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

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Read the SCOTUS ruling above. After birth, the personhood of the child is a fact.

I understand you don't like the ruling, but that does not matter.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.

I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.

I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.

The ruling is clear that their is no person hood for a fetus. The moment of birth would confer that recognition.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Read the SCOTUS ruling above. After birth, the personhood of the child is a fact.

I understand you don't like the ruling, but that does not matter.

Yes, I understand the SCOTUS ruling. What I don't understand is why you liberals care only about your personal comfort and convenience and care nothing about the comfort, convenience, or life of anyone else. You are very much like ISIS in that regard.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.

I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.

The ruling is clear that their is no person hood for a fetus. The moment of birth would confer that recognition.

Define "moment of birth". from an vaginal birth aspect and a caesarean birth aspect. Who makes the "this fetus is now a human being" call?

 

[Chuz Life]

In a l late term / life of the mother situation. . . Could someone explain what the medical benefit is to the mother, for the abortionist to kill the child instead of delivering it alive?


No?


I didn't think so.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

I was responding to one of your "kill the kids" comrades who said the rights were conveyed at the moment of birth.

I didn't see a definition of "birth" in that ruling.

The ruling is clear that their is no person hood for a fetus. The moment of birth would confer that recognition.

Define "moment of birth". from an vaginal birth aspect and a caesarean birth aspect. Who makes the "this fetus is now a human being" call?

If you want to really confound and confused them. . . Ask them to consider how conception is the actual "birth" of an organism and what most people think of as birth is actually called parturition.

Conception, not parturition is the moment that the organism came into being, existence, etc.

Conception, not parturition is when aging begins, etc.

 

[Redfish]

Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.

You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.

Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.

Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.

have you heard of partial birth abortions? The child is half way BORN and then a hole in punched in his/her head and the brains sucked out. Is that murder by your definition?

 

[Redfish]

Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.

You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.

Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.

Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.

We fully understand that you cannot defend your position using logic, biology, or common sense. So, like all liberals, when confounded, resort to name calling. We get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here. Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.

Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.

You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.

Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.

Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.

The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.

Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.

 

[2aguy]

If it is the life of the mother if she carries the baby to full term...the mother....but she can choose to try to give birth...That is called Triage, and you are trying to save at least one life. If there is no danger to the life of the mother, then the baby.......

 

[Redfish]

Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here. Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.

Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.

You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.

Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.

Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.

The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.

Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.

you are probably right, our society is on the way down, following the path of the Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, and others. When human life loses significance and personal comfort prevails over all else, then the society is doomed.

We aren't there yet, but we are on the way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Read the SCOTUS ruling above. After birth, the personhood of the child is a fact.

I understand you don't like the ruling, but that does not matter.

Yes, I understand the SCOTUS ruling. What I don't understand is why you liberals care only about your personal comfort and convenience and care nothing about the comfort, convenience, or life of anyone else. You are very much like ISIS in that regard.

Liberalism is the current ultimate in Western civilization of childish narcissism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In a l late term / life of the mother situation. . . Could someone explain what the medical benefit is to the mother, for the abortionist to kill the child instead of delivering it alive?


No?


I didn't think so.

Generally speaking, those situations are more often a matter of something ELSE threatening the life of the mother, treatment of which would be dangerous and/or harmful to the unborn child. Cancer is the one which most often seems to show up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here. Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.

Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.

You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.

Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.

Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.

The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.

Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.

you are probably right, our society is on the way down, following the path of the Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, and others. When human life loses significance and personal comfort prevails over all else, then the society is doomed.

We aren't there yet, but we are on the way.

Show me a doctor who aborted a viable fetus five second before delivery if the mother was healthy enough to have the child.

An example would be nice instead of the what if?

 

[Redfish]

Your questions and remarks above have been answered by what I posted earlier, so I deleted it and moved it down here. Logic, biology, and common sense refute you.

Your questions are immaterial, Redfish, and you know it.

You are cat calling because you, or Chuz, for that matter, can't argue the point.

Show me any doctor who aborted a child five seconds before birth, any case of it. I would think that something that immediately happened that threatened the mother's life would be the situation. Yet I can't find anything.

Start talking sensibly, or be treated like a willful child who won't accept a sensible correction.

The fetus is not a person in terms of legal abortion.

Redfish and his buddies can yell all they want, but the reality is not going to change.

you are probably right, our society is on the way down, following the path of the Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Egyptians, and others. When human life loses significance and personal comfort prevails over all else, then the society is doomed.

We aren't there yet, but we are on the way.

Show me a doctor who aborted a viable fetus five second before delivery if the mother was healthy enough to have the child.

An example would be nice instead of the what if?

I gave you one, partial birth abortion has been practiced in the USA on a large scale. Hillary supports it as a method of "birth control".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your example was five seconds before birth.

Give us that example. Link to it.

 

[Redfish]

Your example was five seconds before birth.

Give us that example. Link to it.

NO, I was responding to the clown who said that personhood occurred at the moment of birth. So using his definition, partial birth abortion is murder. Or does the "partial" part of it prevent personhood? Since only the head is "born" ?

 

[easyt65]

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

You left out, in you list of selections, 'Unborn PERSON' (as per Hillary)...

- Mother
- Unborn Person
- Fetus
- Fertilized Egg

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your example was five seconds before birth.

Give us that example. Link to it.

NO, I was responding to the clown who said that personhood occurred at the moment of birth. So using his definition, partial birth abortion is murder. Or does the "partial" part of it prevent personhood? Since only the head is "born" ?

Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument? Because they knew science and anything involving facts directly and categorically disagreed with them, and they needed something that was as much a matter of meaningless opinion as their position was.