Abortion = Murder

There doesn't have to be, one has to be born to be a person, and that's according to the Constitution.

If a fetus had rights it would also have the same restrictions...it could not use another person's body to sustain it's life.

Either way, abortion is legal.

 

No, it isn't.
Please show proof that anyone thinks it's "OK" for a woman to kill a born child......Hint: There is none....

 

An eagle has the right not to be killed. And of course abortion is legal

 

No babies are involved in a legal abortion

 

No, eagles are protected.

 

Semantics. In fact a fetus can use the mother to sustain its life against her will if it is late term and not a danger to the mother

 

Semantics!? No, the words "rights" and "protection" are two different words with different meanings.

An eagle has no rights,, you won't be executed for killing one, it isn't referred to as murder, it's an animal. It does have PROTECTION meaning you'll be in big trouble for killing one.


Late term fetuses have the protection but have no right to force a woman to birth them....A fetus cannot say,"" let the woman die because I want to live""..That equals NO rights.

 

The right of a fetus is enforced by the authorities. A newborn also can not demand not to be killed

 

The fetus can't & doesn't choose anything. The state - in the person of the Legislature, & then enforced in the Judiciary, can choose as policy to sharply curtail or even forbid abortion during a late-term pregnancy - except if carrying to term would endanger the life of the woman (per Roe v. Wade). The law doesn't recognize the fetus as an actor @ all - other than that the fetus has some protection against abortion once it is viable. The state can intervene more & more in the decision to abort - starting in the 2nd trimester & with the ability to forbid abortion outright in the 3rd trimester.

 

As you should know by now but obviously don't is that a newborn is BORN so it is a person with rights and a fetus isn't born so it has no rights...it does have some protections...."rights" and "protection" are two different words for a reason...

 

Once again, prove its not a human being. But of course if you could prove the unborn is not a human being, then there would be no abortion issue at all. And that's the fundamental problem - many people believe the unborn are humans, and you cannot prove otherwise.

 

Simple. If you have cells forming a baby in your uterus, you get to decide what happens next. Its your uterus.

 

Unborn humans are human....did someone say something else? Simply being human doesn't give them rights, they have to be born to have rights.

 

That's not the issue - the court doesn't talk about human being - Roe v. Wade lays out a legal relationship between the woman, the state & the fetus. The court didn't bother with a lot of medical nor theological nor philosophical experts - they decided on fairly straight-forward legal issues: Is the fetus a person? No - given time - the 2nd & 3rd trimesters of pregnancy, it may become a person. & that's why the woman's rights to an elective abortion in the 1st trimester are fairly unlimited - with increasing regulation by the state in the 2nd & 3rd trimesters.

The fight in the US is a legal fight, & using non-legal terminology is almost a guaranteed way to lose the argument.

 

Of course it is a human being.....a brain dead one and we kill those every day

 

Why should a single celled organism have superior rights to a mature adult?

 

Depends on how you define "human being".

Under federal law, a human being is defined as a

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

...

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

 

Abortionists want to keep the issue a strictly legal issue because the law currently is on their side. The claim that "its the law" is simply an effort to silence people who disagree with abortionists. The law can be wrong, it has been wrong many times before, and many people believe it is wrong now with respect to abortion (and many other issues). The written law is supposed to be based on the Constitution and societys morals. It is certainly arguable that Roe is not based on the Constitution, and Roe certainly does not reflect many peoples morality.

 

Make that argument to Terry Schiavo's family, you will certainly not get a welcoming response with your claim from them.

There is a huge difference between killing a brain dead adult and an unborn baby. The brain dead adult will not recover, given time the situation will not improve, while the unborn baby will continue to develop into a fully functioning normal person. Your argument fails.

 

Not just any single celled organism, but a human being. Humans go through several stages - a group of cells, unborn baby, born baby, child, adolescent, adult, elder. Different stages of humanity, but all human.

The only time the mothers right to life clearly supersedes the unborn bay's right to life is if the baby is not viable and seriously threatens the mothers life.

 

Because what matters for me is brain developpement. Inside/outside the uterus don't matters deeply for the moral part. I don't really care about the law.

 

But the brain dead fetus is inside a brain alive person. Up to her what to do

 

i love the use of language in the abortion debate - What about saying abortion = manslaughter rather than murder?

As a man, i find it difficult to have a valid opinion on this subject.

 

The same reason killing in self-defence, state sanctioned executions, doctors turning off life support of patients who won’t recover or members of the armed forces killing in combat aren’t murder.

 

LOL! I love your oh-so educational/intelligent "stages of life" ! Ridiculous....1. cells 2. Baby 3. baby...OK by then I was laughing too hard.

no zygotes, no FETUS.... two stages of baby but not two stages of "adult" ? Not two stages of "adolescent" ??? Just BOOM adolescent to adult...





The fetus has NO "right to life"...NONE.
The second you insist that's the fetus's right, then it infringes on the rights of the woman it's in. It can't have rights that infringe on other's rights.....it certainly does NOT have the right to use another's body to sustain it's own life...YOU don't have that right, why should the fetus??