Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Vastator]

Wrong. One person cannot legally own another. There is no provision, or exception made for location.

Really?!?! Around on the merry-go-round, again. A fetus is not a person.

DNA says otherwise.

Cancer.

Cancer is a defined treatable malady. Life and pregnancy aren't.

Actually, so is pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't a malady. Its a natural result of a successful fertilization, and is completely normal, and usually poses no health risk. Keep dancin'...

 

[Czernobog]

Really?!?! Around on the merry-go-round, again. A fetus is not a person.

DNA says otherwise.

Cancer.

Cancer is a defined treatable malady. Life and pregnancy aren't.

Actually, so is pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't a malady.

According to you, racist. You don't get to make that determination for anyone else. That's why doctors diagnose a woman with pregnancy,m because it is a medical condition just like cancer.

 

[hadit]

Which is precisely the point.

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

Tell me. Are you in favour of family disconnecting a person in a persistent vegetative state from life support? And don't try to tell me, "That's different," It is a "human life", as you put it. Either it is worth protecting from destruction, or it isn't, by your logic.

Interesting that you should attempt to restrict the range of responses. Obviously, you can see no differences between the cases, but yours is not the only perspective worth seeing.

Of course the life is worth protecting, and every effort is expended trying to prevent the vegetative state in the first place. Once it is reached, however, one could make the case that the patient is no longer really alive. Unborn babies at surprisingly early stages of development can exhibit brain activity superior to patients in deep vegetative states.

But, despite your insistence, there are differences. In an elective abortion, no one speaks for the child. No one evaluates the baby for viability. There is no concern for his/her welfare. When a family member is on life support, every effort is extended to verify that the patient is truly beyond recovery, and only then are they declared hopeless. The person's desires are taken into account if they filed an advance directive, and there is no effort to actively kill the patient. He/she is simply disconnected from the machines, and if there is a recovery, there is no effort to make sure he dies and stays dead. In an elective abortion, OTOH, every effort is expended to make sure the baby dies, and a live birth is seen as a failure.

Here's the fatal flaw in your comparison. When a family member is in a vegetative state like that, even if every other family member were to demand it, we would prosecute for murder a doctor who cut the patient into pieces with a chain saw. In an elective abortion, OTOH,a perfectly healthy developing baby can be torn to pieces and not only do we do nothing, we pay the person doing it and call him a champion for women's rights.

 

[Vastator]

DNA says otherwise.

Cancer.

Cancer is a defined treatable malady. Life and pregnancy aren't.

Actually, so is pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't a malady.

According to you, racist. You don't get to make that determination for anyone else. That's why doctors diagnose a woman with pregnancy,m because it is a medical condition just like cancer.

According to life. It is a natural process that occurs once an egg has been fertilized.

 

[hadit]

This kind of gets away from the original thought experiment, but I'm curious to follow your logic here. On what are you basing the determination that I have less moral right to live than a child? And on what authority are you basing that determination?

Which is precisely the point.

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. A newborn has greater relative value than a fetus, or embryo. Want evidence? Run the same thought experiment, and replace the 5-year-old with an infant. The majority will still save the newborn over the phial. However, I would submit that you and I have very little vested interested in interfering with the decisions made about that newborn, and the law reflects this. We don't have a whole lot to say about how a newborn is treated. Short of violence against a newborn - either sexual, or physical - or abandonment, we pretty much leave parents alone to raise, and deal with their kids as they see fit. Vaccines would be one of a few exceptions, and, well, that's to protect my kid from eventual exposure to yours.

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

 

[hadit]

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

Tell me. Are you in favour of family disconnecting a person in a persistent vegetative state from life support? And don't try to tell me, "That's different," It is a "human life", as you put it. Either it is worth protecting from destruction, or it isn't, by your logic.

If it is guaranteed that there is no hope of improvement. Which is absolutely not the case in the overwhelming number of abortions. But fear not. I see what you were trying to do there. You infantile ploy; much like your plagiarized thread fails on the premise that most aborted babies are perfectly healthy people, with no ailment whatsoever.

I could guarantee that the opposition to abortion would be vastly reduced if it were restricted to only those cases where the baby has no hope of living or the mother's life is in mortal danger.

 

[hadit]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

Agreed. Just because you pick one over the other doesn't mean the one not selected becomes worthless.

It's kind of like the choice between saving your own kid or 5 strangers in the same scenario, just because you pick your own kid doesn't mean the people you leave to die are worthless.

Sophie's choice. You don't want any of them to die, but you can only save one. Like you said, that doesn't change anything about the one(s) you can't save.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

Kind of like the whole viability argument goes out the window when you realize Christopher Reeve didn't stop being a human when his head hit that rock and he couldn't sustain his own life without the help of machines. The OP merely exposes people as emotional beings, and falls apart under the weight of the reality that normal people will sacrifice the lives of many children to save the life of their own, and and that does not diminish the humanity of those sacrificed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

Agreed. Just because you pick one over the other doesn't mean the one not selected becomes worthless.

It's kind of like the choice between saving your own kid or 5 strangers in the same scenario, just because you pick your own kid doesn't mean the people you leave to die are worthless.

Sophie's choice. You don't want any of them to die, but you can only save one. Like you said, that doesn't change anything about the one(s) you can't save.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

Your conclusion, however, is false. There are multiple reasons why a person would save a crying child and ignore a group of vials. Replace the vials with a profoundly retarded child who doesn't understand the situation and isn't reacting. Most people will instinctively react first to the crying child, which in no way diminishes the other child's humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

Tell me. Are you in favour of family disconnecting a person in a persistent vegetative state from life support? And don't try to tell me, "That's different," It is a "human life", as you put it. Either it is worth protecting from destruction, or it isn't, by your logic.

Of course the life is worth protecting, and every effort is expended trying to prevent the vegetative state in the first place. Once it is reached, however, one could make the case that the patient is no longer really alive. Unborn babies at surprisingly early stages of development can exhibit brain activity superior to patients in deep vegetative states.

Except they are. They are alive. They still perform every single function of a living organism. You just want to pick and chose which living human beings deserve your protection. Rather exactly what you are accusing me of.

But, despite your insistence, there are differences. In an elective abortion, no one speaks for the child.

And this would be why you will not answer the question in the OP. Because you want to keep equating a fetus with a child, even when you know that they are not morally equivalent.

No one evaluates the baby fetus for viability.

That would be because it's not necessary. First, we already have the data on this. Any fetus under 21 weeks of development has exactly zero percent chance of being viable. Even in week 22, it's only 0 to 10%. This is why I advocate the cutoff for at-will abortion at 23 weeks. While 10% is still low, that's still on in ten fetuses that are viable.

Second, you are, apparently, unaware of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. It dictates, in part, that whereas a fetus may be viable or not viable in utero, this law provides a legal definition for personal human life when not in utero. It defines "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles" and specifies that any of these is the action of a living human person. In other words, we have defined, precisely, the criteria to be defined as a person. A non-viable fetus doesn't fit the criteria.

 

[hadit]

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

Tell me. Are you in favour of family disconnecting a person in a persistent vegetative state from life support? And don't try to tell me, "That's different," It is a "human life", as you put it. Either it is worth protecting from destruction, or it isn't, by your logic.

Of course the life is worth protecting, and every effort is expended trying to prevent the vegetative state in the first place. Once it is reached, however, one could make the case that the patient is no longer really alive. Unborn babies at surprisingly early stages of development can exhibit brain activity superior to patients in deep vegetative states.

Except they are. They are alive. They still perform every single function of a living organism. You just want to pick and chose which living human beings deserve your protection. Rather exactly what you are accusing me of.

But, despite your insistence, there are differences. In an elective abortion, no one speaks for the child.

And this would be why you will not answer the question in the OP. Because you want to keep equating a fetus with a child, even when you know that they are not morally equivalent.

No one evaluates the baby fetus for viability.

That would be because it's not necessary. First, we already have the data on this. Any fetus under 21 weeks of development has exactly zero percent chance of being viable. Even in week 22, it's only 0 to 10%. This is why I advocate the cutoff for at-will abortion at 23 weeks. While 10% is still low, that's still on in ten fetuses that are viable.

Second, you are, apparently, unaware of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. It dictates, in part, that whereas a fetus may be viable or not viable in utero, this law provides a legal definition for personal human life when not in utero. It defines "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles" and specifies that any of these is the action of a living human person. In other words, we have defined, precisely, the criteria to be defined as a person. A non-viable fetus doesn't fit the criteria.

Chris reeve ceased to be viable the moment his head hit the rock. Without a ventilator, he couldn't even breath of his own. Did he cease to be a person? Of course not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Cancer.

Cancer is a defined treatable malady. Life and pregnancy aren't.

Actually, so is pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't a malady.

According to you, racist. You don't get to make that determination for anyone else. That's why doctors diagnose a woman with pregnancy,m because it is a medical condition just like cancer.

According to life. It is a natural process that occurs once an egg has been fertilized.

It is a medical condition. many many cancers are also "natural processes". Skin cancer is the natural process that occurs after prolonged exposure to UV. Genetic cancers are the natural processes that occur in accordance with a person's DNA doing what it does. The makes them no less medical conditions - not unlike pregnancy - that we treat, and kill.

 

[Czernobog]

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

Tell me. Are you in favour of family disconnecting a person in a persistent vegetative state from life support? And don't try to tell me, "That's different," It is a "human life", as you put it. Either it is worth protecting from destruction, or it isn't, by your logic.

Of course the life is worth protecting, and every effort is expended trying to prevent the vegetative state in the first place. Once it is reached, however, one could make the case that the patient is no longer really alive. Unborn babies at surprisingly early stages of development can exhibit brain activity superior to patients in deep vegetative states.

Except they are. They are alive. They still perform every single function of a living organism. You just want to pick and chose which living human beings deserve your protection. Rather exactly what you are accusing me of.

But, despite your insistence, there are differences. In an elective abortion, no one speaks for the child.

And this would be why you will not answer the question in the OP. Because you want to keep equating a fetus with a child, even when you know that they are not morally equivalent.

No one evaluates the baby fetus for viability.

That would be because it's not necessary. First, we already have the data on this. Any fetus under 21 weeks of development has exactly zero percent chance of being viable. Even in week 22, it's only 0 to 10%. This is why I advocate the cutoff for at-will abortion at 23 weeks. While 10% is still low, that's still on in ten fetuses that are viable.

Second, you are, apparently, unaware of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. It dictates, in part, that whereas a fetus may be viable or not viable in utero, this law provides a legal definition for personal human life when not in utero. It defines "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles" and specifies that any of these is the action of a living human person. In other words, we have defined, precisely, the criteria to be defined as a person. A non-viable fetus doesn't fit the criteria.

Chris reeve ceased to be viable the moment his head hit the rock.

Really?!?! You think so? I'm pretty sure he would disagree. We can't really ask him, since he's dead, now. But you know who else I am certain disagrees with you? Stephen Hawking. And he is most certainly still alive to ask.

However, you have already indicated that you have no problem killing non-viable human beings - remember the vegetative human being? You have no problem killing them.

And you are ignoring the fact that we have already defined, by law, what is, and is not a person, and a non-viable fetus is not.

 

[Czernobog]

This kind of gets away from the original thought experiment, but I'm curious to follow your logic here. On what are you basing the determination that I have less moral right to live than a child? And on what authority are you basing that determination?

Which is precisely the point.

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. A newborn has greater relative value than a fetus, or embryo. Want evidence? Run the same thought experiment, and replace the 5-year-old with an infant. The majority will still save the newborn over the phial. However, I would submit that you and I have very little vested interested in interfering with the decisions made about that newborn, and the law reflects this. We don't have a whole lot to say about how a newborn is treated. Short of violence against a newborn - either sexual, or physical - or abandonment, we pretty much leave parents alone to raise, and deal with their kids as they see fit. Vaccines would be one of a few exceptions, and, well, that's to protect my kid from eventual exposure to yours.

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn fetus. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

 

[Vastator]

Which is precisely the point.

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. A newborn has greater relative value than a fetus, or embryo. Want evidence? Run the same thought experiment, and replace the 5-year-old with an infant. The majority will still save the newborn over the phial. However, I would submit that you and I have very little vested interested in interfering with the decisions made about that newborn, and the law reflects this. We don't have a whole lot to say about how a newborn is treated. Short of violence against a newborn - either sexual, or physical - or abandonment, we pretty much leave parents alone to raise, and deal with their kids as they see fit. Vaccines would be one of a few exceptions, and, well, that's to protect my kid from eventual exposure to yours.

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn fetus. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

No. "We" haven't...

 

[Vastator]

Cancer is a defined treatable malady. Life and pregnancy aren't.

Actually, so is pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't a malady.

According to you, racist. You don't get to make that determination for anyone else. That's why doctors diagnose a woman with pregnancy,m because it is a medical condition just like cancer.

According to life. It is a natural process that occurs once an egg has been fertilized.

It is a medical condition. many many cancers are also "natural processes". Skin cancer is the natural process that occurs after prolonged exposure to UV. Genetic cancers are the natural processes that occur in accordance with a person's DNA doing what it does. The makes them no less medical conditions - not unlike pregnancy - that we treat, and kill.

Cancer is something that happens to a lifeform. It isn't a lifeform unto itself. Fail on...

 

[Czernobog]

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. A newborn has greater relative value than a fetus, or embryo. Want evidence? Run the same thought experiment, and replace the 5-year-old with an infant. The majority will still save the newborn over the phial. However, I would submit that you and I have very little vested interested in interfering with the decisions made about that newborn, and the law reflects this. We don't have a whole lot to say about how a newborn is treated. Short of violence against a newborn - either sexual, or physical - or abandonment, we pretty much leave parents alone to raise, and deal with their kids as they see fit. Vaccines would be one of a few exceptions, and, well, that's to protect my kid from eventual exposure to yours.

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn fetus. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

No. "We" haven't...

Actually we have. It was pretty clearly defined in the Born Alive Act of 2002, a federal statute. That means that it is applicable, and has authority... well... everywhere in the US. You should look it up, racist.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, so is pregnancy.

Pregnancy isn't a malady.

According to you, racist. You don't get to make that determination for anyone else. That's why doctors diagnose a woman with pregnancy,m because it is a medical condition just like cancer.

According to life. It is a natural process that occurs once an egg has been fertilized.

It is a medical condition. many many cancers are also "natural processes". Skin cancer is the natural process that occurs after prolonged exposure to UV. Genetic cancers are the natural processes that occur in accordance with a person's DNA doing what it does. The makes them no less medical conditions - not unlike pregnancy - that we treat, and kill.

Cancer is something that happens to a lifeform. It isn't a lifeform unto itself. Fail on...

Sure. It is alive, just as any cell is alive. It exhibits all seven criteria for life. The only failure here is you, Racist. What can you expect from someone who thinks racism is a rational position to take?

 

[Vastator]

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. A newborn has greater relative value than a fetus, or embryo. Want evidence? Run the same thought experiment, and replace the 5-year-old with an infant. The majority will still save the newborn over the phial. However, I would submit that you and I have very little vested interested in interfering with the decisions made about that newborn, and the law reflects this. We don't have a whole lot to say about how a newborn is treated. Short of violence against a newborn - either sexual, or physical - or abandonment, we pretty much leave parents alone to raise, and deal with their kids as they see fit. Vaccines would be one of a few exceptions, and, well, that's to protect my kid from eventual exposure to yours.

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn fetus. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

No. "We" haven't...

Actually we have. It was pretty clearly defined in the Born Alive Act of 2002, a federal statute. That means that it is applicable, and has authority... well... everywhere in the US. You should look it up, racist.

It was also on authority by the courts that blacks we're 3/5 of a human. What changed? Blacks? Or the opinion of the court?

 

[Czernobog]

No. A newborn has greater relative value than a fetus, or embryo. Want evidence? Run the same thought experiment, and replace the 5-year-old with an infant. The majority will still save the newborn over the phial. However, I would submit that you and I have very little vested interested in interfering with the decisions made about that newborn, and the law reflects this. We don't have a whole lot to say about how a newborn is treated. Short of violence against a newborn - either sexual, or physical - or abandonment, we pretty much leave parents alone to raise, and deal with their kids as they see fit. Vaccines would be one of a few exceptions, and, well, that's to protect my kid from eventual exposure to yours.

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn fetus. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

No. "We" haven't...

Actually we have. It was pretty clearly defined in the Born Alive Act of 2002, a federal statute. That means that it is applicable, and has authority... well... everywhere in the US. You should look it up, racist.

It was also on authority by the courts that blacks we're 3/5 of a human. What changed? Blacks? Or the opinion of the court?

The Born Alive Act isn't a court ruling; it is federal law. Another fail. You just aren't capable of rational thought, are you?

 

[Vastator]

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn fetus. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

No. "We" haven't...

Actually we have. It was pretty clearly defined in the Born Alive Act of 2002, a federal statute. That means that it is applicable, and has authority... well... everywhere in the US. You should look it up, racist.

It was also on authority by the courts that blacks we're 3/5 of a human. What changed? Blacks? Or the opinion of the court?

The Born Alive Act isn't a court ruling; it is federal law. Another fail. You just aren't capable of rational thought, are you?