I know my posts have become verbose and I apologize for that. But, what can I do when you either couldn’t understand or purposely becoming evasive that I have to repeat myself. Also, when debating the issue of abortion, supporters of abortion rights usually have different connotation for common words. In my past debate with proponents of abortion rights in other forum they use verbose terms such as “human being person” or “parasitic non-sentient entity” or “non-parasitic sentient host”, etc to get their point across. Here, McElroy’s ordinary unqualified use of the common term “human being” is interpreted as something else. So, what am I to do without having to use more words than necessary to differentiate the two?

Also, in subsequent post of yours, you tried to parse and twist the phrase about human life begins at conception. You should know that the word "human" in that phrase refers to the human being in the procreation and reproductive process and not about evolution since this debate is about abortion and not evolution. Also, the word "human" is used in the sense of "human being" and not the adjective sense such as "human toenail". Now I've to write a whole paragraph just to untwist your semantic sleight of hands. Why do you complain and wonder why my posts are so verbose?

Regarding the term “symbiosis” it also has a connotation of “parasitic” behavior in one of its various uses. There are many mutual benefits between the maternal-offspring relationship. One of the main one is related to the survival of human specie as a whole, i.e. the passing down of parental genes to the next generation. The other is the emotional and familial support such as when parents sacrifice their time and financial resource for the upbringing of their off springs and their off springs who care for their parents when they become helpless with age. Of course, in life nothing is guaranteed. But. That’s basically the way it is. Don’t you think those who had aborted in the past and then had children later in their life did so for some beneficial reason?

Like I said, you can choose to believe in the negative that the prenatal life is a parasite or whatever, that doesn't alter the fact that it is a maternal-offspring nurturing relationship.

Talk about verbose, wouldn’t it be worst to cut and paste long posts of cases irrelevant to the point of debate and without any effort to make any comment from your own words except to troll and evade previous argument?

Show me from the Constitution where it clearly mentioned about abortion let alone the notion of “women’s rights to abortion”?

In fact, Amendment X clearly stated that powers not prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the states.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution clearly does not prohibit the power of the state to legislate law against abortion. Therefore, Blackmun in Roe v Wade who struck down Texas state law prohibiting abortion is actually the one which is unconstitutional. But, that’s another debate that is not related to our actual argument.

I hate it when I have to waste my time looking for the previous post to pin you down to the original debate which you try so hard to evade. It was about my suggestion of government inquiry to determine when procreated human life begins. Here, this was what you said ===>:


So, please show me where in Article four and six does the Constitution prohibits government to hold inquiry into the issue of when procreated human life begins?

/purrr... I am soooo glad you asked... Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because it doesn't say "women can have an abortion" in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean they don't have that right.

Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution never gives the government the power to make a woman's reproductive choices for her.

Article XIV: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

1) "All persons born... are citizens of the United States" - only born humans are citizens, and so only born humans have rights.
2) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" - your state can't take away your rights and freedoms. So no state can make a law violating your right to privacy - and your right to get an abortion.
3) By forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and give birth, you're depriving her of her liberty, most likely her property (a lot of money), and possibly even her life.

(And I just learned - most of the judges on Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republican presidents, and they supported it 7-2.)

Which points out exactly how the constitution is and is not applicable to the issue of abortion.

I'll give you an example:
There is no constitutionally protected right to drive. There isn't. It does not exist.
Yet we have cars, license, insurance and roads to use them on.
If we are to use the argument that the constitution does not protect a woman’s right of choice and ban abortion, not like that will actually stop it, then we must ban driving, using cell phones, airliner travel because none of these are constitutionally given rights to choose to use or not either.

I have. All I found was guesses, done by biased people.


Interesting comparison... eating cake, and aborting babies. What is fascinating to me is the euphemistic quality of the statement "of lesser importance"... as if everyone should understand that it translates roughly to "of such lesser importance that it's okay to kill it".


Ah, the old "pregnancy is like cancer" argument. I disagree.


I disagree emphatically. As an egalitarian, I place equal "moral value" on all human life, born and unborn.


And yet no one advocates the elective killing of the pregnant woman.


Because you aren't advocating the killing of the rapist (with which I might agree). No, you are advocating the killing of the innocent bystander, not the criminal.


No. It simply means to deliver the baby intact and undamaged, at a time when the mother and her doctor agree that it is necessary.

And none of that disputes the fact that an unborn baby's DNA is distinct and different from it's mother's DNA. And chimeras are a totally different (and apparently very rare) type of creature, their dual DNA codes are a result of merged embryos, not ordinary human fertilization.


After fertilization, the "egg" no longer exists. It is now a zygote.

Actually, being a human being does not endow anyone with any legal "rights" at all. Those are arbitrarily awarded by the political rulers of each country. And in this country, the term "legal person" has been adopted to arbitrarily differentiate between born and unborn, not "human being".

Neither.

The Constitution also doesn't say anything about prostitution or recreation drugs in the Bill of Rights either. That doesn’t mean that they may have that potential rights that states cannot legislate laws against them. If the State wants to legislates laws against such activities, it can't be construed as unconstitutional. Just let the people who elected the State to decide. See, your argument doesn't hold water. But, that was not my previous argument. My previous argument was that Blackmum was wrong when he held that “abortion was a constitutional right”:

- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) [alternate] [District Court opinion] [Transcripts of Oral Argument (#1) (#2)] the landmark (7-2) abortion decision voided the abortion laws of nearly every state. Striking down a Texas statute that prohibited all abortions except to save the mother's life, the Supreme Court, per Blackmun, held that abortion was a constitutional right that the states could only abridge after the first six months of pregnancy.

To hold that “abortion was a constitutional right” means that the right is mentioned or addressed in the Constitution. Otherwise, you can claim anything as constitutional right.

It’s true that the Constitution never gives the government the power to make a woman's reproductive choices for her. On the other hand, the Constitution also never gives women the power to terminate the life of her unborn child either. Abortion involves one human depriving the life of another human being in her womb. Therefore, per Article X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Since states have the Constitutional power to legislate laws not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and since state government are elected by the people, Blackmun cannot singled-handedly strike down Texas’ abortion law. What Blackmun did was unconstitutional, and yet he turned it around and claimed that Texas abortion law was unconstitutional. This Blackmun table turning tactics is the hallmark of abortion right movement.

I know you want to claim that women have the power to do what they want to their body. No they don’t, not according to Blackmun. Blackmun ruled that women do not have absolute power to her body in terms of all stages of her pregnancy regardless of your claim OF FULL BODILY CONTROL:

For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its
interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Your interpretation of Article XIV is twisted out of shape:

Article XIV: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Your assertion: “only born humans are citizens, and so only born humans have rights” is a logical fallacy of abstraction. Article XIV is about citizenship and not about right to life when it refers to those “born or naturalized in the United States” which you conveniently left out. Not all human beings in the world who are born are citizens of United States, are they? Conversely, the right of citizenship per the Constitution is not universal for all human species with your misconstrued “person” birth right, otherwise foreigners from other countries are not “persons” and therefore have no rights, including the right not to be slaughtered like the unborn human life.

You also ignore this part: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Certainly the Constitution does not say an unborn being is not a person, therefore in abortion the unborn is certainly deprived of life.

Regarding: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", you are like a bank robber claiming that no State shall make or enforce any law against robbery because it abridges your privileges or immunity of being a citizen. When you do something against the law, such as taking a human life (I don’t want to be verbose to use the pc term “human being person life” or “homo sapien sentient life”), the State has the power to legislate laws against that. That was what Texas abortion law was for to protect unborn human life. Even Blackmun agreed when pregnancy is at certain point in time which he called “viability” to protect the interest of the prenatal life.


Pregnancy is extremely highly preventable in this modern medically advanced society if both men and women take multiple bc precaution on the few days women are fertile. This is a choice men and women can exercise with prudence and not putting finger on us for your mistakes after the fact. I know bc is not 100% effective, but the risk is reduced to zero if both men and women take multiple precautions, and be extra careful during fertile period which is only a few days in a month. Again, Blackmun also allowed States to regulate abortion at certain point in time which means those pregnant women have to carry to term whether they want it or not.


There is also no constitutional right to beat your spouse either. Yet, we have domestic violence. Does that mean that a judge can strike down State law against domestic violence? Not like laws against domestic violence will actually stop it.

Your example is just too weird.

Okay.




Do your interest lie in advocating for legal restrictions of abortion?




How do you know beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't it just your opinion after all? Wait a minute...we haven't really agreed on a definition of "human being" so those questions are kind of, uh, rhetorical.




In order to answer that, we are going to have to agree on what "life" is. I feel that within my "right" to life (which I don't know where that comes from, incidentally-who even says we have a "right" to life?) I have the right to determine my personal medical decisions, and things detrimental to me as defined by me, I have a right to do something about within my abilities.



When my life is in danger, I too, agree that the use of self defense is just cause in protecting it. I am also using a broad definition of "life in danger".




Just cause is arbitrarily defined by the individual.




That's, uh...fine. That's what I meant. That's why I think you should look at the posts. They aren't "hearsay".




Not true at all. I don't know where you live, but in my community, having children out of wedlock, being a single parent, a pregnant teen, all these things are still stigmatized against. Could you tell me when this stopped happening in your area? Maybe I'll move!




(Beavers. Ants. Bees.)

Every species is different and special. Humans are not superior to any other creature.

"Abortion" doesn't reign supreme over the "prenatal creature". The mother does.



I'm staring to understand why you feel this way (still a little hazy on the "deserve" part), but my idea of 'just cause' is different than yours. Can you understand that this concept varies by the individual?



I agree.



I disagree.

Yes, I do. Absolutely! No question about it, except in the case when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Nobody should have a choice to kill another human life without just cause.

I make no distinction between born or unborn human life. The only distinction between a newborn and pre-born baby is that the newborn just came out from the mother’s womb while the pre-born is still waiting. Since the pre-born baby is still in the mother’s womb, that’s the reason for the exception for the medical emergency to save the mother’s life in case of serious complication.

Now let me ask you, do you not support criminal laws against infanticide and unjust killing of children by their parents for their convenience such as the case of Susan Smith?


Abortion is a life and death issue for an unborn human life. To proponents of abortion rights, it’s just a choice. Even if you have problem agreeing with the definition of “human being”, the benefit of doubt should be given to prenatal life until you are sure and have absolutely proven your case with your definitions and rhetoric.

My position is not base on elusive definition or rhetoric. I base my knowledge on concrete biology and not some subjective man-made definitions and rhetoric.

The biological reality of the unborn human life is already known and can be observed with microscope/ultrasound and handled with your own hands using micro-pipettes/surgical equipments in the science lab, medical facility, and fertility clinics. Doctors can open the womb and perform surgical repair on the fetus and return him back to continue his prenatal development. The physical evidence is there and nobody can deny it. Unless of course if you persist in using a smoke screen to mask the truth. Do you know that the term "person" originally meant "mask" in Greek? It was a mask used by ancient Greek actors to cover their face during acting. Such a coincident!


That’s the whole problem I often encounter when I debate with proponents of abortion rights. All of a sudden we don’t know what “life” means when we talk about prenatal right to life and your right to life.

You said within your right to life, which you don’t know where it comes from, you have the right to determine your personal medical decisions, etc. But, where does that right comes from if you even question about whether we have a "right" to life? Without life, there is nothing to talk about.

Whether the right to life was derived from ancient cultural or religious moral consciousness that propels human conscience into enlightened civilization with respect for life and human life, it doesn’t really matter. What matter is that modern civilized society respect life and human life based on the principle of “do not unto others what you would not want others do onto you”. If you don’t want others to kill you without cause, you should also not kill others without cause. Whether you call it a right or a hope, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the respect of life for each other without trying to justify to do otherwise. Incidentally, this moral principle was a teaching from Confucius more than 2500 years ago.

What happens if you are incapacitated and can’t define nor defend for yourself? It’s no difference with prenatal life.


Sure, when your life is in danger, that was the point for the medical exception in a just cause. Life is life; there is no broad or narrow definition.


“Just cause” simply means a good reason. It’s not some kind of abstract concept that needs to be defined.

“Give me a good reason you can’t read” Asked the eye doctor.
“I can’t read because I’m blind” said the new patient.

So, Birch, do you need to ask the doctor to define what he meant by “good reason”? Good reason is either acceptable or not acceptable. Do you think the blind patient’s reply is arbitrary? Either she is blind or she is not.


Yes, I have browsed through some posts there after you mentioned it. Didn’t know this site has so many other forums, including the two abortion platforms and medical abortion.

Read a few cases of abortion due to rape. I know rape is a traumatic event, especially when the victim was a child. These are victims of heinous crime and each case is different. Despite such unfortunate event, the unborn is still innocent of the crime. Since each case is different, the psychological well being of the victims and their needs should be evaluated by qualified health care professionals.
\
Since I am not allowed to participate in the forum which is exclusively reserved for pro-choice members, I could only form my opinion in my mind based on what I read. Even if I could participate, it would be difficult in the internet setting to pose questions in a way that wouldn’t be misinterpreted that might cause open old wounds to re-surface and thereby risk endangering possible fragile mental state that might not have been fully resolved.

However, there was one lady who related she was raped by a man when she was a teenager. When she found out she got pregnant, she finally told her mom. Her mom blamed her for not telling her earlier due to lost of evidence which to me was all she was concerned about. There was some mentioned that she was also concerned about preventing the man from raping other girls. But, subsequent account at the abortion clinic just didn’t add up. The story recounted that her mom took her to local PPH to have an abortion. Now, I am wondering why didn’t the PPH reported this as statutory rape to local police dept since the evidence was there in the post-aborted fetal remain?

Beside rape story, there was one poster who regretted her abortion and was so depressed she wanted to die. Could this be the true face of abortion that has come to the surface for us to have a glimpse of reality? As many as you have rape story, how many who suffer depression due to having abortion as this poster, we may never know…


Well, even if there is still such stigma, I don’t think it would be to the level where it became a life or death situation for the women that the only solution is to abort. In some Islamic country it may be true, but not in the US.


Beavers, ants, bees, etc don’t go to school to study nor built monumental building projects such as the great pyramids. They don’t keep historical records for the next generations nor accumulate knowledge in library. They don’t have written and verbal language, and do not form cultures.

Every species is special and different, yes. But, when it comes to humans we are unique among all animals.

If no human being should reign supreme to animals, then why should abortive woman reign supreme over her unborn child?


There is only one just cause in this case, i.e. self defense when your life is in danger. How much can you vary from the notion that your life is in danger? None at all if you compare it to the justification for abortion choice. If you can accept such a widely varying reasons to justify women’s choice to abortion, I don’t see why you should find fault with one just cause for terminating the life of an unborn child.

So since you cannot refute the actual wording of the constitution you resort to equivocation, adhomein attacks and red herrings. I have posted the percise language which is "Born humans" and that does specifically say 'born' not unborn.
If you can logically, without personal attacks, refute the exact wording of the constitution I welcome you doing so.

Are you denying the right to drive is not in the constitution? The analogy is correct. You are using a false analogy fallacy and completing your erronious post with a arguement of adverse consquences fallacy.

Obviously since most abortion law now is based off the Griswold case you have not bothered to examine the actual findings and instead choose to engage in logical fallacies instead of providing real information. If you had done so you would have noted that the decision was based in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments of the constitution.

IF the constitution says the rights are given to born people then all the assumptions in the world will not change the actual legal defintion of who is covered by those rights.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To break down the first section of the fourteenth amendment a bit, I take upon myself do show why this amendment, in my view, could never protect an unborn the same way as it protect the born.

1) The first part of the first sentence(All persons born or naturalized in the United States) states quite obviously that you need to be born, or othervise achieved citizenship (as a born person) to be protected.
[Naturalized = grant citizenship to: to grant citizenship to somebody of foreign birth, or to acquire citizenship in an adopted country]

2) the first part of the second sentence (No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States) provides that no states have the right to infringe on a citizen's rights and priviliges.

3) the second part of the second sentence (nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property) show us that if a z/e/f was to become a person, as wished for by much the pro-life movement, we will deprive the pregnant woman of one, or several, of the rights provided in this part of the text.
The part stating "without due process of law" is probably what the pro-lifers mostly aim at, to make abortions illegal. This is however refuted in the 4th argument why a pro-lifer can't use the fourteenth amendment as a base to make abortions illegal.

4) The last section of the second sentence makes it clear why an "unborn child" will never aceive personhood status. "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

The fourth statement is based upon that one cannot give equal protection to two entieties that are inseparable. If one give the z/e/f the same rights as any other person, it will immidiatley contradict the right of the pregnant woman, as she'll be denied the rights to life (hers) liberty (hers) property (her body).

Seriously, Jincks, can you please tell me where did I attack you personally? If you want to make such accusation at least quote the part where you think I committed the ad hominen attack.


Where did I deny that the right to drive is not in the Constitution? It’s obvious that it’s not in there. The license to drive is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. The right to abortion is also not in the Constitution. Therefore, your analogy only supports my argument that State can legislate laws to regulate abortion just as State can enact laws to regulate driving privileges since both are not mentioned in one way or another in the Constitution. Therefore, Blackmun was wrong to strike down Texas law as unconstitutional for regulating abortion just as any judge would be wrong to strike down a State’s power to enact laws to regulate driving.


What’s the point of examining Griswold or any other judicial cases? We are talking about the Constitution, not judicial decision. Judges have no constitutional power to override, re-invent, or introduce a new constitutional law or amendment into the existing Constitution. But, Blackmun did exactly just that. So, what’s the point of examining the judicial cases of such judges whose ruling in those cases were already unconstitutional and whose faulty decision I am calling them on.

The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments of the constitution, in no way, shape or form discussed or mentioned anything even remotely close about women’s personal issue, let alone abortion or the phantom right to abortion. Like I said, you can draw anything out of thin air if you have the judicial power such as Blackmun and don’t mind to abuse it.

Then why not call yourself prolife? I mean, it's a non-point, but you said previously: "Actually, I don’t call myself “prolife”." I don't automatically take that as meaning I'm "anti-life" just as if you said you were anti-abortion I wouldn't automatically take that as I'm "pro abortion". And, as has been eloquently argued on this forum, technically, proabortion would be accurate just as anti choice would be as well.



Was Susan Smith pregnant?




That is interesting. (The Greek thing.)

I agree that biologically the fetus is the same no matter what label you attach to it.

Still I ask what is it that gives this fetus a trump card? That surgeries can be performed in utero? Does that mean something significant? (I'm not being sarcastic or dense on purpose; I don't understand.)



Hmm. Interesting point. I will think about that.

I have more of a "right" to make my personal medical decisions that anyone else. Logically this makes sense to me. Can you refute that?



Then my next of kin get to decide for me. Like, say, my mother.




My "life" is more to me than simply breathing.



A good reason to me may not be a good reason to you. That is why it is arbitrary. Why your concept of just cause trumps mine is unknown to me.




Thank you for reading through some of the posts.
I am sure you came across several in which posters had abortions and never looked back, and never regretted their decisions.

Certainly, abortion is not the right answer for everyone and there will of course be individuals who regret their decisions.

It is illogical to outlaw abortion because some individuals are sorry they made that choice.

If you wish, we may outlaw sugar in food because of the same ideas. Or Yugos. Or marriage.





Yes; they didn't even have to go to school! They were just born with all that knowledge! Isn't that amazing. They certainly do have verbal language and form cultures. Your view is not so narrow to think otherwise, yes?




Apples to oranges. If a pregnant marmot wants to have an abortion, she is more than welcome to do so.



That is your opinion. I find many valid "just causes", including when your life is in danger. I find no fault with that particular 'just cause'.

I don't know why I write "Still keeping it as short as I can" turns into "Still keeping it suckers as I can" but that is not at all what I'm writing!

Edit: Oh, I get it: the dreaded "a-s-s" word!

What do you mean by the ambiguous phrase “covered by those rights”? Rights of what” You know that part was about citizenship and not driving privilege or abortion, right? Please either define or qualify your term “rights”. So, rights of citizenship or right to life?


When you make an interpretation, you have to consider the purpose of the document and be realistic with the context of the writing of the document.

The Constitution was written in the founding of a new nation. Its purpose was to establish the form of government and it’s duty to the People. As such the instrument distributed the control of the government with limits to the power and defined who are the people to be recognized as citizens of this new nation now known as the United States of America. The part you are talking about is about citizenship.

Therefore, it was not meant to be a conclusion of philosophical inquiry as to determine when human life begins in the event of human procreation. Neither was it intended to be a legal document to affirm or deny life to a person based on whether you are born or not yet born.

No, it was not about life or death edict, but the focus was only about citizenship. To wit: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. It says nothing about life or right to life. So, therefore, you cannot tell me with a straight face that this citizenship criterion is about the right to deny and take away the life of an unborn human being.

You are making a false assumption. The citizenship criterion deals with those who are born. it says nothing about the unborn just as it says nothing about those who are injured in accident or are dead. That doesn’t mean the unborn, the injured or the dead is not protected, whether same way or not. The unborn is with the mother in her womb. If the mother is a citizen, the unborn receive whatever citizenship status and privileges as the mother.


This is about citizenship, not about whether someone can grant you life or take away your life. You’re just twisting this citizenship severely out of shape. Besides, you have countless tourists, businesspersons, and foreign students coming from overseas and living here temporary in USA without becoming the citizens of United States. Going by your interpretation of this Constitution, then these foreign visitors aren’t persons but just some gigantic conglomerates of walking human tissues or some giant blobs of cells and therefore can be butchered by US citizens at will.


This applies if you are law abiding citizens. If you are a bank robbers or if you kill your own child or someone else, the States has the power to prosecute you for your crime. Abortion is taking of another human life, so that’s about the same thing.


The Constitution did not declare that the unborn is not a person. It said nothing about the unborn because it is not a document dealing with prenatal issue. As such I had just shown you above that you have wrongly projected that the unborn is not a person based on your wrong projection of “born” in the citizenship clause.


Nonsense. How is letting the unborn develop naturally in the womb denies the rights to pregnant woman’s life if no medical complication arose? You know prior to Roe v Wade, State abortion laws had exclusion clause for medical complication, right? So, please don't spread falsehood.

Again, the Constitution said nothing of the unborn life. So, your assertion about an "unborn child" will never achieve personhood status is clearly false. The term “person” has no extra meaning other then the normal linguistic use as a substitute to mean “human being”.

Therefore, the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" simply means “nor deny any human being within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Or we can also say, “nor deny whosoever within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Or we can just say, “nor deny anyone within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. You want more? Or am I too verbose now? I can’t help it, can I, if you keep insisting to be obtuse?

LOL, I did that all the time, don't worry. I got to run, but will try to reply your post as soon as I can. I enjoy our discussion even though we disagree on many points.

That’s not what I am here for. I’m here to speak out against the great injustice done against the unborn human lives in our generations and the generations to come who are already heading towards the great peril.


No, she wasn’t pregnant at the time she drowned her two sons.

But, the question I posed to you wasn’t in malice. In my previous post, following my direct answer to your question I said that I made no distinction between born or unborn human life. And that nobody should have a choice to kill another human life without just cause. If you believe Susan Smith committed a grave crime against her two children, and that the law was justly meted to prevent innocent children from further slaughter, then that’s how I feel about the woman’s choice in abortion. I know you don’t believe the unborn has a right not to be killed based on your criterion of a born “person”, but my point was to explain my position on why legislative protection is emergently needed to prevent further slaughter.

BTW, for those who don’t know who Susan Smith is and what was her crimes, let me give you a brief synpnosis.

Susan Smith was a mother of two little children, a 3 year old and a 14 month old boys. She drowned her two children by rolling them in her car into a lake in South Carolina and blamed some black man for hijacking her car with her children in it. At the time of the crime, I think she was still married to her husband, but was involved with another man who I believe was her boss and a wealthy man. In her effort to gain a committed relationship with her lover, who did not want a ready made family, she decided to drown her children instead of letting her husband to have the custody.


I don’t see a trump card for not being slaughtered without just cause. Do you see a trump card to save Susan Smith’s two children if they could be saved? Or do you think she has the right to drown her two boys to get what she wants with impunity?”

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume 193, Issue 4, October 2005, Pages 1424-1428

In utero cardiac fetal surgery: Laser atrial septotomy in the treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndrome with intact atrial septum
Rubén A. Quintero MDa, , , James Huhta MDb, Elsa Suh MDc, Ramen Chmait MDa, Roberto Romero MDd and Jeffrey Angel MDa

Florida Institute for Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, St. Joseph's Women's Hospital, Tampa, FL

Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL
St. Joseph's Children's Hospital, Tampa, FL

Perinatology Research Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD
Received 22 November 2004; revised 17 January 2005; accepted 22 February 2005. Available online 1 October 2005.
Objective

The purpose of this study was to report a novel technique, laser atrial septotomy, for the in utero treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndrome with intact atrial septum.

Study design
In utero atrial septotomy by Neodymium-YAG laser photofulguration in a fetus with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) and intact atrial septum was performed at 30 4/7 weeks of gestation. Percutaneous fetal cardiocentesis was performed to guide a contact (Neodymium-YAG) laser fiber into the right atrium with the objective of creating an interatrial communication by photofulguration of the septal tissue.

The significance is that the unborn human life is not a parasite, neither an abstract “potential”. Those are just lies.


Where do you get your more of a “right”? But, what makes you think the unborn human life has not and how did you refute that?


God forbid, but what happens if all your next of kins and friends were killed in a national disaster?


What makes you think the unborn life is simply breathing?


Why do you think my concept trump yours?

The principle “Do not unto other what you don’t want other do unto your” is a level playing field. You don’t harm me, I don’t harm you. So, tell me, where’s the trump card?

You said, a good reason to you may not be a good reason for me? The only just cause we are talking about is “self-defense” to protect your life against deadly harm. You don’t believe in your right to defend for your life?


Why is it illogical to outlaw unjust taking of human life? If sugar, Yugos, or marriage is killing of innocent human life, then of course. But are they?


Those instinctive behavior is not what I’m taking about. Certainly, not the verbal language and cultures. Well, if you want to go overboard, I guess I’ll just walk you this far.


That’s what I expected you would say. Well…


I am talking about just that, the right to self-defense. Now you said you find no fault with that, but I was led to believe otherwise.

Okay. I can respect your opinion.
If she had been pregnant, I would not have blinked at her decision to kill the fetuses in her womb. I blink at this, because it's inherently different.
She sounds like she was mentally ill, too.




Okay. I'll agree.
Neither of those labels change the inherent nature of the fetus. A six week fetus is still a six week fetus.

If you remove the concept of "potential" then you have placed a focus on the "widget" as is, right now. Is a six week fetus so significant that you would tell a woman what her reproductive decisions are irregardless of her personal feelings, wants, and desires?



It's my body. I have more of a 'right' to make decisions about what's under my skin than any other creature. I feel I get these rights from nature. I still ask, can you refute that?

Where does your trump card come from in my personal medical decisions?





I don't know, but how is that relevant to the issue of abortion? The mother is not killed in a natural disaster. She's right there...the next of kin...to make medical decisions for those incapacitated.



This is slightly evasive, and I don't think you meant it to be. My point is that the idea of "life in danger" is not exclusively about breathing to me. It has nothing to do with what a fetus is doing.
I'm trying to help you understand that "life in danger" is not simply a heart beating; my life has many more facets to it than that.



I think this is all coming from a difference in conceptual ideas of what "defend your life" and/or "life in danger" mean.

A fetus threatens my life. Many women feel the same. I will exercise my right to defend my life by killing the fetus. My life is not only existing with brain waves...it includes many other things as well.

I understand that to most "life in danger" means imminent death. It can mean that, and many other things as well.



Are you doing this on purpose? I said that, based on the comments you made about the abortion stories you read, that it is illogical to ban all abortions because some individuals regret their decisions.

Again, "unjust" to you and to me and to every other woman out there mean different concepts.



I'm sorry; you thought I had a problem with women having a right of self-defense? Whoa! Our worlds were certainly apart there! Women have a right of self defense (where do you think that comes from? ) and they have the right to define what that means for them. That comes directly from Birch's Book of Rights.