Full rights for a embryo

[Scrabaholic]

I said almost 6 months. But are you saying none? https://www.businessinsider.com/latest-point-in-pregnancy-you-can-get-abortion-in-50-states-2019-5

I didn't give a number. I'm asking you for one. So, how many elective abortions take place at that stage?

 

[Bosco221]

We trade dollars for lives every single day. As one trivial example in every car design there’s a trade off of dollars for lives. Hell the mere fact that we have cars is a dollars for lives calculation.

Typical liberal thinking. You would equate cars to abortion. Too bad you weren't aborted.

 

[Bosco221]

I didn't give a number. I'm asking you for one. So, how many elective abortions take place at that stage?

Anything over zero is too many

 

[Gaius46]

Typical liberal thinking. You would equate cars to abortion. Too bad you weren't aborted.

And too bad you never learned to read. Or think.

Try again Einstein. If you can’t figure it out I’ll use smaller words.

 

[Kiwimac]

From the moment of conception should a embryo receive all the exact same rights as any born child?

No. Do you want to have to investigate every failure to implant in the uterine wall or miscarriage?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Anything over zero is too many

So, you can't give me a number. I understand.

 

[Bosco221]

So, you can't give me a number. I understand.

YOU prove it. Your opinion has yet to have any proof other than, Knowing there is some, you want an exact number rather than deal with the fact that it happens. Let's say more than black felons shot by police.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

From the moment of conception should a embryo receive all the exact same rights as any born child?

No, otherwise every miscarriage must be treated as a potential homicide. Failure to report a miscarriage would have to be a crime. Coroners will be required to perform autopsies on the "deceased" embryo to determine the exact cause of death, and if "foul play" is suspected, the police must arrest those whom they suspect of playing a role in the death. Trials must be held and evidence presented. Juries must decide if the embryo or fetus died of natural causes or was murdered.

Tax laws will have to change to reflect the rights of embryos as well. Tax deductions for dependents currently only apply in the year in which the baby is born. Now it will require that deductions apply from the year the conception occurred.

If a miscarriage occurs when the mother was not wearing a seatbelt in an automobile accident, she must be charged with manslaughter.

There are approximately 1 million miscarriages, not including abortions, reported in the U.S. each year.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Yeah and that's not okay either, but even that is different than actually killing somebody.

How? We, as a society, as a nation, have the resources to prevent poor and sick people from dying due to a lack of health insurance. The majority of the industrialized world has solved this problem. We can do it as well, yet we conscientiously choose not to. We prefer that a percentage of our population die rather than provide them with access to healthcare.

So tell us how this is different than actually killing a fetus.

 

[Scrabaholic]

YOU prove it. Your opinion has yet to have any proof other than, Knowing there is some, you want an exact number rather than deal with the fact that it happens. Let's say more than black felons shot by police.

Why should I when I don't claim that elective abortions take place at six months? I asked you for a number, I see you cannot give one. I understand.

 

[Bosco221]

Why should I when I don't claim that elective abortions take place at six months? I asked you for a number, I see you cannot give one. I understand.

I am tired of repeating myself to the low IQ low memory types/ I said ALMOST 6 months over and over. You can't discuss anything with a person that changes your parameters and then says you can't prove your point with my changed parameters. Dolt

 

[Lursa]

I am tired of repeating myself to the low IQ low memory types/ I said ALMOST 6 months over and over. You can't discuss anything with a person that changes your parameters and then says you can't prove your point with my changed parameters. Dolt

You are claiming we dont discuss parameters when you repeat "ALMOST???"

I answered it. And if you cant provide a # for your baseline, then why should we? You eventually said, 'even one is too many.' That's silly. We dont control car safety, gun ownership, surgery safety, extreme sport safety, opioid use safety, etc etc etc based on that ridiculous premise. If you want a rational discussion based on reality...then frame it that way.

My link did cover it pretty well...and the one you provided didnt give the #s.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I am tired of repeating myself to the low IQ low memory types/ I said ALMOST 6 months over and over. You can't discuss anything with a person that changes your parameters and then says you can't prove your point with my changed parameters. Dolt

Define "almost six months". Exactly how many weeks gestation are you talking about?

 

[Bosco221]

You are claiming we dont discuss parameters when you repeat "ALMOST???"

I answered it. And if you cant provide a # for your baseline, then why should we? You eventually said, 'even one is too many.' That's silly. We dont control car safety, gun ownership, surgery safety, extreme sport safety, opioid use safety, etc etc etc based on that ridiculous premise. If you want a rational discussion based on reality...then frame it that way.

My link did cover it pretty well...and the one you provided didnt give the #s.

No, you said 6 months. I did not say that. YOU decided to change the parameters to suit you. The reason why the time is used in different contexts is because some idiots think that a month is 4 weeks. It of course NEVER was, except February. The average month is obviously 4.3 weeks. So some people like to say 6 months. Ok 6 months is 25.8 weeks. Yet many states use the term "viable" based on their interpretation

 

[Lursa]

No, you said 6 months. I did not say that. YOU decided to change the parameters to suit you. The reason why the time is used in different contexts is because some idiots think that a month is 4 weeks. It of course NEVER was, except February. The average month is obviously 4.3 weeks. So some people like to say 6 months. Ok 6 months is 25.8 weeks. Yet many states use the term "viable" based on their interpretation

I did. And then I also addresssed "about" earlier than that. If you dont like my "about" then you should have defined it. But I did address it and you ignored it.

I use 4.5 weeks. But your or my definition doesnt count. The accepted medical definition for viability is "approximately" 24 weeks. It's not in months. And that's the one in RvW.

 

[weaver2]

And I said almost 6 months. Not 22 weeks that you seem to want to focus on the level with a lower survival rate. Even if I used your stats, my statement is correct that at almost 6 months, you have a survival rate (according to you) is 74% Thanks for the help.

No you did not say "almost 6 months. You said 5 1/2 months at post #209

In many states, murdering a pregnant female will get you double homicide. Late term abortions many times have a crying baby. The d&c(dissect the body so it won't be born alive. Many human beings born a (sic) 5 1/2 months are alive today as children, yet in some states, that "blob of cells"(aren't we all) can have a metal probe stuck in it's head to suck the brains out to extinguish the life.

And I answered you by telling you about the survival chances of fetuses born at 22 weeks+3 days which if you will do some arithmetic = 5 1/2 months. You position is stupid, your facts are wrong, you ability to correct your mistakes is nil and your attempts to squirm out of your situation is hilarious. You are hoist by your own petard.

 

[Peter King]

From the moment of conception should a embryo receive all the exact same rights as any born child?

So women should become slaves to an embryo? Hell no, no women has the duty to carry an unwanted pregnancy if she does not want to.

 

[Bosco221]

No you did not say "almost 6 months. You said 5 1/2 months at post #209


And I answered you by telling you about the survival chances of fetuses born at 22 weeks+3 days which if you will do some arithmetic = 5 1/2 months. You position is stupid, your facts are wrong, you ability to correct your mistakes is nil and your attempts to squirm out of your situation is hilarious. You are hoist by your own petard.

Finding That Babies Born at 22 Weeks Can Survive Could Change Abortion Debate

A small number of babies born at 22 weeks survived with medical treatment, a new study finds.

www.newsweek.com

 

[weaver2]

[URLunfurl="true"]https://www.newsweek.com/babies-born-22-weeks-can-survive-medical-care-new-study-finds-329518[/URL]

The question of the thread is: From the moment of conception should a embryo receive all the exact same rights as any born child?
There was a pretty lively and rational discussion winding down with Dex, Rale, and others when you took umbrage with the statement “There is no “baby” involved” and entered the discussion at #209 with this non-sequitur: “In many states, murdering a pregnant female will get you double homicide. Late term abortions many times have a crying baby. The d&c(dissect the body so it won't be born alive. Many human beings born a 5 1/2 months are alive today as children, yet in some states, that "blob of cells"(aren't we all) can have a metal probe stuck in it's head to suck the brains out to extinguish the life. “
You position appears to be that a fetus is a baby with full legal rights because:
1. states have laws that recognize the death of a fetus in a homicide
2. most late term abortions end with a live baby crying.
3. most 5.5 month old fetuses live after being born prematurely.

As I said: It’s a stupid position. Number 1 is immaterial. Number 2 doesn’t happen and number 3 which you now support with an article from Newsweek just means that hospitals need to upgrade their methods in dealing with 22 week old preemies. Nothing you have said supports giving a fetus full legal rights of a born person.

 

[roguenuke]

No. Rights and responsibilities change with the age of a person even after birth. The part of RvW ‘clarification’ which is often ignored is that it too made distinctions based on time (age?) from conception until (natural) birth.

And it did so wrongly. No one should be forced to use their bodily resources to save the life of another.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And it did so wrongly. No one should be forced to use their bodily resources to save the life of another.

No one should be legally paid to take the life of another without due process of law.

 

[southwest88]

No one should be legally paid to take the life of another without due process of law.

Yep, there's the problem. In the US, under Roe v. Wade, neither common law nor the courts consider the fetus to be another person. & therefore, all other things being equal, the pregnant woman makes decisions for herself & the fetus. This also means that due process of law - as in capital punishment - doesn't apply to the case of a pregnant woman & a fetus (especially early in the pregnancy, when abortion can be freely chosen).

 

[roguenuke]

No one should be legally paid to take the life of another without due process of law.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure you can claim self defense for a lot of different killings and soldiers are paid all the time to take lives without due process. Any medical decisions made are the woman's to make, not the government's.

The fetus doesn't get due process, has no right to due process. If the father, wanting nothing to do with his child, is identified as a potential donor for life saving organs, bone marrow, should he have to give those bodily resources to the child? Should he be forced to sacrifice his bodily resources, his time, put his body at that minimal risk to give the born child life?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yep, there's the problem. In the US, under Roe v. Wade, neither common law nor the courts consider the fetus to be another person. & therefore, all other things being equal, the pregnant woman makes decisions for herself & the fetus. This also means that due process of law - as in capital punishment - doesn't apply to the case of a pregnant woman & a fetus (especially early in the pregnancy, when abortion can be freely chosen).

The problem is what constitutional basis existed for defining (determining?) “early in the pregnancy”? It seem that was decided rather arbitrarily and thus the Roe decision was pure judicial activism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Really? Because I'm pretty sure you can claim self defense for a lot of different killings and soldiers are paid all the time to take lives without due process. Any medical decisions made are the woman's to make, not the government's.

The fetus doesn't get due process, has no right to due process. If the father, wanting nothing to do with his child, is identified as a potential donor for life saving organs, bone marrow, should he have to give those bodily resources to the child? Should he be forced to sacrifice his bodily resources, his time, put his body at that minimal risk to give the born child life?

You can only claim self-defense if charged with a crime - it’s rather useless otherwise and includes (requires?) due process. Soldiers (or police officers) are not “paid all the time” to take lives without orders (or self-defense reasons) to do so. Soldiers (or police officers) are not granted the power to ‘kill them all and let God sort them out’.

BTW, the father wanting nothing to do with the child can still be ordered by the state to pay 18 years (or more) of child support - earning those funds requires sacrifice of his time and other resources (bodily effort).