Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?

[M14 Shooter]

Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.

Interesting.
Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?

 

[Stephanie]

Illegal immigrant children but of course should be first

sicko

 

[chikenwing]

and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.

Our laws evolve.

I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?

By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.

After all, it was a non-person.

The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.

But I also wouldn't dream of harassing a woman who is probably already having one of the worst days of her life by heckling her as she walks into a clinic.

The biological realities of procreation create HUGE inequities between men and women imho. And if anyone has an idea about how to level that playing field without taking a life - I'm all ears.

You have already answered your own question,the default is life. Yes life is many shades of black and white,untill you back it up to a living being,then is not so fuzzy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.

After all, it was a non-person.

The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.

But I also wouldn't dream of harassing a woman who is probably already having one of the worst days of her life by heckling her as she walks into a clinic.

The biological realities of procreation create HUGE inequities between men and women imho. And if anyone has an idea about how to level that playing field without taking a life - I'm all ears.

You have already answered your own question,the default is life. Yes life is many shades of black and white,untill you back it up to a living being,then is not so fuzzy.

In the case of abortion - we are not erring on the side of life.
That is very clear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.

Our laws evolve.

I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?

By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.

After all, it was a non-person.

The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.

Seems to me what when you have to lie to yourself to ease your conscious, you pretty much invalidate your own point.

 

[Stephanie]

I think sometimes it's too bad some progressive/liberals weren't considered for abortion

Instead they puke all over us

they deserve to be alive the same they feel about those aborted

 

[norwegen]

and the argument was once made (and legally supported) that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.

Our laws evolve.

I believe that a fetus is a human being and deserves protection under our legal system. Scientific evidence supports that conclusion as does common sense. If a fetus is NOT a human, then what is it? An banana?

At any rate our legal system has two major pillars that support protecting a fetus:

1) To err on the side of life. If we are uncertain in a death penalty case - we have decided to err on the side of life - not execution. So if we can't be certain about when human life actually begins (and not just trying to massage a guilty conscience, but REAL questions) then we should err on the side of life and protect the fetus.

2) One HUGE reason for laws is so society can help protect the rights of the weaker - those who are unable to protect themselves - from the stronger who would trample their rights for their own convenience. That principle demands that we protect fetuses.

Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong. But has that argument really ever been legally supported?

Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.

Yes, that argument has been supported legally:

Digital History

(Hence the comment about our laws evolving)

So you say our laws don't protect you unless you're a citizen?

So it's perfectly legal to kill an illegal alien?????

I don't think you thought that post through very well.

First, your link doesn't say that blacks were subjects in the 3/5ths clause. Second, it doesn't mention any legal support for anyone being 3/5ths of a human, but rather that only three out of five persons of some populations shall be considered for representation (and for tax purposes).

If I kill an illegal alien, do you not think that the government of that person's country will come after me?

 

[BobPlumb]

The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.

I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.

Is an infant (newly born baby) a human being? Why?

 

[norwegen]

Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.

Interesting.
Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?

Just like fetuses, cats are not protected by the Constitution, either. However, the difference between fetuses and cats is that cats are protected by animal cruelty laws.

I think it's a shame that a little minnow in California, illegal aliens, and cats enjoy better protection by our government than fetuses do. Induced abortions are barbaric and selfish, and as a Christian, I will always be horrified by them. But we have the laws that we have because we have the government that we have.

 

[nodoginnafight]

By using the term "human being" and then assigning an appropriate definition for that term, the pro-abortion-on-demand crowd can argue the moral acceptability in ending certain human lives whenever convenient to do so.

After all, it was a non-person.

The war with ones conscience demands some accommodations. I get that.

Seems to me what when you have to lie to yourself to ease your conscious, you pretty much invalidate your own point.

Well - it's just part of the human condition. We all have the capacity for self-deception and I think pretty much everyone uses it from time to time.

But it's helpful when you can recognize it when it slaps you in the face.

 

[PredFan]

It depends in the situation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.

Interesting.
Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?

Just like fetuses, cats are not protected by the Constitution, either. However, the difference between fetuses and cats is that cats are protected by animal cruelty laws.

So... your statement that "Laws protect the rights of citizens" is, at best, inaccurate because, as you admit, laws can and do protect things other than the rights of citizens.
Right?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Liberals will claim that blacks are 3/5ths human constitutionally, which, of course is wrong. But has that argument really ever been legally supported?

Laws protect the rights of citizens. Citizens are persons born or naturalized in the United States. That doesn't include fetuses.

Yes, that argument has been supported legally:

Digital History

(Hence the comment about our laws evolving)

So you say our laws don't protect you unless you're a citizen?

So it's perfectly legal to kill an illegal alien?????

I don't think you thought that post through very well.

First, your link doesn't say that blacks were subjects in the 3/5ths clause. Second, it doesn't mention any legal support for anyone being 3/5ths of a human, but rather that only three out of five persons of some populations shall be considered for representation (and for tax purposes).

If I kill an illegal alien, do you not think that the government of that person's country will come after me?

Second, it doesn't mention any legal support

Did you read this part?

"Of all the compromises on which the Constitution rested, perhaps the most controversial was the Three-Fifths Compromise, an agreement to count three-fifths of a state's slaves in apportioning Representatives, Presidential electors, and direct taxes."

If I kill an illegal alien, do you not think that the government of that person's country will come after me?

Uh no
If you kill an illegal alien in the United States - let's say in Texas - then the state of Texas will prosecute you.

If you really don't understand how bad you messed up in the post I was referring to - you may need to re-take your junior high history/civics class over. Or maybe sue your teacher.

 

[Stephanie]

Can you imagine someone who claims to be an intelligent person would spout this?

I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.

Is all this bs what helps you abortion supporters SLEEP at night?

really you are sick in heads, minds and souls

 

[norwegen]

Interesting.
Why/how is it then illegal to capture stray cats and burn them alive?

Just like fetuses, cats are not protected by the Constitution, either. However, the difference between fetuses and cats is that cats are protected by animal cruelty laws.

So... your statement that "Laws protect the rights of citizens" is, at best, inaccurate because, as you admit, laws can and do protect things other than the rights of citizens.
Right?

Laws do protect the rights of citizens. Also some "rights" of cats.

Not of fetuses.

 

[norwegen]

So... your statement that "Laws protect the rights of citizens" is, at best, inaccurate because, as you admit, laws can and do protect things other than the rights of citizens.
Right?

Laws do protect the rights of citizens. Also some "rights" of cats.

Not of fetuses.

Really?
So it's legal to get an abortion in the ninth month?

Yes, really. So it's legal to kill fetuses.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Laws do protect the rights of citizens. Also some "rights" of cats.

Not of fetuses.

Really?
So it's legal to get an abortion in the ninth month?

Yes, really. So it's legal to kill fetuses.

And many of us are trying to change that.
The argument that "it SHOULD be legal because it IS legal" is silly.
We've pretty clearly shown (at least 3/5ths of folks seem pretty clear on it) that the current law values convenience over ethics.

 

[Stephanie]

notice no Christanity for those aborted babies

only lame ass excues

HOW MANY time's is mother life in danger that we need to carry out, 55MILLION abortions?

what a puke

 

[Lakhota]

I wish more posters would vote in the poll. So far, only 8 have voted out of about 20 posters. It could be that some aren't sure how they really feel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The argument is made that a fetus is not a human being.

I don't know at which stage of life that a fetus becomes a human being if at all.

Is an infant (newly born baby) a human being? Why?

If born, an infant is not a fetus.