A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[idb]

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?
Should a woman have to report to "the authorities" the moment she becomes pregnant?

 

[Boss]

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?
Should a woman have to report to "the authorities" the moment she becomes pregnant?

Do you smoke crack or something?

 

[idb]

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?
Should a woman have to report to "the authorities" the moment she becomes pregnant?

Do you smoke crack or something?

No, why do you ask?

 

[Boss]

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?
Should a woman have to report to "the authorities" the moment she becomes pregnant?

Do you smoke crack or something?

No, why do you ask?

Because you're posting like someone who has lost massive brain cells.

First of all, there is not a debate over whether or not fetuses are protected citizens under the Constitution at this time. Clearly, the law says they are not. If that is the argument you think we're having, it is a non sequitur.

Secondly, the police generally don't investigate natural deaths... and that is what a miscarriage is. And I have NO idea why someone might have to inform "the authorities" when they become pregnant... that makes absolutely no rational sense.

So now, I am wondering... if crack isn't responsible for your lack of brain cells, what is? Do you sniff glue sometimes? Did you eat lead paint chips as a child? Now that we've got Obamacare, we need to get to the bottom of this and get you some help!

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think we should all "butt out" and mind our own business when it comes to any other forms of child molestations and murders. . . Or only when it's in the form of an abotion?

Also. . .

Why?

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

Next thing you know they are going to be pushing to investigate miscarriages for manslaughter charges or at the very least child abuse. Maybe all pregnant women should submit a pee test and a dietary log to make sure they are taking proper care of Americas baby.

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

Next thing you know they are going to be pushing to investigate miscarriages for manslaughter charges or at the very least child abuse. Maybe all pregnant women should submit a pee test and a dietary log to make sure they are taking proper care of Americas baby.

Fear mongering / appeal to ridicule fallacies noted.

 

[Slade3200]

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

Next thing you know they are going to be pushing to investigate miscarriages for manslaughter charges or at the very least child abuse. Maybe all pregnant women should submit a pee test and a dietary log to make sure they are taking proper care of Americas baby.

Fear mongering / appeal to ridicule fallacies noted.

Take a joke... its emphasizing the ridiculousness of your arguments

 

[Slade3200]

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.

Next thing you know they are going to be pushing to investigate miscarriages for manslaughter charges or at the very least child abuse. Maybe all pregnant women should submit a pee test and a dietary log to make sure they are taking proper care of Americas baby.

Fear mongering / appeal to ridicule fallacies noted.

Take a joke... its emphasizing the ridiculousness of your arguments

To be fair, It's not all ridiculous... its a very sensitive and complicated issue

 

[Czernobog]

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?
Should a woman have to report to "the authorities" the moment she becomes pregnant?

Do you smoke crack or something?

Why? Shouldn't we know if that pregnant woman did anything to cause the miscarriage? Wouldn't that be murder, just as much as having an abortion?

 

[idb]

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?
Should a woman have to report to "the authorities" the moment she becomes pregnant?

Do you smoke crack or something?

No, why do you ask?

Because you're posting like someone who has lost massive brain cells.

First of all, there is not a debate over whether or not fetuses are protected citizens under the Constitution at this time. Clearly, the law says they are not. If that is the argument you think we're having, it is a non sequitur.

Secondly, the police generally don't investigate natural deaths... and that is what a miscarriage is. And I have NO idea why someone might have to inform "the authorities" when they become pregnant... that makes absolutely no rational sense.

So now, I am wondering... if crack isn't responsible for your lack of brain cells, what is? Do you sniff glue sometimes? Did you eat lead paint chips as a child? Now that we've got Obamacare, we need to get to the bottom of this and get you some help!

First, I was replying to the previous poster who wrote
"Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later..."
and
"The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus"

and many people do debate that a foetus should have the rights of a citizen.
Maybe you don't keep up with the arguments.

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen then a miscarriage could amount to a murder depending on the woman's conduct prior.
How would you know if a miscarriage was a natural death if you didn't investigate it?
Second-and-a-halfly if a foetus is accorded personhood then they can't receive the benefits or suffer the responsibilities of citizenship without being registered as such...otherwise they'd be an undocumented alien.

It's a lot to take in, and I'm truly sorry...take your time.

 

[Boss]

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen...

But a fetus DOESN'T have the rights of a citizen or you couldn't arbitrarily kill them with abortions!

So you are trying to argue against a point that hasn't been established. We're arguing that they SHOULD have the rights of a citizen at some point. In the US, they are protected as victims of violent acts under the law and they do have property rights.

 

[Slade3200]

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?
Should a woman have to report to "the authorities" the moment she becomes pregnant?

Do you smoke crack or something?

Why? Shouldn't we know if that pregnant woman did anything to cause the miscarriage? Wouldn't that be murder, just as much as having an abortion?

Child abuse at the very least

 

[Boss]

Why? Shouldn't we know if that pregnant woman did anything to cause the miscarriage? Wouldn't that be murder, just as much as having an abortion?

Again, fetuses are not considered citizens with Constitutional protections or you couldn't abort them.

And I don't ever use the word "murder" to describe abortions because "murder" is the unlawful taking of human life. Abortions are not unlawful. I do believe, after a certain point, abortions do constitute legal infanticide.

 

[idb]

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen...

But a fetus DOESN'T have the rights of a citizen or you couldn't arbitrarily kill them with abortions!

So you are trying to argue against a point that hasn't been established. We're arguing that they SHOULD have the rights of a citizen at some point. In the US, they are protected as victims of violent acts under the law and they do have property rights.

Have you never seen the argument made that foetus' should have citizenship or personhood rights?
Don't you think it's legitimate to argue against a position just because it's a hypothetical situation or a proposition for a change to the law?

 

[Czernobog]

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen...

But a fetus DOESN'T have the rights of a citizen or you couldn't arbitrarily kill them with abortions!

So you are trying to argue against a point that hasn't been established. We're arguing that they SHOULD have the rights of a citizen at some point. In the US, they are protected as victims of violent acts under the law and they do have property rights.

Except that is the entire argument of the anti-choice crowd - that we shouldn't be able to "arbitrarily" - and I take issue with that characterization; as if these abortions are a whim - abort fetuses!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Why? Shouldn't we know if that pregnant woman did anything to cause the miscarriage? Wouldn't that be murder, just as much as having an abortion?

Again, fetuses are not considered citizens with Constitutional protections or you couldn't abort them.

And I don't ever use the word "murder" to describe abortions because "murder" is the unlawful taking of human life. Abortions are not unlawful. I do believe, after a certain point, abortions do constitute legal infanticide.

You get that infanticide is just a fancy legal term for "baby murder", right? So, you just called abortion murder, while insisting that you never call it murder.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen...

But a fetus DOESN'T have the rights of a citizen or you couldn't arbitrarily kill them with abortions!

So you are trying to argue against a point that hasn't been established. We're arguing that they SHOULD have the rights of a citizen at some point. In the US, they are protected as victims of violent acts under the law and they do have property rights.

Have you never seen the argument made that foetus' should have citizenship or personhood rights?
Don't you think it's legitimate to argue against a position just because it's a hypothetical situation or a proposition for a change to the law?

Are you confusing yourself about your own idiotic argument?

You asked:
If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?

Current law doesn't recognize the fetus as a person. They should be and maybe if they were, the police should investigate nefarious miscarriages? But you're asking the question as if it's legally established the fetus is a person.

Then you ask again:
If the fetus has the rights of a citizen...

But again, they DON'T have the rights at this time. So what the fuck are you arguing?

Sure... IF they DID... we'd have to deal with a whole host of issues. Just like we had to deal with a host of issues regarding freed slaves. That took us a century to work through but we eventually did. We're currently working through a host of issues pertaining to gay marriages but I don't recall all the "slippery slope" arguments carrying much weight in deciding whether to allow that.

 

[mgh80]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I'm pro-life but honestly it isn't a huge issue for me, and I am for choice in certain circumstances.

However here is what I really don't understand:

If you murder a pregnant women you get charged for murdering TWO people. How is that possible? That makes no sense to me whatsoever if we were to buy into the notion that a fetus is not a human being and therefore an abortion is not murder.

The only difference between those two scenarios is that in one the baby was wanted, in the other the baby was not. However, the mother's wishes have zero impact on the biological characteristics of the fetus.

 

[Mertex]

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

Sure they do.....the facts don't agree with your rhetoric. Quit fudging the truth and face the facts.


For years the Republican Party has been telling us that the welfare system in America is helping to make people lazy and making them too dependent on the federal government.

As it turns out, Red states are far more likely to depend on federal welfare than blue states, and they are also more likely to have a higher percentage of poor people in their states. A new report from the Tax Foundation shows that two of the most conservative states in America – Louisiana and Mississippi – rank in the top 3 recipients of federal handouts.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi are run by backwards-thinking Republican governors who feel like it’s their job to cut benefits for the needy while at the same time handing out welfare to wealthy corporations. They have both also allowed the energy industry to operate with few limitations in their states, further reducing the health of the overall state.

Republicans love to tell us that welfare recipients are lazy and shiftless and that an individual’s success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual, but THEY are actually the ones who depend the most on government handouts.
Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

Interesting how you don't know the state where I live yet seem to know a lot about it. I live here, bitch, you don't.

I wondered why you appeared so stupid....now I know...you live in one of those backward states. Just because you live there doesn't mean you are aware of what is going on....do some research...find out that your state is one of the states that sucks the government dry.

 

[idb]

Secondly, if a foetus has the rights of a citizen...

But a fetus DOESN'T have the rights of a citizen or you couldn't arbitrarily kill them with abortions!

So you are trying to argue against a point that hasn't been established. We're arguing that they SHOULD have the rights of a citizen at some point. In the US, they are protected as victims of violent acts under the law and they do have property rights.

Have you never seen the argument made that foetus' should have citizenship or personhood rights?
Don't you think it's legitimate to argue against a position just because it's a hypothetical situation or a proposition for a change to the law?

Are you confusing yourself about your own idiotic argument?

You asked:
If a foetus is a person, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated by the police?

Current law doesn't recognize the fetus as a person. They should be and maybe if they were, the police should investigate nefarious miscarriages? But you're asking the question as if it's legally established the fetus is a person.

Then you ask again:
If the fetus has the rights of a citizen...

But again, they DON'T have the rights at this time. So what the fuck are you arguing?

Sure... IF they DID... we'd have to deal with a whole host of issues. Just like we had to deal with a host of issues regarding freed slaves. That took us a century to work through but we eventually did. We're currently working through a host of issues pertaining to gay marriages but I don't recall all the "slippery slope" arguments carrying much weight in deciding whether to allow that.

"But again, they DON'T have the rights at this time."

You're dead right...they don't.