Is a fetus a human or not? It's all semantic. It's just a definition. Clearly a fetus is special enough to some people that it might as well be human otherwise parents wouldn't cherish and bond with it prior to birth or mourn it's loss in those tragic cases of miscarriage the same way they might for a child or other person. Your offense at calling a fetus a human doesn't change the fact that it feels human to some people. And that's okay. Likewise, if it makes you feel better or helps justify a pro-choice position then by all means don't call it a human. It's all irrelevant to whether a pregnant female is legally allowed to terminate it before it is born. A legal framework isn't necessarily and never will be compatible with everyone's person convictions. But, it should guarantee that a woman gets to decide what's best for her body.
It's not working...and hasn't in over 40 years Can't address the rest of my post you quoted?: How many times do posters have to say NO one said a human fetus isn't a human fetus before you quit saying that they do???? . ...and what about people who keep saying Pro-Choicers say a human fetus isn't human when NO one said it isn't human. Do they have some type of mental condition such as schizophrenia or perhaps a learning disorder or could be going through some type of breakdown that causes them delusion or fact denial ? A troll "misrepresents" and LIES about what posters said with NO proof they said it.......ring a bell? Sure! As I've always said a human fetus is human...but it is not a person with rights until it's born...
YES, we could say that ALL pregnancies carry the risk of death and the certainty of permanent damage to the woman's body because it's true but Anti-Choicers still want pregnant women to lose their right to self defense....They wish to keep that right for themselves but if mere women are injured or killed they think that's women's DUTY. They are also very confuse/hypocritical when they declare they would make exception for pregnancy due to rape....proving beyond question that they only want to punish women for having consensual sex.
I'm pro-choice...I've made that pretty clear. That means I do not think a fetus has person rights. But, I will say that exceptions are unavoidable for extenuating circumstances..I acknowledge that. So I do think the law should be framed in such a manner that any unwanted harm that comes to a fetus should result in justice being served on behalf of the mother/parents. If you want to say that's bestowing "rights" on the fetus...fine. I don't care. Again, it's just semantics. In terms of offenses assaulting a pregnant woman and harming the fetus ranks among the top of disgusting actions someone could commit. In cases like that a fetus should be treated as person-like...at least in the eyes of the law and as long as the law explicitly absolves all pregnant females from being prosecuted by that law. A lot of states have fetal homicide laws. I'm okay with that. Actually, I'm for that.
If you're referring to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act it does not view the fetus as a person and has a clause declaring that it has nothing to do with nor can it affect abortion.
I agree with "" it should guarantee that a woman gets to decide what's best for her body" But who said a human fetus wasn't human? I keep seeing people post that "someone" said a fetus isn't human but, honestly, I haven't seen anyone say that. IF they did they'd be wrong.
Then we're definitely on the same page. It wasn't you. I know that. This was discussed in many of the posts on page 6. Well, yeah, I mean I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong. Though, I too, happen to believe that a fetus is a human. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter...at least to me.
All I saw was Anti-Choicers saying that Pro-choicers say a fetus isn't human. One Pro-Choicer said it isn't A human being....and it isn't A human being as in "person" but it is human if it's inside a human. A fetus is human but it is not legally a person with rights and this may be where Anti-Choicers get confused. And Anti-Choicers may be surprised to know that IF a fetus was determined to be a "person" with rights it would also have the same restrictions other "persons" have. It could not use another's body to sustain it's life without consent...that's not legal for anyone.
That would depend upon the nature of her septicaemia. It was not necessarily the result of child birth.
