Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown

Darla said:
He is always asking me and Tiana that question. He is a seriously disturbed person.

And the sentence I bolded could not be more true.
Click to expand...
That's something that bugs me constantly when reading or listening to pundits. It's like we're all supposed to agree on who "the enemy" are. Excuse me but I don't consider Iran or any particular Iranians my enemy -- just to take a current example. Okay, there are undoubtedly a few Iranian criminals who could be classed as "enemies of the United States." Some of them in the Iranian government. Big deal.
 
No darla.............

Darla said:
He is always asking me and Tiana that question. He is a seriously disturbed person.

And the sentence I bolded could not be more true.
Click to expand...



You are the disturbed person...I asked a fair question you continue to support carte blanche abortions on demand...the question would address where it is you are coming from...I made my past experience well known as it relates to the military...you bust my chops all the time with accusations...seek help or stfu!(Talk you may understand)
 
Superfreak said:
IF you are going to toss me in with the others then at least have the curtesy to READ what I wrote. I stated that the law to protect all fertilized eggs was wrong.

Side note: There is NO difference bewteen the unborn child and those that are able to run around on there own. I don't want to see the millions of kids killed for convenience here in the US each year any more than I want to see the kids in Iraq killed.

There is one difference, the unborn children are deliberately killed. The Iraqi children are not deliberately targeted.
Click to expand...

"There is one difference, the unborn children are deliberately killed. The Iraqi children are not deliberately targeted."


I really dislike this feeble argument.

The minute you decided to support Bush's Iraq war on a whim (because Saddam was thumbing his nose at us!), was the exact moment in time you decided it was okay to slaughter tens of thousands of women and children.

Everyone knew our invasion would cost oceans of blood. Except for Bush, who told Pat Robertson that God told him there would be no casualties. :rolleyes:
 
Cypress said:
"There is one difference, the unborn children are deliberately killed. The Iraqi children are not deliberately targeted."


I really dislike this feeble argument.

The minute you decided to support Bush's Iraq war on a whim (because Saddam was thumbing his nose at us!), was the exact moment in time you decided it was okay to slaughter tens of thousands of women and children.

Everyone knew our invasion would cost oceans of blood. Except for Bush, who told Pat Robertson that God told him there would be no casualties. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's not just a feeble argument, it's a purely emotional and irrational one.
 
Socrtease said:
We are a Cartesian civilization. We truly are at the point of I think therefore I am. It is the basis of our laws that allows us to turn off life support. When the brain does not function you are no longer a person. And I don't mean retardation or alzheimers or any other bullshit strawman you are going to pull out of your ass. I mean that when the higher brain function ceases or is not there in the first place we are not persons. Terry Schiavo was a prime example of this. Her brain had shrunk, her optical nerves had died and rotted away in her head. She had ONLY brainstem function which means she had NO awareness. People talked about her smiling, that is brainstem activity and children that are born anacephalitic also smile and even suckle because it is all lower brain activity. The difference between a person and a fetus is that the fetus is not even capable of higher brain activity.

Second-trimester brains do not have the full complement of neurons yet, and thus do not have the gyri and sulci (cords and grooves, giving more surface area) on the surface of the brain. Fetal movements become possible in the 4th month. Spinal-level reflexes (the kind elicited by the doctor with the rubber hammer) can occur in the 2nd trimester, but some reflexes aren't fully mature until after birth. Cerebellum and spinal cord are also developing, and coordinated movement takes longer to develop.

http://www.io.com/~wwwomen/abortion/develop.html
Click to expand...

But they WILL HAVE IT. THis is akin to killing a person in a coma when you know there is a 100% recovery rate. Are you sure you have higher brain functioning? Your dedication to the dehumanization of in utero human beings is abhorrent.
 
Last edited:
OrnotBitwise said:
I'm doing nothing of the kind. The question of "dependency" isn't relevant to my position. I was merely making fun of your ridiculous assertion that a developing embryo is medically considered a parasite on the mother.

Now, granted, many women end up feeling like the little monster is parasitic, round about month six or seven. Never ask a pregnant woman to watch Alien. That's not a medical judgment, however.

My position is not that a developing embryo is "non-living." The fact that the embryo can't survive without the mother's support is irrelevant too. Many human beings can't survive without external support. More power to 'em for persevering.

My position is, quite simply, that we don't know at what point the developing fetus becomes a Human Being with legal and moral rights. This is not a question which science can address: any appeal to scientific theory is obfuscatory. In addition, I think there is far too much contention over the point to conclude that there's any sort of consensus.

In the absence of both an objective standard derived by scientific method and a social consensus, I think we MUST leave the question to the conscience of each individual mother, in each individual case.
Click to expand...

The mother gets to choose by default ? That's rich.:rolleyes:
 
Cypress said:
I agree with this.

Only the lunatic fringe get obsessed with making a legal determination that egss are human beings. And we all know what the goal of that is: to make it legally impossible for women to get abortions. To control women.

I get bored with these egg debates; and you're right. The lunatic fringe's obsession with making eggs the legal equivalent of human beings is ridiculous and boring.

And...frankly dishonest too. Everyone here knows, in their hearts, that an egg-loving con wouldn't risk life or limb, to rush into a burning fertility clinic to rescue a petri dish blastocyst from being destroyed by flame. So, they DO view egss as distinct and different from ACTUAL human beings. Yet, they want the rest of us, to classify eggs as a human being LEGALLY, so they can control women's bodies.

Anyway, I'm off the egg thread. that's all I had to say
Click to expand...

Face it--women want to have sex with the same risks that men face when they have sex. Walking around pregnant is too much of a hassle and everyone KNOWS they did the "nasty".
 
Dilloduck said:
Face it--women want to have sex with the same risks that men face when they have sex. Walking around pregnant is too much of a hassle and everyone KNOWS they did the "nasty".
Click to expand...
Apart from your mile-wide-brush generalization and arrogation of knowledge to which you could not possibly be privy, I find this to be . . . rather silly and pointless, actually, now that you mention it.
 
Dilloduck said:
Face it--women want to have sex with the same risks that men face when they have sex. Walking around pregnant is too much of a hassle and everyone KNOWS they did the "nasty".
Click to expand...


Thanks! You couldn't have done a better job representing the righwing lunatic fringe, and the consensus attitude of mysogynist wingnut males, than if I had made a troll up to spoof it myself!

:clink:
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Click to expand...

Let me clear it up for you. The claim being made that since no one knows for sure when an egg becomes human we may as well allow the mother to kill it until we can prove something scientifically . We don't know what happens to people after they die but we seem pretty able to toss murderers in prison. How about we leave that choice up to the victims mother ?
 
Dilloduck said:
Let me clear it up for you. The claim being made that since no one knows for sure when an egg becomes human we may as well allow the mother to kill it until we can prove something scientifically . We don't know what happens to people after they die but we seem pretty able to toss murderers in prison. How about we leave that choice up to the victims mother ?
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's a human egg and it's alive. That's as far as science goes, there isn't much more research to put into the subject.
 
Cypress said:
Thanks! You couldn't have done a better job representing the righwing lunatic fringe, and the consensus attitude of mysogynist wingnut males, than if I had made a troll up to spoof it myself!

:clink:
Click to expand...

You understand the word "facetious" ? Apparently not.
 
Dilloduck said:
Let me clear it up for you. The claim being made that since no one knows for sure when an egg becomes human we may as well allow the mother to kill it until we can prove something scientifically . We don't know what happens to people after they die but we seem pretty able to toss murderers in prison. How about we leave that choice up to the victims mother ?
Click to expand...
I oppose the death penalty, so your invocation thereof has little effect on me. :rolleyes:

What are you blathering about? I'm talking about a very difficult moral choice faced by many women every single day. To wit: "is this a baby or is it just something that will be a baby someday?" That choice is exceedingly painful in every case I've ever seen. Statistics back that up, more to the point. I oppose any attempt to dictate to them how they must act.

The decision is hard enough without adding the stigma of criminality to it.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I oppose the death penalty, so your invocation thereof has little effect on me. :rolleyes:

What are you blathering about? I'm talking about a very difficult moral choice faced by many women every single day. To wit: "is this a baby or is it just something that will be a baby someday?" That choice is exceedingly painful in every case I've ever seen. Statistics back that up, more to the point. I oppose any attempt to dictate to them how they must act.

The decision is hard enough without adding the stigma of criminality to it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about a death penalty. I said that murderers are convicted of a crime. 9 months---women refuse to gestate. They don't have to keep the child when it's born. Others will be glad to raise it. The mother only has to decide whether she will accept her responsibilty as a woman or not. Let's not pretend it's so dramatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top