No, they aren't, and you've offered no real evidence to support this notion. Since you've offered no evidence, real, tangible evidence, your assertion that they are one entity is dismissed as opinion.
In every legal system there are people who decide on matters of law. For every decision that the Supreme Court decides, there will be people who agree with the decision and there will be people who disagree with the decision. If everyone agreed on an issue, it would not even have come to the Court to be decided. The Court really doesn't care whether you believe they are right or wrong. They certainly don't expect you to take a ruling as truth or fact. What they, and the Constitution, expect is that people accept the ruling as law of the land. In Roe v Wade the Court looked at many issues regarding abortion and came to the decision that they did. Have you ever bothered to read the Roe v Wade ruling? You really should. Then, when you "think for yourself" you'll at least have some knowledge of the issue.
Quote Originally Posted by ecco Yes, on the date of BIRTH. You can take a tax deduction on your 2016 taxes for a child born in 2016. It doesn't matter when the child was conceived. To that extent, the IRS has weighed in the the subject of personhood.
Disagree, a fetus is a person when it has a heart beat. Elective abortion should only be allowed prior month ends then having a heart beat and definitely not beyond the hen time it has a heart and brain. A woman should be able to decide after hern pregnancy is verified..
Those are your opinions. Others have other opinions. Who should decide? In this Country it's the Supreme Court. Other Countries have different legal systems and may come to other conclusions.
A. If it's a person then it has the same restrictions as any other person, it does NOT have the right to use another person's body to sustain it's life without consent. You can't , I can't , it can't. B. Not all women even know they're pregnant that early
Those are done with CONSENT....NO one is FORCED to give blood or body parts. YOU want to force women to give their entire body for 9 months as if they don't deserve the rights you have... .
NO ONE has the RIGHT to end an innocent life. No, the argument does not fall to the law. When a government makes decisions that overstep their bounds, that's when there are uprisings and rebellions. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
A fetus is neither innocent nor not innocent. ...and that doesn't matter. If a mentally incompetent (innocent) person, who doesn't know right from wrong, attacks you, you have every right to stop the non-consented harm with deadly force. You want to take that right away from pregnant women. Would you like to be forced to give your heart or kidneys to someone else to sustain their life?
You essentially repeated my comments back to me. I have studied tax law in college. Dependent law though changed in amounts remains pretty much the same as since I took the tax course in college. I also have had intensive tax courses on some specialties.
You make the most astounding arguments. They border the totally ridiculous. Here is a science article of the mother harming her fetus. http://www.livescience.com/36908-ways-pregnant-women-affect-babies.html
You call my argument ridiculous but yet you didn't address one word of my post and, OF COURSE, couldn't answer my question. Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post A fetus is neither innocent nor not innocent. ...and that doesn't matter. If a mentally incompetent (innocent) person, who doesn't know right from wrong, attacks you, you have every right to stop the non-consented harm with deadly force. You want to take that right away from pregnant women. Would you like to be forced to give your heart or kidneys to someone else to sustain their life?
Well, your question is do I want to give my heart and kidneys to others. The Mother has not given her heart away. But upon death, the baby has. So of course i vote to protect her child.
Then who or what does it fall to? The writings of men whose god told them it was right to own slaves and take the young girls from vanquished enemies as their own? Historical precedence? You?
Unborn babies do have some rights. They can be classified as victims during the commission of crimes in some states. Most states even have fetal homicide laws, but not all. Those that don't label fetus' as victims may have laws criminalizing the termination of the pregnancy without the mother's consent. The high profile case in Colorado (which does not consider the unwanted killing of a fetus as murder) in which another woman extracted a fetus during an assault a few years ago still got sentenced heavily for that crime. So even though she isn't a murder she'll still spend the rest of her life in prison (though to be fair I believe most of the sentence was for the assault on the mother).
There is no child involved in abortion. The woman's body is being used to sustain the life of another. Since you don't understand analogies you won't get it. You call my argument ridiculous but yet you didn't address one word of my post and, OF COURSE, couldn't answer my question. Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post A fetus is neither innocent nor not innocent. ...and that doesn't matter. If a mentally incompetent (innocent) person, who doesn't know right from wrong, attacks you, you have every right to stop the non-consented harm with deadly force. You want to take that right away from pregnant women. Would you like to be forced to give your heart or kidneys to someone else to sustain their life?
A fetus has no rights. The laws address "" termination of the pregnancy without the mother's consent.""
Sorry, I didn't mean legal/constitutional rights. I was talking about the more abstract "right to justice". My point was that while a fetus has no constitutional rights it's not like the legal system is apathetically indifferent...at least in most states. Even those states without fetal homicide laws have pretty strict unlawful termination of pregnancy laws that treat the fetus as if it were more than just property. So maybe the current level of "rights" implicitly bestowed on a fetus is a good balance?
