Abortion Solutions: Post 'Em Here!

[Mudda]

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Funny how the Supreme Court didn't say that. Not even in Roe did they say that. In fact, they said that once a State establishes personhood for a child in the womb... the case for abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

You still won't be able to stop abortions. That must really burn.

 

[Mudda]

Abortion Solutions: Post 'Em Here!

So far, I haven't seen any except "education", so that should work, because most Americans haven't been able to learn to count to six yet.

I've actually got one that could help: make condoms free and put them in convenience stores... so people can freely take them. But that might against some of your Christian Sharia Laws?

 

[ding]

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Sure, but the human life in her body is not her body. It is a genetically distinct new human being. It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

It's still her body's creation until she expels it and not a human being until then.

So your argument is that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?

 

[ding]

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Funny how the Supreme Court didn't say that. Not even in Roe did they say that. In fact, they said that once a State establishes personhood for a child in the womb... the case for abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

You still won't be able to stop abortions. That must really burn.

This may be the most telling thing you have ever written about yourself.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Sure, but the human life in her body is not her body. It is a genetically distinct new human being. It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

It's still her body's creation until she expels it and not a human being until then.

So your argument is that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?

Yes. I'm for letting people choose what's right for themselves and not to impose some random Christian Sharia law.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Funny how the Supreme Court didn't say that. Not even in Roe did they say that. In fact, they said that once a State establishes personhood for a child in the womb... the case for abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

You still won't be able to stop abortions. That must really burn.

This may be the most telling thing you have ever written about yourself.

I see that it burns you as well that you can't tell people how to live their lives. Good. You just made my day.

 

[ding]

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Funny how the Supreme Court didn't say that. Not even in Roe did they say that. In fact, they said that once a State establishes personhood for a child in the womb... the case for abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

You still won't be able to stop abortions. That must really burn.

This may be the most telling thing you have ever written about yourself.

I see that it burns you as well that you can't tell people how to live their lives. Good. You just made my day.

You have a nasty habit of putting words into other people's mouths. If you had better arguments you wouldn't have to do that.

 

[Mudda]

I see that it burns you as well that you can't tell people how to live their lives. Good. You just made my day.

You have a nasty habit of putting words into other people's mouths. If you had better arguments you wouldn't have to do that.

So that's why YOU do it, the poor quality of your arguments.

 

[BreezeWood]

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Sure, but the human life in her body is not her body. It is a genetically distinct new human being. It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

.

It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

had one of these for dinner lately bing, it's you who ignores when convenient the Garden we live in ... it's why you are an uncaring, Spirit hating fascist - now you know.

 

[aris2chat]

But there is nothing in the Constitution that says any of this.

Therefore it is covered in the 10th Amendment and the States get to decide.

Does a State have the Constitutional authority to decide which human beings are persons and which ones are not?

I don't think so.

Remove it from the womb............can it live on it's own?
What if the woman's life is in danger?

Childbirth is still a dangerous proposition and not all women are willing to take the risks. Sometimes the fetus is incomparable with the mother. Some are too young or too small to attempt childbirth and even a cesarean has it's risks. I nearly bled to death giving birth with my second and had complications for years afterwards.

Mother's life and well being, including mentally, take priority in any ER across the country. Regular medication or treatment for something during the pregnancy can kill the fetus, or leave it severally deformed and will die soon after birth.

Does not matter the reason, it matters what the woman wants and what is best for her life.

She is the one taking the risk and it has to be her decision.

Show me where it says in the Constitution that only viable human beings have right to the equal protections of our laws.

You can't.

It says ALL PERSONS.

That's as inclusive as it gets.

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

children share DNA. Perhaps the woman does not want her DNA given to a child running around in the world at that time

She wants to wait till she is ready

 

[aris2chat]

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Sure, but the human life in her body is not her body. It is a genetically distinct new human being. It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

Not it is a parasite feeding on her, making her sick in most cases and deforming her body, then causing pain when it is ready to exit. If she is not ready and willing to let it feed for nine months, she should have the option to remove it. If she is not ready to take the risk of dying in childbirth, she should have the option to have it removed.

The only one to decide if she wants the embryo/fetus for nine month is the woman, it is her body that is being used/donated to feed and protect the fetus till it becomes a child ready to enter the world.

It is human being when it takes its first breath and cries out. If it is inside her body, it is hers to decide if she wants it or not.

If it was a tape worm or something like that feeding on her, sapping her greenery, growing larger till bits are ready to come out............ shouldn't she have the right to decide if she wants it removed?

If it is cancer, somatic mutation of her DNA, begins to grow and feed off her, shouldn't she have the right to have it removed? It is her part of her body and her human cells that have mutated.

If she is not willing to risk her life for either to grow, why should she not have the right over her on body and choice to remove it?

If she has heath issues that would be complicated by a pregnancy, why should she take the risk. It might mean her not being able to take her meds, or some deformity or death or the fetus/baby if she does continue her meds.

It is not your call, it is hers.

 

[aris2chat]

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Sure, but the human life in her body is not her body. It is a genetically distinct new human being. It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

It's still her body's creation until she expels it and not a human being until then.

So your argument is that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?

Yes. I'm for letting people choose what's right for themselves and not to impose some random Christian Sharia law.

Sharia permits a woman to have an abortion if she wants

 

[jillian]

Remove it from the womb............can it live on it's own?
What if the woman's life is in danger?

Childbirth is still a dangerous proposition and not all women are willing to take the risks. Sometimes the fetus is incomparable with the mother. Some are too young or too small to attempt childbirth and even a cesarean has it's risks. I nearly bled to death giving birth with my second and had complications for years afterwards.

Mother's life and well being, including mentally, take priority in any ER across the country. Regular medication or treatment for something during the pregnancy can kill the fetus, or leave it severally deformed and will die soon after birth.

Does not matter the reason, it matters what the woman wants and what is best for her life.

She is the one taking the risk and it has to be her decision.

Show me where it says in the Constitution that only viable human beings have right to the equal protections of our laws.

You can't.

It says ALL PERSONS.

That's as inclusive as it gets.

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

two cells is not a baby. and two cells does not live on its own.

but your analogy is one of the stupidest I've ever heard.

far more apt would be you enslaving women by turning them into incubators against their will.

like I always say, these decisions are difficult and most people are barely capable of running their own lives. they certainly shouldn't be trying to run anyone else's.

... this is particularly true of religious fanatics.

we keep telling you.... mind your own business....

 

[ding]

Show me where it says in the Constitution that only viable human beings have right to the equal protections of our laws.

You can't.

It says ALL PERSONS.

That's as inclusive as it gets.

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

two cells is not a baby. and two cells does not live on its own.

but your analogy is one of the stupidest I've ever heard.

far more apt would be you enslaving women by turning them into incubators against their will.

like I always say, these decisions are difficult and most people are barely capable of running their own lives. they certainly shouldn't be trying to run anyone else's.

... this is particularly true of religious fanatics.

we keep telling you.... mind your own business....

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

 

[ding]

Show me where it says in the Constitution that only viable human beings have right to the equal protections of our laws.

You can't.

It says ALL PERSONS.

That's as inclusive as it gets.

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

two cells is not a baby. and two cells does not live on its own.

but your analogy is one of the stupidest I've ever heard.

far more apt would be you enslaving women by turning them into incubators against their will.

like I always say, these decisions are difficult and most people are barely capable of running their own lives. they certainly shouldn't be trying to run anyone else's.

... this is particularly true of religious fanatics.

we keep telling you.... mind your own business....

At conception a new human being has come into existence, if you see this new human being as nothing more than cells, even though science tells us it is a human life, and you see it as having no human rights, then you do see it as property. And since you believe it can be discarded at the whims of its owner, then you do indeed see it as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

 

[ding]

I see that it burns you as well that you can't tell people how to live their lives. Good. You just made my day.

You have a nasty habit of putting words into other people's mouths. If you had better arguments you wouldn't have to do that.

So that's why YOU do it, the poor quality of your arguments.

But I don't do that.

 

[ding]

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Sure, but the human life in her body is not her body. It is a genetically distinct new human being. It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

Not it is a parasite feeding on her, making her sick in most cases and deforming her body, then causing pain when it is ready to exit. If she is not ready and willing to let it feed for nine months, she should have the option to remove it. If she is not ready to take the risk of dying in childbirth, she should have the option to have it removed.

The only one to decide if she wants the embryo/fetus for nine month is the woman, it is her body that is being used/donated to feed and protect the fetus till it becomes a child ready to enter the world.

It is human being when it takes its first breath and cries out. If it is inside her body, it is hers to decide if she wants it or not.

If it was a tape worm or something like that feeding on her, sapping her greenery, growing larger till bits are ready to come out............ shouldn't she have the right to decide if she wants it removed?

If it is cancer, somatic mutation of her DNA, begins to grow and feed off her, shouldn't she have the right to have it removed? It is her part of her body and her human cells that have mutated.

If she is not willing to risk her life for either to grow, why should she not have the right over her on body and choice to remove it?

If she has heath issues that would be complicated by a pregnancy, why should she take the risk. It might mean her not being able to take her meds, or some deformity or death or the fetus/baby if she does continue her meds.

It is not your call, it is hers.

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.” Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.” Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg…For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.” Prenatal Care, US Department of Health and Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Div 1990

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

“Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.” Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association, Newsweek November 12, 1973, (p 74)

“Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.” The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. (Video)

“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.” In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video)

“The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.” DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.” Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

 

[ding]

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with. Men don't get to make that call for them.

Sure, but the human life in her body is not her body. It is a genetically distinct new human being. It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

.

It seems that you worship science until it suits your purpose to reject science.

had one of these for dinner lately bing, it's you who ignores when convenient the Garden we live in ... it's why you are an uncaring, Spirit hating fascist - now you know.

That probably explains why you are the one defending abortion, right?

 

[ding]

Does a State have the Constitutional authority to decide which human beings are persons and which ones are not?

I don't think so.

Remove it from the womb............can it live on it's own?
What if the woman's life is in danger?

Childbirth is still a dangerous proposition and not all women are willing to take the risks. Sometimes the fetus is incomparable with the mother. Some are too young or too small to attempt childbirth and even a cesarean has it's risks. I nearly bled to death giving birth with my second and had complications for years afterwards.

Mother's life and well being, including mentally, take priority in any ER across the country. Regular medication or treatment for something during the pregnancy can kill the fetus, or leave it severally deformed and will die soon after birth.

Does not matter the reason, it matters what the woman wants and what is best for her life.

She is the one taking the risk and it has to be her decision.

Show me where it says in the Constitution that only viable human beings have right to the equal protections of our laws.

You can't.

It says ALL PERSONS.

That's as inclusive as it gets.

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

children share DNA. Perhaps the woman does not want her DNA given to a child running around in the world at that time

She wants to wait till she is ready

Sure, they get their DNA from their parents. So what? They are separate genetically distinct human beings.

If that was her wish, then she should have thought about that before conceiving the child.

 

[Mudda]

not a person, does not have a birth certificate, cannot get a social security number............can not take a breath

Even during child birth the fetus could be lost.

Till it is born it is not a separate individual. As long as it needs the woman to supply all it's needs till it is born, it is not a person.

Even the bible does not give a value to the baby till one month after it's birth.

Even as a baby, it is dependent on it's parents or caretaker. It is not an independent person


Don't count your chickens before they hatch

DNA says he or she is a specific person.

Actually, it's something the female is still making, so it's hers until she's finished.

DNA says otherwise.

But just to be clear you see some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, right? Sort of reminds me of the Dred Scott ruling.

two cells is not a baby. and two cells does not live on its own.

but your analogy is one of the stupidest I've ever heard.

far more apt would be you enslaving women by turning them into incubators against their will.

like I always say, these decisions are difficult and most people are barely capable of running their own lives. they certainly shouldn't be trying to run anyone else's.

... this is particularly true of religious fanatics.

we keep telling you.... mind your own business....

At conception a new human being has come into existence, if you see this new human being as nothing more than cells, even though science tells us it is a human life, and you see it as having no human rights, then you do see it as property. And since you believe it can be discarded at the whims of its owner, then you do indeed see it as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I keep hearing this type of explanation, so what do you do to stop abortion? Got anything?