Invitro Fertilization

[prometeus]

A person is born (comes into existence) at the moment of their conception,.... not at the moment of their parturition (delivery from the womb.)

Some day the SCOTUS will make this clarification and the 14th Will then justifiably protect "all persons equally" as it is supposed to do.

Incidently,.. (and ironically) by your own bastardized standard,... you can't "abort" a child from the womb without that child being "born."
If a c-section (surgical removal of a child from the womb) amounts to a "born person" so then does any other "surgical removal of a child from the womb."

You just painted yourself into a corner.

How do you come up with this idiotic drivel?

 

[Chuz Life]

And it's not even very entertaining.
You should learn some new tricks, if you want to hold my attention.

I don't want or need your attention.

I have you as a foil and that's plenty.

 

[1069]

A person is born (comes into existence) at the moment of their conception,.... not at the moment of their parturition (delivery from the womb.)

Some day the SCOTUS will make this clarification and the 14th Will then justifiably protect "all persons equally" as it is supposed to do.

Incidently,.. (and ironically) by your own bastardized standard,... you can't "abort" a child from the womb without that child being "born."

If a c-section (surgical removal of a child from the womb) amounts to a "born person" so then does any other "surgical removal of a child from the womb."

You just painted yourself into a corner.

Try telling that to Elena Kagan. I'm sure you'll have no problem persuading her.

 

[winston53660]

A person is born (comes into existence) at the moment of their conception,.... not at the moment of their parturition (delivery from the womb.)

Some day the SCOTUS will make this clarification and the 14th Will then justifiably protect "all persons equally" as it is supposed to do.

Incidently,.. (and ironically) by your own bastardized standard,... you can't "abort" a child from the womb without that child being "born."

If a c-section (surgical removal of a child from the womb) amounts to a "born person" so then does any other "surgical removal of a child from the womb."

You just painted yourself into a corner.

Good luck with that train of thought I doubt it will ever fly.

 

[1069]

Good luck with that train of thought I doubt it will ever fly.

Considering his creative assessment of the meaning of the word "born" in the constitution, I'd love to see how he redefines "naturalized".

 

[winston53660]

Considering his creative assessment of the meaning of the word "born" in the constitution, I'd love to see how he redefines "naturalized".

I though he'd go for the naturalized thing first.

 

[1069]

I though he'd go for the naturalized thing first.

Trying to redefine the word "born", and get others to accept his definition, is Chuz's special hobbyhorse, and man does he love to ride it.


:sword:

 

[mpg]

And as an addendum to that, as a believer in bodily sovereignty and freedom of reproductive choice, I am perfectly fine with IVF.
If a woman wishes to have every single egg in her ovaries extracted and fertilized, and then play eenie-meenie-minie-moe to pick the very best one for implantation, and throw all the rest away, she is well within her rights, as far as I'm concerned.
They're her eggs to do with as she pleases.

If the eggs are outside of the mother's body and they're already fertilized, then they're just as much a part of the father's body as they are the mother's body.

 

[Chuz Life]

Good luck with that train of thought I doubt it will ever fly.

The word 'born' has multiple meanings.

True or False?

One of the meanings of the word 'born' is "coming into existence" or "beginning."

True or False?

Another meaning of the word "born" is "to be delivered from the womb" or "Parturition."

True or False?

It is clear,... and I accept the fact that when the 14th Amendment was written,.. "persons born" and becoming "citizens" was deliberatly directed at "persons delivered from the womb."

HOWEVER,...

However,... when you consider the complete text of the 14th Amendment (section 1)

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and you see that it is an attempt to protect the lives and rights of all persons equally,... and to afford them due process.

You can see that the framers would not have intended to leave anyone out or to have their amendment used to deny the rights of 'persons' who were not 'citizens.'

True or False?

 

[1069]

If the eggs are outside of the mother's body and they're already fertilized, then they're just as much a part of the father's body as they are the mother's body.

True, but for them to exist outside a human body at all, the man must've played an equal role in their conception, by donating his sperm to the endeavor.
If he wishes to freeze them and place them in a container and attempt to persuade other women to gestate them, I guess that is his right. Not sure how much success he'd have with that, but it's certainly his right to try.

Oftentimes, however, the "father" is an anonymous sperm donor. Lesbian couples and single women who conceive via IVF typically use this method. In these instances, the man can't have any rights regarding the embryos. He'd never even know about them.

 

[1069]

The word 'born' has multiple meanings.

True or False?

One of the meanings of the word 'born' is "coming into existence" or "beginning."

True or False?

Another meaning of the word "born" is "to be delivered from the womb" or "Parturition."

True or False?

It is clear,... and I accept the fact that when the 14th Amendment was written,.. "persons born" and becoming "citizens" was deliberatly directed at "persons delivered from the womb."

HOWEVER,...

However,... when you consider the complete text of the 14th Amendment (section 1) and you see that it is an attempt to protect the lives and rights of all persons equally,... and to afford them due process.

You can see that the framers would not have intended to leave anyone out or to have their amendment used to deny the rights of 'persons' who were not 'citizens.'

True or False?

Chuz, no one here, out of the many people of varied political persuasions, has ever found this so-called "argument" legitimate or compelling or persuasive or clever. At all.

If you can't even persuade your fellow prolifers with it, what chance do you have of convincing the government and the Supreme Court?

As far as arguments go, it's a loser. it's silly, and it makes you look silly.
You should give it up, and work on formulating a different one.

 

[Orion]

The word 'born' has multiple meanings.

True or False?

One of the meanings of the word 'born' is "coming into existence" or "beginning."

When are you going to understand that you are not in control here, and never will be? You are never going to change the constitution to acknowledge unborn fetuses, you are never going to take control of womens' bodies, and you are never going to get abortion tossed out in a country as developed as the United States. In fact, even if by some grand deception you get the law changed, women are still going to have abortions. They always have and always will have control over that process.

You need to find a different pet project to occupy yourself with because you will never gain ground here with the kinds of arguments you put forth.

EDIT: I forgot to add. Up the street from me recently, for the first time in my life, I saw abortion protesters. They stationed themselves at one of the busiest intersections in the city and were wearing those giant, body-sized signs covering their front and back, with pictures of aborted fetuses and the usual trite little slogans. Every person protesting was 60+ years old.

I thought to myself... this is the face of the anti-choice movement. A bunch of backward, old, religious conservatives that haven't caught up with the times. Yes, there are young people against abortion, but ultimately, in the political spectrum, most of them fall on the pro-choice side because they are not willing to do anything about it. They acknowledge that they cannot control another person's wish to abort.

The face of the abortion movement is OLD. With each generation that passes, the right to abortion will be more and more secured.

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz, no one here, out of the many people of varied political persuasions, has ever found this so-called "argument" legitimate or compelling or persuasive or clever. At all.

If you can't even persuade your fellow prolifers with it, what chance do you have of convincing the government and the Supreme Court?

As far as arguments go, it's a loser. it's silly, and it makes you look silly.
You should give it up, and work on formulating a different one.

First of all, I believe you are wrong and that they do agree with me. Even if they don't want to say so publicly.

But, you raise a fair point,...

So, to my fellow pro-lifers and anti-aborts,... I have to ask; "If it's not that you believe that a new person is born (comes into existence) at the moment of their conception,.... why then do you oppose elective abortions?

What (if not the fact that a new person is born (comes into being) at conception) is the reason for your objections?

 

[Chuz Life]

When are you going to understand that you are not in control here, and never will be? You are never going to change the constitution to acknowledge unborn fetuses, you are never going to take control of womens' bodies, and you are never going to get abortion tossed out in a country as developed as the United States. In fact, even if by some grand deception you get the law changed, women are still going to have abortions. They always have and always will have control over that process.

You need to find a different pet project to occupy yourself with because you will never gain ground here with the kinds of arguments you put forth.

EDIT: I forgot to add. Up the street from me recently, for the first time in my life, I saw abortion protesters. They stationed themselves at one of the busiest intersections in the city and were wearing those giant, body-sized signs covering their front and back, with pictures of aborted fetuses and the usual trite little slogans. Every person protesting was 60+ years old.

I thought to myself... this is the face of the anti-choice movement. A bunch of backward, old, religious conservatives that haven't caught up with the times. Yes, there are young people against abortion, but ultimately, in the political spectrum, most of them fall on the pro-choice side because they are not willing to do anything about it. They acknowledge that they cannot control another person's wish to abort.

The face of the abortion movement is OLD. With each generation that passes, the right to abortion will be more and more secured.

When someone tries to tell me I can't do something,... I just laugh and keep pushing on.

EDIT; I just got this private message in the other forum; "Great Avatar! and the name; and for stepping up and being a daddy, But most of all, you can really make good arguements!!! Way to go Changed"

Wasn't that awesome timing?

 

[1069]

When someone tries to tell me I can't do something,... I just laugh and keep pusing on.

Gross.


__________


Maybe he means "pussing out".

 

[mpg]

True, but for them to exist outside a human body at all, the man must've played an equal role in their conception, by donating his sperm to the endeavor.
If he wishes to freeze them and place them in a container and attempt to persuade other women to gestate them, I guess that is his right. Not sure how much success he'd have with that, but it's certainly his right to try.

Oftentimes, however, the "father" is an anonymous sperm donor. Lesbian couples and single women who conceive via IVF typically use this method. In these instances, the man can't have any rights regarding the embryos. He'd never even know about them.

but if they aren't part of the woman's body, should she have the right to have them destroyed? Where does this right come from?

 

[prometeus]

Gross.


__________


Maybe he means "pussing out".

And all that "publically" no less.

 

[prometeus]

You can see that the framers would not have intended to leave anyone out or to have their amendment used to deny the rights of 'persons' who were not 'citizens.'

Of course, of course. What an amazing insight you have intot the intent of the founding fathers. No doubt that this "ALL INCLISIVE" approach was intended to protect the blacks, women and chi9ldren who were till then excluded. After all how could they leave them out? True of False?

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course, of course. What an amazing insight you have intot the intent of the founding fathers. No doubt that this "ALL INCLISIVE" approach was intended to protect the blacks, women and chi9ldren who were till then excluded. After all how could they leave them out? True of False?

INTOT? chi9ldren? INCLISIVE?

Sure,.. why not.

 

[1069]

but if they aren't part of the woman's body, should she have the right to have them destroyed? Where does this right come from?

She's lucky she has the right not to have them destroyed.
And she only has that right if she's willing to pay for cryogenic storage at a lab or a facility like Snowflakes.
Otherwise, they will be discarded.
Why would they be kept? For what purpose? And where?
And who would pay for said storage, if not her? Taxpayers?

 

[Orion]

When someone tries to tell me I can't do something,... I just laugh and keep pushing on.

We know. And that makes it all the more laughable to us.

EDIT; I just got this private message in the other forum; "Great Avatar! and the name; and for stepping up and being a daddy, But most of all, you can really make good arguements!!! Way to go Changed"

There's no accounting for the weak-minded.

Anyone who doesn't succumb to emotional hyperbole would see the obvious holes in virtually all of the arguments you make. I've debated with some skillful pro-lifers and you my friend are not one of them.

P.S. Your signature is gross. I think I'll add you to ignore just so that I don't have to see it anymore.

 

[Chuz Life]

We know. And that makes it all the more laughable to us.

There's no accounting for the weak-minded.

Anyone who doesn't succumb to emotional hyperbole would see the obvious holes in virtually all of the arguments you make. I've debated with some skillful pro-lifers and you my friend are not one of them.

P.S. Your signature is gross. I think I'll add you to ignore just so that I don't have to see it anymore.

Please (before you put me on ignore) please list some of the holes in "virtually all my arguments."

I'd like to know where they are,... or what you think they are.

(and I expect a right to respond to them as well)

 

[mpg]

She's lucky she has the right not to have them destroyed.
And she only has that right if she's willing to pay for cryogenic storage at a lab or a facility like Snowflakes.
Otherwise, they will be discarded.
Why would they be kept? For what purpose? And where?
And who would pay for said storage, if not her? Taxpayers?

Those are excellent questions/points. If she doesn't have the right to discard them then noone does, which raises the question, what do do with them. IMHO the answer is to not create them in the first place.

 

[1069]

Those are excellent questions/points. If she doesn't have the right to discard them then noone does, which raises the question, what do do with them. IMHO the answer is to not create them in the first place.

Well, once stem cell research becomes more widely permissible, they can be put to good use.

 

[mpg]

Well, once stem cell research becomes more widely permissible, they can be put to good use.

but even then they're destroyed