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

[Cecilie1200]

Pregnant women who are turned away from clinics spiral into debt and bankruptcy at high rates, a study finds.

What Happens To Women Who Can’t Get Abortions
n
All anti-choice zealots should read this.

It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept. Killing is not an option.

An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.

the unborn child is ALIVE, after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD. So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.

Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.

You obviously do not have the most elementary knowledge of the human gestational process.

Moreover, people have the right to choose their religion, if they want to. Your religious beliefs apply only to you. I doubt that people who have abortions agree with your selection of beliefs.

I don't agree with you as to what happens in the universe. I have my own thoughts.

I actually do not know what to even do with this level of delusional ignorance that doesn't involve industrial strength psych meds and a straightjacket.

Find a good therapist and send his kids through college. It's all you're good for.

 

[Lysistrata]

It is called adoption......or merely putting the baby at the box at the Fire Dept. Killing is not an option.

An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.

the unborn child is ALIVE, after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD. So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.

Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.

You obviously do not have the most elementary knowledge of the human gestational process.

Moreover, people have the right to choose their religion, if they want to. Your religious beliefs apply only to you. I doubt that people who have abortions agree with your selection of beliefs.

I don't agree with you as to what happens in the universe. I have my own thoughts.

I actually do not know what to even do with this level of delusional ignorance that doesn't involve industrial strength psych meds and a straightjacket.

Find a good therapist and send his kids through college. It's all you're good for.

You are just angry with me because I don't buy into your freak show. Have a good time in cult fairyland. Does it have rides like ferris wheels and rollercoasters?
One last question: are you a bottle bible blonde? They are hilarious.

 

[Redfish]

Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.

Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today. How much more education do you think is necessary?

How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?

I think I get it, you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.

So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.

It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.

biology is clear, its the woman who gets pregnant, so biologically its up to her to decide when and if she gets pregnant. Blaming horny guys for consensual sex is kind of far fetched, unless you think that women are incapable of controlling their sexual urges.

your attempt to compare military weapons with birth control is foolish and naive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An abortion is not "killing." No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth just to satisfy your particular religious desires when they don't share them.

the unborn child is ALIVE, after the abortion the unborn chilld is DEAD. So tell us how it was not killed by the abortion.

Lice thinks if she just declares that unborn children aren't alive because she "feelz" that they aren't, the universe will realign to suit her.

You obviously do not have the most elementary knowledge of the human gestational process.

Moreover, people have the right to choose their religion, if they want to. Your religious beliefs apply only to you. I doubt that people who have abortions agree with your selection of beliefs.

I don't agree with you as to what happens in the universe. I have my own thoughts.

I actually do not know what to even do with this level of delusional ignorance that doesn't involve industrial strength psych meds and a straightjacket.

Find a good therapist and send his kids through college. It's all you're good for.

You are just angry with me because I don't buy into your freak show. Have a good time in cult fairyland. Does it have rides like ferris wheels and rollercoasters?
One last question: are you a bottle bible blonde? They are hilarious.

Yeah, I'm way emotionally invested in having one of the dumbest mental patients on Earth agree with me. You have magically become important for the first time in your life.

Whatever keeps you off the suicide hotline.

 

[Blues Man]

I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored

If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.

It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being

I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.

We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".

There's no such thing as a "potential human being". The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other. Once they are combined, you have a human being. There is no interim stage.

Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby. A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing. It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored

If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.

It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being

I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.

We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".

There's no such thing as a "potential human being". The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other. Once they are combined, you have a human being. There is no interim stage.

Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby. A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing. It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

 

[Blues Man]

I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored

If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.

It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being

I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.

We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".

There's no such thing as a "potential human being". The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other. Once they are combined, you have a human being. There is no interim stage.

Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby. A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing. It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored

If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.

It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being

I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.

We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".

There's no such thing as a "potential human being". The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other. Once they are combined, you have a human being. There is no interim stage.

Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby. A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing. It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

 

[Blues Man]

I'll ask this again since my earlier post has been ignored

If we are going to be rational about the subject of abortion ( I know that's a big ask) then there has to be a consideration of the fact that at some point during gestation where the fetus is no longer a fetus but a viable baby.

It's the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being

I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.

We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".

There's no such thing as a "potential human being". The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other. Once they are combined, you have a human being. There is no interim stage.

Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby. A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing. It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I appreciate that you're trying to be rational about this subject, so please don't take this as me being hostile or insulting.

We can't backtrack on scientific fact and call it "being rational".

There's no such thing as a "potential human being". The closest you can get are individual sperm and ova, which could potentially be combined with each other. Once they are combined, you have a human being. There is no interim stage.

Likewise, there is no point when a fetus becomes a baby. A fetus IS a baby; the word "fetus" does not denote some completely separate thing. It means "unborn offspring from two months after conception to birth".

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

 

[Lysistrata]

Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.

Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today. How much more education do you think is necessary?

How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?

I think I get it, you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.

So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.

It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.

biology is clear, its the woman who gets pregnant, so biologically its up to her to decide when and if she gets pregnant. Blaming horny guys for consensual sex is kind of far fetched, unless you think that women are incapable of controlling their sexual urges.

your attempt to compare military weapons with birth control is foolish and naive.

No woman can tell at any given moment whether they can get pregnant or not, so it is not a matter of being "incapable" of controlling one's sexual urges. You cannot reject my question as to why men have sex when they don't want children while lecturing women about personal responsibility and controlling their urges. You refer to "horny guys," which makes men sound like people who can't control their urges, but you write as if excusing them from personal responsibility. You blame women, but you don't want men to take any blame. How does this work? According to you, they shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to accept the consequences.

Even more ridiculous, you write as if most people just have casual sex. In fact, most people have sex in committed relationships. They are husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends. Your past in the bars and cars must be really interesting. You sound very promiscuous.

I didn't compare military weapons with birth control or abortion. I just pointed out the incredible hypocrisy of demanding to be allowed to own weapons capable of killing scores of people in seconds, while screaming about birth control and abortion. How full of shit can a person be?

 

[Lysistrata]

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

You also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.

This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.

 

[Blues Man]

But when is it actually viable?

A zygote is not a human being it has the potential to be a human being in that the genetic blueprint exists but it is not more than that


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Redfish]

Those opposed to abortion must support education. Teach people about choice and what responsibility means. Convince that abortion must be a last resort and rare.
Repression of women through legislation is not tolerable and will not be accepted. Those days are over.

Human biology and reproduction are taught in all schools today. How much more education do you think is necessary?

How is it repression to believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions?

I think I get it, you libs think that the sex drive in women is so strong that they cannot control themselves and that the government must take responsibility for their urges.

So you husbands, boyfriends, and guys in bars are willing to go without, regardless of your relationship. That's a good one. Why do men have sex when they don't want a child? Do confess that every time you have had sex, you were ready for 18 years of being a hands-on parent.

It's ridiculous how you lot can yell about abortion while screaming that you need high-powered weaponry, that you hate everyone who doesn't look like you, and that you refuse to aid those in need, including the little children. Your "devotion to life" is so fraudulent and transparent.

biology is clear, its the woman who gets pregnant, so biologically its up to her to decide when and if she gets pregnant. Blaming horny guys for consensual sex is kind of far fetched, unless you think that women are incapable of controlling their sexual urges.

your attempt to compare military weapons with birth control is foolish and naive.

No woman can tell at any given moment whether they can get pregnant or not, so it is not a matter of being "incapable" of controlling one's sexual urges. You cannot reject my question as to why men have sex when they don't want children while lecturing women about personal responsibility and controlling their urges. You refer to "horny guys," which makes men sound like people who can't control their urges, but you write as if excusing them from personal responsibility. You blame women, but you don't want men to take any blame. How does this work? According to you, they shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to accept the consequences.

Even more ridiculous, you write as if most people just have casual sex. In fact, most people have sex in committed relationships. They are husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends. Your past in the bars and cars must be really interesting. You sound very promiscuous.

I didn't compare military weapons with birth control or abortion. I just pointed out the incredible hypocrisy of demanding to be allowed to own weapons capable of killing scores of people in seconds, while screaming about birth control and abortion. How full of shit can a person be?

so now you are trying to equate self defense with abortion? what kind of self defense does the unborn human being have?

 

[Redfish]

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ok tell us, at what instant between conception and birth does it become a person? and how do we define and measure that instant?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

You also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.

This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.

No, hon. I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts". And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.

That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, it is not rational to set arbitrary goals based on personal opinion which aren't rooted in biological science.

If you can show me a biology or embryology textbook anywhere in the world that states or supports your assertion of "potential human beings" or "viability outside the womb magically conveys life and humanity", I'd be fascinated to see it.

An unborn child is a living human organism at every stage of his existence. His inability to look like an adult or function like an adult is irrelevant.

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."

Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking". I get hung up on the hard science.

 

[Blues Man]

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."

Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking". I get hung up on the hard science.

Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.

by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.

That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies

 

[Lysistrata]

A human embryo is not yet a person it is a potential person.

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

You also choose what you want to believe, only offer your own version, and then demand that your version be accepted as fact.

This philosophical question must be left to the only person qualified to make the determination: the woman who is pregnant. She may consult with anyone she wishes to.

No, hon. I get that you aren't familiar with anything but feelz and opinions, but what I do is called "stating facts". And I do demand that facts be accepted as fact, that much is true.

That you deem this a "philosophical question" just goes to show how alien the concept of fact and reality is to you.

You aren't stating "facts," you are stating "opinion" and then hilariously demanding that it be accepted as fact. This remains a philosophical question.

What is this "feelz"? Is it part of this mollusk thing that the cults are into? You right-wingers make up an incredible amount of stuff.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, if you just keep blankly asserting it with no substantiation, it will eventually magically become fact.

Very rational.

I never said an embryo was not genetically human.

I said an embryo is not anything but a potential person.

I never said you said that. Nor did I say anything about "an embryo is human because it's genetically human." I said he's a human organism at every stage of his existence. You apparently can't deal with the word "organism".

He's not a "potential human being", because there is no such thing, no matter how much pro-aborts want to cling to that comfy fantasy. He's not random scraps of genetic material which might magically become a human through the "scientific" process of his mother deciding she wants him. He's a living human organism.

See, this right here is the answer to your question of why we can't have a rational discussion about abortion. It's because people who support abortion want to define rational as "I choose what I want to believe, and then demand that you accept it as fact, how DARE you expect there to be proof?!"

In short, it's because you flatly refuse to debate rationally.

An organism is not necessarily a person

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A human organism is, unless we're venturing into the realm of "let's redefine 'person' to mean whatever feels good to me."

Sorry, I'm not good at childish glandular "thinking". I get hung up on the hard science.

Unfortunately you don't understand that the world isn't black or white.

by your standard a single molecule of human DNA is a person.

That is not rational ans it is unworkable in dealing with laws that by their nature limit people's freedom to do what they want to their own bodies

Unfortunately, you don't understand basic science, so you keep presenting false scenarios and thinking you're making points.

I get it. "DNA" just sounds so hard-science and makes you feel educated that you can't help the need to default to it on everything. I'm guessing someone kicked your ass in a debate once using DNA evidence and it traumatized you.

The first thing one must do to be rational is to LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING. Give that a try here. I'm not saying "DNA", but you keep giving me responses that "refute" DNA as though I'm using it every other sentence. I most assuredly have not made any argument that would lead to "one molecule of DNA".

If you can't listen to and refute the arguments I'm actually making, then the rational thing to do is to admit that and bow the **** out of an argument you're not prepared for.

And btw, if all you're looking for is a reason to throw in the tag line "I want people to be free!!! I'm the good person here!!!" you aren't rational, and you aren't trying to be rational. Your calls for "rational discussion" are nothing more than another attempt to feel good about yourself. Rationality requires honesty.