Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown

Dungheap said:
OK, I'm "dumb" and so is the United States Congress. After all, that's what the law says.

Perhaps you are looking at things from the wrong perspective and maybe I can help you understand it. You're just focusing on the fetus and looking at the law as a fetus-protection law. It's not. This is a law to protect women. So, try to look at the law from the viewpoint of the pregnant woman.

If the woman chooses and consents to have an abortion, it's legal and a constitutionally protected right. It's her choice and her right to have dominion over her body. If someone else chooses to murder her without her consent and thereby terminates her pregnancy without her consent, it's murder. Get it?
Click to expand...

SO you're saying a fetus is living and protected only if the mother says? That's not rational.
 
AssHatZombie said:
SO you're saying a fetus is living and protected only if the mother says? That's not rational.
Click to expand...


Again, you are focusing on the fetus, not the mother. The issue is consent. Abortion = the mother consents to the termination of her pregnancy. Murder = the mother does not consent to the termination of her pregnancy.

This isn't all that tough and maybe you disagree, but it's perfectly rational.
 
Dungheap said:
No, he doesn't. The Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 declares that a "person" exists at conception under federal law.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... It does. And it goes and sets jurisdiction of the courts as to be a non-issue on this matter. Of course they cannot set the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but they can in all other cases.
 
Dungheap said:
Again, you are focusing on the fetus, not the mother. The issue is consent. Abortion = the mother consents to the termination of her pregnancy. Murder = the mother does not consent to the termination of her pregnancy.

This isn't all that tough and maybe you disagree, but it's perfectly rational.
Click to expand...


This thread is about fetuses, douche. In the scott petersen case he was charged with TWO MURDERS. Whether or not fetuses are deserving of legal protection should not change upon the whim of the mother. Can you understand this, idiotbox?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I'm actually glad this has finally made it into the courts. My point to them has always been that saying life begins at the moment of conception is every bit as arbitrary as saying it begins at birth. The sperm and ovum are both alive and human before the moment of fertilization.

To be clear, what's wrong with these people is not that they believe a zygote has full legal and moral rights. What's wrong with them is that they want to force everyone else to accept their moral judgment. They're a particularly nasty flavor of authoritarians.


* Actually four, now that I think about it: 1, 3, 4 and 5. http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6698
Click to expand...

Yes, the sperm and egg are both living cells prior to fertilization. However, it is upon fertilization that the DNA of the two cells combine to form a unique genetic code for a unique human.

Keep in mind, what do many of you say about those that deny global warming or evolution? That those that deny them are ignoring science? Yet when it comes to genetics you seem to do exactly what you accuse them of doing. A unique human life most certainly DOES begin at conception. Now that is not to say that an unborn child should or should not be entitled to basic human rights. That is debatable. But to say that the moment of creation of a unique life is arbitrary is ridiculous... genetics dictates that quite clearly.
 
Dungheap said:
Because murder is the leading cause of death of pregnant women, aside from medical complications.
Click to expand...

That is the second time I have seen you post that. I would be interested to see those stats. To be clear, not questioning them, I was just unaware of this fact and would like to educate myself on it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
This thread is about fetuses, douche. In the scott petersen case he was charged with TWO MURDERS. Whether or not fetuses are deserving of legal protection should not change upon the whim of the mother. Can you understand this, idiotbox?
Click to expand...


What you call the "whim of the mother" is otherwise know as a woman's constitutionally protected right. The fetus has no rights and, as far as I remember, we are not debating whether the fetus should have rights. What I thought we are debating is why the law treats the murder of pregnant woman as two murders. The answer to that question is precisely as I have explained it to you: it is a matter of consent. Where the mother does not consent to the termination of her pregnancy (i.e. when she is murdered) it is considered murder.

Now, we can debate whether a fertilized egg should have rights if you want. But that wasn't what I was talking about.
 
Dungheap said:
What you call the "whim of the mother" is otherwise know as a woman's constitutionally protected right. The fetus has no rights and, as far as I remember, we are not debating whether the fetus should have rights. What I thought we are debating is why the law treats the murder of pregnant woman as two murders. The answer to that question is precisely as I have explained it to you: it is a matter of consent. Where the mother does not consent to the termination of her pregnancy (i.e. when she is murdered) it is considered murder.

Now, we can debate whether a fertilized egg should have rights if you want. But that wasn't what I was talking about.
Click to expand...

Your still saying a mother determinses whether a fetuses is alive or not. That status is truly not dependant on the views of another. Making it so is dishonest.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Your still saying a mother determinses whether a fetuses is alive or not. That status is truly not dependant on the views of another. Making it so is dishonest.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. Here is the question that I continue to respond to:

Two charges of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Why ?
Click to expand...

The answer to that question has nothing to do with the question of whether a fetus is alive or not and has everything to do with the right of women to have dominion over their bodies and their constitutional right to have an abortion. The mother doesn't determine whether a fetus is alive or not. Again, you are focusing on the fetus, not the mother.
 
Dungheap said:
No, I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. Here is the question that I continue to respond to:



The answer to that question has nothing to do with the question of whether a fetus is alive or not and has everything to do with the right of women to have dominion over their bodies and their constitutional right to have an abortion. The mother doesn't determine whether a fetus is alive or not. Again, you are focusing on the fetus, not the mother.
Click to expand...

If someone else does it and it's considered murder, then the fetus must be worthy of protection from murder.

Your argument is that women have a unique right to murder their own children.

Typically, the consequences of crime remain constant regardless of the perpetrator. I think you don't see the idiocy of your demented scrawlings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top