Does the fetus have the right to live by constitution?

PaleRider · #**481** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towelie

A fetus biologically becomes a baby when it is capable of sustaining it's own life outside the womb, sometime in the third trimester (long after 99% of women have their abortions).

A fetus, or embryo, or blastocyst, or zygote doesn't "biologically" become anyting that it wasn't in it's earlier stages of development. It is a human being whether you call it an embryo, a baby, a fetus, a toddler, a blastosphere, an adolescent, a zygote, an adult, etc., etc., etc. Calling a thing by different names doesn't make it a different thing.

If you are using the word fetus to denote a specific period in a human being's life, then the useage of the word is fine but it destroys your argument. If you are using the word fetus in an attempt to dehumanize a human being by using particular words, however, then you are no different from the racist who calls blacks nigger in an attempt to dehumanize them via the use of particular words.

jan · #**482** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

A fetus, or embryo, or blastocyst, or zygote doesn't "biologically" become anyting that it wasn't in it's earlier stages of development. It is a human being whether you call it an embryo, a baby, a fetus, a toddler, a blastosphere, an adolescent, a zygote, an adult, etc., etc., etc. Calling a thing by different names doesn't make it a different thing.

If you are using the word fetus to denote a specific period in a human being's life, then the useage of the word is fine but it destroys your argument. If you are using the word fetus in an attempt to dehumanize a human being by using particular words, however, then you are no different from the racist who calls blacks nigger in an attempt to dehumanize them via the use of particular words.

I'd say you're wrong! It's a "potential" human being at best.

Towelie · #**483** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

A fetus, or embryo, or blastocyst, or zygote doesn't "biologically" become anyting that it wasn't in it's earlier stages of development. It is a human being whether you call it an embryo, a baby, a fetus, a toddler, a blastosphere, an adolescent, a zygote, an adult, etc., etc., etc. Calling a thing by different names doesn't make it a different thing.

You don't get it, do you? Legal rights begin at birth - therefore the stages of development are definitely a factor. One can terminate embryos, blastocysts, zygotes, and fetuses if they are residing in one's uterus. Women aren't livestock - they have choices when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. They can't be forced to breed. I'm sure that disappoints you, but them's the facts.

Quote:

If you are using the word fetus to denote a specific period in a human being's life, then the useage of the word is fine but it destroys your argument.

Wrong again. Abortion is completely legal during the first and second trimesters of gestation. It's only when you have an actual baby (late third trimester and after it's born) that a woman can't terminate.

Quote:

If you are using the word fetus in an attempt to dehumanize a human being by using particular words, however, then you are no different from the racist who calls blacks nigger in an attempt to dehumanize them via the use of particular words.

Ah, the race card! LOL Thanks for showing the class how feeble and desperate your "argument" truly is. I'd be embarrassed if I were you. Go slap yourself.

PaleRider · #**484** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan

I'd say you're wrong! It's a "potential" human being at best.

Then you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I can provide plenty of credible science that states explictly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you provide even a shred of credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being?

You represent a large part of what is wrong with the pro choice argument. In two words...abject ignorance.

jan · #**485** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Then you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I can provide plenty of credible science that states explictly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you provide even a shred of credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being?
You represent a large part of what is wrong with the pro choice argument. In two words...abject ignorance.

I suggest you have a long conversation with AnyDoctorU.S.A. They'd be happy to give you the medical, scientific explanation of the differences between an zygote and a fully developed human being.

As I said...it's a "potential" human being at best.

PaleRider · #**486** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towelie

You don't get it, do you? Legal rights begin at birth - therefore the stages of development are definitely a factor. One can terminate embryos, blastocysts, zygotes, and fetuses if they are residing in one's uterus. Women aren't livestock - they have choices when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. They can't be forced to breed. I'm sure that disappoints you, but them's the facts.

"Legal" rights could begin at 50 if a court said so. Human rights, however, don't depend upon one being of a certain age. Human rights depend upon being a human being and nothing else. The issue here isn't over "legal" rights being denied but a denial of human rights. You don't even seem to understand what is at issue here and your ignorance of biology only puts you further behind the curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towelie

Wrong again. Abortion is completely legal during the first and second trimesters of gestation. It's only when you have an actual baby (late third trimester and after it's born) that a woman can't terminate.

Can you read? What does that answer have to do with the statement I made? No one is arguing that abortion isn't presently legal. The argument is over whether it is constitutional. And the term baby is just one more noun used to describe a human being at a particular time of his or her life. Using the word fetus in an attempt to dehumanize a human being is no more and no less deplorable than using words like nigger.

You are a human being from the time fertilization is complete as you can be nothing else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towelie

Ah, the race card! LOL Thanks for showing the class how feeble and desperate your "argument" truly is. I'd be embarrassed if I were you. Go slap yourself.

You are the one trying to dehumanize a human being via the use of language, not me. An ageist is no less contemptible than a racist and you are without a doubt, an ageist.

PaleRider · #**487** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan

I suggest you have a long conversation with AnyDoctorU.S.A. They'd be happy to give you the medical, scientific explanation of the differences between an zygote and a fully developed human being.

I suggest that you go learn something. An unborn is immature, but it is, without a doubt, a living human being as it can be nothing else.

Now as I said, do feel free to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. Here is a clue for you. There isn't any.

"the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983..

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan

As I said...it's a "potential" human being at best.

As I said, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Towelie · #**488** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

No one is arguing that abortion isn't presently legal. The argument is over whether it is constitutional.

Yes, it's consitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it deny (or even mention) abortion. No amount of semantics wrangling is going to make a blob of cells a "person." "Potential person" is the best you can hope for.

Quote:

An ageist is no less contemptible than a racist and you are without a doubt, an ageist.

You never get tired of being wrong, do you? A person has rights whether that person is a day old or 100 years old.

However none of this applies to mindless blobs of non-sentient biomatter. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses aren't "people."

Give it up, dude. You're making a fool of yourself with this repetitive absurdity.

jan · #**489** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

I suggest that you go learn something. An unborn is immature, but it is, without a doubt, a living human being as it can be nothing else.

Now as I said, do feel free to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. Here is a clue for you. There isn't any.

"the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983..

As I said, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Take your textbooks and stick 'em up your ass. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Textbooks make for boring conversationalists. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Joyfulwoman · #**490** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 12:40 PM

the point of the analogy of stealing a car was to prove that morality is not subjective like Towelie said...

which towelie himself proved by saying that if something is the Law than it is correct, ie stealing etc. which would mean even if I thought, in my own morality, stealing was okay...it would be morally wrong ie not subjective...
also, Towelie, I asked you if abortion was made illegal would you then believe it was wrong to have one? since the law would be saying so

It doesn't matter if we are talking health, money, finances, abortion,....we are talking about morality being subjective...WHICH IT ISN'T!!

What say you on this point please??