Zone1 Embryos and Personhood

[sparky]

All this makes me wonder if Walt's frozen gourd gets a mail in vote?

~S~

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Whether you are headed to the store with your unborn baby or to kill it , if someone commits a crime that takes the baby's life THAT IS HOMICIDE

See post nfbw 240428 Veapyz00020

The “someone” in that scenario must harm the only conscious human being in order to also harm the not yet developed human organism that is without consciousness during the first 24 weeks of gestation as part of one conscious person’s body, The “someone” is criminally responsible for taking the life of an adult human being and her “potential” child. But it is absurd to apply that rule of law to the only conscious person during early months of pregnancy if she decides early on that she doers not wish to take the risk that comes with going with full term gestation and delivering the infant inside her body to the world.

 

[ding]

How can one conscious human being have competing rights with herself?

It's easy when you don't dehumanize the distinct and separate person inside her.

Abortion should be a misdemeanor.

 

[DudleySmith]

The issue of abortion is one of competing rights: weighing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy

She exercises her right to autonomy when she chooses to have the kind of sex that can result in babies. That doesn't imply she can now kill babies that result from her exercise of free choices; she can freely choose not to have that kind of sex easily. This is only 'complicated' for sociopaths like yourself and Burb Brat Nation, who lack any basic morals and worship the cult of Self. There is no 'competition' outside of using homocides to correct a personal mistake, i.e. Mafia morality.

 

[progressive hunter]

How can one conscious human being have competing rights with herself?

the child inside her is not her,,

 

[AHZ]

This got started by a women who walked into a freezer and dropped some embryos and destroyed them... the donors or parents if you will asked to sue for wrongful death... the judge said yes you may... this is all that is... the left and their media of course want to try and link it to abortion rights and it has nothing to do with that...
Trump to his credit didn't fall for it...

this should cause insurance for cryogenic facilities to spike, effectively putting them out of business.

 

[22lcidw]

All reproductive control laws passed by white Christian males in the 19th century should be stricken from the books. Any transgender men living during that time would have absolutely no impact on improving the laws to be more respectful to women as equals to men.

What do you think we lived in with comforts in the 19th century compared to latter part of the 20th century up to now? The technologies? Gender equality was not possible, and women may still have been tougher then then many current men. So, when it came to the early industrialism. even up to the depression or later. The industrial manufacturing plants were dirtier, filthier, little safety protocols compared to many decades later. Use of tools and equipment massively heavier to use. So, when feminists and their adherents speak, they know nothing of that era. As most of us do not. And after Progs and their feminist destroy the West, we may return to that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and you want those Babies killed because you do not think they are living and human.

Liar. I don't "want" anything killed.

Once again you can't go even one sentence without a lie and a strawman.

Start over and see if you can make a post without a lie.

 

[Coyote]

She exercises her right to autonomy when she chooses to have the kind of sex that can result in babies. That doesn't imply she can now kill babies that result from her exercise of free choices; she can freely choose not to have that kind of sex easily. This is only 'complicated' for sociopaths like yourself and Burb Brat Nation, who lack any basic morals and worship the cult of Self. There is no 'competition' outside of using homocides to correct a personal mistake, i.e. Mafia morality.

Her right to her own body doesn’t end with pregnancy.

 

[progressive hunter]

Her right to her own body doesn’t end with pregnancy.

the child inside her is not her body,,

 

[Coyote]

the child inside her is not her body,,

Doesn’t matter before viability.

 

[progressive hunter]

Doesn’t matter before viability.

its viable at conception if you dont kill it,,,

just wait 9 months and you can look in the eyes a child thats happy to be alive,,

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Doesn’t matter before viability.

Of course it doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that it's not a human being.

 

[DudleySmith]

Doesn’t matter before viability.

Babies aren't 'viable' at two years old, either; they're completely dependent on others to survive for many years, in fact. Being 'inconvenient' isn't an excuse for a death sentence, especially when there is a free choice being made to have intercourse and unwanted pregnancies are 100% avoidable.

 

[progressive hunter]

Babies aren't 'viable' at two years old, either; they're completely dependent on others to survive for many years, in fact. Being 'inconvenient' isn't an excuse for a death sentence, especially when there is a free choice being made to have intercourse and unwanted pregnancies are 100% avoidable.

she knows this but doesnt care,,

we they see blood theres no stopping them,,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Babies aren't 'viable' at two years old, either; they're completely dependent on others to survive for many years, in fact. Being 'inconvenient' isn't an excuse for a death sentence, especially when there is a free choice being made to have intercourse and unwanted pregnancies are 100% avoidable.

What harm comes to you Saint DudleySmith when women you have no relationships with terminate their pregnancies?

 

[progressive hunter]

What harm comes to you Saint DudleySmith when women you have no relationships with terminate their pregnancies?

the intentional murder of an innocent child harms everyone,,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

the intentional murder of an innocent child harms everyone,,

I am asking what harm comes to you specifically when a woman you do not know intentionally terminates her own pregnancy?

I am not asking you about an innocent child who has a natural right to life by the clear fact that they have become separated from their birth mother.

 

[progressive hunter]

I am asking what harm comes to you specifically when a woman you do not know intentionally terminates her own pregnancy?

I am not asking you about an innocent child who has a natural right to life by the clear fact that they have become separated from their birth mother.

who ever said it was about harm that came to us,,,

sorry but I also read alinskys rules about making it personal and attacking the messenger when you cant refute the messenger,,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

who ever said it was about harm that came to us,,,

You are enforcing the government to invadie the privacy of women. They are law, abiding women. To deprive someone of their right to privacy and their right to make decisions about their health and their well being and their welfare they must have to be convicted of doing harm to someone or someone’s property or to society as a whole. You cannot define one single bit of harm, when a woman terminates her own pregnancy by her choice to you.