[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 The supreme court should not even have considered Roe V. Wade, much less “found” a right to privacy that superseded a human’s(natural) and person’s(constitutionally protected) right to life and the state’s right to prosecute and penalize homicide.[/quote]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.