Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

If you believe that life begins at conception, then it would still be murder no matter how the baby was conceived.
This is an extremely tough bullet to bite, especially politically.

Abortions from R&I make up a small percentage of the total, but they still happen thus you have to accept that the state will force a 13 year old to carry her father's child to term.

On the other end, if you believe that life starts at birth, then any abortion before that would be acceptable. This is also a tough bullet to bite.

3rd trimester abortions are also rare, and are usually only done out of medical necessity. But if you hold that life begins at birth then you have to accept that a woman can get abortion during labor without consequence.

"Unborn children are 'children' ... without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics," Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in Friday's majority ruling by the all-Republican court.

Couples involved in fertilization processes and the clinics that help them need to be careful. If the legal definition of a baby is a fertilized clump of cells then the typical process of fertilizing several eggs, picking out the winner and throwing away the rest should be considered murder. Freezing unused fertilized eggs for the future then throwing them away if not needed is also murder if a fertilized egg is considered a person.

1/6 couples have trouble conceiving and have to go the fertilized egg procedure. They may be murdering babies if they try to save time and money by using 4 or 5 eggs, picking one and destroying the others.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

---

I will accept any and all restriction's on Abortion that we can get passed in a democratic/electoral manner.

From a total ban and jail time for Abortion doctors...to Mississippi's 15 week allowance that was too much for liberals who sued and got the whole Roe regime knocked down lol

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

"Unborn children are 'children' ... without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics," Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in Friday's majority ruling by the all-Republican court.

Couples involved in fertilization processes and the clinics that help them need to be careful. If the legal definition of a baby is a fertilized clump of cells then the typical process of fertilizing several eggs, picking out the winner and throwing away the rest should be considered murder. Freezing unused fertilized eggs for the future then throwing them away if not needed is also murder if a fertilized egg is considered a person.

1/6 couples have trouble conceiving and have to go the fertilized egg procedure. They may be murdering babies if they try to save time and money by using 4 or 5 eggs, picking one and destroying the others.

---

Small detour

If adoption weren't so expensive, the fertility clinics wouldn't be in as high demand.

Frozen embryos that will remain frozen to never see the light of day is what some believe a reasonable gray area. I'm not one of those.

For every 100 murders there are not 100 murderers.

Interesting point.

You dont hear many complaints about rich couples wasting unneeded fertilized eggs but let some poor woman try it and a lot of people want to villainize and incarcerate her.


BTW, how much do you think Jesus would have bet on U Conn last night? Would he have looked ahead and seen the outcome or just let it play out and ride with the results? I dont think he would gamble in the first place.
Whats a game if you never lose?

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

"Unborn children are 'children' ... without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics," Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in Friday's majority ruling by the all-Republican court.

Couples involved in fertilization processes and the clinics that help them need to be careful. If the legal definition of a baby is a fertilized clump of cells then the typical process of fertilizing several eggs, picking out the winner and throwing away the rest should be considered murder. Freezing unused fertilized eggs for the future then throwing them away if not needed is also murder if a fertilized egg is considered a person.

1/6 couples have trouble conceiving and have to go the fertilized egg procedure. They may be murdering babies if they try to save time and money by using 4 or 5 eggs, picking one and destroying the others.

---

Small detour

If adoption weren't so expensive, the fertility clinics wouldn't be in as high demand.

Frozen embryos that will remain frozen to never see the light of day I what some believe a reasonable gray area. I'm not one of those.

---

A great tragedy is adoption is so expensive. Always wondered - is this just lawyers, supply/demand, or something else? Seems like adoption should be free if not subsidized.

The frozen embryos makes my head explode. Maybe this is a copout, but seems different. Maybe this is religious copout, but it seems like there is something sacred and soul-creating of the embryo in the mother's womb not present in a Petri dish ... realize that might be junk theology.

---

some of it is

By making pornhub illegal, Texas has stopped the murder of millions of babies by the hand sock.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

"Unborn children are 'children' ... without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics," Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in Friday's majority ruling by the all-Republican court.

Couples involved in fertilization processes and the clinics that help them need to be careful. If the legal definition of a baby is a fertilized clump of cells then the typical process of fertilizing several eggs, picking out the winner and throwing away the rest should be considered murder. Freezing unused fertilized eggs for the future then throwing them away if not needed is also murder if a fertilized egg is considered a person.

1/6 couples have trouble conceiving and have to go the fertilized egg procedure. They may be murdering babies if they try to save time and money by using 4 or 5 eggs, picking one and destroying the others.

---

Small detour

If adoption weren't so expensive, the fertility clinics wouldn't be in as high demand.

Frozen embryos that will remain frozen to never see the light of day I what some believe a reasonable gray area. I'm not one of those.

---

Many agencies have cost on a sliding scale of income.
So really high earners might pay $50,000 in fees. Fostering is much less expensive with medical care free through 18. Regardless of the cost there is a child at the end of the journey.

In vitro is $15,000 to $30,000 with no guarantee of a child at the end of the journey.

Bestweekeverr said:

---

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

---

One thousand children or just one child?


According to the supreme court they are the same. I think thats the problem with saying life starts at conception. A fertilized egg isnt a chicken

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

---

One thousand children or just one child?


According to the supreme court they are the same. I think thats the problem with saying life starts at conception. A fertilized egg isnt a chicken

---

Right? If you smash fertilized chicken eggs they still hatch into chickens later, so it's not ending a chickens life to crush them at that stage...

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

"Unborn children are 'children' ... without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics," Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in Friday's majority ruling by the all-Republican court.

Couples involved in fertilization processes and the clinics that help them need to be careful. If the legal definition of a baby is a fertilized clump of cells then the typical process of fertilizing several eggs, picking out the winner and throwing away the rest should be considered murder. Freezing unused fertilized eggs for the future then throwing them away if not needed is also murder if a fertilized egg is considered a person.

1/6 couples have trouble conceiving and have to go the fertilized egg procedure. They may be murdering babies if they try to save time and money by using 4 or 5 eggs, picking one and destroying the others.

---

Small detour

If adoption weren't so expensive, the fertility clinics wouldn't be in as high demand.

Frozen embryos that will remain frozen to never see the light of day I what some believe a reasonable gray area. I'm not one of those.

---

A great tragedy is adoption is so expensive. Always wondered - is this just lawyers, supply/demand, or something else? Seems like adoption should be free if not subsidized.

The frozen embryos makes my head explode. Maybe this is a copout, but seems different. Maybe this is religious copout, but it seems like there is something sacred and soul-creating of the embryo in the mother's womb not present in a Petri dish ... realize that might be junk theology.

---

He did say "I knew you in the womb" so maybe you have some latitude there

Most people dont call a fertilized egg a chicken.
Some people call a fertilized clump of cells a baby.

Many couples go to a specialist and develop 4 or 5 fertilized embryos. They choose the best and either dump the rest or freeze them for the future. Eventually the frozen embryos are destroyed. If human life starts at conception should they and the dr and the clinic be charged with murder?

Why do people use one definition to be used against women and let the others go? Surely murdering thousands of babies or 4 or 5 is worse than one?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?

Would you accept this?

I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples

What say you?

---

I think it would remove more like 98% of abortions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

---

What's the dilemma here? Obviously the one baby. The suffering and social impact of the loss of the baby would be far greater. But that doesn't mean that the embryos aren't human lives.

---

I agree, almost everyone would obviously save the baby over the thousand embryos, including the Alabama supreme court justices.

But it raises the question of why? If the human life of one baby is more valuable than the human lives of 1000 embryos, then you can't really treat them the same. Passing laws that prevent more babies from being born in order to save more embryos from being destroyed is incongruent with how people actually value human life.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Most people dont call a fertilized egg a chicken.
Some people call a fertilized clump of cells a baby.

Many couples go to a specialist and develop 4 or 5 fertilized embryos. They choose the best and either dump the rest or freeze them for the future. Eventually the frozen embryos are destroyed. If human life starts at conception should they and the dr and the clinic be charged with murder?

Why do people use one definition to be used against women and let the others go? Surely murdering thousands of babies or 4 or 5 is worse than one?

---

When do you believe the clump of cells is outfitted with a soul? Is that an after market upgrade or when?

Bestweekeverr said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

If a fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one, do you save the tray of 1,000 fertilized embryos or one baby?

---

What's the dilemma here? Obviously the one baby. The suffering and social impact of the loss of the baby would be far greater. But that doesn't mean that the embryos aren't human lives.

---

I agree, almost everyone would obviously save the baby over the thousand embryos, including the Alabama supreme court justices.

But it raises the question of why? If the human life of one baby is more valuable than the human lives of 1000 embryos, then you can't really treat them the same. Passing laws that prevent more babies from being born in order to save more embryos from being destroyed is incongruent with how people actually value human life.

---

What you're essentially saying is that the law should be able to treat people differently based on a person's "value", however that gets defined (and by whoever gets to define it). You see the big problem there?

Even if I would save a doctor who has the cure to cancer over 1000 convicted felons, that can't mean felons should not be considered "persons" under the law just the same as the doctor.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Most people dont call a fertilized egg a chicken.
Some people call a fertilized clump of cells a baby.

Many couples go to a specialist and develop 4 or 5 fertilized embryos. They choose the best and either dump the rest or freeze them for the future. Eventually the frozen embryos are destroyed. If human life starts at conception should they and the dr and the clinic be charged with murder?

Why do people use one definition to be used against women and let the others go? Surely murdering thousands of babies or 4 or 5 is worse than one?

---

When do you believe the clump of cells is outfitted with a soul? Is that an after market upgrade or when?

---

Thats a good question but I dont think it can be proven scientifically.
What is your stance on people that throw away or freeze fertile embryos? This is a planned procedure and involves hundreds of dead babies (if you consider a fertilized clump of cells a baby)?

Doc Holliday said:

---

The vast majority of abortions are because "I don't want that kind of responsibility",

---

You are absolutely right. What kind of parents do you think these people make? If I were King I would castrate men that dont work and at least pay for their children. I would sterilize women that dont provide decent care.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The vast majority of abortions are because "I don't want that kind of responsibility",

---

You are absolutely right. What kind of parents do you think these people make? If I were King I would castrate men that dont work and at least pay for their children. I would sterilize women that dont provide decent
care.

---

Many will turn out to be amazing parents. Initially not wanting the responsibility of parenthood doesn't mean you'll be a horrible parent just like trying to have a baby doesn't mean you'll be a good parent. Hardly rational reasoning to kill your kid.

Sure it happens. But the prisons are full of kids that had crappy parents that didnt want them. I was scared to death at 15 but I manned up to all three surprises. Abortion was legal in Texas in '75 but we chose a different path. Kids turned out great despite being raised by a single father.

I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hate to make it for anyone besides myself.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

....

I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hatw to make it for anyone besides myself.

---

Very ironic statement, considering that abortion is making a personal life or death decision for someone besides yourself.

Or a woman having a fertilized clump of cells removed.

Whats your take on fertilized embryos being frozen and later thrown away?

It seems the most of the complaints and laws are aimed at the poor getting abortions with no punishment for the rich that wanna be parents murdering 4 or 5 times the amount of aborted embryos. If any of your friends or family have gone this route they are more guilty than the regular aborters.

What about sperm? Arent they alive? Should they be protected? They certainly have a lot of potential. What does the Bible does say about it? Didnt God kill that one guy that pulled out and shot his wad on the floor to keep from knocking that woman up?

You're a clump of cells at conception, you're a clump of cells at birth and you're a clump of cells as you type your opinions right now. It's part of the human life cycle. Doesn't seem like there should be any stage of human growth where we pretend they aren't a human.

So the fertility clinics that freeze and throw away all the predeveloped humans should be shut down and the doctors nurses and hopeful parents should be arrested?