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

[Coyote]

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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?

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

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.

If it's seperate from it's mother and father than seperating it from it's mother should not be an issue.

 

[Coyote]

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

Mother Nature.

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

Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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?

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

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.

If it's seperate from it's mother and father than seperating it from it's mother should not be an issue.

Wow, you don't understand even the most basic biological concepts, do you?

 

[Yarddog]

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.

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?

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

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.

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]

Mother Nature.

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

Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.

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

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.

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.

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]

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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"

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]

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]

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.

But you are a woman! You can at least tell us why you crossed the road!!

 

[Chuz Life]

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

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.

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

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

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]

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?

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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

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

except its unborn ones, right?

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?

Birth.

So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

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

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]

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

except its unborn ones, right?

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?

Birth.

So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?

Read the court's ruling above. Your silly question has no merit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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

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.

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."

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?