluntarily help her , so I guess the other is for her to have an abortion. Maybe you need to talk to your leaders and let them know you don't agree with them and tell them to quit coming up with creative ways to interfere.

 

[Mertex]

Currently, no one is forced to have a child. If they have one, it's by CHOICE.

Exactly.....so why are Republican/conservatives trying to change that?

My opposition to abortion isn't of the mindset of forcing someone to have a child. It's EXPECTING someone that CHOSE to do what it takes to create one to take RESPONSIBILITY for the results of the CHOICE they made that caused that result. You think killing the result is responsible. It's not.

They are taking responsibility....just not the way you want to force them to. Ending a pregnancy is their choice, and just because you don't agree with that doesn't mean that the country has to do what you feel is the "right" thing. The majority of American favor abortion, so you are in the minority.

Abortion

Why do you bleeding heart Liberals expect, as of today, those of us not part of the process that created the child to be financially responsible for the child when the one that chose to do so isn't being financially responsible?

Because us bleeding heart liberals are not being hypocritical when we claim we care about people. It's the children that suffer when you claim you don't want to help the poor, and obviously, you calloused conservatives (which some consider themselves to be Christian) are nothing but hypocrites. You are against abortion, but you don't give a crap about the fetus after it is born. You're not pro-life, you are pro-birth.

Republican motto: "Once you are born, you're on your own"

Why are the rest of us forced to pay for a choice we were told to butt out of?

Because you want to live in this country where the majority of Americans have a heart and have agreed to do so. If you don't like it, move to another country.

 

[Mertex]

Well,
The only retard here is the brain trust who says - in the same fucking post - that no one cares about abortion, AND that taking the position he endorses would cost politicians the very important women's vote, acknowledging that women would very much care.

You're either a complete moron, or a liar. Which is it?

Neither, you are a complete retard.

I meant that it's not smart for the republican politicians to try address an issue that NO REPUBLICAN cares much about, at the risk of completely pissing of every woman (and do I really need to say #notall). Your inability to interpret easy to understand language is unparalleled.

Still a moronic claim. If No REPUBLICAN cares, then why are so many red states trying to pass legislation to ban abortions? The Republicans seem to care in the states where they no they think they can get away with it.

Oh my gosh. Can a person seriously be this dumb? You would think there was a physical limit, but then again it could be that Einstein was correct.

#NotAll....

Have a sense of proportion. Personally I couldn't care about this issue one iota, but love to point out the liberal hypocrisy, which I care a great deal about. For the record I don't consider a baby in his/her first trimester a human being yet.... But maybe at 3rd trimester this should be a consideration.

From the baby's perspective, I would choose abortion over a liberal single-mother hell hole any day...

Well, at least now you're being honest. You don't care, so you just assume that no one else does either. Why didn't you say, from the beginning that you don't care, instead of making yourself look like an idiot, by claiming that no one cares, when clearly they do?

Nope, I said that because no one cares. Indeed, not one...

Why do I feel like this conversation is going in a loop? Time to... abort.

You're an idiot. If no one cared they wouldn't be arguing over it.

 

[Conservative65]

Currently, no one is forced to have a child. If they have one, it's by CHOICE.

Exactly.....so why are Republican/conservatives trying to change that?

My opposition to abortion isn't of the mindset of forcing someone to have a child. It's EXPECTING someone that CHOSE to do what it takes to create one to take RESPONSIBILITY for the results of the CHOICE they made that caused that result. You think killing the result is responsible. It's not.

They are taking responsibility....just not the way you want to force them to. Ending a pregnancy is their choice, and just because you don't agree with that doesn't mean that the country has to do what you feel is the "right" thing. The majority of American favor abortion, so you are in the minority.

Abortion

Why do you bleeding heart Liberals expect, as of today, those of us not part of the process that created the child to be financially responsible for the child when the one that chose to do so isn't being financially responsible?

Because us bleeding heart liberals are not being hypocritical when we claim we care about people. It's the children that suffer when you claim you don't want to help the poor, and obviously, you calloused conservatives (which some consider themselves to be Christian) are nothing but hypocrites. You are against abortion, but you don't give a crap about the fetus after it is born. You're not pro-life, you are pro-birth.

Republican motto: "Once you are born, you're on your own"

Why are the rest of us forced to pay for a choice we were told to butt out of?

Because you want to live in this country where the majority of Americans have a heart and have agreed to do so. If you don't like it, move to another country.

Killing a life because someone doesn't like the results of spreading her legs isn't responsibility no matter how you try to justify it.

Bleeding heart Liberals are hypocritical when they say they care. You say you are compassionate then promote someone else being forced to fund what you think should be done. If you cared, you'd get together and fund yourselves what you say needs to be funded. Since you don't, saying you care and showing you care don't match.

If the majority of Americans believe like you that only saying you care while promoting someone else funding your care, they don't have a heart. The problem with you agreeing to do so is that it's not your money that's doing it. No matter how much you try, you can't have compassion by demanding someone else be forced to pay. It doesn't work that way.

If you care, prove it by funding it. Since we both know you won't, so much for your claims you fucking liar.

 

[Conservative65]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

You seem to be a tad confused. I'm not talking about her having an abortion.If she chooses to do so as of today, she can have one and what I think doesn't stop her.

That's true, but Republicans are trying to change that. Maybe not you directly, but your party.

I want the woman if she chooses to have a kid to quit expecting the rest of us to support her choice she told us to butt out of.

So, you want to stop all aid to poor women and children. That's nothing new coming from a conservative.

I'm living in what IS happening today. If she chooses to have a child and there is other options, she pays.

So, you're okay with the woman who doesn't want to have a baby because she can't afford it to have an abortion. There's no law against that, as long as she does it before the time limit given by her state or any state she may go to have the abortion.

It's not anyone else's responsibility, outside of the sperm donor, to do so. If she can't, there are two options. Get people like you to voluntarily help her or tough shit.

You only gave one option.....get people like me to voluntarily help her , so I guess the other is for her to have an abortion. Maybe you need to talk to your leaders and let them know you don't agree with them and tell them to quit coming up with creative ways to interfere.

If it's true and you admit it is, what I said about you hypocrite Liberals not caring is true.

I want women who demand a choice of what to do with their bodies to pay for the choices they tell the rest of us to butt out of. Liberals thinking that we should butt out then be willing to support a choice we were told was none of our business is nothing new. It show a lack of belief in personal responsibility and that's nothing new for Liberals. Are you willing to tell me that a woman making a choice to have a kid she can't afford, telling others to butt out, then demanding someone she told to butt out to pay is being responsible?

I gave two options. That you don't like the second one doesn't mean it isn't an option. Once the kid is born, and that's the topic of discussion here, the option for abortion no longer exists. That leaves those like you stupid enough to be willing to pay for a choice you were told to butt out of or tough shit. Someone else's kids are not my responsibility to support. You say the sperm donor should do it yet only give lip service to that. While you don't have the guts to admit it, you don't really care if he pays as long as you are willing to support those of us unassociated with the situation being forced to do so. I don't owe any of them a damn thing.

 

[Conservative65]

I want women who made the choice to spread her legs take the responsibility for having done so. That's the real world.

By the same token, a chicken-shit man who spews his sperm should also take responsibility for having done so, if he causes a pregnancy....and we have a lot of these who spew their sperm and disappear....it goes both ways, bubba.

I agree he should. However, unless it was rape, he couldn't have done so unless she made the CHOICE to let him.

And she wouldn't have made the choice unless he was willing.

Don't think that my belief the woman should take responsibility doesn't mean the one that got her pregnant shouldn't do his part. My problem is that when the sperm spewer doesn't do his part financially that the rest of us that didn't spew sperm get the bill. Why should those of us not part of the situation have any responsibility for anything related to it, financial or otherwise?

Because the children are not to blame how and by whom they got here. If you are so in favor of the woman not having an abortion, then you should feel some empathy for the child.

You don't know what choice she made other than to spread her legs. It could have as easily been her whoring around. Since you don't know, saying you do is an invalid claim.

The rest of us are not to blame nor should we be responsible either. We didn't pick by whom they got here. Difference is you demand we accept responsibility for something we had no say in.

What I should do? If you don't want me saying what a woman does with her body, don't tell me what I should do with my money. That's at the heart of the issue. You say a woman should be able to make whatever choice she wants and the rest of us say nothing when she can't afford it. Not how it works. If it's her choice, it's MY money. I don't give shit about her because she damn sure doesn't give a shit about me.

 

[Conservative65]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Where's your proof that the only reason a woman willfully spread her legs was because a man wanted her to? You are a born failure.

 

[Mertex]

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com


Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

If I did a DNA test on a scrambled egg (before being cooked obviously)... would it be a chicken, or magically not?

And your point? That DNA determines personhood?

If I did a DNA test on a baby at 23 weeks, would it be human, or not?

Yes, it would be human, a human fetus, not a person, to be more accurate, just like the egg is not going to be a chicken, just because it has the DNA of a chicken.

So, when you eat a scrambled egg for breakfast, are you eating chicken?

It's always funny to watch pagans claim that science disproves 'god' but then turn right around and base all their morality on the most unscientific of positions.

I'm not a pagan, idiot. It's always funny to watch idiots name-call when they don't know anything about the person they are trying to insult. I happen to be a Christian, and believe in God, you idiot, so your comment is an epic fail. And when you find that abortion is condemned in the Bible, be sure to point it out to me.

 

[koshergrl]

If I did a DNA test on a scrambled egg (before being cooked obviously)... would it be a chicken, or magically not?

And your point? That DNA determines personhood?

If I did a DNA test on a baby at 23 weeks, would it be human, or not?

Yes, it would be human, a human fetus, not a person, to be more accurate, just like the egg is not going to be a chicken, just because it has the DNA of a chicken.

So, when you eat a scrambled egg for breakfast, are you eating chicken?

It's always funny to watch pagans claim that science disproves 'god' but then turn right around and base all their morality on the most unscientific of positions.

I'm not a pagan, idiot. It's always funny to watch idiots name-call when they don't know anything about the person they are trying to insult. I happen to be a Christian, and believe in God, you idiot, so your comment is an epic fail. And when you find that abortion is condemned in the Bible, be sure to point it out to me.

You're no more a Christian than Care is a Catholic.

It's always funny to watch you baby killers pretend to be saved, as you advocate for the exploitation of women and the murder and abuse of women and children.

 

[Mertex]

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com


Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.


Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating


Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com


Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.


Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating


Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Their is nothing hypothetical about calling an unborn a fetus....it is fact. There is nothing hypothetical about fertilized eggs being sold for consumption. And by what statement do you deduct that I don't know that a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards? Where did I say that wasn't the case? Where was "single cell organism" even mentioned in my post?

And you strayed from the OP's original hypothetical statement...so don't use that as an excuse when your ignorance is pointed out.

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws prove completely against your denials.
"(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."

So what? It is still a Fetus.

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.)
the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

 

[koshergrl]

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Their is nothing hypothetical about calling an unborn a fetus....it is fact. There is nothing hypothetical about fertilized eggs being sold for consumption. And by what statement do you deduct that I don't know that a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards? Where did I say that wasn't the case? Where was "single cell organism" even mentioned in my post?

And you strayed from the OP's original hypothetical statement...so don't use that as an excuse when your ignorance is pointed out.

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

Our Fetal Homicide Laws prove completely against your denials.
"(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."

So what? It is still a Fetus.

fetus
[fe´tus] (L.)
the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

Yes, it's a stage of the development of a human being. Do you have a point?

 

[Mertex]

If I did a DNA test on a scrambled egg (before being cooked obviously)... would it be a chicken, or magically not?

And your point? That DNA determines personhood?

If I did a DNA test on a baby at 23 weeks, would it be human, or not?

Yes, it would be human, a human fetus, not a person, to be more accurate, just like the egg is not going to be a chicken, just because it has the DNA of a chicken.

So, when you eat a scrambled egg for breakfast, are you eating chicken?

It's always funny to watch pagans claim that science disproves 'god' but then turn right around and base all their morality on the most unscientific of positions.

I'm not a pagan, idiot. It's always funny to watch idiots name-call when they don't know anything about the person they are trying to insult. I happen to be a Christian, and believe in God, you idiot, so your comment is an epic fail. And when you find that abortion is condemned in the Bible, be sure to point it out to me.

You're no more a Christian than Care is a Catholic.

It's always funny to watch you baby killers pretend to be saved, as you advocate for the exploitation of women and the murder and abuse of women and children.

Says the psuedo Christian who worships at the Westboro Baptist Church and eats nails for breakfast. It's always funny to watch psuedo Christians like you do a disservice to Christianity with your hate speech and your pretend to care about human beings charade. You are one of Satan's helpers. When you start caring about humans that are already here on earth instead of supporting a party that would do away with all benevolence, then maybe you can call yourself a Christian. As of now, go put on your KKK cape.

Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an unaffiliated Baptist church known for its hate speech,

 

[koshergrl]

Oh..and btw..

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." –Exodus 21:22-25"

^^talking about killing babies. People who kill babies get eye for an eye..and they're talking about the unborn baby's eye there, fake Christian sister Mertie.

 

[Mertex]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

You lunatics need to make up your minds..you pretend we don't adopt at high rates, while whining that we adopt too much.

Orphan Fever: The Evangelical Movement's Adoption Obsession

Those are real Christians, that are doing adoptions, not conservatives using religion to further their hate. You're not one of those real Christians. Quit pretending you're a Christian.

 

[Conservative65]

If I did a DNA test on a scrambled egg (before being cooked obviously)... would it be a chicken, or magically not?

And your point? That DNA determines personhood?

If I did a DNA test on a baby at 23 weeks, would it be human, or not?

Yes, it would be human, a human fetus, not a person, to be more accurate, just like the egg is not going to be a chicken, just because it has the DNA of a chicken.

So, when you eat a scrambled egg for breakfast, are you eating chicken?

It's always funny to watch pagans claim that science disproves 'god' but then turn right around and base all their morality on the most unscientific of positions.

I'm not a pagan, idiot. It's always funny to watch idiots name-call when they don't know anything about the person they are trying to insult. I happen to be a Christian, and believe in God, you idiot, so your comment is an epic fail. And when you find that abortion is condemned in the Bible, be sure to point it out to me.

You're far from a Christian despite your claims. If you believed in God you'd believe what it says in Jeremiah 1:4-5. The word consecrated used in those verses denotes a solemn dedication by God. That means God, in the womb before someone is born, considers the human a person not just a fetus.

Seems you're wrong as usual.