GASOUTHERNVOL
Ever drink Bailey's from a shoe?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 32,039
- Likes
- 569
because IMO it's not a viable life at that point. To call it a human being so early in the process is wrong.
because the people who drew our original laws couldn't have cared less about trivial things of that nature, and rightfully so.It is our fouinding and original document.
But yes the one about the money and the other examples I had with God being in there.
Tell me what we use the Declaration of Independence for these days. Does anyone refer to it for any reason?
The question there is how do you weigh the potential freedoms and liberties of the fetus with those of the woman.
What muddies the issue is the lack of a clearly defined point at which a fetus is a human being. I don't pretend to know the answers. I know what my opinions are but opinions are just that. Science has a lot of work to do on this issue. The problem is that the science is being politicized by both sides making it even more difficult.
at issue is when the rights of an unborn fetus surpass those of a living mother. Someone had to make a ruling because the issue is that contentious.So the issue is when the government takes control of the relationship between the woman and the living organism inside her body?
What I mean I guess is that essentially there is no punishment for her actions against the pregnancy until a certain date at which point she can be punished by the government.
What is it about (essentially what is it lacking to have rights to life) the forming being that the host (mother) has all rights over it's future on day 89 but on day 90 the fetus has rights?
have you seen the effects of FAS?
for the DBAG parent to not be punished for doing that to the kid would be wrong, plain and simple.
one set of them is still getting all sustenance from mommy's blood and can't live apart from it.So if you can crush a skull and suck out a brain what is that?
Also if viable is the ability to grow, develop or physically fitted to live shouldn't we terminate hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people who can't grow, develop and aren't physically fit to live?
What is the difference?
a baby is a child the day it enters the world and takes breath. Until then, the mother is the life giver.
Why couldn't they have equal rights?
You are prejudice against unborn babies!!
I agree they should be punished.
What I was curious about was the language of the law. There is a problem as I see it with the laws we have now not being very consistent. If you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with the murder of her unborn baby, yet the same mother could abort that baby and not be charged with a crime.
As I said the whole issue is muddied by both sides and I don't pretend to have all the answers.
because one is alive and clearly warranted the rights provided by our constitution. For one, that is definitely up for debate. Until someone can provide sufficient evidence of survivability without the mother, seems to me the mother has right to decide how to handle her body.Why couldn't they have equal rights?
You are prejudice against unborn babies!!
BINGO!!! in that case, then it is a life, however when the mom wants to be lazy and kill her offspring then its kosher? The duality of our legal system is getting absurd.
No one has the right to kill an innocent person.
What about the father's rights? He may have wanted the baby