Zone1 Embryos and Personhood

[Damaged Eagle]

I love all law abiding Christians

I reject white Christian Nationalist Republican divisive jerks who among many grievances I have with that species, are the ones in MAGA who dismiss the racist component of what DJT attempted to do on January 6 2021.

What racist component would that be?

That white Christian as DJT claims to be tried to remain in power beyond his Constitutionally expired term,

Sounds like you have a severe case of TDS to me.

Black Christians concentrated in large cities voted to be rid of DJT from their lives. DJT LOST but organized a fake electors scheme to stay in power based upon his accusation the voters in big cities were corrupt and that corruption is what denied him the win of a second term. The riot on J6 ensued based on the BIG LIE.

Yeah that's why the police murdered an unarmed protestor that day instead of resorting to pepper spray or tasers.

Mike Johnson joined DJT in the effort to deny the victory that Joe Biden won with the support of many churchgoing black Americans

Mike Johnson is a white Christian Nationalist and I will never respect him for what he tried to do to black Christians ….. attempt to disenfranchise them based on a lie from a liar.

Raphael Warnock Schools Mike Johnson On Faith Over Trans Day Of Visibility Take

"This is just one more instance of folks who do not know how to lead us trying to divide us," the Georgia Democrat said about the House speaker.

www.huffpost.com

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) hit House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) with a lesson in faith after Johnson called it “outrageous and abhorrent” for President Joe Biden to proclaim that Easter Sunday was Transgender Day of Visibility.

Johnson joined a number of critics, including former President Donald Trump
and Caitlyn Jenner, who knocked Biden over the proclamation despite International Transgender Day of Visibility ― which has been held annually on March 31 since 2009 ― coincidentally falling on Easter Sunday this year.

Warnock, who is senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, took to CNN to check Johnson over his claim that the Biden White House “betrayed the central tenet of Easter” with the move.

“Apparently, the speaker finds trans people abhorrent, and I think he ought to think about that,” Warnock told Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

He continued: “This is just one more instance of folks who do not know how to lead us trying to divide us. And this is the opposite of the Christian faith. Jesus centered the marginalized. He centered the poor. And in a moment like this, we need voices, particularly voices of faith, who would use our faith not as a weapon to beat other people down but as a bridge to bring all of us together.”

Wow!!! You've got a bad case of TDS for anyone who doesn't follow your religious beliefs in goosestepping rhythm.

Tell me, without writing a book, what all this has to do with the OP other than to deflect and obscure the OPs discussion topic?

CHUCKLE

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Jitts 190908 {post•419}

So now you're saying that all these potential mothers lives are threatened by pregnancy???

Embryos and Personhood 240401 {post•322}

Every woman who discovers she is pregnant should know that the maternal mortality rate applies to them. It is not zero. And most deaths and complications occur during delivery.

The time to assume the risk of delivering a new baby to the world is prior to fetal viability at about 22 to 23 weeks.

There is risk of death with every pregnancy so to answer your question Saint Damagedeagle every single potential mothers lives are threatened by pregnancy.

The government of Alabama cannot guarantee zero risk of death or bodily harm to any woman after 20 weeks of pregnancy when risk of miscarriage has passed, so why do you think it proper for Alabama to force full full term gestation on women just because a white Christian nationalist political majority holds power in the state?

nfbw 240401 Veapyz00322

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

View attachment 925349

Don't want to have a child then don't have sex or live with the consequences.

Two can play this game...

CHUCKLE

No one ‘supports’ abortion – indeed, it’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also supporting and defending a woman’s right to privacy and reproductive autonomy and opposing government excess and overreach.

The fact is that ‘banning’ abortion does little to end the procedure.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Florida proposed an amendment to a legislative bill being considered:​

Republican lawmakers in Florida had proposed an amendment to the bill, the same week as the Alabama ruling, to define “unborn child” as a human “at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” The change would likely protect IVF patients and doctors, but it remains uncertain whether it would be in any final version the full Legislature were to vote on.​

That raises questions too.

The issue of abortion is one of competing rights: weighing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy against a fetus’ right to life. But with frozen embryos, there are no competing rights.

So what exactly does this mean?

• With abortion does ”full personhood” mean that unless a woman is at death’s door, she cannot act to save her life?
• Does it mean every miscarriage is a potential crime scene?
• Will embryos be claimed as dependents on taxes? Will they get child support?
• Will they even be US citizens? Isn’t birth/born a stipulation there?

With frozen embryos it is even more tricky:

• How can an embryo, implanted in a uterus be given “personhood” rights while an identical embryo, that is frozen, not be?
• Will fathers of frozen embryos be liable for child support for each one?
• If they must remain stored into perpetuity…who pays?
• Can you claim them as dependents?
• If something happens that accidently destroys hundreds of stored embryos…should the person responsible face hundreds of counts of homicide charges?

How can you ethically have a “carve out” for IVF embryos but not implanted embryos?

Note: I put this in CDZ to hopefully have a real discussion as this latest ruling moves the debate beyond abortion.

I believe the decision of whether abortion is NECESSARY should be left to the doctor and patient and the government should stay out of it period. I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on UNNECESSARY abortion after the first trimester but such restrictions should be imposed at the state or local level and the federal government should stay out of it.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a tax deduction.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a U.S. citizen. (I also think the law should specify that a person can automatically be a U.S. citizen ONLY if one or both biological parent is a U.S. citizen.)

I don't think the government should be involved at all with embryos other than protecting them as property of whomever has produced them. As for frozen embryos, I will leave that up to state or local ordinances to impose the rules and regulations or impose no rules or regulations at all. The federal government should stay out of it.

An embryo removed from the mother's body and frozen is in my opinion not viable unless successfully reimplanted in a woman's uterus. Different rules should apply to those than to a living baby developing in a woman's womb. Again I would leave it to the states or local authorities to determine what, if any, laws or regulation should apply. The federal government should stay out of it.

 

[marvin martian]

No one ‘supports’ abortion

Liar.

Shout Your Abortion – Normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality.

Shout Your Abortion is normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality.

shoutyourabortion.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Wow!!! You've got a bad case of TDS for anyone who doesn't follow your religious beliefs in goosestepping rhythm.

I’m not asking you to follow my religious beliefs. I’m merely asking you to be rational and have respect for the truth, specifically historical truth that cannot be disputed. And the truth of what we saw on January 6 and learned afterwards that Trump engaged in a criminal organization for the purpose of defrauding the United States government so that he could stay in power beyond his constitutional limit of his term date.

That is lawlessness to which I object, and you appear to support

You cannot dispute the truth of which I speak so your follow through is an argument that I have TDS. That is not an argument in any way shape or form related to this matter.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Jitts 190908 {post•419}


Embryos and Personhood 240401 {post•322}

Every woman who discovers she is pregnant should know that the maternal mortality rate applies to them. It is not zero. And most deaths and complications occur during delivery.
The time to assume the risk of delivering a new baby to the world is prior to fetal viability at about 22 to 23 weeks.

There is risk of death with every pregnancy so to answer your question Saint Damagedeagle every single potential mothers lives are threatened by pregnancy.

The government of Alabama cannot guarantee zero risk of death or bodily harm to any woman after 20 weeks of pregnancy when risk of miscarriage has passed, so why do you think it proper for Alabama to force full full term gestation on women just because a white Christian nationalist political majority holds power in the state?

nfbw 240401 Veapyz00322

Jitts 190908 {post•419}


Embryos and Personhood 240401 {post•322}

Every woman who discovers she is pregnant should know that the maternal mortality rate applies to them. It is not zero. And most deaths and complications occur during delivery.

The time to assume the risk of delivering a new baby to the world is prior to fetal viability at about 22 to 23 weeks.

There is risk of death with every pregnancy so to answer your question Saint Damagedeagle every single potential mothers lives are threatened by pregnancy
The government of Alabama cannot guarantee zero risk of death or bodily harm to any woman after 20 weeks of pregnancy when risk of miscarriage has passed, so why do you think it proper for Alabama to force full full term gestation on women just because a white Christian nationalist political majority holds power in the state?

nfbw 240401 Veapyz00322

Jitts 190908 {post•419}


Embryos and Personhood 240401 {post•322}

Every woman who discovers she is pregnant should know that the maternal mortality rate applies to them. It is not zero. And most deaths and complications occur during delivery.

There's a mortality rate for those that choose to abort also.

The time to assume the risk of delivering a new baby to the world is prior to fetal viability at about 22 to 23 weeks.

I might give you the first trimester.

There is risk of death with every pregnancy so to answer your question Saint Damagedeagle every single potential mothers lives are threatened by pregnancy.

When did I ascend to sainthood?

The government of Alabama cannot guarantee zero risk of death or bodily harm to any woman after 20 weeks of pregnancy when risk of miscarriage has passed, so why do you think it proper for Alabama to force full full term gestation on women just because a white Christian nationalist political majority holds power in the state?

nfbw 240401 Veapyz00322

They can't guarantee a safe abortion either so your point is?

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No one ‘supports’ abortion –

Then why are you and the others arguing so hard for it?

indeed, it’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while also supporting and defending a woman’s right to privacy and reproductive autonomy and opposing government excess and overreach.

The fact is that ‘banning’ abortion does little to end the procedure.

Who says I'm out to ban it other than you and others like you?

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I’m not asking you to follow my religious beliefs. I’m merely asking you to be rational and have respect for the truth, specifically historical truth that cannot be disputed. And the truth of what we saw on January 6 and learned afterwards that Trump engaged in a criminal organization for the purpose of defrauding the United States government so that he could stay in power beyond his constitutional limit of his term date.

All I saw was a bunch of somewhat peaceful protesters engaged in criticizing their government officials as the capitol police murdered an unarmed female protestor by shooting her in the neck at point blank range.

That is lawlessness to which I object, and you appear to support

Did they firebomb or set the capitol building in flames like in Portland or Minneapolis so it would be a peaceful but somewhat fiery protest? NO!

Did the police inside the capitol building escort protestors around and take selfies with them? YES

Yep! They were really lawless in your eyes.

You cannot dispute the truth of which I speak so your follow through is an argument that I have TDS. That is not an argument in any way shape or form related to this matter.

Trust me it's plain to the most casual observer that you have it bad.

CHUCKLE

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There's a mortality rate for those that choose to abort also.

The choice to abort or the choice to deliver should be the pregnant woman’s choice with no interference by government and politicians, Do you agree with me or do you agree with the white Christian Nationalist Republican Party?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The choice to abort or the choice to deliver should be the pregnant woman’s choice with no interference by government and politicians, Do you agree with me or do you agree with the white Christian Nationalist Republican Party?

So long as it's completely funded without tax dollars she has the freedom to murder her unborn child.

SMILE

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I might give you the first trimester.

It’s not yours to give or to take away

Florida Supreme Court Allows Statewide Vote On Abortion Rights Amendment

The court released the ruling after a delay in the decision last week when its regular Thursday opinion release time came and went.

www.huffpost.com

​

The Florida Supreme Court approved a pro-choice amendment to appear on the state’s ballot in November in a Monday afternoon ruling.​

​

The high court approved the language of the amendment to appear on the ballot exactly as it was submitted by pro-choice group Floridians Protecting Freedom in a 4-3 ruling.​

Senator Tim Scott Fla will be on the abortion rights ballot against a Latino women Dem Candudate and he will lose to her guaranteed now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't want to have a child then don't have sex or live with the consequences.

Then live that way and mind your own goddamn business.

It's pretty easy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe the decision of whether abortion is NECESSARY should be left to the doctor and patient and the government should stay out of it period. I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on UNNECESSARY abortion after the first trimester but such restrictions should be imposed at the state or local level and the federal government should stay out of it.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a tax deduction.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a U.S. citizen. (I also think the law should specify that a person can automatically be a U.S. citizen ONLY if one or both biological parent is a U.S. citizen.)

I don't think the government should be involved at all with embryos other than protecting them as property of whomever has produced them. As for frozen embryos, I will leave that up to state or local ordinances to impose the rules and regulations or impose no rules or regulations at all. The federal government should stay out of it.

An embryo removed from the mother's body and frozen is in my opinion not viable unless successfully reimplanted in a woman's uterus. Different rules should apply to those than to a living baby developing in a woman's womb. Again I would leave it to the states or local authorities to determine what, if any, laws or regulation should apply. The federal government should stay out of it.

Whi cares what you have a problem with? Don't get an abortion. Problem solved.

 

[Coyote]

Then why are you and the others arguing so hard for it?



View attachment 925756

Who says I'm out to ban it other than you and others like you?

SMILE

Because it affects one of our most fundamental rights: autonomy over our own bodies.

 

[Coyote]

I believe the decision of whether abortion is NECESSARY should be left to the doctor and patient and the government should stay out of it period. I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on UNNECESSARY abortion after the first trimester but such restrictions should be imposed at the state or local level and the federal government should stay out of it.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a tax deduction.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a U.S. citizen. (I also think the law should specify that a person can automatically be a U.S. citizen ONLY if one or both biological parent is a U.S. citizen.)

I don't think the government should be involved at all with embryos other than protecting them as property of whomever has produced them. As for frozen embryos, I will leave that up to state or local ordinances to impose the rules and regulations or impose no rules or regulations at all. The federal government should stay out of it.

An embryo removed from the mother's body and frozen is in my opinion not viable unless successfully reimplanted in a woman's uterus. Different rules should apply to those than to a living baby developing in a woman's womb. Again I would leave it to the states or local authorities to determine what, if any, laws or regulation should apply. The federal government should stay out of it.

Thank you for a well thought out reply

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It’s not yours to give or to take away

Florida Supreme Court Allows Statewide Vote On Abortion Rights Amendment

The court released the ruling after a delay in the decision last week when its regular Thursday opinion release time came and went.

www.huffpost.com

The Florida Supreme Court approved a pro-choice amendment to appear on the state’s ballot in November in a Monday afternoon ruling.

The high court approved the language of the amendment to appear on the ballot exactly as it was submitted by pro-choice group Floridians Protecting Freedom in a 4-3 ruling.

We'll see how long that lasts.

CHUCKLE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Then live that way and mind your own goddamn business.

It's pretty easy.

After I convince the conservatives its time to make government cuts on the financial side of this issue.

SMILE

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Florida proposed an amendment to a legislative bill being considered:​

Republican lawmakers in Florida had proposed an amendment to the bill, the same week as the Alabama ruling, to define “unborn child” as a human “at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” The change would likely protect IVF patients and doctors, but it remains uncertain whether it would be in any final version the full Legislature were to vote on.​

That raises questions too.

The issue of abortion is one of competing rights: weighing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy against a fetus’ right to life. But with frozen embryos, there are no competing rights.

So what exactly does this mean?

• With abortion does ”full personhood” mean that unless a woman is at death’s door, she cannot act to save her life?
• Does it mean every miscarriage is a potential crime scene?
• Will embryos be claimed as dependents on taxes? Will they get child support?
• Will they even be US citizens? Isn’t birth/born a stipulation there?

With frozen embryos it is even more tricky:

• How can an embryo, implanted in a uterus be given “personhood” rights while an identical embryo, that is frozen, not be?
• Will fathers of frozen embryos be liable for child support for each one?
• If they must remain stored into perpetuity…who pays?
• Can you claim them as dependents?
• If something happens that accidently destroys hundreds of stored embryos…should the person responsible face hundreds of counts of homicide charges?

How can you ethically have a “carve out” for IVF embryos but not implanted embryos?

Note: I put this in CDZ to hopefully have a real discussion as this latest ruling moves the debate beyond abortion.

A fetus has a right to life?

frozen embryos? If one has my dna, do I have a say? If not -- see you in court.

It's all pretty crazy, and will eventually be resolved in the courts. I say this because any future legislation will be challenged, just as recent laws are being challenged.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe the decision of whether abortion is NECESSARY should be left to the doctor and patient and the government should stay out of it period. I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on UNNECESSARY abortion after the first trimester but such restrictions should be imposed at the state or local level and the federal government should stay out of it.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a tax deduction.

I believe that a person must be born and living in order to be a U.S. citizen. (I also think the law should specify that a person can automatically be a U.S. citizen ONLY if one or both biological parent is a U.S. citizen.)

I don't think the government should be involved at all with embryos other than protecting them as property of whomever has produced them. As for frozen embryos, I will leave that up to state or local ordinances to impose the rules and regulations or impose no rules or regulations at all. The federal government should stay out of it.

An embryo removed from the mother's body and frozen is in my opinion not viable unless successfully reimplanted in a woman's uterus. Different rules should apply to those than to a living baby developing in a woman's womb. Again I would leave it to the states or local authorities to determine what, if any, laws or regulation should apply. The federal government should stay out of it.

Well thought out. Who wrote this? Link?