There Is No Right To Life In The Declaration Of Independence

Ok, nothing is perfect, but it's better than doing nothing

 

Zygotes, embryos, fetus....they are all the same until that moment when they become a human being. That moment is extremely difficult to define so the courts wisely avoided it and made the third trimester the legal limit of abortions without mitigating circumstances. Don't even go to DNA makes a human being or that a fetus is a potential human being, bla bla bla. Either you are a human being or you are not. Ten cells in a womb do not constitute a human being, end of story.

 

So, you're saying that a 28 week old fetus that is born has a right to life while a 42 week old fetus that has not yet been born has no right to life. How disgusting.

 

Seems I have the more expanded and accurate one since you are claiming the Constitution is what founded the United States.

Lack of rebuttal noted.

 

It's not hard to define that moment at all science is quite clear about. You aren't a science denier are you?

 

Science, especially your "science", does not and cannot rule on, nor define, when a fetus becomes a legal human being....a person.

Science does not make the laws...

Know any fetuses with SSN's ??

AND NO, having an SSN does NOT define what a person is but ONLY a BORN person can have one.

 

YUP! EVEN WOMEN !!!!

 

Maybe they don't want to be educated by the rightwing ideologue Justices you folks confirmed.

 

Yes, and your point is what?

 

Why are you making up positions for me?

 

My position is that there is no person until there is a mind. Certain structures must be in place for this to occur. These connections that would allow a conscious existence (a mind) do not begin to be functional until around 21 weeks. Therefore, after this point, the fetus should be considered a person. A person's right to live does outweigh the mother's right to autonomy, in my opinion. Before 21 weeks, there is no person, and therefore there is no moral issue with abortion before 21 weeks.

 

Depends on how you define "being." If we stick to what's morally relevant, we're still back to requiring a mind for it to be a being, because nothing is more essential to being "a human" than having a mind. Without the mind, it's just tissue of human origin. Even though it's true that a new "being" (a clone) could be made from any of my nucleated cells, they would not actually be new beings until they had minds.

 

So you can't read. Got it.

 

Being = something that exist. There are millions of beings that have no "mind". You don't have to have a mind to be a being. The human being begins at conception. The moment that occurs a new human being comes into existence. That's the science, let's go with that what do you say?

 

OK but that does not make it accurate just because it's your position. Our founding document is quite clear we are created with that inherent right to our life. There is no waiting period. Science is quite clear, we are human beings from the moment of conception, there is no waiting period.

The phrasing the pro-abortion side must go through. Why can't you just call it what it is, speak in simple terms. My position which I cite from our fundamental rights is that the mothers desire to kill her unborn baby because she doesn't want it to be born does not outweigh

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life......"

It comes before all else.

 

You are arguing with me because I said otherwise, are you now agreeing with me? And neither did the Federalist Papers found our country.

 

To be a human being you do. I suppose some weird people consider trees to be beings. But having a mind is essential to being a human being.

I don't know why you feel the need to focus so much on semantics. Either way, it's morally relevant if it has a mind, and morally irrelevant (for its own sake) if it has no mind. But I think you're wrong even on semantics. If somebody told you, "we discovered beings from outer space." Would you assume they were talking about mindless bacteria, or living things with minds? You wouldn't think of bacteria from space as beings simply as "something that exists," but we would define them as existing and alive, if they existed. No, if we discovered alien bacteria, it would be alien life, but not alien beings.

 

People were mischaracterizing my position and misunderstanding pro-choice positions in general.

The legal document (14th amendment, e.g.) extends rights to those born. And point of creation isn't defined by the DOI. Science doesn't tell us what to value. Conception is the point at which a new set of DNA is created from sexual reproduction. But this is just a blueprint, a plan. It's not a being yet, but it has the potential to be used as the plans to make one. It's completely ridiculous to use this as the point where we start to care. The foundation of morality is harm to others, but there is no "other" if there is no mind.

 

It's not my science it is the science a taught in our colleges and universities and as I have repeatedly cited to you but you choose to deny the science.

Shouldn't the law be based upon it or are you a science denier?

Why would I possibly know a fetus to begin with and especially one with some number attached to their name?

So what? As you said that does not define what is a human being.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Science, especially your "science", does not and cannot rule on, nor define, when a fetus becomes a legal human being....a person.

YOU DENY the FACT that science does NOT make laws.....how confused can you get !!!????

Why are you a law denier???

You NEVER could address the FACT that fetuses cannot get SSNs because they are NOT persons

So what? I answered right here

""""AND NO, having an SSN does NOT define what a person is but ONLY a BORN person can have one.

 

The DOI is not a statute, it is not a legal document at all. It's sad our Vice President thinks it does, but it's what I expect form someone clearly unqualified for government leadership.

 

What they wanted and what they got is directly linked to what they were not educated on Abortion was not a constitutional right, see how education played in to this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I didn't say science makes the law how confused can you be?

Haven't denied what is the law. Why do you deny the scince?

If you are not born you cannot get a SS number.

There I addressed it AGAIN, now so what that does not defined what is a human being. Why do you keep posting the strawman?

""""AND NO, having an SSN does NOT define what a person is but ONLY a BORN person can have one.[/QUOTE]

So what?

 

So now we have circled all of the way back to Harris not believing in the right to life. You should pick just one opinion and stick to it.