Do you agree that pre-born humans are NOT entitled to any rights or even the right to live?

[TRFjr]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. That is the obvious grey area.

what are your thoughts? Should preborn humans have the exact same rights and born humans?

wrong the preborn has its own distinct DNA separate from the mother or father it is a unique human

True each human has their own unique DNA which is made up of chromosomes and the DNA from the mother and father. Do you know how a paternity test works?

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

 

[TRFjr]

they have a right to life just like all other humans,,,

do they have the same rights as born human children? Or just the right to life?

we can start with right to life since its kinda stupid to talk about free speech gun rights and so on at this point,,,

So you won’t answer the question either. Interesting.

I did answer it,,,

No you didn’t. I asked a yes or no question. Is your answer yes or no?

Should an unborn child get the exact same rights as a born child?

notice how I’ve had to write out this question 5 times now because you turds can’t give a direct answer? It’s like working with preschoolers here.

are we discussing basic human rights or constitutional rights
every living human deserves at least basic HUMAN RIGHTS and the right to life is the utmost basic HUMAN RIGHT

 

[buttercup]

So one second before birth the fetus is not a person?

Not in my opinion.
Being a person implies many forms of independence which the unborn do not have.

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

OK well you’re almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.

The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone else’s convenience.

 

[TNHarley]

Not in my opinion.
Being a person implies many forms of independence which the unborn do not have.

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

OK well you’re almost there, but you seem to be coming up with your own definition of person (which you never actually stated, you are keeping that vague.) But that is your opinion.

The commonly accepted definition of person which you can see in the dictionary is simply a human being. But even if the dictionary said something different, the fact would remain that the pre-born baby is a human being and all human beings have the most basic human right of all, the right to life, the right to not be unjustly killed, the right to not be unjustly aggressed against, dismembered and thrown in like garbage, for someone else’s convenience.

Post 160

 

[JoeMoma]

In order to have any meaning, a "right" must be something one can exercise. Those not born obviously do not qualify.

In that case, a new born baby doesn't qualify either.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. That is the obvious grey area.

what are your thoughts? Should preborn humans have the exact same rights and born humans?

wrong the preborn has its own distinct DNA separate from the mother or father it is a unique human

True each human has their own unique DNA which is made up of chromosomes and the DNA from the mother and father. Do you know how a paternity test works?

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

 

[TRFjr]

In order to have any meaning, a "right" must be something one can exercise. Those not born obviously do not qualify.

are they not exercising life? being alive? the right to life?

 

[Slade3200]

do they have the same rights as born human children? Or just the right to life?

we can start with right to life since its kinda stupid to talk about free speech gun rights and so on at this point,,,

So you won’t answer the question either. Interesting.

I did answer it,,,

No you didn’t. I asked a yes or no question. Is your answer yes or no?

Should an unborn child get the exact same rights as a born child?

notice how I’ve had to write out this question 5 times now because you turds can’t give a direct answer? It’s like working with preschoolers here.

are we discussing basic human rights or constitutional rights
every living human deserves at least basic HUMAN RIGHTS and the right to life is the utmost basic HUMAN RIGHT

Yes the right to life is an obvious focus, I was asking a more specific question to see if the OP wanted the same legal rights applied to the unborn.

 

[TRFjr]

wrong the preborn has its own distinct DNA separate from the mother or father it is a unique human

True each human has their own unique DNA which is made up of chromosomes and the DNA from the mother and father. Do you know how a paternity test works?

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

The unborn meets every scientific requirement to be an individual human being and your twisted logic doesn't change that undisputed scientific fact
no were is location or degree of dependency used as a determination of what is an alive individual human

 

[progressive hunter]

wrong the preborn has its own distinct DNA separate from the mother or father it is a unique human

True each human has their own unique DNA which is made up of chromosomes and the DNA from the mother and father. Do you know how a paternity test works?

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

 

[Slade3200]

True each human has their own unique DNA which is made up of chromosomes and the DNA from the mother and father. Do you know how a paternity test works?

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

The unborn meets every scientific requirement to be an individual human being and your twisted logic doesn't change that undisputed scientific fact
no were is location or degree of dependency used as a determination of what is an alive individual human

legally speaking there is a very distinct difference which arises between the baby being born and a fetus still inside the mother. There is no situation that our legal system allows a mother to kill a born baby. There are situations depending on development, medical conditions and conception conditions that sways both our laws and public support of this situation.

you should be honest and acknowledge that.

 

[Slade3200]

True each human has their own unique DNA which is made up of chromosomes and the DNA from the mother and father. Do you know how a paternity test works?

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

 

[BS Filter]

I do not agree. Anyone who believes that is mentally ill.

 

[TRFjr]

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

The unborn meets every scientific requirement to be an individual human being and your twisted logic doesn't change that undisputed scientific fact
no were is location or degree of dependency used as a determination of what is an alive individual human

legally speaking there is a very distinct difference which arises between the baby being born and a fetus still inside the mother. There is no situation that our legal system allows a mother to kill a born baby. There are situations depending on development, medical conditions and conception conditions that sways both our laws and public support of this situation.

you should be honest and acknowledge that.

and at one time that same legal system allowed one human to own another so during that time did that then make slavery right just and moral?

 

[progressive hunter]

again that debunks your claim it is part of the mother,,,cause if it was it would have the same DNA,,,

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child in general needs adult care up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

 

[Slade3200]

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

The unborn meets every scientific requirement to be an individual human being and your twisted logic doesn't change that undisputed scientific fact
no were is location or degree of dependency used as a determination of what is an alive individual human

legally speaking there is a very distinct difference which arises between the baby being born and a fetus still inside the mother. There is no situation that our legal system allows a mother to kill a born baby. There are situations depending on development, medical conditions and conception conditions that sways both our laws and public support of this situation.

you should be honest and acknowledge that.

and at one time that same legal system allowed one human to own another so during that time did that then make slavery right just and moral?

not at all. I wasn’t making a morality argument. I was defining parameters for differences that you seem to think don’t exists

 

[Slade3200]

Haha. If it had the same DNA as the mother then it would literally be the mother. Look up the word “part”. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed are ya?

so then a baby breast feeding is part of the mother? Not an individual because at that moment it is attached to the mother dependent on the mother for its nutrition?

cant believe I need to explain the difference but let’s do it. A fetus is different from a born baby because it is growing inside of the mother, affecting the hormones and health of the mother, and for the first few months incapable of survival outside of the mothers body

THE FIRST FEW MONTHS????

you know nothing about reality and should not degrade yourself further by staying on this thread,,,,

well you could make a point to try and point that out or keep making empty insults that don’t mean anything. I have no faith that you have the intellect or focus to actually make a smart point or explain yourself. #troll

well I am smart enough to know a child needs care for up to 10-14 yrs of age not a few months after birth,,,you on the other hand think a 4 month old can function without it when it cant even walk,,,

Yet again you completely misread my statement. I’m not even going to waste my time restating it. Go back and reread

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

I believe any mother who has an abortion should be given the death penalty....and I think the GOP should run on that and stop pussy footing around -- unless they don't really value human life like they claim....

 

[Leo123]

What kind of sick human being hacks of pieces of themself?

uhh people do that kind of stuff all the time. Is that the best point you can come up with?

Sick people.

Actually yes that’s true. Many sick people get pieces of themselves removed in order to get better. That’s part of medicine.

Pregnancy is not a sickness.

No shit. I wasn’t equating the two

You seemed to be equating a pre-born human to a ‘piece’ then you said people cut off pieces of themselves when they are sick.

 

[MAGAman]

If you don’t mind another question... I promise not to ask 64 of them

what is your position on abortion in the instance of rape... say a 15 year old is raped and impregnated....
Or in the case of the mothers life being at risk?

I'll answer for me. My answer is consistent with a respect for human rights.

A woman is entitled to kill for self defense, even if the threat isn't intentional. Sad, but true. Just as if a mentally ill person points a gun at you.

Also I wouldn't usually advise, but also would not outlaw abortions from rape pregnancies of any age mother because involuntary servitude (slavery) is unconstitutional, as it should be. If the mother did not choose to have sex, the consequences shouldn't be hers.

Now. Under what circumstances do you support human rights?