Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Central New York State

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It is an alternative. She should transfer the guardianship to whomever wants to take it and that's been my point it covers both aspects of this issue. Even "if" the fetus has the right to life, it would not have the right to rule over what's on the other side of the umbilical cord.
  2. Well, then, that twin should schedule itself it see a judge and try to be granted guardianship. Then, upon attaining that, go through medical testing/counseling before it decides to have a surgical separation to secure its own identity.
  3. Just about anyone could feed it after it is born. Preemies have been sustained via intravenous support for quite a while now.
  4. If you want a court to assign it legal guardianship of its conjoined twin that is in the process of being born, after the court assesses the soundness of the born twin to assume that roll, I suppose it would have some merit based on a protection of itself.
  5. The physiological, hormonal and psychological issues are well known in pregnant women. If these things can make a woman choose odd things to eat to feed the nutritional demands of a fetus/pregnancy there is certainly grounds to accept that some form of non-verbal communication is going on.
  6. A legal parent, adopted parent or guardian would make the difficult decision to keep conjoined twins together, or separate them, as they do anyway. That is unless they become wards of the court.
  7. Cut the umbilical cord if you want, ladies, and let those that want to take control of that separated fetus have at it, but do not let them control you by shaming you or calling you a murderer. Science knows you are getting physiological, hormonal and psychological issues caused by that fetus being there and it is arguable that there is a natural feed back loop going on where the urge to be separated is being induced by the fetus.
  8. I was pointing to the legal ramifications surrounding the donors of DNA and the ownership factor that is involved.
  9. I the case of "the mother", it comes down to something akin to “having a dog in the fight”. The woman has DNA in the mix (as does only one other). Even within the sphere of “Assisted Reproduction Techniques” we see that egg, sperm and pre-embryo donation contracts having legal force for signing away rights/transferring them.
  10. Trying to prove a mischaracterization by me through mischaracterization by you is laughable. Your “no other action” serves your requirement and not that of the person who seeks to abort. You offer no other “solution” than a “stay the course” dictate (aka, forcing). I'm giving choices based on the many positions to be had. The “solution” that I offer to cover many aspects, and you keep trying to run from despite your claimed position, is to HARVEST the fetus and take responsibility for whatever stage the fetus is at and bring it to the end of what would be a full gestation period an
  11. By proposing the denial of the option of medical abortion you certainly have proposed “forcing” (aka, “no other option“). I revealed an accurate snapshot of you, not a made-up painting. Sorry if you can’t accept that. I have offered a medical solution which allows you, and people with your view, to commit to your beliefs. That is a pro-life solution that doesn’t force your will against another on this matter. If you are sincere in your beliefs, pursue my solution to the problem that YOU have made it into.
  12. I’m sure that those nice people in their clean white coats, at your club (Loony Bin), tell you that you are “ALWAYS RIGHT“, all the time, to calm you down while they arrange for supplemental medication!!!
  13. Well, if it was your intention to procreate only and you had sex outside of your wife's fertile window you know there's more to it. Sex for pleasure is also a human trait and grounds for consent to sex. I’m fine with your claimed consensual acts of procreation and rearing of children to adulthood and beyond, I’ve raised three. Certainly women can consent to impregnation for the purpose of procreation without having sex, which shows there are separate arguments that can be had here. Yet the post we are bouncing off had to do with you putting action where your mouth is by seeing that fetuses are
  14. I'm not a Condumb!!! What else are you wrong on?
  15. Thanx for the correction Condumb=Neanderthal then!!!
  • Create New...