U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 07-11-2011, 03:09 PM
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,475 posts, read 13,838,090 times
Reputation: 6359


I had an idea while perusing the voting history of a certain political figure, and basically it involved them supporting the view that an embryo is = to a person. A person has certain inalienable rights, I think. A person needs to be protected from harm.

If we consider the embryo to be the weakest of persons, and I'd say a person with just a few cells is pretty weak, then that person requires the strongest of protections. While a full grown man could fight off things that would harm him, no one expects this from a fetus or embryo. In fact, in some cases, it is the mother's own bad decisions that harm this newly formed person. Alcohol, tobacco, the random bong hit, here or there, perhaps even a (later) one night stand and snagging a STD. One could argue that even supposedly "intelligent and enlighted" women might have just "One glass of champagne, just this once." and cause harm to their pencil-point-sized-baby-person. Who knows what these women do every day, in fact? Do they jog? On the sidewalk? Exposing those newly formed people to the exhaust fumes of countless cars? What about those chemicals they use to dye their hair? Or, the stuff they paint their faces with? Are we SURE that stuff doesn't get in their system and affect the new person somehow? Of course we're not sure. But we ARE sure the baby is now soaking in Revlon or Maybelline backwash. Ok, we're not sure, but we can't take any chances since it's for the future of this tiny new person; a person that looks remarkbly like a tadpole.


I suggest that once legislation is enacted that does indeed declare that sperm+ egg ='s a person, that each woman of child bearing age - from menarche to menopause - be tested by the government daily to determine if the woman is pregnant. One would think women might be able to do this themselves, but one should also consider the possibility that the woman may not report the pregnancy in due time, and the little mini-person could be in grave danger. From coffee, for example. Or second hand BBQ smoke. Or just too much sun. If mom gets cancer from going to the beach, this mini-person could be affected by the cancer treatment. In fact, the sun may not be what the mother needs. It's best if the government makes the determination for her.

Once it is determined that any particular female is, in fact, pregnant, they need to be isolated from anything that could cause the tiny person any harm. Since some women have been known to cause their own abortions, either by insanity or self choice, this will most likely involve restraints of some sort. I'm sorry but it can't be helped. Now to ensure the best little "home" for this child, there really isn't anything much better than the womb, so that is Ok. However, the "burgers and fries" have got to go. A strict dietary regimen based on the USDA's food plate will be fed to the mother, through tubes, if necessary until the baby is born, and for one year thereafter, to assure a source of solid breast milk for the child. We want our children to have good health and good brains, don't we? Yes. Yes, we do. Once again, I'm sorry, but mothers simply might make the wrong dietary choices - either out of ignorance or mad desire for that luscious cheeseburger - and Junior/Juniette needs the best nutrition he or she can get.

And not to forget, but the mother's general health can't be ignored. DO NOT worry, ladies and gentlemen! The women will be assured to have plenty of fresh air and exercise and will be allowed out in their own personal work-out yard for say, an hour each day, (under strict armed gaurd of course) and then will be taken back to their breeding pen and placed back in her restraints.

After all.....it's for the good of the children. Who doesn't want the best for them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top