Liberals On Abortion

[PK1]

I'm sorry but nothing can justify killing an innocent child in my opinion. Whether it's an economic reason, a risk to your own personal safety, convenience due to poor or unplanned timing, or out of fear, nothing justifies killing a baby.

Fetuses aren't babies or children. They are globs of tissue that are unviable outside the womb. Most abortions are performed when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean.

An unborn child is a human being at an early stage of development. Naturally, you would wish to obscure this fact through terminology. Sad, that.

How about legal “fact” ... from U.S. code:

‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’

The blastocyst, embryo or fetus may have human DNA from both parents, but until it is born, the baby is INSIDE its mother, attached to her via her placenta & fully dependent as a part of HER body.

Only a “Nazi” government authoritarian would take away a person’s freedom to choose what to do with THEIR body, including euthanasia.
.

 

[ding]

" Constitutionally Consistent And Valid Empathy Ethics "

* Ignorant Of Your Own Dogma *

Now that we've established your desire to kill the innocent, a question:

When the relgious reich reconciles a conjecture for guilt from carnality and innocence , let us know .

* Syncretism And Extraterrestrials *

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

Try to stick to words you understand.....even if that might make you mute.

The term 'reich' has specific implications, and there is no such entity in America.

Now....why do you favor human sacrifice?

Why do you favor sacrificing a woman’s freedom to decide her procreation preferences? Are you a Nazi lover?
.

I know you've proven to be a moron, but see if this gets through your thick skull: a woman has no more justification for slaughtering the child she helped create......and slaughtering same for nothing more than here temporary convenience.....than an individual has of shooting the neighbor who blocked his driveway.

The baby is not a part of her body. She is temporarily feeding it the same as she would be if breastfeeding a six month old.

If you get emotional & resort to stupid name-calling, we know you lost the argument, especially when you equate a neighbor to a woman’s genetic material inside her body.
Or, equating breast-feeding a born independently-breathing child to supplying nourishment to developing bio cells through the placenta.
Can you get any more idiotic? LOL!
.

But you are stupid.

Watch this: is the unborn a part of her body, or a separate, distinct and unique human being?

Chic, you are science stupid.

Watch this: the unborn is a part of her body AND a separate, distinct and unique “human being” (by definition) ... when she is pregnant.

So what?
.

So being a separate and distinct human being confers individual rights.

 

[hadit]

Here's the thing for the mentally challenged, abortion has never been banned nationwide in this country and never will be, so is not the goal. What can be done, however, is to overturn Roe and allow states to decide for themselves.

Bullshit, the right wing has been promising a "Human Life Amendment" since 1976, so please don't try to pass this off as a "State's Rights" issue.

Now, since you started whining about it, drop your complaining about taxes and get back to wailing that a woman somewhere might be convinced to keep her baby in spite of your archaic and selfish belief system that holds she should destroy him/her.

But this is the point you don't get. Roe never gets overturned, even though Republicans have put Ten Warm Bodies on SCOTUS since it was passed. That Human Life Amendment never gets introduced. The issue is great for keeping stupid people like you voting against your own economic interests because you care so much about the "Babies". (Until they actually are born, in which case the little bastards better not want any social programs!!!)

An even better one. In 2004, Bush and Cheney just couldn't stop talking about the menace of gay marriage. How they were totally gonna stop gay marriage (nobody mention Cheney's daughter is a lesbian) and they were going to put an amendment in the constitution. Um. Yeah.

[

After the election, never mentioned again, but Bush's top priority was to try to privatize social security, because letting wall street loot our pensions and homes wasn't enough.

Again with the wandering off into the weeds. Stick to abortion, remember? Or maybe you didn't really mean it earlier and were just trying to get me to stop destroying your arguments.

An unborn child is a human being at an early stage of development. Naturally, you would wish to obscure this fact through terminology. Sad, that.

Naw, abortion is a social good. It keeps women out of poverty, it makes sure that the only people we are bringing into the world are wanted. Best of all, it pisses off the Christians.

Which means that if you see the number of abortions going down, you start getting nervous? Can't have all those babies making it into this world, now, might take something away from you.

 

[hadit]

I'm sorry but nothing can justify killing an innocent child in my opinion. Whether it's an economic reason, a risk to your own personal safety, convenience due to poor or unplanned timing, or out of fear, nothing justifies killing a baby.

Fetuses aren't babies or children. They are globs of tissue that are unviable outside the womb. Most abortions are performed when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean.

An unborn child is a human being at an early stage of development. Naturally, you would wish to obscure this fact through terminology. Sad, that.

How about legal “fact” ... from U.S. code:

‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’

The blastocyst, embryo or fetus may have human DNA from both parents, but until it is born, the baby is INSIDE its mother, attached to her via her placenta & fully dependent as a part of HER body.

Only a “Nazi” government authoritarian would take away a person’s freedom to choose what to do with THEIR body, including euthanasia.
.

It's a legal, not biological, argument.

 

[Levant]

I'm sorry but nothing can justify killing an innocent child in my opinion. Whether it's an economic reason, a risk to your own personal safety, convenience due to poor or unplanned timing, or out of fear, nothing justifies killing a baby.

Fetuses aren't babies or children. They are globs of tissue that are unviable outside the womb. Most abortions are performed when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean.

An unborn child is a human being at an early stage of development. Naturally, you would wish to obscure this fact through terminology. Sad, that.

How about legal “fact” ... from U.S. code:

‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’

The blastocyst, embryo or fetus may have human DNA from both parents, but until it is born, the baby is INSIDE its mother, attached to her via her placenta & fully dependent as a part of HER body.

Only a “Nazi” government authoritarian would take away a person’s freedom to choose what to do with THEIR body, including euthanasia.
.

It's a legal, not biological, argument.

So was slavery a legal, not biological, argument.

Those who say that babies aren't human because the law says they're not humans must certainly be racists. They allow the government to just pass a law saying some group of humans aren't human. Yes, the Democrats did that. American Indians weren't human. African Americans weren't human. Unborn babies aren't human. And now, of course, born babies aren't human until mother and doctor agree that they're human. Oddly, though, they refer to the mother as mother...

 

[Levant]

I'm sorry but nothing can justify killing an innocent child in my opinion. Whether it's an economic reason, a risk to your own personal safety, convenience due to poor or unplanned timing, or out of fear, nothing justifies killing a baby.

Fetuses aren't babies or children. They are globs of tissue that are unviable outside the womb. Most abortions are performed when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean.

An unborn child is a human being at an early stage of development. Naturally, you would wish to obscure this fact through terminology. Sad, that.

How about legal “fact” ... from U.S. code:

‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’

The blastocyst, embryo or fetus may have human DNA from both parents, but until it is born, the baby is INSIDE its mother, attached to her via her placenta & fully dependent as a part of HER body.

Only a “Nazi” government authoritarian would take away a person’s freedom to choose what to do with THEIR body, including euthanasia.
.

Actually, it's far more Nazi-like for doctors to do survival of the chosen and killing of undesirables based on physical qualities rather than natural selection. The entire basis of legalized abortion in America was to eliminate the undesirable black babies.. And, to give cover to its racist beginnings, the are happy to take the white babies they determine to be substandard as well - white trash babies, Downs Syndrome babies, hell, even why not even left-handed babies?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Challenged Two Describe The Delineation Of Separate And Distinct "

* Intermingled Knotted *

So being a separate and distinct human being confers individual rights.

Are any prepared to offer subjective conjectures on a meaning for separate and distinct hue mammon ?
Chorionic villi - Wikipedia
Umbilical vein - Wikipedia
Ductus venosus - Wikipedia

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Out Land Dish And Recalling Reminder Two Inn Clued "

* Over Drawn Calamity Of Fake Representation *

Actually, it's far more Nazi-like for doctors to do survival of the chosen and killing of undesirables based on physical qualities rather than natural selection. The entire basis of legalized abortion in America was to eliminate the undesirable black babies.. And, to give cover to its racist beginnings, the are happy to take the white babies they determine to be substandard as well - white trash babies, Downs Syndrome babies, hell, even why not even left-handed babies?

Some acts depicted by the quoted rant did over ride the autonomy of individual liberty whereas elective abortion does not over ride that autonomy of individual liberty .

* Arterial Ventricular Blood Circulatory System Dependencies *

Ductus arteriosus - Wikipedia
Artery - Wikipedia

 

[Levant]

" Out Land Dish And Recalling Reminder Two Inn Clued "

* Over Drawn Calamity Of Fake Representation *

Actually, it's far more Nazi-like for doctors to do survival of the chosen and killing of undesirables based on physical qualities rather than natural selection. The entire basis of legalized abortion in America was to eliminate the undesirable black babies.. And, to give cover to its racist beginnings, the are happy to take the white babies they determine to be substandard as well - white trash babies, Downs Syndrome babies, hell, even why not even left-handed babies?

Some acts depicted by the quoted rant did over ride the autonomy of individual liberty whereas elective abortion does not over ride that autonomy of individual liberty .

* Arterial Ventricular Blood Circulatory System Dependencies *

Ductus arteriosus - Wikipedia
Artery - Wikipedia

Depends on whether you're the individual whose liberty, including their right to bear arms was stripped so completely that his or her arms were literally ripped from their body while they're alive in the womb. No, I'd argue that the individual who was torn apart, or dissolved in salt water, or had their head cut off with a pair of scissors, has a different take than you do on how abortion affects individual liberty.

 

[JoeB131]

Again with the wandering off into the weeds. Stick to abortion, remember? Or maybe you didn't really mean it earlier and were just trying to get me to stop destroying your arguments.

Again, that you can't follow an argument from point a to point b isn't my problem.

Abortion never gets banned because then they couldn't use it to keep stupid people like you angry.

Which means that if you see the number of abortions going down, you start getting nervous? Can't have all those babies making it into this world, now, might take something away from you.

Naw, the only reason why SURGICAL abortion are declining is because PHARMACEUTICAL abortions are replacing them. This is progress, really.

Now, if you tools were serious about reducing the NEED for abortion, there are ways to do that. Universal health care, paid family leave, comprehensive sex education and wider distribution of contraception.. All of which would involve- wait for it - MORE GOVERNMENT>

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, it's far more Nazi-like for doctors to do survival of the chosen and killing of undesirables based on physical qualities rather than natural selection. The entire basis of legalized abortion in America was to eliminate the undesirable black babies.. And, to give cover to its racist beginnings, the are happy to take the white babies they determine to be substandard as well - white trash babies, Downs Syndrome babies, hell, even why not even left-handed babies?

I think you are a little confused. The entire basis of legalized abortions was that the laws on the books were kind of like the prostitution laws are. They were on the books, they were rarely enforced, women were getting just as many abortions before Roe as after. The seven justices - including FIVE republicans - thought that Roe was going to be no more controversial than Grunewald v. Connecticut was eight years earlier. Getting rid of an outdated law no one was actually following.

Now, of course, you do have a point, there was a race/class component, because this is America and there is ALWAYS a race/class component. Affluent/White women could get abortions done at the OB/GYN and they just wrote something else on the chart. Poor/minority women went to shadier providers.

Depends on whether you're the individual whose liberty, including their right to bear arms was stripped so completely that his or her arms were literally ripped from their body while they're alive in the womb. No, I'd argue that the individual who was torn apart, or dissolved in salt water, or had their head cut off with a pair of scissors, has a different take than you do on how abortion affects individual liberty.

IF they were people and not kidney-sized blobs of meat, you might have a point.

So was slavery a legal, not biological, argument.

Those who say that babies aren't human because the law says they're not humans must certainly be racists. They allow the government to just pass a law saying some group of humans aren't human. Yes, the Democrats did that. American Indians weren't human. African Americans weren't human. Unborn babies aren't human. And now, of course, born babies aren't human until mother and doctor agree that they're human. Oddly, though, they refer to the mother as mother...

Uh, you do realize that it was REPUBLICANS who voted in Roe v. Wade, right.

In fact, the opinion was written by Harry Blackmum, a Nixon appointee to the court.

 

[Levant]

Actually, it's far more Nazi-like for doctors to do survival of the chosen and killing of undesirables based on physical qualities rather than natural selection. The entire basis of legalized abortion in America was to eliminate the undesirable black babies.. And, to give cover to its racist beginnings, the are happy to take the white babies they determine to be substandard as well - white trash babies, Downs Syndrome babies, hell, even why not even left-handed babies?

I think you are a little confused. The entire basis of legalized abortions was that the laws on the books were kind of like the prostitution laws are. They were on the books, they were rarely enforced, women were getting just as many abortions before Roe as after. The seven justices - including FIVE republicans - thought that Roe was going to be no more controversial than Grunewald v. Connecticut was eight years earlier. Getting rid of an outdated law no one was actually following.

Now, of course, you do have a point, there was a race/class component, because this is America and there is ALWAYS a race/class component. Affluent/White women could get abortions done at the OB/GYN and they just wrote something else on the chart. Poor/minority women went to shadier providers.

Depends on whether you're the individual whose liberty, including their right to bear arms was stripped so completely that his or her arms were literally ripped from their body while they're alive in the womb. No, I'd argue that the individual who was torn apart, or dissolved in salt water, or had their head cut off with a pair of scissors, has a different take than you do on how abortion affects individual liberty.

IF they were people and not kidney-sized blobs of meat, you might have a point.

So was slavery a legal, not biological, argument.

Those who say that babies aren't human because the law says they're not humans must certainly be racists. They allow the government to just pass a law saying some group of humans aren't human. Yes, the Democrats did that. American Indians weren't human. African Americans weren't human. Unborn babies aren't human. And now, of course, born babies aren't human until mother and doctor agree that they're human. Oddly, though, they refer to the mother as mother...

Uh, you do realize that it was REPUBLICANS who voted in Roe v. Wade, right.

In fact, the opinion was written by Harry Blackmum, a Nixon appointee to the court.

I didn't say otherwise. What I said was Democrats voted to make American Indians sub-human. They did the same for African-Americans. Now they say unborn babies are not human. There's a pattern here.

But you'll never see me defending a modern Republican.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Thwarting Aggrandizing Avant-Garde Meat Puppet Macabre With False Claims Of Physical Capacity For Cognitive Objection "

* Perspective Exposing Personification With False Associations To Introspection *

Depends on whether you're the individual whose liberty, including their right to bear arms was stripped so completely that his or her arms were literally ripped from their body while they're alive in the womb. No, I'd argue that the individual who was torn apart, or dissolved in salt water, or had their head cut off with a pair of scissors, has a different take than you do on how abortion affects individual liberty.

A fetus is inchoate until an onset of sentience , else a fetus does not have a " take " .

An onset of sentience requires thalamocortial radiations to bridge the autonomic nervous system of the thalamus with the cerebral cortex for higher order thinking .

Without sentience , cognizance and perspectives for conscientious objection are unavailable .

The onset of sentience is nearly concomitant with but follows an onset of natural viability .

Thalamocortical radiations - Wikipedia

 

[PK1]

" Constitutionally Consistent And Valid Empathy Ethics "

* Ignorant Of Your Own Dogma *

Now that we've established your desire to kill the innocent, a question:

When the relgious reich reconciles a conjecture for guilt from carnality and innocence , let us know .

* Syncretism And Extraterrestrials *

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

Try to stick to words you understand.....even if that might make you mute.

The term 'reich' has specific implications, and there is no such entity in America.

Now....why do you favor human sacrifice?

Why do you favor sacrificing a woman’s freedom to decide her procreation preferences? Are you a Nazi lover?
.

I know you've proven to be a moron, but see if this gets through your thick skull: a woman has no more justification for slaughtering the child she helped create......and slaughtering same for nothing more than here temporary convenience.....than an individual has of shooting the neighbor who blocked his driveway.

The baby is not a part of her body. She is temporarily feeding it the same as she would be if breastfeeding a six month old.

If you get emotional & resort to stupid name-calling, we know you lost the argument, especially when you equate a neighbor to a woman’s genetic material inside her body.
Or, equating breast-feeding a born independently-breathing child to supplying nourishment to developing bio cells through the placenta.
Can you get any more idiotic? LOL!
.

But you are stupid.

Watch this: is the unborn a part of her body, or a separate, distinct and unique human being?

Chic, you are science stupid.

Watch this: the unborn is a part of her body AND a separate, distinct and unique “human being” (by definition) ... when she is pregnant.

So what?
.

So being a separate and distinct human being confers individual rights.

Yes, the human being with unique DNA gets individual rights when becoming a true individual, completely separate from its mother & breathing independently ... after birth.
That’s when they can get their own SSN!

So what?
.

 

[PK1]

I'm sorry but nothing can justify killing an innocent child in my opinion. Whether it's an economic reason, a risk to your own personal safety, convenience due to poor or unplanned timing, or out of fear, nothing justifies killing a baby.

Fetuses aren't babies or children. They are globs of tissue that are unviable outside the womb. Most abortions are performed when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean.

An unborn child is a human being at an early stage of development. Naturally, you would wish to obscure this fact through terminology. Sad, that.

How about legal “fact” ... from U.S. code:

‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’

The blastocyst, embryo or fetus may have human DNA from both parents, but until it is born, the baby is INSIDE its mother, attached to her via her placenta & fully dependent as a part of HER body.

Only a “Nazi” government authoritarian would take away a person’s freedom to choose what to do with THEIR body, including euthanasia.
.

It's a legal, not biological, argument.

No need to argue here; i stated facts.
Besides legal, i indicated bio facts:

“The blastocyst, embryo or fetus may have human DNA from both parents, but until it is born, the baby is INSIDE its mother, attached to her via her placenta & fully dependent as a part of HER body.”
.

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't say otherwise. What I said was Democrats voted to make American Indians sub-human. They did the same for African-Americans. Now they say unborn babies are not human. There's a pattern here.

But you'll never see me defending a modern Republican.

Funny, when did this happen? There were no "Democrats" or "Republicans" when the constitution was written, and the second class citizenship of slaves and Native Americans was established. For fetuses, no one ever considered them human. Before Roe, no one argued they were saving "babies", they were just enforcing morality and making sure those ladies weren't having sex for just fun.

The only reason the Right became so obsessed with "Babies" was when the Religious Right needed a new issue and Segregation wasn't flying anymore. Before that, Abortion was considered a "Catholic" issue, and even the Catholics weren't taking it that seriously. ("Oh, you had an abortion. Five Hail Marys!")

 

[ding]

" Constitutionally Consistent And Valid Empathy Ethics "

* Ignorant Of Your Own Dogma *

Now that we've established your desire to kill the innocent, a question:

When the relgious reich reconciles a conjecture for guilt from carnality and innocence , let us know .

* Syncretism And Extraterrestrials *

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

Try to stick to words you understand.....even if that might make you mute.

The term 'reich' has specific implications, and there is no such entity in America.

Now....why do you favor human sacrifice?

Why do you favor sacrificing a woman’s freedom to decide her procreation preferences? Are you a Nazi lover?
.

I know you've proven to be a moron, but see if this gets through your thick skull: a woman has no more justification for slaughtering the child she helped create......and slaughtering same for nothing more than here temporary convenience.....than an individual has of shooting the neighbor who blocked his driveway.

The baby is not a part of her body. She is temporarily feeding it the same as she would be if breastfeeding a six month old.

If you get emotional & resort to stupid name-calling, we know you lost the argument, especially when you equate a neighbor to a woman’s genetic material inside her body.
Or, equating breast-feeding a born independently-breathing child to supplying nourishment to developing bio cells through the placenta.
Can you get any more idiotic? LOL!
.

But you are stupid.

Watch this: is the unborn a part of her body, or a separate, distinct and unique human being?

Chic, you are science stupid.

Watch this: the unborn is a part of her body AND a separate, distinct and unique “human being” (by definition) ... when she is pregnant.

So what?
.

So being a separate and distinct human being confers individual rights.

Yes, the human being with unique DNA gets individual rights when becoming a true individual, completely separate from its mother & breathing independently ... after birth.
That’s when they can get their own SSN!

So what?
.

I guess you missed the part where they have never existed before or will never exist again. It’s a one shot deal.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess you missed the part where they have never existed before or will never exist again. It’s a one shot deal.

Thousands of one shot deals starve to death in the third world every day, you aren't in any big rush to save them.

 

[PK1]

" Constitutionally Consistent And Valid Empathy Ethics "

* Ignorant Of Your Own Dogma *

Now that we've established your desire to kill the innocent, a question:

When the relgious reich reconciles a conjecture for guilt from carnality and innocence , let us know .

* Syncretism And Extraterrestrials *

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

Try to stick to words you understand.....even if that might make you mute.

The term 'reich' has specific implications, and there is no such entity in America.

Now....why do you favor human sacrifice?

Why do you favor sacrificing a woman’s freedom to decide her procreation preferences? Are you a Nazi lover?
.

I know you've proven to be a moron, but see if this gets through your thick skull: a woman has no more justification for slaughtering the child she helped create......and slaughtering same for nothing more than here temporary convenience.....than an individual has of shooting the neighbor who blocked his driveway.

The baby is not a part of her body. She is temporarily feeding it the same as she would be if breastfeeding a six month old.

If you get emotional & resort to stupid name-calling, we know you lost the argument, especially when you equate a neighbor to a woman’s genetic material inside her body.
Or, equating breast-feeding a born independently-breathing child to supplying nourishment to developing bio cells through the placenta.
Can you get any more idiotic? LOL!
.

But you are stupid.

Watch this: is the unborn a part of her body, or a separate, distinct and unique human being?

Chic, you are science stupid.

Watch this: the unborn is a part of her body AND a separate, distinct and unique “human being” (by definition) ... when she is pregnant.

So what?
.

So being a separate and distinct human being confers individual rights.

Yes, the human being with unique DNA gets individual rights when becoming a true individual, completely separate from its mother & breathing independently ... after birth.
That’s when they can get their own SSN!

So what?
.

I guess you missed the part where they have never existed before or will never exist again. It’s a one shot deal.

They? Non-sentient “beings”?
Do you care about all the sentient beings on earth that are abused or neglected?
I smell a hypocrite here.
.

 

[ding]

" Constitutionally Consistent And Valid Empathy Ethics "

* Ignorant Of Your Own Dogma *

Now that we've established your desire to kill the innocent, a question:

When the relgious reich reconciles a conjecture for guilt from carnality and innocence , let us know .

* Syncretism And Extraterrestrials *

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

Try to stick to words you understand.....even if that might make you mute.

The term 'reich' has specific implications, and there is no such entity in America.

Now....why do you favor human sacrifice?

Why do you favor sacrificing a woman’s freedom to decide her procreation preferences? Are you a Nazi lover?
.

I know you've proven to be a moron, but see if this gets through your thick skull: a woman has no more justification for slaughtering the child she helped create......and slaughtering same for nothing more than here temporary convenience.....than an individual has of shooting the neighbor who blocked his driveway.

The baby is not a part of her body. She is temporarily feeding it the same as she would be if breastfeeding a six month old.

If you get emotional & resort to stupid name-calling, we know you lost the argument, especially when you equate a neighbor to a woman’s genetic material inside her body.
Or, equating breast-feeding a born independently-breathing child to supplying nourishment to developing bio cells through the placenta.
Can you get any more idiotic? LOL!
.

But you are stupid.

Watch this: is the unborn a part of her body, or a separate, distinct and unique human being?

Chic, you are science stupid.

Watch this: the unborn is a part of her body AND a separate, distinct and unique “human being” (by definition) ... when she is pregnant.

So what?
.

So being a separate and distinct human being confers individual rights.

Yes, the human being with unique DNA gets individual rights when becoming a true individual, completely separate from its mother & breathing independently ... after birth.
That’s when they can get their own SSN!

So what?
.

I guess you missed the part where they have never existed before or will never exist again. It’s a one shot deal.

They? Non-sentient “beings”?
Do you care about all the sentient beings on earth that are abused or neglected?
I smell a hypocrite here.
.

They have exactly the attributes they are supposed to have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. At any point along that continuum they are fully human despite your rationalizations to see them as less than human.