"A Human Being" in ANY stage of Development is "a Human Organism"

Then you will never understand why they became codified, we can learn a lot from history ..

An inherent right, by definition, is a right that CANNOT be taken away .. name a right that cannot be taken away.

inherent - Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

Not even the "right to life" is inherent.

but you don't, not really, or can you now tell me how making abortion illegal does not remove a right that every other born person has .. the right to liberty and property, remove those rights and you create a citizen of lesser rights than another.

Another question for you, is getting pregnant illegal?

 

My bad, I didn't know I was talking to someone who doesn't comprehend English. In my part of the world, the United States of America, we generally speak English. Our words have a very specific meaning to them and you can use a English dictionary to find out what they mean. You can even find out for yourself that evidence and proof are synonyms.

ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

proof [proof] Show IPA noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

With all due respect, I don't know where you come from, what backwards dictionary you use or maybe you have some kind of medical disorder which prevents you from processing the meaning of a word but I also don't care. If you can't comprehend English then there is absolutely no reason why I need to address you any further other then for my personal entertainment.

And your surrender is graciously accepted by yours truly. Now move along.

 

To be sure. Alas, forum rules prevent me from heaping upon you the appropriate measure of derision.

obviously a figment of your imagination, but I'm sure you'll be very happy together, at least in the short term.

I shall be happy to, the minute I bloody well feel like it.

 

Hey, don't blame me if you can't tell the difference between a human fetus and that of two animals. A fetus isn't a human being legally until it becomes viable, but what separates humans from animals is their sentience. A fetus which isn't sentient, although "human" like cheek cells or blood, isn't a "human being."

 

Can you tell me how my ability or inability to tell from only a picture is relevant?

The fact is, I didn't even try - because it's NOT relevant.

That claim (denial) has already been refuted by the language of the UVVA.

You should know that already.

"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

See above.

Your side has already lost that debate.

 

Basically, it's been confirmed by Roe v. Wade.

 

You seemed so certain on recognizing what is a human being and what is not. If you can't even tell if a fetus is human or not, how can you claim to be telling me it's a human being?

 

Which one came later?

 

If I tell you which image (if any) is of a human child... would it change your views on abortion?

I doubt that it would.

So it's a non sequitur / red herring to this debate.

 

The UVVA authored by Lindsey Graham came later. How is he more authoritative than the Supreme Court?

 

The same Supreme Court that made the decision in Roe has continued to uphold the language of the UVVA for the past 9 years since it was written.

A law which makes it a crime of murder to illegally kill a "child in the womb."

I think that shows a change in the courts attitude towards the rights of children in the womb.

Do you disagree?

 

A fetus is not a "human child" any more than it is a "human being". I support the right to abortion, but feel it is much better to avoid the situation through a combination of sex education and cheap contraceptives.

 

No, it actually reaffirms women's rights...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+m...ling+Roe+and+fetal+homicide+laws.-a0250470479

Sorry, you were led to believe UVVA was the magic bullet to criminalize abortion. I don't see it happening.

 

When we have laws which say they ARE children and that illegally killing them is a crime of murder...

When we have people doing time in prison for illegally killing them....

When we have a Supreme Court which so far refuses to entertain any challenges to that law....

Do you at least understand why I can't (don't) share your denials?

 

Hey - if you want to convince yourself that legal definitions that recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and make the illegal killing of that a child a crime of murder is actually "supportive of abortion rights?"

That's fine with me.

 

And you can ignore the fact that laws can't contradict the Constitution, and the fact that many fetal homicide laws do not state the fetus is a person, and that some even deny it is... that's fine with me, too. The UVVA defines a fetus as a person for the purpose of that law only. Dream on.

 

no, an acorn is not a tree.

 

Killing egg and sperm isn't against the law even though both are "human". Same goes for a zygote. A blastocyst and a fetus....up to a point. A human being grows. It isn't instantly created at conception. Even the Bible recognizes that point.

 

All we need is for the right case to challenge Roe to come before the court - so we expand on that.

The sooner the better.

 

Again, we have already won that debate.

The UVVA law already supports my claim and contradicts your denials.

I'm not claiming that laws are infallible.

I'm only saying - that as far as I am concerned, the language of the UVVA trumps your denials about whether or not a child in the womb is a child.

If you want for me to share your denials, you are (among other things) going to have to reverse the language (and many convictions) made under the UVVA.

 

The sooner the US is just like El Salvador, the better!

 

Wow...

Talk like that almost makes me want to join you in your denial of prenatal children's rights.

(sarcasm)

 

Both the woman and the prenatal children can't have rights to the same womb. Whose womb is it?

 

I disagree with your premise.

In my view, a child that is put into the womb by the woman's actions and choices herself - has the same right to be there that she had when she was in her mother's womb..

 

What you are saying is, IOW, because of the woman's actions (she had sex), she forfeits all rights to her uterus, her body and her life.