I Am the 1 Percent Used to Justify 100 Percent of Abortions

Says who?

 

Seeing every human began as a non-viable fetus, I daresay it doesn't.

You assume the brain is necessary for human sentience, a fact not in evidence.

Same place as the mother's. You're welcome.

Obviously that needs reconsideration, given that the hearing faculty appears at around four months; and seeing said faculty is hardly necessary for the existence of the most elementary aspect of human sentience, namely self-awareness, it is almost certainly present even earlier than that.

That would depend on the possibility of recovery and the willingness of whoever is paying the bills to keep doing it; so though you obviously think the question is rhetorical, it isn't.

Maybe it would be, if a chicken ever acquired self-awareness after birth, after maturation, or ever.

 

Saying fetuses have rights does NOT mean they have rights.

 

NO, he wasn't.

Forcing women to gestate by taking away their right to their own body is SLAVERY.

That is EXACTLY what happened to slave women...and slave men , too, they had their right to their own bodies taken away ….and now, even though Alabama doesn't realize it , slavery is against the law.

 

Saying fetuses do not have rights doesn't mean they don't have rights.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Saying fetuses have rights does NOT mean they have rights.

NO, the LAW says that and THAT means fetuses don't have rights......and YOU can't change the law by saying you disagree...



Even IF they did have rights they would have the same restrictions ALL people with rights have.

 

The law court ruling was created by man and can be changed by man.

Do you understand now?

 

The mother doesn't have more rights than her offspring. They are equal.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Saying fetuses have rights does NOT mean they have rights.

NO, the LAW says that and THAT means fetuses don't have rights......and YOU can't change the law by saying you disagree...
FoxHastings said: ↑
Saying fetuses have rights does NOT mean they have rights.

NO, the LAW says that and THAT means fetuses don't have rights......and YOU can't change the law by saying you disagree...

Even IF they did have rights they would have the same restrictions ALL people with rights have.

The law NOW( look up the BIG WORD "NOW") says the fetus is not a person.

Now address ALL of the post:FoxHastings said: ↑
Saying fetuses have rights does NOT mean they have rights.

NO, the LAW says that and THAT means fetuses don't have rights......and YOU can't change the law by saying you disagree...

Even IF they did have rights they would have the same restrictions ALL people with rights have.""""


WHY do you want a fetus to have even MORE rights than YOU have???

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO, he wasn't.

Forcing women to gestate by taking away their right to their own body is SLAVERY.

That is EXACTLY what happened to slave women...and slave men , too, they had their right to their own bodies taken away ….and now, even though Alabama doesn't realize it , slavery is against the law.

WTF does that have to do with the post of mine you quoted ? (other then for you to dodge addressing it)
BUT, in regards to your comment, WHY DO YOU THINK A FETUS SHOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE???

 

When did I say that an unborn child has more rights than anybody else????

 

And that's man's law. Man's law can be change.

 

Well, if you think a woman has no right to have an abortion because the fetus is a person with rights then you think it has more rights than anyone else.

NO one else can use another's body to sustain their own life(as I've posted a thousand times)


That does NOT mean, "well, I have ta work, use muh body, ta pay muh taxes"

No, what it means is that if one person needs a new heart or a liver or a blood transfusion they cannot FORCE another person to give them one.


".Why should a fetus be able to force another person to use their body to sustain the fetus's life?

If you believe a fetus can do that then you think they have special rights , more than anyone else has...

 

Actually that is what you are trying to do by depriving women of their rights.

 

The LAW of the LAND!

 

Wrong, they are NOT equal.

She has Constitutional Rights as a Person under the Law of the Land.

The fetus has no rights under the Law of the Land, it only has LIMITED PROTECTION under States rights during the 3RD TRIMESTER

 

Men do NOT get to deny WOMEN their Constitutional Rights.

 

The law court ruling by nine judges in black robes was just that, a court ruling. Another court ruling can change that.

Try to keep up.

 

The law court ruling can be changed by another court ruling.

Try to keep up.

 

Who says that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the unborn???

 

The fetus has the same rights as everyone else.

Try to keep up.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

But Casey was not the first, nor as you point out, the last word. The constitution is silent (or was until the 14th provided rights attach only to the live/quick). State laws were permissive from the founding to roughly 1900.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html

So again you are left with arguing God's law to somehow claim a moral highground from the prochoice folks.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Well, if you think a woman has no right to have an abortion because the fetus is a person with rights then you think it has more rights than anyone else.

NO one else can use another's body to sustain their own life(as I've posted a thousand times)


That does NOT mean, "well, I have ta work, use muh body, ta pay muh taxes"

No, what it means is that if one person needs a new heart or a liver or a blood transfusion they cannot FORCE another person to give them one.


".Why should a fetus be able to force another person to use their body to sustain the fetus's life?

If you believe a fetus can do that then you think they have special rights , more than anyone else has...

Uh,no, the fetus has no rights...look up the law...no rights,....

Have you tried READING the post you quoted?


""""No, what it means is that if one person needs a new heart or a liver or a blood transfusion they cannot FORCE another person to give them one.


".Why should a fetus be able to force another person to use their body to sustain the fetus's life?

If you believe a fetus can do that then you think they have special rights , more than anyone else has...""""""

 

The fetus has no right so obviously the woman's rights trump the fetuses since it doesn't have any.

Anti-Choicers not only want fetuses to have rights but have MORE rights than anyone else.

 

The law court ruling was created by nine judges in black robes and therefore can be changed by a court ruling of nine judges in black robes.

Try to keep up.