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

[Coyote]

Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.

I love it when people (especially my opponents) use absolutes like that. And also especially when it is an absolute in the negative.

Simple Definition of science

• : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
  
  
• : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
  
  
• : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

Full Definition of political science

1. : a social science concerned chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.

The legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being."

Human beings (like all other beings) have been scientifically studied for as long as man has had the ability to do so.

Full Definition of anthropology

1. 1 : the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
   
   
2. 2 : theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings

I love it when people use simple definitions in an attempt to stretch the meaning of "science".

Westchester Institute White Paper
When Does Human Life Begin?
A Scientific Perspective

"Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a rea- soned public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research.

This article considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg? and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos."

"Most human beings are produced from the union of two preexisting cells: sperm and egg. Sperm and egg cells were, in turn, generated from living cells that preceded them in the testes and ovaries, and so forth, back indefinitely to the beginning of all life. In light of the continuous nature of living cells, defining the beginning of a new organism as the onset of zygotic transcription or the breakdown of nuclear membranes is intellectually and scientifically unsatisfying.
These are arbitrary points along a continuum of life—points that are likely to vary considerably across closely related species and across individuals of the same species. Such definitions are logically akin to linking the beginning of “personhood” to the eruption of teeth in an infant or to the onset of menses in an adolescent—they are arbitrary, variable, and not indicative of any fundamental change in the entity underconsideration." - The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person

That is a nice bit of writing but it is completely lacking an important point - how does science explain personhood? How can the scientific method be applied to determine what "personhood" is, when it begins, who it applies to?

A human being is a species. That can be proved through science. Explain how personhood can be.

Google the word synonymous.

Explain how the scientific method can be applied to "personhood" - a concept that has no scientific meaning, or even definition accepted across the board.

Personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]


Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate and has been questioned critically during the abolition of human and nonhuman slavery, in theology, in debates about abortion and in fetal rights and/or reproductive rights, in animal rights activism, in theology and ontology, in ethical theory, and in debates about corporate personhood and the beginning of human personhood.[2]


Processes through which personhood is recognized socially and legally vary cross-culturally, demonstrating that notions of personhood are not universal. Anthropologist Beth Conklin has shown how personhood is tied to social relations among the Wari' people of Rondônia, Brazil.[3] Bruce Knauft's studies of the Gebusi people of Papua New Guinea depict a context in which individuals become persons incrementally, again through social relations.[4] Likewise, Jane C. Goodale has also examined the construction of personhood in Papua New Guinea.[5]
.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just seen this.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just seen this.


View attachment 70280

That's hilarious. . She doesn't know the difference between haploid gamtes cells and an actual human organism that gamtes cells have the potential to become....


Man thats funny.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just seen this.


View attachment 70280

That's hilarious. . She doesn't know the difference between haploid gamtes cells and an actual human organism that gamtes cells have the potential to become....


Man thats funny.

Funny in a sad type of way I think.

Justification for murder in a humorous fashion?

Does it seem she is just trying to convince herself?

So many questions about that one picture.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.

It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

Not only that but the destruction of froszen embryo's is much more hidden. It's not like people drive their frozen embryo's to a clinic where they can be seen getting out of their car and going to the clinic on the day of the week KNOWN to be the day that 'frozen embryos' will be destroyed.

No, I'm pretty sure most people know even less about IVF procedures than they do about human anatomy and physiology in general. And let's face it, people today are abysmally ignorant about the workings of their own bodies.

 

[Redfish]

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

I have a real problem over rape. I understand this from here to eternity. Cripes this is hard. I think many of us do.

It's been my experience that the right thing to do is usually the more difficult thing to do.

very true, but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right, it only addresses what feels good at the moment. Euthanasia is next, watch. If a person is too expensive to keep alive, just give them a shot and put them in the ground.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

What disturbs me the most is not being to talk about it. I've got stupid chicks age 18 telling me I can't have a voice in this. Kiss my ass.

Tell them, "Welcome to life in a free society, where EVERYONE gets a say in the laws. Now butch up, buttercup."

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....

well...

zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.

ZERO.

Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.

 

[Coyote]

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....

well...

zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.

ZERO.

Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.

Yes, the inherent hypocrisy in your position was addressed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right, it only addresses what feels good at the moment. Euthanasia is next, watch. If a person is too expensive to keep alive, just give them a shot and put them in the ground.

Above is an excellent example of Proof by Assertion Fallacy: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.

 

[rdean]

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

Ask women.

 

[Pop23]

Just seen this.


View attachment 70280

She can...........

Eat me


Sorry, it had to be said

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential."

When you do that, ultra right socons, the rest of us will listen.

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....

well...

zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.

ZERO.

Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.

Yes, the inherent hypocrisy in your position was addressed.

You talk like you think you're some sort of moral arbiter to whom I must justify my beliefs and priorities. You aren't, and I don't. You say, "Well, why don't you do THIS then?" The answer is, "Who the fuck asked you?"

Speaking of inherent hypocrisy, how about an avowed supporter of infanticide trying to dictate how pro-lifers should fight their battles?

 

[Coyote]

Do you know what the ultimate irony is? These people focus all their energies on demonizing women who have abortions. Not a peep about the thousands of embryos left over from invitro fertilization that are destroyed. In fact - I can't find a single thread on it.

Actually, we peep about it quite a bit. We don't write a lot of separate threads specifically about it. We usually just fold it into the whole "killing unborn babies is wrong" scenario.

Pro-lifers can and do oppose IVF practices of destroying embryos. But frankly, it's a drop in the bucket, numerically, to the number of abortions taking place every year, and one only has so much time and energy.

Let me see....we have a gazillion threads condemning abortion, calling people "baby murderers" and....

well...

zero threads on the millions of embryos discarded from invitro fertilization clinics.

ZERO.

Already addressed, so stop wasting my time repeating yourself.

Yes, the inherent hypocrisy in your position was addressed.

You talk like you think you're some sort of moral arbiter to whom I must justify my beliefs and priorities. You aren't, and I don't. You say, "Well, why don't you do THIS then?" The answer is, "Who the fuck asked you?"

Speaking of inherent hypocrisy, how about an avowed supporter of infanticide trying to dictate how pro-lifers should fight their battles?

 

[Redfish]

. . . but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right, it only addresses what feels good at the moment. Euthanasia is next, watch. If a person is too expensive to keep alive, just give them a shot and put them in the ground.

Above is an excellent example of Proof by Assertion Fallacy: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.

euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next logical step from gay marriage.

You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

. . . but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right, it only addresses what feels good at the moment. Euthanasia is next, watch. If a person is too expensive to keep alive, just give them a shot and put them in the ground.

Above is an excellent example of Proof by Assertion Fallacy: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.

euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next logical step from gay marriage.

You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.

Bet you saw this...

"Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"

 

[Redfish]

. . . but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right, it only addresses what feels good at the moment. Euthanasia is next, watch. If a person is too expensive to keep alive, just give them a shot and put them in the ground.

Above is an excellent example of Proof by Assertion Fallacy: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.

euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next logical step from gay marriage.

You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.

Bet you saw this...

"Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"

I didn't but it doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not living in Sweden, and I am not worried in the least by Redfish's proof of assertion fallacy.

 

[Coyote]

. . . but the liberal ideology does not include personal responsibility or doing what's right, it only addresses what feels good at the moment. Euthanasia is next, watch. If a person is too expensive to keep alive, just give them a shot and put them in the ground.

Above is an excellent example of Proof by Assertion Fallacy: Redfish has absolutely no evidence for such a stupid statement.

euthanasia is the next logical step from abortion on demand, just as multiple marriage is the next logical step from gay marriage.

You and deny and hurl your juvenile insults if it somehow makes you feel important, but you cannot refute the logical progression of the liberal agenda.

Bet you saw this...

"Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party"
”Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal', according to youth political group"

A tiny political group in another country making ridiculous demands...means what exactly?