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

I didn't say that at all.

I'm only saying that a child she puts into her womb herself - has the right to be where she put it.

I'm also saying that the child she (and her partner) created has a right to not be murdered.

That it has an equal right to the protections of our laws,. etc.

If a medical necessity develops from that point - where the woman's doctors feel an abortion is medically necessary to save the woman's life?

I believe that it would be Constitutionally justifiable for her to have an abortion to save her life.

It's just like any other act of "self defense" in that regard.

 

Well...although a fetus or even a fertilized egg that has implanted itself in the uterine wall can be considered a POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING....and there is NOT EVEN A QUESTION that such a thing is Alive and a living organism containing Human DNA....it cannot be considered an actual PERSON until the fetus mind has developed to the point HIGHER BRAIN FUNCTIONS occur which is the beginning of SENTIENCE.

Any time prior to this state of development which is usually at the beginning of the 3rd Trimester...would be a time at which such cells or developing fetus is still at a POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING state of existence.

Now just because a Fetus has not reached a level of development where it's Cerebral Cortex obtains higher brain function thus the beginning of sentience...doesn't mean a certain SCALAR VALUE placed upon Developing Human Life does not show Moral implications that would exist if such a Fetus was terminated by an abortion.

Regardless of whether a person is Pro-Choice...which I am...a person cannot ignore the reality of the VALUE OF POTENTIAL HUMAN LIFE...and this scalar value grows as does the Fetus' development.

As well...whether a person is Pro-Life they cannot ignore the fact that an abortion is sometimes necessary and justified in the cases of rape, incest or when a Fetus has been declared to be by a Doctor Non-Viable or if the Mother's health or life is at risk.

Abortion is LEGAL and as so should not be something taken lightly as all abortions should be done as soon as possible and not allowed to be delayed thus possibly causing an abortion to take place after the beginning of the 3rd trimester.

As well education, availability to Plan B and Morning After will drastically reduce the need for abortions.

AboveAlpha

 

Rearranging the words doesn't change the meaning. You believe if "she puts a "child" into her womb" I.e., has sex, she cannot remove it. The "child" (fertilized egg) has the right to her womb, now. She had sex and therefore forfeited the right to her womb.

IOW, A fertilized egg has the right to her womb; she forfeited all rights to it by having sex.

Because a fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence has, not just equal, but MORE rights than a born, established woman? By giving the fertilized egg the rights to her womb, you take away the woman's right to bodily autonomy and self determination.

Every pregnancy has a profound effect on the woman's body; it changes her body permanently. Every pregnancy is a potential risk to the woman's health and life. It is her decision whether to assume the risk.

 

That was quite an essay.

may I ask if you have taken the time yet - to familiarize yourself with the language of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act?

(18 USC § 1841 - Protection of unborn children)

"(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. "

"(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. "

 

And an excellent one too! Kudos AboveAlpha!

 

If that were so, she would never have the right to an abortion... and I just explained for you - a case where she would.

(Medical necessity)

See above.

By giving the fertilized egg the rights to her womb, you take away the woman's right to bodily autonomy and self determination.

Equal

If she's pregnant as a result of having consensual sex?

She already assumed the risk.

And, by doing so - she compromised her own autonomy herself.

 

She has to be on the verge of dying before she can regain the right to her own womb?

By giving the fertilized egg the rights to her womb, you take away the woman's right to bodily autonomy and self determination.

Not even close. Both can't have rights to same womb. You are giving rights to the fertilized egg and taking them away from the woman.

Please, don't even go there. It's just another way of saying she had sex, so she should suffer the conquences. Engaging in risky behavior does not, in any other circumstance, preclude one from having medical intervention.

 

I have not read this but I have heard of it.

It cannot be used against a woman who is obtaining a legal abortion.

Now I see ZERO ISSUES with a woman getting an abortion very early in the pregnancy as well as no issue at any time during the pregnancy when the health or life of the mother is at risk as well as when a Doctor determines a fetus not to be viable.

I do have issues over late term abortions performed after the beginning of the 3rd trimester when both mother and fetus is healthy...still these abortions are very few and inbetween.

Still....abortion is legal and it should remain so.

AboveAlpha

 

She never lost her right to her womb - but when she brought another human being into the situation, she also brought upon herself - the obligation of respecting their rights.

Unless she was raped, she is the one who gave the child the right to be there.

Not me.

She is the one who compromised her autonomy.

Not me.

I'm only defending the child's rights in the matter because they can't defend their own.

See above.

Too late.

I already did.

When... doctors deem that medical intervention is warranted and necessary... I can agree that the abortion in those situations is an act of self defense and as such is Constitutional.

Creating a child, regretting your actions and killing the child for any less reason?

Not so much.

 

You said they are not human beings and I just quoted for you - a law which defines them as "a human being."

Do you still deny that a child in the womb is "a human being?"

 

A Fetus really cannot be labeled as a Child until it obtains the beginning of Sentience...this occurring and measurable by scans at about the beginning of the 3rd trimester when Higher Brain functions occur in the Cerebral Cortex.

Prior to that a Fetus is a POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING.

As far as any value placed upon this it would be scalar as a 5 month old fetus cannot be said to have the same value as a 2 week old lump of cells.

AboveAlpha

 

If your claim (denials) are true... You should have no trouble overturning the UVVA

Several convicted murderers have tried.

Why do you think that you can prove it's not a child that they were convicted of murdering - but their lawyers can't prove the same?

 

The wording of this law is specific to the prosecution of those who have murdered the woman and thus the fetus or baby as well or caused trauma to the mother which results in the loss of the fetus or baby.

If this same wording was attempted to be included in some direct association with a woman's right to an abortion it would not be allowed to become law.

Some Pro-Life advocates have already attempted many times to have charges filed against a woman as well as a Doctor performing abortions at a clinic siting this law.

In every attempt it was decided this law cannot apply to a woman obtaining a legal abortion.

AboveAlpha

 

You didn't read the specifics of the law and you obviously don't know of the cases where people have been charged for the murder of the child in spite of the fact that the mother survived.

Opinion noted.

I hope you don't mind that we intend to put your claim to a test.

1. I don't know that - that is true.
2. It doesn't change our intentions.

Sooner or later, we will get a case before the SCOTUS - to have them reconcile the language of the UVVA against the precedence set in Roe.

If you and your ilk are so confident that the SCOTUS will find in favor of abortion on demand.... why not help us get that case before the courts?

 

Anyone can google the various attempts by Pro-Life groups to have charges brought up against women and doctors.

You post to me as if I am some Pro-Choice activist. LOL!

I am just part of the SILENT MAJORITY...that being...Americans who look at the Abortion issue from a position of Science, Logic and Common Sense.

I personally abhor the thought of an Abortion but I also realize that there are times when an abortion is necessary.

When a woman has been raped or in the case of incest Plan B and Morning After Pills can prevent the egg from implanting itself in the uterine wall thus this will cut down on a great many possible abortions.

If these woman or rape and incest find out too late an abortion is justified.

In the case where the fetus is not viable and this is proclaimed by a Doctor...an abortion is justified.

In the cases where a mothers health or life is at risk...an abortion is justified.

For ANYONE to say that under such conditions that abortion is not justified...well...this is a time when women should be glad it is not up to such ignorant people to decide.

AboveAlpha

 

Your comment made me realize something.

The "silent majority" does not fight these things out in the courts.

It is the activists who bring these issues to a decision.

You think "common sense" is on your side (denying a child the protections of our laws until they live too long and develop too much to be denied anymore)... but it's really not.

As do I.

 

The activists may argue the points but it is the MODERATES that control the making of LAWS.

You argument could be better conducted by directing it at obtainable and common sense specific goals.

Such as trying to get a law passed that in the case where there is no rape or incest and the fetus and mothers health is not at issue that states an abortion can not be done after the beginning of the 3rd trimester.

That s the point when a Fetus starts to obtain sentience and anyone who wants an abortion at that point has no excuse for not getting it done sooner.

Now THAT is a law that even I would favor.

But the path you are on now is just a waste of time because you will never make abortion illegal.

AboveAlpha

 

I am curious, which of those words give you such great difficulty to recognize their limitation?

 

Are you done whining? Or do you need to get the last word in?

 

The laws have already been made.

It's time for some reconciliation by the SCOTUS because they contradict one another.

They just did that in Texas.

[/quote] That s the point when a Fetus starts to obtain sentience and anyone who wants an abortion at that point has no excuse for not getting it done sooner.

Now THAT is a law that even I would favor.[/quote]

Our courts have already determined that sentience (I think you mean sapience) is irrelevant.

Even children with anencephia have a right to the protections of our laws.

Of course, I disagree with your opinion on that... but

It's my time to waste.

Isn't it?

 

That s the point when a Fetus starts to obtain sentience and anyone who wants an abortion at that point has no excuse for not getting it done sooner.

Now THAT is a law that even I would favor.[/quote]

Our courts have already determined that sentience (I think you mean sapience) is irrelevant.

Even children with anencephia have a right to the protections of our laws.




Of course, I disagree with your opinion on that... but

It's my time to waste.

Isn't it?[/QUOTE]

As far as the vast MAJORITY of Americans are concerned it is at the point a Fetus obtains THE BEGINNINGS OF SENTIENCE....and this can be determined using a specific scanning method of the fetus that will determine if the Fetus has obtained HIGHER BRAIN FUNCTION. This scan is detailed below.

A scanning device designed to study maternal and fetal physiology, including fetal brain activity, using magnetoencephalography (MEG) of the womb can determine whether or not a fetal brain has developed to the point of obtaining higher brain function thus the begginings of sentience. It also is the first MEG study to use light, rather than pulses of sound, to stimulate the fetus.

"Though this work is preliminary, it is a promising indication of how MEG may help researchers understand the fetal brain," says Giovanna Spinella, M.D., a pediatric neurologist at NINDS.

The new device, called SARA, was conceptualized by Curtis L. Lowery, M.D., of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and developed by CTF Systems Inc., of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. NINDS helped to fund development of the device, which is the first of its kind in the world. SARA stands for SQUID Array for Reproductive Assessment. SQUID is an acronym for Superconducting Quantum Interference Device, a method developed to detect tiny fluctuations in magnetic fields using a superconductor cooled by liquid helium.

Your statement and I quote..."Our courts have already determined that sentience (I think you mean sapience) is irrelevant."...end quote....IS NOT TRUE.

In fact the determination at approx. what point a Fetus will obtain the beginnings of sentience IS A MAJOR FACTOR for the creation of specific laws that either allow or limit abortion.

Texas is just one state and although states are allowed by Federal Law to limit or allow specifics of when or if a woman can have an abortion....THERE IS NO LAW IN ANY STATE THAT CAN PREVENT A WOMAN FROM HAVING AN ABORTION AT ANY TIME ALL THE WAY UP TO THE DAY OF BIRTH IN THE CASE OF INCEST OR RAPE OR WHEN THE MOTHERS HEALTH OR LIFE IS IN JEOPARDY OR WHEN A FETUS HAS BEEN DECLARED NON-VIABLE BY A DOCTOR.

AboveAlpha

 

Appeals to popularity are not going to help in your arguments.

The courts have already ruled that a child in the womb "in any stage of their development" is "a human being" and that illegally killing one is a crime of murder.

The actual sentience and sapience of the child killed is irrelevant.

So, unless or until you can overturn the language of the UVVA, it stands.

Just like we who oppose Roe have to accept that it's language stands until it too can be overturned.

Tell that to Ariel Castro who just plead guilty to a charge of MURDER- jfor forcing his raped kidnapping victim to miscarry the child her forced onto her in a rape.

Just because some lawmakers make brain activity a factor in some laws of the laws they are proposing... that doesn't mean that all other lawmakers are required to do the same.

Again, I refer you to the laws, regulations and rulings on children with anencephalia.

I'll take that bet.

 

***********************************************************************************************************

You posted this...."The courts have already ruled that a child in the womb "in any stage of their development" is "a human being" and that illegally killing one is a crime of murder."

This is true....the courts did rule this way.

Fortunately a woman obtaining a LEGAL ABORTION is not an act of murder. And Aborting a child in the womb in any stage of their development in the case of rape, incest or if the Fetus is a health threat to the mother or the fetus is determined to be non-viable....is NOT MURDER AND COMPLETELY LEGAL.

Thus your argument is both flawed and moot.

AboveAlpha

 

Using existing law to defend itself is called circular reasoning.

Using your logic, Roe can never be challenged because it is essentially the final word on it (to you).

We believe the SCOTUS will have no choice but to overturn Roe - when they are presented with a case that gives them cause to reconcile the language of the UVVA and their previous rulings on abortion.

I don't hold that the UVVA is the final word on what is and what is not "murder" when it comes to killing a child in the womb.

You are more than welcome to try to change it.

In fact, that might be the very case we need to get the disparity addressed by the court.

 

Actually I have no issue with the Law specific to those who Murder both Mother and Fetus or Child or by trauma to mother kill either the fetus or child.

This law has been determined to not be applicable to legal abortions so it's fine as far as I am concerned.

As far as Roe...YOU can waste all the time you would like as you have stated...it is your time to waste. So go ahead...regardless it will remain law as the VAST MAJORITY of Americans support it and also regardless of the vast supporting numbers involved when it comes down to it the passage of laws....IS A POPULARITY CONTEST.

Those VAST NUMBERS OF AMERICANS WHO SUPPORT LEGAL ABORTION will make CERTAIN that NO LAW will EVER be passed or enacted that will make abortion illegal.

AboveAlpha