Home - List All Discussions

'Right to Life' for Unborn Imaginary

'Right to Life' for Unborn Imaginary

by: fetalisa

Unborn fetuses, embryos and zygotes are not legal persons in our society. Throughout the history of our country, there has never been a point in time where fetuses, embryos and zygotes have EVER been considered legal persons. Yet, the prolife side consistently discusses a 'right to life' for those not born. This 'right to life' the lifers constantly reference, comes from the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to citizens who must be BORN or naturalized, according to the 14th amendment. Therefore, the 'right to life' for those not born, does not now exist in our law, nor has it ever, not even once in our history, existed in our law. Therefore, to discuss a 'right to life' for those not born is to discuss mere fantasy, since such a right does not now and never has existed in our law. In other words, the 'right to life' for those not born, is wholly imaginary.

reply from: yoda

It's soooo typical of a proabort to have a mental block when it comes to that word "person"..... and be unable to think outside a legal dictionary.... as if our society used legal terminology for everyday conversations...... sooo typical....
And likewise typical is their inability to think of any "right" other than a legal one....... the concept of a "moral right" is so foreign to them as to be like something in a foreign language. Just wait until Roe is overturned, then watch them flip 180 degrees..... they'll be saying the law is irrelevant!

reply from: fetalisa

Were that to happen, I would simply laugh. If Roe were overturned, those not born would still not be considered legal persons, at least, not federally. The issue would then fall to the states, which is why I would laugh. I would give it say 5 years, before we started seeing prolife states on the verge of bankruptcy with orphanages bursing at the seams. We've saw the same in 80s Romania. We already know what to expect.
However, whether Roe stands or not, I see no way for an imaginary 'right to life' for the unborn to be granted. The precedent is centuries old and we've no reason to overturn it, outside of a handful of extremist fruit loops who believe a zygote no larger than a period at the end of this sentence, is the equivalent of a born person.

reply from: yoda

Not necessarily, that would depend upon how the ruling was written.
May you split a gut real soon.
Interesting.... "moral right" turns into "imaginary right" when you respond....... leads me to think that you consider morality to be "imaginary"........ why am I not surprised?
So you judge people strictly on size?
Why am I not surprised?

reply from: prolifejedi

fetalisa,
Did you know there are TONS of couples looking to adopt a baby? And many couples that don't care if the baby has a disability like Downs or Cerebral Palsy? And there aren't orphanages anymore. This isn't the late 1800s or the early 1900s.
In some countries the birth rate is SO low because of forced sterilization or abortion that the population can not be replaced.
Abortion is NOT the solution.
Birth Control is NOT the solution
Sterilization is NOT the solution

reply from: fetalisa

Judges pay attention to precedent, whether you do or not.
Off topic. We are not discussing people, but zygotes, embryos and fetuses. Try to stick with the topic at hand.

reply from: fetalisa

Good luck in turning back the clock in our society to 500 AD.

reply from: AshMarie88

Every human being is a person, the law can't change that.

reply from: AshMarie88

Have you ever noticed how a fetus looks so much like a little person?
http://www.lovely0smile.com/g-img/fetus/fetus-10.jpg

For a non-person, it looks so amazing doesn't it?

reply from: fetalisa

Unborn human beings are not legal persons, nor have they ever been in the history of our law. This is why abortion is legal. Your Random House definitions can't change that. Therefore, to speak of a 'right to life' for those not born, is to discuss a fantasy.

reply from: fetalisa

Sure! Much like this zygote does;
http://www.seventhundersministry.com/zygote.jpg
So you think pictures will make a legal 'right to life' for the unborn a reality instead of a wholly imagined fantasy? You must be a Rhodes scholar!

reply from: AshMarie88

Unborn human beings are not legal persons, nor have they ever been in the history of our law. This is why abortion is legal. Your Random House definitions can't change that. Therefore, to speak of a 'right to life' for those not born, is to discuss a fantasy.
Before 1973, abortion was illegal in every but I think 2 states. Does that mean they were legal people in the states abortion before was legal?

reply from: AshMarie88

Sure! Much like this zygote does;
http://www.seventhundersministry.com/zygote.jpg
A zygote is not yet a fetus.

reply from: prolifejedi

so my nephew that's got 6 weeks to go (approximately) before he makes an appearance, he's not human? Well, my sister in law is showing and he's a kicker she said. He's human alright. He's not a puppy or a kitten or a calf or a piglet.

reply from: ihavechoselife

You know what? Some people are just a waste of my time to stoop to their level to argue with them. Don't give them the pleasure of talking with you....
fetalisa, you're not worth it!

reply from: fetalisa

Abortion was illegal when it was deadly to the woman. Once abortion became safe for women who undertook the procedure, only then could it become legal. The illegality of abortion in the past was due to the safety level of the procedures with respect to the mother. It had nothing to do with a 'right to life' for those not born, since no such right has ever existed in the history of our law.
Thus, it is truth that a 'right to life' for those not born is wholly imaginary.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet either can be easily and freely aborted, since the legal 'right to life' for those not born, is mere fantasy.

reply from: fetalisa

Reading and comprehension pays. The word 'human' does not appear once in the original post, which begins;
"Unborn fetuses, embryos and zygotes are not legal persons in our society."
See? Not a word about 'human.' Let me know if you should ever choose to address the topic.

reply from: fetalisa

I don't blame you. Why would you address something for which you have no answer?

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion was illegal when it was deadly to the woman. Once abortion became safe for women who undertook the procedure, only then could it become legal. The illegality of abortion in the past was due to the safety level of the procedures with respect to the mother. It had nothing to do with a 'right to life' for those not born, since no such right has ever existed in the history of our law.
Thus, it is truth that a 'right to life' for those not born is wholly imaginary.
And just how many women have died from the so called "unsafe abortions" before the legalization of it? I bet not that many.
Also, you don't just make something legal because of a "downside" to it.
And last time I checked, illegal abortions were choices too!

reply from: AshMarie88

p.s., fetalisa, the unborn are equal, you have to agree with that.
Everyone is CREATED equal, not born equal.

reply from: fetalisa

Why don't you tell it to Candace Wilkinson, of Phoenix, who was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane alone? She argued she had a legal right to be in the HOV lane since she was pregnant, and the second 'person' required for the HOV lane was in her womb.
Yes, she had to pay the fine!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml

reply from: AshMarie88

What does that have to do with being equal?

reply from: fetalisa

I suppose I shall have to belabor the obvious. It's one example from our society which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do not recognize zygotes, embryos or fetuses as being equal to legal persons.

reply from: AshMarie88

I suppose I shall have to belabor the obvious. It's one example from our society which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do not recognize zygotes, embryos or fetuses as being equal to legal persons.
Yea, because none of you follow the constitution or the bill of rights.

reply from: fetalisa

WRONG! It is because of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that those not born are not legal persons. I direct your attention to the 14th Amendment;
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So you see, citizens are defined as BORN or naturalized PERSONS, whose rights to life, liberty or property shall not be deprived, etc and so on.
Holy 'Effin Jeebus! No wonder the prolife movement can't get anywhere. The members of the movement can't even bother themselves to read the documents at the foundation of our society! What a shame the higher ups in the prolife movement conveniently forgot to mention such basic facts to the faithful.

reply from: AshMarie88

WRONG! It is because of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that those not born are not legal persons. I direct your attention to the 14th Amendment;
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So you see, citizens are defined as BORN or naturalized PERSONS, whose rights to life, liberty or property shall not be deprived, etc and so on.
Holy 'Effin Jeebus! No wonder the prolife movement can't get anywhere. The members of the movement can't even bother themselves to read the documents at the foundation of our society! What a shame the higher ups in the prolife movement conveniently forgot to mention such basic facts to the faithful.
The Bill of Rights states that everyone is equal! But you have chosen to ignore that!
And as dear FM (who hasn't been here for a while) has stated before, future generations are protected under the consitution. Read the 14th word into the constitution.

reply from: fetalisa

The Bill of Rights doesn't address those not born. It never has and doesn't now. If you have proof to the contrary, present it.
The Constitution doesn't address those not born. It never has and doesn't now. If you have proof to the contrary, present it.

reply from: prolifejedi

abortion SAFE for women? Tell that to Christin Gilbert. Oh wait, you can't! She's DEAD. She was killed by a late term abortion.

reply from: AshMarie88

And it wasn't even HER choice! She was forced to abort in late term and she died.
What a choice, isn't it?! I should become pro-choice, just so I could call these things okay!!

reply from: fetalisa

The 14th amendment, along with the 14 other examples viewed by the Roe court. You already know this. It's already been covered. It doesn't specifically address females as there was no need.
Do you have any proof? Not that 'legal protection' would matter anyway, since the topic here is 'right to life' for the unborn. If you claim such a right exists, point to the law which proves it. You can't do that, since no such law exists, nor has it ever existed, in the history of our society or law. This is why the 'right to life' for those not born, is wholly imaginary.
The 14th amendment, as interpreted by the Roe court, found that citizens due rights outlined in the Constitution must be 'BORN' or naturalized. So all females, all males, all intersexed, etc have a 'right to life' simply because they were born. Neither the 14th amendment, nor the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, makes any mention of 'womb' children, zygotes, embryos or fetuses, which means the rights outlined within those documents have no application at all to any not born. The Roe decision clearly outlines these legal principles, as well as notes the centuries old precedent of lack of legal personhood for those not yet born.
Don't take my word for it. Read the decision for yourself.

reply from: Hessflg

Well.Fetalisa.....I hate to break this to you, but EVERY child,
born and UNborn,has a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to life !!
Constitution, or Bill of Rights,or not..........
From what I can see, you are pro-abortion. And that's sad.
And your phrase ...."unborn babies cannot survive without the mother's
consent " is down right disgusting !
GOD gives the right to life. He allows the child to be conceived.
God has a plan for every child conceived. It's selfish to say that no child
has a right to life without the mother's consent.
I firmly believe that one day every person who supported this holocaust
called abortion will stand before God and will have the blood of all those innocent
babies on thier hands.
How can you go on with such mentality ? I don't get it !
Next month , Feb. 18th will be 16 years that I gave birth to a baby boy
that I gave up for adoption. With society's way of thinking and the problems
I was having in my marriage,I would have had every right to have an abortion.
To do something so selfish, I could have never lived with myself.
Instead, he's alive, happy and healthy !!!!! Do I regret my decision ???
ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!!!!!!!
In response to your saying that orphanages would be over flowing........
you're wrong ! There's far too many couples who want to adopt.
The abortion rate in this country is so high........it's SAD !!!!! And there's
NO REASON FOR IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: fetalisa

The Bill of Rights states no such thing. Amendment I addresses freedom of religion, speech, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Since those not born can't practice religion, can't speak, can't peaceably assemble & can't petition the government, there is no possible way Amendment 1 could have any possible application to those not yet born.
The succeeding amendments address;
2 militias
3 soldiers
4 unreasonable searches and seizures
5 court cases
6 right to speedy trial
7 the right of trial by jury
8 cruel and unusual punishments
9 disclaimer of rights
10 federal vs state powers
Those not born can't be in militias (2), can't be soldiers (3), can't be unreasonably searched nor own property which can be unreasonably seized (4), can't participate in court cases (5), can't participate in trials (6), can't be tried by juries (7), can't be sentenced at trials to cruel and unusual punishments (8), don't possess rights due citizens (9), and have no interaction with federal vs state powers (10).
You obviously didn't even bother to read the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights wholly supports my point while having no application to your point in any way, shape or form. There is no way possible anything in the Bill of Rights could possibly be construed to address those not yet born in even the most minute way.
But your gaping and huge error in dragging the Bill of Rights into this debate it is even bigger than what I have outlined above. It is historically impossible for the Constitution or Bill of Rights to address those not born in any way shape or form. The reason is our society did not gain the technology to remove a 24 week old fetus from a womb and keep it alive until the late 20th century. Therefore, it is historically impossible for the authors of the Constitution or Bill of Rights to have written those documents with the INTENT of including those not yet born. They would no more be writing law to cover 24 week old fetuses that are viable outside the womb, than they would have written laws regarding travel by plane in the late 18th century when these documents were penned. They could not possibly write laws to face situations that did not exist technologically in those societies at the time. When judges look to any law or legal document, their first order of business is to discover the INTENT of the law or document. It is historically impossible for the INTENT of the Bill of Rights or Constitution to be construed as covering those not yet born, simply because the technology to keep premature fetuses alive outside of the womb simply did not exist in those days.
As for the Bill of Rights itself, it is overwhelmingly clear the document is addressing born people, who have the ability to practice religion, speak, be in a militia, be tried in court, etc. There is no question the Bill of Rights is meant to address rights of born persons, since only the born could participate in EVERY SINGLE RIGHT OUTLINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
So you see, my dear, it is you have ignored the Bill of Rights, by not even bothering to read it, since the Bill of Rights very obviously has no application AT ALL to those not yet born!

reply from: fetalisa

Well Hessflg, I hate to break it to you, but our society doesn't base our laws on your pet religious fantasies. Just because you are Hindu and find cows to be sacred, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will be illegal for me to eat a hamburger, ok?
Oh the Constitution and Bill of Rights most definitely does trump your pet religious fantasies. Just because Leviticus 25:44-46 says it's ok to take slaves from surrounding nations, make slaves of children, own those slaves as properties which can be inherited by your children, it does not mean you may commit such a morally reprehensible atrocity in my country. You really need to wake up and smell the coffee.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I am free to believe whatever I choose, your pet religious fantasies and 'feelings' about it, nothwithstanding.
What is truly disgusting is when a bunch of religious fruit loops wish to inject their pet religious fantasies into our government and force those same pet religious fantasies onto the population at large. Fortunately for us, we are a nation of laws and so can't legally put children to death for talking back to their parents as the Bible recommends.
He also gives the right to own slaves and make slaves of kids in Leviticus 25:44-46. He also recommends we give our slaves a day off a week and recommends we not covet the slaves of our neighbors in the ten commandments. You should be happy our laws aren't based on your God. Otherwise, I could enslave your mother and children as my property.
That's the mother's choice, not the choice of your slave driving God.
Your God clearly states to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Our Caesar is our government, which has determined that abortion is legal. So there is no reason for you to be perturbed by abortion, according to the tenets of your own religion. Once Caesar said abortion was ok, your religion demands that you render it.
It's selfish of you to think you have the right to enforce the insanities of your slave driving God on our society. It most certainly isn't selfish to say an unborn baby can't survive without the mother's consent. It's legal fact.
You can believe the Divine Pink Bunny farted all of creation into existence, if you so choose. Your pet religious fantasies have no bearing on my life, however, nor do they have legal backing.
Of course you don't get it. The reason you don't get it is because your religion has taught you to accept things on 'faith,' which means to believe things without evidence or reason at all. You have chosen to put your brain into suspension and accept whatever you have been told, without bothering to think anything through. No wonder you don't get it.
Well whoop-de-do! Those who are against abortion SHOULDN'T have them. Doesn't your pet religious theory address this issue when it states one man's meat is another man's poison? Doesn't that tell you a decision that is right for you won't be right for everyone? Cop a clue!
There are millions of women who have had abortions and don't regret their decision either.
There's every reason for it. Women who don't wish to carry a pregnancy to term shouldn't be forced to do so. You don't have the legal right to force a woman to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise a child to adulthood, nor should you, no more than you have the legal right to force me to purchase a $200,000 home. The insane ravings of your slave-driving God have no bearing on this issue whatsoever, at least, not legally.

reply from: fetalisa

As if no woman ever died giving birth. Will you now argue since birthing children can lead to death of both the mother and fetus t hat giving birth should illegal?
Ohhh! I know! Driving cars kills people who get in accidents. Let's therefore ban cars, since they kill people? We will also have to ban childbirth, airplanes, knives, guns, skiing, bungee jumping, amusement parks, etc ad nauseum since all of these things have resulted in death.
Hmmmm, giving birth has risks, driving cars have risk, getting an abortion has risk.....I am afraid you don't have much of a point here. Surely you can do better than this?

reply from: yoda

Oh, of course..... I forgot that I was conversing with the megalomaniac who believes he surpasses all dictionaries in authority to report proper word usages..... how could I forget?
There's really no point in exchanging cheap shots with a cheap shot artist such as yourself, this gets us nowhere.

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

reply from: yoda

It doesn't need to. We don't care about the completely arbitrary legal usage of that word that was imposed in 1973, we are using it in the centuries old tradition of our society.
Besides, I'm still waiting for one of your "non-emotional" proabortion arguments, fetal-killer. Where are they?

reply from: fetalisa

The centuries old tradition of the word 'person' did not include those not born, which is why no historical precedent could be found by the Roe court which recognized those not born as 'persons.' Your argument is wholly inverted.

reply from: fetalisa

Raise your hand if you read the first sentence of the 14th Amendment which reads;
All persons born or naturalized
It doesn't say
All persons born or in the womb about to be born
It doesn't say
All persons, zygotes, embryos or fetuses,
Raise your hand if you understand the 14th Amendment is not the only document that addresses legal personhood. Raise your hand if you have read the Bill of Rights, which clearly outlines rights that only born persons could enjoy.

reply from: fetalisa

Those not born do not have a legal 'right to life.' That's legal fact. Your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment doesn't alter that legal fact. Only citizens are due rights. Citizens must be born or naturalized, in order to be due those rights. This is why the amendment begins, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
Only citizens, born or naturalized are due the rights contained in the rest of the paragraph. For you to suggest otherwise is to ignore the historical fact that zygotes, embryos or fetuses have NEVER been considered 'citizens' nor legal persons, in the history of our law.
If the 14th Amendment began, "All persons born, about to be born, contained in the womb or naturalized," you would have a valid point. It doesn't say that, nor does it imply it. You are reading something into the amendment that clearly does not exist.
And let's not be foolish here and pretend the 14th amendment is the only document we could process in determining legal personhood. We could likewise look at the Bill of Rights, which, like the Constitution itself, is clearly applying rights discussed to those born. As a matter of fact, ALL rights outlined in the Bill of Rights clearly apply only to the born, with none have any possible application to those not born, since those not born, can't peaceably assemble, speak freely, petition the government, stand trial, etc.
You are grasping at the weakest of all possible straws here. I strongly suggest you read the Roe court decision to clear up your confusion. Although it is true there is legal debate regarding the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the Roe decision applying abortion rights federally, there is and was NO legal debate over the fact the unborn have never been granted legal personhood, and therefore due any rights, including a 'right to life,' in the entire history of our law. As a matter of fact, I would be extremely surprised if you could find ANY society in history, who granted legal personhood, and all rights that implies, to zygotes, embryos or fetuses. It couldn't become a legal issue before we had the technology to allow 24 week old fetuses to survive outside the womb. So there was no historical reason for laws to grant legal personhood to the unborn, in our society, nor any other society.

reply from: yoda

Your total lack of respect for the truth is beyond words, and almost beyond belief:
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

reply from: AshMarie88

Your total lack of respect for the truth is beyond words, and almost beyond belief:
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html
">http://encarta.msn.com/diction...217/person.html
per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html
What do you wanna bet she'll now be saying it's not a human being either?

reply from: yoda

I'd be reluctant to wager a penny on that, Ashley. Truth means absolutely nothing to her.

reply from: fetalisa

Sure, just as soon as you cite legal precedent which grants a legal 'right to life' to those not yet born. After all, this is the very topic under discussion, not whether females being granted legal personhood, which has already been addressed in another thread.

reply from: fetalisa

It takes an utter fool to believe a 2006 definition of a word will express the usage of the word for the past several 'centuries.'

reply from: fetalisa

How do you answer the utterly false claim you made that the Bill of Rights grants a 'right to life' to those not born? You claim has been proven to be utterly unfounded. Do you still insist those not yet born have a legal 'right to life? If so, what case law can you cite to prove the claim, since your claim such a right was contained in the Bill of Rights has been proven to be the falsehood that it is?

reply from: fetalisa

Much like all here can easily notice you have yet to cite case law or legal precedent that recognizes any legal 'right to life' ever being granted to those not yet born. Since you can't, we can rest assured the legal 'right to life' for those not born is mere fantasy.

reply from: yoda

I'm sure you're an expert on being an utter fool........
But the usage is several hundred years old.......
person Look up person at Dictionary.com
c.1225, from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). Personify first recorded 1727. Personable "pleasing in one's person" is first attested c.1430. In person "by bodily presence" is from 1568. Person-to-person first recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=person

What better "person" than you to cast the pejorative utterance "utter fool"?

reply from: prolifejedi

Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi

reply from: AshMarie88

The fool who follows!

reply from: fetalisa

You've still no evidence to offer at all this definition was ever USED in reference to those not yet born in those days. There was no reason for such usage, given that 24 week old fetuses could not survive outside the womb until the late 20th century.
Further, it matters not how 'person' is defined in a dictionary. The topic here states there is no 'right to life' granted in our law to those not yet born, which means any such right is wholly imaginary. Your definition can't disprove this. Case law can. You've no case law to offer so you turn to the dictionary and grasp at the weakest of all possible straws.

reply from: fetalisa

Whose asking for legal proclamation? If such a thing as a legal 'right to life' for those not yet born existed, it would be cited in court cases and court decisions, many of which are widely and freely available.
For instance, I can truthfully state those not yet born are not legal persons. My evidence is the Roe vs Wade case;
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
'Legal personhood' is a concept. Although the concept is not defined in this portion of the Roe case cited, the concept is most definitely referenced, even to the point of stating no precedent existed which found a fetus to be a person within the meaning, or some might say intent, of the 14th Amendment.
In other words, I have backed up my claim by citing a legal decision, rather than a specific law.
If you can't offer any similar evidence, which references a legal 'right to life' for those not yet born, I've no choice but to consider a legal 'right to life' for those not yet born, nothing beyond a fantasy of your imagination.

reply from: fetalisa

How do you answer the utterly false claim you made that the Bill of Rights grants a 'right to life' to those not born? Your claim has been proven to be utterly unfounded. Do you still insist those not yet born have a legal 'right to life? If so, what case law can you cite to prove the claim, since your claim such a right was contained in the Bill of Rights has been proven to be a total falsehood?
If you do not answer, I will accept that as an admission of a huge mistake on your part, for claiming the Bill of Rights grants a legal 'right to life' to those not yet born.

reply from: fetalisa

It doesn't matter whether fetuses are defined as persons in common dictionaries. What matters is whether they are defined as legal persons;
"no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
There it is in black and white. Personhood is clearly discussed as a legal concept in a court decision.
So you see, a legal 'right to life' for those not yet born, is wholly imagined and a fantasy.

reply from: yoda

Actually, I agree with the statement in the first sentence. No arbitrary application of, or exclusion from a particular label, can bestow morality on a bloody, horrible, barbaric act such as killing babies. And all labels are arbitrary, most especially the legal definition of "person". My use of the dictionary simply shows what we already know, that you and your ilk are constant liars.
But as sad as it may make your to tell you this, you do not set the topic "here". We speak about whatever we wish to, within the bounds set by the hosts.
And I choose to make the topic "Why is it moral for a healthy mother to electively kill her healthy baby?"
But of course, you will feel obliged to make a headlong dash away from that subject as fast as possible.........

reply from: fetalisa

Well I certainly don't blame you for bringing up a point I never made, especially considering your weakness at handling the points I have made (with the refutation of your claim a legal 'right to life' for those not born existing in the Bill of Rights, being the most blatant example).
But's lets assume someone would be foolish enough to make such a dumb and stupid claim that fetuses weren't human beings. It would be very simple to find evidence that fetuses do possess legal recognition as human beings. All you would need to do is point to that overwhelming prochoice piece of legislation known as the Unborn Victims as Violence Act;
"(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."
Again, as much as the prolifers choose to run around proclaiming that none recognize fetuses as human beings (as if that had any bearing AT ALL on the legality of abortion anway), assuming someone did make such a ludicrous and ridiculous claim, you now know where to find legal backing that proves our society does indeed offer legal recognition of fetuses as human beings.
No need to thank me. Your welcome regardless!

reply from: yoda

Your naive statements are difficult to believe. I constantly debate with proaborts who claim that before birth we aren't "human beings", "babies", or even "alive". Apparently you don't get around much on forums that debate abortion, because you're certainly not up on the mantras and slogans of standard proabort terminology.
And, much as I hate to break it to you, but legislation, even federal legislation, does not establish much of anything relating to our species. Science does that for us. We have federal legislation that states all kinds of nice, pleasant things about unborn babies, but it has no force in our courts, and sadly not much effect on the abortion debate.
Oh, and btw, the status of being a "human being" is what confers "personhood" in the vernacular sense upon us.
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

reply from: fetalisa

The topic of discussion is the FACT a legal 'right to life' for the unborn is wholly imaginary, not killing babies, which is illegal throughout the land. It's pitiful you can't discern the difference. The only morality under discussion here is our law, which is the only morality we are obligated to follow as citizens, or pay the consequences laid down from the courts.
You are the only one here perpetrating the fraud that the word 'person,' in the context of the Constitution & Bill of Rights, has any application at all to those not born. Were it true that that zygotes, embryos or fetuses were historically defined as 'persons,' legal or otherwise, there would have been NO cultures in ALL OF HISTORY who legalized abortions, since all abortions would have been considered murder and ALL societies would have banned it as such.
The truth is abortion was never universally banned throughout history. In some cultures it was a misdemeanor, which meant it certainly wasn't considered to be murder. In many cultures abortion wasn't criminalized until after 'quickening.' So the history of abortion, including the fact it wasn't universally banned, wasn't universally criminalized and was wholly alllowed, even in many Christian societies up until quickening, disproves your hypothesis that those unborn have ALWAYS been considered 'persons,' otherwise abortion would have been illegal in all cultures at all times under the legal theory that it killed 'persons.' There's never been universal agreement regarding abortion. There isn't now. And you, along with those who believe as you do about it, do not rule our society and do not have the legal right to shout down those with whom you disagree.
I will leave at as exercise for the readers, therefore, to determine who here is, and is not, being deceptive.
Well if you should ever choose to present any evidence at all that a legal 'right to life' exists for those not yet born, I am sure many will take interest. None here, that I can see, will hold their breaths waiting for you to address the topic actually raised.
So make a new topic for it then. You really should, given that you've offered no evidence at all to disprove my claim that a legal 'right to life' for those not born, is wholly imaginary existing only in the minds of those who carry a belief in it, which hardly constitutes proof.
You've not a clue what I will do, given you've yet to start at thread on the very topic you wish to discuss.

reply from: yoda

How quaint! You're a "legalist", who holds no moral standards other than those passed by legislatures and courts. My, what a good little soldier for the establishment are you!
You are sooooo clumsy at your attempts to construct strawmen, and then knock them down. All the other posters here know that I make no such claims, but you sure killed that strawman!! Butchered him into little pieces....... like an aborted fetus!!
I see no need for that. I'll discuss that subject ANYTIME, ANYWHERE I can find a proabort with enough courage to debate that point.
Obviously, that is not the case here........ why am I not surprised?

reply from: fetalisa

The direct quotes from the Roe decision have been shown to you over and over again. Your choice to willfully deny it doesn't make it any less true.
Then prove the Supremes wrong. Provide ANY direct quote from the first Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights), that could possibly have any application at all to unborn zygotes, embryos or fetuses. You can't do that because there's no such example to be found. How in the world you claim this is an "assumption" on the part of the Supremes, I will never know.
All you have to do is look back at abortion law through history. You will find abortion was never universally criminalized. If it is so obvious that zygotes, embryos & fetuses were persons, abortion would have been universally banned throughout history, just as murder was. However, that is not the case historically. Many societies didn't regulate abortion at all. Some didn't criminalize it up to the point of quickening. In those that did criminalize it, it was a misdemeanor, no better or worse than a speeding ticket today. The court knew this, whether you ever choose to admit it or not. Your personal opinion that the unborn are 'persons' entitled to a 'right to life' is therefore a very extremist position, when viewed from a historical standpoint.
And as it still stands, a legal 'right to life' for those not yet born, is mere fantasy, living only in the minds of those who believe it, having no legal backing nor authority, throughout the majority of the history of humanity.

reply from: fetalisa

There's no need for the word 'born' to appear in the 5th Amendment, or do you think there is any question that a zygote, embryo of fetus could be brought up on criminal charges?
Every usage of the word 'person' is discussing born persons when viewed in context. Every right discussed, such as the right to a fair trial, is discussing rights which could only be enjoyed by born persons. Therefore, we have every reason to conclude the intent of the authors of the Constitution, was to address born persons and the rights they enjoy. There is no possible way, from any usage of the word person as found in the Constitution, nor from any right discussed in the Constition to conclude it addresses the unborn, nor any rights they might enjoy.
You can pretend the 'right to life' as found in the 14th Amendment must somehow address the unborn, but in order to make that conclusion, you have to ignore the usage of the word person throughout the document, as well as ignore the fact every other right discussed are rights that only born people could enjoy.

reply from: Teresa18

Fetalisa forgets that young children, the mentally ill, and those in comas can't partake in some of those things such as a trial or religion. I suppose in her eyes, they aren't persons in the sense of the Constitution. Why can't we just butcher them, ripping them limb from limb and suctioning them through a tube?

reply from: fetalisa

Excuse me, but what part of
"Therefore, we have every reason to conclude the intent of the authors of the Constitution, was to address born persons and the rights they enjoy."
do you not understand?
I feel really sorry for you that you did not know the mentally ill and those in comas are born persons?

reply from: fetalisa

That's an issue for the others you debate. It's certainly not my issue.
You'd be surprised.
Scientists do not write law in our country. Legislators do, although law may be informed by scientists, just as legal decisions might be.
Well if legislators decide to author law, which they know will be entirely unenforceable because it conflicts with federal law, the legislators themselves chose to waste their own time in that manner. Sounds like typical government in action, if you ask me.
None of which has a thing to do with law, which means, none of us are obligated to acknowledge it or live by such principles.

reply from: Teresa18

We have every reason to conclude the intent of the authors of the Constitution was to address the rights of all persons, citizens and non. The unborn children are persons, they simply are still within the womb of their mother. You look at the Constitution as to protect various rights such as free speech, free religion, etc. You claim the Constitution is referring to people who are able to practice these rights, and the unborn are unable to, thus they are able to legally be killed under the law. Well, the mentally ill and comatose patients are just as unable to practice these rights as the unborn. Looking at the Constitution from your view, it would then be clear that those persons aren't legally protected (especially if they aren't U.S. citizens).

reply from: yoda

None of which has a thing to do with law, which means, none of us are obligated to acknowledge it or live by such principles.
The law was "settled" (at least temporarily) on this issue in 1973, and yet here you are 34 years later still lecturing us on it, as if it was only yesterday. What a crashing bore.......... but of course that's all you have left, since you have no moral grounds on which to defend that "legal bastard" of a decision......
And no, you aren't obligated in any way to acknowledge and/or live by the principles of academic and/or scientific truth, we all know how all you proaborts love to deny and/or ignore such things.

reply from: fetalisa

Yet you can't point to a single right addressed in the Constitution that could possibly apply to those not born. You can't point to a single instance where the word 'person' or 'persons' appears within the Constitution which could possibly apply to those not born.
In the context of the Constitution, they are not. If you claim otherwise, then point to an example within the Constitution where the words 'person' or 'persons' could possibly apply to the unborn. It is very clear from the usage of the words 'person' or 'persons,' as they appear in the Constitution, every single use of the words speak of persons born. Therefore, it is very clear the Constitution addresses born persons and the rights they might enjoy.
Your strawmen argument does not represent what I am claiming at all. My argument states since it is physically impossible for those not born to enjoy the rights outlined in the Constitution, it is crystal clear the authors of the Constitution does not address those not born.
This is entirely false. The mentally ill have a right to a fair trial should they commit a crime. The comatose have a right to life. At no point have I ever claimed such was not the case. At no point have I ever claimed the mentally ill or comatose can not exercise these rights. That claim belongs to your strawman argument, not any argument I have ever presented here.
Your strawman argument is due to your own mistake of comparing born and unborn. Such analogies fall apart very quickly because you do not even bother to stop and think if the analogy has any validity at all before you post.
You mean looking at the Constitution from the viewpoint of your strawman argument, that would be the case. Further, your little parenthetical strawman reference which claims non -citizens could not exercise rights outlined in the Constitution is also wholly false. Non-citizens are entitled to receive a fair trial in the event they are accused of a crime.

reply from: yoda

And your "argument" conveniently renders itself blind to the fact of the physical impossibility that ANYONE may enjoy ANY rights after being stillborn/aborted.
But of course, the death of 47 million babies is no skin off your cold, hard nose, is it?

reply from: fetalisa

They couldn't enjoy any rights BEFORE being stillborn or aborted, which is why it is foolishness to claim the Constitution addresses the unborn. Or do you argue those not born have a right to a fair trial?
"the fact of the physical impossibility that ANYONE may enjoy ANY rights after being stillborn/aborted" has nothing to do with me, nor does it have anything to do with my argument.

reply from: faithman

They couldn't enjoy any rights BEFORE being stillborn or aborted, which is why it is foolishness to claim the Constitution addresses the unborn. Or do you argue those not born have a right to a fair trial?
"the fact of the physical impossibility that ANYONE may enjoy ANY rights after being stillborn/aborted" has nothing to do with me, nor does it have anything to do with my argument.
It most assuridly does, as it is obvious you were born brain dead.

reply from: Teresa18

Yet the Constitution once referred to slaves as 3/5ths persons. Good thing you weren't around then. You would have campaigned for slavery. You also can't point to a spot that would refer to the severely handicapped or comatose victims. You also can't point out where it provides protection for endangered species such as polar bears or eagles. Yet this country provides protection.
It is crystal clear that the authors of the Constitution called slaves 3/5ths of persons.
You are nasty and insulting, and you really are not worth my time. After this, you'll go on my ignore list. The severely mentally ill and those in comas could not partake in free speech, religion, or trials and you know it. They can't enjoy those rights, so makes you or conclude that the authors of the Constitution were including them or addressing them.
Of course non-citizens could receive a trial. Where did I say otherwise? My argument has been that persons that are not citizens are protected in the Constitution, even if they can't partake in certain things like speech, religion, or trials if they are severely handicapped or in a coma.

reply from: fetalisa

Slaves did not require the body of another in order to live and thereby require the consent of the person who's body they inhabited. Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Let me know when you find a single usage of either of the words 'person' or 'persons' in the Constitution which could possibly be construed to apply those not born. Nice red herring on the slave thing, though.
Slaves were born persons and therefore, covered under every single use of the word 'person' and 'persons' as found in the Constitution. Additionally, since slaves were born, they were also entitled to every single right addressed in the Constitution.
By the way, what do you expect to gain from false accusations? How do false accusations support your point in any way, shape or form?
I already did. Persons in comas are entitled to a right to life. The severely handicapped can still vote. The rights to life and right to vote are addressed in the Constitution.
Why would a document which concerns itself with how our government will operate & what rights citizens may enjoy mention animals at all? Or do you think it was necessary for polar bears or eagles to have the right to vote?
How is it nasty and insulting to point out you keep comparing born with unborn without bothering to check the validity of the comparison before you do it? Your strawman argument claimed the mentally ill would not be recognized as 'persons' in the Constitution because they can no more exercise constitutional rights than fetuses can. I merely pointed out the mentally ill have a right to a fair trial, and therefore, can indeed exercise constitutional rights and proved your claim to be the falsehood that it was.
Then why don't you stop responding to me? You have twice now claimed I am not worth your time, yet you keep responding to my posts. Make up your mind. If I am not worth your time, don't respond. If I am worth your time do respond. But don't get ticked at me for being 'not worth your time,' as you busy yourself with responding to my posts.
Whatever floats your boat.
Your argument is fallacious yet again. Unborn zygotes, embryos and fetuses can not participate in ANY rights outlined in the Constitution, because it is a physical impossibility. The physically disabled may not be able to participate in all constitutional rights due to their disability, but it is physically possible for them to participate in at least some of them, which is not the case with fetuses at all. There is a vast difference between physically incapable of exercising any rights vs physically incapable of exercising at least some of them.
That's your claim not mine. The mentally ill are entitled to receive a fair trial if accused of a crime. The comatose are entitled to a right to life. Noncitizens are entitled to a fair trial and protected against unreasonable search and seizures. What you hope to gain by claiming otherwise, I can't possibly know.
Your argument doesn't recognize the differences between it being physically impossible to exercise ANY rights, as in the case of the unborn, vs it being physically incapable of exercising some rights, due to physical disability, as in the case of the comatose.
Look at it this way. Let's assume fetuses were persons under the 14th Amendment, which states;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Do you see how ridiculous it would be for our law to state the fetus may not be deprived of the liberty of bearing arms, the liberty of free speech, the liberty of a fair trial, any property they may own, etc.
That alone should be enough to prove how silly it is to claim fetuses should be recognized as persons under the Constitution. We would be saying it would be illegal to deprive them of rights for which it is physically impossible for them to exercise and illegal to deprive them of property which they have no means of owning anyway. For our law to state such things would be an absurdity of the highest degree.

reply from: fetalisa

Fortunately for all in our society, the authors of the Constution must have missed that definition. Every instance of the use of the words 'person' or 'persons' contained within the Constitution can ONLY be interpreted to be referring to born persons.
So how is it that this definition which you claim to be 'several hundred years old,' escaped the notice of those who authored the Constitution?

reply from: NewPoster1

Why is it moral for a healthy person with 2 kidneys to electively deny 1 of them to an otherwise healthy person who will die without it?

reply from: fetalisa

Simple use of logic explains the reasoning. It would be stupid for our laws to state a fetus shall not be deprived of the rights to life, liberties (such as freedom of speech or religion) or property.
Do you agree it would be nonsensical for law to state fetuses shall not be deprived of things for which it is physically impossible for them to exercise or own?
Yes or No?
There is no way possible the 14th Amendment could be applied to the unborn with respect of a 'right to life,' yet still make sense with respect to liberties or ownership of property.
No matter your opinions on abortion, I have seen enough of your posts to know you have the intelligence to understand this point.
Aside from leading to nonsense were the 14th Amendment to be applied to those not born, we would be left with an entirely different legal quagmire if Blackmun had found fetuses were persons under the 14th Amendment. Blackmun would then have been an 'activist' judge, creating a legal principle that could not be found to exist within or without our law in all of history. In other words, he would have been responsible for overturning a centuries old precedent of the lack of legal personhood of the unborn, with no valid legal reason for doing so, leaving him in the position of legal activism, rather than interpreter.
Therefore, due to the nonsensical results in the Constitution (fetuses can't be deprived of liberty or property) or practicing judicial activism (denying legal precedent of lack of personhood for the unborn), there was no way at all Blackmun could decided other than he did.

reply from: MattG

Fetalisa, have you ever heard a child old enough to be aware upon seeing a woman obviously pregnant say to h-er/is Mother, "Oh, look, Mom, She's having a fetus."?
Of course, not, we all know that if there isn't a baby there, the woman isn't pregnant.
Since you are back on the Constitution, let's start with the Preamble"
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (all emphasis is mine except the first three words, i.e. We the People.
I do not aver that the unborn were at the Eighteenth Century meetings that created the Constitution, but they were definitely in their thoughts, because even then, I, you, I assume, were [their] posterity and very definitely, both of us were unborn.
I have no problem with the XIV Amendment, but find it odd that it specifically gave personhood to the former slaves that the Supreme Court said in 1857 were not and could not ever be persons because of who they were or where they lived and now you and your folk use it to deny personhood to others because of who they are and where they live. It isn't too late, fetalisa, for you to believe in the "Blessings of Liberty" and work with me and others to help bestow it on so many to whom it is denied. Tell me, you will be at The March on Monday in Washington, D.C.

reply from: fetalisa

Because the passage grants three things. If you apply the passage to fetuses, it leaves us with a consistency with respect to 'right to life,' yet lacks ALL consistency and becomes utter nonsense in the case of liberty & property. Therefore, the intent could not possibly have been to address those not born. Blackmun was right.
Of course, to even ask the question if it applies to the unborn at all, we would have to totally ignore the beginning which states 'all persons born or naturalized.' Every word that flows from that is addressing born persons. Sections 2 and 3 of the 14th Amendment also include the word 'person' in ways that could only apply to those born. Given that the passage addresses insuring slaves received equal treatment in the wake of Amendment 13, we know for sure it was addressing those born, as far as original intent.
The only possible way to claim the 'right to life' as addressed in the 14th Amendment applies to those not born would be to;
1. Totally ignore what is addressed from the beginning, 'all persons born or naturalized.'
2. Ignore the context of the usage of the words 'person' or 'persons' throughout the Constitution, including sections 2 & 3 of the 14th Amendment
3. Pretend the 'right to life' can be recognized without leaving nonsense on the issues of liberty and property.
4. Assume the contents of pregnant women's wombs were counted as outlined in section 2;
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
5. Assume Blackmun was wrong, when we know what the results had been if he had ruled any other way - nonsense on liberty and property or activism on granting legal personhood to the unborn. How could his findings be wrong anyway? That would be like saying I am wrong if I state no evidence for Santa exists. If it wasn't there, it wasn't there. And application of personhood to those not born via the 14th Amendment wasn't there.
Of course not, what part of 'persons born or naturalized' do you not understand? What part of Blackmun's findings the unborn weren't covered by the 14th Amendment do you not understand?

reply from: MattG

I agree Ashmarie88, but as discussed in other posts, our Supreme Court by a 7 - 2 vote, said in The Dred Scott Decision n March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.
I have misspoken in an earlier post, writing that the Court said blacks could not be persons. My error is slight, because citizenship is the right of every person, and without citizenship one's personhood stands for naught, which is why the XIVth Amendment was written.
Now, although the XIVth Amendment could have included rights for persons not yet born; the slaughter taking place in our age was not conceivable to them. Ergo, The Right to Live Petition may be downloaded and signatures of supporters sought. When you do, sign the online Petition as a measure of support.

reply from: fetalisa

The slavery comparison fails miserably, because the comparison of born slaves to the unborn fails miserably. The unborn are not persons, scientifically, factually, historically, legally, actually, nor any other way you look at it. This is the complete and utter failure of the prolife movement. It would have us believe born and unborn are equivalent, while denying all differences to the contrary. This completely invalid idea is the foundation of the entire movement. If the foundation is rotted.......
Your ideas of what does and does not constitute slaughter are mere opinion. Many past societies did not consider abortion a crime, or considered it a minor crime. One rule from the 7th century allowed for 7 years to a lifetime of penance for oral sex, but only 120 days penance for abortion. Such societies therefore did not consider the unborn to be persons, given that the penance for oral sex was far longer than for abortion. This would not have been so if the unborn were considered persons. Whereas, murder was universally condemned by all past societies, abortion clearly was not.
Knock yourself out, but you are beating your head against a wall. There is a reason abortion is legal 33 years after Roe. No valid legal argument has been presented in 33 years after Roe, which could convince any court as to why the unborn should be granted personhood, or are 'persons' due any rights at all. Combine that with the fact the Constitution addresses born people and the rights they might enjoy, your position falls like the house of cards it is, in the worse possible way - it's unconstitutional.

reply from: galen

So Fet... if they do not have rights under the law, then how do you explain the states where it is considered murder to take the life of one. ( fetus Zygote etc?) I belive that in one state it can even be considered a capital offence if the mother's life is taken as well. How can you commit murder on someone who is not a " legal" person.
Also... you sound WAAAAYYYYY to much like the slave owners that we read about in history class way back in the 1980's. We overturned that particular thought process and made it illegal to treat human's as slaves what makes you think that abortion won't be diffrent. history is full of examples where people re wrote laws to define a new moral stance or to rectify some wrong. slavery was once legal so was beating your wife and children. saociety changed and came to its senses after years of commitment by people who KNEW that they may never see the day when EVERYONE had a say in thier lives, but they perservered and now we live in a democracy wher EVERYONE is supposed to have equal protection under the law. If we need to fight a bitter battle in the courts to add words that were not even thought of 150 + years ago then so be it. Knowledge = responsibility... and thank God that we are able in this country to rectify the wrongs as we see them.
Mary

reply from: fetalisa

Fetal homicide laws do not grant personhood to the unborn.
If your brain was operative, there would be no need for you to ask this question. Think about it, if an unborn was a person, we would have no need for fetal homicide laws, since homicide laws would do just fine.
That's because you are far too ignorant to grasp concepts simple enough for a 3 year old to understand. Slaves had the ability to participate in constitutional rights. For the unborn, it is physical impossible for them to partcipate in constitutional rights, which is precisely why they are not persons.
1. Constitution
2. Roe vs Wade
3. The prolife view is held only be a minority lunatic fringe

reply from: sk1bianca

one question: what exactly is the difference between HUMAN and PERSON?
i ask because i still have a little troubles with some English words. thanks for understanding.

reply from: Teresa18

Fetalisa claims we are all a "lunatic fringe" and abortion will always be legal. Soooo, why is she wasting her time arguing to keep abortion legal against a "lunatic fringe" who will never succeed in making abortion illegal?

reply from: ProInformed

FetaLisa:
How many of your babies were killed by abortion?
What excuses did you give to justify them being killed?
What was the real reason you had your babies killed?
What specific abortion techniques were used to do the killing?

reply from: ProInformed

FetaLisa:
Are you anti-choice or pro-choice when it comes to giving the citizens the right to choose the exact legal status of abortion by the democratic process?
(The U.S. Supreme Court overstepped their authority and violated the checks and balances system set up to avoid such abuses of power when they struck down the existing state laws on abortion.)

reply from: ProInformed

First things first, FetaLisa:
Are you anti-informed or pro-informed?
It's a waste of time to try to debate with choicers who are not well-informed.
Go to the following link and prove you know something about this important issue by answering the questions there:
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=3465&enterthread=y

reply from: ProInformed

bumping for fetalisa... waiting for her reply

reply from: ProInformed

Twenty-five years ago, when Kanwaljeet Anand was a medical resident in a neonatal
intensive care unit, his tiny patients, many of them preterm infants, were often
wheeled out of the ward and into an operating room. He soon learned what to expect
on their return. The babies came back in terrible shape: their skin was gray, their
breathing shallow, their pulses weak. Anand spent hours stabilizing their vital signs,
increasing their oxygen supply and administering insulin to balance their blood sugar.
"What's going on in there to make these babies so stressed?" Anand wondered.
Breaking with hospital practice, he wrangled permission to follow his patients into the
O.R. "That's when I discovered that the babies were not getting anesthesia," he
recalled recently. Infants undergoing major surgery were receiving only a paralytic
to keep them still. Anand's encounter with this practice occurred at John Radcliffe
Hospital in Oxford, England, but it was common almost everywhere. Doctors were
convinced that newborns' nervous systems were too immature to sense pain, and
that the dangers of anesthesia exceeded any potential benefits.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics