True, if the Fetus has the same legal rights as the woman carrying the Fetus, the rights of the Fetus would trump the rights of the woman. We, in this country, have rights, and every person has those rights until death. The idea that 2 entities in one body would have individual rights nullifies the rights of both. But, That solution doesn't work for one very good and proper reason. The Fetus is not an individual or person. The Fetus is a temporary member of the womans body. Fully dependent upon the woman for nutrients, waste disposal, oxygen and attached to the uterine wall via the umblical cord. And, the Fetus is dependent on the woman for life. The woman has rights, and the Fetus being part of the woman shares them.

Welcome to ehealth hairy head (nice handle btw!). Hope you stick around and add your own personal ingredient to our cooking pot!

Hmmm...that sounded a bit dirty.

I just woke up Well, a citrus fruit. I don't think so I just got out of the shower. And, what part of jolly old England do you hail. I spent about 8 months there in the late 1950's. Nice of you to welcome me, a picture one day will arrive and at 70 I depend on kids to do the technical stuff. My head is hairy find a picture of Kris Kringle and take the smile away and that is me.

Pretty much, yeah. But even so, all criminal laws "force" the beliefs of the legislature (and supposedly the majority of society) on people. That's just the nature of laws.


I'm not at all convinced that learning has anything to do with evolution, I think that's more a random mutation thing. However, learning from your mistakes should in no way be considered mutually exclusive with the principle of protecting the innocent, IMO.

It doesn't. It's just sitting there, existing, growing, and developing, according to the instructions in it's DNA. Nothing it can do about it's situation, really.

Nor can a newborn. Nor can a paraplegic. And the point is....?


Beliefs vary from person to person. My own personal belief is that no healthy human being has the moral right to electively cause the death of another healthy human being, even if that other human being is inside of her.


"Entities" is a rather vague term, but those things are obviously not discrete human creatures.


That depends on how she is driving. If she's driving within the laws of the state she's in, I see no reason to "arrest" her.

Ah, so killing a person is not "harmful" to them?

True, and that carries with it some moral baggage of it's own.


Societies confer upon themselves the "right" to control the behavior of their individual members. Whether you think that's right or wrong doesn't change the fact that it happens in all societies.

It fits in with abortion to the extent that some abortions are already against the law, and that many people, myself included, think that most should be illegal.

Hardly. Only a single "right" is being proposed for unborn humans, the right not to be electively killed. So, the only "right" of a woman that would be "trumped" would be the "right" to electively kill said unborn human.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I go by the dictionary in matters of the meaning of words of the vernacular, and they tell me that an unborn human is an individual (in the sense of being "one" embryo/fetus), and is a person (in the sense of being a human being).

When abortion kills a person, the only person to die is the mother.

correct it is not a person YET!

So this not yet person trumphs my rights because its not yet a real person so it has more rights to my body then I do?
I am the fully grown legal adult but this not person > me?

Yoda take the time to read up on some things; like the maternal death rate; before you sound off. Playing dictionary because you don't have a real opinion you can back up with sound facts and good sources on a debate board isn't helping your already tarnished credibility any.

not more rights equal rights.. I feel it should have rights too. Choice.

you feel a not person has equal right to my body as I do? A legal person.

I feel a baby inside of you has rights and might want a choice.. just like you do..

There is no baby inside me. There is the potential for one but one does not as yet exist. It is not a person; it is not; even immediately after birth (which grants it personhood) capable of making a thought out choice so using your choice arguement then abortion ought to be legal until the seedling can make a conscious choice to live or not.

Again I still do not see why this not person has equal right to my body as I do.

Well, I do not see why it doesn't. If left alone it would be a human being just like you. It would have choice just like you. But it's choice is removed.. By your choice.. I agree it can not make a choice you choose for it.. if it could it would have none!
All human life is valuable to me.

I know. So what? Potential personhood is useless.

Actually if you left a fetus "alone" it would die. It takes the mother's WILLING to care for it and bring it to birth. She is GOD to that fetus. HER will be done, not yours.

If she did what she normally would do to saty a healthy women, it would not die. No she is not God. Her will right.. My thought not my will..