DNA aside.....a beating heart and a developing brain makes them human, not to mention the spirit that gives it life. - - - Updated - - - DNA aside.....a beating heart and a developing brain makes them human, not to mention the spirit that gives it life.
Actually under the fetal homicide laws the accused can be found guilty of both but the charge of fetal homicide is based upon the violation of the rights of the woman that suffers the actual act of aggression that results in the death of the fetus. The fetus cannot die or be harmed without the act of aggression being committed against the woman. The act of aggression against the woman that results in the death of the fetus causes more harm to the woman than just the act of aggression against her and that justifies the fetal homicide law as a separate count.
Irrelevant because Constitutional protections are based upon the criteria of "person" and not "human" and Roe v Wade is a decision based upon the Constitution.
If that is the case in your nation, then I would hope that no person or business could ever be sued or charged for harming a fetus from any medication or product that can harm or kill a fetus----such as lead, asbestos, or thalidomide. Even after they are born, anti-fetal rights people in your government should never allow victims to take legal recourse for their suffering. This human was damaged by thalidomide while he wasn't "a human."
So you want a fetus to have rights AND NO RESTRICTIONS but you don't want born children to have any rights...weird...
You are not confusing me in the slightest. A Homo Sapiens is a human with human DNA that is part of his genome. Does not matter is they are just a zygote, does not matter if they have parts of animals in them as medical treatment. A DNA retrovirus like HIV has human DNA in it. But that is not a human. There is human DNA in hair, fingernail clippings and severed limbs. Those are human parts but they are not human beings. A human being begins at conception with fertilized egg and ends with their death. Experts with overriding political agendas are not to be trusted.
Very well.......Don't know how you arrive at your "Constitutional conclusion" based on two words of similar meaning, but I will alter my post without changing the truth behind it. DNA aside.....a beating heart and a developing brain makes them a person, not to mention the spirit that gives it life.
The words are similar but not the same or ,see, there'd only be one word. A person is a human who has been born. If they are a person BEFORE they're born then the woman still has the right to kill them because they cannot use another's body to sustain their own life without consent. You can't, I can't, NO one can. The only way you could do that would be to declare pregnant women NON-Persons and take away the same rights you and I have... Please show proof that there is a "spirit" that gives life....or leave it in the religion forum...
While a nice revision of the statement it fails on two counts. The "beating heart and developing brain" of a goat doesn't make a goat a person. There's no evidence of any "spirit" or that even an imaginary "spirit" plays any role in the life of any lifeform rendering that a nonsense argument. All of the historical legal precedent establishes that the person does not exist until birth. In Roe v Wade the attorney's representing Texas, as the defendants, were asked by the justices of the Supreme Court to provide a historical legal precedent that established the "person" existed before birth. They were unable to provide that example as all legal precedent defining the "person" begins at birth. Not even the US Supreme Court could establish that legal precedent and instead referred to the "potential person" when discussing the "viable fetus" in the Roe v Wade decision. That is not to claim that the legal precedent of the "person" is correct nor is it "carved in stone" either because it can be changed in the United States. A Constitutional Amendment can establish the legal precedent for the "person" to exist before birth but that doesn't solve the underlying problem that relates to the "Rights of the Person" if "personhood" is established prior to birth by an Amendment to the US Constitution. The underlying problem is significant. The rights of one person cannot conflict with the rights of another person. Rights are mutually exclusive and can only apply to one person without violating the rights of another person. The woman has pre-existing rights already established so any "rights" of the pre-born person cannot exist if they violate the pre-existing rights of the woman and are only established when the conflict ceases to exist. For example, the fetus as a person has a "right to eat" but it doesn't have a "right to food" that's provided for by the woman. The woman has the "right to terminate" the feeding of the fetus at any time. Not a problem at viability because the fetus can be surgically removed "unharmed and intact" and someone else can voluntarily feed the fetus. Prior to viability the fetus, removed unharmed and intact, will die for numerous reasons and one could be because no one else is capable of providing the food to the fetus.. .
The beating heart I am talking about never becomes a goat. How rediculous. The developing brain I am talking about is completely separate from the woman. Hospitals and care centers are filled with people that can't feed themselves. I suppose you would say there is a right to with hold food? Sorry, I don't see your argument holding any "moral" standards at all. That may not be important to you.
You've missed the entire point. try reading without emotion: ""The rights of one person cannot conflict with the rights of another person. Rights are mutually exclusive and can only apply to one person without violating the rights of another person. The woman has pre-existing rights already established so any "rights" of the pre-born person cannot exist if they violate the pre-existing rights of the woman and are only established when the conflict ceases to exist."" NO where does that indicate withholding food from a person who cannot feed themselves......however, NO one is forced to feed them and especially aren't forced to feed them with their own body .
Not in my country. I was responding to someone asking about the law *in my country*, which was in the post I quoted. - - - Updated - - - All I can do is smh at the inanity of this.
It is very clear you have not taken the most important part of this equation into account. It would seem you either forgot or do not care about this aspect and fail to address it in any way. What is this important part you ask? The Mother!
Mothers do not abort their offspring for convenience. When they do....they are not mothers. Mothers love and nurture their young. I bet your mother did.
Tecoyah, if a pregnant woman is indeed a mother, that means the life within her is a child. If she aborts that child for reasons of convenience, then she and the one that performed the abortion are accomplices to murder. A women is not a mother, unless she has a child. I can't understand why you can't follow this logic.
No, a woman and a doctor who performs an abortion on her did not murder anyone..... HAVE YOU CALLED THE POLICE as it is your DUTY as a citizen to report a crime? If not , why not?
No, that is not what it means, a pregnant woman is often called a mother, expecting mother, or any of many euphemisms before giving birth. Your decision to pick one as a means of impacting your opinion does NOT change this and you have not actually addressed my point...as expected. So I will ask it again in a way that will show you for what you are whether you honestly reply or avoid it again. Do you feel the ZEF is more important than the woman it resides in?
Looks like RVW is safe so far from the "conservative judge who will overturn RvW"" that the Anti-Choicers wanted.......latest nominee said he'd walk out of the room if asked to overturn it.... ...But he could be as big a liar as Trump ....but I doubt it....nobody can trump Trump for lies.
Any judge would be wise enough to know what overturning RvW would entail for human rights, privacy, policing, lawsuits....etc... Never going to happen regardless of crazy Xtians.
