Lizardbreath said:
-Wait a second? Where is the documentation that states abortion is illegal? Nowhere. If these so called "International rights" were there we would not have abortion in this country. Which; again, I don't see anywhere.
Let me add emphasis to Light’s post:
“Human beings are covered by national and international human rights. My point was in response to what I thought you meant by "legal documentation" - aka, a United States Citizen, which doesn't have anything to do with anything. If that isn't what you meant, I apologize. A fetus isn't a citizen, but it still is
(read: should be) covered by international human rights.”
Lizardbreath said:
Nowhere in the constitution does it give a fetus any "rights" So therefore it is not under the protection of the U.S government. We give rights to illegal aliens.....but these rights are not extended to unborn children. Even the U.S government doesn't give these illegal citizens rights until they are born on U.S soil.
To make this fit under international I point out the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights (as in the rights a human has):
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance,
both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
The United States is a member state of the United Nations and has to apply all the rights here to
all the humans in its’ jurisdiction.
Now let’s go to article 3:
“Everyone has the right to life...”
All humans in all member states of the United Nations are required to give the right to life. So if a fetus is a human it
should be protected.
Lizardbreath said:
Nowhere in the constitution does it give a fetus any "rights" So therefore it is not under the protection of the U.S government. We give rights to illegal aliens.....but these rights are not extended to unborn children. Even the U.S government doesn't give these illegal citizens rights until they are born on U.S soil.
All humans under the jurisdiction of the United States are given the right to life by both United States law and international law.
Why are they human, I will list the ‘Fourteen Myths of Abortion’ to answer all of your questions.
(Can be seen here:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirving_--_human_beginning.htm#Myth)
Lizardbreath said:
-No, she ends a living beings exsistance because it doesn't really have a "Life" until after it is born and see's the world.
It will evolve from cells into a full blown human being. Until then it's a fetus.
See
*
Lizardbreath said:
-Really? I made a typo there. I meant that the government has no right to "Force" a women to stay through her pregnancy. So are you suggesting that we punish people based on religious beliefs lights? Because that, in it's own, is a seperation of powers issue.
See
*
How the article I am about to post excerpts starts is as follows:
“The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists —
not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians
*, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.”
Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"
Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.
*Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a 'blob,' a 'bunch of cells', a 'piece of the mother's tissues'."
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother's and the father's chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother's tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
*Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a 'potential' or a 'possible' human being — not a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.
Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."
Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being — and that that's the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.
Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an 'it' — it is neither a girl nor a boy."
Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy — determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:
"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16
Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)
Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles — especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization — not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O'Rahilly:
"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a 'pre-embryo' — and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."
Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error that pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.
Myth 8: "Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the blastocyst (i.e., about 5-7 days)."
Fact 8: This definition of "pregnancy" was initiated to accommodate the introduction of the process of in vitro fertilization, where fertilization takes place artificially outside the mother in a petri dish, and then the embryo is artificially introduced into the woman's uterus so that implantation of the embryo can take place. Obviously, if the embryo is not within the woman's body, she is not "pregnant" in the literal, traditional sense of the term. However, this artificial situation cannot validly be substituted back to redefine "normal pregnancy," in which fertilization does take place within the woman's body in her fallopian tube, and subsequently the embryo itself moves along the tube to implant itself into her uterus. In normal situations, pregnancy begins at fertilization, not at implantation…
Myth 9: "The 'morning-after pill,' RU486, and the IUD are not abortifacient; they are only methods of contraception."
Fact 9: The "morning-after pill," RU486, and the IUD can be abortifacient, if fertilization has taken place. Then they would act to prevent the implantation of an already existing human embryo — the blastocyst — which is an existing human being. If the developing human blastocyst is prevented from implanting into the uterus, then obviously the embryo dies. In effect, these chemical and mechanical methods of contraception have become methods of abortion as well…
And since the whole human blastocyst is the embryonic human being — not just the inner cell layer — the use of chemical abortifacients that act "only" on the outer trophoblast layer of the blastocyst, e.g., methotrexate,37 would be abortifacient as well.
Myth 10: "Human embryo research, human cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of chimeras are acceptable kinds of research because until implantation or 14 days there is only a 'pre-embryo', a 'potential' human embryo or human being present. A real human embryo and a human being (child) do not actually begin unless and until the 'pre-embryo' is implanted into the mother's uterus."
Fact 10: These claims are currently being made by bioethicists, research scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and other biotech research companies — even by some members of Congress. However, they too are "scientific" myths.
Scientifically it is perfectly clear that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo," as demonstrated in Fact 7. As demonstrated in the background material, the immediate product of fertilization is a human being, a human embryo, a human child — the zygote. This zygote is a newly existing, genetically unique, genetically male or female, individual human being — it is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. And this developing human being is a human being, a human embryo, a human child whether or not it is implanted artificially into the womb of the mother…
Myth 11: "Certain early stages of the developing human embryo and fetus, e.g., during the formation of ancestral fish gills or tails, demonstrates that it is not yet a human being, but is only in the process of becoming one. It is simply 'recapitulating' the historical evolution of all of the species."
Fact 11: This "scientific" myth is yet another version of the "potential," "possible," "pre-embryo" myths. It is an attempt to deny the early human embryo its real identity as a human being and its real existence. But quoting once again from O'Rahilly:
"The theory that successive stages of individual development (ontogeny) correspond with ('recapitulate') successive adult ancestors in the line of evolutionary descent (phylogeny) became popular in the 19th century as the so-called biogenetic law. This theory of recapitulation, however, has had a 'regrettable influence in the progress of embryology' (citing de Beer). ... Furthermore, during its development an animal departs more and more from the form of other animals. Indeed, the early stages in the development of an animal are not like the adult stages of other forms, but resemble only the early stages of those animals."38
Hence, the developing human embryo or fetus is not a "fish" or a "frog," but is categorically a human being — as has been already demonstrated.
Myth 12: "Maybe a human being begins at fertilization, but a human person does not begin until after 14-days, when twinning cannot take place."
Fact 12: The particular argument in Myth 12 is also made by McCormick and Grobstein (and their numerous followers). It is based on their biological claim that the "pre-embryo" is not a developmental individual, and therefore not a person, until after 14 days when twinning can no longer take place. However, it has already been scientifically demonstrated here that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo," and that in fact the embryo begins as a "developmental individual" at fertilization. Furthermore, twinning can take place after 14 days. Thus simply on the level of science, the philosophical claim of "personhood" advanced by these bioethicists is invalid and indefensible.
Myth 13: "A human person begins with 'brain birth,' the formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex — all physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling."
Fact 13: Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the product of imposing philosophical (or theological
*) concepts on the scientific data, and have no scientific evidence to back them up. As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between "brain death" and "brain birth" is scientifically invalid. "Brain death" is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed. Jones continues that the alleged symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes assumed, and that it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.41
*Myth 14: "A 'person' is defined in terms of the active exercising of 'rational attributes' (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of 'sentience' (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."
Fact 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have been illegitimately imposed on the scientific data. The scientific fact is that the brain, which is supposed to be the physiological support for both "rational attributes" and "sentience," is not actually completely developed until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:
"Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25."42
One should also consider simply the logical — and very real — consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of "rational attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug addicts, alcoholics — and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a "split" between a human being and a human person?
In fact, this is the position of bioethics writers such as the Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer,43 the recently appointed Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer argues that the higher primates, e.g., dogs, pigs, apes, monkeys, are persons — but that some human beings, e.g., even normal human infants, and disabled human adults, are not persons. Fellow bioethicist Norman Fost actually considers "cognitively impaired" adult human beings as "brain dead."
Philosopher/bioethicist R.G. Frey has also published that many of the adult human beings on the above list are not "persons," and suggests that they be substituted for the higher primates who are "persons" in purely destructive experimental research.44 The list goes on.
_______
For further information explaining the science behind the facts to the myths go to the link provided above for the information listed before the myths. Some of the information had to be cut out so it could fit.
This should easily along with the link provided should cover and doubts you have about a fetus being a human.
