The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[Coyote]

If a fetus has rights over another person’s body, then why not a child or an adult? If a person is dying of kidney failure and another has a kidney that matches, can he coop that kidney against the doner’s will?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

 

[basquebromance]

your God Trump used to be pro-choice

 

[playtime]

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.

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.

bingo & one of those women was named gerri santoro. it's crystal clear that the extremists who call themselves 'pro lifers' won't care about any post born woman's 'personhood'.


Gerri Santoro - Wikipedia

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

A separate and unique life individual does NOT begin at conception because the zygote is not a person. It's a blueprint for a person. Until sufficient cells have divided and developed, you don't even know if it's male or female.

You would give more rights to that blueprint, than you do to the parents who will be responsible for raising it should it make it to birth. After a child is born, the parents have the right with withhold medical care which violates their religious prinicples and children have died, because of these decisions, and you fools have no problem with those decisions, because it's their faith.

"Pro-life" means anti-war, ant-death penalty, opposition to any death. You're an anti-abortion radical. One of a small minority of desperate fools.

 

[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.

 

[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.

A separate and unique life individual does NOT begin at conception because the zygote is not a person. It's a blueprint for a person. Until sufficient cells have divided and developed, you don't even know if it's male or female.

You would give more rights to that blueprint, than you do to the parents who will be responsible for raising it should it make it to birth. After a child is born, the parents have the right with withhold medical care which violates their religious prinicples and children have died, because of these decisions, and you fools have no problem with those decisions, because it's their faith.

"Pro-life" means anti-war, ant-death penalty, opposition to any death. You're an anti-abortion radical. One of a small minority of desperate fools.

"The science isn't true, because THIS is what I think is true, so there!"

Look, honey, I have told you repeatedly that simply stating that something is fact without a shred of evidence is the reason that I treat you like a homeless person who's trying to panhandle me, okay? You know absolutely nothing, and you don't frigging listen to anything you're told. You somehow imagine that debating is accomplished by noticing that a response has been posted, not reading anything in it, and then just re-asserting that what you want to believe is so, as if we're all just going to go, "Oh, okay, Dragontwat says we're wrong, so that settles it." And then you're utterly bewildered as to why it is that people treat you like an idiot or a nuisance.

So how about this: You show me anywhere, in any scientific source, that this theory you've concocted of "zygote is the blueprint of a person, not a person" appears. And you show me where the law says that parents can utterly withhold medical care from a child without winding up in court on charges of neglect and child endangerment. Iget that you spend a lot of time in your nursing home, having nightmares about this horrible primitive world where religious people are allowed to roam free to leave people to die in the streets, but it doesn't actually exist, and your doctor may want to adjust your meds.

Yes, children do sometimes die because of all manner of parenting decisions, but you're delusional if you think it's legal.

And you can spare me your whole schtick of "Prolife means all this bad stuff, because disagreeing with me makes you EEEEEVIL!!!" As has been said before, your opinion is worth less than a taco fart in a warm breeze, and I would consider the approval of the likes of you to be an insult. PLEASE withhold your good opinion from me, because I don't want to be dirtied up by it.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[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.

 

[BlindBoo]

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 give the couples options but if they don't choose or don't respond, they,okay, okay so they hose them out instead..... whats the difference?

The frozen zygotes should never have rights. Their fate should be completely in the parents hands. Same thing for the conceived egg inside a woman body. It's fate should be in the parent(s) hands until it reaches viability. Viability of course is a moving target in that as science advances, the age a fetus reaches that point naturally is decreasing.

 

[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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

 

[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 give the couples options but if they don't choose or don't respond, they,okay, okay so they hose them out instead..... whats the difference?

The frozen zygotes should never have rights. Their fate should be completely in the parents hands. Same thing for the conceived egg inside a woman body. It's fate should be in the parent(s) hands until it reaches viability. Viability of course is a moving target in that as science advances, the age a fetus reaches that point naturally is decreasing.

I've worked at a fertility clinic. Trust me, they aren't "purging the freezer". The legal ramifications are too enormous for any en masse "cleaning and disposing" effort, however much you want to cover for your butt-buddy by pretending that the disposal of individual patient batches qualifies as a "purge of the freezer".

But to get back on topic, the destruction of embryos IS, in fact, the killing of living individual human organisms. Any assumption that we see them the way you do is as in error as anything else you believe on this topic.

And for the record, I haven't accepted your assertion of your opinion as fact any of the other 34234 times you've done it, and I'm not going to this time, so you are wasting your time with this "Shouldn't have rights. THIS is the right way, because I say it is." The answer is the same: that's your opinion, and I categorically reject it.

 

[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?

 

[Moonglow]

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?

That is not the issue of abortion and its legality.

 

[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?

That is not the issue of abortion and its legality.

Yes, it really is, because laws express our understanding of and attitude toward reality; they don't establish or change reality.

The abortion debate is about what the laws should be - however much pro-aborts want to make it about "THIS is what the law IS RIGHT NOW, so that's it!" - so it's very relevant to discuss what science knows reality to be, in order to understand what the laws should be to reflect that.

 

[satrebil]

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?