Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

parasite
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

par·a·site | \ ˈper-ə-ˌsīt , ˈpa-rə- \
plural parasites
Definition of parasite


1: an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host

Mirriam Webster good enough?

And would you like to explain how a pre-viable fetus doesn’t fit that definition. You’re saying parasite you just don’t understand that you’re saying parasite. But that’s not my fault.

 

No see imma prove right now that your entire argument is bullshit.

If a woman who is pregnant with a VIABLE fetus goes out and has an abortion, should she be charged with murder?

 

I don't imagine online web forum debates often change anyone's mind.

 

But still a person, and different person from the one they are connected to and dependent on.

It seems you insist on denying that people are people just because they are dependent on other people, and that you want to deny them all rights, including the right to not be killed. I can't agree with that approach. I find it cruel.

 

URL? I'd like to check your quote to make sure you didn't "accidentally" leave anything out, because my Webster's New Universal Unabridged (on paper) says,
"parasite, n. 1. a pant or animal that lives in or on the body of an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

Google:
"an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense."
https://www.google.com/search?q=parasite+definition

Cambridge online:
"an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/parasite

Dictionary.com:
"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite

Are we seeing the pattern, here?

 

No, not a person. Part of a person.

No, on one specific person. GET IT???

Google "parasitic twin." Do we have a right to remove and kill such "people"?

 

No you aren't.

Assuming the pregnancy posed no unusual threat to her health, she wasn't delusional, etc., both she and whoever performed the procedure should be charged.

 

Yes, I get your opinion. I find it immoral and wrong.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/twins-share-body/

These are two young women, not one. Neither has the right to murder the other.

 

Nope. Not a different person until they can live apart from that person.

Nope. Not "other people." One specific person, of whom they are a part.

No, they have same right not to be killed that the woman carrying them has. In fact, it's her right, which her pre-viable fetus shares.

Yes, well, lots of folks find the truth uncongenial.

 

Yes it is also a human being who is suffering a severe birth defect and will die. And a miscarriage is natural selection occurring it is not an act by the Mother. But if you want to propose women who have them face some law the go ahead I doubt you will get much support for it.

Now answer my question what do you think happens in an abortion?

 

Where does she get the right to kill an innocent human being, who exists in the place it is existing because of her own act, who is not imminently threatening her life or serious bodily harm. That it is a human is TOTALLY relevant it is not some virus in her body.

 

You have refuted NOTHING I have posted and in fact have ignored it.

BIOLOGY says it is a human being, and individual human being and the DoI says we are created with that self-evident truth of our right to life. How many times does it have to be explained to you.

Numerous as I have pointed out.

First you confuse an adverb for an adjective which shows how specious is what you are claiming.

There is no scientific basis to this layman's claim about life. I have shown you repeatedly the individual human life begins at conception not some made up time later.

See how that works?

Again you have your grammar confused.

Again grammar has you confused, men does not also designate males in is used in the generatic to mean everyone. But if you want to claim woman do not have a right to life go ahead I will certainly let you stand on that argument.

Says WHO? Cite that in our founding documents.

YES it and again showing you know nothing about biology, the mother's blood and immune system would kill the baby if they were comingled. Their blood does not mix.

 

Your opinion does not the truth make. Nor should we excuse you for it if you use it to excuse the murder of innocent people.

 

But so what? It seems to me that you are playing word games.

Do you really consider a mere fertilized egg to be your equal, and a person to be afforded rights? If so why? Other than it narrowly fitting one definition of a "human being"? So does a hair cell.

We? You are more than a mere cell. The only thing you have in common with a freshly fertilized human egg is that you both carry human DNA. So does a hair from your head.

 

The fact that its inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death. Whether or not its human is irrelevant.

 

I don't live in a binary world.
I am pro choice.
I would not recommend abortion.
I am not anti abortion.
I can nan, will not, dictate another person personal choice.
We are mostly a free choice country.

 

Other folks includes me, sir.
The idea of protecting unlisted rights is interesting. You are advocating making them up on the hoof.
I suggested the right to abortion is listed under rights to personal freedom to come and go, make décisions and do what you want with your own body.
You dont need a specific law about abortion. It is already covered.
Once again i suggest you try to square the circle of national support for killing machines and the wail of anguish about the son of killing unborn babies. If you support life, get rid of your guns.

 

No. It's the recognition not fabrication. Do you have the right to scratch your nose when it itches? The Framers repeatedly made it clear that our rights are far too extensive to list and others noted that no matter how exhaustive a list was made, that any one of them could add many more, and next could add many more to that. For this reason, there was a real hesitation to list the rights in the first eight amendments that we now call the Bill of Rights for fear that at a later point that would be referred to as the exhaustive list. The remedy to this concern is the 9th amendment.

Well, there are regulations on the listed rights as well as regulations on the unlisted rights. The right to marry being just one of many is an unlisted right and it's subjected to State Regulation. The right to keep and carry firearms is a listed right and it's subject to all sorts of both State and Federal regulation. The regulation does have to be related to legitimate State interest and the regulation must be sensibly tailored to that interest. I expect that in the final decision that the lower Court will be directed to measure Dobbs on that basis.

That's an indecipherable sentence.

I support life, and abortion, lawful gun ownership and legitimate gun usage.

 

First it is not possible to know what the intent of people hundreds of years ago were. It is the same convenient use of opinion to put your préférences into the minds of dead people in the same way as religious people do when they try to tell you what god wants.
I am speaking to those who want a womans rights curtailed and strict abortion control justified by protecting life, while at the same time supporting gun ownership which makes killing so much easier. The two are not consistent.

 

Okay I can appreciate the consistency even if I don’t necessarily agree with the position taken.

So how do you reconcile that with a woman who has a high risk of maternal bleeding or other potential issue? Does she have the right to kill the child even though it’s a viable fetus? Being at risk doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to happen. You could be at high risk but still have zero complications. For instance my friend just gave birth and the doctors at month two told her that she would likely die if she went through with the pregnancy. She gave birth and had zero issues.

If she had chosen to have a later term abortion due to the risk to her health… she would be killing, in your view, a life even though she was doing it for her own health.

Isn’t that voluntary manslaughter at best?

 

There are lots of difficult choices in the practice of medicine, and one can't know for certain what the outcome will be. You can take a low-risk path and die anyway, or take a high-risk path and be fine. AFAIAC, the situation of a woman carrying a separately viable fetus is analogous to the situation of conjoined twins. There is a continuum of conditions between an internal (parasitic) twin without rights and conjoined twins who both have rights, but no fine, bright line between them. If your friend had opted for abortion at two months, would you have a problem with that? I certainly wouldn't. Once the fetus is separately viable, though, I would raise the bar for permissible abortion quite high -- e.g., if the best estimate of the risk to the woman was very high, or continuing the pregnancy was associated with high risk to the fetus as well.

 

I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications.

<sigh> Does "innocent people" include internal (parasitic) twins? Is a miscarriage manslaughter?

 

You continue to make baldly false claims. I quoted YOUR OWN SOURCE and explained exactly why it proved you wrong.

Biology says it is not a separate life.

"We" meaning individual living human beings, not internal twins, fertilized ova, or microscopic clumps of not-recognizably-human tissue inside people's bodies.

You have offered no explanation, only claims "supported" by sources that actually prove you wrong.

Nope. Not one. You merely claim I have erred when I have not.

No I don't. You have simply proved that you are as ignorant of English grammar as you are of human reproductive biology. Adjective (separate) and noun (life) have the same logical relation as adverb (separately) and verb (live). Just as someone who cannot type quickly is not a quick typist, what cannot live separately is not a separate life.

Grammar lesson over.

Conclusively refuted above.

There most certainly is, including the fact that for thousands of years until the 20th century, a newborn that could not breathe on its own was universally -- including by scientists and physicians -- considered stillborn: i.e., not alive.

No, that claim of yours is also just objectively false as a matter of biological fact. Identical twins become separate from each other between two and six days after conception.

How many more times, and in how many more independently conclusive ways, do I have to prove you flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective physical fact before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually are wrong?

The point of independent viability is not a "made-up time." It was used as the criterion of life for thousands of years.

See how that works?

No, you do. I have made a good living as a writer and editor. You have not. I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not.

Everyone who is a separate living human being, not microscopic clumps of not-recognizably-human tissue.

You are the one falsely claiming the DoI defines a fertilized egg as a human being, not me.

The facts.

The founding documents of the USA are political documents, not medical or scientific ones. But the Founders would have been baffled by your claim that an undifferentiated, microscopic clump of not-recognizably-human tissue is an individual human being.

I didn't say they mixed or were commingled. I said the fetus shares the woman's blood. And I was objectively correct, as fetal alcohol syndrome and many other facts of biology attest.

 

Is the internal parasitic twin alive with a working mind, complete with thoughts and sensations? If so, that's a person. Is killing that person manslaughter? It is homocide. If it is manslaughter depends on if it is legally culpable, and there is an excellent argument here against that.

Innocent people also includes BOTH of these young women, and one should not have a right to murder the other, claiming they are the same person.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/twins-share-body/

I noticed you skipping over this repeatedly.

 

Is a pre-viable fetus?

A chimpanzee is also alive and has a working mind, complete with thoughts and sensations, so, no, that cannot be the criterion of personhood.

There are arguments on both sides.

You just haven't explained its relevance coherently. But there is a legal maxim that seems apposite, "Difficult cases make bad laws."