Pregnant Texas woman says unborn baby should count as car passenger after receiving HOV ticket

Awesome

All women should start claiming them as dependents on their taxes too.

1 Like

Child support should start at the moment they find out they’re pregnant. There’s a whole myriad of things they should push

1 Like

Fuck yeah. Back date that shit to the moment of conception

If it means y’all will recognize the human life, I’m all for it.

Only on the state level though, and only for states that affirm a fetus counts as a human. No state income tax in Texas.

1 Like

No. Just means in those states where necessary we inflict maximum pain in return for your cruel Christian belief system.

Wonder what you call pulling a baby out piece by piece with a pair of tongs then.

I’m not the one changing definitions/categories to fit my worldview.

1 Like

You’re denying reality because it’s too difficult to acknowledge.

I would too.

You are denying reality and making up definitions to fit your worldview bud. I’ve asked you over and over to back up your claims from a science perspective and you run and hide everytime. I’m ok with you having your wrongly held belief, btw. Where I draw the line is when you use government to impose your religion

I think every true American can agree on this.

1 Like

I’m fine with it. I believe the baby is fully human, alive, and has rights.

If we convict people for double murder over it, and we have in the past, then this is consistent.

You’re simply wrong. Life begins at conception.

And you’re even more wrong when it comes to a viable fetus.

My twin and I were born at 7 months. We (obviously) survived. The left believes in abortion on demand up to and including 9 months.

That people can justify abortion - especially one in which the fetus actively tries to avoid being aborted during the procedure - is beyond appalling.

Not according to science. At “conception”, the egg hasn’t even implanted in the uterus and the woman isn’t even technically pregnant yet. You’re showing your lack of basic knowledge on the subject and allowing your religion to cloud your judgement.

False. The “left” has quite a nuanced view of abortion and spans a myriad of opinions. In almost all states, late term abortion where it wasn’t a case of the mother’s life was already illegal.
Again, you’re letting your religion cloud your judgement.

That people don’t consider basic science when forming their opinions relating imposing their religious beliefs on other’s rights to their own bodies is quite appalling. That you ignore that most abortions are done via two pills is appalling. That you have to change definitions in order to justify your views is appalling. That you give a shit about abortion but don’t give a shit your church rapes kids and hides it for centuries is appalling.

I agree it’s consistent at least.

Another thing I thought about for the first time… A true “pro-choice” stance should mean fathers shouldn’t have to pay child support for offspring, right? I mean, if we’re saying sex has no consequences, that women shouldn’t be responsible for potential babies that are conceived, then men shouldn’t either, right? Wouldn’t that be the pro-choice option for men?

The “Left” does NOT believe this. Though I’m sure some on the left do.

Um…what the fuck are you talking about?
Being pro-choice doesn’t by any means translate into “sex has no consequences.” Being pro-choice is standing up for a woman’s right to her own body and not being shackled to her reproduction as in the past. I know many women who have had abortions and not a single one entered into the decision lightly.

With regards to a father’s “pro-choice” stance…we have it right now. If you are unmarried, you’re not on the birth certificate unless you’re there and willing and do so. If you’re not there, the woman has to prove it and in doing so, bring:

Information about the noncustodial parent
Name, address and Social Security number
Name and address of current or recent employer
Names of friends and relatives, names of organizations to which he or she might belong
Information about his or her income and assets -- pay slips, tax returns, bank accounts, investments or property holdings
Physical description, or photograph, if possible
Birth certificates of children
If paternity is an issue, written statements (letters or notes) in which the alleged father has said or implied that he is the father of the child
Your child support order, divorce decree, or separation agreement if you have one
Records of any child support received in the past
Information about your income and assets
Information about expenses, such as your child’s health care, daycare, or special needs

Then, they get to go on the hunt and you have to wait and pray that they find him and you get through the entire process of establishing paternity, etc. We already practice the pro-choice stance for men. It’s inherent in the conversation, itself. Women are on the hook at day 1, while men have to be hunted down, paternity established, legal enforcement of child support throughout 18 years. The entire reason abortion was fought over in the first place in the US was it was happening, regardless, and it was dangerous. A long history of statistics show making abortion illegal doesn’t cut down on abortions, just cuts down on the dangers to women seeking them. Might be a good idea to go back and read some of the arguments from the Roe/Wade original issue

Why would attachment to uterine tissue qualify an organism to be alive or not?

The moment the egg and sperm combine metabolism, growth, respiration, excretion, and movement all begin.

Additionally, the ovum/blastocyst/fetus/zygote reacts to stimuli.

This is much more indicative of life than implantation.

So the question is…. Is it human? Count chromosomes….

Does that life have rights. Agree to disagree.

Might be one of the dumbest questions to have ever been asked. Because they’re not technically pregnant until it implants in the uterus. Jesus fucknut…you’re like the guy below who asked about swallowing a camera to tell if someone is pregnant

Yeah, no. No, that’s not correct at all. Respiration requires the intake of breath, hence lungs. Lungs aren’t developed yet in a zygote. Mitochondrial metabolism is essentially inactive during that process, pre-implantation. But, let’s take a look at it differently -

An unfertilized egg has those same features, minus respiration, which neither do. A sperm cell does as well. So the cells that give rise to a fertilized egg meet your definition of life as well. Are you talking about a unique genome that arises…despite, of course, mentioning that…the sperm has its own genome and the egg has its own genome, and for a couple of days…they stay independent. They are still two separate genomes, so are they two separate people? Eventually, around two days, they begin to work together but that’s two days after conception. So?

That’s incorrect. A zygote cannot and does not respond to outside stimuli. “Once formed through fertilization of the oocyte, the zygote starts the process of cell division and begins to develop into a morula and eventually a blastocyst. During this process it travels throught he Fallopian tubes towards the uterus.”

Spontaneous abortion occurs for 10-15% of all pregnancies…ALL pregnancies. If we’re treating each one of these as a full human being, why aren’t you treating that like a national emergency? The language you use when citing life begins at conception is essentially meaningless when you work it down in terms of biology.

The more you try the more you show you haven’t a clue.