Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

that seems reasonable because all the ingredients for a humn are premixed at that point and if left to nature will develop into a human being.

 

laughable!

and those organisms living on or in the host are from A DIFFERENT SPECIES!

par·a·site

1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. "the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
Definitions from Oxford Languages

zygotes embryo, fetus are all ****ing human, therefore CANNOT be a parasite.

this **** is getting so juvenile its even hard to read.

the hell it aint! thanks for proving you dont even read the citations you post.

More foolishness, it cant be a parasite if its the same species,

To claim its a parasite when its the same species is a laughable attempt to take readers on a tour through nutterville.

Looks like we are having fun with you and your claims that a fetus of the same species can be a parasite, by definition alone it cant be.

I already responded to that point

The operative words are HUMAN BEING which does exist, try to keep it in context ffs


If a human fetus is not human (the same species), WTF is it?
So when you met God, did you sit down and have a beer with her?

 

LMAO
Seems you are wrong again! A human life is defined as a human human being.

per·son
1.

1. a human being regarded as an individual.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

You are right, you are just starting to have fun with me!
I find your nonsense quite entertaining.
Seems you are in competition with another member for who is wrong the most.

 

abortion comes with risks

Besides acute hemorrhage, post-abortion complications can include septic shock, perforated bladder or bowel, and a possible ectopic pregnancy- all conditions which if not promptly diagnosed can lead to high mortality. May 24, 2021

Abortion Complications - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

 

Yes, pregnancy has risks. Abortion, though. is more than a risk. Someone dies every single time an abortion is performed, someone is intentionally killed.

 

Only if it is an illegal abortion

 

If it is an illegal abortion certainly

Here is the estimated increase in maternal mortality in Texas related to the abortion ban there alone

https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine...may-lead-21-increase-pregnancy-related-deaths

 

Every abortion ends in death, every single one.

 

But illegal abortions often end with two deaths

 

Estimated, wow! I’m impressed...not.

Deaths from abortion don’t need to be estimated. Every single successful abortion ends in death, every one, 100%.

 

"this is about whether or not a Person exists ... not whether human life exists".

Anothere priceless laugh .. you still unable to figure out the difference between "human life" .. and "A Human Life" .. one being the descriptive adjective usage of the word "Human" . the other being the Noun. "human life" is not necessarily a person .. A Human life .. necessarily is .. the phrase representing the Noun form.

Nice diversion though .. desperate to avoid the question .. Whan does the Soul Arrive ?

 

Your link doesn't work - and that is just one definition in any case ..but I was talking about "parasitic infection" which is a different thing - and different definition .. a scientific one .. unlike what what one would expect in Oxford or some other standard dictionary. .. not that we can vet your definition as the link doesn't work but it matters not as we are talking Parasitic infection .. invasive organisms that can cause sepsis .. of which the embryo could be one.

 

Never claimed that it didn't. However it carries less risk than pregnancy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

Now both are relatively low risks, but losing the odds are still resulting in death. Should not a woman get to choose which odds she goes with? Why do you feel that she has to risk a 14x higher change of dying, if she doesn't want to?

 

See the above citation. When the woman runs the risk of death, between those two choices of pregnancy and abortion, most often if she looses on that risk, it is both her and the offspring that are lost. However, if she chooses, there is a higher chance that she will live to produce a child later. Or in some cases, live to continue taking care of the children she has now. Why would you want to have an increased risk her being taken from those children?

 

I require it of the opponents, so you are just as responsible. Source for the second image?

 

Incorrect. I might have let you go if you claimed almost all. However, abortions are also used for when a fetus dies in utero, but was not expelled from the body. In such cases the abortion does not end in death, but was caused by death prior.

 

Again, I'm not debating your personal opinion on abortion. I'm debating the law's personal opinion on abortion.

 

In the eyes of American law, in the Dred Scott case, for example, in the antebellum south, slaves were property...which slaves consequently became humans in the eyes of American law. The question is now before SCOTUS whether there is enough evidence to declare fetuses human or remain the property of mothers (non-human).

 

I’m not against abortions for health of the mother..narrowly defined.

 

I still disagree on the same principle. If the offspring really was property under the law, then the genetic mother could force a surrogate by IVF to abort the offspring since it would be the genetic mother's property. Such is not the case. Can you show me a case where the law compelled a surrogate to abort an offspring because the genetic mother wished it?

 

I've noted several times in many threads, that the issue of human or not is a moot point. The issue truly boils down to bodily autonomy rights. If the woman withdraws consent for the offspring's use of her bodily resources, then it is in violation of those rights, whether it is human or not.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What rights do you want the unborn to have that DO NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN IT IS IN ?

Sorry, those rights infringe on the right of the woman it's in ...

No, there is no "hence" there...

Well ,that makes no sense but law rules over people's various and wavering "morals"

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Slaves were people who had their right to bodily autonomy taken away....the exact same thing Anti-Choicers want to do to women.

.

Humans are born with the right to bodily autonomy and only evil people take that away from them and make them slaves...slaves were property because they had the right to bodily autonomy taken away EXACTLY what Anti-Choicers want to do to women.

Slaves were always human, they didn't "become" human..

No, human fetuses have always been human ... no one has said they aren't ( WHERE TF do you get this crap ?)

Yes, all our body parts are ours ....not the government's...

 

[

right, which is why vaccinations are mandated, we are slaves

Except for those that want to nose dive into and drown in massive stupidity they are a complete and fully human life/person from day one, you mean fully developed I presume since all they need from conception forward is food to fully develop.

rights are grounded in equity, that said how is that arrangement (abortion) equitable to both parties?

 

If Mother Nature wanted women to have bodily autonomy, she would have made them men. Autonomy ends at conception.