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

[Blues Man]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.

Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried

 

[JoeMoma]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.

Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried

Not entirely different. Both requires support from a more mature human to survive. Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.

The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can. Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.

 

[Blues Man]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.

Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried

Not entirely different. Both requires support from a more mature human to survive. Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.

The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can. Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.

We rationalize everything we do so why should that be any different?

 

[JoeMoma]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.

Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried

Not entirely different. Both requires support from a more mature human to survive. Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.

The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can. Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.

We rationalize everything we do so why should that be any different?

Good point.

 

[Coyote]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.

Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried

Not entirely different. Both requires support from a more mature human to survive. Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.

The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can. Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.

I don't think it's really comparable. Viable - can live. It can breathe, regulate it's core functions somewhat, independent of another's biology. It needs human help to grow and survive, but not to just live (however briefly).

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Ultimately I think that has to be the line because anything else marginalizes the woman's most fundemental rights. Late term "Abortions" when a fetus is viable are exceedingly rare - they're usually emergency procedures, caesarians.

 

[JoeMoma]

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Yes, that's how our accounting system works. The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.

 

[Chuz Life]

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Yes, that's how our accounting system works. The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.

This was just sarcasm.

Right?

Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.

Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried

Not entirely different. Both requires support from a more mature human to survive. Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.

The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can. Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.

I don't think it's really comparable. Viable - can live. It can breathe, regulate it's core functions somewhat, independent of another's biology. It needs human help to grow and survive, but not to just live (however briefly).

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Ultimately I think that has to be the line because anything else marginalizes the woman's most fundemental rights. Late term "Abortions" when a fetus is viable are exceedingly rare - they're usually emergency procedures, caesarians.

Sorry, but what you're talking about as "viable" isn't actually "can live" at all. First, because a baby in the womb does respirate and does regulate its own core functions. Second, because a newborn is only "independent of another's biology" because women no longer breast-feed. Up until the 1960s, most newborn babies were still dependent on "another's biology", and they are still wholly dependent on other people. Third, because what you're really talking about is "able to live IN A SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT". Unborn babies are designed to live in the environment nature ascribes to them, so naturally they can't live in another environment. Fish can't live on dry land, and you'd die pretty quickly if I stuck you in the middle of the ocean. But that doesn't preclude either from being described as "alive".

You really need to quit making up justifications to yourself and then repeating them as fact. In fact, just as with normal childbirth, third-trimester abortions are performed by hysterotomy (similar to a Caesarian section) only as a last resort. They're most commonly performed by D&X. Whether or not you consider 1% of abortions to be "exceedingly rare" is a matter of opinion.

 

[JoeMoma]

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Yes, that's how our accounting system works. The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.

This was just sarcasm.

Right?

Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.

It's simply the truth in my opinion. Whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, for thousands of years of human history, a new citizen is recognized at birth because it is such a landmark event. For most of human history, the gender of the baby was not known until birth. A government isn't going to be very active in protecting a person's human rights until that government recognizes a person's existence. Often women have miscarriages with few if any other people knowing about it. We now have abortion pills such as Plan B that a woman can take to force a miscarriage.

Unfortunately, the unborn is unable to protect it's own human rights. And if the government has not yet counted the unborn as a person/citizen, then it is unlikely the government will do much to protect the human rights of the unborn.

I am claiming that without the government protecting human rights, the weak will have none. The unborn are the weakest among us.

 

[Coyote]

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Yes, that's how our accounting system works. The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.

It seems to me that is the point where full rights are conferred...and there is no impact on the mother's rights....

 

[Coyote]

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Yes, that's how our accounting system works. The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.

This was just sarcasm.

Right?

Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.

It's simply the truth in my opinion. Whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, for thousands of years of human history, a new citizen is recognized at birth because it is such a landmark event. For most of human history, the gender of the baby was not known until birth. A government isn't going to be very active in protecting a person's human rights until that government recognizes a person's existence. Often women have miscarriages with few if any other people knowing about it. We now have abortion pills such as Plan B that a woman can take to force a miscarriage.

Unfortunately, the unborn is unable to protect it's own human rights. And if the government has not yet counted the unborn as a person/citizen, then it is unlikely the government will do much to protect the human rights of the unborn.

I am claiming that without the government protecting human rights, the weak will have none. The unborn are the weakest among us.

Unborn - whether fertilized egg up to not yet viable - shouldn't have rights imo. Any rights would impinge on the rights of women. And there is no other way than to see it that way....it would reduce us to broodmares with every miscarriage subject to legal action, as someone subject to lawsuits for a less than perfect baby...there is so much there. And it affects only one class of people - women.

If people want to stop or reduce abortion, imo, making it illegal is not going to do it. Making it unnecessary is. And we've seen reductions in abortions through better education and birth control. IMO that is the way.

 

[Coyote]

A new born is different than a 2 year old who is different than a 10 year old who is different than a 16 year old who is different than a 25 year old.......and so on.

except that in every one of those stages of development the human being is viable outside of the womb.

A new born is only viable outside the womb when cared for by another. If left to take care of its self alone, it will die. At any rate, being "non-viable" is a temporary condition if given the time and care to mature.

Being viable and being able to fend for oneself are 2 entirely different things.

You cannot make a 2 day old embryo viable outside of the womb even if you tried

Not entirely different. Both requires support from a more mature human to survive. Well, with the possible exception of the (fictional) baby that was raised by wolfs.

The point is that if we want to come up with a rationalization for a point of time that its okay to terminate a persons life, we can. Perhaps it should be okay to terminate those that are younger than 2 months old, with the rationalization being that no one can remember from that time period of their lives.

I don't think it's really comparable. Viable - can live. It can breathe, regulate it's core functions somewhat, independent of another's biology. It needs human help to grow and survive, but not to just live (however briefly).

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Ultimately I think that has to be the line because anything else marginalizes the woman's most fundemental rights. Late term "Abortions" when a fetus is viable are exceedingly rare - they're usually emergency procedures, caesarians.

Sorry, but what you're talking about as "viable" isn't actually "can live" at all. First, because a baby in the womb does respirate and does regulate its own core functions.

You made my point. And with an interesting choice of words.

In utero a fetus can regulate some functions. It does not however, respirate (which, ironically means to "give artificial respiration"). It gets oxygen through the umbilical cord - from the mother's blood. The mother breaths for the baby. The mother also "breaths out" for the baby, removing carbon dioxide through the placenta to her blood. That is the only way respiration occurs until birth.

Second, because a newborn is only "independent of another's biology" because women no longer breast-feed. Up until the 1960s, most newborn babies were still dependent on "another's biology", and they are still wholly dependent on other people.

Yes - but ANY woman can fulfill that function. Or really - any mammal. The baby after birth, does not require a host body to keep it alive.

Third, because what you're really talking about is "able to live IN A SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT". Unborn babies are designed to live in the environment nature ascribes to them, so naturally they can't live in another environment. Fish can't live on dry land, and you'd die pretty quickly if I stuck you in the middle of the ocean. But that doesn't preclude either from being described as "alive".

That specific environment is another human being's body and no one has the right to co-op another human's body against their will.

You really need to quit making up justifications to yourself and then repeating them as fact. In fact, just as with normal childbirth, third-trimester abortions are performed by hysterotomy (similar to a Caesarian section) only as a last resort. They're most commonly performed by D&X. Whether or not you consider 1% of abortions to be "exceedingly rare" is a matter of opinion.

Who's making up justifications? It's a matter of rights and birth is the line.

I used the term "late term" abortions as defined by when a fetus is viable. Third trimester abortions are exceedingly rare and usually for reason's of severe fetal deformity or the mother's health. 1% is not a matter of opinion. It's exceedingly rare. They are also in almost all states heavily regulated, the Supreme Court decided in 1973, that after the point in which a fetus might be viable states could regulate it. That seems reasonable.

 

[Chuz Life]

A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.

"Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical conditions that a particular organism / creature is going through.

Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.

Agree?

Hint: The answer is yes.

I never said an embryo wasn't an embryo.

But even you have to agree that a 2 day old embryo and a 9 month old embryo are different

and just a question

Why did you use the term *(sic)

it usually means you are keeping a grammatical or spelling error as written by another.

Okaaaayyy. . .

Now FOCUS.

Let's see if you can connect the dots.

An Embryo is the SAME embryo - whether the Embryo is "viable" or NOT.

True or false?

And I used the term *(sic) because the word "embryo" was from YOUR example and NOT an argument that I share. I was trying to make the point using YOUR own terms, rather than my own.

 

[Blues Man]

A 1 month old embryo is not viable outside of the womb a 9 month old embryo is.

"Viable" and or "non viable" are subjective terms that speak only to the different physical conditions that a particular organism / creature is going through.

Even with Your own example, an embryo(sic) is an "embryo," whether the embryo is viable outside of the womb(sic) or not.

Agree?

Hint: The answer is yes.

I never said an embryo wasn't an embryo.

But even you have to agree that a 2 day old embryo and a 9 month old embryo are different

and just a question

Why did you use the term *(sic)

it usually means you are keeping a grammatical or spelling error as written by another.

Okaaaayyy. . .

Now FOCUS.

Let's see if you can connect the dots.

An Embryo is the SAME embryo - whether the Embryo is "viable" or NOT.

True or false?

And I used the term *(sic) because the word "embryo" was from YOUR example and NOT an argument that I share. I was trying to make the point using YOUR own terms, rather than my own.

I never said it wasn't I said there is a difference between the same embryo at 2 days and at 9 months. Even you have to be able to see that

You used the term sic incorrectly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Yes, that's how our accounting system works. The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.

It seems to me that is the point where full rights are conferred...and there is no impact on the mother's rights....

Yes, I definitely want to live in a world barbaric enough to consider rights dependent on whether or not someone else feels inconvenienced by them. Because that historically worked out so well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once it's born it has it's own complete and irrevocable set of rights.

Yes, that's how our accounting system works. The baby gets a birth certificate and usually a name and is counted as a citizen by the government.

This was just sarcasm.

Right?

Or are you actually claiming that our basic human rights are essentially granted to us, by a government?

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect.

It's simply the truth in my opinion. Whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, for thousands of years of human history, a new citizen is recognized at birth because it is such a landmark event. For most of human history, the gender of the baby was not known until birth. A government isn't going to be very active in protecting a person's human rights until that government recognizes a person's existence. Often women have miscarriages with few if any other people knowing about it. We now have abortion pills such as Plan B that a woman can take to force a miscarriage.

Unfortunately, the unborn is unable to protect it's own human rights. And if the government has not yet counted the unborn as a person/citizen, then it is unlikely the government will do much to protect the human rights of the unborn.

I am claiming that without the government protecting human rights, the weak will have none. The unborn are the weakest among us.

Unborn - whether fertilized egg up to not yet viable - shouldn't have rights imo. Any rights would impinge on the rights of women. And there is no other way than to see it that way....it would reduce us to broodmares with every miscarriage subject to legal action, as someone subject to lawsuits for a less than perfect baby...there is so much there. And it affects only one class of people - women.

If people want to stop or reduce abortion, imo, making it illegal is not going to do it. Making it unnecessary is. And we've seen reductions in abortions through better education and birth control. IMO that is the way.

Anyone who thinks "there is no other way to see abortion" has absolutely nothing to say on the subject and is not worthy of being listened to, by definition. Pro-lifers never suggest there isn't another way to see it. We just consider that other way to be wrong.

If you really believed your position was worthy, you wouldn't have to live in a carefully-constructed bubble to avoid having to hear and think about other views.

 

[Lakhota]

SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!

SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth. They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions. They don't care!

What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners. Maybe states like New York will enact such laws. It can happen!

 

[whitehall]

If the woman's life isn't in jeopardy as a result of her pregnancy the primary concern should be the unborn baby. What else?

 

[BS Filter]

SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!

SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth. They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions. They don't care!

What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners. Maybe states like New York will enact such laws. It can happen!

That's about the sickest post I've read in a long time. Unbelievable. Take your pill, cross your fucking legs, get your tubes tied. Fucking idiot.

 

[kaz]

SCOTUS has gone full Taliban in upholding the new draconian Texas abortion laws!

SCOTUS and their NaziCon zealots are not pro-life - they are pro-birth. They have no regard for the mental/physical/financial reasons that women seek abortions. They don't care!

What if other states use the same legal reasons for GUNS - with anti-gun citizen vigilantes going after gun owners. Maybe states like New York will enact such laws. It can happen!

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It's ... Captain .... Hyperbole !!!

Yeah, all those beheadings in Texas. Sure thing, stupid fuck