Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are all the necessary parts required to be considered a human being?
I copied this from pg 7 of the draft opinion. (it's 98 pages). And I'll make a correction. It's twelve weeks, which I guess is why most abortions are prohibited after 12 weeks....
“unborn human beings heart begins beating?” at eight weeks the “unborn human being begins to move in the womb” at nine weeks “all basic physiological functions are present;” at ten weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “[hair, fingernails, and toenails begin to form;” at eleven weeks “an unborn human beings diaphragm is developing,” and he or she “may move about freely in the womb;" and at twelve weeks the “unborn human being” has “taken on the human form in all relevant respects.” §2()G) (quoting Gonzales v. Carhart, 560 U. S. 124, 160 (2007). It found that most abortions after fifteen weeks employ “dilation and evacuation procedures which involve the use of surgical instruments to crush and tear the unborn child,” and it concluded that the “intentional commitment of such acts for nontherapeutic or elective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.” §2(b)Gi).
I think the fetus is a human being, but it's inside the mother.
My question is should another human being be required to support another human being even if it means changes to their body and possible grave risks to their health?
I cannot see government telling a woman she cannot remove something from inside her body even if its another human being. Pregnancy is a special unique circumstance, and obviously when the baby is born, it's far more clear/cut morally.
The fetus has rights, just not on the mother's body.
Well, you make my point. Everyone has an opinion on this issue and we don't all agree.
No one should be 'forced' to carry a pregnancy to term - of course not - nor when there are grave risks to their health. I think most people could agree on that.
The Supremes appear to believe Roe was a mistake from the start, that it was legislating from the bench, and usurping the rights of state legislatures to make their own laws on this topic (which is where they are going with this, if it turns out to be the final decision.) The Constitution does not support a right to abortion or so they say. But like I said, we all have opinions.
Here's another one (of mine). Everyone knows sexual intercourse can result in pregnancy. It may seem puritanical on my part, but when birth control and prophylactics, and any number of measures SHORT of abortion are available to damn near everyone, why aren't people availing themselves of these measures? Why?
The fetus has rights, just not on the mother's body.
A human does not have any rights if a single person can arbitrarily decide to have that human cut up into pieces and thrown in the trash.
Right now in multiple states a baby can be cut up into little pieces and thrown in the trash the day before they'd otherwise leave the womb.... but then magically they can no longer be arbitrarily murdered if they had made it one more day. It simply makes no sense.
The baby that makes it out of the womb them has to be cared for, or it's murder... the mother had to be their servant or they go to prison if they just weren't feeling it.
This is the case for years. The baby isn't truly autonomous for a really, really long time.... still can't murder it though unless it's in the womb.
Well, you make my point. Everyone has an opinion on this issue and we don't all agree.
No one should be 'forced' to carry a pregnancy to term - of course not - nor when there are grave risks to their health. I think most people could agree on that.
The Supremes appear to believe Roe was a mistake from the start, that it was legislating from the bench, and usurping the rights of state legislatures to make their own laws on this topic (which is where they are going with this, if it turns out to be the final decision.) The Constitution does not support a right to abortion or so they say. But like I said, we all have opinions.
Here's another one (of mine). Everyone knows sexual intercourse can result in pregnancy. It may seem puritanical on my part, but when birth control and prophylactics, and any number of measures SHORT of abortion are available to damn near everyone, why aren't people availing themselves of these measures? Why?
Why don't people react rationally all the time? Tell me when you figure that one out. In this case I see it as a strong biological drive that overrides common sense.
It’s become very clear democrats do not like babies.
Murder them in the womb, or if they’re lucky enough to make it out alive, starve them to death by creating the “Great baby formula famine of 2022”. And don’t forget shooting them up with experimental covid injections.
Of course the fetus has rights, just not rights to the mother's body. It's an unfortunate situation for the fetus if the mother chooses to abort, but this is life.
And, if the mom doesn't want to take care of the kid, she can immediately put it up for adoption. She's not required by society to feed and raise it, though if she does, she's held to a certain standard.
They do though.
The baby has a right to the mother's labor for YEARS once they are born. If the mother arbitrarily decides to not feed it, she goes to prison, but if she arbitrarily decides to cut it into pieces and throw it in the trash in the 40th week in the womb, it's cause for celebration.
Back to my rope analogy, if a person is holding a rope hanging off a cliff and a person grabs it and starts to climb, there's a point where it's a crime to let go, that other person develops a right to your body.
If you let go immediately, or nearly immediately, it's not a crime, but if you let them get to a certain point, you are obligated to let them attempt to finish.
The same should be true when it comes to arbitrarily murdering babies for convenience.
The mother can put up a baby for adoption if she doesn't want to take care of it. If she chooses not to, she's taking on a responsibility for which we hold her accountable. However she is not required to.
To the rope analogy, if the rope is tied around someone, and another person grabs it. That person can untie it, and I doubt this would be a crime. The person can say it was hurting them and they were worried they may fall off the cliff with the person hanging on. I doubt very much this would be prosecutable, though the person dropping the rope won't be viewed as a 'nice' guy.
Sure, there's a process they can go through if she doesn't want to take care of it, but to it's fine, she's obligated to be that child's servant and keep it alive.
If the person untied it after allowing the other person to get significantly high up the rope, it's a crime. They become obligated to hold it. The act of untying the rope would literally be murder or manslaughter if the other person died.
Then I hope the U. S. Constitution makes it crystal clear to you that no state can legally reimpose slavery, or ban women the right to vote.
That's exactly why pro-abortion advocates need to get a new Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion on demand ratified. Why isn't that happening?
It’s become very clear democrats do not like babies.
Murder them in the womb, or if they’re lucky enough to make it out alive, starve them to death by creating the “Great baby formula famine of 2022”. And don’t forget shooting them up with experimental covid injections.
Democrats get abortions. Republicans get abortions. Facts.
Are you sure about this? Can you link me to a situation where this occurred ?
It is unlawful to consciously take actions likely to lead to great bodily harm or death of another. If someone is climbing up a rope you're holding or tied to, letting go or untying the rope is a conscious act that everyone knows could lead to great bodily harm or death. You'd go to prison for decades for that action.
You are not free to engage in activity that kills others.... you are not even free to choose to stop engaging in activity if the consequences are the best bodily harm or death of others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
