When is an embryo/fetus a human life?

[Chuz Life]

Well then, we have a problem. If I shot and kill a pregnant woman, I will be charged with a double homicide, which stands at odds with a woman having a solitary unfettered right to abort/kill her own child, irregardless of the circumstances or desires of the father.

I wonder what a leftist's view would be if a pregnant mother WANTED to have her child but the father did not and ordered the abortion and the woman had to have the abortion against her wishes?

I just don't get this "My body My right" mentality that accords such power to women over an act she can control (getting pregnant) yet would FORCE her to get a dangerous vaccine for something she had no control over (a virus).

I wish that just one of them would explain why a woman's right to her body should not have begun when her body did, when she was a child, . . . inside her mother's body.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Because we all know that letting the majority decide on when the rights of the weakest, voiceless, and most vulerable should begin is the only way to have justice on this issue!

Right?

Fascists?

If people don’t believe in Republican biblical worldview on abortion as you, do, you call them fascist. You are not a reasonable human being.

When did women become equal to men in America.

In MANY Republican Christian controlled states they are not EQUAL to men in LIBERTY.

 

[toobfreak]

I wish that just one of them would explain why a woman's right to her body should not have begun when her body did, when she was a child, . . . inside her mother's body.

Is this magical "right" that a woman has . . . her body her choice . . . is that actually written down anywhere in law? Or did progs just make that up like everything else?

And as you say, if so, then what else does it extend to and at what age?

Maybe this explains why that woman the other day thought she had a right to my parking space at the mall--- after all, I saw it first.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I wish that just one of them would explain why a woman's right to her body should not have begun when her body did, when she was a child, . . . inside her mother's body.

What is to explain? A woman who becames born had a right to her body from the moment she was conceived. It’s a right she does not give up to the government when she herself becomes pregnant but intends to abort.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is this magical "right" that a woman has . . . her body her choice . . . is that actually written down anywhere in law? Or did progs just make that up like everything else?

And as you say, if so, then what else does it extend to and at what age?

Maybe this explains why that woman the other day thought she had a right to my parking space at the mall--- after all, I saw it first.

I've debated it so many times, I can argue their points better than they can. It's (to them) about the woman's "autonomy." They just don't give a **** that a child in the womb has a life and a body too. . . and they also don't care that the woman was once in that stage of her life, as well.

 

[marvin martian]

Well then, we have a problem. If I shot and kill a pregnant woman, I will be charged with a double homicide, which stands at odds with a woman having a solitary unfettered right to abort/kill her own child, irregardless of the circumstances or desires of the father.

I wonder what a leftist's view would be if a pregnant mother WANTED to have her child but the father did not and ordered the abortion and the woman had to have the abortion against her wishes?

I just don't get this "My body My right" mentality that accords such power to women over an act she can control (getting pregnant) yet would FORCE her to get a dangerous vaccine for something she had no control over (a virus).

I agree with everything you said.

I hope we're getting there. SCOTUS overturning the genocidal Roe v. Wade decision was a good first step, but there's more work to do.

 

[toobfreak]

I've debated it so many times, I can argue their points better than they can. It's (to them) about the woman's "autonomy."

To me, the real point is that after the first few weeks, the fetus is no longer her body but another body IN her body. The fetus is a /separate/ life that depends on her, and not just part of her body like a skin tag to be discarded.

 

[Chuz Life]

To me, the real point is that after the first few weeks, the fetus is no longer her body but another body IN her body. The fetus is a /separate/ life that depends on her, and not just part of her body like a skin tag to be discarded.

Exactly. That's the part they always ignore.

Sorry if I didn't make the point more clearly.

 

[Chuz Life]

I agree with everything you said.

I hope we're getting there. SCOTUS overturning the genocidal Roe v. Wade decision was a good first step, but there's more work to do.

Boy, did they **** that up when they had a chance to get it right, though.

The SCOTUS didn't do the country or even themselves much justice with the Dobbs decision.

They could have recognized, explained, and laid the groundwork for establishing when and how "personhood" begins, and they fucked it up almost as bad as the SCOTUS fucked up with Roe and the Dred Scott decisions.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Demands More Side Show Freaks For The Orphanage "

* Ignoring With Cause Abortion Like A Plague *

Actually we know for a fact women do seek late term elective abortions, I can think of one doctor that is in jail for performing them.
.

The term elective abortion does not address whether an abortion is with or without cause .

The abortion anti-choice cabal refuses to address developmental anomalies , which are largely identified during ultrasound between 13 and 20 weeks ( assuming the practitioner is not a deceitful activist and does not disclose the anomaly when detected ) , while amniocentesis is available between 15 and 20 weeks .

If women are seeking without cause abortions in third trimester that does not mean that the procedures are available through regulated facilities .

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2015/15-274/15-274-1.pdf

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.

Pennsylvania, like other states, permits legal abortion within a regulatory framework. Physicians must, for example, provide counseling about the nature of the procedure. Minors must have parental or judicial consent. All women must wait 24 hours after first visiting the facility, in order to fully consider their decision. But Gosnell’s compliance with such requirements was casual at best. At the Women’s Medical Society, the only question that really mattered was whether you had the cash.Too young? No problem. Didn’t want to wait? Gosnell provided same-day service.The real key to the business model, though, was this: Gosnell catered to the women who couldn’t get abortions elsewhere – because they were too pregnant. Most doctors won’t perform late second-trimester abortions, from approximately the 20th week of pregnancy, because of the risks involved. And late-term abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy are flatly illegal. But for Dr. Gosnell, they were an opportunity. The bigger the baby, the more he charged.

* Brain Dead Can Be Delivered Alive Then What *

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/128/3/e720/30627/Guidelines-for-the-Determination-of-Brain-Death-in

 

[whutTHEYsay]

scientific fact that the unborn are biologically human.

They just don't give a **** that a child in the womb has a life and a body too.

On the first, I have never argued against the stack that the unborn are biologically human

On the second, that is not my argument at all. That makes “choose life” a dishonest debater. There is no way to win a debate dishonestly.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More Blubbering From The Anthropocentric Psychosis Perspective *

* Offense Is Against The Mother Whom Has Constitutional Protections And Punishment As Appropriate *

Well then, we have a problem. If I shot and kill a pregnant woman, I will be charged with a double homicide, which stands at odds with a woman having a solitary unfettered right to abort/kill her own child, irregardless of the circumstances or desires of the father.

The offense is against the mother and a penalty for the additional charge can be commensurate with the offense ; however , note that punishment does not include the death penalty because a fetus is without constitutional protections as by equitable doctrine , to receive a death penalty , albeit through due process , an individual must have removed a rite to life of another to remove their own , which a fetus does not have .


* Too Stupid To Keep Track Of Private Property *

I wonder what a leftist's view would be if a pregnant mother WANTED to have her child but the father did not and ordered the abortion and the woman had to have the abortion against her wishes?

The male can go down an file rape charges if he feels his private property semen were taken without his permission .

The fetus being without constitutional protections is private property of the mother .

The enumerated rite to equal protection in us 14th amendment includes a live birth requirement , which means the dumbfounded dobbs decision is sedition against us 14th ,9th , 1st and 10th amendment and affirming justices should be charged .


* Constitution And Nature Does Not Care About Apex Predator Arrogance *

I just don't get this "My body My right" mentality that accords such power to women over an act she can control (getting pregnant) yet would FORCE her to get a dangerous vaccine for something she had no control over (a virus).

The literal meaning of an after life is genetic continuance and principles of individualism designate progeny as an element of self ownership , which figuratively means a fetus is the body of the mother .

 

[Chuz Life]

toobfreak

Its always human the question is when is it a person

Okay, we can't all make our own definitions for that - can we?

So, let's consider what the legal definition is for a "natural person" and then see if a person who is only in the zygote, embryo, or fetal stage of their life, growth, and development meets that definition.

Wouldn't that be a logical approach?

 

[Chuz Life]

When its a person defined by law

"Laws and SCOTUS rulings are always infallible!" -Dred Scott

 

[Chuz Life]

Wallow in your extremist notions.

Americans will not let your authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats dictate to everyone,

Projections noted.

 

[j-mac]

As noted, for good or bad it's never going to happen.

Sadly many dismiss things we could do to lessen abortions.

Such as?

 

[j-mac]

Nope, no reason to. It doesn't matter if it's of convenience or not.

Oh yes there is, and it matters greatly.

 

[pknopp]

Such as?

Make sure the woman can afford the pregnancy/birth. That she can afford the time off. Day care. If she is in college that she can continue her education.

Just a start.

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly. That's the part they always ignore.

Yep. Ultimately, if a woman does not want her baby and cannot be dissuaded from abortion, I feel that better she do it in a proper medical setting than some coat-hanger method in a back ally, and yes, she would probably not be the best mother for the unwanted child, still, if they don't want the baby, decide--- at least do it immediately in the first few weeks and don't wait until the third trimester!

But if the pregnancy offers some medical threat to the mother or if there is a major problem with the baby, or it was due to rape, etc., I'm a little less uncomfortable with the decision. Ultimately, wanting and keeping the child is the parent's decision, but there should be some inducement maybe to coax her to have the child then put it up for adoption.

Still, I'd set limits. I'm pushing 70, have been married, wife came from a big family, and have known lots of women yet I've never met or known one that ever had an abortion or didn't want their own child. Especially if you are relying on public funds to pay for it, if a woman gets an abortion, she should know that if she ever calls for another, after the 2nd one, I might see fit with a state law requiring the woman get a hysterectomy or something.

There has to be common sense boundaries against wanton and unlimited pregnancies/abortions--- maybe if there are some serious consequences to too much unwanted pregnancies, some people will make greater efforts not to get pregnant.

 

[j-mac]

By whose definition? A time limit is the answer then specific causes can be listed

Let me ask you this.

Testing these days is amazing, you can find out nearly everything about the unborn child 3 weeks into the pregnancy. So, should you be able to kill that child if it isn’t the sex you want?