The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[Cecilie1200]

Fertility clinics don't "purge" their freezers, you dumbass.

The unused zygotes are either destroyed or donated. They are kept safe under a contract. The details/options are in the contracts. My niece has 10.

Life begins at conception,

Rights do not.

They are destroyed or donated . . . when the patients themselves decide they want that and instruct the clinic to do so. The clinic does not "purge the freezers".

Also, telling us "rights don't begin at conception" is just another way of saying, "This is what the law is right now!" which is remarkably unproductive and circular in a discussion about what the law SHOULD BE.

They purge them often. Half of embryos are destroyed or donated for research in the IVF process.

1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

If an embryo is a life, why are you running away from your god given right to whine about it?

Dude, did you read your own fucking linked article, or did you just see the headline on your Google search and go, "Aha!"?

"Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation."

So again, this is not one massive "purge" - as you put it - where they're just going in and throwing out masses of old stuff all at once. This is over a period of decades.

"Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research.

Almost 1.4 million embryos were implanted in the hope of beginning pregnancies, with fewer than one in six resulting in a pregnancy.

IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.

“Those embryos that are discarded may no longer be needed by the individual or couple for treatment.

“In these circumstances they can decide whether to donate the embryos to a research project, another couple or ask the clinic to destroy them.”

So again, we're talking about property of the patient, and each individual batch being dealt with on an individual basis, not in any sort of mass cleaning effort.

You chose your words ignorantly, you got corrected, and no amount of backtracking and trying to pretend that the correction was what you were ACTUALLY saying is going to change it.

Furthermore, why are YOU assuming that pro-lifers have no problems with fertility clinic practices, just because YOU don't?

You don't care about the 1.7 millions embryos that were discarded?

This proves you're not pro-life, only anti-choice.

"You think this thing that you never said, but that I really want to believe because I don't want to address everything you DID say?"

This proves you're not just pro-abortion, you're also anti-honesty.

 

[HappyJoy]

The unused zygotes are either destroyed or donated. They are kept safe under a contract. The details/options are in the contracts. My niece has 10.

Rights do not.

They are destroyed or donated . . . when the patients themselves decide they want that and instruct the clinic to do so. The clinic does not "purge the freezers".

Also, telling us "rights don't begin at conception" is just another way of saying, "This is what the law is right now!" which is remarkably unproductive and circular in a discussion about what the law SHOULD BE.

They purge them often. Half of embryos are destroyed or donated for research in the IVF process.

1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

If an embryo is a life, why are you running away from your god given right to whine about it?

Dude, did you read your own fucking linked article, or did you just see the headline on your Google search and go, "Aha!"?

"Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation."

So again, this is not one massive "purge" - as you put it - where they're just going in and throwing out masses of old stuff all at once. This is over a period of decades.

"Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research.

Almost 1.4 million embryos were implanted in the hope of beginning pregnancies, with fewer than one in six resulting in a pregnancy.

IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.

“Those embryos that are discarded may no longer be needed by the individual or couple for treatment.

“In these circumstances they can decide whether to donate the embryos to a research project, another couple or ask the clinic to destroy them.”

So again, we're talking about property of the patient, and each individual batch being dealt with on an individual basis, not in any sort of mass cleaning effort.

You chose your words ignorantly, you got corrected, and no amount of backtracking and trying to pretend that the correction was what you were ACTUALLY saying is going to change it.

Furthermore, why are YOU assuming that pro-lifers have no problems with fertility clinic practices, just because YOU don't?

You don't care about the 1.7 millions embryos that were discarded?

This proves you're not pro-life, only anti-choice.

"You think this thing that you never said, but that I really want to believe because I don't want to address everything you DID say?"

This proves you're not just pro-abortion, you're also anti-honesty.

You're playing down the 1.7 million discarded embryos becuase you don't want to sound like (too late IMO) a total wingnut who wants a ban on IVF.

 

[deanrd]

Republicans want to legislate women’s bodies because they don’t believe that women are people. They believe women never should’ve been allowed to vote. They believe women should never make what a man makes. And they believe women should be at home taking care of the children and cooking a good dinner.

But to Republicans, women are not people. Women need to be legislated to put them in their place. Women are things to own. If Republicans cared about the fetus, they would care about the baby. But we all know better. Don’t we?

You can really tell how much Republicans care about children by the massive amounts of money they are setting aside to help women to have unwanted babies.
How Republicans fight for pre natal care.
How Republicans fight to protect those babies once they are born.
How Republicans support those unwanted children so they have healthcare and an education.

Yep, you can really tell how Republicans care for babies by all the support they give to those mothers and to their unwanted children.

Definitely an unbelievable amount of support.

 

[deanrd]

Considering the massive amount of support from Republicans, I'm surprised there are any abortions at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

on topic, the destruction of embryos IS, in fact

My bad, I thought the current topic was the extra frozen blastocysts.

I was incorrect however now that I think more about it. I guess I meant societal rights. Nature did give the little suckers rights. They have the natural right implant in a uterus. Once that happens, nature gives them more rights. Like the right to fight moms natural immune system and grow. Nature give the offspring more rights because the life we evolved from was hard. First world nations are no longer slaves to nature in many ways including our reproduction. Yes, with all the science we have there should be very few unwanted pregnancies, but life is also messy.

No, you thought you could help divert the topic to quibbling over disposal requirements.

I'm not an enormous fan of being locked into the word "rights", simply because the vast majority of people no longer really understand the concept after decades of having the definition stretched like saltwater taffy. This post, in fact, is proof of that. Implanting in a uterus is not a "right"; it's simply a function of biology. This is like saying that nature gives the Earth the "right" to orbit the sun. It's an attempt to apply a concept of human reason to a natural function that exists without reference to human reason.

Btw, a fetus does not have to "fight mom's natural immune system". You are, once again, operating with badly outdated medical misinformation. As much as feminists may hate it, the female body is designed to accommodate pregnancy, and it is NOT an evil, foreign, alien invasion being forced upon her.

What happens to the immune system during pregnancy?

 

[Dragonlady]

The unused zygotes are either destroyed or donated. They are kept safe under a contract. The details/options are in the contracts. My niece has 10.

Rights do not.

They are destroyed or donated . . . when the patients themselves decide they want that and instruct the clinic to do so. The clinic does not "purge the freezers".

Also, telling us "rights don't begin at conception" is just another way of saying, "This is what the law is right now!" which is remarkably unproductive and circular in a discussion about what the law SHOULD BE.

They purge them often. Half of embryos are destroyed or donated for research in the IVF process.

1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

If an embryo is a life, why are you running away from your god given right to whine about it?

Dude, did you read your own fucking linked article, or did you just see the headline on your Google search and go, "Aha!"?

"Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation."

So again, this is not one massive "purge" - as you put it - where they're just going in and throwing out masses of old stuff all at once. This is over a period of decades.

"Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research.

Almost 1.4 million embryos were implanted in the hope of beginning pregnancies, with fewer than one in six resulting in a pregnancy.

IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.

“Those embryos that are discarded may no longer be needed by the individual or couple for treatment.

“In these circumstances they can decide whether to donate the embryos to a research project, another couple or ask the clinic to destroy them.”

So again, we're talking about property of the patient, and each individual batch being dealt with on an individual basis, not in any sort of mass cleaning effort.

You chose your words ignorantly, you got corrected, and no amount of backtracking and trying to pretend that the correction was what you were ACTUALLY saying is going to change it.

Furthermore, why are YOU assuming that pro-lifers have no problems with fertility clinic practices, just because YOU don't?

You don't care about the 1.7 millions embryos that were discarded?

This proves you're not pro-life, only anti-choice.

"You think this thing that you never said, but that I really want to believe because I don't want to address everything you DID say?"

This proves you're not just pro-abortion, you're also anti-honesty.

More than half of the embryos created are destroyed. Only about 1/3 of them are ever implanted. If life begins at conception, then where is your outrage?

The anti-abortion movement has never been about being "pro-life". It's about using pregnancy to control women's "morality". The same tactics that didn't keep girls in my cohort from "getting into trouble", and winding up pregnant, and expelled from high school, are hardly more likely to succeed in keeping them on the straight and narrow now. Annal sex, which I never ever heard about when I was in highschool, is now common, especially among evangelical girls who have made "chastity pledges". It also prevents pregnancy. Bonus!!

 

[dblack]

The contents of my body is my business and mine alone, and should never be the subject of legislation. Claiming otherwise obliterates the basic concept self-ownership and individual rights.

Would you leftists drop this bullshit argument already? You don't have self ownership and you never did. Go try and sell a kidney if you don't believe me.

I'm not a leftist. And you might think that government has jurisdiction over my kidney, but I'm rejecting that claim. Vehemently. Rules telling us what we can do with our bodies come from the same mentality as the anti-abortion movement. They are an abuse of government power.

Government doesn't own people, despite your aspirations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

When in vitro fertilization clinics purge their freezers, is that mass murder? Can a woman expecting twins be allowed to be the only body in a car on the HOV lanes? Does life begin at erection, conception, viability or birth?

You really aren't the brightest light on the midway.

Fertility clinics don't "purge" their freezers, you dumbass. This isn't the same as you cleaning out the mold in your refrigerator once a year. The embryos and ova and sperm they store is their inventory, what they make money off of. And legally, it belongs to their patients, not them. So they can't just destroy them en masse.

Insofar as all the bodies are occupying the same seat, a pregnant woman cannot use the HOV lane, and can you be any more silly, petty, and random?

Life begins at conception, because that is the point at which a separate and unique individual is created. You would know this if you were able to pass high school biology.

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing government in all things, SUDDENLY the only thing you think is none of the government's business is whether or not babies can be killed. And, as always, you flatter yourself that you get to define other people's beliefs and how they should be practiced for them, and that you are someone to whom we need to justify ourselves.

I will say what I always say: we believe what we believe, not what you think we do. We act on it the way we think best, not the way you think we should. And we don't give a fat rat's ass if the likes of you approves or thinks we're "living our principles" or not. No one is interested in living up to the standards YOU want to set for us, and I wouldn't take the approval of a servant of evil like you if it was gift-wrapped.

 

[HappyJoy]

When in vitro fertilization clinics purge their freezers, is that mass murder? Can a woman expecting twins be allowed to be the only body in a car on the HOV lanes? Does life begin at erection, conception, viability or birth?

You really aren't the brightest light on the midway.

Fertility clinics don't "purge" their freezers, you dumbass. This isn't the same as you cleaning out the mold in your refrigerator once a year. The embryos and ova and sperm they store is their inventory, what they make money off of. And legally, it belongs to their patients, not them. So they can't just destroy them en masse.

Insofar as all the bodies are occupying the same seat, a pregnant woman cannot use the HOV lane, and can you be any more silly, petty, and random?

Life begins at conception, because that is the point at which a separate and unique individual is created. You would know this if you were able to pass high school biology.

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

How is it when a man says a woman can do what she chooses telling her what to do with her body?

That is monumental wingnut logic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are destroyed or donated . . . when the patients themselves decide they want that and instruct the clinic to do so. The clinic does not "purge the freezers".

Also, telling us "rights don't begin at conception" is just another way of saying, "This is what the law is right now!" which is remarkably unproductive and circular in a discussion about what the law SHOULD BE.

They purge them often. Half of embryos are destroyed or donated for research in the IVF process.

1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

If an embryo is a life, why are you running away from your god given right to whine about it?

Dude, did you read your own fucking linked article, or did you just see the headline on your Google search and go, "Aha!"?

"Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation."

So again, this is not one massive "purge" - as you put it - where they're just going in and throwing out masses of old stuff all at once. This is over a period of decades.

"Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research.

Almost 1.4 million embryos were implanted in the hope of beginning pregnancies, with fewer than one in six resulting in a pregnancy.

IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.

“Those embryos that are discarded may no longer be needed by the individual or couple for treatment.

“In these circumstances they can decide whether to donate the embryos to a research project, another couple or ask the clinic to destroy them.”

So again, we're talking about property of the patient, and each individual batch being dealt with on an individual basis, not in any sort of mass cleaning effort.

You chose your words ignorantly, you got corrected, and no amount of backtracking and trying to pretend that the correction was what you were ACTUALLY saying is going to change it.

Furthermore, why are YOU assuming that pro-lifers have no problems with fertility clinic practices, just because YOU don't?

You don't care about the 1.7 millions embryos that were discarded?

This proves you're not pro-life, only anti-choice.

"You think this thing that you never said, but that I really want to believe because I don't want to address everything you DID say?"

This proves you're not just pro-abortion, you're also anti-honesty.

You're playing down the 1.7 million discarded embryos becuase you don't want to sound like (too late IMO) a total wingnut who wants a ban on IVF.

I'm not "playing down" anything, dipshit. You said something which wasn't true, I called you on it, and then you rambled off onto a tangent trying to explain away your mistake. Now you're trying to divert from THAT by pretending that YOUR tangent is ME "playing it down", and eagerly trying to read it as what you REALLY, REALLY WISH I was saying, because it's much easier to argue against the straw man you have built up as "what those stupid pro-lifers, who I would never actually speak to or listen to, are like" than it is to actually address the reality.

So again, you don't set standards for me, pusbag. I don't justify myself to creatures I consider to be lower than used chewing gum on my shoesole. And you DEFINITELY are not even remotely qualified to choose words and put them in my mouth, or to then demand that I defend what YOUR ignorant, lowlife ass has decreed that I have said.

 

[HappyJoy]

They purge them often. Half of embryos are destroyed or donated for research in the IVF process.

1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

If an embryo is a life, why are you running away from your god given right to whine about it?

Dude, did you read your own fucking linked article, or did you just see the headline on your Google search and go, "Aha!"?

"Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation."

So again, this is not one massive "purge" - as you put it - where they're just going in and throwing out masses of old stuff all at once. This is over a period of decades.

"Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research.

Almost 1.4 million embryos were implanted in the hope of beginning pregnancies, with fewer than one in six resulting in a pregnancy.

IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.

“Those embryos that are discarded may no longer be needed by the individual or couple for treatment.

“In these circumstances they can decide whether to donate the embryos to a research project, another couple or ask the clinic to destroy them.”

So again, we're talking about property of the patient, and each individual batch being dealt with on an individual basis, not in any sort of mass cleaning effort.

You chose your words ignorantly, you got corrected, and no amount of backtracking and trying to pretend that the correction was what you were ACTUALLY saying is going to change it.

Furthermore, why are YOU assuming that pro-lifers have no problems with fertility clinic practices, just because YOU don't?

You don't care about the 1.7 millions embryos that were discarded?

This proves you're not pro-life, only anti-choice.

"You think this thing that you never said, but that I really want to believe because I don't want to address everything you DID say?"

This proves you're not just pro-abortion, you're also anti-honesty.

You're playing down the 1.7 million discarded embryos becuase you don't want to sound like (too late IMO) a total wingnut who wants a ban on IVF.

I'm not "playing down" anything, dipshit. You said something which wasn't true, I called you on it, and then you rambled off onto a tangent trying to explain away your mistake. Now you're trying to divert from THAT by pretending that YOUR tangent is ME "playing it down", and eagerly trying to read it as what you REALLY, REALLY WISH I was saying, because it's much easier to argue against the straw man you have built up as "what those stupid pro-lifers, who I would never actually speak to or listen to, are like" than it is to actually address the reality.

So again, you don't set standards for me, pusbag. I don't justify myself to creatures I consider to be lower than used chewing gum on my shoesole. And you DEFINITELY are not even remotely qualified to choose words and put them in my mouth, or to then demand that I defend what YOUR ignorant, lowlife ass has decreed that I have said.

I see. So, you're "pro-life" but don't care about the IVF process that leaves millions of discarded embryos? Again, that makes you anti-choice, not pro-life.

 

[ElmerMudd]

When in vitro fertilization clinics purge their freezers, is that mass murder? Can a woman expecting twins be allowed to be the only body in a car on the HOV lanes? Does life begin at erection, conception, viability or birth?

You really aren't the brightest light on the midway.

Fertility clinics don't "purge" their freezers, you dumbass. This isn't the same as you cleaning out the mold in your refrigerator once a year. The embryos and ova and sperm they store is their inventory, what they make money off of. And legally, it belongs to their patients, not them. So they can't just destroy them en masse.

Insofar as all the bodies are occupying the same seat, a pregnant woman cannot use the HOV lane, and can you be any more silly, petty, and random?

Life begins at conception, because that is the point at which a separate and unique individual is created. You would know this if you were able to pass high school biology.

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing government in all things, SUDDENLY the only thing you think is none of the government's business is whether or not babies can be killed. And, as always, you flatter yourself that you get to define other people's beliefs and how they should be practiced for them, and that you are someone to whom we need to justify ourselves.

I will say what I always say: we believe what we believe, not what you think we do. We act on it the way we think best, not the way you think we should. And we don't give a fat rat's ass if the likes of you approves or thinks we're "living our principles" or not. No one is interested in living up to the standards YOU want to set for us, and I wouldn't take the approval of a servant of evil like you if it was gift-wrapped.

As a man, I feel this is better debated and decided by women.
I would think that what ever side, of the debate, you are on, all would agree that fewer abortions are better. I think both sides should work together to have less unwanted pregnancies. Provide teaching to both boys and girls, men and women on how to prevent pregnancies. The fewest number of abortions since Roe vs Wade was the last year of Obama's Presidency. Obama was pro choice.
I do not think outlawing abortions will necessarily reduce the number of abortions.

 

[HappyJoy]

You really aren't the brightest light on the midway.

Fertility clinics don't "purge" their freezers, you dumbass. This isn't the same as you cleaning out the mold in your refrigerator once a year. The embryos and ova and sperm they store is their inventory, what they make money off of. And legally, it belongs to their patients, not them. So they can't just destroy them en masse.

Insofar as all the bodies are occupying the same seat, a pregnant woman cannot use the HOV lane, and can you be any more silly, petty, and random?

Life begins at conception, because that is the point at which a separate and unique individual is created. You would know this if you were able to pass high school biology.

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing government in all things, SUDDENLY the only thing you think is none of the government's business is whether or not babies can be killed. And, as always, you flatter yourself that you get to define other people's beliefs and how they should be practiced for them, and that you are someone to whom we need to justify ourselves.

I will say what I always say: we believe what we believe, not what you think we do. We act on it the way we think best, not the way you think we should. And we don't give a fat rat's ass if the likes of you approves or thinks we're "living our principles" or not. No one is interested in living up to the standards YOU want to set for us, and I wouldn't take the approval of a servant of evil like you if it was gift-wrapped.

As a man, I feel this is better debated and decided by women.
I would think that what ever side, of the debate, you are on, all would agree that fewer abortions are better. I think both sides should work together to have less unwanted pregnancies. Provide teaching to both boys and girls, men and women on how to prevent pregnancies. The fewest number of abortions since Roe vs Wade was the last year of Obama's Presidency. Obama was pro choice.
I do not think outlawing abortions will necessarily reduce the number of abortions.

I think we all should agree that reducing the number of abortions is important. Comprehensive sex education to include abstinence. Available birth control for all healthcare plans regardless of employer as well as affordable birth control for those who do not have insurance.

One side already agrees on this.

EDIT: On top of that for those who decide to have a child that they have proper maturity time off of work, healthcare and free childcare.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are destroyed or donated . . . when the patients themselves decide they want that and instruct the clinic to do so. The clinic does not "purge the freezers".

Also, telling us "rights don't begin at conception" is just another way of saying, "This is what the law is right now!" which is remarkably unproductive and circular in a discussion about what the law SHOULD BE.

They purge them often. Half of embryos are destroyed or donated for research in the IVF process.

1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

If an embryo is a life, why are you running away from your god given right to whine about it?

Dude, did you read your own fucking linked article, or did you just see the headline on your Google search and go, "Aha!"?

"Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation."

So again, this is not one massive "purge" - as you put it - where they're just going in and throwing out masses of old stuff all at once. This is over a period of decades.

"Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research.

Almost 1.4 million embryos were implanted in the hope of beginning pregnancies, with fewer than one in six resulting in a pregnancy.

IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.

“Those embryos that are discarded may no longer be needed by the individual or couple for treatment.

“In these circumstances they can decide whether to donate the embryos to a research project, another couple or ask the clinic to destroy them.”

So again, we're talking about property of the patient, and each individual batch being dealt with on an individual basis, not in any sort of mass cleaning effort.

You chose your words ignorantly, you got corrected, and no amount of backtracking and trying to pretend that the correction was what you were ACTUALLY saying is going to change it.

Furthermore, why are YOU assuming that pro-lifers have no problems with fertility clinic practices, just because YOU don't?

You don't care about the 1.7 millions embryos that were discarded?

This proves you're not pro-life, only anti-choice.

"You think this thing that you never said, but that I really want to believe because I don't want to address everything you DID say?"

This proves you're not just pro-abortion, you're also anti-honesty.

More than half of the embryos created are destroyed. Only about 1/3 of them are ever implanted. If life begins at conception, then where is your outrage?

The anti-abortion movement has never been about being "pro-life". It's about using pregnancy to control women's "morality". The same tactics that didn't keep girls in my cohort from "getting into trouble", and winding up pregnant, and expelled from high school, are hardly more likely to succeed in keeping them on the straight and narrow now. Annal sex, which I never ever heard about when I was in highschool, is now common, especially among evangelical girls who have made "chastity pledges". It also prevents pregnancy. Bonus!!

If you're not seeing the outrage, that is a function of you being ignorant and oblivious to reality, because you're too busy "knowing" what you're told to believe. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of the asses of your political masters, you might have a better view of the real world.

“We’ve held protests for years outside IVF clinics to try to raise the issue. It is not an issue that the mainstream media wants to cover at all. We are opposed to in vitro fertilization, because the process creates human beings and kills them. IVF results in “treating human beings as commodities rather than the human beings that they are.”" - Jim Sedlak, American Life League

So, as usual, I'm ignoring the rest of your post as "Dragontwat stating her opinions, formed on what she was told to believe, as though they were fact". As with all ignorant, evil leftists, you do not decide my beliefs and how I practice them, and I do not answer to those I consider beneath me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You really aren't the brightest light on the midway.

Fertility clinics don't "purge" their freezers, you dumbass. This isn't the same as you cleaning out the mold in your refrigerator once a year. The embryos and ova and sperm they store is their inventory, what they make money off of. And legally, it belongs to their patients, not them. So they can't just destroy them en masse.

Insofar as all the bodies are occupying the same seat, a pregnant woman cannot use the HOV lane, and can you be any more silly, petty, and random?

Life begins at conception, because that is the point at which a separate and unique individual is created. You would know this if you were able to pass high school biology.

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

How is it when a man says a woman can do what she chooses telling her what to do with her body?

That is monumental wingnut logic.

How is it you look right at my post, and immediately start responding to things I didn't say? It's almost like you're too busy listening to what you "know" I believe to bother reading my actual words.

Did I say, "Telling her what to do with her body"? Let's look at my actual words:

"So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women."

Oh, whoops, I didn't.

This is craven wingnut behavior: building and demolishing straw men, because you're too stupid and dickless to deal with reality.

Continuing on, if you want to gas away about the "eeeeevils" of men in Alabama having a say in abortion, then you need to stop being such a fucking hypocrite and shut your own mouth. Every single word YOU say on the subject defeats your own argument about them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dude, did you read your own fucking linked article, or did you just see the headline on your Google search and go, "Aha!"?

"Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation."

So again, this is not one massive "purge" - as you put it - where they're just going in and throwing out masses of old stuff all at once. This is over a period of decades.

"Of the embryos created, almost 840,000 were put into storage for future use and more than 2000 were stored for donation. Almost 5,900 were set aside for scientific research.

Almost 1.4 million embryos were implanted in the hope of beginning pregnancies, with fewer than one in six resulting in a pregnancy.

IVF involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred to the patient so that the best ones can be chosen to start pregnancy.

“Those embryos that are discarded may no longer be needed by the individual or couple for treatment.

“In these circumstances they can decide whether to donate the embryos to a research project, another couple or ask the clinic to destroy them.”

So again, we're talking about property of the patient, and each individual batch being dealt with on an individual basis, not in any sort of mass cleaning effort.

You chose your words ignorantly, you got corrected, and no amount of backtracking and trying to pretend that the correction was what you were ACTUALLY saying is going to change it.

Furthermore, why are YOU assuming that pro-lifers have no problems with fertility clinic practices, just because YOU don't?

You don't care about the 1.7 millions embryos that were discarded?

This proves you're not pro-life, only anti-choice.

"You think this thing that you never said, but that I really want to believe because I don't want to address everything you DID say?"

This proves you're not just pro-abortion, you're also anti-honesty.

You're playing down the 1.7 million discarded embryos becuase you don't want to sound like (too late IMO) a total wingnut who wants a ban on IVF.

I'm not "playing down" anything, dipshit. You said something which wasn't true, I called you on it, and then you rambled off onto a tangent trying to explain away your mistake. Now you're trying to divert from THAT by pretending that YOUR tangent is ME "playing it down", and eagerly trying to read it as what you REALLY, REALLY WISH I was saying, because it's much easier to argue against the straw man you have built up as "what those stupid pro-lifers, who I would never actually speak to or listen to, are like" than it is to actually address the reality.

So again, you don't set standards for me, pusbag. I don't justify myself to creatures I consider to be lower than used chewing gum on my shoesole. And you DEFINITELY are not even remotely qualified to choose words and put them in my mouth, or to then demand that I defend what YOUR ignorant, lowlife ass has decreed that I have said.

I see. So, you're "pro-life" but don't care about the IVF process that leaves millions of discarded embryos? Again, that makes you anti-choice, not pro-life.

"I see, so you believe this thing which you've never actually said, but which I've decided you believe because I'd much rather argue against THAT than read your posts."

Again, this makes you a dickless liar, to whom I still do NOT answer and do NOT need to justify a single fucking thing, since your approval means nothing.

Quote ANY time I have ever said, "I don't care about the IVF process". If your next post does not contain proof of your accusation, I will take that as an admission that you lied, and that you in fact are a eunuch.

 

[Nosmo King]

When in vitro fertilization clinics purge their freezers, is that mass murder? Can a woman expecting twins be allowed to be the only body in a car on the HOV lanes? Does life begin at erection, conception, viability or birth?

You really aren't the brightest light on the midway.

Fertility clinics don't "purge" their freezers, you dumbass. This isn't the same as you cleaning out the mold in your refrigerator once a year. The embryos and ova and sperm they store is their inventory, what they make money off of. And legally, it belongs to their patients, not them. So they can't just destroy them en masse.

Insofar as all the bodies are occupying the same seat, a pregnant woman cannot use the HOV lane, and can you be any more silly, petty, and random?

Life begins at conception, because that is the point at which a separate and unique individual is created. You would know this if you were able to pass high school biology.

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing government in all things, SUDDENLY the only thing you think is none of the government's business is whether or not babies can be killed. And, as always, you flatter yourself that you get to define other people's beliefs and how they should be practiced for them, and that you are someone to whom we need to justify ourselves.

I will say what I always say: we believe what we believe, not what you think we do. We act on it the way we think best, not the way you think we should. And we don't give a fat rat's ass if the likes of you approves or thinks we're "living our principles" or not. No one is interested in living up to the standards YOU want to set for us, and I wouldn't take the approval of a servant of evil like you if it was gift-wrapped.

No one is espousing all abortions all the time. What I champion is the option of abortion remains safe, legal and accessible.

No one is telling women what to do with their bodies except those who want to criminalize abortion.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing government in all things, SUDDENLY the only thing you think is none of the government's business is whether or not babies can be killed. And, as always, you flatter yourself that you get to define other people's beliefs and how they should be practiced for them, and that you are someone to whom we need to justify ourselves.

I will say what I always say: we believe what we believe, not what you think we do. We act on it the way we think best, not the way you think we should. And we don't give a fat rat's ass if the likes of you approves or thinks we're "living our principles" or not. No one is interested in living up to the standards YOU want to set for us, and I wouldn't take the approval of a servant of evil like you if it was gift-wrapped.

As a man, I feel this is better debated and decided by women.
I would think that what ever side, of the debate, you are on, all would agree that fewer abortions are better. I think both sides should work together to have less unwanted pregnancies. Provide teaching to both boys and girls, men and women on how to prevent pregnancies. The fewest number of abortions since Roe vs Wade was the last year of Obama's Presidency. Obama was pro choice.
I do not think outlawing abortions will necessarily reduce the number of abortions.

I think we all should agree that reducing the number of abortions is important. Comprehensive sex education to include abstinence. Available birth control for all healthcare plans regardless of employer as well as affordable birth control for those who do not have insurance.

One side already agrees on this.

EDIT: On top of that for those who decide to have a child that they have proper maturity time off of work, healthcare and free childcare.

If the anti-abortion people are truly concerned the welfare of children they should work on more than outlawing abortion.
They need to work on funding help for the children who do not have the family and resources around them to provide the essentials of life. Do not ignore these children once they are born. That is when the real care and attention is needed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your snotty attitude aside (and for the record, the self righteous are consistent in their snottiness) when the need for a frozen zygote has expired or when those paying for storage facilities no longer wants the zygotes or fails to pay for the storage, those unwanted zygotes get purged.

If, as you believe, life begins at conception and the PERSONHOOD of a developing zygote is considered, an expectant mother with twins constitutes three human beings in that car. That qualifies as a high occupancy vehicle.

Let me frame this this way: if you outlaw abortions, who will perform abortions? Outlaws.

Sound familiar? Whenever gun safety laws are discussed, someone inevitably says once guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

There is no debate that the abortion procedure is in demand. Making it illegal must then be considered riskier and thereby dangerous to women. I guess that's the price to be paid to satisfy hose indifferent to public health and the lives of women.

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing government in all things, SUDDENLY the only thing you think is none of the government's business is whether or not babies can be killed. And, as always, you flatter yourself that you get to define other people's beliefs and how they should be practiced for them, and that you are someone to whom we need to justify ourselves.

I will say what I always say: we believe what we believe, not what you think we do. We act on it the way we think best, not the way you think we should. And we don't give a fat rat's ass if the likes of you approves or thinks we're "living our principles" or not. No one is interested in living up to the standards YOU want to set for us, and I wouldn't take the approval of a servant of evil like you if it was gift-wrapped.

As a man, I feel this is better debated and decided by women.
I would think that what ever side, of the debate, you are on, all would agree that fewer abortions are better. I think both sides should work together to have less unwanted pregnancies. Provide teaching to both boys and girls, men and women on how to prevent pregnancies. The fewest number of abortions since Roe vs Wade was the last year of Obama's Presidency. Obama was pro choice.
I do not think outlawing abortions will necessarily reduce the number of abortions.

I think we all should agree that reducing the number of abortions is important. Comprehensive sex education to include abstinence. Available birth control for all healthcare plans regardless of employer as well as affordable birth control for those who do not have insurance.

One side already agrees on this.

EDIT: On top of that for those who decide to have a child that they have proper maturity time off of work, healthcare and free childcare.

Really? We all should agree on reducing abortions? Why? I know why I think abortions should be reduced; but if you believe there's nothing wrong with it, why would YOU?

 

[HappyJoy]

Your demands to be treated with respect without earning it aside (and leftists are consistent in wanting things they haven't earned), fertility clinics cannot "purge" their freezers. Once again, those items belong to the patients, not to the clinic. The clinic can only destroy them with the permission of the legal owner, which is what all your blather about "expired" and "no longer wants" boils down to. That isn't "purging the freezers", dimwit.

Yes, there are biologically three human beings in the car. Which has literally not one fucking thing to do with the fucking HOV lane, and I can assure you that - however brilliant you think you have just been - biological science is not determined by traffic laws. If you wonder why people are "snotty" to you - aka treat you like a blithering moron - this level of thinking would be why.

As for "outlaws will perform abortions", I think you missed the basic meaning of this phrase in regards to guns, and have carried that basic lack of English comprehension over to abortions. If you outlaw guns, you will only take guns away from people who obey laws. Criminals will continue to have them because they don't care about laws. So you are not eliminating the danger at all; you're just leaving the potential victims helpless.

Yes, there will probably still be some people who continue to perform abortions despite laws restricting or banning it. No one has ever argued otherwise, however much twits like you try to pretend we have. However, doctors are rather different from criminals in their attitude toward the law.

There isn't really a debate that legalizing something increases the demand for it, and making it illegal is a deterrent. Doctors are not stupid, and for the most part, neither are women. Both groups can and will modify their behavior to reflect modified circumstances. No, not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

There is also the fact that before Roe v. Wade, something like 90% of abortions were still done by licensed, practicing physicians. The whole "back-alley, coat-hanger" line is an urban legend.

And if I'm not mistaken, YOU are not a woman; I am. So you have a hell of a nerve, trying to lecture ME about what's best for women.

25 men in the Alabama legislature just old women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing limited government, government out of personal lives, such a measure would be applauded. Where did you guys put your political principles three years ago?

And here YOU are, a man telling a woman what's REALLY best for women. So how are you any better?

Funny, coming from the crowd espousing government in all things, SUDDENLY the only thing you think is none of the government's business is whether or not babies can be killed. And, as always, you flatter yourself that you get to define other people's beliefs and how they should be practiced for them, and that you are someone to whom we need to justify ourselves.

I will say what I always say: we believe what we believe, not what you think we do. We act on it the way we think best, not the way you think we should. And we don't give a fat rat's ass if the likes of you approves or thinks we're "living our principles" or not. No one is interested in living up to the standards YOU want to set for us, and I wouldn't take the approval of a servant of evil like you if it was gift-wrapped.

As a man, I feel this is better debated and decided by women.
I would think that what ever side, of the debate, you are on, all would agree that fewer abortions are better. I think both sides should work together to have less unwanted pregnancies. Provide teaching to both boys and girls, men and women on how to prevent pregnancies. The fewest number of abortions since Roe vs Wade was the last year of Obama's Presidency. Obama was pro choice.
I do not think outlawing abortions will necessarily reduce the number of abortions.

I think we all should agree that reducing the number of abortions is important. Comprehensive sex education to include abstinence. Available birth control for all healthcare plans regardless of employer as well as affordable birth control for those who do not have insurance.

One side already agrees on this.

EDIT: On top of that for those who decide to have a child that they have proper maturity time off of work, healthcare and free childcare.

Really? We all should agree on reducing abortions? Why? I know why I think abortions should be reduced; but if you believe there's nothing wrong with it, why would YOU?

An unwanted pregnancy is not a healthy thing for someone to go through, whether that results in a birth or an abortion. Unwanted pregnancies are expensive and time consuming to deal with and often times they can hold women back from school and careers.

Why are you against abortion but not in vitro fertilization?

What steps do you think should be taken to reduce abortions other than just banning them and controlling peoples' lives?