Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant and completely anti-science. An "embryo" and "fetus" are both stages of human life -- period. They are "alive" by any definition. The car analogy is laughable. A human life is created when an egg and sperm combine. Before that, there is no life -- by definition. Once they combine to create an embryo, that is a living human being -- again, by definition.

If it is not a living human being, what is it? And then when does it become a human being? Surely you can't base that on simply exiting the woman, so when? Viability as the measure makes no sense because that keeps changing, and a baby is never viable on its own.

The answer is actually not absolute. Different faiths believe different things. Sorry that frustrates you but that is how it is.

We aren't talking about faiths. This is science. An embryo and a fetus are living things, and they are not plants. That isn't debatable. So what living things are they? They are obviously human, by definition. Again, this is science, not religion. You keep saying different "faiths," but then how would your "faith" define when something becomes "human" or is "human enough" to be worthy of protection?

Christians believe life begins at conception. Jews believe is it at first breath. Others have other beliefs and that is allowed.

Sure, other beliefs are "allowed," but they are anti-science. You can debate whether humans have "souls" and maybe when that "soul" takes form. But the question of human life is not debatable. It is science. An embryo and a fetus are simply early stages of human life. Again, not debatable -- science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant and completely anti-science. An "embryo" and "fetus" are both stages of human life -- period. They are "alive" by any definition. The car analogy is laughable. A human life is created when an egg and sperm combine. Before that, there is no life -- by definition. Once they combine to create an embryo, that is a living human being -- again, by definition.

If it is not a living human being, what is it? And then when does it become a human being? Surely you can't base that on simply exiting the woman, so when? Viability as the measure makes no sense because that keeps changing, and a baby is never viable on its own.

The answer is actually not absolute. Different faiths believe different things. Sorry that frustrates you but that is how it is.

We aren't talking about faiths. This is science. An embryo and a fetus are living things, and they are not plants. That isn't debatable. So what living things are they? They are obviously human, by definition. Again, this is science, not religion. You keep saying different "faiths," but then how would your "faith" define when something becomes "human" or is "human enough" to be worthy of protection?

If there was a fire and a baby and an embryo were both in the building, we all know that you would be a monster for saving the embryo first.

Not sure the point of this, but just because you may choose one person over another in a split second where you have no choice in no way equates to the other person having no value or not having the right to life. If a man and woman were burning, I would probably instinctually grab the woman first, but that certainly says nothing about the man's right to life.

And if this is supposed to be an analogy for abortion, in 99.9% of cases, this is not the woman's life vs. the baby's life. It is a woman having to carry the baby for several more months vs. the baby's life. In the .1% of cases when the mother's life is on the line and you have to choose between the two, I have zero problem choosing the mother in that scenario and think all laws should reflect that.

Let’s put this in terms you might better understand. If you had to choose between saving 10,000 frozen embryos in a lab or a 5 month old baby, would you even hesitate to make that choice? And explain your choice.

Embryos and fetuses do NOT have the same status as a person born into this world. They just don’t. And when it comes to saying whose body takes precedence, most people would agree it’s the woman. You know why? Because pregnancy is consequential in a way that people can understand. Al pregnancies have the potential to kill the body that is gestating them. All pregnancies have the potential to maim the person who carries them. That there is absolutely the reason that pregnancy is a special status unlke any other situation. If you value women and girls you realize they are the more important entity in pregnancy. Hands down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant and completely anti-science. An "embryo" and "fetus" are both stages of human life -- period. They are "alive" by any definition. The car analogy is laughable. A human life is created when an egg and sperm combine. Before that, there is no life -- by definition. Once they combine to create an embryo, that is a living human being -- again, by definition.

If it is not a living human being, what is it? And then when does it become a human being? Surely you can't base that on simply exiting the woman, so when? Viability as the measure makes no sense because that keeps changing, and a baby is never viable on its own.

The answer is actually not absolute. Different faiths believe different things. Sorry that frustrates you but that is how it is.

We aren't talking about faiths. This is science. An embryo and a fetus are living things, and they are not plants. That isn't debatable. So what living things are they? They are obviously human, by definition. Again, this is science, not religion. You keep saying different "faiths," but then how would your "faith" define when something becomes "human" or is "human enough" to be worthy of protection?

If there was a fire and a baby and an embryo were both in the building, we all know that you would be a monster for saving the embryo first.

Not sure the point of this, but just because you may choose one person over another in a split second where you have no choice in no way equates to the other person having no value or not having the right to life. If a man and woman were burning, I would probably instinctually grab the woman first, but that certainly says nothing about the man's right to life.

And if this is supposed to be an analogy for abortion, in 99.9% of cases, this is not the woman's life vs. the baby's life. It is a woman having to carry the baby for several more months vs. the baby's life. In the .1% of cases when the mother's life is on the line and you have to choose between the two, I have zero problem choosing the mother in that scenario and think all laws should reflect that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Why does that matter? You can call it whatever you want. A baby is not a scientific term. A fetus, which is the scientific term, is a human life at an early stage. People in favor of abortion simply don't like to hear it called a "baby" because it makes it more emotional for them.

Also, if you want to argue semantics (I don't see how it changes anything), I just looked up the definition of "baby" and its says "very young child" or "a very young mammal." Seems to fit a fetus, which is unquestionably a very young child or mammal.

Most people know there is a nuanced gradation of human development from zygote to full-term newborn and beyond. And realize that human reproduction has always been fraught, with up to 3/4ths of conceptions never ever making it to term. Mother nature obviously does not treat human conceptions as sacred.

Most intentional abortions happen before 12 weeks and are done medically. You want to hold women and girls hostage for 9 months to force them to gestate because you believe a zygote has more rights than a woman or girl who has all sorts of reasons not bringing a child into this world at that moment.

Forced birthers don’t believe that women are people, not really. We’re a quasi kind of person, suitable only for reproduction and waiting on the menfolk and that’s why we need to be under their benevolent control in the smooth minds of Republicans.

I hope no one takes the bait that the GOP is dangling, that “both sides” are equally bad. Every day there’s a new thread about how someone “just can’t support Biden anymore” as if they were ever going to be a Biden supporter, and every day, across the internet, you can find Republicans pretending that a vote for Biden is equally as bad as a vote for Trump. Nader, Nader, Sanders/Stein. If people fall for that garbage again, women will not have the right to bodily autonomy across the country.

Vote Democratic.

When someone can't defend their position, this is what always happens -- attack the messenger. Don't take the messenger at face value for saying they want to protect human life. Rather, I can dismiss the messenger's message without even having to engage because I just call that person bad, a troll, claim they hate women, don't care about women, want to use women, are GOP, are republicans, etc. This would be no different than me saying pro-choice people are evil because they actually want to kill babies.

Can we not debate this like adults in good faith instead of making absurd arguments about not respecting women (half of fetuses are women, btw) or think women are just for reproduction. That is patently adsurd, and you should be ashamed for saying such things in a good faith debate about something as important as abortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Why does that matter? You can call it whatever you want. A baby is not a scientific term. A fetus, which is the scientific term, is a human life at an early stage. People in favor of abortion simply don't like to hear it called a "baby" because it makes it more emotional for them.

Also, if you want to argue semantics (I don't see how it changes anything), I just looked up the definition of "baby" and its says "very young child" or "a very young mammal." Seems to fit a fetus, which is unquestionably a very young child or mammal.

Most people know there is a nuanced gradation of human development from zygote to full-term newborn and beyond. And realize that human reproduction has always been fraught, with up to 3/4ths of conceptions never ever making it to term. Mother nature obviously does not treat human conceptions as sacred.

Most intentional abortions happen before 12 weeks and are done medically. You want to hold women and girls hostage for 9 months to force them to gestate because you believe a zygote has more rights than a woman or girl who has all sorts of reasons not bringing a child into this world at that moment.

Forced birthers don’t believe that women are people, not really. We’re a quasi kind of person, suitable only for reproduction and waiting on the menfolk and that’s why we need to be under their benevolent control in the smooth minds of Republicans.

I hope no one takes the bait that the GOP is dangling, that “both sides” are equally bad. Every day there’s a new thread about how someone “just can’t support Biden anymore” as if they were ever going to be a Biden supporter, and every day, across the internet, you can find Republicans pretending that a vote for Biden is equally as bad as a vote for Trump. Nader, Nader, Sanders/Stein. If people fall for that garbage again, women will not have the right to bodily autonomy across the country.

Vote Democratic.

When someone can't defend their position, this is what always happens -- attack the messenger. Don't take the messenger at face value for saying they want to protect human life. Rather, I can dismiss the messenger's message without even having to engage because I just call that person bad, a troll, claim they hate women, don't care about women, want to use women, are GOP, are republicans, etc. This would be no different than me saying pro-choice people are evil because they actually want to kill babies.

Can we not debate this like adults in good faith instead of making absurd arguments about not respecting women (half of fetuses are women, btw) or think women are just for reproduction. That is patently adsurd, and you should be ashamed for saying such things in a good faith debate about something as important as abortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

Yes, human reproduction is not some kind of easy black/white thing. Women and girls in this world have more rights than embryos. You clearly don't think so. But Most people do. A woman or girl does not immediately turn into a non-human vessel devoid of bodily autonomy because an embryo implanted in their uterus.

And just as you cannot be compelled against your will to donate any part of your body to save the life of your own child or someone else's child, women and girls should not be compelled by the state to donate their bodies to gestate an embryo for 9 months against their will.

So are you in favor of abortion until birth? If not, why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant and completely anti-science. An "embryo" and "fetus" are both stages of human life -- period. They are "alive" by any definition. The car analogy is laughable. A human life is created when an egg and sperm combine. Before that, there is no life -- by definition. Once they combine to create an embryo, that is a living human being -- again, by definition.

If it is not a living human being, what is it? And then when does it become a human being? Surely you can't base that on simply exiting the woman, so when? Viability as the measure makes no sense because that keeps changing, and a baby is never viable on its own.

The answer is actually not absolute. Different faiths believe different things. Sorry that frustrates you but that is how it is.

We aren't talking about faiths. This is science. An embryo and a fetus are living things, and they are not plants. That isn't debatable. So what living things are they? They are obviously human, by definition. Again, this is science, not religion. You keep saying different "faiths," but then how would your "faith" define when something becomes "human" or is "human enough" to be worthy of protection?

If there was a fire and a baby and an embryo were both in the building, we all know that you would be a monster for saving the embryo first.

Not sure the point of this, but just because you may choose one person over another in a split second where you have no choice in no way equates to the other person having no value or not having the right to life. If a man and woman were burning, I would probably instinctually grab the woman first, but that certainly says nothing about the man's right to life.

And if this is supposed to be an analogy for abortion, in 99.9% of cases, this is not the woman's life vs. the baby's life. It is a woman having to carry the baby for several more months vs. the baby's life. In the .1% of cases when the mother's life is on the line and you have to choose between the two, I have zero problem choosing the mother in that scenario and think all laws should reflect that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant and completely anti-science. An "embryo" and "fetus" are both stages of human life -- period. They are "alive" by any definition. The car analogy is laughable. A human life is created when an egg and sperm combine. Before that, there is no life -- by definition. Once they combine to create an embryo, that is a living human being -- again, by definition.

If it is not a living human being, what is it? And then when does it become a human being? Surely you can't base that on simply exiting the woman, so when? Viability as the measure makes no sense because that keeps changing, and a baby is never viable on its own.

The answer is actually not absolute. Different faiths believe different things. Sorry that frustrates you but that is how it is.

We aren't talking about faiths. This is science. An embryo and a fetus are living things, and they are not plants. That isn't debatable. So what living things are they? They are obviously human, by definition. Again, this is science, not religion. You keep saying different "faiths," but then how would your "faith" define when something becomes "human" or is "human enough" to be worthy of protection?

If there was a fire and a baby and an embryo were both in the building, we all know that you would be a monster for saving the embryo first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant and completely anti-science. An "embryo" and "fetus" are both stages of human life -- period. They are "alive" by any definition. The car analogy is laughable. A human life is created when an egg and sperm combine. Before that, there is no life -- by definition. Once they combine to create an embryo, that is a living human being -- again, by definition.

If it is not a living human being, what is it? And then when does it become a human being? Surely you can't base that on simply exiting the woman, so when? Viability as the measure makes no sense because that keeps changing, and a baby is never viable on its own.

The answer is actually not absolute. Different faiths believe different things. Sorry that frustrates you but that is how it is.

We aren't talking about faiths. This is science. An embryo and a fetus are living things, and they are not plants. That isn't debatable. So what living things are they? They are obviously human, by definition. Again, this is science, not religion. You keep saying different "faiths," but then how would your "faith" define when something becomes "human" or is "human enough" to be worthy of protection?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Why does that matter? You can call it whatever you want. A baby is not a scientific term. A fetus, which is the scientific term, is a human life at an early stage. People in favor of abortion simply don't like to hear it called a "baby" because it makes it more emotional for them.

Also, if you want to argue semantics (I don't see how it changes anything), I just looked up the definition of "baby" and its says "very young child" or "a very young mammal." Seems to fit a fetus, which is unquestionably a very young child or mammal.

Most people know there is a nuanced gradation of human development from zygote to full-term newborn and beyond. And realize that human reproduction has always been fraught, with up to 3/4ths of conceptions never ever making it to term. Mother nature obviously does not treat human conceptions as sacred.

Most intentional abortions happen before 12 weeks and are done medically. You want to hold women and girls hostage for 9 months to force them to gestate because you believe a zygote has more rights than a woman or girl who has all sorts of reasons not bringing a child into this world at that moment.

Forced birthers don’t believe that women are people, not really. We’re a quasi kind of person, suitable only for reproduction and waiting on the menfolk and that’s why we need to be under their benevolent control in the smooth minds of Republicans.

I hope no one takes the bait that the GOP is dangling, that “both sides” are equally bad. Every day there’s a new thread about how someone “just can’t support Biden anymore” as if they were ever going to be a Biden supporter, and every day, across the internet, you can find Republicans pretending that a vote for Biden is equally as bad as a vote for Trump. Nader, Nader, Sanders/Stein. If people fall for that garbage again, women will not have the right to bodily autonomy across the country.

Vote Democratic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Don’t feed the troll.

Support the Democratic Party and be aware what weasels GOP voters are. Literally nothing sways them, until they themselves need an abortion, because the Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. They similarly think they’ll be able to do an end run around any birth control bans. They think they’re special. They don’t understand that there won’t be a magical out for them.

This what it always comes to -- attacking the messenger. Only in the twisted minds of Democrats (or pro-abortionists) could the other side, which wants to protect/save millions of lives, be the "weasels" and bad guys. The mental gymnastics that takes is astonishing. Sure, you can argue all day that you think policy reasons favor abortion, but to attack those against abortion like they are somehow bad people is beyond the pale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Don’t feed the troll.

Support the Democratic Party and be aware what weasels GOP voters are. Literally nothing sways them, until they themselves need an abortion, because the Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. They similarly think they’ll be able to do an end run around any birth control bans. They think they’re special. They don’t understand that there won’t be a magical out for them.

This what it always comes to -- attacking the messenger. Only in the twisted minds of Democrats (or pro-abortionists) could the other side, which wants to protect/save millions of lives, be the "weasels" and bad guys. The mental gymnastics that takes is astonishing. Sure, you can argue all day that you think policy reasons favor abortion, but to attack those against abortion like they are somehow bad people is beyond the pale.

You anti-abortionists have done a piss-poor job of convincing anyone you care about "millions of lives". Time and again you show us your disdain for children already born. You don't care about the poor in this world. You don't care about those who are suffering. You don't care the life of a 12 year old rape victim who might die trying to bring her rapist's baby to term, or lose her uterus in the process. You don't care about the mother who can barely take care of the children she already has, and who knows that yet one more is going to be the tipping point into poverty. You don't care about the lives that are never created if a woman is forced to carry a doomed pregnancy to term, losing her future fertility in the process. Spare us your tears over losing embryos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

A fetus is not an "unborn baby."

Why does that matter? You can call it whatever you want. A baby is not a scientific term. A fetus, which is the scientific term, is a human life at an early stage. People in favor of abortion simply don't like to hear it called a "baby" because it makes it more emotional for them.

Also, if you want to argue semantics (I don't see how it changes anything), I just looked up the definition of "baby" and its says "very young child" or "a very young mammal." Seems to fit a fetus, which is unquestionably a very young child or mammal.