Abortion can not be discriminated, fetuses have no rights

A fetus has no rights. It is not a born person. There are no documents concerning a fetus with citizenship or legal life, i.e a birth certificate or social security number. the only person who has any rights over the fetus shall be the one who is carrying it, for in reality, they truly downtown that fetus, whether you like it or not. The government does not have the right to claim any ownership or sponsorship over private property, and this applies to abolishing abortion, as it would be equivalent to making it illegal to throw away food you dont want to eat.

One counterclaim to address is the attack on official documentation. There are many people living in the U.S. without legal documentation (illegal immigrants) and if you killed this person, you would be charged with murder. HOWEVER, that person has been born and lives a life past absolute dependency, unlike a fetus has. A fetus once again is not a living person, its just a developing organism. It cannot partake in any activities in society and is literally 100% dependent. Therefore, killing it is not murder. It is a medical procedure that is LEGALLY decided by the mother who carries it.

 

Why does someone have to be born to become a person?
I would also point out that just because a creature might not quite be considered a "person" does not necessarily mean they have no rights. One does not logically follow the other.

The Constitution does not explicitly say whether the unborn are considered to be citizens.
Obviously the unborn would not be issued birth certificates because they have not been birthed yet, just like people who are alive have not been issued death certificates because they have not died yet.

Why would this be the case? Doesn't the government have the right to intervene when parents are being abusive?
And even if the woman does have some sort of parental right that would apply to making life and death decisions for her child (in this case death), wouldn't the father have some say in the matter too?

This goes back to the days of slavery, and was the justification used by slave owners against government intervention.

So someone who is dependent does not have any right to life?
The fetus cannot partake in any activities because it is inside a womb, how silly can you get? What activities exactly can a little infant partake in, if you don't mind me asking? Or a coma patient?

Yes, illegals don't have a right to be in the country, just like a fetus when the mother doesn't want it. If you support abortion, how can you support giving rights to the undocumented? This of course includes children who were brought across the border by their parents when they were very little.

 

Wrong yet again.

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."

There are no parents until birth, unless either have previous born children.

Parent - A person’s father or mother
Father - A man in relation to his child or children:
mother - A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth:
Child/Children - A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority:

No as the 'father' is not the one having to suffer injure, by your logic a mother must get permission from the father to kill a child that is attempting to seriously injure her

Wrong, the government cannot claim ownership over the uterus of a woman, to advocate for the government to have that ownership (even for a short time) is akin to slavery.

nice attempt at misrepresentation.

 

Yes, but this does not preclude the possibility that others (for example the unborn) could also be citizens. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed citizenship to those who were born in the U.S., because before this certain classes of people were being denied basic rights. The 14th Amendment does not say that only those born and naturalized are considered citizens.

Besides, isn't it possible that fetuses could be considered "naturalized" ?

If you notice here, this part of the Amendment does not only apply to citizens.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post

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.""""""

But it DOES apply to citizens even FEMALE citizens...and YOU want to take away THEIR right to life, liberty, and property........and deny then equal protection of the laws...

 

This part of the Amendment applies just as much to non-citizens as it does to citizens, in fact the Amendment explicitly states they are to be treated equally under the law.

Women's right to liberty, and even their right to life, can still be taken away with due process of law.
That basically means (1) as long as it is first clearly stated in the law, and (2) as long as they chose to do something that that triggered the law applying to them (getting pregnant to begin with).

The woman should be entitled to as much protection as the fetus.

 

YOU want to give the fetus MORE protection and MORE rights.....



And as to the other BS, yes, I know you think women should lose all their rights when the become pregnant so they can be treated like animals but that isn't going to happen....

 

I had to smile at your reply, is it not you and other pro-lifers who insist that the right to abortion under the 14th amendment does not exist and was simply enacted under interpretation by the Supreme court judges, and yet here we are with you doing exactly the same thing . .strange how interpretation is OK with pro-lifers so long as it agrees with what they desire.

Possible if you change the meaning of naturalized, though that would not surprise me given the way pro-lifer's want to change the meaning of many things to suit their agenda.

Naturalization

The process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship. In order to qualify for naturalization, an applicant must meet a number of statutory requirements, including those related to residency, literacy, and education, as well as an exhibition of "good moral character" and a demonstration of an attachment to constitutional principles upon which the United States is based.

Then we go all the way round back to square one .. prove the unborn are persons, if you cannot then the above does not apply to them ..in fact very little of the constitution applies to them. Do you remember the oral arguments in Roe vs Wade, where both sides were asked about how their arguments would be affected if it could be shown that the unborn were persons or not .. In fact the anti-abortion side were asked to provide a single case where the unborn had EVER been seen as a person and they would have own the case .. they couldn't find one.

 

This same argument could be applied to the Negro also. You don't see the irony in that?
If we start saying that some human beings aren't persons, that defeats the whole original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

All those are legal reasons...however states do give fetus right to life by a certain time of gestation. They get partial rights similar to blacks in the 1800's. But yes...if a society legally decided to make a fetus a non-person or a black a non-person then that person could be found to not have the right to life. We could change our laws and our constitution and legally denote that illegal immigrants could die--not seen as "people" but as pests. Laws are fluid thing and frankly anything can be legal if society decides it. The question is---is it right to kill a human life simply because it is not a benefit to you.

 

That is not the question at all ? You having been involved in this debate for quite some time, know better. This is nothing but willful ignorance and denial.

You have already been told, numerous times the "Human life" is not necessarily a living human. That "human" when used as a descriptive adjective is not necessarily "a human" (noun).

Society in general Red or Blue, have no issues with the death of a sperm, egg, or a skin cell (all of which are "human life".

The individual rights and freedoms in the constitution do not apply, and were never intended to apply, to anything other than living humans.

This is why the right wing religious folks have so desperately tried to pass legislation labeling the zygote as a living human/Homo sapiens.

The question then is not "is it right to kill a human life". The question is "is a zygote a living human".

Since you have given no argument, and have no argument, that proves the claim "the zygote is a living human" true. Your argument in relation to the constitution is bogus fallacy (assuming the premise) as it assumes that a non proven claim is true.

 

I am focusing on the keeping to the topic of the OP which brought up legal reasons a fetus does not have rights. You might say....I'm keeping on topic.

You have wandered all over the place.

 

The fetus IS a non-person...now.

 

Right.

 

Good...you're learning.....

 

nor is an embryo, nor a zygote, nor a morula

 

At viability, when it is developed enough to sustain its life apart from the woman. What would be the purpose of giving it a right to life before it could do that?

 

When states protect babies that are 20 or even 24 weeks...I don't think they do it simply because it is viable. The reasoning of law makers is that it looks, moves like a baby and human being. . They feel compassion for it then.

I'm guessing that many rabid pro-abortionists could care less if the baby was viable or not---as its in a womans body and they think she should have the right to kill it..

 

According to our laws. What is a non-person and a person is dictated by societies laws.

If we made a law denoting a fetus as a human being with the same right of life as a newborn---then a fetus would be a "person".

 

Legislators do it because they are "pro-life," or pandering to pro-lifers, and viability is the first opportunity that is constitutional. I don't believe the same lawmakers who vote to cut food stamps and health care are "compassionate." There is nothing compassionate about anti-abortion laws. They don't save fetuses and only hurt women. If legislators really thought abortion was murder, they would adopt policies proven to reduce abortions, and legislation clearly doesn't.

No, they think by late term, she would only abort for medical reasons.

 

Well that would be ignorant thinking. Kermit Gosnell was not aborting babies for mothers coming in for "medical reasons".

 

Kermit Gosnell was convicted of infanticide, not abortion. His clients were poor and desperate. Most likely they'd had no prenatal care and didn't know their if their fetuses were viable, and by the time they had scraped together enough money to get an abortion, he was their only choice. The Hyde Amendment and "compassionate" TRAP laws that make abortion all but inaccessible force destitute and desperate women to have later abortions. Making abortion illegal will only create market opportunities for more Kermit Gosnells.

 

Kermit Gosnell proves that women are quite capable of killing their 24 month gestation babies for reasons other then "medical" if society or influential people within society consider it ok. So, in short--don't say women wouldn't do it. History shows that they will...just like parents left new born babies out to die in Roman times, in china and to this day in India. If a human life isnt protected by society then it will die.

 

Society can't protect unborn life, only women can. It can reduce abortions by providing comprehensive sex education and freely available birth control, policies proven in low abortion rate countries. It can't reduce abortions by banning them and harshly punishing women as proven in Latin American countries with high abortion rates. If pro-lifers really want to reduce abortion they will adopt proven policies. What is so difficult about that concept?

I would also add that we don't need a society that treats women like second class citizens.

 

Most women wouldn't get abortions if they weren't convenient. When you can just waltz into a clinic and pay someone else to "take care of things".
Sure there were a few extremists in the Jane collective, but most women getting abortions don't have the gall to do the dirty work themselves.