Up until the baby takes its first breath of life. To the radical pro-lifers out there who want to defund Planned Parenthood, and support the debunked notion that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts, lets put this dead horse to rest. The baby uses the mother to breathe, and perform other imperative tasks while it fully forms, it is not a separate individual until that umbilical cord is cut. It is not murder until that umbilical cord is cut. It is not committing a deadly sin, or other religious rhetoric, to abort the baby prior to severing the umbilical cord. That's just how it works. No one should be forced to go through a pregnancy just so someone else's religious ego can be stroked.
Actually human embryologists would disagree with you. Human life begins at the moment of fertilization. See, humans have 46 chromosomes (other than those with conditions such as Downs). The female ovum contains 23 and the male sperm contains 23. When fertilization occurs the unborn child contains 46 chromosomes and is there for its own human being. It cannot possibly be one entity with the mother, as that would mean that the mother would have 2 times the amount of chromosomes a human should and even if they were able to survive they would surely be some sort of monster. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The United States Constitution states the rights of a person. The definition if a person is a human being regarded as an individual. Since the child is an individual human being, it goes without saying that they have the same rights as you and I. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Ok. You find in the Constitution where it states that a person is only a person if the are born. Then come talk to me Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
As usual, when confronted with their own logic trap the Pro-Birth crowd changes the subject in hopes that by asking others to prove the negative their pointless diatribe will get ignored. Please show where in the Constitution it states an unborn is a person?
Oh, but I already have. Weren't you paying attention?? I gave you the definition of the word person as well as scientific evidence that an unborn child is indeed a person. Good try though Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Yes. The legal scholar runs off the tracks. The SCOTUS stated that a fetus is not a person within the meaning the US Constitution, as amended. Try again.
And the Supreme Court has never ever been wrong about anything right? Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Wow, you really know and understand biology. Humans have about 37,200,000,000,000 cells. Each cell (excepting sperm and ovum) contain 46 chromosomes. A woman whose egg just got fertilized now has 37,200,000,000,001 cells, each containing 46 chromosomes. Care to try again?
Do you pay taxes? Do you know about listing children for deductions? Try putting down a three week old embryo or a nine week old fetus as a deduction.
The Supreme Court is right when their decisions are in agreement with your concepts. The Supreme Court is wrong when their decisions are in disagreement with your concepts. I understand.
I didn't say that. YOU states that the Supreme Court stated an unborn child has no rights. I asked you if the Supreme Court had ever been wrong? This is one example where I believe they were wrong. There are many others. See, they are people. They are wrong sometimes. It's a fact of life. I simply choose not to blindly take everything they say as fact and truth. I choose to think for myself. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Also, no you can't claim an unborn child as a deduction. Because the government chooses to acknowledge them in ways that mean most women don't have to spend much on prenatal care. For instance, if you are on food stamps and you get pregnant, your food stamps will increase. You become eligible for WIC. In most states you will recieve Medicaid. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
IF a fetus was deemed a person then with those rights comes the restrictions ALL other persons have. We are restricted from using another person's body to sustain our own life...YOU want the fetus to have super rights that no other person has. The Constitution gives rights to BORN humans.
Doesn't that law depend on the date of birth? Conceived in the first quarter, the child is born that same year. But I never heard of IRS rules and regulations defining humans.
Ok, I'll play your little game of not answering direct questions and "pretending" you're confused. See my first statement, IF a fetus was deemed a person then with those rights comes the restrictions ALL other persons have. We are restricted from using another person's body to sustain our own life...YOU want the fetus to have super rights that no other person has. The Constitution gives rights to BORN humans""""" THEN YOU reply :"""If you were correct, all fetus would be put to death"" I will try to make it plainer for you. Why does me being correct mean """all fetus would be put to death""" ???
Let's spend time just on this comment. Who is we? What restrictions by whom are you making such a claim?
Did you lose the ability to use the Reply with Quote feature? Are you being deliberately obtuse ? Uh, "we" refers to blue unicorns floating in space, didncha know.... Why don't/can't you just answer the question? Why does me being correct mean """all fetus would be put to death""" ???
A fetus is not an individual because the mother is an individual and you can't have an individual inside of another individual. Otherwise one would not be an individual. Are you saying the mother stops being an individual when she becomes pregnant? Does that mean she loses her rights as a person because she is no longer an individual?
