I’m not anti-choice

[Baconqueen13]

At what point does this human growing inside a woman go from fetus to baby?

Scientifically at birth when the umbilical cord is cut and the cells are no longer dependent on the host for survival. Otherwise, from a philosophical standpoint, it is up to the individual woman hosting the cells to decide, not society.

So then, by that logic, that makes an exclusively breast fed infant fair game to be taken out too then, right? Those cells are still dependant, because if your tit isn't in it's mouth every 2 hours it's going to die. It's still a parasite. The individual woman is still responsible for it's survival.

Don't be intentionally obtuse it's not a good look. I shouldn't even bother answering the obvious red herring but what the hell. The answer is clearly no because the cells aren't dependent on the "tit" for survival as there is a viable alternative for meeting the nutritional needs of the cells in question and the "parasite" is perfectly capable of utilizing these alternate methods for it's survival. If you kill the host the "parasite" can survive at that point by being given supplemental alternatives whereas if you kill the host before birth the "parasite" would also perish. Now when science creates an artificial womb that can do the job of incubating said "parasite" until it can process nutrition on it's own then we can re-evaluate the whole when life begins thing as a "host" body would no longer be required.

[Valentina327]

Scientifically at birth when the umbilical cord is cut and the cells are no longer dependent on the host for survival. Otherwise, from a philosophical standpoint, it is up to the individual woman hosting the cells to decide, not society.

So then, by that logic, that makes an exclusively breast fed infant fair game to be taken out too then, right? Those cells are still dependant, because if your tit isn't in it's mouth every 2 hours it's going to die. It's still a parasite. The individual woman is still responsible for it's survival.

Don't be intentionally obtuse it's not a good look. I shouldn't even bother answering the obvious red herring but what the hell. The answer is clearly no because the cells aren't dependent on the "tit" for survival as there is a viable alternative for meeting the nutritional needs of the cells in question and the "parasite" is perfectly capable of utilizing these alternate methods for it's survival. If you kill the host the "parasite" can survive at that point by being given supplemental alternatives whereas if you kill the host before birth the "parasite" would also perish. Now when science creates an artificial womb that can do the job of incubating said "parasite" until it can process nutrition on it's own then we can re-evaluate the whole when life begins thing as a "host" body would no longer be required.

So now what, Oracle?

https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -fertility

[Baconqueen13]

So then, by that logic, that makes an exclusively breast fed infant fair game to be taken out too then, right? Those cells are still dependant, because if your tit isn't in it's mouth every 2 hours it's going to die. It's still a parasite. The individual woman is still responsible for it's survival.

Don't be intentionally obtuse it's not a good look. I shouldn't even bother answering the obvious red herring but what the hell. The answer is clearly no because the cells aren't dependent on the "tit" for survival as there is a viable alternative for meeting the nutritional needs of the cells in question and the "parasite" is perfectly capable of utilizing these alternate methods for it's survival. If you kill the host the "parasite" can survive at that point by being given supplemental alternatives whereas if you kill the host before birth the "parasite" would also perish. Now when science creates an artificial womb that can do the job of incubating said "parasite" until it can process nutrition on it's own then we can re-evaluate the whole when life begins thing as a "host" body would no longer be required.

So now what, Oracle?

https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -fertility

You missed this bit

"Surgically removed from their mother’s wombs at 105 to 115 days",

Doesn't count if it's still relying on a host for any part of the process. Thus still the host's choice. Furthermore a lambs typical gestation period is 142-152 days so this is akin to using a hospital incubator for a premie baby. Try again troll.
It helps to actually READ the articles you google to see if it ACTUALLY supports your position or not but that requires intelligence

[Valentina327]

Don't be intentionally obtuse it's not a good look. I shouldn't even bother answering the obvious red herring but what the hell. The answer is clearly no because the cells aren't dependent on the "tit" for survival as there is a viable alternative for meeting the nutritional needs of the cells in question and the "parasite" is perfectly capable of utilizing these alternate methods for it's survival. If you kill the host the "parasite" can survive at that point by being given supplemental alternatives whereas if you kill the host before birth the "parasite" would also perish. Now when science creates an artificial womb that can do the job of incubating said "parasite" until it can process nutrition on it's own then we can re-evaluate the whole when life begins thing as a "host" body would no longer be required.

So now what, Oracle?

https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -fertility

You missed this bit

"Surgically removed from their mother’s wombs at 105 to 115 days",

Doesn't count if it's still relying on a host for any part of the process. Thus still the host's choice. Furthermore a lambs typical gestation period is 142-152 days so this is akin to using a hospital incubator for a premie baby. Try again troll.
It helps to actually READ the articles you google to see if it ACTUALLY supports your position or not but that requires intelligence

LMMFAO
The biggest imbecile on this board trying to insult me. My Monday is complete now!

And troll? What? That doesn't even make any sense - however, perfectly expected from you.

They're already making the advancements of which you speak, troll. Today its a partial gestation. There are articles that reference that the aim is full gestation, which is pretty obvious that's where science is going. Medical advancement doesn't just stop and say "eh, partial is good enough. We'll just leave this half assed". I'm sorry you can't understand things. Thinking is hard!

See below link for something else you won't be able to comprehend.

Next poor attempt at at insult, Einstein?

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human-ba ... e-8156458/

[Baconqueen13]

So now what, Oracle?

https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -fertility

You missed this bit

"Surgically removed from their mother’s wombs at 105 to 115 days",

Doesn't count if it's still relying on a host for any part of the process. Thus still the host's choice. Furthermore a lambs typical gestation period is 142-152 days so this is akin to using a hospital incubator for a premie baby. Try again troll.
It helps to actually READ the articles you google to see if it ACTUALLY supports your position or not but that requires intelligence

LMMFAO
The biggest imbecile on this board trying to insult me. My Monday is complete now!

And troll? What? That doesn't even make any sense - however, perfectly expected from you.

They're already making the advancements of which you speak, troll. Today its a partial gestation. There are articles that reference that the aim is full gestation, which is pretty obvious that's where science is going. Medical advancement doesn't just stop and say "eh, partial is good enough. We'll just leave this half assed". I'm sorry you can't understand things. Thinking is hard!

See below link for something else you won't be able to comprehend.

Next poor attempt at at insult, Einstein?

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human-ba ... e-8156458/

Articles which REFERENCE the aim being full gestation. Does not mean that is has or will come to pass at any point in time. Strictly speaking it is pure science fiction as it still requires the contribution of donors to produce the necessary gametes required in order to create said embryo's. However that is getting further and further away from the debates of both when does life begin and when is it no longer considered a "parasite" and into ethics of the matter. As it is ILLEGAL to use a woman's egg without her consent this whole conversation is a moot point. No surprise your dumb ass would continue to try to argue it. However given logic isn't your strong suit I'll lay it out for you as it stands to reason those who would utilize the artificial wombs would be those who have difficulty carrying a pregnancy naturally and not those seeking to terminate a pregnancy so it doesn't fall into the abortion debate at all.

[Traci_Momof2]

75FE806F-3017-43FB-B618-40A3660B7546.jpeg

The problem with that meme is that the choices given are not all choices at the same point in time. Abstinence is a choice at the time you are thinking about having S*x - abstinence or S*x, those are your two choices at that point in time. Adopting out or parenthood are choices you face once a baby is born - this baby came out of you? ok choose - adopt out or parent it.

But there is a point in the middle, that point in time when you find out that you are pregnant. And at that point in time, there are only two options - gestate the pregnancy or abort the pregnancy. That's it. Those two. There is really no other decision to make until you make one of those two decisions - gestate or abort. And if a woman really does not want to gestate, then her only other option is to abort.

[Deleted User 203]

Sorry but your logic doesn't make much sense. You say life begins at conception and then you support birth control that is designed to make sure a fertilized egg doesn't turn into a pregnancy. That is a direct contradiction.

I am sorry for what you went through though.

The TRUE beauty of "choice" is not just about abortion. It's also about beliefs in general and what someone feels is best for their own, private life.

Not everything in life is black or white, and this includes politics and beliefs such as when life begins.

It's not a contradiction except perhaps to the traditional beliefs (and/or the perception of those beliefs by others) of a lot of pro life women. That is also their choice.

I am 100% pro choice and have no issue with birth control

I'm not sure how you don't see that hormonal birth control is a direct contradiction to life beginning at conception.

Hormonal birth control works to "kill" a fertilized egg which would already be alive if you think life begins at conception. It is pretty black and white in this case.

I am equally pro choice and feel it's a woman's right to 'choose' to use birth control or not.

When it comes to choice and in THIS particular political situation, it's not just about a woman's right to choose to have a safe, legal abortion.

It's also about her right to choose when it comes to all of her medical decisions.

I chose to use birth control back in 1994 and because we felt we were done having children at that time. Despite my viewpoint on life beginning at conception, I had no issue with it other than...again....that it failed me (or I failed it).

So no, it's not a black and white issue and because it's a PERSONAL issue for all women and the business of no one else.

[DSamuels]

Sorry but your logic doesn't make much sense. You say life begins at conception and then you support birth control that is designed to make sure a fertilized egg doesn't turn into a pregnancy. That is a direct contradiction.

I am sorry for what you went through though.

The TRUE beauty of "choice" is not just about abortion. It's also about beliefs in general and what someone feels is best for their own, private life.

Not everything in life is black or white, and this includes politics and beliefs such as when life begins.

It's not a contradiction except perhaps to the traditional beliefs (and/or the perception of those beliefs by others) of a lot of pro life women. That is also their choice.

I am 100% pro choice and have no issue with birth control

I'm not sure how you don't see that hormonal birth control is a direct contradiction to life beginning at conception.

Hormonal birth control works to "kill" a fertilized egg which would already be alive if you think life begins at conception. It is pretty black and white in this case.

Hmm, I was told that hormonal birth control pills prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation. No egg release, no pregnancy. Now an IUD with hormones would prevent implantation. But not all hormonal BC works the same.

[Yoloo]

The TRUE beauty of "choice" is not just about abortion. It's also about beliefs in general and what someone feels is best for their own, private life.

Not everything in life is black or white, and this includes politics and beliefs such as when life begins.

It's not a contradiction except perhaps to the traditional beliefs (and/or the perception of those beliefs by others) of a lot of pro life women. That is also their choice.

I am 100% pro choice and have no issue with birth control

I'm not sure how you don't see that hormonal birth control is a direct contradiction to life beginning at conception.

Hormonal birth control works to "kill" a fertilized egg which would already be alive if you think life begins at conception. It is pretty black and white in this case.

Hmm, I was told that hormonal birth control pills prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation. No egg release, no pregnancy. Now an IUD with hormones would prevent implantation. But not all hormonal BC works the same.

You were told wrong.

They all have the same end results but how it happens might be a little different. If you give me an example of hormonal birth control I can show you the information.

[DSamuels]

I am 100% pro choice and have no issue with birth control

I'm not sure how you don't see that hormonal birth control is a direct contradiction to life beginning at conception.

Hormonal birth control works to "kill" a fertilized egg which would already be alive if you think life begins at conception. It is pretty black and white in this case.

Hmm, I was told that hormonal birth control pills prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation. No egg release, no pregnancy. Now an IUD with hormones would prevent implantation. But not all hormonal BC works the same.

You were told wrong.

They all have the same end results but how it happens might be a little different. If you give me an example of hormonal birth control I can show you the information.

Damn! I guess I should give you all my doctors and Ob/gyn names. And while you’re at it you should probably set these two websites straight. I can give you a lot more websites that say the exact same thing, or you can google it yourself.