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

[Cecilie1200]

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

You also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.

This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.

No, hon. I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts". And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.

That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.

You aren't stating "facts," you are stating "opinion" and then hilariously demanding that it be accepted as fact. This remains a philosophical question.

What is this "feelz"? Is it part of this mollusk thing that the cults are into? You right-wingers make up an incredible amount of stuff.

No, dear. You'd LIKE the facts to be merely my opinion, because God knows you're too uneducated to deal with anything else. And you'd like this to be a "philosophical question", because you think that means "Whoever bitches and whines loudest wins".

Embryology recognizes that life begins at conception. This is a fact. You can tell it's a fact just by reading an embryology textbook.

"It's not really a life until I want it to be" is an opinion. And a stupid one at that.

 

[Lysistrata]

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

You also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.

This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.

No, hon. I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts". And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.

That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.

You aren't stating "facts," you are stating "opinion" and then hilariously demanding that it be accepted as fact. This remains a philosophical question.

What is this "feelz"? Is it part of this mollusk thing that the cults are into? You right-wingers make up an incredible amount of stuff.

No, dear. You'd LIKE the facts to be merely my opinion, because God knows you're too uneducated to deal with anything else. And you'd like this to be a "philosophical question", because you think that means "Whoever bitches and whines loudest wins".

Embryology recognizes that life begins at conception. This is a fact. You can tell it's a fact just by reading an embryology textbook.

"It's not really a life until I want it to be" is an opinion. And a stupid one at that.

You know so much less than you think you no.
My opinion is that this issue poses a philosophical question that must be resolved by the only person qualified to do so, the pregnant woman. She is free to consult with whomever she likes. Neither politicians or adherents of various religions are qualified to usurp her place. End of.

 

[Blues Man]

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."

Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking". I get hung up on the hard science.

Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.

by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.

That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies

Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.

I get it. "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything. I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.

The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING. Give that a try here. I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence. I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".

If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the fuck out of an argument you're not prepared for.

And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!! I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational. Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself. Rationality requires honesty.

I know exactly what you are saying.

And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.

But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.

Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.

So at that point I have no problem with abortion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."

Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking". I get hung up on the hard science.

Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.

by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.

That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies

Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.

I get it. "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything. I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.

The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING. Give that a try here. I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence. I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".

If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the fuck out of an argument you're not prepared for.

And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!! I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational. Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself. Rationality requires honesty.

I know exactly what you are saying.

And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.

But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.

Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.

So at that point I have no problem with abortion.

Couple of problems with this.

First of all, I got that you "graciously" agreed with the facts up to a certain point. I just fail to see what relevance that has to anything. Am I supposed to be grateful? Give you a cookie? "Compromise" on the rest of reality as a reward for you being informed that far?

Second, a hallmark of irrationality is replacing hard fact and science with fuzzy colloquialisms like "person". "Never mind if it's an organism; it doesn't meet the definition of a person, so THAT'S what really matters." What the fuck is "the definition of a person", Rational Lad? Give me the hard, cold, definitive, objective answer to that, and maybe we can talk. Give me your personal opinion or something feeling-based, and we're back to "you can't demand a rational conversation when you don't intend to be rational".

When you gabble brainlessly about "might develop into a person, but might not, so I'm okay with killing them until I feel they've hit that point", you're not rational.

 

[Blues Man]

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."

Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking". I get hung up on the hard science.

Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.

by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.

That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies

Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.

I get it. "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything. I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.

The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING. Give that a try here. I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence. I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".

If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the fuck out of an argument you're not prepared for.

And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!! I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational. Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself. Rationality requires honesty.

I know exactly what you are saying.

And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.

But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.

Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.

So at that point I have no problem with abortion.

Couple of problems with this.

First of all, I got that you "graciously" agreed with the facts up to a certain point. I just fail to see what relevance that has to anything. Am I supposed to be grateful? Give you a cookie? "Compromise" on the rest of reality as a reward for you being informed that far?

Second, a hallmark of irrationality is replacing hard fact and science with fuzzy colloquialisms like "person". "Never mind if it's an organism; it doesn't meet the definition of a person, so THAT'S what really matters." What the fuck is "the definition of a person", Rational Lad? Give me the hard, cold, definitive, objective answer to that, and maybe we can talk. Give me your personal opinion or something feeling-based, and we're back to "you can't demand a rational conversation when you don't intend to be rational".

When you gabble brainlessly about "might develop into a person, but might not, so I'm okay with killing them until I feel they've hit that point", you're not rational.

I am pragmatic you are unreasonable

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.

Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling. Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship. The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low. Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.

The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest. Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.

Plus the arguments and laws are always framed around the woman's responsibility.
What about the man's?

If it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, where is the discussion of how men shouldn't stick their penises somewhere that would risk creating unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion?

 

[Crixus]

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.

So then a fling? Okay, so old girl hits the club and meets some nice dumb muscle. They decied to fool around and the rubber breaks. They make pill for this. You can buy it OTC at Walmart. If it's further along then abortion should not be an option. Yes, it's the woman's right to choose, but if she chooses that then she needs to pony up the bucks to have it done. There is no such thing as an unexpected pregnancy. It's pretty common knowledge, if you put a penis in a vagina chances are good someone will get knocked up.

Every time you anti-abortion types write your reasons for opposing abortions, you talk about women having casual sex - a fling. Abortion studies show that the majority of women having abortions are married or in a committed relationship. The percentage of promiscuous women having abortions is quite low. Abortion is driven by economics, not lifestyle.

The morning after pill you speak of is only recommended in cases of rape or incest. Those are incredibly harmful chemicals, so don't write about them like they're no big deal.

Plus the arguments and laws are always framed around the woman's responsibility.
What about the man's?

If it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, where is the discussion of how men shouldn't stick their penises somewhere that would risk creating unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion?

What about a mans responsibility? You must not know anyone who is delinquent in child support do you? If you are a parent who is delinquent in child support the first thing that happens to you is your drivers license is suspended. As a matter of fact, every state. Have lived in has done this. After that the delinquent person is thrown in jail off and on, but the debt stacks up. Men are only held to account after the fact, but they are held to account unlike the brown and black people who democrats recommend killing fetus's to.

 

[Lakhota]

Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.

 

[Norman]

Men's wallets should have the first priority.

The first priority is always with the people who make everything run.

 

[there4eyeM]

The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education.
Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.

 

[kaz]

Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.

Well, if a woman wants an abortion.

If a woman chooses to think differently than you do then you and not be a mindless Democrat drone, then you target the bitch. Women are only allowed to think what you do, cave man.

You can't selectively support a woman's right to choose. You do or you don't, and you don't

 

[kaz]

The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education.
Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.

Well, it's a good definition of oppression.

A better one is that you don't respect a woman's right to choose in politics. That would be the definition of oppression since politics is how we protect our freedom and set the rules.

Leftists talking about respecting a "woman's right to choose" is just such shallow hypocrisy

 

[kaz]

Plus the arguments and laws are always framed around the woman's responsibility.
What about the man's?

If it takes a man to get a woman pregnant, where is the discussion of how men shouldn't stick their penises somewhere that would risk creating unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion?

Yep. Men had a choice ... before they did the deed. He had a choice. At that point the fetus is in the woman's body and it's her choice

 

[Chuz Life]

I know exactly what you are saying.

And in case you didn't get it I agreed with you that a human zygote is a unique human group of cells.

But that in no way means those cells meet the definition of a person.

Sure they might develop into a person but then again they might not.

So at that point I have no problem with abortion.

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

That's it.

It is illogical to say that "a human being" is not a "human being."

Agree?

If you do agree with that, please explain how "a human being" even in the first days of their life is NOT a "human being."

 

[Chuz Life]

The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education.
Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.

Even in a free country, Children are either Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws, from the moment their lives begin. . . or they are not.

I say they are.

 

[Chuz Life]

Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Democrats do NOT believe that a woman's rights should begin when her life does.

Democrats believe that a woman's rights should only begin when we as a society can not justify the denial of her rights (especially by her own biological mother) anymore.

 

[Blues Man]

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

That's it.

It is illogical to say that "a human being" is not a "human being."

Agree?

If you do agree with that, please explain how "a human being" even in the first days of their life is NOT a "human being."

A zygote is not a human being any more than a cheek cell is

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.

Democrats give their own wallets and their own power ALL priority, and then lie to women that it's for them.

 

[kaz]

Democrats give their own wallets and their own power ALL priority, and then lie to women that it's for them.

This thing that Democrats are pro-choice is just complete since the biggest choice we make is our political views in a free country, and Lakota and the knuckle dragging pasty ass white leftist knuckle draggers in the Democrat party will be the first to demean any woman that dares think differently than they do

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only measure against women's use of post conception interruption of pregnancy is education.
Reproduction is not a subject of legislation in a free country. Insisting that a person bear a child is the definition of oppression.

Thank you so much for "helpfully" mansplaining to me that I'm oppressed by biology and Mother Nature. I like being told that the central facet of being a woman is akin to slavery and should be abhorred. I feel confident that any "education" you wanted to provide on the subject would be equally geared toward biological fact.