Brain-dead woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban, family says

[jaeger19]

because they both have value - their lives are very very important and valuable. I don't calculate - they are what they are. Living human lives ...... I have said more than once here (you can key word search if you want to) that I'd concede to abortion for health of mother. Very rare instance but I'd concede to that AND I'd also recognize the unborn was killed in the process.

But you have to calculate that value as the women’s health is always impacted by the unborn. It’s the nature of pregnancy.
So what’s the value? Health of the mother10% chance of death . 20% , 60%z
Paralysis? CVA ? Kidney failure? Heart failure.?
Explain how you arrive at which takes precedence ?

will the woman's life be impacted by being pregnant? absolutely - and she knew the chances when she had sex. As did the man.

But her impact can mean death. Not for the man.

you and I don't calculate the value of lives

Then how do you decide whose life takes precedence? Or do you just assume the unborn always takes precedence.
It appears that way.

I have never said that



no, that is saying the mothers life and the unborn's life are BOTH valuable. They both can be at the same time

Then how do you decide whose life and health takes precedence ? Why do you keep assuming the unborn takes precedence as you said “ only in very rare circumstances would you not object t to abortion for her heath.

every reason except dire health of mother ( to get an abortion) is simply because the baby is an inconvenience she doesn't want to deal with.

explain that @ fire health of the mother?
Sterility? Kidney failure? Heart failure?
Paralysis, death? 10% 60% 90% ?

That isn't something we should accept when a baby is 1 day old, when that life is 5 years old or when that life is 6 months old in the womb

I'm consistent - human life is valuable from old to middle age to teens to kids to child's to toddlers to babies to unborn babies -

No you aren’t consistent. You clearly value the unborn more than the mother.
You say they have value but you treat them differently.

 

[hecatmoggie]

But you have to calculate that value as the women’s health is always impacted by the unborn. It’s the nature of pregnancy.
So what’s the value? Health of the mother10% chance of death . 20% , 60%z
Paralysis? CVA ? Kidney failure? Heart failure.?
Explain how you arrive at which takes precedence ?

no I don't have to do that at all - what formula do you use ?

But her impact can mean death. Not for the man.

true

Then how do you decide whose life takes precedence? Or do you just assume the unborn always takes precedence.
It appears that way.

I don't have to decide and rarely does anyone have to decide to have a baby killed to save the mother. Again - getting pregnant/carrying a child is a bigly deal. Better make sure you're using protection when having sex, its not a light decision to make is it ?

Then how do you decide whose life and health takes precedence ? Why do you keep assuming the unborn takes precedence as you said “ only in very rare circumstances would you not object t to abortion for her heath.

there are very few times the unborn is killed to save the mother - you know this. Most abortions are because the unborn life is an inconvenience - you know this too

explain that @ fire health of the mother?
Sterility? Kidney failure? Heart failure?
Paralysis, death? 10% 60% 90% ?

No you aren’t consistent. You clearly value the unborn more than the mother.

show me the post I said that - or admit its a lie

You say they have value but you treat them differently.

show me the post I said that - or admit its a lie

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

if I called a woman pregnant with a puppy would she be?

Am I saying she's pregnant with a puppy?

She's pregnant with a fetus.

no ... and I could call it a kitten, a baby, a toddler, a zef or a fetus .... any words I use is irrelevant to the unborn life being what it is

You'd call a fetus a toddler?

This reminds me of the old days when the corporate boys' club still called women "girls" and if we objected they said, "Well, aren't you one?"

you're not wrong in that a biology book will call it a fetus, the pregnant woman would call it a baby, the abortion doctor would call it a nice paycheck and maybe the deadbeat Dad would call it names I can't type here ... doesn't matter what any of those names are.

Yes, it does, because only one is correct, and because the use of the word "baby" is an attempt to make pro-choicers seem even more eeeevil...look, they're murdering innocent adorable 6-week babies!

Nope. Murdering a baby is against the law.

The unborn innocent human life is what it is

Unborn life that is living is a zygote, embryo or fetus depending on the stage.

You never answered me. Is a fertilized egg in a petri dish a "baby"?

we agree


I suppose either works. What doesn't change is the person and what grade they're in

There's a tremendous difference between a toddler and a high schooler.

There's a tremendous difference betweeen a fetus and a baby. A baby is now detached from another body in order to receive its air and nourishment. Its lungs have inflated for the first time in its life. It is an independent individual.

I've not debated that. But I'll say that IF it is, than it absolutely is when there is a normal pregnancy right?

Can I ask a question? Why do you keep saying a "normal pregnancy"? Do you believe fetuses with anomalies aren't human? Aren't alive? Or what?

I mean do you believe they're kittens or something?

What are they?

What is a fertilized, living egg in a petri dish? A kitten? Not human? Most importantly, not "a baby"?

I have made my stand at when a pregnancy begins there HAS to be a living human mother and a living human unborn.

So has literally everyone else, LOL

I leave others to battle if a frozen fertilized egg is a living human being.

Oh no you don't. Are you saying a fertilized human egg isn't human? Or it isn't alive? Or what? What makes it "not a baby" since it's the same being you argue IS a baby in the womb?

 

[Lursa]

I've not debated that. But I'll say that IF it is, than it absolutely is when there is a normal pregnancy right?

I did ask you this pages ago, didnt get an answer...is the fertilized egg being saved for IVF a living human or not? And please explain your answer.

I'll ask again too, so please just start out direct and honest.

 

[jaeger19]

no I don't have to do that at all - what formula do you use ?

I don’t use a formula , I say the mother in consultation with her doctor decide.
But you want to take the decision away from her and her doctor and you/state make the decision based on “ value of life”
So explain when you would allow a woman an abortion. 90% chance of death ? % 30%
Chance of paralysis?
Chance of sterility?
Heart failure?
How do you want the state to determine the value of the mothers life and whether she should be allowed an abortion???

true


I don't have to decide and rarely does anyone have to decide to have a baby killed to save the mother.

Not true at all . Pregnancy has lots of risks and many woman seek abortion because of those risks.

Again - getting pregnant/carrying a child is a bigly deal. Better make sure you're using protection when having sex, it’s not a light decision to make is it ?

Right. You could live in a state where they don’t value your life and so you can’t get the medical you need to survive.

there are very few times the unborn is killed to save the mother - you know this. Most abortions are because the unborn life is an inconvenience - you know this too

No. Your definition of inconvenience is that the woman’s life isnt in immunity danger of death.
Someone who is risking sterility to have a child with complications? That’s not inconvenience.
Even the decision not to have a baby because you can’t take care of it is not one of convenience.
Being so poor you don’t know where your next meal will come from or where ypu will sleep is not simply an “ inconvenience;
I love the irony of the right wingers who say “ it’s just for convenience”
But then they think having to pay taxes to help support a mother and baby is a HUGE inconvenience! Imagine the mother. !!!

show me the post I said that - or admit its a lie


show me the post I said that - or admit its a lie

We have the posts of your positions. It’s not a lie.
Answer the first question on how you determine her value of life vs the unborn

 

[hecatmoggie]

Am I saying she's pregnant with a puppy?
She's pregnant with a fetus.

She's pregnant with an unborn living human life. You can call it a fetus, I can call it a kitten ... doesn't matter the words we use, its still a living human life

Yes, it does, because only one is correct, and because the use of the word "baby" is an attempt to make pro-choicers seem even more eeeevil...look, they're murdering innocent adorable 6-week babies!
Nope. Murdering a baby is against the law.

in some states women can have their unborn babies killed in the womb, ending the pregnancy. Its called abortion but if a man punches the woman in the stomach and the same unborn baby dies? he'll go to jail for killing it.

why?

Unborn life that is living is a zygote, embryo or fetus depending on the stage.
You never answered me. Is a fertilized egg in a petri dish a "baby"?

I don't make that argument no.

There's a tremendous difference between a toddler and a high schooler.
There's a tremendous difference betweeen a fetus and a baby. A baby is now detached from another body in order to receive its air and nourishment. Its lungs have inflated for the first time in its life. It is an independent individual.

all are living human life

Can I ask a question? Why do you keep saying a "normal pregnancy"? Do you believe fetuses with anomalies aren't human? Aren't alive? Or what?

because of ectopic pregnancies

I mean do you believe they're kittens or something?
What are they?
What is a fertilized, living egg in a petri dish? A kitten? Not human? Most importantly, not "a baby"?

use whatever name you'd like - there is no normal pregnancy, meaning there is no living unborn life in the mothers womb.

maybe you're right- maybe a frozen fertilized egg in a freezer in Ohio is a living human being deserving of life and protection. I don't believe it is. But IF it is? Then certainly a pregnant woman's unborn has the right to life

So has literally everyone else, LOL

no, some people don't make that argument at all. Some think viability is when life begins, some thinks its birth. Some thinks it the moment the egg is fertilized and the first cell divisions happen. etc etc

Oh no you don't. Are you saying a fertilized human egg isn't human? Or it isn't alive? Or what? What makes it "not a baby" since it's the same being you argue IS a baby in the womb?

I'm saying there is no pregnancy, there is no living human life in the womb.

All of the things you gave examples of abortion is irrelevant to. You might be right-
maybe you're right- maybe a frozen fertilized egg in a freezer in Ohio is a living human being deserving of life and protection. I don't believe it is. But IF it is? Then certainly a pregnant woman's unborn has the right to life

 

[hecatmoggie]

I did ask you this pages ago, didnt get an answer...is the fertilized egg being saved for IVF a living human or not? And please explain your answer.
I'll ask again too, so please just start out direct and honest.

see last response to Enchanted

maybe you're right- maybe a frozen fertilized egg in a freezer in Ohio is a living human being deserving of life and protection. I don't believe it is. But IF it is? Then certainly a pregnant woman's unborn has the right to life

 

[hecatmoggie]

I don’t use a formula

great, I don't either

, I say the mother in consultation with her doctor decide.
But you want to take the decision away from her and her doctor and you/state make the decision based on “ value of life”
So explain when you would allow a woman an abortion. 90% chance of death ? % 30%
Chance of paralysis?
Chance of sterility?
Heart failure?
How do you want the state to determine the value of the mothers life and whether she should be allowed an abortion???

in rare instances you're right - complications can lead to making a choice you're right. Sometimes the unborn dies, you're right. I have long argued for mothers health I think having the unborn killed is an option. Its not really a "value" placed ... if the mother is dying the unborn child will die too. Its really making the impossible choice to save one of the lives. Ironically ... this very thread is about that as well, isn't it? The mother was dying .... to save the living unborn baby Chance, they used machines to keep the mothers body alive.

a very small % of pregnancies are like the above instances

Not true at all . Pregnancy has lots of risks and many woman seek abortion because of those risks.

no they don't - they want abortions because they had sex and got pregnant when they didn't want to - at least be honest in these discussions please. They want abortions because there is no dad/husband in the picture, not enough money, gets in the way of college or partying, just doesn't feel like the time, ..... all are inconveniences that still exists when women have babies and after births. Doesn't mean the newborn babies aren't valuable and deserving of life does it?

Right. You could live in a state where they don’t value your life and so you can’t get the medical you need to survive.

has nothing to do with it

No. Your definition of inconvenience is that the woman’s life isnt in immunity danger of death.
Someone who is risking sterility to have a child with complications? That’s not inconvenience.
Even the decision not to have a baby because you can’t take care of it is not one of convenience.

that's exactly what it is and, if that's your justification, extend it to 1 day after birth. Are you ready to do that?

Being so poor you don’t know where your next meal will come from or where ypu will sleep is not simply an “ inconvenience;

I was in that poverty range. Was my life worthless?

I love the irony of the right wingers who say “ it’s just for convenience”
But then they think having to pay taxes to help support a mother and baby is a HUGE inconvenience! Imagine the mother. !!!

you make it sound like every pregnancy is touch and go if the mother's going to die or not, that women all suffer horribly ... that's dishonest

We have the posts of your positions. It’s not a lie.
Answer the first question on how you determine her value of life vs the unborn

then show me the post

you can't - and because of that? it IS lying because I've clearly said exactly the opposite

please stop

 

[Gordy327]

Then certainly a pregnant woman's unborn has the right to life

Says who? Where is that right enumerated?

 

[Lursa]

see last response to Enchanted

maybe you're right- maybe a frozen fertilized egg in a freezer in Ohio is a living human being deserving of life and protection. I don't believe it is. But IF it is? Then certainly a pregnant woman's unborn has the right to life

Why dont you believe it is? How is it different? That's your favorite question recently.

And I note you use the word "believe." I think that's key here. Most of your views here are built on belief, which you then apply inconsistently to law, biology, and morality.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Why dont you believe it is? How is it different? That's your favorite question recently.

it might not - and if you want to argue that, go for it

the difference is there is a pregnancy - I've been ultra clear on that

And I note you use the word "believe." I think that's key here. Most of your views here are built on belief, which you then apply inconsistently to law, biology, and morality.

because the difference is pregnancy - a 100% biological fact that isn't a belief at all but rather simple biology

 

[Lursa]

it might not - and if you want to argue that, go for it

the difference is there is a pregnancy - I've been ultra clear on that

because the difference is pregnancy - a 100% biological fact that isn't a belief at all but rather simple biology

So then "pregnancy" makes a difference in whether or not it's a living human? Changes the DNA, its substance, its potential, the status of the unborn?

 

[hecatmoggie]

So then "pregnancy" makes a difference in whether or not it's a living human?

are you really trying to argue a fertilized egg in a petri dish is a living human life? go ahead - do that, give us all the supporting evidence to back your belief because I cannot prove it one way or the other

a pregnancy though HAS to have a living human unborn baby in the womb along with a living human mother - biological fact

Changes the DNA, its substance, its potential, the status of the unborn?

again argue away - you'll find people that want to discuss it

 

[Lursa]

are you really trying to argue a fertilized egg in a petri dish is a living human life? go ahead - do that, give us all the supporting evidence to back your belief because I cannot prove it one way or the other

I asked YOU. What is the difference? Your criteria so far have been living and human DNA. They fit both. This was a huge deal for you the past few pages. Now...please answer my questions.

a pregnancy though HAS to have a living human unborn baby in the womb along with a living human mother - biological fact

Yes, so? No one disputes that. A "successful" pregnancy does. What is your point? The egg gets fertilized and it develops inside her.

Same with the fertilized egg in IVF. Are you saying that fertilized eggs implanted in surrogate women arent "living humans" too? Is it about "housing?" "Location?" What makes it different from the fertilized egg inside the woman?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I asked YOU. What is the difference? Your criteria so far have been living and human DNA. They fit both. Now...please answer my questions.

I gave you my answer

Yes, so?

you understand the difference in a pregnancy and a petri dish, right ?

No one disputes that. A "successful" pregnancy does. What is your point? The egg gets fertilized and it develops inside her.

more precisely when a pregnancy begins yes

Same with the fertilized egg in IVF. Are you saying that fertilized eggs implanted in surrogate women arent "living humans" too? Is it about "housing?" "Location?" What makes it different from the fertilized egg inside the woman?

I don't think I've ever said anything like the above no.

question - have I not been clear enough on pregnancy and what it means? because you seen to not understand my view

 

[Lursa]

I gave you my answer

No, you avoided it.

you understand the difference in a pregnancy and a petri dish, right ?

Sure...how do you think the fertilized egg from one woman gets into a surrogate?

Why does it matter? Is it a living human with human DNA? Please explain why you believe it's not.

more precisely when a pregnancy begins yes

Since when does "when a pregnancy begins" define a "living human?" I missed that in biology class.

question - have I not been clear enough on pregnancy and what it means? because you seen to not understand my view

I understand you just realized that your attempts using "it's a living human because "biology"" has failed. So let's not see it repeated over and over again in the future, ok? We all know what a living human is because it IS defined in every biology text. And in none of those texts does "biology" discuss the value or legal or moral status of a living human at any stage of life

 

[Gordy327]

I gave you my answer


you understand the difference in a pregnancy and a petri dish, right ?



more precisely when a pregnancy begins yes



I don't think I've ever said anything like the above no.

question - have I not been clear enough on pregnancy and what it means? because you seen to not understand my view

So a zygote/blastocyst is not a "human" with DNA until it implants in the uterine wall, is that what you're saying?

 

[Lursa]

So a zygote/blastocyst is not a "human" with DNA until it implants in the uterine wall, is that what you're saying?

The question is...how is the fertilized egg with human DNA not a "living human?" It's his annoying tirade, let him tell us. He was so excited about asking us the difference in a "living human" flying from Vermont to Idaho. Or 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after. Or born 5 minutes before midnight and 5 minutes after...it seems the definition of a 'living human' is all about location and timing for him.

When after all that tiresome diversion..."biology" doesnt define a "living human" by those parameters and doesnt assess value or legal or moral status. His desperate attempt for a black and white argument is a failure...sorry, it's a tough moral and legal issue and cant be reduced to slogans or objective species categorization. Black and white solutions are often the go-to for simple minds. (and many religious).

Religious people, knowing they cant use their faith to overcome the Const and legal issues for the most part, have tried to use biology as a workaround for that black and white argument. But it doesnt work.

 

[Gordy327]

The question is...how is the fertilized egg with human DNA not a "living human?" It's his annoying tirade, let him tell us. He was so excited about asking us the difference in a "living human" flying from Vermont to Idaho. Or 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after. Or born 5 minutes before midnight and 5 minutes after...it seems the definition of a 'living human' is all about location and timing for him.

When after all that tiresome diversion..."biology" doesnt define a "living human" by those parameters and doesnt assess value or legal or moral status. His desperate attempt for a black and white argument is a failure...sorry, it's a tough moral and legal issue and cant be reduced to slogans or objective species categorization. Black and white solutions are often the go-to for simple minds. (and many religious).

Religious people, knowing they cant use their faith to overcome the Const and legal issues for the most part, have tried to use biology as a workaround for that black and white argument. But it doesnt work.

I doubt he'll tell us. He can't even tell us what the "value" of the unborn or human life is. The best that's offered is basically "just because."

 

[hecatmoggie]

No, you avoided it.

I did not. It wasn't what you want, but I didn't avoid it

Sure...how do you think the fertilized egg from one woman gets into a surrogate?
Why does it matter? Is it a living human with human DNA? Please explain why you believe it's not.

the pregnancy hasn't began yet

look, argue all you want its a baby in a petri dish - it only strengthens my arguments to not allow abortions

Since when does "when a pregnancy begins" define a "living human?" I missed that in biology class.

I've explained many times

Unless you are arguing its not alive and not human?

I understand you just realized that your attempts using "it's a living human because "biology"" has failed. So let's not see it repeated over and over again in the future, ok? We all know what a living human is because it IS defined in every biology text. And in none of those texts does "biology" discuss the value or legal or moral status of a living human at any stage of life

are you suggesting a woman isn't pregnant with a human or that her unborn in the womb isn't living ?

c'mon .,... you know better than that

 

[hecatmoggie]

So a zygote/blastocyst is not a "human" with DNA until it implants in the uterine wall, is that what you're saying?

when the pregnancy begins there is absolutely, 100% a living unborn human life in the woman's womb - we know this, its biological fact

bicker about in a petri dish if you want to, go for it, I encourage it

 

[Gordy327]

when the pregnancy begins there is absolutely, 100% a living unborn human life in the woman's womb - we know this, its biological fact

bicker about in a petri dish if you want to, go for it, I encourage it

Thats not in question. Whats the difference between a zygote/blastocyst in a perti dish vs one within a woman's fallopian tube? Is it fertilized & have human DNA? Whats the difference between the two?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Thats not in question. Whats the difference between a zygote/blastocyst in a perti dish vs one within a woman's fallopian tube? Is it fertilized & have human DNA? Whats the difference between the two?

is there a pregnancy ?

if there is, there has to be a living human mother and a living human unborn life as well - there HAS to be

before that? argue it however you like and prove it one way or the other. I encourage you to

 

[Gordy327]

is there a pregnancy ?

if there is, there has to be a living human mother and a living human unborn life as well - there HAS to be

before that? argue it however you like and prove it one way or the other. I encourage you to

How does implantation affect the blastocyst DNA? Is it not human DNA anymore?

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

She's pregnant with an unborn living human life. You can call it a fetus, I can call it a kitten ... doesn't matter the words we use, its still a living human life

Who said it isn't living and human?

But it isn't a baby.

Yes, I can call it a kitten but that would be, beyond inaccurate, bizarre.

in some states women can have their unborn babies killed in the womb, ending the pregnancy. Its called abortion but if a man punches the woman in the stomach and the same unborn baby dies? he'll go to jail for killing it.

why?

Because one is assault?

I don't make that argument no.


all are living human life

Are they babies?

Is a fertilized human egg in a petri dish a baby?

because of ectopic pregnancies

So they're not human? Or they're not living or what?

You keep saying in a "normal" pregnancy it is a living human being.

In an ectopic pregnancy it's not?

use whatever name you'd like - there is no normal pregnancy, meaning there is no living unborn life in the mothers womb.

Is the fertilized egg not human or is it not alive, or both?

Is the fertilized egg a baby?

maybe you're right- maybe a frozen fertilized egg in a freezer in Ohio is a living human being deserving of life and protection. I don't believe it is.

Why isn't it "a baby"? Isn't it the same human life?

But IF it is? Then certainly a pregnant woman's unborn has the right to life

You still haven't explained why.

no, some people don't make that argument at all. Some think viability is when life begins, some thinks its birth. Some thinks it the moment the egg is fertilized and the first cell divisions happen. etc etc



I'm saying there is no pregnancy, there is no living human life in the womb.

Is it or is it not a baby?

All of the things you gave examples of abortion is irrelevant to. You might be right-
maybe you're right- maybe a frozen fertilized egg in a freezer in Ohio is a living human being deserving of life and protection. I don't believe it is.

So it isn't human or "valuable" until it's in a womb...

How does that work?

But IF it is? Then certainly a pregnant woman's unborn has the right to life

She isn't pregnant yet. The fertilized, dividing egg is in a petri dish.

Is it living?

Is it human?

Is it a baby?