it is different when blacks don't take responsibility and follow lawful orders. women who don't take personal responsibility should not hurt babies.
Could you, please, tell us what exactly it is that you are hinting at here and how it relates to the topic of abortion? I take it "hurting babies" here refers to abortions, am I right? Having an abortion is actually taking personal responsibility.
LOL.....how pathetic can Anti-Choicers get..... ..and NOT ONE can answer : WHY do you think fetuses should have more rights than born persons?? Of course that's one of many they dodge around because they have no real answer...
blacks duly suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility. women put babies in harms way for their irresponsibility. lawful government force has a duty to protect babies.
A cell at the beginning of conception isn't a "baby". Also, third trimester abortion is banned in nearly every state.
Based upon those scientific uses. They lay person usually doesn't use "child" as an indicator of life stage in and of itself. e.g. "My child just finished up 20 years at the company." or "Don't be such a child". Even so, while the term isn't specific to any given life stage, it refers back to given life stages, all post birth. In the end, though, the terms "child" or "baby" are red herrings in the context of the abortion debate. They can serve no other purpose other than emotional deception. If you cannot make your argument based upon the strict basis of the entity in question being a Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo, or Fetus, then you don't actually have an argument. Which does nothing to counter the point of whose rights override the others. I have the freedom and right to go anywhere I want. However, your right of personal property overrides my right, thus not allowing me to enter onto your property without permission. You have the right to do anything you want with your property (we are going to ignore for the sake of the argument anything that you contractually agree to be limited by, such as an HOA agreement). However, you cannot do anything that would affect another person's property, such as lawn treatment that affects the local water supply. All rights are limited and can override, and be overridden by, the rights of others. The Constitution itself, in the 14th, specifically states that it is applicable to those born or naturalized in the US. But even if we assume that the unborn do have rights, you then have to show how those rights override the rights of the woman. Now if we take the case of property rights, most would assume that your right to your property does not automatically override my right to life. Yet for the longest time, trespass was a legitimate reason to shoot someone on your property, and not considered murder. Over time, at the least that concept has expanded to a minimum of clearly marked boundaries. In some states or local locations, only threat of one's life is legitimate cause for the override of the trespasser's right to life. And even that has been subject to question in the courts. But the body is not simply one's property, and thus we cannot simply look at property rights as an example, in and of itself. Property rights here serve only as an illustration of how certain right can override the rights of other's at certain times. Thus we then have to turn to bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy rights are those rights that allow you to refuse to provide blood, bone marrow, or organs, even after your death, to another, even if that means that the other will die as a result. And while this may seem as if only the passive is in play, that right would apply even in a case where they are actively dependent upon you for life, For example, even in the middle of a blood transfusion, you have the right to stop the procedure even if it meant the death of the other person. It is this bodily autonomy right of the woman that overrides any supposed right to life of the ZEF. And keep in mind that is the only reason that she can terminate the ZEF. A woman does not, in and of itself, have a right to terminate the ZEF. For example, if she was using a surrogate and IVF because she could not carry to term herself, at no point could she choose to have the ZEF terminated. And for that matter, if there was a way to end the pregnancy without terminating the ZEF (not currently possible), then her only right is to end the pregnancy, not necessarily terminate the ZEF. However, her right to bodily autonomy, at this time, will result in the termination of the ZEF, should she choose to end the pregnancy. This is all before we consider at what point does a human being become such. You earlier said: So what is it that makes a Zygote or a Blastocyst or even a Fetus a human being? They have less and fewer specialized cells than even a newborn's big toe. So why are those more a human being than a big toe? At what point does a mass of cell become something more worthy than another mass of even more specialized cells. Now if you were arguing more against late term abortion, which is relatively rare and even more rarely done for anything other than medical necessity, than early term, the most common and done before the Fetus stage, then your arguments would have a lot more weight, since that is closer to a fully realized human being. But your argument is against all abortion. Hopefully with an exception for medical necessity.
Yet NEVER does ANYONE use the term child to describe anyone who isn't a person!! What makes a fetus a human being? Every human being begins his/her life as a blastocyst, embryo, fetus. So, given this fact, the question to ask why is a human being at his/her earliest stages of life not considered a human being? Please don't go the ignorant egg and sperm route. Neither will ever become a person without fertilization. Fertilization is the beginning of the new human being's life!
What makes a "born" women more worthy of rights than a woman in utero? It likely would be a stretch for you to attempt the 21st century version. You say it repeatedly!
when I first saw the thread title, I thought it was in support of universal health care as a right. Who doesn't want all kids to get easy access to free medical - other than the GOP and its health insurance overlords.?
I guess you haven't noticed that the Democrats are completely in charge now, as they have been before, and have no plans to pass any such thing, as they weren't before. Apparently being a Democrat means hanging on the politicians' every word but ignoring the fact that there is never any follow through or honesty in general.
Because they are BORN. Here's the question you keep ducking: Why do you want to give a fetus more rights than anyone else ? NO, I NEVER said "The Constitution doesn't provide a right to kill at will, so no I don't think women should have the right to kill at will.""" YOU DID. It's such a silly statement but no, women do not have a right to kill at will and no one said they did.....and , AS USUAL, you can't prove anyone said that
No, they're not....don't you know how the government works !? Democrats want children taken care of and Mitch McConnell and the Repubs don't....so they block everything the Democrats try to do that's good for BORN children and the US.
Unless it's their dog or cat You should have read post # 334 before commenting on it... Here's the question you keep ducking: Why do you want to give a fetus more rights than anyone else ?
I am not sure where you are going with this. One the one hand all persons are the child of two other people, even if who those two are are never known. On the other hand, the term child is used to describe things that are not even persons. But those are all relational wording, i.e. A is a child to B. It has no relationship to stage of life and the label thereof. If you want to note that child relates to person, then we are always killing some child somewhere, in war, or with the death penalty, or any number of things. Yet none of those people were a child, as far as life stage goes. Again, if you cannot make your argument stand without alternating the use of the word "child" from life stage label to relational label, then you never really had an argument to begin with. You are just trying for an emotional knee jerk instead of a reasoned argument. You forgot Zygote, the very first stage. Actually the question to answer first is what is a human being? What makes one a being? Not even necessarily human. Is a dog a canine or a canine being? What does it mean to be a "being"? If we can answer that question, then we can apply that to the question of whether or not pre-borns are human beings or not, or at least at what stage that become human beings. Please. Despite my stance on abortion, I have always had to call that argument out. At least with the big toe argument we are starting with something that has a full set of genetic code. Sperm and egg are only half codes, so they are nowhere near close. However, I do find it ironic that the ones who do most make the argument that sperm is life, especially in the terms of male should not masterbate, are the same religious fanatics against abortion. I'm not putting you in that camp. One can be against abortion without being that far out in left field. All that said, I had a lot of points that you ignored in that post. Why is that? You completely glossed over the whole rights issue, an issue you had brought up.
So you intend to throw away the protections of the filibuster or hand Dems a 60 vote supermajority? Can you give me an date certain?
LOL, Dems are hilarious! Thank God there are a few stumbling blocks in the way of this destructive crew!!!!
There are two sets of rights involved here, not one! The woman's right to autonomy over her body (although I submit that this is only in play in cases of rape or incest) , and the child in utero's basic right to life. So should we as a society side with the woman who made the decision to engage in the activity she knew could result in this? Or should we side with a defenseless child who had no part in creating the situation?
so tongue in cheek comments count? RME! Nobody else has a basic right to life? A right not to be intentionally killed just because one other person wants them dead? Where do you get this stuff?
Do they now? Is that why Biden has created this quagmire mess at the border resulting in children in cages?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Here's the question you keep ducking: Why do you want to give a fetus more rights than anyone else ? WHERE TF did I ever say that? NOWHERE. Of course you got the wrong end of the stick again. YOU want the fetus to have the right to use a human beings body to sustain their life. NO one else has that right. What you persisitently fail to realize is that with rights come RESTRICTIONS.
