No Women: You Do NOT Have the Right To Choose

[Blues Man]

Yet, how does the dna know? How do all those parts know what to do.

zygote

academic.oup.com

 

[BlindBoo]

Not true because the woman can choose to rid herself of the zygote in many ways

The baby factory and the zygote conspire against the host-mother. Medical science has given her the choice to block that.

 

[elektra]

zygote

academic.oup.com

Incredible

One could study the zygote for one's entire life, learning every day

 

[alang1216]

But, how does the zygote know how to divide?

The same way the mosquito zygote knows how, it it programmed into its DNA.

 

[initforme]

Nobody should have kids anymore. That would make both sides satisfied.

 

[elektra]

The same way the mosquito zygote knows how, it it programmed into its DNA.

That is cool, who programmed it into the zygote's dna?

 

[alang1216]

That is cool, who programmed it into the zygote's dna?

Natural selection.

 

[protectionist]

Once again it is the legal issue of when the unborn attain personhood that matters.

Do you care to discuss that or not?

I've BEEN discussing it all through this thread, complete with illustrations of the development on the fetus, but the legal aspect does not mtter to this particular thread, which is concerned with the moral aspect of it (ie. Who has the right -moral - to choose)

As I said in the OP, that right belongs to the pre-born person, and they choose LIFE 100% of the time.

 

[protectionist]

Yes and no. It's easy enough for a person to leave the state and travel to one where abortions are not illegal. There is no legal argument that can justify detaining a woman from travel while pregnant as there is in the case of people taking born children out of state which can be stopped if it is deemed the children would be in danger if they left the state.

So all you really have is the banning of a procedure with no implied rights given to a fetus

No, because many women who might seek an abortion, do not have the financil means to travel state to state. You might be surprised to find out how many people have a bank account balance of less than $100.

But again, this is veering off topic. Legalities and finances are not the topic.

 

[protectionist]

That is a biological depiction.

There is a difference between that and the legal definition of a person

OFF topic.

 

[protectionist]

No it really hasn't.

All that those states have done is outlaw the practice of abortion.

And that outlawing of abortion is giving the right to life (as opposed to being killed) Duh!

 

[Winco]

Yes They Do,

And Old White Male Over Term-Limit (R) have ZERO say.

Herschel says "Please get an abortion, I'll pay for it and drive you there."

 

[protectionist]

And Old White Male Over Term-Limit (R) have ZERO say.

The "say" (which is the topic of this thread) belongs to the pre-born person - they choose life.

 

[Blues Man]

I've BEEN discussing it all through this thread, complete with illustrations of the development on the fetus, but the legal aspect does not mtter to this particular thread, which is concerned with the moral aspect of it (ie. Who has the right -moral - to choose)

As I said in the OP, that right belongs to the pre-born person, and they choose LIFE 100% of the time.

Of course it matters id you are talking about abortion and abortion laws

And choice implies intent. A fetus is incapable of intent

 

[Blues Man]

And that outlawing of abortion is giving the right to life (as opposed to being killed) Duh!

No it isn't. But I suppose that's too complex for you to understand

 

[Dragonlady]

Yet, how does the dna know? How do all those parts know what to do.

The DNA doesn't "know". It's a chemical process and it frequently doesn't happen as intended. That's why 1/3 of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage in the first trimester. Because the "process" went wrong.

 

[elektra]

The DNA doesn't "know". It's a chemical process and it frequently doesn't happen as intended. That's why 1/3 of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage in the first trimester. Because the "process" went wrong.

Bullshit

 

[protectionist]

Of course it matters id you are talking about abortion and abortion laws

And choice implies intent. A fetus is incapable of intent

Their choice becomes evident after they are born. That doesn't mean they don't have a choice. They do, and properly so. More so than the mother.

 

[protectionist]

No it isn't. But I suppose that's too complex for you to understand

Yes it is. And there is nothing "complex" about it. You're just viewing it wrong, that's all.

 

[Texas Red]

I had to think this one over for quite a while. In fact, I debated it in my mind for about a month before deciding on a policy. Finally, I am seeing this a bit more complex than most people (especially Democrats) are seeing it.

Florida Congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, has said that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. FALSE! I don't mean to pick on Debbie Wasserman Shultz, because there are thousands of people (mostly Democrats) who say the same thing. The fact is, abortion is a matter between 3 entities. The woman, her doctor, and the person attempting to be born.

Who has the choice between birth and abortion, should be determined by who has the most at stake. For the doctor, it's a paycheck. For the expectant woman, it is a matter of convenience, while for the developing baby, it is a matter of life and death. Bases on that, it is the fetus who should have the right to choose, no one else.

Those who support abortion, under the most liberal circumstances, should think about this. What if some months before you were born, your mother decided to abort YOU. Can you say now that you are in favor of that abortion ? If you say no, then you are in agreement with thousands of adults whose parents contemplated aborting them some decades ago. 100% of the respondents surveyed, chose life.

I could never kill my baby.
Skanks who do should be shot