What Constitutional Rights Apply to an Unborn Fetus: Judicial Interpretation as opposed to Legal/JudicialPhilosophy

Science says that human life begins at conception.
I never said it didn't.

I said the fetus has no rights of personhood.

Any human cell can be called human life not every human cell is a person. A fertilized human ovum is not a person.
 
I never said it didn't.

I said the fetus has no rights of personhood.

Any human cell can be called human life not every human cell is a person. A fertilized human ovum is not a person.
If a fertilized egg is the start of human life, how can it be anything other than a human life?
 
The OP’s tired old contention presumes that human life is only definable by birth.
Dainty Srillinacoma imagines that Constitutionally guaranteed rights only apply to “persons”and a zygote or a fetus or an embryo doesn’t meet some random definition of who or what a “person” is.

Buy the premise (which, of course, I don’t), buy the movie.
 
If it is a human life, it should be afforded every protection as everyone else. It seems self evident.
So you think a single cell should be endowed with all the rights of personhood?
The OP’s tired old contention presumes that human life is only definable by birth.
Dainty Srillinacoma imagines that Constitutionally guaranteed rights only apply to “persons”and a zygote or a fetus or an embryo doesn’t meet some random definition of who or what a “person” is.

Buy the premise (which, of course, I don’t), buy the movie.
Actually the OP is suggesting that at conception the fertilized human ovum should be granted all the rights of personhood
 
By definition, it is a human life.
Whatever. The question is whether it's a person with Constitutionally protected rights. That's the difference between a fetus and person, between born and unborn.
 

Forum List

Back
Top