Dr Rick

Fetuses don't have rights like persons do, even though they are humans; they have no right to buy cigarettes, vote, or get married. Abortion rulings and laws are no more or less discriminatory than child-pornography laws. The US Supreme Court decison in Roe v Wade, The Born Alive Infant's Protection Act, and the US Constitutuion do not grant rights to fetuses. When abortion laws and court rulings are made, they rarely center on the fetus; they almost always pit a woman's right to privacy and self-determination against the government's (not fetuses's) rights to "preserve life."

The Constitutional and criminal laws regarding abortion do not center on the fetus or when it is "alive" or a "person;" there's no more reason to ask "when is a fetus a human?" then there is to ask "when is a woman pregnant?"

Rick

yguy

Neither do infants have any of those rights.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone, because only dictators have that power.

Of course they don't, because to give the question honest consideration would reveal RvW for the hideous travesty of justice that it is.

yguy

http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/earlymem.html

The documentation of learning and memory months before birth is surprising. Some of this has been made possible by direct ultrasound observations of fetal behavior. Twins can be seen developing certain gestures and habits at twenty weeks gestational age which persist into their postnatal years. In one case, a brother and sister were seen playing cheek-to-cheek on either side of the dividing membrane. At one year of age, their favorite game was to take positions on opposite sides of a curtain, and begin to laugh and giggle as they touched each other and played through the curtain. Parents interested in prenatal communication have taught their prenates the "Kick Game." When babies kick, the parents touch the abdomen and say, "Kick, baby, kick!" When the baby kicks, they move to a different location and repeat the invitation. Babies soon oblige by kicking anywhere on cue.

Dr Rick

No more than it would reveal the "hideous travesty" of child-pornography and marriage laws.

Quote:

Neither do infants have any of those rights.

Exactly; voting-laws that exclude infants are a no more of a "hideous travesty" than Roe v Wade is.

huh?

Rick

Dr Rick

You still haven't addressed this question, yguy; and now I must ask, do only dictators grant legal priveleges or just legal rights?

Rick

yguy

Voting rights are not inalienable. Changing the Constitution to limit the right to vote to taxpayers only would be perfectly legitimate.

What rights the King may grant, he may likewise revoke.

Invader Tak

This is possibly the stupidest thing ever posted on IIDB! Congratulations yguy! What prize does he get? Howzabout a feature in "Fundies say the Darndest Things?"

Oh, you got it from a radio talk show. They are always bastions of reliable, scholarly, non-hysterical information that we here at IIDB take real serious like.

Why is it that when antis' arguments fail, they *always* bring up some monstrous abortion-related urban legend?

Dr Rick

Flowers sure are pretty this time of year....

yguy

Impress me, Doc - find the flaw in what I just said.

Betcha can't.

yguy

Whether it is possible for an orgasm to be had during an abortion or not is beside the point. This particular abortion-rights activist tried to legitimize women who enjoy abortions. That is a fact, though I cannot provide independent confirmation.