VALS '11

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

LOL You were beating around the bush of NOT defining what the unborn are. In fact, I can save lots of room by what you used to define the unborn.

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
. . . . An unborn child can’t be multiple things, it’s literally an unborn human which exists in utero.[/quote] To define the embryo as a person but yet the mothers rights supersede the ‘unborn human’ that she helped to create? Please tell me what event christens rights upon the unborn HUMAN?

edit - clarification of goldengloves use of the noun to define the unborn human, aka embryo.

22

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
LOL You were beating around the bush of NOT defining what the unborn are. In fact, I can save lots of room by what you used to define the unborn.

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
. . . . An unborn child can’t be multiple things, it’s literally an unborn human which exists in utero.[/quote]
To define the embryo as a person but yet the mothers rights supersede the â??unborn humanâ?? that she helped to create? Please tell me what event christens rights upon the unborn?
[/quote]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Unborn? I’d have to use the literal definition and say it’s a fetus not yet birthed by its mother.[/quote]

That’s my original answer. A human in the fetal stage still in the uterus of its mother isn’t beating around he bush.

Leaving the uterus. And you’re right, the mother did help create it. It also only exists in her so it’s difficult to extended rights to something of that nature. The premise of a woman being obligated to carry out a pregnancy is steeped in personal opinion, the risks associated with abortion are minimal, and the vast majority if not all elective abortions are done before the embryo or fetus is even able to feel pain.

23

Yet you have never clearly defined the event/s which christens rights upon a child. All you have shown is an opinion, like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream.

If someone murders a pregnant woman, why does he face punishment for two murders, however tied together they are?

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
That’s my original answer. A human in the fetal stage still in the uterus of its mother isn’t beating around he bush.

Leaving the uterus. And you’re right, the mother did help create it. It also only exists in her so it’s difficult to extended rights to something of that nature. The premise of a woman being obligated to carry out a pregnancy is steeped in personal opinion, the risks associated with abortion are minimal, and the vast majority if not all elective abortions are done before the embryo or fetus is even able to feel pain.
[/quote]

25

Why feel the need to click on THIS thread? Why add another post of irrelevance and not even add to the topic of the thread?

Just MY .02 ; )

Something tells me this will not be taken lightly, but rather as a personal attack. LOL Yet not the intention. jaa jaa jaa

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Just some advice goldengloves, use the search function, type in abortion and you can see every response you need to on this issue. There is no need for ANOTHER 40 fucking pages of this.

My .02[/quote]

27

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

…seeing that the embryo enjoys no rights…[/quote]

And just where in the United States of America is this the case? Where?

  • One could certainly cite case after case after case in many states where a person who has murdered a pregnant woman has been charged, and convicted, of double murder.

[/quote]
Double homicide. Not double murder in all cases. Depending on the state infanticide/murder is used sometimes. I think a further sub-classification for abortion(with corresponding range of penalty) would be the appropriate scope of legal distinction at the state level. In whatever case, homicide is entirely within the states’ jurisdiction. The supreme court should not even have considered Roe V. Wade, much less “found” a right to privacy that superseded a human’s(natural) and person’s(constitutionally protected) right to life and the state’s right to prosecute and penalize homicide.

28

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Why feel the need to click on THIS thread? Why add another post of irrelevance and not even add to the topic of the thread?

Just MY .02 ; )

Something tells me this will not be taken lightly, but rather as a personal attack. LOL Yet not the intention. jaa jaa jaa

[/quote]

Just trying to point him in a different direction.

And it’s not being taken as a personal attack, I’m just getting real tired of all the threads lately having the same theme (at least Newbatman is providing amusement).

Never thought I would wish for elections to gear up again :slight_smile:

29

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

…seeing that the embryo enjoys no rights…[/quote]

And just where in the United States of America is this the case? Where?

  • One could certainly cite case after case after case in many states where a person who has murdered a pregnant woman has been charged, and convicted, of double murder.

[/quote]
Double homicide. Not double murder in all cases. Depending on the state infanticide/murder is used sometimes. I think a further sub-classification for abortion(with corresponding range of penalty) would be the appropriate scope of legal distinction at the state level. In whatever case, homicide is entirely within the states’ jurisdiction. The supreme court should not even have considered Roe V. Wade, much less “found” a right to privacy that superseded a human’s(natural) and person’s(constitutionally protected) right to life and the state’s right to prosecute and penalize homicide.[/quote]

The mother fits the criteria of both a human and person, the fetus doesn’t.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

…seeing that the embryo enjoys no rights…[/quote]

And just where in the United States of America is this the case? Where?

  • One could certainly cite case after case after case in many states where a person who has murdered a pregnant woman has been charged, and convicted, of double murder.

[/quote]

This is your trump card? Good luck finding a correlation between the two. There are penalties for killing any animal, depending on the circumstances of course. An abortion however is more similar to Michael & Terri Schiavo than Scott Peterson killing his wife and unborn child.

You should also take note that most laws on the state level came into existence after the Unborn Child of Violence Act was passed and enacted laws on the federal level. The bill is simply a means of trying to grant personhood to a fetus. It failed to pass the senate when it’s first introduced and passed after the murder of Staci Peterson was exploited, they even added a alternate title to the bill which named it Laci and Conner’s Law.

There’s also the issue of comparing the murder of a woman and unborn child to a woman consenting to terminate her pregnancy. Seeing that it’ll be impossible to use laws against murder[nonconsensual] the legal status of abortion[consensual] it’s not a strong argument to begin with.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

…The morality of the subject depends entirely on the predisposition of the speaker…[/quote]

Famous last words.[/quote]

Hardly.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yet you have never clearly defined the event/s which christens rights upon a child. All you have shown is an opinion, like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream.

If someone murders a pregnant woman, why does he face punishment for two murders, however tied together they are?

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
That’s my original answer. A human in the fetal stage still in the uterus of its mother isn’t beating around he bush.

Leaving the uterus. And you’re right, the mother did help create it. It also only exists in her so it’s difficult to extended rights to something of that nature. The premise of a woman being obligated to carry out a pregnancy is steeped in personal opinion, the risks associated with abortion are minimal, and the vast majority if not all elective abortions are done before the embryo or fetus is even able to feel pain.
[/quote]
[/quote]

You didn’t originally ask what grants a fetus life, you asked what I considered an unborn child. It’s ironic that you should say I’ve only given my opinion when the entire argument is completely subjective.

Even while it’s merely a zygote it’s still a living member of the human species. However its status as a living human and penalties against something as nonconsensual as murder don’t give it anymore rights than penalties for killing an animal outside of our species grant that animal rights.

30

Your right gg, I never originally asked “what grants a fetus life” that science has been understood for quite some time. And I asked you to define the unborn. You fist response was an “un born fetus.” I was asking WHAT is the unborn.

[quote]goldengloves wrote: You didn’t originally ask what grants a fetus life, you asked what I considered an unborn child.[/quote] See above. [quote] goldengloves wrote: It’s ironic that you should say I’ve only given my opinion when the entire argument is completely subjective.[/quote] Here is an English definition for you. BTW I will bold my favorite adjectives. Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal. Now if I am not mistaken that makes it kind of a personal choice. Just like having sex which created the life you seem to have a problem with. [quote]goldengloves wrote: Even while it’s merely a zygote it’s still a living member of the human species.[/quote] Yet you presume to know and place restrictions on a life. A life no one knows the outcome of. [quote]goldengloves wrote: However its status as a living human and penalties against something as nonconsensual as murder don’t give it anymore rights than penalties for killing an animal outside of our species grant that animal rights.[/quote] I am glad you have NO problem with the murder of innocent lives. Plus now animals should have more rights than the human unborn? Do you realize what you are saying?

Definition taken from: definitions.net

Seriously understand the words you type. You even said “Even while it’s merely a zygote it’s still a living member of the human species.” So you agree the embryo is a human life. Awesome at least we agree. Then you try and tell me the child has no rights. Here is where you are falling short my friend. Please tell me which event places rights upon a child? An eight inch journey, down a dark tube? Tell me the event which christens rights upon an individual. Please.

31

I did define the “unborn” and unless an unborn child somehow skipped the fetal stage it’s an acceptable answer and no different than saying a fetus in utero seeing as the fetus exists in the uterus until birthed.

I’ve a definition for you: Objective; expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. Since the debate is comprised of statements built around our personal beliefs it’s subjective rather than objective. As for your comment on sex: is intercourse solely for conceiving?

Where did I say animals have more rights? I said that penalties against murdering something don’t guarantee it rights just like penalties for murdering a dog wont guarantee it rights. The only thing it guarantees is that there are penalties for certain actions.

I understand what I’m typing perfectly. The prerequisites for being “human life” aren’t expansive, you just have to be a living member of the human species. Since the woman can’t possibly give birth to another species and it’s a pregnancy rather than a miscarriage it’s a living human by default. However since it’s also unborn the mother is guaranteed her bodily integrity and liberty while the unborn child can only be granted such rights upon birth, that means the decision to have an abortion is hers and hers alone.

32

So what is the unborn is the same as defining them. Glad you cleared that up for me. [quote]goldengloves wrote: I did define the “unborn” and unless an unborn child somehow skipped the fetal stage it’s an acceptable answer and no different than saying a fetus in utero seeing as the fetus exists in the uterus until birthed. [/quote] Yet you lack the understanding of your own language and verbage, and now you want me to define things for you. That is fine by me because I understand AND comprehend the words as I type them. [quote]goldengloves wrote: I’ve a definition for you: Objective; expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. Since the debate is comprised of statements built around our personal beliefs it’s subjective rather than objective. As for your comment on sex: is intercourse solely for conceiving?[/quote] Now this is a subjective matter, opinions galore here. There are things which need to be in place first. Something called marriage and a foundation to build upon. Yes sex is a mutual bonding experience that is better than any other activity on earth. If two people are smart and use the thing between their ears, sex does not always result in a child. In fact it is quite easy. Now please answer this, should people be allowed total and instant gratification? [quote]goldengloves wrote: Where did I say animals have more rights? I said that penalties against murdering something don’t guarantee it rights just like penalties for murdering a dog wont guarantee it rights. The only thing it guarantees is that there are penalties for certain actions.[/quote] So again, murdering a dog will result in a punishment, yes I agree. While a HUMAN child in any stage of development can literally be torn apart, limb from limb and you still believe that behavior is acceptable?[quote]goldengloves wrote: I understand what I’m typing perfectly.[/quote] Are you sure? [quote]goldengloves wrote: The prerequisites for being “human life” aren’t expansive, you just have to be a living member of the human species.[/quote] So how do children in the womb NOT qualify for this trait? Let time I checked the science as a general has been understood and they are in fact alive! Just like a person on life support. Or a person in a coma. Like me on the left <<<< [quote]goldengloves wrote: Since the woman can’t possibly give birth to another species and it’s a pregnancy rather than a miscarriage it’s a LIVING HUMAN by default.[/quote] Yet the LIVING HUMAN has no rights? [quote]goldengloves wrote: However since it’s also unborn the mother is guaranteed her bodily integrity and liberty while the unborn child can only be granted such rights upon birth, that means the decision to have an abortion is hers and hers alone.[/quote] So an eight inch journey down a dark tube christens and gives rights to the LIVING HUMAN? Again, what about children brought into this world via cesarian?

BTW I bolded YOUR words because you used them and you lack the comprehension skills to understand YOUR OWN ADVECTIVES.

33

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

…seeing that the embryo enjoys no rights…[/quote]

And just where in the United States of America is this the case? Where?

  • One could certainly cite case after case after case in many states where a person who has murdered a pregnant woman has been charged, and convicted, of double murder.

[/quote]
Double homicide. Not double murder in all cases. Depending on the state infanticide/murder is used sometimes. I think a further sub-classification for abortion(with corresponding range of penalty) would be the appropriate scope of legal distinction at the state level. In whatever case, homicide is entirely within the states’ jurisdiction. The supreme court should not even have considered Roe V. Wade, much less “found” a right to privacy that superseded a human’s(natural) and person’s(constitutionally protected) right to life and the state’s right to prosecute and penalize homicide.[/quote]

The mother fits the criteria of both a human and person, the fetus doesn’t.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

…seeing that the embryo enjoys no rights…[/quote]

And just where in the United States of America is this the case? Where?

  • One could certainly cite case after case after case in many states where a person who has murdered a pregnant woman has been charged, and convicted, of double murder.

[/quote]

This is your trump card? Good luck finding a correlation between the two. There are penalties for killing any animal, depending on the circumstances of course. An abortion however is more similar to Michael & Terri Schiavo than Scott Peterson killing his wife and unborn child.

You should also take note that most laws on the state level came into existence after the Unborn Child of Violence Act was passed and enacted laws on the federal level. The bill is simply a means of trying to grant personhood to a fetus. It failed to pass the senate when it’s first introduced and passed after the murder of Staci Peterson was exploited, they even added a alternate title to the bill which named it Laci and Conner’s Law.

There’s also the issue of comparing the murder of a woman and unborn child to a woman consenting to terminate her pregnancy. Seeing that it’ll be impossible to use laws against murder[nonconsensual] the legal status of abortion[consensual] it’s not a strong argument to begin with.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

…The morality of the subject depends entirely on the predisposition of the speaker…[/quote]

Famous last words.[/quote]

Hardly.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Yet you have never clearly defined the event/s which christens rights upon a child. All you have shown is an opinion, like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream.

If someone murders a pregnant woman, why does he face punishment for two murders, however tied together they are?

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
That’s my original answer. A human in the fetal stage still in the uterus of its mother isn’t beating around he bush.

Leaving the uterus. And you’re right, the mother did help create it. It also only exists in her so it’s difficult to extended rights to something of that nature. The premise of a woman being obligated to carry out a pregnancy is steeped in personal opinion, the risks associated with abortion are minimal, and the vast majority if not all elective abortions are done before the embryo or fetus is even able to feel pain.
[/quote]
[/quote]

You didn’t originally ask what grants a fetus life, you asked what I considered an unborn child. It’s ironic that you should say I’ve only given my opinion when the entire argument is completely subjective.

Even while it’s merely a zygote it’s still a living member of the human species. However its status as a living human and penalties against something as nonconsensual as murder don’t give it anymore rights than penalties for killing an animal outside of our species grant that animal rights.
[/quote]

There are no non-arbitrary conditions that disqualify a unborn human as a person that cannot also disqualify humans in any stage of development. A mother has no right to commit the homicide of a unborn human any more than a born human comatose with no brain function or a human born too small or with a degenerative disease.

34

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

There are no non-arbitrary conditions that disqualify a unborn human as a person that cannot also disqualify humans in any stage of development. A mother has no right to commit the homicide of a unborn human any more than a born human comatose with no brain function or a human born too small or with a degenerative disease.[/quote]

A person with no brain function can be removed from life support at the request of their guardian.

35

Kneedragger79: I don’t care to sift through your response for your statements when quoting you or needing to open another tab to view it in standard form, I’ll just be addressing your responses numerically beginning with “So what is the unborn is the same as defining them. Glad you cleared that up for me.” as number one and “BTW I bolded YOUR…” number nine.

  1. I gave you a definitive answer and you refused to accept it. If you didn’t comprehend my statement you should have asked to me to elaborate.

  2. I’ve never asked you for a definition and it’s unnecessary for you to provide them. Perhaps you should actually quantify your statements of me not comprehending said statements rather than building your rebuttals around questioning my comprehension of them.

3a. Your opinion that marriage is necessary is purely that, opinion. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective either, even if used correctly there’s still a small probability of pregnancy.

3b. It’s neither my or the United States duty to dictate whether or not people are entitled to have instant and total gratification.

  1. You’ve purposely miscomprehended my statement in an attempt to strengthen your rebuttal. A “child in any stage of development” implies it extends beyond the time where the fetus is inside of the uterus to when the child has left the uterus. I believe that a woman is capable of determining whether or not she’d like to carryout a pregnancy. If she’s not, depending on the circumstances, she can handle the expenses of the procedure and have an abortion.

  2. You’re misunderstanding my argument. This is a matter of whether or not the child has left the uterus, I’m not excluding them from the human species or saying they’re not literally living. My stance is that while the child is in utero it enjoys no rights and only gains them upon leaving the uterus.

  3. See response number 5.

  4. Yes. Also, either method ends with the child leaving the uterus.

  5. I’ve comprehended them perfectly, you’re failing to make a distinction between a living human inside of the uterus and a living human outside of the uterus.

36

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

There are no non-arbitrary conditions that disqualify a unborn human as a person that cannot also disqualify humans in any stage of development. A mother has no right to commit the homicide of a unborn human any more than a born human comatose with no brain function or a human born too small or with a degenerative disease.[/quote]

A person with no brain function can be removed from life support at the request of their guardian.[/quote]
A person’s life cannot be removed without having first been convicted of a crime.
This is straight out of the 14th amendment.
That would be homicide. State laws permitting such an action would be unconstitutional.
You referred to it yourself as a PERSON being taken of life support. The fact that it isn’t being tried as homicide, doesn’t disqualify the personhood of an unborn human.

37

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Kneedragger79: I don’t care to sift through your response for your statements when quoting you or needing to open another tab to view it in standard form, I’ll just be addressing your responses numerically beginning with “So what is the unborn is the same as defining them. Glad you cleared that up for me.” as number one and “BTW I bolded YOUR…” number nine.

  1. I gave you a definitive answer and you refused to accept it. If you didn’t comprehend my statement you should have asked to me to elaborate.

  2. I’ve never asked you for a definition and it’s unnecessary for you to provide them. Perhaps you should actually quantify your statements of me not comprehending said statements rather than building your rebuttals around questioning my comprehension of them.

3a. Your opinion that marriage is necessary is purely that, opinion. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective either, even if used correctly there’s still a small probability of pregnancy.

3b. It’s neither my or the United States duty to dictate whether or not people are entitled to have instant and total gratification.

  1. You’ve purposely miscomprehended my statement in an attempt to strengthen your rebuttal. A “child in any stage of development” implies it extends beyond the time where the fetus is inside of the uterus to when the child has left the uterus. I believe that a woman is capable of determining whether or not she’d like to carryout a pregnancy. If she’s not, depending on the circumstances, she can handle the expenses of the procedure and have an abortion.

  2. You’re misunderstanding my argument. This is a matter of whether or not the child has left the uterus, I’m not excluding them from the human species or saying they’re not literally living. My stance is that while the child is in utero it enjoys no rights and only gains them upon leaving the uterus.

  3. See response number 5.

  4. Yes. Also, either method ends with the child leaving the uterus.

  5. I’ve comprehended them perfectly, you’re failing to make a distinction between a living human inside of the uterus and a living human outside of the uterus.[/quote]

So the only distinction between a person and an human is their arbitrary physical location?
What about other arbitrary distincions outside the implementation of birthright citizenship in the 14th ammendment? Maybe humans born outside the U.S. aren’t persons? Humans with skin pigmentation darker than a certain point aren’t persons? Mentally handicapped people not really persons? People under 5’ not persons?
ALL of these are less arbitrary than the physical position of a human. None of these disqualify a human as a person and neither does the fact that they’re in utero.

38

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

There are no non-arbitrary conditions that disqualify a unborn human as a person that cannot also disqualify humans in any stage of development. A mother has no right to commit the homicide of a unborn human any more than a born human comatose with no brain function or a human born too small or with a degenerative disease.[/quote]

A person with no brain function can be removed from life support at the request of their guardian.[/quote]
A person’s life cannot be removed without having first been convicted of a crime.
This is straight out of the 14th amendment.
That would be homicide. State laws permitting such an action would be unconstitutional.
You referred to it yourself as a PERSON being taken of life support. The fact that it isn’t being tried as homicide, doesn’t disqualify the personhood of an unborn human.[/quote]

If you dont have your own advanced directive documented before you go lights out, then yes, next of kin can write it for you in the hospital. which can include taking you off life support.

39

What ever you say gg. I type a response directly to every single point you reach for and you cry because it would take effort to reply in the same manner gasp

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Kneedragger79: I don’t care to sift through your response for your statements when quoting you or needing to open another tab to view it in standard form, I’ll just be addressing your responses numerically beginning with “So what is the unborn is the same as defining them. Glad you cleared that up for me.” as number one and “BTW I bolded YOUR…” number nine.

  1. I gave you a definitive answer and you refused to accept it. If you didn’t comprehend my statement you should have asked to me to elaborate.[/quote] No, you just literally used different words to give the same definition. Like saying the color black is dark.

[quote]2. I’ve never asked you for a definition and it’s unnecessary for you to provide them. Perhaps you should actually quantify your statements of me not comprehending said statements rather than building your rebuttals around questioning my comprehension of them.[/quote] So you never ask anything, then what is your point in disagreeing?

[quote]3a. Your opinion that marriage is necessary is purely that, opinion. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective either, even if used correctly there’s still a small probability of pregnancy.[/quote] Exactly, in regards to marriage. However your opinion of the unborn is like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream. Provide science to back your claim. You have quantified the definition of the unborn the exact same way, a CHOICE which you are trying to argue for and are failing at BTW.

[quote]3b. It’s neither my or the United States duty to dictate whether or not people are entitled to have instant and total gratification.[/quote] Remind me the purpose of laws?

[quote]4. You’ve purposely miscomprehended my statement in an attempt to strengthen your rebuttal. A “child in any stage of development” implies it extends beyond the time where the fetus is inside of the uterus to when the child has left the uterus. I believe that a woman is capable of determining whether or not she’d like to carryout a pregnancy. If she’s not, depending on the circumstances, she can handle the expenses of the procedure and have an abortion.[/quote] What ability does she LACK before the conception of the child?

[quote]5. You’re misunderstanding my argument. This is a matter of whether or not the child has left the uterus, I’m not excluding them from the human species or saying they’re not literally living. My stance is that while the child is in utero it enjoys no rights and only gains them upon leaving the uterus.[/quote] And you have yet to answer when a pregnant woman is murdered by another person, then murder is then charged with double homicide?

[quote]6. See response number 5.[/quote] Still failing on your part.

[quote]7. Yes. Also, either method ends with the child leaving the uterus.[/quote] A child leaves dead and you consider this the SAME act? Do you honestly believe this?

[quote]8. I’ve comprehended them perfectly, you’re failing to make a distinction between a living human inside of the uterus and a living human outside of the uterus.[/quote] Define with science how they are different other than location because obviously we are both in different locations and yet still alive even by your illogical conclusions.

40

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Kneedragger79: I don’t care to sift through your response for your statements when quoting you or needing to open another tab to view it in standard form, I’ll just be addressing your responses numerically beginning with “So what is the unborn is the same as defining them. Glad you cleared that up for me.” as number one and “BTW I bolded YOUR…” number nine.

  1. I gave you a definitive answer and you refused to accept it. If you didn’t comprehend my statement you should have asked to me to elaborate.

  2. I’ve never asked you for a definition and it’s unnecessary for you to provide them. Perhaps you should actually quantify your statements of me not comprehending said statements rather than building your rebuttals around questioning my comprehension of them.

3a. Your opinion that marriage is necessary is purely that, opinion. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective either, even if used correctly there’s still a small probability of pregnancy.

3b. It’s neither my or the United States duty to dictate whether or not people are entitled to have instant and total gratification.

  1. You’ve purposely miscomprehended my statement in an attempt to strengthen your rebuttal. A “child in any stage of development” implies it extends beyond the time where the fetus is inside of the uterus to when the child has left the uterus. I believe that a woman is capable of determining whether or not she’d like to carryout a pregnancy. If she’s not, depending on the circumstances, she can handle the expenses of the procedure and have an abortion.

  2. You’re misunderstanding my argument. This is a matter of whether or not the child has left the uterus, I’m not excluding them from the human species or saying they’re not literally living. My stance is that while the child is in utero it enjoys no rights and only gains them upon leaving the uterus.

  3. See response number 5.

  4. Yes. Also, either method ends with the child leaving the uterus.

  5. I’ve comprehended them perfectly, you’re failing to make a distinction between a living human inside of the uterus and a living human outside of the uterus.[/quote]

So the only distinction between a person and an human is their arbitrary physical location?
What about other arbitrary distincions outside the implementation of birthright citizenship in the 14th ammendment? Maybe humans born outside the U.S. aren’t persons? Humans with skin pigmentation darker than a certain point aren’t persons? Mentally handicapped people not really persons? People under 5’ not persons?
ALL of these are less arbitrary than the physical position of a human. None of these disqualify a human as a person and neither does the fact that they’re in utero.[/quote]

If you want to claim it’s arbitrary then prove it’s arbitrary. You’re also failing to account for development stages, a fetus isn’t an adult.