Zone1 Embryos and Personhood

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have no argument. I only have facts.

1. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.
2. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.
3. It is up to the states to decide the legality of abortion.

4. You want them all to ban it so you can see your religious fetishes enforced on others at the end of a gun.

 

[ding]

4. You want them all to ban it so you can see your religious fetishes enforced on others at the end of a gun.

No, I'd be happy if the punishment were a misdemeanor.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I'd be happy if the punishment were a misdemeanor.

Which are enforced at the end of a gun.

I know you would be happy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The states will decide the legality of abortion.

States are deciding a pregnant woman’s right to reasonable access to a safe abortion if she wants one.

 

[ding]

Which are enforced at the end of a gun.

I know you would be happy.

That's an overly dramatic way of looking at America's systems of laws and regulations.

 

[ding]

States are deciding a pregnant woman’s right to reasonable access to a safe abortion if she wants one.

Yes, each state gets to decide.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's an overly dramatic way of looking at America's systems of laws and regulations.

Ding's thinking leads straight to a civil inquisition.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, I'd be happy if the punishment were a misdemeanor.

Do you oppose the Republican states that ban access to abortion because you understand it is a violation of a woman’s right to the pursuit of life liberty and happiness to terminate her own pregnancy as long as she pays a small fine and please guilty for the sin of becoming pregnant unintentionally?

 

[ding]

Ding's thinking leads straight to a civil inquisition.

Which way of my thinking does that?

 

[ding]

Do you oppose the Republican states that ban access to abortion because you understand it is a violation of a woman’s right to the pursuit of life liberty and happiness to terminate her own pregnancy as long as she pays a small fine and please guilty for the sin of becoming pregnant unintentionally?

Like I said before, I think abortion should be a misdemeanor. The pregnancy may have been unintentional but the ending of the human life isn't.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Like I said before, I think abortion should be a misdemeanor. The pregnancy may have been unintentional but the ending of the human life isn't.

And you are, as always, wrong. You do not understand God's will for yourself, much less everyone else.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The pregnancy may have been unintentional but the ending of the human life isn't.

The intentional ending of the human life prior to potential viability in the womb is not immoral or depraved in American constitutional secular civil society.

The intentional ending of the human life prior to potential viability in the womb is immoral and depraved in the Holy Roman Catholic Church

Saint Ding is Catholic.

 

[Kruska]

The recent ruling by an Alabama judge has ignited a firestorm in both sides of the reproductive rights community: frozen embryos have full legal personhood rights. This has split Republican lawmakers who are, on the one hand applauding the decision while simultaneously scrambling to enact legislation to carve out a niche for IVF by redefining when an embryo is considered a person.

​

It's a plain private issue, that needs to be solely decided upon by the "producers". And in case of a draw it is lastly the "expecting" mother, that has the final say.

A governments function should be solely restricted onto "giving financial aid" in view of an e.g. desired population growth. And to confirm the scientific view as to when "life" of a fertilized egg begins. Once life has taken place (fetus, week 8?) - an abortion should be placed equal with murder - excluding only medical reasons, aka endangering the life of an expecting mother.

As for freezing embryos - personally I am against it. (Since the final outcome for a frozen embryo aka an egg that has been fertilized, isn't assured) There is however nothing wrong IMO with freezing a women's ovulating egg, or a man's sperm.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Roe v. Wade getting overturned!! 220813 {post•4801} ding Aug’22 Srvwgo: “Because it's OK to kill it before your so called "viability" date? dvng 220813 Srvwgo04801


Embryos and Personhood 240326 {post•214}

No, Saint Ding, it is of no interest to civil society to intervene in the relationship between a woman and her unborn child until birth of her child is observed according to the US Constitution.

24 weeks has been a natural non-binding consensus for over fifty years that the choice to terminate a pregnancy should be made prior to the time a fetus reasonably can be expected to survive separation from its mother. 95% of all abortions occur well before viability.

nfbw 240326 Veapyz00214 to Srvwgo04801

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The pregnancy may have been unintentional but the ending of the human life isn't.

The intentional ending of human life inside the womb is inconsequential to secular civil society. We are not a Christian nation. Do you see how those truisms apply Saint Ding and why you should respect truth for a change regarding women and their private reproductive rights?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Once life has taken place (fetus, week 8?

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence

You both cannot be right. In the Saving Baby Fetus Cult - who do you think is right within a right to life discussion?

Right to life and it’s protection by civil authority begins at live birth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no "right" to kill an innocent PERSON

There’s a right to be free from government interference in one’s private life – particularly when that interference is motivated by ignorance and stupidity.

An embryo is not a ‘person.’

 

[forkup]

If you are asking for my opinion on the matter of competing rights, as I work through it logically all parties' "concerns" can be resolved by making abortion a misdemeanor.

That's pretty telling actually. You're logical conclusion of the competing interests between the rights of a person to have control of their body, health and financial future, and another "life" is to make a decision from the person to control those things illegal?

That is what you logically conclude?

If I'm asked to donate a kidney to, let's say my child to make the analogy close, and I refuse, would you come to that same conclusion or would you recognize that me making the selfish choice to preserve myself is an inherent right?

Mind you this is between 2 actual person's.

Not between this

and this

And seems to me that logic isn't what drives your conclusions.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A governments function should be solely restricted onto "giving financial aid" in view of an e.g. desired population growth. And to confirm the scientific view as to when "life" of a fertilized egg begins. Once life has taken place (fetus, week 8?) - an abortion should be placed equal with murder

Why not retrieve the brand new government’s function Saint Kruska with respect to reproductive law; as it stood in the English Colonies, as the Revolutionary War was fought and won by a majority of non-Christian white men, and as the Constitution was being written under the influence of European anti/Catholic and anti/Protestant Christian Church State governance known as the rebellion of modern Enlightenment Philosophy against the European church state tradition?

If Betsy Ross had become pregnant at the time and did not wish to continue it she wouid have have arranged a private meeting with other women who helped each other with the things of giving birth as well as terminating an unwanted baby.

She wouid have terminated her pregnancy without legal consequence before her pregnancy was publicly detectable. Her act would never have been considered murder.

She could abort her child prior to “quickening” no questions asked. I call that a right to privacy.

The concept of “quickening” has a close parallel with our modern concept of “viability”.

 

[ding]

And you are, as always, wrong. You do not understand God's will for yourself, much less everyone else.

A misdemeanor seems like a fair compromise.