What is it?

You can't have a "human" adjective without a "human" noun. Maybe you have an example of such. But it's irrelevant. We've already established that "what it is" is a human. We can now move onto "rights" and "personhood".

Haploid cells can be "alive" but only Diploid cells can be human. You already agreed that a fetus is human so there is no point in retracing the biology. Let's move on to what rights a fetus ought to have in it's condition of being human aka a homosapien.

 

You can have "human" hair without having "A human." You can have "human" cells without having "A human." We have not established that the zef is "A human."

Sorry, but egg and sperm cells are human, but not "A human." A fetus is human, but at what point it becomes "A human" has not been established and agreed upon. Until you grasp the difference between adjective and noun, we will not progress.

 

No you can't, how can you?

No you can't, how can you?

You admitted it as such.

You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. At the very least, be consistent. We already know what it is. It's a human.

 

You still don't get it do you.

 

Looking at it on the superficial level you have would offer some reason to restrict abortion .. unfortunately it would be disingenuous to do so.

 

What makes you think it is an arbitrary choice, I certainly don't, though as it is your opinion that the right to protect your own body and the right to decide who uses your body are "women's rights" it is up to you to prove that those same rights are not given to all people. Can you, because I can and have proven they are rights given to everyone.

I guess you are one of these people who believes that self-defence is only justified in a life threatening situation, do you even know the self-defence laws in the US?

 

arbitrary - Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system:

So you are being arbitrary in deciding that self-defence doesn't apply in the early stages of pregnancy but it does in some later situations when it suits your definition.

Don't forget Sam it is you who keeps saying a fetus is innocent, so the question remains, if it is innocent of the injuries it causes a woman during early pregnancy how can it suddenly become guilty enough to warrant death for the injuries is causes in later pregnancy, and please do try to remember that self-defence does not just rely on imminent threat to life.

 

What is superficial about it?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States) -On a federal level, self defense is legal only in response to "An affirmative, unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences. What laws has the fetus broken?
In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable. How is the unborn assaulting the woman?

 

I dont get what, exactly?

 

Any injury that is caused to a non-consenting person is illegal, therefore the numerous injuries caused by the nonconsented pregnancy would be assualt.

BTW. Your Wiki link has not been ratified by a legal expert - "This article needs attention from an expert in Law"

You would be better served by the following - http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Given the quantity and quality of the effects of a fetus on a woman's body and liberty, if a woman does not consent, that fetus is massively harming her.

The term “serious bodily injury” is defined in Section 1365(h)(3) of Title 18, U.S. Code, to mean a bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. [615(k)(7)(D)]

So you tell me what equates to reasonably force in order to stop the injuries continuing?

A person is only in a place they have a "right to be" when they own the place they are in or have the consent of the owner of that place, a fetus does not own the uterus of a woman and in a nonconsenting pregnancy does not have consent to be there. Therefore any action the fetus undertakes to maintain its position is an assault, and as such the female may use what ever force is required to evict the fetus from her property. This is exactly the case you are quoting above except you are alluding to the fetus being in a place they have a right to be, it does not have the right to be there unless granted that right by the owner of the uterus ie the woman.

 

you state that intent has no bearing on the situation and yet by the very court rulings that restrict abortion the courts are implying that a fetus has intent, they are implying that if the fetus could express itself it's intent would be to remain attached to the non consenting female.

You also state that you "feel most of the harm comes from the woman's body itself, not the fetus directly" which goes against all the biological evidence available, the harm to the female is instigated by the fetus, it is the prime source of the harm .. without the fetus there would be no harm to the female.

By making the arbitrary decision that should the woman's life be in danger she can abort, you are equating intent onto the fetus, and yet you state that the fetus has no intent .. so which is it, does the fetus have intent or not, if not then how can you justify punishing it for actions it has no control over .. if it does have intent then the injuries it causes at ANY time during the pregnancy are reasons enough for a woman to abort.

 

Just go back through the numerous posts where you have asserted the same thing over and over again and have been answered every single time.

 

Separate PARTS of A human are not A human. They are just human parts.

NO!!

Repeated assertions don't make it so. Human tissue is not necessarily A human.

 

OKlet us use yours. What force is the unborn using against the woman? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the woman's body changes to support the unborn living inside of her correct? What bodily injuries is the unborn causing the woman? The injuries are a result of the body changes that take place to support life and sometimes the body over reacts and causes serious life threatening complications. Again correct me if I'm wrong.
So if she consents the fetus is not massively harming her, but if she doesn't then it is?
Only time self defense would come into play is when her life is truly in danger, not at risk of being in danger. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/selfdefence.shtml
Negative that wasn't what I was saying. The place they have a right to be is clearly referring to the woman. I am saying the woman is not being assaulted by the unborn. How is the unborn assaulting the woman? Abortion is an assault on the unborn. Taking aggression out on the unborn for an act of another. Whether it be her own body making adjustments to support pregnancy, or the act of sex. Again only time abortion is self defense is when her life is in danger, or the life of the fetus is in danger, to save her own life from real danger the question,is how is the unborn assaulting the woman, not why doesn't the unborn have a right to be in the uterus, that can be argued next if you wish.

 

I never stated intent to stay inside the woman did I? No I said intent to harm the woman. of course if given a choice of life, or death it will choose life. That is not the argument. Instigated by the fetus, meaning triggers changes in the woman's body to support life. True, but that is as far as the fetus goes in causing anything. It triggers change. The injuries caused are a result of the body's reactions to the change. Sometimes it is life threatening, that is when the woman may choose abortion to save her life. When the reactions to those changes threaten her life.
No it doesn't equate intent on the fetus, clearly the fetus has no control over how the woman's body reacts.When her life is literally threatened she can defend herself, to save her life. Prove me wrong, prove that it is the fetus itself harming her, not her own body. I can see the argument that well if it is not the fetus, why kill it for something it did not do? already answered that, one life is better then two, if the woman dies, the fetus dies, so by saving the woman in this case, there is less death.

 

The woman's body ONLY changes due to the presence of the fetus, it is the fetus that directly causes these changes - though in reality and law they are injuries - look at it like this, if someone injects you with a compound that suppresses your immune system, is your body changing to support the compound or did the compound cause your body to change. Everything that is related to the injuries (i refuse to call them changes as that is not what they are) is instigated by the zef. ANYTHING that directly effects your body without your consent is being forced upon you.

Numerous, which have all been listed before .. the injuries root cause is the zef, without the zef those injuries would not happen to the woman.
No if she consents then she accepts the injuries being done to her by the fetus, just as you consent to injuries done to you if you were to consent to, say, an operation . .without you consent the operation cannot take place, if the doctor went ahead without your consent he is assaulting you, just as the zef does to the woman when it doesn't have her consent.

No point in quoting UK law on self-defence when it has no bearing and is different from US law, and as I have already shown you self-defence laws in the USA DO NOT require her life to be truly in danger.

Not without consent they haven't, and to be honest it doesn't matter that you are saying that the woman is not being assaulted, biology and law disagrees with you, and that has more credence to me than your denials, and again any injury caused to your body without consent is an assault.

no it is not, it self-defence, and what aggression is being taken out on the unborn for the act of another .. is this the fallacy of consent to sex = consent to pregnancy again, even though it has been blown apart numerous times before. If you think you can support it then do so, show me one single case where a person, by law, has been forced to use their body to sustain the life of another .. should be easy for you to do that.

Again you are incorrect in the biological reality.

and again you are in denial of what your self-defence laws actually say, and again ANY unconsented injury to her body is an assault.

I don't need to argue it simply because you have provided nothing of substance to dispute that a unconsented pregnancy cause injuries to a woman.

 

and neither did I say you did, did I, I said "you state that intent has no bearing on the situation and yet by the very court rulings that restrict abortion the courts are implying that a fetus has intent, they are implying that if the fetus could express itself it's intent would be to remain attached to the non consenting female", so please do show me where I say the intent is to stay inside of the woman?

Then you argument is with the very courts who restrict abortion, they are the ones implying intent.

Not at all, the fetus through all of the pregnancy releases hormones that have the direct effect of restricting the woman's immune system, it also releases chemicals that directly effect her physiological viewpoint, at implantation it penetrates the endometrium, with protrusions of trophoblast cells, changes in the cytoskeleton of decidual cells. This, in turn, dislodges the decidual cells from their connection to the underlying basal lamina, which enables the blastocyst to perform the succeeding invasion, The protrusions of trophoblast cells that adhere into the endometrium continue to proliferate and penetrate into the endometrium. As these trophoblast cells penetrate, they differentiate to become a new type of cells, syncytiotrophoblast. The prefix syn- refers to the transformation that occurs as the boundaries between these cells disappear to form a single mass of many cell nuclei (a syncytium). The rest of the trophoblasts, surrounding the inner cell mass, are hereafter called cytotrophoblasts. Invasion continues with the syncytiotrophoblasts reaching the basal membrane beneath the decidual cells, penetrating it and further invading into the uterine stroma. Finally, the whole embryo is embedded in the endometrium. Eventually, the syncytiotrophoblasts come into contact with maternal blood and form chorionic villi. This is the initiation of forming the placenta. The blastocyst secretes factors for a multitude of purposes during invasion. It secretes several autocrine factors, targeting itself and stimulating it to further invade the endometrium. Furthermore, secretions loosen decidual cells from each other, prevent the embryo from being rejected by the mother, trigger the final decidualization and prevent menstruation.The syncytiotrophoblasts dislodges decidual cells in their way, both by degradation of cell adhesion molecules linking the decidual cells together as well as degradation of the extracellular matrix between them. Cell adhesion molecules are degraded by syncytiotrophoblast secretion of Tumor necrosis factor-alpha. This inhibits the expression of cadherins and beta-catenin. Cadherins are cell adhesion molecules, and beta-catenin helps to anchor them to the cell membrane. Inhibited expression of these molecules thus loosens the connection between decidual cells, permitting the syncytotrophoblasts and the whole embryo with them to invade into the endometrium. The embryo differs from the cells of the mother, and would be rejected as a parasite by the immune system of the mother if it didn't secrete immunosuppressive agents. Such agents are Platelet-activating factor, human chorionic gonadotropin, early pregnancy factor, immunosuppressive factor, Prostaglandin E2, Interleukin 1-alpha, Interleukin 6, interferon-alpha, leukemia inhibitory factor and Colony-Stimulating Factor. Factors from the blastocyst also trigger the final formation of decidual cells into their proper form. In contrast, some decidual cells in the proximity of the blastocyst degenerate, providing nutrients for it. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) not only acts as an immunosuppressive, but also "notifies" the mother's body that she is pregnant, preventing menstruation by sustaining the function of the corpus luteum.

and ALL of that is JUST at implantation, and each and every one of those is an unconsented assault.

nope they are the result of the direct action of the zef, if you are stabbed your body reacts, does that mean you haven't been injured it just your bodies reaction

Of course it does, it is suppressing the normal reaction which would be to treat the zef as an invader and eject it. Just as any other foreign object is attacked and rejected by your bodies immune system.

already have proven it, that you choose to ignore that is your failing not mine.

no you have ignored the biological facts and have not offered anything but your opinion .. ignorant of all the facts.

so then you are placing your arbitrary decisions on when it is ok to kill a zef.

 

The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. It's a separate individual.

 

I have provided plenty to dispute that the fetus causes any injury and you have provided nothing to prove me wrong. This immune suppression you speak of, you do realize half of that ability came from the woman right? The unborn did not create anything new, it used what was given to it by the woman and man. The unborn does not cause any injuries to the woman, the injuries are a result of changes the body makes to support the life. Your refusal to recognize the changes as change is your prerogative.
Now do you want to actually try to prover me wrong, or simply state biology this, reality that? Show me if you are confident.

 

Your very first paragraph states it. You want to say that you quoting the courts is not what you were trying to say I was saying?
Please show me what injuries the fetus causes that cause the body to react.
Please show me where the enzymes that the unborn releases does not 50% come from the woman.
Nothing arbitrary about it, it is accepted as law. You know what you like to use to defend your positions on why abortion should be legal.
Ignorant? Ha you have yet to prove anything and you call me ignorant. Nice comeback. Start providing facts. I already refuted your self defense claims when it comes to abortion long ago. I look foward to some real facts for you to come up with that refutes what I say

 

An operation is not an injury.

 

You have not provided a single biological fact to support your opinion in this matter, and I have provided numerous biological facts to show that the zef does cause injury to the woman.

If, as you state, that the unborn create nothing new, then by default the part supplied by the female remains her property and as such she can do with it as she pleases ie she can remove it from her system, on the other hand if you state that the zef is a unique individual then what ever it's 'body' produces is owned by it and as such it's intrusion into the females body, if unconsented, is assault.

what you are arguing is absurd, if it was correct then ANY changes in my body are not of my doing as my parents supplied half each of the ability to do so .. it is a ridiculous argument to make, and I think that you know that.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it is if it occurs without your consent.

 

By that logic, a consensual pregnancy is not an injury, despite your claims that even a normal pregnancy causes significant harm to a woman's body.

 

A consensual pregnancy causes injuries and the woman consents to those injuries, the moment she revokes the consent to those injuries they are assault .. just as it would be if you consented to an operation, then revoked your consent but the doctor did it anyway.