Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"

[NYcarbineer]

Without medical intervention the body would reject it because it does not recognize it as part of itself.

The same can be said for fetuses where the mom has negative blood and the fetus doesn't.

The retarded from the pro-"choice" crowd in here is palpable.

They seem to really believe that fetuses are organs, that fetuses are not separate beings from the mother, that fetuses are the same being as the mother, that a fertilized egg is the same thing as the contents of a stomach after eating, and that fetuses are, for some peculiar reason, the same thing as a transplanted heart.

I always find it amusing when hicks can no longer engage in debate and instead need to make these over-exaggerated statements to make themselves feel better. "OMG THAT GUY THINKS BABIES ARE TAPEWORMS AND LUNCH NOW BECAUSE I CANT FOLLOW A SIMPLE CONTRASTING EXAMPLE!!!!" Hilarious.

Fetuses are NOT separate beings from the mother. This is fact. If you SEPARATE a fetus from the mother early, that tissue DIES. This is pretty much an irrefutable litmus test for if something is separate or not. There really isn't a better indicator of separability past COMPLETE DEMISE.

As for the question about charging someone for crimes against two people, that discussion gets into a deeper understanding of why murder is wrong. Seeing as most of you can't follow simple contrasting examples, I doubt you possess much understanding of deeper ethical discussions. But to negate the entire pretext altogether: law is not biology. If a judge deems a pregnant woman a space alien, it doesn't have much bearing on the separability of mother from fetus.

YOU state that fetus and woman are NOT two separate beings. Following your (ill)logic then surely someone who kills a pregnant woman would be charged ONE count. You. Are. Wrong.

No, you are wrong. Many states do not consider the murder of a pregnant woman 2 counts of murder, depending on the stage of the pregnancy. If the law is the basis for your argument, then you've just refuted your argument.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

only pro-abortion if that is the choice right?

pro murder would be more appropriate though...

As I stated and you apparently ignored, once again proving my last post correct: isn't it nice that Mr. and Mrs. H had a choice what to do with her body and the outcome of the pregnancy?

Oh, but somehow you read that as me believing they should have aborted the fetus. Wow. That type of stupidity is exceptional.

That isn't what I said at all, slow one...

I said you are only pro abortion if that is the choice...

"pro choice" is just a nice label you wackjob lefties apply to coverup the fact that you are willing to sit by and allow others to kill a baby in an effort to keep from personal resposibilties and accountability. It's sick!

Aw, can't follow the discussion with intelligent remarks and resorting back to propaganda? Let me know when you'd like to engage in conversation again, instead of just yelling the same garbage over and over again to make yourself feel better.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You either read something that I didn't say or I wasn't clear enough in what I did say. What I said was that fetus and mother are not fused. Are they joined together via the umbilical cord and placenta (which are fused)? Yes. Joined together does not mean they are one entity. Fetus and mother are two separate entities, two separate beings, one growing/developing within the other, not two beings fused together as one being. They are two separate beings.

If they were not individual separate beings then when a woman aborted a fetus part of her would also die/be changed/cease to be. When a woman has an abortion the only thing that no longer continues to exist is the fetus (a developing being), which is a separate individual, a separate human being. It is unique in that no other exactly like is has ever been or will be again.

If they are one being why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder?

I still think you're missing something vital here. OK let's backup. The umbilical cord is part of the fetus. It's directly connected. On the other end, it's directly part of the placenta. The placenta is fused to the uterus. OK now I know this is tricky logic here, but if A is fused to B, and B is fused to C, then A is fused to C via B. The fetus is fused to the mother by way of placenta, which happens to also be fetal in origin. So to summarize, a structure directly carrying fetal DNA is directly fused to a structure carrying mother's DNA. If you sever any part of that connection, the fetus dies.

PUT ANOTHER WAY: IF YOU SEPARATE THE TWO AT ANY POINT, THE FETUS DIES. So you should probably stop claiming they are separate. You can still use the word unique, just realize it has nothing to do with anything being individual or separate.

As for what happens when a woman has an abortion: she loses both the fetus and the inner part of her uterus that was supporting it. Everything involved in the fusion goes, mother and fetus alike. Luckily, women can regrow that lost tissue. Or do I need to explain menstruation as well?

When a woman has an abortion or gives birth no part of her body is gone. The fetus is not a part of her body, the fetus is a separate being. Umbilical cord and placenta are temporary only present during pregnancy. Lining of uterus leaves every month via her period.

Are you injuring yourself in your stretch saying that a fetus is not a separate human being?

If woman and fetus are not two separate beings then why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder instead of one?

No part of the woman's body is gone? OK I guess I do need to explain menstruation to you after all.

Each month, a woman's outer uterus produces a new specialized tissue, being the inner uterus. For simplicity's sake, think of this inner portion like its own organ, with its own newly created blood supply, and function that is unlike other areas of the body, including the outer uterus. Now follow me here, as it's clearly the part you don't understand. Each month, the woman LOSES the entirety of that new tissue system. The exception is if an embryo implants. If that's the case, that new tissue system is invaded by the embryo, and the two fuse together. Instead of being lost during menstruation, the woman loses it at the end of birth, and the process repeats itself.

So in summary, a major specialized portion of the woman's body is LOST when a fetus is removed. After all, if that weren't the case, the burrowing implantation of placenta into uterus would result in holes.

So you can keep believing that there are two separate beings, but they're not. All of biology shows they are neither separate nor separable. They have common DNA but there are differences. That's as best you get.

So ask yourself: if all of biology proves you wrong, why do you continue to hold onto these false beliefs? It's ok to accept truth. Everyone else knows you're wrong already. I recommend you accept it and move past it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb. That doesn't make them any less of a human being.

This isn't rocket science, people. Humans reproduce humans. Prior to sperm fertilizing egg there is no human. When fertilization takes place and those cells begin to divide, that is the moment when a new human being comes into existence; it is the very beginning stage of development of that particular human being. From that point on it continues through various stages of development both in and out of utero, but it is a human being all along.

The lengths that pro-"choicers" go through to deny this is simply unbelievable. Abortion is a woman's choice and the choice of abortion ends the life of another separate, unique, individual human being. I know you want to ease your conscience of what abortion actually does, which is why you jump through hoops to de-humanize fetuses. Too fucking bad. They are living human beings and abortion ends their life.

What you just described is arbitrary. Many things are needed to create a human being. You are blindly foolish if you think it only takes a sperm and egg. To set that moment as the exact time a human is created is like trying to set an EXACT moment a human adult is formed. And sure, you can point to law and claim 18, but that's changed in the past. We're talking biology, not law. And biology shows it foolish to try to mark a moment in the coarse of a complex development.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Without medical intervention the body would reject it because it does not recognize it as part of itself.

The same can be said for fetuses where the mom has negative blood and the fetus doesn't.

The retarded from the pro-"choice" crowd in here is palpable.

They seem to really believe that fetuses are organs, that fetuses are not separate beings from the mother, that fetuses are the same being as the mother, that a fertilized egg is the same thing as the contents of a stomach after eating, and that fetuses are, for some peculiar reason, the same thing as a transplanted heart.

I always find it amusing when hicks can no longer engage in debate and instead need to make these over-exaggerated statements to make themselves feel better. "OMG THAT GUY THINKS BABIES ARE TAPEWORMS AND LUNCH NOW BECAUSE I CANT FOLLOW A SIMPLE CONTRASTING EXAMPLE!!!!" Hilarious.

Fetuses are NOT separate beings from the mother. This is fact. If you SEPARATE a fetus from the mother early, that tissue DIES. This is pretty much an irrefutable litmus test for if something is separate or not. There really isn't a better indicator of separability past COMPLETE DEMISE.

As for the question about charging someone for crimes against two people, that discussion gets into a deeper understanding of why murder is wrong. Seeing as most of you can't follow simple contrasting examples, I doubt you possess much understanding of deeper ethical discussions. But to negate the entire pretext altogether: law is not biology. If a judge deems a pregnant woman a space alien, it doesn't have much bearing on the separability of mother from fetus.

YOU state that fetus and woman are NOT two separate beings. Following your (ill)logic then surely someone who kills a pregnant woman would be charged ONE count. You. Are. Wrong.

You think so? In the history of America you have brought ONE case forward that shows that. ONE. And she was near term, meaning the fetus could be separated and survive. Can you offer a single example of the same thing occurring when a woman was 2 weeks pregnant? Nope. Even law shows you to be wrong, and biology makes you look like a fool for trying.

But again, this entire topic of why charge someone with two deaths for killing a near term pregnant woman continues to miss the basic fundamentals of ethics. You can't even comprehend the basics of why things are right or wrong, let alone the biology behind them. How can I or others expect you to understand something advanced like this?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You sure missed a lot of schooling, didn't you?

You've yet to show us where the Constitution protects the rights of a fetus as a person. Since you obviously cannot do that, then the fetus has no constitutional rights as a person.

That makes the fetus a part of a woman's body that as far as the Constitution is concerned she has the right of privacy to either carry to term or abort.

Do you contest any part of that?

That is not entirely true. The constitution does not make any distinction at all about who does and does not get ‘rights’ and at what time they do. Children are not delineated in the constitution yet it is quite clear that a child does not enjoy the full rights that an adult does. No court case supports your supposition that a fetus enjoys no constitutional protections. That is the legal basis for most late term abortion bans which do exist and are quite constitutional. Clearly, fetuses do obtain SOME protections. The debate is at what point does a fetus’ right to life overcome the woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. At some point that can and does occur.

This is by far the most intelligent response regarding this topic. Well said. Development is a process, and the later in the process, meaning the closer a fetus approaches being a baby, the more protections are gained. These hicks unfortunately don't understand that a 2 week old embryo has ZERO such protections, and because they don't understand basic biology, they don't even understand WHY that's the case.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

"his silence is support"

You want the president of one of the greatest countries in the world, to take time out of his day to comment on every murder everywhere in the country? And you believe that if he doesn't do so, he is actively encouraging such murders!?

I'd rather have our president focus on larger more pressing issues with his time, and continue ignoring crazies like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You sure missed a lot of schooling, didn't you?

You've yet to show us where the Constitution protects the rights of a fetus as a person. Since you obviously cannot do that, then the fetus has no constitutional rights as a person.

That makes the fetus a part of a woman's body that as far as the Constitution is concerned she has the right of privacy to either carry to term or abort.

Do you contest any part of that?

That is not entirely true. The constitution does not make any distinction at all about who does and does not get ‘rights’ and at what time they do. Children are not delineated in the constitution yet it is quite clear that a child does not enjoy the full rights that an adult does. No court case supports your supposition that a fetus enjoys no constitutional protections. That is the legal basis for most late term abortion bans which do exist and are quite constitutional. Clearly, fetuses do obtain SOME protections. The debate is at what point does a fetus’ right to life overcome the woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. At some point that can and does occur.

I said 'as far as the Constitution is concerned' for a reason. The Constitution allows the states in some circumstances to protect the fetus, but on the other hand, it allows the states to choose not to.

My statement was that the Constitution in no way protects the rights of a fetus as a person. It doesn't, otherwise it would not defer that decision to the states.

 

[FA_Q2]

You've yet to show us where the Constitution protects the rights of a fetus as a person. Since you obviously cannot do that, then the fetus has no constitutional rights as a person.

That makes the fetus a part of a woman's body that as far as the Constitution is concerned she has the right of privacy to either carry to term or abort.

Do you contest any part of that?

That is not entirely true. The constitution does not make any distinction at all about who does and does not get ‘rights’ and at what time they do. Children are not delineated in the constitution yet it is quite clear that a child does not enjoy the full rights that an adult does. No court case supports your supposition that a fetus enjoys no constitutional protections. That is the legal basis for most late term abortion bans which do exist and are quite constitutional. Clearly, fetuses do obtain SOME protections. The debate is at what point does a fetus’ right to life overcome the woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. At some point that can and does occur.

I said 'as far as the Constitution is concerned' for a reason. The Constitution allows the states in some circumstances to protect the fetus, but on the other hand, it allows the states to choose not to.

My statement was that the Constitution in no way protects the rights of a fetus as a person. It doesn't, otherwise it would not defer that decision to the states.

Except that the right to privacy and the ability to abort IS a constitutional question (as expressed in Roe vs. Wade) as I read it. That right expressed in the constitution can only really be challenged or limited by another right in the constitution. I would cite that as the general right to life that would bind all other rights together. In that context, the child’s right to life would, indeed, be protected by the constitution.

Grated there is no actual phrase to point out or line that I can bring up BUT that does not mean that the constitution is completely silent on the subject. In that same manner, you have espoused all types of different laws based on lines like the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. Somehow, you have construed all those meanings from one line statements but then refuse to admit that the constitution provides some protections to the unborn, something that the courts have never stated either.

You might think that I am reading too far into the constitution by placing a general right to life in there but I do not agree with that sentiment. Either way though, the question is rather moot as the constitutional rights afforded to the unborn are in no way to mean that the right to abort is absolute or should override the right to life. As I have stated many time, not even the court is crazy enough to go that far. There is a point in which the right of a woman to control her body is overridden by the right of the child to live. That is enshrined in CURRENT law.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You've yet to show us where the Constitution protects the rights of a fetus as a person. Since you obviously cannot do that, then the fetus has no constitutional rights as a person.

That makes the fetus a part of a woman's body that as far as the Constitution is concerned she has the right of privacy to either carry to term or abort.

Do you contest any part of that?

That is not entirely true. The constitution does not make any distinction at all about who does and does not get ‘rights’ and at what time they do. Children are not delineated in the constitution yet it is quite clear that a child does not enjoy the full rights that an adult does. No court case supports your supposition that a fetus enjoys no constitutional protections. That is the legal basis for most late term abortion bans which do exist and are quite constitutional. Clearly, fetuses do obtain SOME protections. The debate is at what point does a fetus’ right to life overcome the woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. At some point that can and does occur.

I said 'as far as the Constitution is concerned' for a reason. The Constitution allows the states in some circumstances to protect the fetus, but on the other hand, it allows the states to choose not to.

My statement was that the Constitution in no way protects the rights of a fetus as a person. It doesn't, otherwise it would not defer that decision to the states.

Uh Murder is a state crime not a federal crime, so there is a flaw in your logic.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I still think you're missing something vital here. OK let's backup. The umbilical cord is part of the fetus. It's directly connected. On the other end, it's directly part of the placenta. The placenta is fused to the uterus. OK now I know this is tricky logic here, but if A is fused to B, and B is fused to C, then A is fused to C via B. The fetus is fused to the mother by way of placenta, which happens to also be fetal in origin. So to summarize, a structure directly carrying fetal DNA is directly fused to a structure carrying mother's DNA. If you sever any part of that connection, the fetus dies.

PUT ANOTHER WAY: IF YOU SEPARATE THE TWO AT ANY POINT, THE FETUS DIES. So you should probably stop claiming they are separate. You can still use the word unique, just realize it has nothing to do with anything being individual or separate.

As for what happens when a woman has an abortion: she loses both the fetus and the inner part of her uterus that was supporting it. Everything involved in the fusion goes, mother and fetus alike. Luckily, women can regrow that lost tissue. Or do I need to explain menstruation as well?

When a woman has an abortion or gives birth no part of her body is gone. The fetus is not a part of her body, the fetus is a separate being. Umbilical cord and placenta are temporary only present during pregnancy. Lining of uterus leaves every month via her period.

Are you injuring yourself in your stretch saying that a fetus is not a separate human being?

If woman and fetus are not two separate beings then why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder instead of one?

No part of the woman's body is gone? OK I guess I do need to explain menstruation to you after all.

Each month, a woman's outer uterus produces a new specialized tissue, being the inner uterus. For simplicity's sake, think of this inner portion like its own organ, with its own newly created blood supply, and function that is unlike other areas of the body, including the outer uterus. Now follow me here, as it's clearly the part you don't understand. Each month, the woman LOSES the entirety of that new tissue system. The exception is if an embryo implants. If that's the case, that new tissue system is invaded by the embryo, and the two fuse together. Instead of being lost during menstruation, the woman loses it at the end of birth, and the process repeats itself.

So in summary, a major specialized portion of the woman's body is LOST when a fetus is removed. After all, if that weren't the case, the burrowing implantation of placenta into uterus would result in holes.

So you can keep believing that there are two separate beings, but they're not. All of biology shows they are neither separate nor separable. They have common DNA but there are differences. That's as best you get.

So ask yourself: if all of biology proves you wrong, why do you continue to hold onto these false beliefs? It's ok to accept truth. Everyone else knows you're wrong already. I recommend you accept it and move past it.

Again, you fail to read what I wrote.

When a woman has an abortion or gives birth no part of her body is gone. The fetus is not a part of her body, the fetus is a separate being. Umbilical cord and placenta are temporary only present during pregnancy. Lining of uterus leaves every month via her period.

Lining of uterus leaves her body every month and is also gone when she has an abortion. You want to hold on to that as the part of a woman that is gone when she has an abortion, have at it. I already stated that she loses it. You are stretching beyond belief in stating that a fetus and woman are one. You. Are. Wrong.

What she is aborting is a human being that was conceived in and developing inside of her body. It is not HER body that is being aborted, it is not HER body whose life is ending, it is not HER body that will no longer exist when an abortion happens. Deny all you want, this is fact.

Here. Read. Learn.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...d-fetus-separate-individuals.html#post7052703

 

[buckeye45_73]

What part did you miss of this. We are now talking about whacking off the kid if it survives the abortion.

Do you kill it or not? According to lefties, we call it now a post abortion. aka. whack the live kid on the birth table.

No one survives an abortion. Its like saying someone survived being murdered.
If the baby is born alive, then no abortion took place. Abortion kills a fetus, it doesn't result in the birth of a live baby.

So, if the baby survives ATTEMPTED murder --- then it's what again?

Why is it that everytime the libs don;t like the rules they just create more labels so they can rewrite the rules?

So Noomi, if you go to have an abortion and the baby survives, you just say it was a normal birth, God I cant say how stupid that is.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm still wanting an answer to you pro choicers. Why do some choicers think abortion is wrong? I believe Noomi said she was one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Without medical intervention the body would reject it because it does not recognize it as part of itself.

The same can be said for fetuses where the mom has negative blood and the fetus doesn't.

The retarded from the pro-"choice" crowd in here is palpable.

They seem to really believe that fetuses are organs, that fetuses are not separate beings from the mother, that fetuses are the same being as the mother, that a fertilized egg is the same thing as the contents of a stomach after eating, and that fetuses are, for some peculiar reason, the same thing as a transplanted heart.

I always find it amusing when hicks can no longer engage in debate and instead need to make these over-exaggerated statements to make themselves feel better. "OMG THAT GUY THINKS BABIES ARE TAPEWORMS AND LUNCH NOW BECAUSE I CANT FOLLOW A SIMPLE CONTRASTING EXAMPLE!!!!" Hilarious.

Fetuses are NOT separate beings from the mother. This is fact. If you SEPARATE a fetus from the mother early, that tissue DIES. This is pretty much an irrefutable litmus test for if something is separate or not. There really isn't a better indicator of separability past COMPLETE DEMISE.

As for the question about charging someone for crimes against two people, that discussion gets into a deeper understanding of why murder is wrong. Seeing as most of you can't follow simple contrasting examples, I doubt you possess much understanding of deeper ethical discussions. But to negate the entire pretext altogether: law is not biology. If a judge deems a pregnant woman a space alien, it doesn't have much bearing on the separability of mother from fetus.

YOU state that fetus and woman are NOT two separate beings. Following your (ill)logic then surely someone who kills a pregnant woman would be charged ONE count. You. Are. Wrong.

Yet another ignorant conservative who doesn’t understand the difference between civil and criminal law.

 

[FA_Q2]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb. That doesn't make them any less of a human being.

This isn't rocket science, people. Humans reproduce humans. Prior to sperm fertilizing egg there is no human. When fertilization takes place and those cells begin to divide, that is the moment when a new human being comes into existence; it is the very beginning stage of development of that particular human being. From that point on it continues through various stages of development both in and out of utero, but it is a human being all along.

The lengths that pro-"choicers" go through to deny this is simply unbelievable. Abortion is a woman's choice and the choice of abortion ends the life of another separate, unique, individual human being. I know you want to ease your conscience of what abortion actually does, which is why you jump through hoops to de-humanize fetuses. Too fucking bad. They are living human beings and abortion ends their life.

What you just described is arbitrary. Many things are needed to create a human being. You are blindly foolish if you think it only takes a sperm and egg. To set that moment as the exact time a human is created is like trying to set an EXACT moment a human adult is formed. And sure, you can point to law and claim 18, but that's changed in the past. We're talking biology, not law. And biology shows it foolish to try to mark a moment in the coarse of a complex development.

Well, no. This is not correct at all. There is an EXACT moment that a human is created and that is the moment that an egg cell is fertilized. Science is not arbitrary unless it absolutely has to be. That is a biological fact and scientifically demonstrable. That is the moment when a unique individual is created and it ceases to be a part of the mother at that instant. What you are claiming essentially makes bacterial and viral infection ‘part’ of the person that they infect. That is not scientific at all. Those creatures are separate. Even though they cannot survive without the host, they are separate life forms. That, in and of itself, does not create rights though and an unborn child, just because it is NOT the mother and IS a separate human being, does not immediately get those rights. As I stated before, and you agreed, that is a process that law looks at and can determine when the moment occurs. Now THAT moment, I can agree with you, is not a hard date or time though the law is somewhat stuck in drawing a hard date by its very rigid nature. A rigid nature that is not shared by biology.

And BTW, biology does, in fact, delineate the exact moment that one creature reaches adulthood though it is different for every individual. That moment is essentially when the individual is capable of reproduction. Of course, like the moment a human is created, legal definitions are not the same as scientific ones and the biological adulthood is meaningless in the context of law where adulthood more directly refers to responsibility and legal options.

In that same manner, abortion has nothing to do with the biological creation of a unique human being. I am sure that it has been brought up before but I am not sifting through this entire thread, a human has MANY chances of death right after conception. There are no funerals etc. for those that are ‘aborted’ through miscarriage the day after conception and this is not an entirely uncommon event. There are many things that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus wall for instance and there are even times where the body decides on its own that it is simply not going to allow the pregnancy to continue.

Make no mistake, that embryo is indeed a unique and individual human. It is just not developed enough for the vast majority of people to care. The longer you get into pregnancy, the grater the chances of bringing that child to full term and the more ‘importance’ people place on the unborn child. Most of the pro-lifers would likely pale if they knew the number of ‘people’ that have died the following day after they were ‘created.’ It happens all the time.

One of the things that drives me nuts about this kind of debate though is that many on the pro-choice side (of which I am a part of) simply REFUSES to call a spade a spade and admit that they are killing a person. That is exactly what an abortion is and I think that such a fact NEEDS to be acknowledged in order to understand the gravity of the decision. It is not something that should be taken lightly or a method of birth control. Before anyone gets upset and demands that such does not happen, I have known multiple people that did just that and even have one person in my family that is now sterile because she did it so many times. She was looking to us (my wife and I) for emotional support because she wanted children and my wife tore here a new asshole for it. She deserved that (and more IMHO) for so nonchalantly discarding life. Such is something that I believe my wife and I would be incapable of doing under all but the most extreme cases (aka. the fetus or my wife would have zero chance of survival).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm still wanting an answer to you pro choicers. Why do some choicers think abortion is wrong? I believe Noomi said she was one.

Everyone believes abortion is wrong, I’m opposed to abortion and would like to see the practice ended.

As a person opposed to abortion – in addition to being un-Constitutional – I’m opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; the practice will simply go underground.

That some perceive abortion to be wrong doesn’t justify violating a person’s privacy rights. And the abortion controversy has nothing to do with the morality of the issue but the efficacy of the solution.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm still wanting an answer to you pro choicers. Why do some choicers think abortion is wrong? I believe Noomi said she was one.

Everyone believes abortion is wrong, I’m opposed to abortion and would like to see the practice ended.

As a person opposed to abortion – in addition to being un-Constitutional – I’m opposed to laws banning abortion because they won’t work; the practice will simply go underground.

That some perceive abortion to be wrong doesn’t justify violating a person’s privacy rights. And the abortion controversy has nothing to do with the morality of the issue but the efficacy of the solution.

Aaaaah....you think everyone believes abortion is wrong, yet they get them? Do you understand logic?

And if you think abortion is wrong...I want to know WHY you think it's wrong? What makes it wrong in your mind?

Well get to privacy in a bit...but first why do you think abortion is wrong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You've yet to show us where the Constitution protects the rights of a fetus as a person. Since you obviously cannot do that, then the fetus has no constitutional rights as a person.

That makes the fetus a part of a woman's body that as far as the Constitution is concerned she has the right of privacy to either carry to term or abort.

Do you contest any part of that?

That is not entirely true. The constitution does not make any distinction at all about who does and does not get ‘rights’ and at what time they do. Children are not delineated in the constitution yet it is quite clear that a child does not enjoy the full rights that an adult does. No court case supports your supposition that a fetus enjoys no constitutional protections. That is the legal basis for most late term abortion bans which do exist and are quite constitutional. Clearly, fetuses do obtain SOME protections. The debate is at what point does a fetus’ right to life overcome the woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. At some point that can and does occur.

I said 'as far as the Constitution is concerned' for a reason. The Constitution allows the states in some circumstances to protect the fetus, but on the other hand, it allows the states to choose not to.

My statement was that the Constitution in no way protects the rights of a fetus as a person. It doesn't, otherwise it would not defer that decision to the states.

Correct.

The Constitution recognizes the state’s interest in the health of the woman and unborn child, and allows the states to take steps to ensure the health and safety of both.

But prior to viability, the states must refrain from measures that manifest an undue burden to a woman electing to have an abortion if that is indeed her decision; banning abortion at conception, for example, so called ‘personhood laws,’ clearly manifest an undue burden, and such measures have been routinely invalidated by the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is not entirely true. The constitution does not make any distinction at all about who does and does not get ‘rights’ and at what time they do. Children are not delineated in the constitution yet it is quite clear that a child does not enjoy the full rights that an adult does. No court case supports your supposition that a fetus enjoys no constitutional protections. That is the legal basis for most late term abortion bans which do exist and are quite constitutional. Clearly, fetuses do obtain SOME protections. The debate is at what point does a fetus’ right to life overcome the woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. At some point that can and does occur.

I said 'as far as the Constitution is concerned' for a reason. The Constitution allows the states in some circumstances to protect the fetus, but on the other hand, it allows the states to choose not to.

My statement was that the Constitution in no way protects the rights of a fetus as a person. It doesn't, otherwise it would not defer that decision to the states.

Except that the right to privacy and the ability to abort IS a constitutional question (as expressed in Roe vs. Wade) as I read it. That right expressed in the constitution can only really be challenged or limited by another right in the constitution. I would cite that as the general right to life that would bind all other rights together. In that context, the child’s right to life would, indeed, be protected by the constitution.

Grated there is no actual phrase to point out or line that I can bring up BUT that does not mean that the constitution is completely silent on the subject. In that same manner, you have espoused all types of different laws based on lines like the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. Somehow, you have construed all those meanings from one line statements but then refuse to admit that the constitution provides some protections to the unborn, something that the courts have never stated either.

You might think that I am reading too far into the constitution by placing a general right to life in there but I do not agree with that sentiment. Either way though, the question is rather moot as the constitutional rights afforded to the unborn are in no way to mean that the right to abort is absolute or should override the right to life. As I have stated many time, not even the court is crazy enough to go that far. There is a point in which the right of a woman to control her body is overridden by the right of the child to live. That is enshrined in CURRENT law.

Current privacy rights case law with regard to abortion is found in Casey, not Roe.

In Casey that issue is addressed, and the Majority determined that prior to birth, the rights of the women are paramount, and the right to regulate abortion rests with the state, not the unborn.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[SmarterThanHick]

When a woman has an abortion or gives birth no part of her body is gone. The fetus is not a part of her body, the fetus is a separate being. Umbilical cord and placenta are temporary only present during pregnancy. Lining of uterus leaves every month via her period.

Are you injuring yourself in your stretch saying that a fetus is not a separate human being?

If woman and fetus are not two separate beings then why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder instead of one?

No part of the woman's body is gone? OK I guess I do need to explain menstruation to you after all.

Each month, a woman's outer uterus produces a new specialized tissue, being the inner uterus. For simplicity's sake, think of this inner portion like its own organ, with its own newly created blood supply, and function that is unlike other areas of the body, including the outer uterus. Now follow me here, as it's clearly the part you don't understand. Each month, the woman LOSES the entirety of that new tissue system. The exception is if an embryo implants. If that's the case, that new tissue system is invaded by the embryo, and the two fuse together. Instead of being lost during menstruation, the woman loses it at the end of birth, and the process repeats itself.

So in summary, a major specialized portion of the woman's body is LOST when a fetus is removed. After all, if that weren't the case, the burrowing implantation of placenta into uterus would result in holes.

So you can keep believing that there are two separate beings, but they're not. All of biology shows they are neither separate nor separable. They have common DNA but there are differences. That's as best you get.

So ask yourself: if all of biology proves you wrong, why do you continue to hold onto these false beliefs? It's ok to accept truth. Everyone else knows you're wrong already. I recommend you accept it and move past it.

Again, you fail to read what I wrote.

When a woman has an abortion or gives birth no part of her body is gone. The fetus is not a part of her body, the fetus is a separate being. Umbilical cord and placenta are temporary only present during pregnancy. Lining of uterus leaves every month via her period.

Lining of uterus leaves her body every month and is also gone when she has an abortion. You want to hold on to that as the part of a woman that is gone when she has an abortion, have at it. I already stated that she loses it. You are stretching beyond belief in stating that a fetus and woman are one. You. Are. Wrong.

What she is aborting is a human being that was conceived in and developing inside of her body. It is not HER body that is being aborted, it is not HER body whose life is ending, it is not HER body that will no longer exist when an abortion happens. Deny all you want, this is fact.

Here. Read. Learn.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...d-fetus-separate-individuals.html#post7052703

No, it is not her body being aborted. It is the fetus. That still does not mean they are separate. You can apply your logic to an appendix. Just because you can REMOVE something and have that tissue die does not mean it is separate while attached. But as I have told you countless times now, the fetus is attached to the mother, inseparable before maturation, to the point where the placenta is fused to the mother. The two tissues literally growing into one another, invasively, to ensure premature separate is prevented. Because separation equals death.

Here. Read. Learn. From a real source.

Placenta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia