Personhood is an inalienable right... not a right conferred by law. All you're doing is killing/aborting/alienating that right from them by playing G_d.
Of course I was conceived. I was objecting to your use of "conceived people" to described embryos. You equate (again) people who have been born with embryos. An embryo isn't a "conceived person".
Embryo's aren't conceived? How do they become embryo's then? You weren't an embryo, either? Did Dr. Frankenstein assemble you on his table? Did he conceive of the monster first?
When a pregnant mother thnks of the life within her, does she imagine a person, or a zygote? I suspect in most cases, it's ALWAYS the former... a conceived person.
An embryo isn't a person. Why "fetal personhood" is not law. As I already pointed out. Imaginings have nothing to do with it. Except yours. When rightwingers think about pregnant women, do they imagine how great the world would be under a strict patriarchy where women are second class citizens who have no bodily autonomy, or are they imagining embryos are "conceived persons" who should have rights? I suspect in most cases it's the former.
Yes, the killing of an innocent child sure has the potential for making a woman with said child more autonomous.... but that doesn't make the child less of a person.
You are confused again. Killing a child would be murder and cause the killers to lose autonomy, as they would be in prison. But an embryo is not a child or a person.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime.
I believe in a woman's right to choose. So I would be opposed to a murderer choosing for a pregnant woman. Though I don't agree with referring to a fetus as a "child in uterus", I do support an enhanced penalty.
"Fetal personhood" still isn't law. If a doctor performs a legal abortion he or she will be charged with zero murders. And the law you refer to was introduced by a republican House member and signed into law by a republican president.
Also... (as per Wikipedia) ..the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child".
"Murderer" if the woman dies. As per dictionary.com, murder is defined as... "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". Since a embryo/fetus isn't a human being, the embryo/fetus can't be "murdered". Though in this case (the mother lives by the fetus does not) I surely support an more serious penalty being applied, given that the assaulter does not have the right to chose for the woman (to end her pregnancy).
Human being (definition) a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species...
Person (definition) a human being, whether an adult or child...
Child (definition) a person between birth and puberty or full growth...
QED a embryo/fetus is not a child. Therefore is not a human being or a person. QED a embryo/fetus can't be (under the law) "murdered".
Even if scotus overturns Roe that doesn't mean a woman's right to choose goes away. At least not in Blue states. And you sure do seem enthusiastic about scotus using powers you previously indicated you don't believe they should have. The law is whatever congress says it is. Given the fact that congress is the legislative branch of government. The People will HAVE to elect more Democrats. Because The People are (by a majority) favor protecting a woman's right to choose.
As per a 2019 NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll, "three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal in the United States".
The rights you have as an American citizen shouldn't be dependent on what state you live in. That's stupid. All Americans should have the same rights. What happens if marriage equality is overturned and a legally married same sex couple moves from a blue state to a red state?
No. A person can not die from "abortion", given that a fetus isn't a person. republicans have tried, but fetal personhood is not law.
ReplyDeletePersonhood is an inalienable right... not a right conferred by law. All you're doing is killing/aborting/alienating that right from them by playing G_d.
ReplyDeleteBorn people have inalienable rights, not clusters of cells that have the potential of becoming born people.
ReplyDeleteConceived people have inalienable rights granted by G_d @ the instilment of life.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as "conceived people". A person is someone who has been born.
ReplyDeleteYou weren't conceived? Not even in a test tube? Remarkable....
ReplyDeleteOf course I was conceived. I was objecting to your use of "conceived people" to described embryos. You equate (again) people who have been born with embryos. An embryo isn't a "conceived person".
ReplyDeleteEmbryo's aren't conceived? How do they become embryo's then? You weren't an embryo, either? Did Dr. Frankenstein assemble you on his table? Did he conceive of the monster first?
ReplyDeleteI'm so confused...
When a pregnant mother thnks of the life within her, does she imagine a person, or a zygote? I suspect in most cases, it's ALWAYS the former... a conceived person.
ReplyDeleteAn embryo isn't a person. Why "fetal personhood" is not law. As I already pointed out. Imaginings have nothing to do with it. Except yours. When rightwingers think about pregnant women, do they imagine how great the world would be under a strict patriarchy where women are second class citizens who have no bodily autonomy, or are they imagining embryos are "conceived persons" who should have rights? I suspect in most cases it's the former.
ReplyDeleteYes, the killing of an innocent child sure has the potential for making a woman with said child more autonomous.... but that doesn't make the child less of a person.
ReplyDeleteYou are confused again. Killing a child would be murder and cause the killers to lose autonomy, as they would be in prison. But an embryo is not a child or a person.
ReplyDeleteHow many murders will you be charged with if you shoot a pregnant woman and she and her 'embryo' die?
ReplyDeleteThe Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime.
ReplyDeleteI believe in a woman's right to choose. So I would be opposed to a murderer choosing for a pregnant woman. Though I don't agree with referring to a fetus as a "child in uterus", I do support an enhanced penalty.
ReplyDelete"Fetal personhood" still isn't law. If a doctor performs a legal abortion he or she will be charged with zero murders. And the law you refer to was introduced by a republican House member and signed into law by a republican president.
Also... (as per Wikipedia) ..the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child".
"Murderer" if the woman dies. As per dictionary.com, murder is defined as... "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". Since a embryo/fetus isn't a human being, the embryo/fetus can't be "murdered". Though in this case (the mother lives by the fetus does not) I surely support an more serious penalty being applied, given that the assaulter does not have the right to chose for the woman (to end her pregnancy).
ReplyDeleteHuman being (definition) a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species...
Person (definition) a human being, whether an adult or child...
Child (definition) a person between birth and puberty or full growth...
QED a embryo/fetus is not a child. Therefore is not a human being or a person. QED a embryo/fetus can't be (under the law) "murdered".
The law is whatever SCotUS says it is. Say, "Goodbye Roe!"
ReplyDeleteEven if scotus overturns Roe that doesn't mean a woman's right to choose goes away. At least not in Blue states. And you sure do seem enthusiastic about scotus using powers you previously indicated you don't believe they should have. The law is whatever congress says it is. Given the fact that congress is the legislative branch of government. The People will HAVE to elect more Democrats. Because The People are (by a majority) favor protecting a woman's right to choose.
ReplyDeleteAs per a 2019 NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll, "three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal in the United States".
lol!
ReplyDeleteDid the US Civil War teach you NOTHING about "State's Rights"?
The rights you have as an American citizen shouldn't be dependent on what state you live in. That's stupid. All Americans should have the same rights. What happens if marriage equality is overturned and a legally married same sex couple moves from a blue state to a red state?
ReplyDeleteWho cares?
ReplyDeleteNot you, but lots of other people do. Including (but not limited to) married same sex couples.
ReplyDeleteThen they should stick to Blue States.
ReplyDeleteYour state's right to pack fudge don't trump my state's rights to jail fudge packers.
ReplyDeleteLawrence v. Texas hasn't been overturned. Gay people can't be jailed in any state for being gay. As much as you surely wish they could.
ReplyDelete...yet
ReplyDeleteIt will never happen.
ReplyDelete...SCotUS will never overturn Roe?
ReplyDeleteAbortionists be going to jail. LOL!
:)
ReplyDelete