When does life begin?

[PubliusInfinitum]

First, having a right to life does not usurp other rights. Simply because I have a right to life does not mean I have a right to use your body against your will to make my viable.

ROFL...

So do I understand that what you're saying is the embryo has hijacked the woman's body and presumably without her consent? Now I suppose this is true for that rarest of all prenatal scenarios: The Immaculate Conception.

But in the case where the woman has knowingly and willfully engaged in sexual intercourse, then she has chosen to engage in the behavior which nature has designed specifically for procreation... thus the woman is 100% responsible for that human life having been conceived; thus the pre-born human growing inside her body is a result of HER CHOOSING... therefore Scooter, there is no hijacking of the woman's body; therefore no violation of the woman's rights by the pre-born human who is growing inside her body; therefore that pre-born human being is as entitled to their life as the Mother is hers AND the mother is at that point 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFENDING HER OWN LIFE AND THE LIFE OF THE LIFE SHE HAS CONCEIVED THROUGH HER HAVING CHOSEN TO ENGAGE IN THE ACTIVITY WHICH NATURE HAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR PROCREATION.

You're simply wanting to excuse her for her CHOICE to engage in Sexual intercourse and to relieve her of her responsibilities which are resultant of that CHOICE by advocating for the FALSE CHOICE OF STRIPPING AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE OF ITS RIGHTS.

The premise of your position, here is thoroughly absurd...

Second, what are the federal statutes concerning the killing of a child…lethal injection? Rule of Law has no meaning unless it is enforceable. Do you really think society would just stand by while you strapped little Suzie to a gurney and stuck needles in her arm? I don’t think so.

Ahh... so the principle of inalienable human rights, particularly the human right to life and the rigt to pursue the fulfillment of that life is invalidated when a sufficient volume of people feel that the right is a drag on their booty calls... So what you're saying is that when a principle is being rejected by a sufficient volume of the population... or where a sufficient volume of the population is ignorant of a given principle, then that principle is no longer culturally viable...

That is fascinating... I wonder if you'd be interested in expanding on this notion? Does it translate to other human rights? I mean if it doesn’t slow the easy pussy down, is this notion you’re projecting still something on which you could still get on board

What is hilarious to me is that you're absolutely, or at least you're projecting that you're absolutely ignorant of the idiocy on which this notion of yours is based.

You seem to be saying that because a sufficient percentage of the population is of a given opinion that a segment of that population can be stripped of their rights. In fact, what I hear you saying is that the rights of a human being can be determined to be declared null and void based upon a cultural popularity.

So... then you're saying that black slavery was perfectly moral and a suitable means of commerce when it was popular... and that had the culture not been swayed by the understanding that black people are in fact human beings and because of this unavoidable fact, that they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, not the least of which is the right to their life and the pursuit of the fulfillment of that life, which includes enjoying the fruits of their own labor... that there would be absolutely nothing wrong with the practice of enslaving black people today, if there were simply a sufficient percentage of the population which 'believed' or 'were of the opinion' that such is acceptable because 'everyone does it' or 'because it is so common that it would be otherwise impossible to enforce?? Is this board to believe that you'd be in here proclaiming the enslavement of the black man and woman is acceptable because to make it not acceptable would require the culture to prosecute too many people?

Do you not understand that the principle that your driving at here advocates the notion 'that because a practice which violates the rights of a human being is legal; because the violation is quite common and the numbers of innocent humans being deprived of their life so enormous... that it would be difficult to enforce a prohibition of the practice, thus any discussion which highlights the immorality of murdering innocent life should be dismissed?

ROFLMNAO… Sweet Mother, you people are some dangerously ignorant fucks…

So even if you could piss all over the constitution it would seem society wouldn’t tolerate it. You have a dilemma don’t you….

Tell you what Skippy… I will send you a cashier’s check for $10,000 if you can show me where in the US Constitution it provides for a citizen of the United States to take a human life when that human life is determined to be inconvenience to that citizen... Hell I’ll do the same if you can show where a citizen can be held blameless for the ramifications of their behavior, where and when their behavior results in the intentional taking of an innocent human life. Now go knock yourself out…

That you even BELIEVE that there is something, ANYTHING in the USC which provides you the right to conceive life only to rip it from its inherent right to that life is something well beyond pathetic. That you're able to get within 10 miles of a voting booth is criminally immoral; you're ignorance is positively astounding.

Beyond all that, there is no dilemma; a woman has a right to choose, when, where and with whom she engages in sexual intercourse. Without regard to the specious decision coming out of Roe, there is NO right to take a human life without a valid moral justification and without question, those who knowingly take a human life without valid moral justification should be tried on the facts surrounding the killing of that human life and where the evidence shows that the individuals that participated, did so knowingly, intentionally, the evidence will have established that they have in fact forfeited their own rights and should be sentenced for their capital crime... 25 to life, execution... it varies from state to state...

And I seriously doubt there'd be more than a few thousand prosecutions for abortion throughout the US... I expect that when tens of millions of horny teenagers and twenty something’s begin to watch dozens of desperate, terrified teenagers and twenty something females (along with their boyfriends and Doctors) going to prison for a large chunk of their life or being executed, that this would have a tendency to dry up the easy pussy; which there can be NO DOUBT that if we could peel away the layers of rationalizations which you’ve used to come up with the above inanity, we'd find that THAT is all you're concerned with here... a means to rationalize the easy, supremely casual sex...

Sadly, (For you) the human’s right to their life, trump your 'needs,' playeh...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

so let me see if I understand this...

Every time I have my period and an egg is shed, I've lost a human being and therefore committed some form of murder by not having that egg fertilized

Look... If you're not sufficiently familiar with the biological processes to understand that an unfertilized egg is not a human embryo AND if you’re not sufficiently familiar with the principles relevant to what is and is not the usurpation of a human right, then perhaps you need to avoid discussions which evolve from and revolve around those issues...

But towards educating you, females that have not CHOSEN to participate in sexual intercourse are not at risk of having the aforementioned egg fertilized, thus that egg does NOT possess the biological properties necessary for life TO BEGIN!~

Secondly, when a female DOES engage in sexual intercourse or other activity which WILL provide for conception, she is responsible for that human life, to the degree that she is capable... and just like anyone else, where the female has not engaged in behavior, either knowingly, with malice of forethought or through criminal negligence harmed another human being, thn she is not responsible for any harm which may come to that human being; meaning that if the biological processes conclude the life of the pre-born child, she is not responsible for the death of that child BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE ITS DEMISE... ?

and everytime a guy jacks off, he's killing more humans because his sperm is alive?

As with the female egg, male semen does not constitute human life... it constitutes an organism relevant to the human body, not unlike a human organ...

When life begins is a pointless debate because some people approach the subject from a scientific standpoint and others approach it from a religious standpoint.

Some people look at assault as a simple function that the assualtee did not freely hand over his wallet... Now some scientists may say that had the assualtee simply complied with the demands of the assailant, the knife would not have caused the incision through his carotid artery, causing a major leak in his arterial network, dramatically lowering his blood pressure, preventing critical oxygen from servicing his heart and brain and vital organs ultimately resulting in his death...

But that opinion would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the simple fact that the assailent had no right to demand the assaultee to hand over his property, causing the assualtee to defend his property and his human rights against an unjustified attack, through which he ultimately lost his life, and for which the assailant forfeited his own rights, thus is subject upon a judicial trying of the facts surrounding the assault and upon conviction, to be summarily executed; having given up the right to his own life, due to his usurpation of the rights of another.

Whenever YOU think life begins is what should matter to YOU. Go with that. Make YOUR decisions based on that belief and allow others to make their decisions based on what THEY believe.

Again... IF this position is valid, it could be applied to assailants... "Whether you believe that you're entitled to someone else’s property, YOU should make that decision based upon what YOU believe... " Of course the position is not logically valid, in that the decision we're discussing is NOT one where only YOU are being affected... YOUR DECISION AS TO WHEN LIFE BEGINS, WHEN THAT CONCLUSION IS THE BASIS FOR THE TAKING OF THE HUMAN LIFE WHOSE CONCEPTION OF WHICH, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, INVOLVES THE LIFE OF THAT OTHER HUMAN BEING.

Now again, the SCOTUS through the absurdity that is ROE has decided, on the most specious grounds that the woman has the right to end the life of their pre-born child... so women are not at risk prosecution for their causing the death of that human being which through THEIR CHOICE they conceived... but women are none the less responsible for that death and while the act of killing a pre-born child for the purposes of the convenience of the mother is NOT prosecutable; IF a person caused the death of that SAME pre-born child on the way to the Abortion clinic, THEY WOULD QUITE LIKELY BE PROSECUTED for LEGAL murder.

Thus the fatal flaw in the reasoning of the ROE decision; it's bad law because it sets aside bedrock principle and in every conceivable way conflicts with the legal principles on which legal murder is and has been considered and tried for centuries. Roe does not serve justice; it serves the twisted rationalization of FAIRNESS on which the ideological left stands.

next time you decide to "school" someone perhaps it would be wise to read through the entire thread so you avoid making yourself look like a pompus asshole...

I was being sarcastic because someone said that the unfertilized egg and the sperm are ALIVE...

I'm sufficiently familiar with biology considering I'm a female who has been menstrating for over 25 years, I have a child and I'm experienced enough sexually to understand the principles of how sperm works.... thanks!

Oh, the sarcasm was palpable and I addressed each of the points you made and did so through incontrovertible reasoning.

You were attempting to project upon your opposition the absurdity that we feel that any human tissue equates to human life... it’s one of the more absurd positions taken by the principle-less pro-abortionists and it is THIS reason that you sought to avoid my argument by dismissing out of hand; the simple fact is that IF YOU BELIEVED that your position was sufficiently founded in reason that it could readily contest my position, you’d have embraced the opportunity to meet that contest…

Instead you recognized that your position is fatally flawed; that neither you nor your argument are well suited for the discussion; meaning that YOU knew that you could not withstand a logically valid, soundly reasoned contest of your position and as a result sought to avoid such a debate.

It’s quite typical of the left; courage and reason are traits which you people neither enjoy nor encourage.

 

[Diuretic]

Publius - a question.

Do you believe the state should have the right to force a woman to give birth?

A brief response would be appreciated.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A fertilised human egg is a living thing. But it's at that point just a fertilised human egg. If and as it develops it will become other things and eventually it may become a fully birthed human being. A fertilised human egg isn't a human being.

But it IS human life... it is where human life begins. That it is not a fully developed human being is irrelevant; it possesses the right to that life, just as assuredly as the mother of that human life possesses hers. The mother does NOT have any right to strip that life of its rights and where she does strip that life of its rights; she forfeits her own; just as any other human being who takes human life absent valid moral justification.

 

[Diuretic]

But it IS human life... it is where human life begins. That it is not a fully developed human being is irrelevant; it possesses the right to that life, just as assuredly as the mother of that human life possesses hers. The mother does NOT have any right to strip that life of its rights and where she does strip that life of its rights; she forfeits her own; just as any other human being who takes human life absent valid moral justification.

It's where human life begins, yes. Does whatever it is at the time of conception have human rights? No, it doesn't. Human rights are only bestowed on humans, not fertilised embryos or zygotes or whatever the term is. The only human around is the mother, she has rights, the fertilised embryo has no rights.

Over.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Publius - a question.

Do you believe the state should have the right to force a woman to give birth?

A brief response would be appreciated.

How would the state go about doing that? It seems to me that if the State is forcing a woman to give birth, the state must force a woman to conceive... Right?

What you may be asking is "If a woman has willfully engaged in sexual intercourse and as a result has conceived a child, should the state prohibit that woman from stripping that innocent human life of its rights to its own life?"

The answer is that the state cannot effectively prohibit a woman from taking the life; thus the right of a child to their life, from them. All the state can do, is what it does for any human being which finds that its life has been cut short by the usurpation of its right to life by another; that being to try the facts surrounding that killing and where the facts reasonably lead to the conclusion that a person has taken a human life without valid moral justification, the individual is adjudicated as guilty, thus having forfeited their own rights and a just penalty for the crime is executed, stripping the offender of the means to exercise their own rights as they did to that life they destroyed.


Abortion is nothing more than the unjustified taking of a human life... the basis for doing so is that the pre-born child is an inconvenience; which is decidedly NOT a valid justification for the taking of a human life.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's where human life begins, yes. Does whatever it is at the time of conception have human rights? No, it doesn't. Human rights are only bestowed on humans, not fertilised embryos or zygotes or whatever the term is. The only human around is the mother, she has rights, the fertilised embryo has no rights.

Over.

Now "Human" rights," these seem to be rights which are possessed by that which is human, are they not? And if a zygote and embryo are the earliest stages of human life, then it cannot be argued that they are something other than human life.

You're rationalizing friend... The mother does indeed have human rights and those rights are precisely the same as her prenatal, developing human child.

Does whatever it is at the time of conception have human rights? No, it doesn't

Upon what, pray tell, does this conclusion rest? It's emphatic enough, but it is, as presented, thoroughly baseless. I'll presume you have a basis, ad opted to not post it, perhaps on the assumption that you felt I too would recognize the principle; rest assured, that I do not... please establish a valid, well reasoned basis for this conclusion.

 

[eots]

I belive life begins at conception..and resources , love and encouragement should be given to a pregnant woman to allow the life to continue...but not laws or force

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Their {The Supreme Court of the United States} job is to uphold the constitution, well the supreme court does make law.

FALSE... Patently, utterly, fundamentally FALSE!

The Judiciary does NOT make law; the purpose of the judiciary is to try facts and determine if those facts reasonably lead to a sound conclusion that the law was violated; THE SCOTUS determines IF the law was violated and IF Law which was MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE; WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE LAW... is valid with respect to the US Constitution.

Fellow board members, this post is yet another piece of evidence of the irrefutable FACT that leftists are not qualified to vote... They have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of what these United States are founded upon, how it's government works and the principles on which the entire system operates.


John McCain is in fact a fascist... and there is very little which can be sited in evidence that could possibly change the validity of that fact. I personally can't believe that the country has come to even discussing him as a candidate for President; BUT... with that said, McCain's Opponent is a MARXIST; and when the time comes that advocates of freedom are faced with a choice between a marxist and a fascist, there is no choice but to vote for the fascist.

At least the fascist has some sense of liberty... the proof of that resting in him NOT BEING A MARXIST.

The notion that McCain will appoint an American to the SCOTUS is absurd. McCain is as close to a centrist as is humanly possible; he is the very embodiment of a centrist... It is an absolute certainty that McCain will appoint moderate centrists to the court, who will as they always do, end up deciding for the vast majority of decisions they cast, with the left. Anyone who believes that McCain will do otherwise is a fool in the extreme... having witnessed McCain’s 26 years in the US Congress voting for leftwing policy, not the least of which is McCain/Feingold; absurd legislation which attacks the very principle on which the 1st amendment of the US Constitution rests... and pretending he is something OTHER than a populist Centrists.

The only distinction between a socialist and a fascists is that the fascist will tax industry to the extent that is humanly possible without killing it; using the taxes to fund their vote buying social programs. A socialist will do was Democrat US Rep. Maxine Waters has said she intends to do upon the election of Hussein Obama; to strip individuals of the ownership of their companies by legislative fiat and nationalize those industries, using their revenues to fund the social programs.


Both claim they're doing it all for "THE PEOPLE"... and BOTH are liars; they're doing it for their own power, to feather their own individual nests; they're BOTH to be avoided... but when one is placed where neither can be avoided...

It's just easier to clean up after the fascist...

I always thought that the constitution was founded on the principle that it is the individual who is their own sovereign and yet you seem to be saying that a woman has no right to be sovereign over her own body. Goody, goody, now can I take away your right to vote!

[/quote]

Again Peter, you're intellectual limitations have lead you astray.

For starters, there is absolutely NOTHING in the sourced post of mine which you quoted, which could lead a reasonably intelligent person to the conclusion you seem to have drawn...

Here's what I think... I think you're a dumbass whose ideaology is a function of bumper stickers and cliches who has absolutely no clue HOW to think, let alone WHAT to think abotu this issue.

Now here is what I said, regarding women's right to their reproductive CHOICE, in my first post on this thread; a post I believe which is on the SAME page as that which you've sourced...

A woman has a total right to determine her own reproductive future, this is an irrefutable fact, born of the principle that it is the woman that bears the responsibility of conception… and it is THAT RESPONSIBILITY on which her right solely rests; remove from her that responsibility and you remove the foundation of her reproductive rights, strip her of her reproductive rights and you strip her of her humanity, just as she stripped her unborn child of its humanity {should she CHOOSE to kill the life she conceived through her willful CHOICE to engage in sexual intercourse}.

A woman is a sovereign unto herself, but being such does NOT give her the right to usurp the rights of those around her. As a matter of indisputable fact, your means to exercise your rights are only viable where you and your neighbors are prepared to uphold and defend the respective responsibilities WHICH ARE INHERENT IN YOUR RIGHTS... when you reject those responsibilities, you reject THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH YOUR RIGHTS REST, THUS YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTS. KILLING LIFE WHICH YOU CONCEIVED THROUGH YOU OWN WILLFUL ACTIONS IS MOST DECIDELY NOT UPHOLDING AND DEFENDING YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN YOUR RIGHT TO LIFE.

You see Peter, if we all agree that its OK to kill one segment of humanity because we all agree that they're not sufficiently 'human' then we're not going to be in too good a position to defend ourselves when someone ELSE decides that WE'RE NOT SUFFICIENTLY HUMAN...

If you need a cliche, let me help you out: "What goes around, COMES AROUND" and you can take that to the BANK.

Rights and responsibilities sport... they're inseperable concepts; you leftists can't ever seem to comprehend that simple fact and as a result you spread calamity, chaos and catastrophe wherever you find power. You feel that 'it's not FAIR that a woman has to bear the burden of a child just because she has sex... that a woman shouldn't be PUNISHED with a child, just because she made a mistake...'

The fact is she made a decision, she CHOSE to have sex, KNOWING that she could conceive a child as a result. That's nature boy... Nature designed life that way; you aren't going to beat that with some lame rationalization; but you can undermine your own rights and those fo your grandchildren through those asinine rationalizations... nature designed that too.

The good news is that its really not complicated at all...

If you don't want to punish yourself with a child, DO NOT ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Now I'll close by giving you one more of those cliches you seem more prone to digest: "You can't HAVE your cake AND eat it, too..." and this sir, is your problem...

 

[PeterS]

I have not moved the line one bit and have shown a willingness to compromise. All I want to know from your side is at what point will you afford an unborn child basic human rights?

What part of viability don't you understand?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I belive life begins at conception..and resources , love and encouragement should be given to a pregnant woman to allow the life to continue...but not laws or force

Hey I believe that same thing... And I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything. If a person CHOOSES to kill their pre-born child I believe that they should be willing to accept the consequences for it.

I do believe that there are well established penalties for taking human life and where someone feels that they MUST take a defensless life, they're culpable for that penalty.

Of course, the reality is that women are not getting away with anything... abortion comes with major consequences, not the least of which is a life of shame and remorse and the certain knowledge that what they did was to murder their own child. It's a rare women who has had an abortion that will tell you that she doesn't carry the shame of that decision every day...

My thinking is that MOST women who made that decision, did so because they were convinced that by killing that baby, they were solving a problem... and doing so in such a way that was going to cause them less problems than the alternative. Prosecuting the men and women who do so, would knock down that misconception; it would also knock down the number fo women getting KNOCKED UP... as they would realize that CHOOSING to have sexual intercourse comes with a SERIOUS set of CHOICES...

Roe lowered the standard... that's all. And the result is the same damn thing that happens every time the standard is lowered... people always rise to what is least expected of them. Roe opened the door to casual sex... since then kids do not think TWICE about killing their prenatal child... "I'm only 15 years old... How can I raise a child?"

The answer is one day at a time, sacrificing your life for 30 years, because of the CHOICE you made to risk that 30 seconds of hormone fed passion.

 

[eots]

Hey I believe that same thing... And I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything. If a person CHOOSES to kill their pre-born child I believe that they should be willing to accept the consequences for it.

I do believe that there are well established penalties for taking human life and where someone feels that they MUST take a defensless life, they're culpable for that penalty.

Of course, the reality is that women are not getting away with anything... abortion comes with major consequences, not the least of which is a life of shame and remorse and the certain knowledge that what they did was to murder their own child. It's a rare women who has had an abortion that will tell you that she doesn't carry the shame of that decision every day...

My thinking is that MOST women who made that decision, did so because they were convinced that by killing that baby, they were solving a problem... and doing so in such a way that was going to cause them less problems than the alternative. Prosecuting the men and women who do so, would knock down that misconception; it would also knock down the number fo women getting KNOCKED UP... as they would realize that CHOOSING to have sexual intercourse comes with a SERIOUS set of CHOICES...

Roe lowered the standard... that's all. And the result is the same damn thing that happens every time the standard is lowered... people always rise to what is least expected of them. Roe opened the door to casual sex... since then kids do not think TWICE about killing their prenatal child... "I'm only 15 years old... How can I raise a child?"

The answer is one day at a time, sacrificing your life for 30 years, because of the CHOICE you made to risk that 30 seconds of hormone fed passion.

people used to sacrafice born children,, for the very same reason basicaly ..because it would appease the gods and insure prosperity,,give them more personal power..basicaly the same reasons given today.. just not as direct

 

[PeterS]

ROFL...

So do I understand that what you're saying is the embryo has hijacked the woman's body and presumably without her consent? Now I suppose this is true for that rarest of all prenatal scenarios: The Immaculate Conception.

Her choice? And here I always thought it was sperm and egg that made an embryo. Silly me. We also seem to be ignoring whether a woman is raped or using contraception. What are the choices made then.

Ahh... so the principle of inalienable human rights, particularly the human right to life and the rigt to pursue the fulfillment of that life is invalidated when a sufficient volume of people feel that the right is a drag on their booty calls... So what you're saying is that when a principle is being rejected by a sufficient volume of the population... or where a sufficient volume of the population is ignorant of a given principle, then that principle is no longer culturally viable...

You really are dense aren't you. What I am saying is that he rule of law has to be reasonable and enforceable. You will never be able to create a law that will kill little Susie even though Neanderthals such as your self are drooling to do so.

So... then you're saying that black slavery was perfectly moral and a suitable means of commerce when it was popular...

First, I have never argued morality. Laws are not morals nor the constitution an instrument of morality. Second, slavery was unconstitutional because it violated the principle that the individual is their own sovereign. If you wish to draw a correlation it was the slave owner who was the unwanted parasite on the body of blacks. What happened to them?

You seem to be saying that because a sufficient percentage of the population is of a given opinion that a segment of that population can be stripped of their rights. In fact, what I hear you saying is that the rights of a human being can be determined to be declared null and void based upon a cultural popularity.

What right is being stripped? Suppose I need a kidney and you are a perfect match. Am I stripped of my right to life because you won’t give me one? How am I loosing my rights even though the consequence of your choice means my death?

 

[Diuretic]

How would the state go about doing that? It seems to me that if the State is forcing a woman to give birth, the state must force a woman to conceive... Right?

What you may be asking is "If a woman has willfully engaged in sexual intercourse and as a result has conceived a child, should the state prohibit that woman from stripping that innocent human life of its rights to its own life?"

The answer is that the state cannot effectively prohibit a woman from taking the life; thus the right of a child to their life, from them. All the state can do, is what it does for any human being which finds that its life has been cut short by the usurpation of its right to life by another; that being to try the facts surrounding that killing and where the facts reasonably lead to the conclusion that a person has taken a human life without valid moral justification, the individual is adjudicated as guilty, thus having forfeited their own rights and a just penalty for the crime is executed, stripping the offender of the means to exercise their own rights as they did to that life they destroyed.


Abortion is nothing more than the unjustified taking of a human life... the basis for doing so is that the pre-born child is an inconvenience; which is decidedly NOT a valid justification for the taking of a human life.

No, it doesn't follow that if the state is forcing the woman to give birth they are forcing her to conceive. The state has no right to force the woman to conceive. I hope you agree with that. If the state has no right to force the woman to conceive then the state also has no right to force the woman to bring the pregnancy to full term. To force her to conceive is a gross violation of her human rights. To force her to bring the pregnancy to full term is also a gross violation of her human rights.

If a woman has engaged in sexual intercourse and she gets pregnant and she doesn't wish to stay pregnant then it is a gross violation of her human rights to force her to give birth.

The foetus is a living thing. It is not a human life, it is a potential human. As a foetus it is living within the host, the woman. Her body is sustaining the foetus. Given that it is not a human, but a potential human the argument might be that it has potential human rights. I'd be willing to think about that at some length but I reject the idea that the foetus has human rights simply because it is not yet a human.

 

[Diuretic]

Now "Human" rights," these seem to be rights which are possessed by that which is human, are they not? And if a zygote and embryo are the earliest stages of human life, then it cannot be argued that they are something other than human life.

You're rationalizing friend... The mother does indeed have human rights and those rights are precisely the same as her prenatal, developing human child.





Upon what, pray tell, does this conclusion rest? It's emphatic enough, but it is, as presented, thoroughly baseless. I'll presume you have a basis, ad opted to not post it, perhaps on the assumption that you felt I too would recognize the principle; rest assured, that I do not... please establish a valid, well reasoned basis for this conclusion.

I'll give it a try. Whether or not it's well reasoned isn't for me to decide.

Human rights are indeed possessed by humans. But they are rights recognised by other which apply to other humans. If a legislature wished then it could state that a foetus has human rights and seek to protect those rights. The legislature could state that a foetus has potential human rights and seek to protect those potential rights. Since rights are involved in social transaction though a legislature could find itself (in the US) up against a constitutional problem if it tried to declare rights or potential rights for a foetus. I'm not knowledgeable about your constitution.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'll give it a try. Whether or not it's well reasoned isn't for me to decide.

Human rights are indeed possessed by humans. But they are rights recognised by other which apply to other humans. If a legislature wished then it could state that a foetus has human rights and seek to protect those rights. The legislature could state that a foetus has potential human rights and seek to protect those potential rights. Since rights are involved in social transaction though a legislature could find itself (in the US) up against a constitutional problem if it tried to declare rights or potential rights for a foetus. I'm not knowledgeable about your constitution.

The reason it should be the mothers choice and not the laws choice (except in extreme cases where the mother has no medical choice because both would die if not undertaken) abortion laws have one important flaw: to grant one their rights takes the rights from the other. That being the fact there is no way the law can morally make the choice. Regardless of when life begins or not isn't even the real problem with creating laws, anti-abortionists are just using that as an excuse. However, their reasons for trying to create such laws is not to give rights to one, but to take rights from the other.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'll give it a try. Whether or not it's well reasoned isn't for me to decide.

Human rights are indeed possessed by humans. But they are rights recognised by other which apply to other humans. If a legislature wished then it could state that a foetus has human rights and seek to protect those rights. The legislature could state that a foetus has potential human rights and seek to protect those potential rights. Since rights are involved in social transaction though a legislature could find itself (in the US) up against a constitutional problem if it tried to declare rights or potential rights for a foetus. I'm not knowledgeable about your constitution.

Well there's your problem!

Human rights are not established by a governments legislation. Human rights are endowed to humanity by their creator; natures God.
All a legislature can do is limit the scope of government's power to usurp the means of the individual to excecise their inherent rights; their unalienanle rights which per-existed the government and its legislature.

Truly the right to one's life is the right on which all other rights rest. What you're reasoning requires is that the first right; the right to life itself is subservient to the whim of power; in this case the power of the mother and the legislature to determine that some life which is determined to be inconvenient is without the right to its life.

This species of reasoning sets the stage for all manner of tyranny.

 

[eots]

Well there's your problem!

Human rights are not established by a governments legislation. Human rights are endowed to humanity by their creator; natures God.
All a legislature can do is limit the scope of government's power to usurp the means of the individual to excecise their inherent rights; their unalienanle rights which per-existed the government and its legislature.

Truly the right to one's life is the right on which all other rights rest. What you're reasoning requires is that the first right; the right to life itself is subservient to the whim of power; in this case the power of the mother and the legislature to determine that some life which is determined to be inconvenient is without the right to its life.

This species of reasoning sets the stage for all manner of tyranny.

wow..is that your own ?..if so I must tip my hat to you sir.. very impressive and powerful statement

 

[Isolde]

What part of viability don't you understand?

With the miracles of modern day medicine, what part of viability don't you understand? My point being that viability is a different term today then it was 30 years ago. How would I expect an honest answer from you, when it was your people who said fetuses were just an undifferentiated blob of cells?

Sorry about the spotty replies, but I am without internet at home..... I am sure you feel bad about that too.

 

[manifold]

I would like everyone's opinion on when they think a human life begins and why they hold that position.

Thank you all.

Nobody knows for sure when life BEGAN. The birth of a new child is merely a continuation of the cycle long ago set in motion, but at no point is it the "beginning" of life.