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

[MedfordMan]

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.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

 

[BWK]

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 woman. There exists no Biological evidence that an egg or a fetus is a developed human being capable of performing human born feelings or emotions because of the undeveloped neurological brain.

 

[BWK]

If the mother's life is at risk, she has priority.

Otherwise, the unborn child does.

Look at it this way.. Under the law, all are to be treated equally. Men, after having sex, have no legal say in what happens if the woman becomes pregnant. His only option is to prepare to have to pay her money for the 18 to 24 years every month.

Why should women have options afterwards? If men have to "suffer the consequences" of her becoming pregnant, shouldn't women also have to suffer the consequences?

Men don't have to suffer the consequences. Just don't get women pregnant. You act like the door only swings open one way.

 

[BWK]

BTW you are being completely dishonest by pretending we aren't talking about a child.

What child?

 

[BWK]

Life begins at conception. If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority. If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.

Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "human being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed human being right? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Lakhota]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

 

[Chuz Life]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.

Your red herring is herby dismissed.

 

[BWK]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.

Your red herring is herby dismissed.

Who is they again?
Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Chuz Life]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.

Your red herring is herby dismissed.

Who is they again?
Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?

How fascists can you be?

A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood. Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.

Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.

 

[BWK]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.

Your red herring is herby dismissed.

Who is they again?
Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?

How fascists can you be?

A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood.

And who is talking about a fully functioning brain? I'm talking about a fully developed brain? You know, the one that recognizes feelings and emotions?

Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.

Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.

You aren't getting the argument I'm afraid. "Children in the womb"? According to who? The fetus becomes a child when?

 

[deltex1]

Life begins at conception. If it begins it was God's will...and so the fertilized egg has first priority. If woman does not want the child...put it up for adoption.

Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "human being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed human being right? Is that what you are saying?

A marathon begins with the first step off the starting line....

 

[Chuz Life]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.

Your red herring is herby dismissed.

Who is they again?
Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?

How fascists can you be?

A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood. Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.

Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.

 

[Chuz Life]

Anti-choice fanatics can't be taken seriously until they start providing more resources to protect and care for children - AFTER THEY ARE BORN. They also need to be more sympathetic to the mental/physical/financial health and well-being of women who are faced with such a heartbreaking choice. Anti-choice fanatics act like pregnant women are just expendable hosts - birthing pods. Pregnant women come first.

This entire forum already knows that there is not enough that any conservative or group of conservatives can do for children AFTER they are born that will make any of you proabort fucktardz care more for them BEFORE they are born.

Your red herring is herby dismissed.

Who is they again?
Just to be clear, "Life" as explained in the dictionary is a "human being". A fetus without a developed brain is not a developed "hhuman uman being". By your account "Life begins at conception", is saying we are dealing with a fully developed being right? Is that what you are saying?

How fascists can you be?

A fully functioning brain is not a requirement for personhood.

And who is talking about a fully functioning brain? I'm talking about a fully developed brain? You know, the one that recognizes feelings and emotions?

Neither is it a requirement for a human being to be recognized as one.

Especially given the prognosis of the vast majority of children in the womb.

You aren't getting the argument I'm afraid. "Children in the womb"? According to who? The fetus becomes a child when?

I suggest you google the personhood status of children with underdeveloped brains (anencephalia]

While you are at it. You might google fetal HOMICIDE laws, too.

 

[MedfordMan]

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.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

Sure you do. Great question.

I'm thinking legally, not morally.

Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.

Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.

That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.

 

[MedfordMan]

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 woman. There exists no Biological evidence that an egg or a fetus is a developed human being capable of performing human born feelings or emotions because of the undeveloped neurological brain.

The brain doesn't stop developing until the mid 20's should we allow the killing of children and young adults because they don't have fully developed brains.

What about people with developmental disabilities who are otherwise healthy, but due to circumstances beyond their control may not be able to have fully developed brains. Should we allow the killing of them at any time?

God forbid.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

Sure you do. Great question.

I'm thinking legally, not morally.

Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.

Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.

That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.

So according to you, the ability to live separately is (should be) the legal diving line for which human beings are persons and which ones are not?

Let's be clear.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[beautress]

Your Poster girl is a thorough idiot. I paid $4,500.00 per year to the 12-year-school system through property taxes for the privilege of footing the bill for my county's schoolchildren, some of whom live on a reservation, and all of whom are otherwise diverse in backgrounds of every niche in the world. It took me 25 years to understand why people were so adamant that abortions are wrong. When you're more mature, you understand why tomorrow's nation needs every child. Because the 58 million unborn Citizens were replaced by another culture that has people dependent on truly mind-and DNA-altering drugs and come here to continue to pay for the habit if not proliferate it through sales and contacts with lands in which bad drugs grow on crops. Laws of mercy.

 

[MedfordMan]

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.

This is a surprisingly difficult question for those who want to have an honest discussion.

Giving legal rights to children is a way fraught with unintended consequences that only an anarchist could love.

However the founding principles of this country, found in the Declaration of Independence, declare that we, as Americans have a n unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A unviable fetus is a human child waiting to be born, unless you can provide evidence that fetuses sometimes come out as something other than human children.

Still Democracy requires compromise and from a legal perspective, though immoral, the Mother has a greater right to decide the fate of her unviable fetus.

However, once that human child is viable the State has a right and a legal responsibility to protect the right of that unborn child to have life.

Do we not have a right to question WHY the ever moving target of viability is the deciding point?

Sure you do. Great question.

I'm thinking legally, not morally.

Until the unborn child is viable on its own, it's not a separate entity from the Mother.

Once viable, although still dependant on the Mother, the child could survive as a separate entity from the Mother.

That distinction is what makes viability a natural dividing line, from a legal perspective.

So according to you, the ability to live separately is (should be) the legal diving line for which human beings are persons and which ones are not?

Let's be clear.

Is that what you are saying?

I am a born again Christian that believes that abortion, as the killing of unborn children, is morally wrong.

So according to God's law, viability is not an issue and abortion is sin. God will judge that sin at the great white throne of judgement.

However, we live in the world. A world in which God allows any of us to reject his will and choose to serve their own selfish will (and sin). It's not my job to judge (that's God's job) and I must not challenge God's sovereignty by trying to take away the ability for mankind to sin.

I see abortion in this light. I hate it and I grieve for the innocents killed, but God has allowed some to choose to sin by killing their unborn children.

I didn't come up with the viability standard, Harry Blackmun came up with it in Roe vs Wade. It makes sense to me as a worldly (not a Godly) standard. Imagine the unintended consequences of granting legal standing to children, separate (independent) from their parents?

Because of the symbiotic relationship between mother and unborn child, I don't see how we force a woman to nurture a non viable unborn child, which could not survive outside her womb. Once the unborn child could survive outside the womb, I would argue legally it has a right to be born.