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

[Lysistrata]

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.

The issues here for me are this.

1) There are far too many people on this planet.
2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.

There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....

There are too many people on the planet:

World Population Growth

It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?

 

[Redfish]

Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.

your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being.

your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex. But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created. There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings. But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.

When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails. A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all. So lets vote on it. OK?

 

[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.

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.

The issues here for me are this.

1) There are far too many people on this planet.
2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.

There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....

There are too many people on the planet:

World Population Growth

It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?

how about preventing the pregnancy before it happens? wouldn't that be a better way to control the population?

 

[there4eyeM]

Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.

your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being.

your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex. But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created. There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings. But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.

When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails. A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all. So lets vote on it. OK?

Let's vote on the beginning of life.
Does anyone want to dispute that life began billions of years ago?
Does anyone want to dispute that life is genetically transmitted?
Does anyone want to dispute that all humans share mitochondrial DNA?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women are born with all their eggs?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women alive today are direct descendants of the mitochondrial "Eve", and the, consequently, that genetic line has been alive for some tens of thousands of years?
Does anyone want to dispute that genetic combinations are always occurring?
Does anyone want to dispute that an egg and a sperm form another new combination of genes?
So, what is really being questioned is at what point we want to disconnect the continuity of life.
This, added to the hypocrisy of people wanting to interfere in a woman's bodily functions over a potential human being while they pay taxes for bombs to kill actual human babies, makes the entire abortion matter rather difficult to take seriously as a voting matter.
Better just to leave it up to the woman.

 

[Lakhota]

The woman decides!

 

[Cecilie1200]

TOOBIN: ABORTION BANS IN ‘20 STATES’ IN 18 MONTHS

It's getting serious. Really serious.

Ehrmagerd! Soon you may not be able to kill infants with impunity! The HORROR!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.

Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court

Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.

Unfortunately, I fear for your sanity. The meds are inadequate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now that Kennedy has announced his retirement - we must fight hard to protect Roe v. Wade from being overturned by a radical right-wing SCOTUS.

Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement From The Supreme Court

Unfortunately, I fear that there will be a serious attack on Americans' rights. We will end up with "free states" and "slave states" once again, the destruction of religious freedom, the establishment of a theocracy run by the worst among us, and a great big backlash.

You really going to be hooked into this bullshit.

Roe is meaningless and you'll be able to all the abortions you want.

How is it that you people think this country can fall apart over one SCOTUS nominee.

Because their agenda depends on taking all choices out of the hands of voters.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

ALL living things have the right to life AND the right of SELF-DEFENSE.

Once you understand that basic principle, this debate becomes easy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The issues here for me are this.

1) There are far too many people on this planet.
2) If kids are going to be brought into this world, we should give them a decent shot at it. No point bringing someone into the world just to put up with misery their whole life.
3) Once a child comes into this world, they're a part of the world. People have emotional attachments towards them that are far harder to deal with than those of fetuses. If an individual doesn't feel that attachment to the fetus, then it's their choice.
4) about 75% of fetuses end up being aborted naturally anyway. If there were god (because abortion seems to be a religious issue) and this god wanted people to be alive, he wouldn't have given all these diseases and he wouldn't have made most pregnancies end in natural abortion before the mother even knows it.

There are not too many people on the planet....in fact, Europe isn't replacing it's population....in fact, as nations become wealthy, their people have fewer children....

There are too many people on the planet:

World Population Growth

It is growing at a rate that is unsustainable. Years ago, there was an effort called Zero Population Growth to limit the population to a sustainable size, but the ignorant oafs and louts rejected it. Now we have a problem, and you want it to get worse?

Why is it that hysterics bemoaning the "overpopulation problem" always want to solve it by someone ELSE dying? Why don't YOU go first?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There are too many people on the planet

Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.

your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being.

your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex. But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created. There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings. But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.

When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails. A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all. So lets vote on it. OK?

Let's vote on the beginning of life.
Does anyone want to dispute that life began billions of years ago?
Does anyone want to dispute that life is genetically transmitted?
Does anyone want to dispute that all humans share mitochondrial DNA?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women are born with all their eggs?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women alive today are direct descendants of the mitochondrial "Eve", and the, consequently, that genetic line has been alive for some tens of thousands of years?
Does anyone want to dispute that genetic combinations are always occurring?
Does anyone want to dispute that an egg and a sperm form another new combination of genes?
So, what is really being questioned is at what point we want to disconnect the continuity of life.
This, added to the hypocrisy of people wanting to interfere in a woman's bodily functions over a potential human being while they pay taxes for bombs to kill actual human babies, makes the entire abortion matter rather difficult to take seriously as a voting matter.
Better just to leave it up to the woman.

You think scientific fact is decided by vote?

Not only your input is invalid; YOU are invalid.

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

ALL living things have the right to life AND the right of SELF-DEFENSE.

Once you understand that basic principle, this debate becomes easy.

When one understands that words are human creations that express subjective human concepts, one understands the absurdity of assigning "rights" where no human is involved. Animals have 'rights' if humans believe thus. Humans have 'rights' when humans believe that way. We created 'rights'. We ascribe 'rights'. 'Rights' do not exist somewhere out there in the universe; they exist in the mind of mankind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ultimately, the responsibility for fertilizing an egg is that of the two people who have sex in such a way that this could occur. It could easily be avoided. At the same time, it is no concern of the state that these people do or do not avoid fertilization of an egg and it is up to the female carrying the egg to determine what happens with her body.
There is no parallel, no other question equivalent to this. In no other case would people propose legal interference in the bodily functions inside another person.
The decision is the woman's; it can be no other in any society that has liberty in its vocabulary.

your opinion is only valid if you don't believe that the unborn child is a human being.

your first part is correct, the responsibility lies with the two people who have unprotected sex. But once that egg is fertilized a new human has been created. There may be times when destroying it is necessary to save the life of the mother and that is just fine with a vast majority of human beings. But to kill it simply because it is inconvenient is not fine with a majority of human beings.

When a society struggles with an issue like this, the members of the society vote and the majority opinion prevails. A national referendum is the only way to resolve this once and for all. So lets vote on it. OK?

Let's vote on the beginning of life.
Does anyone want to dispute that life began billions of years ago?
Does anyone want to dispute that life is genetically transmitted?
Does anyone want to dispute that all humans share mitochondrial DNA?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women are born with all their eggs?
Does anyone want to dispute that all women alive today are direct descendants of the mitochondrial "Eve", and the, consequently, that genetic line has been alive for some tens of thousands of years?
Does anyone want to dispute that genetic combinations are always occurring?
Does anyone want to dispute that an egg and a sperm form another new combination of genes?
So, what is really being questioned is at what point we want to disconnect the continuity of life.
This, added to the hypocrisy of people wanting to interfere in a woman's bodily functions over a potential human being while they pay taxes for bombs to kill actual human babies, makes the entire abortion matter rather difficult to take seriously as a voting matter.
Better just to leave it up to the woman.

You think scientific fact is decided by vote?

Not only your input is invalid; YOU are invalid.

I see a lot of "you're so funny" ratings with no responses. I always take that to mean "You're right, I can't dispute you, but I'm too dishonest to admit it".

Thank you for your surrender, There. You may stop waving your white flag now.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

Obviuosly the Chicken.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

We created 'rights'. We ascribe 'rights'. 'Rights' do not exist somewhere out there in the universe; they exist in the mind of mankind.

No, real rights ce from the Creator.

aWLL innocent living things have the right and the drive to exist.

Because you may not recognizing ze or honor another being'd rights does not mean they don't exist. The Jews still had the right to life even if the Nazis didn't honor them.

 

[there4eyeM]

Jews, and all others who were victims of fascist and other authoritarian crimes, definitely share the same rights we ascribe to ourselves. Most persons in America would agree, it would seem.
People need to recognize and give proper attention to the fact that words and concepts are human. We give away whatever power we might otherwise have when we sacrifice the mind to images, religious or otherwise.

 

[Lysistrata]

There are too many people on the planet

Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.

Why should I leave? I have always been a supporter of ZPG. The ignorant jerks who opposed ZPG should be the ones to pay the price for their stupidity, given their major part in creating the sorry circumstances the world facts today They need to take responsibility for their actions and policies, but they never do. They will just lay down some cult BS about how people shouldn't have sex and it's all these people's fault for having it.

 

[there4eyeM]

There are too many people on the planet

Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.

Why should I leave? I have always been a supporter of ZPG. The ignorant jerks who opposed ZPG should be the ones to pay the price for their stupidity, given their major part in creating the sorry circumstances the world facts today They need to take responsibility for their actions and policies, but they never do. They will just lay down some cult BS about how people shouldn't have sex and it's all these people's fault for having it.

The responsibility of individuals for their acts should not be overlooked. Anyone reasonable could look about and see that either each human lives a drastically lesser impact life, or life for humans is in immediate danger.
The organizations that refused to heed wisdom horribly exacerbated the situation, and it continues unabated.

 

[Lysistrata]

There are too many people on the planet

Then do your part and LEAVE. And take a few who agree with you, with you.

Why should I leave? I have always been a supporter of ZPG. The ignorant jerks who opposed ZPG should be the ones to pay the price for their stupidity, given their major part in creating the sorry circumstances the world facts today They need to take responsibility for their actions and policies, but they never do. They will just lay down some cult BS about how people shouldn't have sex and it's all these people's fault for having it.

The responsibility of individuals for their acts should not be overlooked. Anyone reasonable could look about and see that either each human lives a drastically lesser impact life, or life for humans is in immediate danger.
The organizations that refused to heed wisdom horribly exacerbated the situation, and it continues unabated.

I do agree with you. Personal responsibility does come into play here. But some people refuse to accept that people have sex for reasons far from a desire to procreate. Having sex involves BOTH a human drive second only to hunger, and also a human desire to be close to another human being. These fundamental truths are being ignored and rejected by these "conservatives."

I wish that we could do an honest poll as to whether every person who has ever had heterosexual sex did so with the allowance and expectation that a baby might result. Casual sex does happen. Some folks go on R&R in the military or other endeavors, or those who just got looking because anyone is attractive at closing time, and just want to get laid without any concern for the results.

But what also happens, and what happens so much more of the time is that couples get together, with important emotional and intimate involvement, and don't want children until they are sure of their relationships, have formed stable relationship in which each voices readiness to carry out together the raising of the children born between them, want to space their children, can't cope with abnormalities in their fetal offspring that would result either in immediate death of the fetus if it is brought to term or require them to cope with the care, mostly unsupported in U.S. society but supported in other foreign societies that provide ample help to parents in such circumstances. The U.S. does not.

Yes, heterosexuals DO settle among the pillows and whisper things to each other at at 2:00 a.m. that the rest of us human beings have absolutely NO right to overhear.

I would love to see a poll, although I know that it is impossible, that asks people to respond to these sort of questions, with the results tabulated according to whether the respondents are men or women. For example, would a man who has premarital sex, be willing to love and raise any child he has fathered with any woman he chooses to have sex with? Would a man who has sex with his wife or his girlfriend be willing to form a sealing family bond with this woman to raise their family together in a loving home? Is every man prepared to be a Duggar for any child and all children he produces? Even if he must support, and of course support, his wife and any number of children they produce together in their sexual congress?