Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[NYcarbineer]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

 

[Ernie S.]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

Is not an abortion the ultimate control over the life of another?

No, that's control over one's own body.

To a certain extent, but it is ultimate control over an as yet unborn child.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carly Fiorina also agrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.

She is quite the scientific marvel isn't she, TK.

 

[Ernie S.]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

Is not an abortion the ultimate control over the life of another?

No, that's control over one's own body.

To a certain extent, but it is ultimate control over an as yet unborn child.

It's the right of a woman to have control over that part of her body. Only if the law grants the fetus personhood status does that right change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

You seem to want to control the child's life up to the point of death if it's convenient. Fetuses do have human DNA obviously, from the point of conception they are a combination of the mother and fathers DNA. They deserve a chance don't you think? Or does your right to control others lives stop with certain people?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I imagine that Carly Fiorina's tumor had her DNA, since she's a cancer survivor. Did she put that up for adoption?

Is tumor going to develop into a life? Or do you consider all children at conception nothing more than tumor's?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

So when is a person a person?

 

[chikenwing]

I imagine that Carly Fiorina's tumor had her DNA, since she's a cancer survivor. Did she put that up for adoption?

What fucked up thing to post,what the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Coyote]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

It is an accurate phrase.

 

[chikenwing]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Slavery was legal once,have a moral back bone ,show some integrity.

 

[Coyote]

it is amazing that these same assholes who will fight tot the end to keep a serial rapist murderer alive on death row will snip the spinal cord on an unborn baby and not look back.....


Lefty, statist thugs are batshit crazy.....

Here's the most equitable solution - plant the unwanted embryo in the sperm donor.

 

[Ernie S.]

I imagine that Carly Fiorina's tumor had her DNA, since she's a cancer survivor. Did she put that up for adoption?

What fucked up thing to post,what the hell is wrong with you?

You new here?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

 

[mdk]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

You recall incorrectly b/c I have never said anything of the sort. Link?

 

[Coyote]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

 

[Grandma]

So when is a person a person?

Most agree that a fetus becomes a baby by: first, being born, and second, by being able to survive outside the womb.

A preemie can survive after birth with life support equipment. A zygote cannot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is an accurate phrase.

In what way? We're a clump of cells at this very moment! Our entire bodies are made of cells. Yet now, as a clump of cells, we are considered as life, as human beings. But curiously, an unborn child doesn't get that distinction.

Let me ask a couple of questions:

What do you see in the picture below? What does this "fetus" more closely resemble? A dog? A cat? A human being perhaps? The human features are easily distinguishable at three months as you can see here, yet you call this unborn child a "clump of cells with potential." The child has human DNA, beginning at the time of conception, but yet you still call the child a "clump of cells with potential."

 

[Coyote]

It is an accurate phrase.

In what way? We're a clump of cells at this very moment! Our entire bodies are made of cells. Yet now, as a clump of cells, we are considered as life, as human beings. But curiously, an unborn child doesn't get that distinction.

No. It doesn't. Neither do dolphins, chimpanzees or dogs even though they are far more sentient and feeling than a blastocyst.

Let me ask a couple of questions:

What do you see here? What does this fetus more closely resemble? A dog? A cat? A human being perhaps? The human features are easily distinguishable at three months as you can see here, yet you call this unborn child a "clump of cells." The child has human DNA, but you call the child a "clump of cells."

What does this resemble?