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

[Cecilie1200]

First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.

In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?

I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.

Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?

Mother Nature.

Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring. Not sure she's a good authority here.

Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.

 

[Coyote]

In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?

I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.

Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?

Mother Nature.

Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring. Not sure she's a good authority here.

Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.

You're the one bringing up Mother Nature as an authority

 

[Yarddog]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

Someone skipped a lot of biology classes.

Hahaha thank you

 

[Cecilie1200]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.

Then she probably shouldn't have created it.

If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive. Tread carefully.

She didn't choose to. Having sex doesn't equal "choosing" to have a baby.

I categorize anything that assumes tenancy in my body as remaining in my body by my choice, whatever that choice may be.

And, if my mother had made a different choice - I would neither know nor care.

Having sex DOES equal choosing to make it a possibility. You know the risks and do it anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself when your dice roll comes up snake eyes.

No one's talking about your body, Chuckles, unless you have a uterus. Do you?

I didn't say a thing about your mother. I was talking about right now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

what does that have to do with anything.
if you are going to pay for one child, you should pay for all. Its only fair. Now write the check.

We all do, through our social contract. You do not get individually to decide as to who is worthy is the point. Hard for you.

where does it say that in the constitution? and were is the social contract I signed or is this something you just made up.
as far as the responsibility? how about the responsibility was not exhibited when the mother spread her legs.
and lets face it, the number of pregnancies due to faulty birth control is very very minimal, the majority are from one night stands or just plain carelessness.

Or the father unzipped his pants.

So what's the riff now? That the majority of unwanted pregnancies occur through rape?

No. It's a bit more fundamental than that. It takes two to tango.

Yeah, but since fathers are given no legal say in the consequences, I'd say that shifts the responsibility onto the one claiming all the choices.

 

[Coyote]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy. Not true for the baby. So the "priority" is the baby. No brainer. Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases. That's true no matter what Hillary says.

That absolutely diminishes her.

Ask the normal mother who has priority.

Ask any woman.

I'm a woman. I don't consider pregnancy to diminish me at all, nor does the natural maternal instinct to protect a helpless baby.

Got something to say to THAT? Or do you know more about what women think in your efforts to pander to us than I do in actually being one?

I'm a woman. We weren't talking about "pregnancy" diminishing the mother. The comment was referring to prioritizing lives - prioritizing the fetus' life over the mothers does indeed diminish her.

Lives are always prioritized, hon. Sorry if you just now noticed that fact of reality.

Do you also hate and resent the fact that born children are ALSO prioritized over their parents?

 

[Coyote]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.

Then she probably shouldn't have created it.

If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive. Tread carefully.

She didn't choose to. Having sex doesn't equal "choosing" to have a baby.

I categorize anything that assumes tenancy in my body as remaining in my body by my choice, whatever that choice may be.

And, if my mother had made a different choice - I would neither know nor care.

Having sex DOES equal choosing to make it a possibility. You know the risks and do it anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself when your dice roll comes up snake eyes.

No one's talking about your body, Chuckles, unless you have a uterus. Do you?

I didn't say a thing about your mother. I was talking about right now.

Having sex equals a possibility of pregnancy. It is not an acceptance of pregnancy. If that pesky sperm and egg had the audacity to connect, then it's my choice to flush them from my body.

 

[chikenwing]

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.

DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce

 

[Cecilie1200]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.

I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.

You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb. Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.

Let me spell this out for you: when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic". I mean SCIENCE. That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.

 

[Coyote]

That absolutely diminishes her.

Ask the normal mother who has priority.

Ask any woman.

I'm a woman. I don't consider pregnancy to diminish me at all, nor does the natural maternal instinct to protect a helpless baby.

Got something to say to THAT? Or do you know more about what women think in your efforts to pander to us than I do in actually being one?

I'm a woman. We weren't talking about "pregnancy" diminishing the mother. The comment was referring to prioritizing lives - prioritizing the fetus' life over the mothers does indeed diminish her.

Lives are always prioritized, hon. Sorry if you just now noticed that fact of reality.

Do you also hate and resent the fact that born children are ALSO prioritized over their parents?

Sweetheart, you are once again missing the point...try to follow the conversation you jumped into.

No one is saying lives are NOT prioritized. The differences revolve around WHICH lives are prioritized over other lives. I hope that clarifies your confusion

 

[Coyote]

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.

DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce

DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce

Tell that to the welfare crowd

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.

Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?

Mother Nature.

Mother Nature also tells us to kill defective offspring. Not sure she's a good authority here.

Typical leftist "blanket solution for everything" thinking.

You're the one bringing up Mother Nature as an authority

Yes, because it is. Nature is going to do what Nature is going to do, and neither you nor Hillary Clinton nor every ******* liberal in America is big enough to change it.

Nevertheless, what Nature does and does not dictate for other species is irrelevant to humans, who do NOT have a biological imperative to kill their young, defective or not. Witness the fact that YOU are here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.

One more time: cite the science. "I say it's not, because I see it that way" only tells us the scientific fact that you're uneducated. We got that; let's move on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

In that case, she has every right to evict that organism if she does not want it inside of her.

Then she probably shouldn't have created it.

If we're going to categorize human beings we consider annoying, useless parasites as "perfectly all right to kill", then you have just invalidated the entire reason YOU are still alive. Tread carefully.

She didn't choose to. Having sex doesn't equal "choosing" to have a baby.

I categorize anything that assumes tenancy in my body as remaining in my body by my choice, whatever that choice may be.

And, if my mother had made a different choice - I would neither know nor care.

Having sex DOES equal choosing to make it a possibility. You know the risks and do it anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself when your dice roll comes up snake eyes.

No one's talking about your body, Chuckles, unless you have a uterus. Do you?

I didn't say a thing about your mother. I was talking about right now.

Having sex equals a possibility of pregnancy. It is not an acceptance of pregnancy. If that pesky sperm and egg had the audacity to connect, then it's my choice to flush them from my body.

The fact that you don't accept the consequences of your act doesn't negate that you made the choice to create the baby, nor does it convey onto you the right to choose to kill him.

I realize you think "I don't WANT that" should somehow give you the right and power to reorder the universe, but it's not a persuasive argument.

 

[Yarddog]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

well you wernt born at the same time as your brother, but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ? Siamese twins. they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they?? see it gets complicated is all.

A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one. The sperm has all the DNA from the father , the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father. If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA? technically they are still a part of each other,. well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

What? Dependence dosnt qualify exsistsnce.

An organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.

DNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnce

DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.

DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.

Chiken stated a scientific fact. You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis. You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate: location, location, location. You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence. It doesn't.

You're 0 for 2 so far.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

well you wernt born at the same time as your brother, but if you were Identical twins you might feel differently, after all what are Identical twins gone wrong ? Siamese twins. they are two people yet they are actually one person, or are they?? see it gets complicated is all.

A baby is connected to the mother by the umbilicle cord, all its sustenance comes from the mothers body, so yes "technically they are one. The sperm has all the DNA from the father , the egg has all the DNA from the mother, so a baby born is literaly a mix of both the mother and father. If not then please explain what ELSE went into making the baby other than that DNA? technically they are still a part of each other,. well thats just my opinion so dont ruffle your fearthers

That's an awful lot of blather to obscure a lack of an answer.

The egg does NOT have all the DNA from the mother, Mensa Boy. By definition, it has HALF her DNA. Likewise the sperm and the father's DNA, otherwise you would have people walking around with twice as many chromosomes.

Technically, something technical cannot be "just your opinion", and vice versa. Technically, a baby is a unique organism, separate from both the mother and father.

You don't want to ruffle my feathers? Learn some science, or stop commenting on it. Ignorance pisses me off, especially when it tries to present itself as fact.

 

[Coyote]

Without the woman, there wouldn't BE an egg or fetus.
Her body. Her choice.

No one's talking about her body. She can have an appendectomy any time she likes; I don't care. She can have a sex-change operation and it matters naught to me.

We're talking about a separate organism entirely.

well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us

No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.

If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?

You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.

Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.

I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.

I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.

You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb. Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.

A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc. It does not function as an independent being until it's born. It has NO rights to the mother's body.

All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false. For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.

Let me spell this out for you: when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic". I mean SCIENCE. That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.

My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.