Vandeervecken you said, “Rights accrue at birth. A fetus is not born, and has no standing under the Constitution.
Even if one were to foolishly grant a fetus rights, it could not have rights that supersede the host.
Nobody has the right to life when it requires the body of an unwilling host to do so.”
So you are in favor for abortion up until the time of natural birth, 9 months?
Are you saying too that our Constitution should not include children in its definition of “equality for everyone with rights under the law” because they are not full persons so they shouldn’t qualify?
Kandahar said,” Those are meaningless moments that have nothing to do with a right to life. A pig has a beating heart and a functioning brain too.”
And other Peter Singer fan eh? For you to compare animals to humans is absurd. That is how pro-abortionists see life though. They have to justify in their minds that the thing they are killing is no more… than just an animal... A barnyard animal. You compare the unborns value to that of an animal so really there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals, right? You murder a cow and you get life in prison with no hopes of parole? :rofl
Really what you’re saying is that its no worse to kill a human than it is an animal. That isn’t how our society views things. Society has always acted on the premise that human life is regarded more valuable than that of the nonhuman animal. It’s so sad that you who are pro-abortion do not feel that a human should be treated as humanely as an animal and that dismembering the unborn alive is perfectly fine.
That mentality of “life for a child begins when his mother wants him worldview or when 'he takes his first breath”….is so tragically sad.
You on the pro-death side can’t stomach the idea of a child being dismembered, so you go to great lengths to redefine what it means to be a person. The unborn in the womb then is nothing more than an animal to you, nothing better or more valuable than a non-human animal.
Conserv.pat15 said, “Are you serious?! Killing an animal and killing a human are two completely different things... If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you...”
:rofl You would think so wouldn’t ya? Welcome to the world of debating abortion. You need to come into the abortion debate site……..there are more and harsher views than this one. They think killing a non-human animal is just as bad. The non-human animal is the same as a human one. They all buy into Peter Singers philosophies and mentality. Most think abortion until the baby is delivered at 9 months is ok. Can you imagine that? They believe a fetus automoatically becomes a baby when it takes its first breath. GOD LUV YA
Kandahar said, “I majored in biology and minored in psychology, and let me tell you, there's no evidence of any consciousness in human beings until well after birth. And as far as I'm concerned, conciousness is the only basis for protecting human life because any other basis is either arbitrary or could easily apply to animals too.”
You are wrong. That is not what the medical community believes.
So you would think it alright to kill humans that were not conscience?
Visit these websites
http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20050112/DCW02512012005-1.html
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/preview.html
Watch this video.......... And you think it’s alright to abort until this child is born?
UNBELIEVABLE.
Kandahar said, “Because it's a parasite and requires the enslavement of a host. If you woke up strapped to a table, and a doctor told you that he was going to remove your kidney against your will because someone else needed it to survive, would you be OK with this? What if he told you that you'd be so sick from this that you'd be unable to continue your normal life for the next nine months, and furthermore there was a slight chance that you'd die during the procedure? How is that any different than forcing a woman to carry a child to term?”
Fist of all a baby is not an organ of a woman’s body. That is fact. The fetus is NOT A PART OF THE PREGNANT WOMANS BODY, LIKE TONSILS, and OR APPENDIX OR LIVER OR HEART. Every cell of the mothers tonsils, appendix, heart and liver etc.. shares the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS MOTHERS. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every other cell of his mothers body. Blood type might be different as is the sex of the child and the child has a different set of fingerprints that that of his mothers.
“It is a well-established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its OWN entity, genetically distinct from both the mother and the father. The newly conceived individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and nourishment. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely a “part of the womans body.” In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous and endocrine systems.” (Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life:The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, Mich 1983)
It is a clear scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person and the child is another. Being inside something is NOT the same as being part of something. Ones body does not belong to another’s body merely because of proximity. Louise Brown the first test tube baby was conceived when sperm and egg joined in a Petri dish. She was no more part of her mothers body when placed there than she had been part of the Petri dish where her life began. A child is not part of the body in which she is carried.
I might add that this truth was affirmed in July 2000 by the U.S. House of Representatives when they unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. The logical reason for this decision is that a preborn child is an individual person, distinct from his mother and with his own separate right to life. Read the courts rulings for yourself.
Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence. I am sure you would think that premature baby lying in a hospital incubator deserves to live. Would the exact same baby deserve to live any less because she was still in her mother?
Dumb question I am sure you would say, no.
