CDZ Abortion

[Chuz Life]

The laws don't have to be challenged at all, because they protect mothers and children from their enemies who would harm either of them. Chuz, you have made no case whatsoever.

Your inconsistency is your appeal to law then condemn appeal to authority.

You have your opinion and nothing else.

We have laws and Supreme court Rulings that both recognize children in the womb as persons/ MURDER victims in one set of circumstances (fetal homicide laws) and deny that they are persons / murder victims in another (legalized abortion.)

Our Constitution establishes that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Therefore, there is an inconsistency that will eventually have to be redressed by the Court.

Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law.

Would I?

 

[320 Years of History]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

1. No.
2. Yes, to my satisfaction and to that of some others with whom I've discussed the matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

 

[jillian]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

if you want actual response to this, it probably shouldn't be in the CDZ... especially with your false characterization of abortion as murder

murder is defined by statute. reproductive choice is reproductive choice and is constitutionally protected from government intervention.

the rest is your own personal business.

 

[JoeMoma]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

"Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development" is not a scientific fact. They are fetuses with human-like characteristics. They are not human until birth.

 

[JoeMoma]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

"Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development" is not a scientific fact. They are fetuses with human-like characteristics. They are not human until birth.

Care to click on a link?
Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major

 

[JoeMoma]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

"Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development" is not a scientific fact. They are fetuses with human-like characteristics. They are not human until birth.

So the process of birth makes the life human? Got anything scientific to back up that claim?

 

[JakeStarkey]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

"Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development" is not a scientific fact. They are fetuses with human-like characteristics. They are not human until birth.

So the process of birth makes the life human? Got anything scientific to back up that claim?

Joe, you have your opinion and a link that agrees with you. So what? It is not definitive.

 

[alang1216]

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact.

Actually it is not a "scientific fact". Science does not answer the question of when a collection of cells is a human being that is an arbitrary line that we draw based on our values, religion, gut, or something else, just not science. If you ask the question of when life begins science would say 4.5 billion years ago.

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I look at a baby at birth and I have no trouble accepting that it is a human being deserving of all the protections society bestows. I look at a fertilized egg and I see no heart, brain, etc., I see a blueprint for a human being, not a human being. A blueprint is not a house, you can't live in it, so tearing it up and starting again is just fine. Somewhere between that egg and birth an arbitrary line is crossed that can be discussed and maybe even a consensus arrived at but to claim there is only one answer and you have it is pure arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Chuz Life]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

"Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development" is not a scientific fact. They are fetuses with human-like characteristics. They are not human until birth.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a human being. . . Then what species of being are they? Be specific.

 

[Valerie]

the supreme court has ruled and reaffirmed that the unborn do not meet the constitutional definition of persons.

the question of a fetus being inhuman was never considered by the court because the biology is obvious.

 

[alang1216]

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a human being. . . Then what species of being are they? Be specific.

The question is nonsense. You might just as well ask about the species of my liver. Would your answer be the same if I asked you about a tumor in my liver? Whatever the answer, I trust you would not object to my removing it.

Just because you use the term "human being" in your question does not mean that is in fact what it is.

Is a fertilized egg a human being? When did become so or when will it? Be specific and give the basis for you reasoning.

 

[Valerie]

Parents Against Personhood -


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons...

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

 

[JakeStarkey]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

"Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development" is not a scientific fact. They are fetuses with human-like characteristics. They are not human until birth.

If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a human being. . . Then what species of being are they? Be specific.

Why? You have not made your case.

 

[JoeMoma]

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

"Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development" is not a scientific fact. They are fetuses with human-like characteristics. They are not human until birth.

So the process of birth makes the life human? Got anything scientific to back up that claim?

Joe, you have your opinion and a link that agrees with you. So what? It is not definitive.

It's definitive for those that use common definitions as given in the science of biology.

Life cycle - Biology-Online Dictionary

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not, as it was explained to you above. Believe as you will, of course, but that is no imperative for anyone us to believe as you do.

 

[JoeMoma]

No, it is not, as it was explained to you above. Believe as you will, of course, but that is no imperative for anyone us to believe as you do.

You are correct. There is no imperative for you to believe accepted biological definitions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not, as it was explained to you above. Believe as you will, of course, but that is no imperative for anyone us to believe as you do.

You are correct. There is no imperative for you to believe accepted biological definitions.

Your definition is merely a twisted statement and it is not legal. Believe as you well.

 

[JoeMoma]

\Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

If it were already in law, I wouldn't have to argue that it SHOULD be in law. Would I?

Thank you for admitting your belief that fetuses are human beings is merely your opinion, with no basis in law.

Human fetuses are human beings (lives) at early stages of development. This is scientific fact. As a democratic republic, we collectively get to choose at what stage of human development that human beings receive legal protection. Under current law, women may choose to terminate offspring still in the womb. Human law and science do not have to be in agreement. What is legal or illegal does not necessarily dictate what is morally or ethically right or wrong.

As I said before, law and science are not the same.