Abortion is in the constitution.

Does your cancerous tumor have a brain which reacts to pain and responds to its mother's voice? Moves by itself? Have a beating heart? The only difference between the fetus in late development and an infant which has been born is that it is still attached to its mother and is inside its mother.

 

You misunderstood. Your post seems to make a claim that simply because human is in there, being neither other animal, vegetable or mineral, that somehow that confers upon being something more. SI showed the flaw in that use by attaching it to something else. Just invoking the word human is not enough of an argument.

 

Because it is an irrelevant point in whether or not the woman's bodily autonomy is in violation.

 

I would disagree with the ZEF being her property, but again, as I have often pointed out, whether it is or not is irrelevant to the issues of whether or not something is in violation of her bodily autonomy.

 

An error in her wording. No one has the right to used another's body to sustain their own life without the permission of the other. A permission that can be withdrawn at any time during the use, but not after the use.

 

SO then it would be perfectly legal for the state to authorized me to take blood and/or organs from you, with the presumption that such removal does not kill you, in order to sustain my life, whether you want to provide them or not.

 

Let's go with a thought experiment. You wake up to find that I have, through some machinery and tubes, hooked myself up to you. Let's say as a living blood filter. You are at no risk of IMMINENT death or serious injury, but if ever you are disconnected from me, I will die. According to your argument, you are now stuck with me for as long as I need your body so that I don't die.

 

I know it's hard but I applaud your effort.

 

OF COURSE IT IS! You can't have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have health. So you have a right to health. And if a medical practitioner is willing to provide his services to improve your health, you have a RIGHT to his offered services.

 

I love ridiculous fantasies. They tell me so much about people.

 

You need to bone up on the legal definition of "right" before you make such statements that are more than questionable.

Start with this:
right
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. (See: civil rights, marital rights)

And there's lots more here.

 

I noticed that you avoided the question. The purpose of a thought experiment is to look at the application of principles in other situations. Usually those who avoid answering them are avoiding exposure of holding double standards.

 

I fully support a woman's (or anyone's) constitutionally protected right to choose what they do or don't do with their own body. Just because I'm not pro-abortion does not mean I'm anti-abortion. There are many possible conditions that could cause a woman to choose abortion. I am not in favor of such a choice being strictly a form of contraception but it's not up to me or anyone else and definitely not the state to make such a decision.

Pregnancy speaks for itself. As already explained umpteen times, a fetus can only be created, exist, be sustained and grow within the host mother's body (assuming it's not created and grown in a lab), whose rights are fully protected by the Constitution. Once it's out of the woman's body, it is then no longer a growing fetus and no longer part of her body. That is self-evident.

Similar to a fetus. The difference, among others is that it's not a malignant growth. It doesn't exist without the mother's own cells.

 

It's not irrelevant, it is the crux of the issue. Rights are derived from property. Without property there are no rights. Everything within a woman's body is her property.

 

Disagree. To make a parallel, I can own something (item) outright or jointly with another person while it resides upon their property (location). Simply being on their property (location) doesn't make it (item) their property. The same with a woman's body (location). Simply because the ZEF(item) is in there, that does not make it her property. At best it can be argued that it is the property(item) of both her and the father. To continue the parallel, whether mine or jointly owned, if she no longer wants it on her property(location), she has every right to have it(item) removed. After all it's not my property(location) to insist that the other item remains. Now if possible, it should be removed intact. But let's say that it was a large sculpture that will not fit through the door. Her right to get it off the property allows her to cause damage to it to have it removed, because there is no other way to have it removed. Likewise, because there is no other way to have the ZEF removed, other than termination, she is still within her right to have it removed. But that doesn't make the ZEF her property, nor does it make a difference whether the ZEF itself is her property or not. BY the argument you presented, the moment a man sticks his penis in the woman's vagina, anus or mouth, it becomes her property, and that simply is not true.

 

Probably so, although the Supreme Court can find many ways to come up with a ruling to their liking. There is probably some invasion of privacy in there somewhere, though privacy is only implied in the Constitution.

 

I didn't ask you about the woman's opinion about the abortion itself I asked YOU about YOURS. If you are not for abortion then you are anti-abortion, you said you don't like abortion will why not? What do you have against abortion?

Yes unfortunately for you it does not say what you claim it says. The baby is NEVER a part of the woman, they are entirely separate human beings and each human being has a DOI declared and Constitutional right to their life and you have shown NOTHING otherwise trying to site specious biological nonsense.

Not they are not similar to a fetus which is an entirely separate being and not a part of the mother and not one or more of HER cells which have mutated into and incontrollable growth. Where do you get this stuff?

 

Your right to life has NOTHING to do with property, nor does your right to free speech and if we take you at your word then do you support only property owners have a right to vote? And stopped the proposition in this country that one human being can be the property of another a long time ago.

 

It most certainly is up to the State as are speed limits, murder, plumber licensing, etc, etc, etc. All being subject to passing constitutional muster of course.

 

Property, in the context he used it, goes well beyond real estate, so this argument is not relative to the one given. All persons are property owners, if for nothing else, their own bodies.

 

Let's stick with reality instead of strained hypotheticals.

 

The penis is not part of the woman's body. The ZEF is.


If you think it's not hers then whose is it?

 

Not only is that not a precept in common law the poster made no distinctions, you don't get to put words in his mouth. Respond to what he and I said.

 

Usually, a woman survives pregnancy and giving birth. But her expectant baby will never survive an abortion.

 

Correct. He made no distinctions. Thus the term property was not limited to real estate. That would be you that put the words into his mouth setting the limit to real estate.