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

[Cecilie1200]

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

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

They don't realize it, but they're demeaning women who agree with them, as well. They demean womanhood in general.

 

[kaz]

They don't realize it, but they're demeaning women who agree with them, as well. They demean womanhood in general.

I'd state it slightly differently that the women of the Democrat demean themselves by participating in the electronic lynching of women who dare think for themselves. Say to a leftist woman, can women think for themselves? Yes! Of course! Can they think differently than you??? Well, no. So how are leftist women advocating women can think for themselves? Truly believing someone can think for themselves means you realize they might disagree ... with you ...

Leftist women bless attacking non leftist women. Frankly it's sick

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

You must have been waiting quite a while to get to use that expression and are no doubt relieved to have gotten it off your, uh, chest. "Explaining" to someone so full of projection and fully formed opinions about unknown persons would be of little probably use.
For anyone else reading this who could conceivably take another meaning from post #1050, the oppression mentioned had not to do with nature, but rather the state (of mind of people who would force a woman to bear).

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd state it slightly differently that the women of the Democrat demean themselves by participating in the electronic lynching of women who dare think for themselves. Say to a leftist woman, can women think for themselves? Yes! Of course! Can they think differently than you??? Well, no. So how are leftist women advocating women can think for themselves? Truly believing someone can think for themselves means you realize they might disagree ... with you ...

Leftist women bless attacking non leftist women. Frankly it's sick

No, what I mean is, the leftist agenda on "women's rights" is demeaning to the very core of being a woman. Somewhere along the way, they got the idea that womanhood and femaleness were inferior, and that the way for women to truly acquire equality with men was to become men, and abandon and despise everything that is inherent to women and makes them different from men.

And then they embraced the new patriarchy of transgenderism, which has done more to set women back towards being second-class citizens and chattel than anything in my lifetime.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You must have been waiting quite a while to get to use that expression and are no doubt relieved to have gotten it off your, uh, chest. "Explaining" to someone so full of projection and fully formed opinions about unknown persons would be of little probably use.
For anyone else reading this who could conceivably take another meaning from post #1050, the oppression mentioned had not to do with nature, but rather the state (of mind of people who would force a woman to bear).

Your respect for women oozes from every word of your condescension to a woman who dares to disagree with your received male wisdom.

I'd recommend some introspection about your own attitudes and posts, but you're too busy "knowing" you're right to try to find out if maybe you aren't.

Run along and patriarch somewhere else, chauvinist.

 

[there4eyeM]

Your respect for women oozes from every word of your condescension to a woman who dares to disagree with your received male wisdom.

I'd recommend some introspection about your own attitudes and posts, but you're too busy "knowing" you're right to try to find out if maybe you aren't.

Run along and patriarch somewhere else, chauvinist.

Any lack of logic on your part makes no one other patriarchal.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.

Firstly, a denial is not an argument.

Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."

A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.

If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.

I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"

Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Any lack of logic on your part makes no one other patriarchal.

Any assumption that disagreeing with you is a "lack of logic" is patriarchal.

 

[Kondor3]

If it's a single choice, then my own priorities would be, in order...

1. the woman

2. the fetus

3. the fertilized egg

With protection for (2) where the pregnancy is well-advanced and there is no reasonable medical danger to the woman.

 

[emilynghiem]

Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.

Dear Lakhota The issue is protecting people of both beliefs equally: (1) whether you believe in defending women's due process rights [even at the expense of unborn rights to life if forced to make a choice compromising one of the two] (2) someone else believes in defending unborn rights to life [even at the expense of women's due process rights if forced to choose between the two] (3) I believe in defending both women's due process rights and unborn rights to life EQUALLY where NEITHER is compromised so all 3 beliefs are protected equally. Since Constitutional and Civil Rights laws require people of all beliefs to be treated equally under law, then laws can only be passed and enforced that defend all 3 beliefs equally as cites above. Or else laws biased toward any of the above while excluding any of the others are unconstitutional and discriminate by creed.

 

[Redfish]

Democrats give women first priority - not fetuses.

really? does that include black female babies who are killed more than anyone else by abortions?

 

[Redfish]

If it's a single choice, then my own priorities would be, in order...

1. the woman

2. the fetus

3. the fertilized egg

With protection for (2) where the pregnancy is well-advanced and there is no reasonable medical danger to the woman.

I agree, I would add: that when the choice is the unborn child or the woman, the woman should be the one making the choice.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.

Firstly, a denial is not an argument.

Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."

A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.

If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.

I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"

Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.

I don't know why you resurrected this thread it's clear we are never going to agree

I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.

But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.

So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on. It's a waste of time.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is bewildering that this continues to be brought up when resolution is obviously impossible.
The question of abortion is unique. It is intimate to women and would thus be for them to decide in a rational setting. For better or worse, however, we find ourselves in the setting of present day America.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.

Firstly, a denial is not an argument.

Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."

A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.

If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.

I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"

Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.

I don't know why you resurrected this thread it's clear we are never going to agree

I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.

But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.

So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on. It's a waste of time.

1. I didn't necro this thread. Scroll back and see.
2. You have yet to provide anything more than your opinion to support your claim that any level of function above that which a zygote has is required for them being recognized as a human being / organism / child / person.
3. Do yourself a favor and learn the actual scientific difference between a "potential" organism and one where that potential has been realized and it now exists.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Just how many biology classes DID you skip in high school? Damn, dude. That's just embarrassing.

Just because a cell has unique human DNA does not mean it's a human being. You shed millions of cells that have unique human DNA every single day.

Are those cells organisms? The product of human sexual reproduction? Do any of your cheek cells have biological parents who created them with sexual reproduction?

every cell in your body is the end result of sexual reproduction.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Let's ignore the fact that abortions do not involve "zygotes," I'll address your claim, anyway.

Firstly, a denial is not an argument.

Secondly, by definition all organisms are "beings" in as much as they "exist."

A zygote of whatever species is an organism in it's first days of development. That is a biological fact.

If it is a human organism in the zygote stage of life, it is a human "being."

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws already recognize this biological fact.

I have to ask you. If a child in the zygote stage of their life is not a human being, as YOU claim. . . . What then makes the biological father of that child (or any other child for that matter) a "biological father?"

Use BIOLOGY in your explanation.

I don't know why you resurrected this thread it's clear we are never going to agree

I have stipulated that a human embryo does become a human being during gestation.

But up until that time it is nothing but a potential human being because it cannot independently perform all the functions necessary for life.

So I'm not going to keep arguing a point that we will never agree on. It's a waste of time.

1. I didn't necro this thread. Scroll back and see.
2. You have yet to provide anything more than your opinion to support your claim that any level of function above that which a zygote has is required for them being recognized as a human being / organism / child / person.
3. Do yourself a favor and learn the actual scientific difference between a "potential" organism and one where that potential has been realized and it now exists.

The post by me that you replied to was from the beginning of February.

So yeah you did