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

[Taz]

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

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

 

[Care4all]

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.

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???

 

[chikenwing]

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?

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

 

[chikenwing]

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.

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???

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]

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???

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.

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]

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]

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....

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]

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?

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

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

 

[Newby]

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.

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???

 

[Newby]

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]

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.

Me.

Next question or is it just another lame troll attack?

Which is exactly why you defend it.

 

[Newby]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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...

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?

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.

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]

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.

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?

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!