Abortionists killing babes after birth? Infanticide okay?

FoxHastings said: ↑
Then it should be able to be taken out of the woman it's in and left to grow on it's own.

IF it is a person then why do you want it to have MORE rights than the PERSON it's in?

Are they less of a person than the fetus?

Women have the right to the basic right of bodily autonomy. NO one is forced to use their body to sustain the life of another.

Would you like it if someone FORCED you to give them your heart or kidney? Why not? You want to force women to give their whole body to sustain the life of another.


You want the fetus to have a right NO ONE ELSE HAS.

DUH, the patient is not physically connected to the nurse.


Why would anyone call a LEGAL BORN PERSON subhuman especially when they don't call the UNBORN subhuman...YOU introduced "subhuman" so argue with yourself.

 

Time to post but no time to answer.....ya, I got it ;

 

DOESNT MATTER IF THEY WERE BORN OR UNBORN ITS HOW THEY ARE TREATED BY OTHERS. ALL THREE = less than a person.

PERSON CAN BE DEFINED AS:
one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

Yeah.... most of my posts are in response to your questions.... get it?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Time to post but no time to answer.....ya, I got it ;

What's that got to do with the lack of response?

Gee, I wonder who had time to write the OP ?

 

It is the height of disgusting/deplorable when Anti-Choicers reduce what the slaves and Jews suffered when they compare that to the quick painless death of an embryo.

Calling slaves and Jews subhuman/less than a person, is the most disgusting thing I've seen in here...

""recognized by law ""...……... the fetus isn't

No, I'll let you continue with the smoking, it isn't helping your "ARGUMENT" AT ALL

 

So an abortion is one person (the mother) exercising her right to end a partnership with the fetus. And since the mother is also the legal authority of her fetus, she controls both sides of said partnership. End of story.

 

The reality is our founding father's had no accurate measurement of when a life technically "starts" i.e. the moment of conception. They were merely basing their opinion on the prevailing theory of the day. ie. the quickening of the unborn baby.

The right to life is inalienable because it is not of human, but of divine origin. Because man does not create himself, he cannot deprive himself of the primary goods that are inherent to human existence: life, freedom and happiness. Just as no government can deny its citizens these inalienable rights, neither can a man deprive himself of these rights. The “inalienable” right to life thus precludes abortion as well as suicide

James Wilson’s “Lectures on Law,” given at what eventually was to become the University of Pennsylvania, clearly affirm that the right to life encompasses the unborn. Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798. Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?

Wilson clearly answers this question: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”4

Given Wilson’s exegesis, one cannot doubt that the Founders recognized that unborn infants are owed the full protection of the law. The key question thus becomes the point at which the unborn fetus becomes an unborn child.

Wilson, in agreement with the limited medical jurisprudence of his time, assumed that life begins with the “quickening" of the infant in his mother’s womb. As taught by Aristotle, the quickening was the point at which the fetus was infused with a human, rational soul. John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, first printed in 1839, defines the quickening as follows: “The motion of the foetus, when felt by the mother, is called quickening, and the mother is then said to be quick with child. This happens at different periods of pregnancy in different women, and in different circumstances, but most usually about the fifteenth or sixteenth week after conception….”

Abortion is legal today not because the justices did not know when life begins, but because the justices—as well as the abortionist enthusiasts of the nation—do not know what liberty is. For most Americans, liberty is the subjectively defined right to do whatever you can get away with. Sandra Day O’Connor memorialized this faulty conception of freedom in her 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, which claimed that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

America’s Founding Fathers would have condemned such an opinion as madness. Because both life and liberty are “endowments” or “gifts” from God, the proper exercise of liberty requires that man adhere to the “laws of God and Nature’s God” in the use of his freedom. When James Wilson stated that life begins with the infant’s “quickening,” he was not making an “arbitrary” decision as to who is human and who is not. Wilson’s opinion was based upon a reasonable assessment of the best scientific, legal and philosophical opinions available at the time.

Had Wilson and the Founders had access to the discoveries of modern biology, they certainly would have agreed that life begins at conception. Medical discoveries in the years following the American Revolution increasingly encouraged American and English lawmakers to come to this conclusion. In 1803, for example, England adopted a law known as Lord Ellenborough’s Act that made it a capital offense to “cause and procure the Miscarriage of any Woman quick with child.” The law established severe penalties for aborting infants in the first trimester as well: “…if any Person or Persons…shall procure to be used or employed, any Instrument or other Means whatsoever, with Intent thereby to cause or procure the Miscarriage of any Woman not being, or not being proved to be, quick with Child at the Time of administering…that then and in every such Case the Person or Persons so offending, their Counselors, Aiders, and Abettors, knowing of and privy to such Offence, shall be and are hereby declared to be guilty of Felony, and shall be liable to be fined, imprisoned, set in and upon the Pillory, publicly or privately whipped. …"

Full source here:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html

 

Argue? Yes, Debate? No.

Argument just denotes that you have an opinion a debate though relies on backing that opinion with facts figures and definitive statements

 

ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO PULL THIS LIBERAL BS ON ME?
YOU KNOW DAMN WELL I WASNT CALLING THEM SUBHUMAN

POP QUIZ FOR YOU
______________ were considered subhuman by the Nazis
______________were considered subhuman by American democrats
______________are considered subhuman by the liberal left

 

All conjecture. Since the Founding Fathers did not outlaw abortion, all you have are “what if’s” and conjecture. Sorry. No sale. The Supreme Court has spoken on this subject.

 

So, do you believe then that every person should be forced to be a christian?

 

You seem to consider females sub-human, to only be regarded as sperm receptacles and incubators.

 

You are splitting hairs
Argument = debate
Not sure why I have to spell this out for you...


Case Closed

 

Okay I got the answer to the first one but the other elude me. Tell me exactly how ___________ are “considered “subhuman”

 

Absolutely NOT. I simply would like people to remember the principles this nation was founded on. Hate them or love them, they are still part of our nations heritage. Some people make an attempt to strip away our nations religious history in an effort to form their own, untruthful narrative. I dont like that.

 

All three were not considered "persons"

 

Some people want to make up their own rules and rights for others...that is wrong and I don't like it.

 

You missed this :

It is the height of disgusting/deplorable when Anti-Choicers reduce what the slaves and Jews suffered when they compare that to the quick painless death of an embryo.

Calling slaves and Jews subhuman/less than a person, is the most disgusting thing I've seen in here... AND YOU* BROUGHT IN THE WORD SUBHUMAN, YOU NO ONE ELSE.

 

1. 
   Case closed
   
   As I said you can argue but I have yet to see a valid formal debate
   
   Would be interested in that because you would then have to back your contentions with fact.
   
   I am also awaiting you debating contraception because I have a little bet with myself that you have about as much knowledge of that subject as you do of embryology

 

Yes, as you have been told, slaves and Jews had their right to bodily autonomy taken away, EXACTLY WHAT ANT-CHOICERS WANT TO DO TO WOMEN

 

How did you jump to that conclusion? totally wrong, by the way.

This is what I dont like. When people put words in my mouth.

 

And a foetus is not legally a person so your point is?

Now let us speculate and suggest that that fertilised egg is recognised as a “person”

What are we now going to do with the 1.7 million fertilised eggs that have been discarded in the UK alone?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/he...uman-embryos-created-for-IVF-thrown-away.html

Who, if the fertilised egg is a person, has more legal rights? The egg or the woman hosting it? If the egg has more rights, when does that start - after conception or after implantation?

 

So who has more rights the fertilised egg or the woman?

 

And why didnt you include fetus in that list?