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

[Bonzi]

They are all equal, just at different stages of human life. However, a newly fertilized human and a human fetus have no way to defend themselves and no voice, so it is our duty to defend and protect them

 

[Cecilie1200]

the answer depends on when you believe that life begins. If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.

There is no right or wrong answer. Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote. So lets put abortion up to a national referendum. Any objections?

I believe my life began at conception. I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth. We have decided. Choice until viability for the most part.

So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

 

[Redfish]

the answer depends on when you believe that life begins. If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.

There is no right or wrong answer. Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote. So lets put abortion up to a national referendum. Any objections?

I believe my life began at conception. I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth. We have decided. Choice until viability for the most part.

So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb. Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.

 

[BlindBoo]

the answer depends on when you believe that life begins. If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.

There is no right or wrong answer. Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote. So lets put abortion up to a national referendum. Any objections?

I believe my life began at conception. I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth. We have decided. Choice until viability for the most part.

So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb. Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.

So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?

I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.

 

[Redfish]

I believe my life began at conception. I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth. We have decided. Choice until viability for the most part.

So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb. Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.

So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?

I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.

I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the answer depends on when you believe that life begins. If you vote for the woman, then you believe that life begins at the instant of birth and that killing the unborn child is OK.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion except in very special circumstances.

There is no right or wrong answer. Civilization must decide these things and civilized people decide such issues by majority vote. So lets put abortion up to a national referendum. Any objections?

I believe my life began at conception. I also know that not all conceived zygotes develop successfully until birth. We have decided. Choice until viability for the most part.

So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb. Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.

I'm afraid I don't see what line you think exists and "needs to be drawn", fine or otherwise.

It sounds like you're trying to make more or less the same argument pro-abortion people do between in utero and born: location, location, location. Unfortunately, we aren't discussing real estate, so this doesn't work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb. Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.

So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?

I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.

I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.

Couple of things here.

First of all, this is a false distinction to make, since embryos for in vitro fertilization are frozen and stored at a stage of development FAR before the development of a heart.

Second of all, I would honestly have to say that temperature is hands-down the strangest benchmark for life and not-life I have ever heard in the abortion debate. It's also not one that's going to hold up over time and the advancement of technology. If and when we learn to cryogenically preserve adults with life-threatening diseases until cures can be found (just as an example), is your position then going to be that they are too cold to be considered alive?

 

[BlindBoo]

So you're basically saying that because some embryos spontaneously abort, that makes it okay for us to kill them?

Because by that same logic, you DO realize that everyone eventually dies, and that doesn't justify people killing each other.

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb. Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.

So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?

I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.

I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.

At that stage the cells have not differentiated.

 

[Redfish]

I know someone who just had a successful fertilization therapy and they have 10 embryos left over and they don't want any more children. Is it okay to let them die, or is it murder?

First thing: I don't have much patience with buzzwords. I much prefer precise English usage; it provides much clearer communication. Therefore, because "murder" is a legal term, referring specifically to the unlawful killing of a human being, it doesn't technically apply to abortion. For the moment, abortion is legal.

That being said, it IS, indeed, the immoral killing of a human being to "let them die", which is another imprecise euphemism for actively destroying the unwanted embryos.

Not really going to profit you much to assume that everyone approves of the way infertility treatments currently treat embryos. There's actually not a great deal about the current practice of fertility medicine that I DO approve of, in case you were wondering.

I guess I have to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo frozen in a test tube and a living embryo in its mother's womb. Maybe its a fine line, but I think it needs to be drawn.

So for you it's not conception but when the zygote attaches to the womb?

I think it's okay for people to chose a different line.

I guess I would choose a beating heart over a frozen one.

At that stage the cells have not differentiated.

the DNA is formed, cellular life is happening, a tiny heart is beginning to beat.

I think abortion is murder, you don't. That's fine, we disagree. When civilized people disagree they put the issue to a vote and the majority opinion prevails. So, do you support a national referendum on this?

 

[Lakhota]

Women have first priority. NaziCons should stop fucking with their personal lives.

 

[Redfish]

Women have first priority. NaziCons should stop fucking with their personal lives.

That is your OPINION. Others have different OPINIONS. You cannot dictate your opinion on everyone. This whole issue should be put to a national referendum and settled once and for all. Let the people vote, I am willing to accept the vote of the people, are you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Women have first priority. NaziCons should stop fucking with their personal lives.

Amazing how the only subject on which the "Your huge soda is illegal!" leftists object to government interference is killing babies.

 

[Lakhota]

Women have first priority!

 

[oreo]

Without the woman, none of the rest can exist.

 

[Billy000]

The woman. End of story.

 

[buttercup]

An excerpt from an article on: Libertarians for Life - Abortion, Choice, and Libertarian Principles

Anyone who denies that conception is Day One for personhood has the burden of pinpointing when Day One is. And they must show why it is this day rather than one day earlier, or one day later. Our need for exactness on when personhood begins is inescapable, for we must not step on either a woman's or a child's rights. We need a sharp dividing line. There is no moral class between "person" and "non-person."

Abortion-choice theory, absent proof, sits on the horns of an impossible dilemma. Drawing a line even one day before personhood begins unjustly limits a woman's choice to destroy her property. To draw a line even one day after personhood begins is to permit unjust homicide.

Personhood is an either-or, an all-or-nothing, proposition because the right to be free from aggression is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. The right not to be killed cannot be put on a degree scale, because one cannot be "a little bit alive," or a "little bit dead." Killed or not killed is an either-or, an all-or-nothing. You are either dead or alive. You exist or you don't.

Thus, a so-called potential, partial, or lesser right to life—a right that can be set aside—is, in effect, no right at all. Persons have the right to life. If a being may be killed at whim, this being is not a potential person: this being is a non-person.

"Person" or "non-person" are constants. A person can have a better, or a poorer personality than other persons, but no human being has more, or less, personhood than any other. Just as the law has no power to give or withhold unalienable rights, it cannot give or withhold personhood. To be an actual person, human beings need do nothing but be alive.

When one human being can dictate whether another human being is a person, we should worry about our own prospects. I wouldn't want my personhood to be conditional under the law, subject to the arbitrary opinions of others. Would you? Yet, two tiers of humanity is precisely what abortion choicers support.

The answer to who decides when personhood begins is: Personhood is inseparable from the right to be free from aggression and both are inseparable from our life. We don't become persons; we simply are actual persons from Day One.​

 

[MindWars]

Your right to be irresponsible
Your right to kill a human
Your right to screw like rabbits because getting pregnant isn't an option just getting some penis is.

You fems are so indoctrinated and have been sold such bs weak minds are easy to manipulate though.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The women....

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The majority will say the women is more important, it's when abortion is used as an easy out for someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for adult actions, that is when the majority of us take issue. Having sex can cause babies Abortion as a contraceptive is an abhorrent procedure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fetus has no priority or parity with the mother.