No...they do not. U.S. Code § 8 (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section. (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
If you value the life of children why are you not advocating for maternity leave? Child welfare and support, hell why not volunteer somewhere
Abortion is not acceptable FOR ME so I have never been involved in one (other than driving a friend), but it is NEVER "OK to murder a baby" which is why it is illegal. Abortion however is not murder and a ZEF is not a baby. This is reality and easily verified rather than emotional hyperbole based on ignorance.
So existing law should be respected, but only when convenient? Kinda like only caring about babies when it doesn't actually require providing care. Your position is one of convenience. It must be nice!
The conflict has already been resolved. Abortion laws failed long before the internet, abortion pills, and home pregnancy tests. I know many on your side of the debate that actually care and have fostered and adopted unwanted children. We may disagree, but I at least respect their position as it comes from the heart rather than the desire to project an image. I would never consider raising children an inconvenience.
Science is just a tool for trying to understand reality. It doesn't tell you what to value. Science tells us that the genetic code of a fertilized egg is unique. So what? Why should I value that? Cancers are unique in the genetic errors they accrue, but we don't pretend that means science tells us cancers are precious and deserve to spread. I can't get around the fact that basic logic tells me that a person who can feel is what should be valued. An embryo cannot feel, and is not a person, and so deserves no protection particularly at the expense of an actual person like the pregnant woman.
I agree with your conclusion, however I disagree when you say that science doesn’t tell us what to value. To determine whether an action is morally right or not you have to understand whether that action causes pain onto another conscious being. Why are most people okay with killing a rat vs killing a dog? Or killing a bug vs killing an elephant? Or killing plants vs a human being? Obviously the fact that it is “life” is irrelevant. They are all life on this planet and they all have dna. What matters is an understanding that different creatures have different levels of consciousness and therefore can experience suffering on different levels. While it’s pretty obvious, we can study and understand this through science. A fetus until a certain point does not have consciousness and can not feel pain or suffer, therefore it is not immoral to kill it. It is no different than killing bacteria. We will never come to an agreement on abortion until this simple fact can be accepted. Instead people are making claims about God and souls which are not backed up with any kind of science or evidence.
Agreed but I would prefer if people looked after those already here not those who may never be. Save the born children
Wrong. The “feeling” requirement is Q100% fabricated by you. A fetus is undeniably a human being. A human being and a person are one and the same.
No, a human fetus is human. It is not A human being as in "legal person". If it was the woman it's in would have every right to kill it. NO PERSON is allowed to use the body of another to sustain it's life
my cat has 'feeling', she meows when i yank her tail, she even hisses and claws me, which proves she has emotions as well... point is, is my cat a person...
Yes, there is no question on both sides that genetically human beings begin at conception as minuscule cells. The question is whether being genetically human even if you are just a little cell means that you have human rights. Also another question is whether women have the right over the body even at the cost of others? Should you be forced to give your kidney to me to save my life? Does my right to life mean I can use your body to preserve my life against your will?