Political Crossfire Forums

[The Grandmaster]

AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: straw man wrote: Who says I don't object? Besides, what does this have to do with my comment? The only thing I was suggesting is that lots of things like plants can be alive without having a brain, and so a brain is not criteria for being alive.

No one claims a brain is required for something to be "alive." Merely being "Alive" does not entail something is "A life." Cancer is alive. Is it "a living being?" Your finger is certainly "alive." for it is not dead. Is it "A life?" these things are alive, despite having no brain. A "human life" however, is different. The neurological view of life posits that "A human life" begins with the acquisition of the human EEG, near the end of the third month.

Cancers and fingers aren't embryos, and you don't need me to point out differences. Comparisons such as these are intellectually dishonest at best.

People always get frustrated when I make these comparisons, but then are frustrated when I point out that cancers, fingers, molar pregnancies, and other things fit the definition of being a human life by the criterion that they themselves enter into the argument. In short…it isn’t my fault these things can by extension be called human lives…it is your fault for providing the criterion. I am only using the premises of the anti-choicers to draw a conclusion they do not want to hear.

AllAmericanMan wrote: The neurological view of life? Never heard of it.

There are numerous scientific view of when life begins, and there is no consensus in the field of science on any one of them. The neurologically view states that a life begins when the brain pathways have been formed and the human EEG has been acquired, thus making you “you.”

AllAmericanMan wrote: I know some biology though, and it just so happens human beings are formed at conception.

And how are you going to prove this premise for us? Show me links to embryology textbooks, papers, and quotes? Gilbert already tried that, and about 15 others, 8 months ago, and I showed them all again and again that they are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus, and it cannot be demonstrated with complete certainty that life begins at conception for a variety of reasons, importantly two of which are that this point is highly in dispute as the beginning of a life, and what makes a human life is still ambiguous among even scientists, in addition to the fact that the thing hasn’t even determined if it’s going to be one person or two people at this point, and a person can’t be both one person and not one person. I’ll try as hard as possible here to not sound arrogant, but you’re going to find nothing that I haven’t already seen.

[Gilbert1908]

The Grandmaster wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: straw man wrote: Who says I don't object? Besides, what does this have to do with my comment? The only thing I was suggesting is that lots of things like plants can be alive without having a brain, and so a brain is not criteria for being alive.

No one claims a brain is required for something to be "alive." Merely being "Alive" does not entail something is "A life." Cancer is alive. Is it "a living being?" Your finger is certainly "alive." for it is not dead. Is it "A life?" these things are alive, despite having no brain. A "human life" however, is different. The neurological view of life posits that "A human life" begins with the acquisition of the human EEG, near the end of the third month.

Cancers and fingers aren't embryos, and you don't need me to point out differences. Comparisons such as these are intellectually dishonest at best.

People always get frustrated when I make these comparisons, but then are frustrated when I point out that cancers, fingers, molar pregnancies, and other things fit the definition of being a human life by the criterion that they themselves enter into the argument. In short…it isn’t my fault these things can by extension be called human lives…it is your fault for providing the criterion. I am only using the premises of the anti-choicers to draw a conclusion they do not want to hear.

AllAmericanMan wrote: The neurological view of life? Never heard of it.

There are numerous scientific view of when life begins, and there is no consensus in the field of science on any one of them. The neurologically view states that a life begins when the brain pathways have been formed and the human EEG has been acquired, thus making you “you.”

AllAmericanMan wrote: I know some biology though, and it just so happens human beings are formed at conception.

And how are you going to prove this premise for us? Show me links to embryology textbooks, papers, and quotes? Gilbert already tried that, and about 15 others, 8 months ago, and I showed them all again and again that they are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus, and it cannot be demonstrated with complete certainty that life begins at conception for a variety of reasons, importantly two of which are that this point is highly in dispute as the beginning of a life, and what makes a human life is still ambiguous among even scientists, in addition to the fact that the thing hasn’t even determined if it’s going to be one person or two people at this point, and a person can’t be both one person and not one person. I’ll try as hard as possible here to not sound arrogant, but you’re going to find nothing that I haven’t already seen.

What you and vitually anyone who takes your position offer is a philosophical NOT a medical or scientific position.

I have never seen a medical or scientific documents (not a philosophical or bio-ethicist) that promotes any other point for the beginning of life other than conception/fertilization.

I would like to see what you have as resources for a medical explaination of human life beginning at any point other than conception.

[Selfish_Meme]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: A zygote/embryo/fetus is human and is alive

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one autosomal chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one autosomal chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a just to help you here, you should say 'discrete system' system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.
Not entirely accurate, our DNA is what defines us as a species, an individual is a wholly discrete entity. So a Human Being is a discrete entity of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens as denoted by the DNA in their cells. Discreteness can be ascertained by the DNA and the independent functioning at some point of the whole.

This counters the leg or finger argument, as they are not discrete; they are parts of another entity. It also counters the cancer argument as it is biologically completely dependant during its entire lifetime on another discrete entity. However discreteness is blurred by embryos, cancer and others, like some species of intestinal flora and such that are vital to the life of a Human Being but are actually discrete entities of their own species.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This clause is the reinforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It gives all people born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. It also states there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship (“…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”).


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This states that all citizens of the U.S. are protected from the government with the Bill of Rights (a.k.a. first 10 Amendments) and the government cannot abridge this.


nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the clause that protects illegal immigrants. Notice how it changes from the term citizen in the amendment to person. This clause is what protects every person on U.S. soil even if they aren’t a U.S. citizen. This is what protects zygotes/embryos/fetuses. I’ll get to why this is later.



What is personhood?

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes.
But also used separately, so a person may not necessarily be human. This is important. A Human must be a Human Being and a Human may be a Person, but a Person is not necessarily a Human. So Person does not equal Human. This is where your 'proof' falls over.

Cells, viruses, flora and wastes are transferred between mother and embryo and vice versa, especially in the beginning the line between the two as discrete individuals is very blurred.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Biologically a zygote/embryo/fetus is a homo sapien. Homo sapien is the scientific term for human. Hidden within the mammalian genome are a number of genomic retroviruses without which placental reproduction could not take place. The purpose of these retroviruses is to suppress the mothers immune system in order to keep the fetus from being recognized for what it is; a foreign body. The female body even realizes that the zygote/embryo/fetus is an individual.

Some pro-choicers believe sentience is what grants personhood. I am going to refute this. The term sentience is the perception and realization of someone’s self existence. During the first few weeks of the birth of a baby, the brain of the baby is only 1/4 the size it will eventually be. When the baby is born its brain is not complete. The brain of the baby works in its primitive way. The primitive cerebral cortex of baby is what controls its actions. Between mid-gestation and birth, an insulating sheath called myelin begins to form around the axons of the neurons in the brainstem, greatly increasing the speed and efficiency of the signals. Once the myelin around the neuroceptors of the brain greatens, the controls of motions are given to the baby. Before then the baby has no consciousness and action. The primitive cortex of the newborn’s brain controls the body’s actions to strengthen the neurons connections. When the brain sees anything moving the brain tells the eyes to look at it. This is why newborns will sometimes just stare an object for long periods of time. Newborns focus on strong lines and distinct contours. Studies have shown that they can tell the difference between the outline shapes of a triangle, square, circle, and cross. In human faces, the eyes and hairline are prominent features. Perhaps for this reason, mothers—and fathers—of newborn infants might think twice about changing their hairstyles too often. I have just proven that babies within the first couple weeks have no sentience. Just because they don’t have sentience, does this mean they don’t have protection under the law? – No. Prenatal babies are people like I just proved with the biological evidence and the terminology.
This is a very long paragraph and covers many subjects not specifically interlated. Sentience at its basest level only provides for conciousness or the ability to feel. Many animals are sentient but we kill them quite happily. Sapience is what I think you would need to refute to have any chance with this argument.


TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Conclusion
Since I proved that a prenatal baby is a live person; they should be afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment under the law. Since prenatal zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human at the time of conception, no abortion after such time should be allowed. The only reason an abortion should be permitted is if the mother will die due the birth of the baby. The mother is the reason the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. It is not have the right to overrule a mother’s right to life.
Your conclusion is wrong because you did not prove that an embryo is a 'person', an embryo cannot encompass all that the word 'person' can mean. So therefore they do not have the protection of the 14th amendment.

[Gilbert1908]

The Grandmaster wrote:

People always get frustrated when I make these comparisons, but then are frustrated when I point out that cancers, fingers, molar pregnancies, and other things fit the definition of being a human life by the criterion that they themselves enter into the argument. In short…it isn’t my fault these things can by extension be called human lives…it is your fault for providing the criterion. I am only using the premises of the anti-choicers to draw a conclusion they do not want to hear.

I for one have always found it amusing that such an intelligent fellow as yourself could employ such an argument.

There is no denying that the any living cell is a living thing.

But a HUMAN LIFE is a specific and medically obvious entity. If your physicians in Australia can not distinguish a cancer cell, a mole or a finger from a human LIFE then I would suggest NOT seeking medical help there in your home country.

Do women in Australia go to abortion clinics to have cancer removed?

Or if you prioritize "saving the life" of your finger over the human attached to it perhaps you have your priorities wrong.

How can one medically or even intellectually deny the clear ability to distinguish between an individual human life and a finger?

[Selfish_Meme]

The Grandmaster wrote: in addition to the fact that the thing hasn’t even determined if it’s going to be one person or two people at this point, and a person can’t be both one person and not one person.
I found something interesting today about this, not only can you be about to split, you may reintegrate as well, so one embryo may twin and then become one again. Then that person is tetrogenic, standard paternity tests will show that a parent might not be the parent even though they were.

[Selfish_Meme]

Something else I found, researches at Harvard and Oxford have identified 'thinking' cells developing as early as 31 days after fertilisation. The 'thinking' term is used a bit loosely as probably all they are used for is to regulate cell expression in the rest of the brain. However they are 'cognating' anyway.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060721182137.htm

[VBach37]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

By definition a fetus has not been born yet, and therefore is not a citizen (nor in my opinion is it a person)

[Iandefor]

VBach37 wrote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

By definition a fetus has not been born yet, and therefore is not a citizen (nor in my opinion is it a person) Good point, but the argument isn't over citizenship, but personhood.

[Captain Lovebird]

coolcreep wrote:

I repeat my main points... illegalizing abortion enslaves women to the fetus

"Enslaves?" Spare me the loaded and hyperbolic language. The only expectation is that she not willingly kill the fetus. How is this "slavery"?


coolcreep wrote:
and having your body invaded is just cause to retaliate against the invader.


Do you think that by employing the language of military conflict (invasion, retaliation) to describe pregnancy you can change the nature of pregnancy? Conception is not an "invasion". How hard did you have to stretch to make that one fit in your head?


coolcreep wrote:
the fetus is not invited,




it is not possible to "invite" a fetus so your point is moot.


coolcreep wrote:
the possible result of sex is pregnancy, but that by no means makes having sex an invitation to the fetus to be impregnated.




So what? The issue at hand is whether or not killing a fetus is moral.

[straw man]

I've already been over all this anyway.

Sex is by design a natural invitation for a new fetus to form. By definition the fetus is "invited". If it's there, it got there because two participants did something mutually that asked it to be there.

[Captain Lovebird]

straw man wrote:

I've already been over all this anyway.
Sex is by design a natural invitation for a new fetus to form.

No it isn't.

A fetus cannot recieve an invitation. A fetus has not formed when the "invitation" is happening. Besides, you are assuming all sex leads to conception, and is thus an "invitation."

straw man wrote: By definition the fetus is "invited".

Who are you quoting here? Or are you using quotes because the word "invited" doesn't fit directly? You're right, it doesn't.

straw man wrote: If it's there, it got there because two participants did something mutually that asked it to be there.

You are arguing that a certain behaviour (sexual activity) constitutes some kind of unspoken form of communication (telekinetic? body language?) to an entity that has yet to be formed (the baby).

I'm not sure which side of the abortion debate you are on, if any, but this doesn't do much for supporting any kind of argument about abortion.

There is no "invitation", no "consent", no "intruders" etc. This is all metaphor, and poor metaphor at that, to describe the state of being pregnant.

Stakeholders can employ all of the loaded language they want to try to impose their own perceptions of pregnancy upon others. It still does not mean any actual "invitation", for example, has transpired and thus it is foolish to behave, and debate, like it has.

[Selfish_Meme]

Recent studies are also showing that sex is used for bartering and bonding among primate populations and not just pro-creation. i.e. even though they have estrus, which should limit sex to when a female is fertile some primates still engage in sex as a social bartering tool.

I would think the obvious conclusion is that Humans are very similar because sex has never been for me simply a way to pro-create. It is more an act of intimacy and bonding.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: in addition to the fact that the thing hasn’t even determined if it’s going to be one person or two people at this point, and a person can’t be both one person and not one person.
I found something interesting today about this, not only can you be about to split, you may reintegrate as well, so one embryo may twin and then become one again. Then that person is tetrogenic, standard paternity tests will show that a parent might not be the parent even though they were.

On the twin thing

LOUIS M. GUENIN
From the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Based on a presentation at Internal Medicine Grand Rounds, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn, on June 4, 2003.


"The nonindividuation objection to zygotic personhood runs as follows. Prior to formation of an embryo’s primitive streak at day 14 of development, it can happen that the embryo splits into monozygotic twins. And if twinning occurs, the twins can fuse. Hence it has been suggested that in respect of any embryo, one cannot say until day 14 whether there exists one individual or more. If one cannot say how many persons exist, it is untenable to say that any person exists. Another version of the nonindividuation objection begins from the premise that in twinning, an embryo vanishes and leaves no earthly remains. How could an individual person die leaving no earthly remains? If no corpse ever exists, there could not earlier have existed a person.

Thus does the nonindividuation objection characterize zygotic personhood as metaphysically impossible. The objection’s biological sophistication has led many scientists to regard it as a clinching argument for embryo use. Despite that sophistication, the nonindividuation objection is susceptible to the following refutation owed to David Oderberg.1 Suppose at time t0 a somatic cell x. By t1, x has divided, and there exist x’s daughter cells d1 and d2. The process by which this has occurred, namely, mitosis, is routine. Notice that as we look back at the history of x up to t1, we do not have any doubt that x was an individual cell. Plainly x had the capability of dividing, and in fact, x did divide, but it is not incoherent to say, and we unhesitatingly do say, that for so long as x existed, x was an individual. As for the apparent puzzle of dying without leaving earthly remains, again a reflection on mitosis sheds light. Necrosis is not the only means by which a life form may cease to exist. Dividing is another means. And it happens that after division, there is no corpse. So it is not metaphysically incoherent to say that an embryo capable of dividing is an individual. Or that an embryo that does divide was an individual before it divided.

To rehabilitate the nonindividuation objection, a proponent might contend that indivisibility is somehow intrinsic to the individuality of a person as it may not be to the individuality of a cell, so that a being that is divisible cannot be or correspond to a person. To buttress this claim, the proponent might offer the example that an adult individual cannot divide into surviving individuals. Or the proponent might contend that even if adult individual x could be split into surviving individuals—say, by a brain split and transplant operation in which, as imagined by philosophers of mind, x’s brain is split and each half is transferred into a new body so that each successor retains memories and otherwise achieves psychological continuity with x—it would not be the case that x is the same individual as either of its successors. One reply to this, owed to the whimsy of Peter King, is that it is possible to survive with only half a brain, though in such case one is restricted to a career in politics. But we may leave aside what adults can do.

We may reply to the proponent of the nonindividuation objection with two thoughts. First, what is feasible for an adult ought not constrain our thinking, because we know of the remarkable ability of an early embryo to split into surviving individuals. Second, the individuality of a being does not depend on its being the same individual, if it happens to split, as any of its successors. When an embryo has split, we may simply say that it was one individual until it split, that the individual ceased to exist when it split, and that two individuals have succeeded it. Thus may we render not only the possibility but the actuality of twinning consistent with individuality of the original embryo and with individuality of its twin successors. Given that the case of an embryo that does split resolves in this way, no impediment arises to individuality of an embryo that has not split.

According to this analysis, the nonindividuation objection fails to establish that an embryo cannot be a person. When monozygotic twinning occurs, it may be said that two persons succeed one person that ceases. But even if we defeat the contention that an embryo cannot be a person, there remains the question whether, for purposes of the duty not to kill, we should treat every embryo as a person. That a being “is a person” is not an empirical observation or an a priori truth. Calling a being a person is a shorthand reply to the moral question, “How should we treat it for this purpose?” The shorthand signifies our conclusion that we should classify the being among those to whom we think all of us should accord a particular treatment. Whereupon we may fairly be asked what argument supports that conclusion. Failure of the nonindividuation objection leaves the door open to introduce, or oppose, arguments that we are obliged to treat all embryos as persons for purposes of the duty not to kill."

[ThirdPerson]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I am going to start this long post by stating that I am pro-life. I don’t believe abortion is a moral issue at all, but a civil liberties issue. It took me a couple days to gather the information and write this out. Please respect that.

A zygote/embryo/fetus is human and is alive

At conception the 22 haploid chromosomes and one autosomal chromosome in the sperm and the 22 haploid chromosomes and one autosomal chromosome in the ovum come together, they form 46 diploid chromosomes. At the very moment that those two come together and the first cell divides, they become a system of live homo sapien cells. Every species is a live system of cells; prenatal (back until the point when the first cell divides) and postnatal. This system of cells is what makes us a species and not a Petri dish with some human cells in it. This cell system is what makes our leg not a species in itself. Only the system of cells is what makes a species.


The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This clause is the reinforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It gives all people born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. It also states there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship (“…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”).


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This states that all citizens of the U.S. are protected from the government with the Bill of Rights (a.k.a. first 10 Amendments) and the government cannot abridge this.


nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the clause that protects illegal immigrants. Notice how it changes from the term citizen in the amendment to person. This clause is what protects every person on U.S. soil even if they aren’t a U.S. citizen. This is what protects zygotes/embryos/fetuses. I’ll get to why this is later.



What is personhood?

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes.

Biologically a zygote/embryo/fetus is a homo sapien. Homo sapien is the scientific term for human. Hidden within the mammalian genome are a number of genomic retroviruses without which placental reproduction could not take place. The purpose of these retroviruses is to suppress the mothers immune system in order to keep the fetus from being recognized for what it is; a foreign body. The female body even realizes that the zygote/embryo/fetus is an individual.

Some pro-choicers believe sentience is what grants personhood. I am going to refute this. The term sentience is the perception and realization of someone’s self existence. During the first few weeks of the birth of a baby, the brain of the baby is only 1/4 the size it will eventually be. When the baby is born its brain is not complete. The brain of the baby works in its primitive way. The primitive cerebral cortex of baby is what controls its actions. Between mid-gestation and birth, an insulating sheath called myelin begins to form around the axons of the neurons in the brainstem, greatly increasing the speed and efficiency of the signals. Once the myelin around the neuroceptors of the brain greatens, the controls of motions are given to the baby. Before then the baby has no consciousness and action. The primitive cortex of the newborn’s brain controls the body’s actions to strengthen the neurons connections. When the brain sees anything moving the brain tells the eyes to look at it. This is why newborns will sometimes just stare an object for long periods of time. Newborns focus on strong lines and distinct contours. Studies have shown that they can tell the difference between the outline shapes of a triangle, square, circle, and cross. In human faces, the eyes and hairline are prominent features. Perhaps for this reason, mothers—and fathers—of newborn infants might think twice about changing their hairstyles too often. I have just proven that babies within the first couple weeks have no sentience. Just because they don’t have sentience, does this mean they don’t have protection under the law? – No. Prenatal babies are people like I just proved with the biological evidence and the terminology.


Conclusion
Since I proved that a prenatal baby is a live person; they should be afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment under the law. Since prenatal zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human at the time of conception, no abortion after such time should be allowed. The only reason an abortion should be permitted is if the mother will die due the birth of the baby. The mother is the reason the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. It is not have the right to overrule a mother’s right to life.

I have also thought for some time that the 14th amendment protects an unborn child as well. This is the best presentation I have seen of this far too infrequently noticed argument.

[Selfish_Meme]

ThirdPerson wrote: I have also thought for some time that the 14th amendment protects an unborn child as well. This is the best presentation I have seen of this far too infrequently noticed argument.
Well the others must have been pretty awful, if this was handed in to me as an assignment by anyone over the age of 15 it would get an F.