Well that applies to the unborn baby who will also be an adult later in it's life if the mother doesn't kill it first. That was never my point and don't try to put words in my mouth No one objects to the EXTREMELY rare cases as all the spaghettis you threw against the wall that might happen and certainly not the basis for ALL abortion law and especially healthy babies and healthy mothers which are 99%.
Who does the husband sue if the legislature kills his wife? The laws being written don't account for these situations. As you see on this thread and in the real world, those who want laws against women, have very little care about the life of the woman. You sling numbers like you know what you're talking about. But, I see no evidence of that.
LOL so you do not agree with FoxHastings said: ↑ ...toddlers, , seniors, adults, teenagers ......we all are fetuses while UNBORN....we have to be BORN to go onto the next stage...that's why NO ONE calls a fetus a teenager
And all are human beings born and unborn and CREATED with the fundamental self evident right to their life.
FoxHastings said: ↑ LOL so you do not agree with FoxHastings said: ↑ ...toddlers, , seniors, adults, teenagers ......we all are fetuses while UNBORN....we have to be BORN to go onto the next stage...that's why NO ONE calls a fetus a teenager
And no one calls a teenager an adult And all are human beings born and unborn and CREATED with the fundamental self evident right to their life.
Do they have the right to kill the woman? Do you believe all fetuses are alive, or "look forward" to more than a short and painful existence before death?
Of course I don't have a right to kill another human being, do you? The alive ones in the womb are you don't know that?
It is grown as part of the woman just like the baby is. Biological life forms require matter to form and grow. That matter isn't teleported into the fetus from an external source, it is given by the woman's body through the connections it has to it. There is no placenta or uterus or egg without the woman's body. In fact, the only thing that would exist without the woman's body is the sperm. This is true, in the same way that your skin keeps your muscles separated from the outside of your body. But your muscles and skin are still a part of your body. No body equals no muscles and no skin. No woman's body equals no placenta or fetus. You keep explaining the purpose of the placenta as if that's what the question here is, or perhaps in an attempt to feign expertise on reproductive health, but you're still missing the point. There is no placenta and there is no continued growth and existence for the placenta and it's contents without the mother's body providing literally everything it and it's contents were formed from and need for continued existence. That matter comes from the woman's body. There is no pipeline to the outside of her body to gather the biological materials it needs, they all come because they are a part of the woman's body. If we actually had a fundamental right to life, we would see it's effect on far more than just abortion. This is another concept that is mostly used in the abortion debate and ignored elsewhere. There are no fundamental rights as human beings. You know how I know this? Because rights didn't exist until we created them. You have whatever rights the place you live in has created and enforces. You have none that it does not. You have shown no such thing except to demonstrate that you know what the purpose of a placenta is, but it's purpose was never in question in the first place. That's why I have not countered anything you've said about what a placenta does, because you're right. It's just that it's irrelevant.
The placenta is part of the BABY not the mother get that biological fact straight. It is NEVER a part if the mother it is partnof the new separate individual human being growing inside the womb. Biology 101. If my skin touches your skin do I become a part if you? Can you then kill me? Which does not make the baby a part of its mother. Is a baby suckling on it's mother's breast a "part" of it's mother? Can she then kill it because she no longer wants it to live? IF? You are now claiming our founding documents does not declare we do our our Constitution does not protect that right? I think it has been quite recognized through our history and the courts. Are you a US citizen? Our founding document establishes our rights are not the creation of government but self evident truths we are all created with that fundamental right to our life. Civics 101. You stated the unborn baby is part of the mother and the mother creates the placenta. Both scienctifally fallacious statements. The placenta exist BECAUSE they are SEPARATE human beings.
You are confused and lost ... I wasn't the one who put a human at the level of human feces .. that was all your doing .. that was where you got the science wrong .. What scientific source do you wish to tell you that a human is not human feces ... what a joke .. once again demonstrating a lack of understanding of Science and the English language.
Well, the issue isn't what you have a right to do, it's what our legislatures and prosecutors have a right to do. As has happened in the past, laws being written are failing to take the health and even life of the woman into account.
What illiterate nonsense .. once again demonstrating a lack of aptitude in the english language and the subject matter .. and logic in general. Support your nonsense claim .. where is the evidence for your claim that a turd is created with a right to life .. and a human is created with a right to its life .. and a Zygote.
The DoI is certainly not illiterate nonsense your self serving declaration notwithstanding. And stop trying to put claims in mouth with your uninformed ignorant nonsense on the subject. I have given you the founding principles of our country and the science states when a human being is created, you prove your claim that we are not created as human beings but some other being and that the DoI states our right to life begins at some arbitrary point YOU declare.
False our founding documents state our fundamental rights and the Constitution protects us from the government violating those rights. You have a right to defend your life with lethal force, as in an abortion, if your life is under imminent threat of death or serious permanent injury. I know of know one who states differently nor any abortion law that says otherwise. And 99% of abortions are NOT because of any health concerns yet you REFUSE to address those abortions ONLY noting the extremely rare exceptions. Let's discuss the 99%
Bull. Abortion law is not being written to allow for that. And, your suggestion that we should now ignore the deaths caused by abortion law is just plain hypocrisy.
Yes it is being written for that. If the mother is going to die then the BABY WILL DIE. Now deal with the 99% of abortions that are healthy mothers and healthy babies.
And the only excuse the left can come up with for the nearly one million abortions per year is rape and incest.
No, show me an abortion law that is sensitive to the tradeoffs with the life and health of the mother, and who is allowed to make those decisions. What amount of health risk is a pregnant woman required to take on?
No excuse is needed....there are reasons. And the following post is still doesn't make any sense. vman12 said: ↑ And the only excuse the left can come up with for the nearly one million abortions per year is rape and incest.
