At best, only if the owner (woman) does not want to kill them and its done against her will (fetal homicide laws). That means its still treated as an owned thing rather than a separate person. And anyway, legislation is subjective and often changes. Saying "its currently the law" is thus a very weak argument for something being objectively right/wrong.
This is simply false. It is a kool aid drinking pro abortion type's mistaken notion. The laws specifically recognize fetuses as persons and most specifically define a fetus as a human being and/or "person:. Nothing subjective about spefically defining a fetus as a "person".
MOST do not define it in the first trimester as anything and ONLY SOME make definitions and ONLY FOR ONE AND ONLY ONE scope. Are you a person for only one scope? That is simply a continued lie. If that was true why did some states attempt "personhood amendments" which failed? The failure is a clear indication to all rational people that fetuses are in fact not persons. Still, I am sure you will continue your lies about it.
Yes, there is. There is no objective definition of a being, or person. WIKIPEDIA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person Plenty of people dont consider early foetuses, or even unborn foetuses to be persons, or beings.
Then such definition is subjective, since defining something as person before law is an "ought" (value), not "is" (factual) statement. And I noticed you always steer this into a semantics and definitions game and only use circular logic. But you never go to the core of the problem - justify why should those definitions you use be valid. Why should embryos be defined as persons before law? Why should we protect humans with no mind?
You say abortion should be allowed until birth, it recognizes that is barbaric and cruel and prohibits abortions in later stages!
It does NO SUCH THING! Roe says that states MAY prohibit abortion in later stages, not that they must, or that Roe itself prohibits it.
Obviously I am not wrong, and I see you ignored the question I posed, so AGAIN Why would it allow such a thing?
Of course you are wrong if you are unable to tell the difference between mandating or allowing. Then again this is not the first instance where you are not capable to distinguish reality from your fantasy.
http://www.politicalforum.com/abort...advocating-abortion-rights-7.html#post4888962 its all here in the thread.
You haven't asked me a question. If you are too lazy to ask or can't remember what you wanted to ask, I will not search for it. If you want to ask me something just do it and I will answer it best I can.
SO you can't read, is that waht you are saying? I mean I have suspected it for a LOOOONG time but never thought you would admit it. I posted the link Genius.
You must need new glasses since things that are so "obvious" to you are seldom obvious to others. Why would the SC allow the states to regulate abortion past viability? Because such regulation would be constitutional. Nonetheless, RvW does not require such regulation by the states.
How would that be constitutional but prohibiting the states from making their own decision earlier in the pregnancy is constitutional. It simply makes no sense.
