The Issue of Abortion

[USFREEDOM911]

It doesn't matter if it would've been neglected or not. Fetuses are not people and there should be no questions asked about why the mother wants to abort them. I'm pro-abortion. It should be legal, cheap, and frequent.

And in your case, it should be retroactive.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If someone does not want a child it's natural they are not going to look after it properly. Whether due to resentment or missed opportunities or whatever reason it has to affect how the child is raised.

Maybe the neglect isn't apparent. Maybe it doesn't happen 100% of the time but when it does it has a lasting effect on the child and the adult the child eventually becomes.

The point is there's no reason for it. Life is tough enough without bringing a child into the world and neglecting it in any fashion. Parenthood is difficult enough without having to deal with a child that is not 100% wanted.

Haven't we seen enough kids who were neglected/ignored? Why would anyone want to add to that?

Since you're at least finally admitting that such doesn't occur 100% of the time, what percentage can you present and support to show it happening.,

 

[apple0154]

Your life experiences are less than irrelevant.

No more irrelevant than your opinions as the Supreme Court made clear.

The moral question is, does she have the ultimate right to another life even though she has control of that life. and if she does, why rescind that right at birth...she still has control over that life.

The moral question is does something growing inside her have a right to her body. Whether or not it will ultimately become a human being is God's decision as I'm sure we can agree that if God insisted on the fetus being born it would be born.

But the law has already spoken on that and says she does....that issue is settled.

Yes, thank goodness logical minds prevailed.

Wrong again....
It isn't "the parents choice"....its the womens choice, she is God in this...the father is less than nothing unless it becomes a money issue.

Ahhh, we're finally getting to the crux of the matter which is the subjugation of women. So, once a woman is impregnated a man should be able to compel her to bear a child? Tell me, are you also an advocate of arranged marriages?

 

[apple0154]

LOL What is stupid is your continued abuse of science to support your lies. Want to talk about chickens, start another thread. Chickens are not humans. Sorry to bust your bubble of delusions about that. Nor is an egg a chicken - even a fertilized egg. But the embryo which is attached to the yolk in a fertilized egg IS a chicken - at an early stage of development. Basic biology - of which you are either profoundly ignorant, or a full blown liar. (I have trouble believing anyone can be as totally ignorant of basic science as you purport to be with your various claims and analogies.)

You come so close to understanding and then just skid off the rails. Just as a fertilized chicken egg may or may not develop into a chicken a human fertilized egg may or may not develop into a human being. The key word here is "develop".

Why do you have difficulty comprehending that things in this world develop, become, etc? If there's a child in kindergarten whose both parents are doctors it's quite likely that child will become a doctor. Do we address him/her as doctor at five years old?

Once, again, you exhibit your inability to comprehend. While DNA can tell us an egg or the embryo which is attached to the yolk in a fertilized egg has the same genetic code as a chicken it is NOT a chicken. That is why we call it an egg. Kentucky Fried Chicken does not sell fried eggs. Why do you insist on twisting common sense and logic when discussing abortion?

ALL humans die eventually. The fact that many die, NATURALLY, before birth in no way diminishes what they are BEFORE they die: unique, living organisms of the species homo sapiens. That is the scientific fact of it. The use of DNA is but one part of the definition of a living human. Your focus on DNA as if it is the only measure just enhances the scope of your ignorance. (or lies)

Read the definition of organism. "The ability to carry on the processes of life." In other words a complete "unit". A fertilized cell or zygote or fetus is not a complete unit as it requires the organs of another organism to live. However, for those who disagree, fine. Simply remove the fertilized cell or zygote or fetus and let it live somewhere else. Problem solved.

While some folks dwell on the aspect that abortion is the willful killing of a life form that's not quite correct. An abortion is the removal of such from the body of a woman. If/when technology progresses to the point where the life form can continue existence, great! Until then the woman has the right to have it removed whether or not it's existence can continue.

 

[apple0154]

Being a man, I am not designed for that job. (Women really have one up on men in that they CAN experience that ultimate act of bringing a new life into being.)

However, YOU existed for 9 months on the biological/reproductive functions of your mother. EVERY HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET DID SO. Of course, it is a temporary attribute that never repeats itself in the lifetime of that particular individual, but it is a real attribute, and common to all of us. So why don't you go look in a mirror and treat away?

You just don't get it, do you? While every human being may have started out in a womb human beings do not live in a liquid atmosphere. Stick your head under water and see how you feel.

If we could take a gold fish out of the aquarium and it survived for hours in our gaseous atmosphere would we still classify it as a gold fish?

(Or were you born? Perhaps you developed in the slime under an old toilet?)

It appears you're familiar with such surroundings. I must say I'm not surprised.

 

[apple0154]

dude....the only point of aborting a fetus is to kill it....

BUZZ Wrong answer.

The only point of an abortion is to remove the fetus from the woman's body. If the primary purpose was to kill it women would insist on seeing it to ensure it was dead.

Any other bizarre beliefs you wish to share?

 

[apple0154]

Since you're at least finally admitting that such doesn't occur 100% of the time, what percentage can you present and support to show it happening.,

Finally admitting? I never stated nor implied it occurred every time.

As for supporting evidence one would have to look back before abortions were legal, 30+ years ago. Today, there is no reason for anyone to bear a child they do not want.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

BUZZ Wrong answer.

The only point of an abortion is to remove the fetus from the woman's body. If the primary purpose was to kill it women would insist on seeing it to ensure it was dead.

Any other bizarre beliefs you wish to share?

buzz....really stupid answer......you're the prince of bizarre beliefs

 

[NOVA]

No more irrelevant than your opinions as the Supreme Court made clear.



The moral question is does something growing inside her have a right to her body. Whether or not it will ultimately become a human being is God's decision as I'm sure we can agree that if God insisted on the fetus being born it would be born.



Yes, thank goodness logical minds prevailed.

Then you previous statement with the smiley just shows you can't follow what is being said....I make it very clear about what the law says and never said if was right or wrong...except to show that no such right was written in the Constitution,...not even remotely...

Ahhh, we're finally getting to the crux of the matter which is the subjugation of women. So, once a woman is impregnated a man should be able to compel her to bear a child? Tell me, are you also an advocate of arranged marriages?

Wrong again....the crux of the matter is what the law states and has nothing to do with subjugation of anyone (unless its subjugation of the male parent's rights )....and the law (rightly or wrongly) gives her omnipotent power over the life within her womb....
You might recall, before being brain damaged, as nature intended, that it takes two to initiate a pregnancy....

 

[apple0154]

Then you previous statement with the smiley just shows you can't follow what is being said....I make it very clear about what the law says and never said if was right or wrong...except to show that no such right was written in the Constitution,...not even remotely...

Of course it's not written in the Constitution. Why would something so obvious be mentioned? Exactly where would the obligation to bear a child fit in with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? The Constitution was written for born human beings, not fertilized cells.

Wrong again....the crux of the matter is what the law states and has nothing to do with subjugation of anyone (unless its subjugation of the male parent's rights )....and the law (rightly or wrongly) gives her omnipotent power over the life within her womb....
You might recall, before being brain damaged, as nature intended, that it takes two to initiate a pregnancy....

If/when the fetus is inside a man's body you may have an argument. While there may be some men who are trying to have a family it's usually with the consent of the woman. To suggest a man should be able to compel a woman to bear a child she does not want is nothing short of disgusting.

 

[Good Luck]

You come so close to understanding and then just skid off the rails. Just as a fertilized chicken egg may or may not develop into a chicken a human fertilized egg may or may not develop into a human being. The key word here is "develop".

Yes, and infants develop into children who then develop into adolescents who then develop into adults. ALL OF WHICH ARE HUMAN BEINGS. The idea that just because the human is at an earlier stage of development makes them not human is a LIE Just because they are in the PROCESS of development does NOT make them less than human.

Why do you have difficulty comprehending that things in this world develop, become, etc? If there's a child in kindergarten whose both parents are doctors it's quite likely that child will become a doctor. Do we address him/her as doctor at five years old?

Because there is nothing in your lies and bullshit TO comprehend - other than they are lies and bullshit. Now you are trying to equate CHOICES to biological processes. Stupidity compounded by stupidity.

Once, again, you exhibit your inability to comprehend. While DNA can tell us an egg or the embryo which is attached to the yolk in a fertilized egg has the same genetic code as a chicken it is NOT a chicken. That is why we call it an egg. Kentucky Fried Chicken does not sell fried eggs. Why do you insist on twisting common sense and logic when discussing abortion?

Actually, once again you simply display your utter ignorance of basic science. The embryo IS the chicken. Period. Every general biology text written agrees with that basic concept. You should try reading one or two. It is a chicken at the embryonic stage of development. We are not talking MAGIC here, where the stages of development suddenly and magically turn into something it was not previously. The yolk of the egg provides the embryo with nutrients it needs to grow, while the albumen provides biomass. The CHICKEN grows from the parts of the egg. THAT is why we call it an egg, you hopeless moron. Because the egg never was and never will be the chicken. It is egg - FOOD for the growing chicken.

Read the definition of organism. "The ability to carry on the processes of life." In other words a complete "unit". A fertilized cell or zygote or fetus is not a complete unit as it requires the organs of another organism to live.

Wrong again. Are you really this completely clueless in science, or just this big a liar? The zygote is a living organism: it ingests nutrients, it produces wastes, it uses chemical energy to grow. By every definition of life, it is alive. The fact that it gets its nutrients directly from its mother's blood does not make it less alive - you simply continue the basic dehumanizing lies of the abortionists.

Simply remove the fertilized cell or zygote or fetus and let it live somewhere else. Problem solved.

Sure. And if a parent decides their infant is too much trouble, just toss them out the door and let it live somewhere else.

While some folks dwell on the aspect that abortion is the willful killing of a life form that's not quite correct. An abortion is the removal of such from the body of a woman. If/when technology progresses to the point where the life form can continue existence, great! Until then the woman has the right to have it removed whether or not it's existence can continue.

Good grief. Can you type ANYTHING about abortion without LYING about it? Fucking LIAR., that is all you are on this topic. You spew lie after lie after lie after lie. THEY KILL IT BEFORE THEY REMOVE IT! If you can't even acknowledge that one basic fact in the process of abortion, then I can only conclude that everything you have spewed forth so far on this topic is also a complete and deliberate lie. You are not, after all, so hopelessly clueless in science., You are simply a fucking two bit piece of shit LIAR.

Of course, as stated before, when it comes to defending this abhorrent, inhuman practice, all you have is lies - and all you ever will have is lies.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, and infants develop into children who then develop into adolescents who then develop into adults. ALL OF WHICH ARE HUMAN BEINGS. The idea that just because the human is at an earlier stage of development makes them not human is a LIE Just because they are in the PROCESS of development does NOT make them less than human.

But that's exactly what makes them less than human just as someone in training is less than a professional. Just as eggs and milk and flour in a bowl is less than a cake. Just as a trail cut through the bush is less than a highway. Just as an undergraduate is less than a graduate.

Somewhere along the way you've picked up a science book well before having the intelligence to understand it. Perhaps you might want to check out this site. http://www.teachthechildrenwell.com/science.html

Or you've read too many sci-fi magazines. Tomorrow is not today. There is no time travel. And human beings, unlike embryos, can not be placed in a freezer for six months, defrosted, then continue on with their life. That's not to say folks are not trying. Places like http://www.alcor.org/ freeze people's heads and hope that future technology (nano technology) will be able to repair any damage done by the freezing process.

Having said that it begs the obvious question. Have you gone out in sub-freezing temperatures without a hat?

Actually, once again you simply display your utter ignorance of basic science. The embryo IS the chicken. Period. Every general biology text written agrees with that basic concept. You should try reading one or two. It is a chicken at the embryonic stage of development. We are not talking MAGIC here, where the stages of development suddenly and magically turn into something it was not previously. The yolk of the egg provides the embryo with nutrients it needs to grow, while the albumen provides biomass. The CHICKEN grows from the parts of the egg. THAT is why we call it an egg, you hopeless moron. Because the egg never was and never will be the chicken. It is egg - FOOD for the growing chicken.

I see you're one of those folks who require "doing" rather than just reading so here's something to try. Look for a simple cake recipe on the net and add chickens where it specifies eggs. Let us know how that works for you.

Wrong again. Are you really this completely clueless in science, or just this big a liar? The zygote is a living organism: it ingests nutrients, it produces wastes, it uses chemical energy to grow. By every definition of life, it is alive. The fact that it gets its nutrients directly from its mother's blood does not make it less alive - you simply continue the basic dehumanizing lies of the abortionists.

Even premature fetuses can not breathe properly due to the lungs not having finished forming. It is not a self-sufficient anything. The process to becoming a human being has not been completed.

There is nothing dehumanizing about it. It is a fact.

Sure. And if a parent decides their infant is too much trouble, just toss them out the door and let it live somewhere else.

The point you miss, again, is that is can live somewhere else because it is a complete "unit".

Good grief. Can you type ANYTHING about abortion without LYING about it? Fucking LIAR., that is all you are on this topic. You spew lie after lie after lie after lie. THEY KILL IT BEFORE THEY REMOVE IT! If you can't even acknowledge that one basic fact in the process of abortion, then I can only conclude that everything you have spewed forth so far on this topic is also a complete and deliberate lie. You are not, after all, so hopelessly clueless in science., You are simply a fucking two bit piece of shit LIAR.

Of course, as stated before, when it comes to defending this abhorrent, inhuman practice, all you have is lies - and all you ever will have is lies.

Do you know of a way to remove a 3 month old fetus and continue it's survival? If so, please share. Otherwise, as the old saying goes, STFU.

 

[NOVA]

Of course it's not written in the Constitution. Why would something so obvious be mentioned? Exactly where would the obligation to bear a child fit in with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? The Constitution was written for born human beings, not fertilized cells.


Really...I guess you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade...silly of me to assume you had any degree of education.....I apologize....

If/when the fetus is inside a man's body you may have an argument. While there may be some men who are trying to have a family it's usually with the consent of the woman. To suggest a man should be able to compel a woman to bear a child she does not want is nothing short of disgusting.

"there may be some men who are trying to have a family it's usually with the consent of the woman. "

Really? What fuckin profound insight.....usually with the consent of the women? How about that....and how irrelevant, seeing that he has no fuckin' say in the matter at all even though she allowed him to impregnate her in the first place...

I think I've just about had enough of your pinheaded bullshit....I'd rather poke a stick in my eye than continue talking to a certifiable idiot...

 

[apple0154]

Really...I guess you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade...silly of me to assume you had any degree of education.....I apologize....

What are you rambling on about now?

If anyone doesn't understand the Supreme Court decision it's you. Do try to understand the reasoning behind it.

"there may be some men who are trying to have a family it's usually with the consent of the woman. "

Really? What fuckin profound insight.....usually with the consent of the women? How about that....and how irrelevant, seeing that he has no fuckin' say in the matter at all even though she allowed him to impregnate her in the first place...

More craziness. Allowed him to impregnate her? Do you think every time a woman wants sex she says, "Let's make a baby"?

What have you been taught, Bravo? Or did you just latch on to these bizarre ideas?

I think I've just about had enough of your pinheaded bullshit....I'd rather poke a stick in my eye than continue talking to a certifiable idiot...
[/B]

All I can suggest is you broaden your knowledge about babies and women. Somewhere along the way your mental faculties have taken an off-ramp and you're driving through some back-bush enclave.

 

[Good Luck]

But that's exactly what makes them less than human just as someone in training is less than a professional. Just as eggs and milk and flour in a bowl is less than a cake. Just as a trail cut through the bush is less than a highway. Just as an undergraduate is less than a graduate.

Somewhere along the way you've picked up a science book well before having the intelligence to understand it. Perhaps you might want to check out this site. http://www.teachthechildrenwell.com/science.html

Or you've read too many sci-fi magazines. Tomorrow is not today. There is no time travel. And human beings, unlike embryos, can not be placed in a freezer for six months, defrosted, then continue on with their life. That's not to say folks are not trying. Places like http://www.alcor.org/ freeze people's heads and hope that future technology (nano technology) will be able to repair any damage done by the freezing process.

Having said that it begs the obvious question. Have you gone out in sub-freezing temperatures without a hat?



I see you're one of those folks who require "doing" rather than just reading so here's something to try. Look for a simple cake recipe on the net and add chickens where it specifies eggs. Let us know how that works for you.



Even premature fetuses can not breathe properly due to the lungs not having finished forming. It is not a self-sufficient anything. The process to becoming a human being has not been completed.

There is nothing dehumanizing about it. It is a fact.



The point you miss, again, is that is can live somewhere else because it is a complete "unit".



Do you know of a way to remove a 3 month old fetus and continue it's survival? If so, please share. Otherwise, as the old saying goes, STFU.

Right. I am the one who cannot understand basic science? One more time: An earlier stage of development does NOT change what the organism is. If it is a bovine embryo, then that is exactly what it is: a BOVINE at the embryo stage of development. If it is a chicken embryo, it is a chicken at the embryo stage of development. And, of course, comes the fact you LIE about constantly in your defense of abortion: a HUMAN embryo is a HUMAN at the embryo stage of development. Twist it any way you like. Leave your moronic cakes unbaked all you want. Keep harping on your ridiculous and already debunked egg analogy. (You still can't accept the basic fact that the contents of a chicken egg - you know, the parts we traditionally use in our cakes and such - and the embryonic chicken are separate items. Your continued use of this analogy simply shows what a hopelessly narrow minded liar you are.)

The TRUTH is that science has established the facts, and you can read the facts in any text on general biology you care to check out of your local library. (Of course, when you are used to getting your science from http://www.teachthechildrenwell.com, you might need a librarian to help you sound out the bigger words.) But the FACTS are abortion kills a living human being. Denial of basic scientific fact just means you are choosing to be a deliberately ignorant lying moron - something that has already been established, but bears repeating.

 

[NOVA]

Right. I am the one who cannot understand basic science? One more time: An earlier stage of development does NOT change what the organism is. If it is a bovine embryo, then that is exactly what it is: a BOVINE at the embryo stage of development. If it is a chicken embryo, it is a chicken at the embryo stage of development. And, of course, comes the fact you LIE about constantly in your defense of abortion: a HUMAN embryo is a HUMAN at the embryo stage of development. Twist it any way you like. Leave your moronic cakes unbaked all you want. Keep harping on your ridiculous and already debunked egg analogy. (You still can't accept the basic fact that the contents of a chicken egg - you know, the parts we traditionally use in our cakes and such - and the embryonic chicken are separate items. Your continued use of this analogy simply shows what a hopelessly narrow minded liar you are.)

The TRUTH is that science has established the facts, and you can read the facts in any text on general biology you care to check out of your local library. (Of course, when you are used to getting your science from http://www.teachthechildrenwell.com, you might need a librarian to help you sound out the bigger words.) But the FACTS are abortion kills a living human being. Denial of basic scientific fact just means you are choosing to be a deliberately ignorant lying moron - something that has already been established, but bears repeating.

Its mystifying that such a basic tenet of biology could still be denied by an adult in the year 2010....even most children understand this simple concept of stages of development in all living, growing and aging animals.....is it just a stubborn desire to remain ignorant merely to justify living with a lie....just an irrational drive to avoid admitting you're wrong...
what.....the bizarre scenarios presented about sickness, abuse, the vlaue of life, religious doctrine, 4th century saints and any number of other ridiculous issues to avoid a basic, simple biological facts....

ha...it gives me new admiration for psychiatrists, psychologists that must deal with the unreasonable, misguided and irrational....

 

[apple0154]

(You still can't accept the basic fact that the contents of a chicken egg - you know, the parts we traditionally use in our cakes and such - and the embryonic chicken are separate items. Your continued use of this analogy simply shows what a hopelessly narrow minded liar you are.)

OK. Enough of this craziness. Here's a web site. (Excerpt)When candled, a distinct air sac can be seen at the wide end of the egg. The rest of the egg has the egg white with the yolk appearing as a dark circular area within the colorless fluid. If an egg that is over a week old looks like this, it means that it has not been fertilized.

After about 5 days, if fine red lines are seen in the egg, it means that the egg is fertile.(End) http://www.buzzle.com/articles/candling-eggs.html

That procedure is after five days. However, if you take two fresh laid eggs, as one would on a farm, eggs laid that day, a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg would appear the same. Let me repeat this. They would appear the same, inside and out.

Let me state this another way. If you take two fresh laid eggs, one fertilized and one unfertilized, you could crack and scramble both and you would be unable to tell them apart.

One more time for good luck. If you take two fresh laid chicken eggs (the previous two statements concern chicken eggs, as well. Just wanted to clarify as I know you have great comprehension difficulties.) you can use both in exactly the same way.

Last time. If you take two fresh chicken eggs, one fertilized and one unfertilized, you can use both those eggs in a cake recipe that calls for two eggs. If you consider that to be adding one egg and one chicken to the cake then......

The TRUTH is that science has established the facts, and you can read the facts in any text on general biology you care to check out of your local library. (Of course, when you are used to getting your science from http://www.teachthechildrenwell.com, you might need a librarian to help you sound out the bigger words.) But the FACTS are abortion kills a living human being. Denial of basic scientific fact just means you are choosing to be a deliberately ignorant lying moron - something that has already been established, but bears repeating.

Science can determine human DNA just like science can determine chicken DNA. That does not mean something is a human being any more than it means one can use a chicken to make a cake.

You're screwy in the head, son.

 

[apple0154]

Its mystifying that such a basic tenet of biology could still be denied by an adult in the year 2010...

What does 2010 have to do with it? Do you think people a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago were not aware of development?

So, what has changed? People two thousand years ago were aware of development even if the science wasn't available. The only thing that's changed is science can "see" what happens. The point is the same thing is happening. Nothing has changed as far as what develops.

People understood that "getting it on" could result in a baby nine months later. Nothing has changed. The procedure involved has remained the same, unless you're aware people procreated differently back then.

People, both then and now, realize it is a developing process. What did you expect science to find out? Do you think anyone, through the ages, thought a fetus was composed of anything other than human material? Do you think people wondered if figs would grow on pear trees or fish were made from goat material?

 

[Good Luck]

You know what? Take your fucking eggs, and your fucking lies, and shove them in your fucking ass. You are too fucking, assininely, totally out-of-this-world STUPID to bother with any more.

HUMANS DON'T LAY EGGS you fucking moronic piece of mule shit.

Not only that, but you are still so fucking WRONG it is beyond my belief anyone could be as totally brain dead as you are. THE EMBRYO IS THE CHICKEN. Why is that so hard to comprehend? At one day, the embryo is still to small to see with the naked eye. Or are you going to claim that because it takes a medium-strength magnifying glass to see, it does not exist? GROW A BRAIN YOU IGNORANT TWIT!! By 5 days, it will have grown enough to not only see with the naked eye, but will have developed a circulatory system wrapped around the egg so it's blood can absorb and use the nutrients found in the yolk.

I have said all along THE EGG is the EGG, and the CHICKEN is the CHICKEN. And like a large majority of the vacuum skulled brain dead idiot fucking liberals on this board, the truth goes right over the useless spongy piece of excrement you laughingly call a head. The chicken USES the nutrients found in the EGG to develop from an embryo into a chick, at which time it hatches, and from there develops into an adult chicken. Simple biology. Your egg analogy is fucked from the word go, but you won't let it go because you are too big a fucking liar to bother understanding even the simplest of scientific facts that do not conform to your immoral child killing philosophy.

 

[apple0154]

You know what? Take your fucking eggs, and your fucking lies, and shove them in your fucking ass. You are too fucking, assininely, totally out-of-this-world STUPID to bother with any more.

HUMANS DON'T LAY EGGS you fucking moronic piece of mule shit.

Not only that, but you are still so fucking WRONG it is beyond my belief anyone could be as totally brain dead as you are. THE EMBRYO IS THE CHICKEN. Why is that so hard to comprehend? At one day, the embryo is still to small to see with the naked eye. Or are you going to claim that because it takes a medium-strength magnifying glass to see, it does not exist? GROW A BRAIN YOU IGNORANT TWIT!! By 5 days, it will have grown enough to not only see with the naked eye, but will have developed a circulatory system wrapped around the egg so it's blood can absorb and use the nutrients found in the yolk.

I have said all along THE EGG is the EGG, and the CHICKEN is the CHICKEN. And like a large majority of the vacuum skulled brain dead idiot fucking liberals on this board, the truth goes right over the useless spongy piece of excrement you laughingly call a head. The chicken USES the nutrients found in the EGG to develop from an embryo into a chick, at which time it hatches, and from there develops into an adult chicken. Simple biology. Your egg analogy is fucked from the word go, but you won't let it go because you are too big a fucking liar to bother understanding even the simplest of scientific facts that do not conform to your immoral child killing philosophy.

My goodness. You shouldn't become so angry because you have difficulty understanding. My point was the entire contents of the egg, minus the shell, can and is used on farms to make cakes and scrambled eggs. Everything inside the shell is added to the ingredients of a cake so, according to your view, the cake would contain a chicken. Surely you can see the absurdity of what you're suggesting. While the egg may contain chicken DNA but it does not contain a chicken.

Moving on, just as the yolk contains the material that will be used in the development of a chicken the material from a woman, delivered through her blood to the placenta, will result in the development of a baby nine months later, assuming all goes according to plan. Just as there is no chicken inside the egg and there would be no chicken inside any cake made from said egg there is no human being inside the woman.

I'm going to bed now. Whatever you may have read or heard just remember that what you propose means some cakes contain chickens. Take the night to think this through. I'm sure you'll see it differently tomorrow.