Why The Liberal Mom is Pro-Life
I should probably start out, and inform all of the good people who read this blog, that I do not have the same views on abortion as a typical liberal. I am 100% Pro-Life. Morally, I do think it is murder. I was 18 when I became pregnant. I was still in high school, and I had only been with my boyfriend for 6 months. I found out I was pregnant, at a Planned Parenthood clinic. As soon as the stick turned pink, I was bombarded with information on abortion. I was scared. I was in tears. I was a wreck. But I stared at them, and said "No." I later found out I was carrying twins. As terrified, and unprepared as I was, I would not, and could not have an abortion.Today, I have two, beautiful, intelligent 3 year old girls. I love them more than my life. Is it hard? Definitely. Am I happy, and, regret free that I went through the rough pregnancy, and the three years of life changing events that comes with being a parent? Yes.
I know other women do not have the same morals as me. My morals, do not come from religion, or family influence, and obviously not from my political views as a liberal. They come from what I believe, as right and wrong. I can not use this as a way to argue my case though. It wouldn't be fair to force upon you all my beliefs. As Ms. Lib R. Tea has said, laws can not be made from one's morals. Instead, I will state my views using science.
A cell. The building block of life. The cell, IS life. It creates life, and without it, none of this world would exist. Each cell contains a nucleus. The nucleus is an amazing structure within the cell. Not only does it control the other functions within the cell, but it also carries an individuals genetic material, otherwise known as DNA. During fertilization, both the sperms and the egg's nucleus's combine, and with this, combines both pairs of genetic material, or DNA, creating brand new DNA.
Why am I giving you a biology lesson? Well, one of the arguments on abortion is when does life begin? The cells that are used to create life are alive. Wouldn't it make sense to argue that when the cells combined, when the DNA combined, that the life of the fetus has already begun?
From the moment the mother and fathers DNA combines, the life being created has part of it's future already mapped out. The gender, the color of their hair, eyes, and skin, certain personality traits, and even future mental and physical disabilities, are all permanently ingrained in the DNA.
So couldn't one say that a life is created when fertilization occurs? Yes. As weeks go by, the embryo gets a heartbeat. Even without brain waves from the fetus (which start about 40 days after conception), the cells are doing the thinking, and the working. The cells that are constantly dividing, and multiplying rapidly, are the force behind life, constantly creating a human being.
Who are we, as a society, to kill off new life? Some, like me, think life starts at conception. Some think after the first heart beat. Some actually think that the baby needs to breathe air for the first time to be considered a life. Either way, it is a human being.
In the end, the government only picks and chooses what science to believe. The government picks the easiest, and most beneficial option, every time. Of course they are Pro-Choice! Children are a burden to the government. Politicians support the mothers because it is the adults putting money in their pockets. Children can't offer anything to the them. The government doesn't care about the future, and what these kids have to offer. They care about only the RIGHT NOW.
"Global warming? Cut down green gas emissions? Help future generations? Won't that bring down our economy now, though? No way are we doing that!"
"Swine flu? Global pandemic? We believe you, and will do everything we can." (Not saying this is a bad thing)
I think it is a sad world we live in when a baby isn't granted the right to live, just because it hasn't breathed it's first breath of air, when science has proven, that they are alive human beings. Why are the women who CHOOSE to have sex, knowing the consequences, granted the right to throw their "problem" away? If these women were responsible in the first place, they would have practiced safe sex, or went to the hospital for the morning after pill. Instead, our government chooses to teach women that there is no consequences to one's actions.
So many families have been touched with infertility. Left with no option but to adopt. These women who are getting abortions, just because they can't handle a baby, the shame, etc ... are willing to give up a few minutes of their lives for a cheap thrill, but not face the consequences of their actions. They won't consider giving 9 months of their lives up for a baby, to face responsibility. That to me, is ridiculous.
Bottom line. If you don't think you can handle the possibility of getting pregnant, don't have sex.
Then there are the sad (and very rare) cases where women who are raped get pregnant. I am constantly conflicted with this one. These women did not choose to have sex, and they did not choose the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy. Do I think it's right that an abortion should take place? No. A baby shouldn't have to pay for the fathers crime. Do I think it is right that an emotionally scarred woman should continue with a pregnancy of a child who is the product of her worst nightmare? I don't know.
In conclusion, I want to add this list that I found on abortionfacts.com. I found it very interesting, and very true.
- Never, in modern times — except by a small group of physicians in Hitler’s Germany and by Stalin in Russia — has a price tag of economic or social use-fullness been placed on an individual human life as the price of its continued existence.
- Never, in modern times — except by physicians in Hitler’s Germany — has a certain physical perfection been required as a condition necessary for the continuation of that life.
- Never — since the law of paterfamilias in ancient Rome — has a major nation granted to a father or mother total dominion over the life or death of their child.
- Never, in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen the absolute legal right to have another killed in order to solve their own personal, social or economic problem. And yet, if this is human life, the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in America and permissive abortion laws in other nations do all of the above.
Is this what our world has come to?
September 23, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Ok, officially, I agree with a liberal :)
Great post and welcome!
September 23, 2009 at 8:00 AM
Heh, I agree with a liberal too. Whooda thunk it.
I would like to continue on a thought proposed by Ms. Lib R. Tea (partly because you kind of touch on it here, but mostly because this is the latest post and I don't feel like looking for the appropriate one). She mentioned that the rights of the fetus are not protected based on the wording of the constitution, which states that a citizen must be born to have rights.
I feel like this is simply a case of outmoded wording. It would be like saying the third amendment didn't protect you from quartering troops because you have an apartment and it says house. The rights assigned to American citizens are those rights we are granted from the start of our life in this country. As stated in this post, all evidence points to life starting long before birth.
September 23, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I totally agree with you!
What were your thoughts when Obama said he "wasn't paid enough" to define when life starts or when he said he didn't want his daughter "punished" with a baby?
I didn't like him already, but these comments were sickening. I wondered how people could vote for someone who has no respect for human life.
September 23, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Good first post! It is well written and well thought out. However, I obviously disagree with you.
There are several problems with your argument.
First, the debate is NOT about when life starts-everyone agrees that life starts at conception. The debate is whether that life has rights under the law. Many forms of life (plants and animals) do not have equal rights to us, so just being alive doesn't qualify you for anything.
As far as having human DNA, each one of my eggs has DNA that is unique from my own-do my ovum have rights? Or, if that's not enough, what about fertilized eggs that sit frozen? There are millions of these in clinics all over the world-if you gave equal rights to fertilized eggs you would not be able to freeze them like that.
No one doubts that fetuses are live, or that they have human DNA, but neither of those grant rights under the law. The eventual transformation into a person covered under the law does not gaurantee rights anymore than a law student has the right to practice as an attorney.
Infertile women have nothing to do with abortion.
You state that if they didn't want to get pregnant they should have used birth control-what about women who get pregnant while on birth control? Our oldest was conceived while I was on the pill and we were using condoms, and our third child is a birth control baby as well (condoms and spermacide). Conception while on birth control (ie "being responsible") is common, so to paint women who get pregnant unintentionally as irresponsible is, well, irresponsible.
Additionally, to tell people not to have sex if they don't want to have children is ludicrous. You're telling me that if I don't want to get pregnant I should stop having sex with my husband? THAT is ridiculous.
Lastly, AbortionFacts.com is a biased site with biased sources. Using them as a source taints your argument.
September 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Nookleerman-So we are supposed to interpret the Constitution? Well then why don't I just interpret that the second amendment only gives gun rights to armies? Saying that it gives gun rights to citizens is such an outmoded way of thinking.
The fact is that abortion existed in the colonial era. Estimates show that it was a fairly common practice, with roughly 20% of pregnancies ending in "intentional miscarriage". They knew it existed, they knew that women were carrying living humans, and yet they specifically chose to word their documents toward the rights of born persons.
We could all interpret the Constitution a thousand different ways, but the bottom line is that the intention is perfectly clear-the right to absolute autonomy is guaranteed to every person born-and that includes the fetus's mother, and her right to decide that she does not wish to allow a fetus to utilize her internal organs and life support systems.
September 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Jenny - I was down right shocked when Obama ACTUALLY uttered those words. Honestly,
I had no idea that having a baby was such a punishment.
Ms. Lib R Tea, technically, your ovum do have rights. No one can cut you open, without your consent,
to take your ovum from you. It sounds ludicrous, for sure, but really, your organs are protected by your rights as well, as they are a part of you. If they were not, then abortion would definitely be illegal, because you would be forcing your organs to go against their very nature.
As I said, one of the only reasons that the government hasn't granted fetus's, is because the fetus isn't paying them
the big bucks for their rights. Adults pay taxes, and therefore, are paying for a government that will make sure your
rights are not taken away from you. Unfortunately, it is impossible for a fetus to do so. It is much easier, and beneficial
for the government financially, to throw fetus's in the trash.
No, infertile women don't have anything to do with abortion, but they are an option to these women who choose not to
consider adoption. One of the problems is, is that abortion is the thing that is pushed. When I found out I was pregnant,
adoption wasn't even discussed as an option. Only abortion. What has happened with offering the other options?
You are right. There are women who get pregnant while practicing safe sex. I know a couple of women who had had this happen.
None of them ran off and got abortions. The part that makes these women irresponsible is that fact that they get an abortion, instead
of turning to other options.
I don't think people should have sex if they don't want to face the responsibilities that having sex can bring upon. If you don't want to get pregnant,
and have sex, practice safe sex. If that doesn't work, and you get pregnant, give the baby up for adoption, or decide to take responsibility for your actions.
This is on of the reasons why this generation, and generations to come, are doomed. Have sex, and get pregnant? Kill the baby. No repercussions.
Websites like abortionFacts.com seem biased to people who are Pro-Choice. If listing the reasons why one should consider not getting an abortion (and not just thinking of the fetus, but the mothers mental and physical well being as well) then, what really has this world come to?
September 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM
My ovum do not have rights, I have rights over my ovum-there is a very big difference. Someone can't take my ovum from me because of MY right not to be cut open and parted out, not because ovum have any more rights than my liver does.
You seem very clear that no one is allowed to use my organs without my consent-so why then why is a fetus allowed to use a woman's heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, blood, nutrients, oxygen, etc. without her consent?
There is no evidence that the "only reason" abortion is legal is because the government does not make money off fetuses. That is an unprovable accusation, so I'm not even going to bother arguing it.
The fact that adoption wasn't discussed with you is anecdotal. When I got pregnant with our oldest I was 17, and the doctor at Planned Parenthood presented all of my options to me. When I informed her that I was not interested in abortion, she discussed adoption with me-and in a far more honest way than any of the other adoption advocates I spoke with later.
If you want to talk about anecdotes, here's a thought-do you have any idea how much I had to put up with from Christians, supposed pro life advocates, for being pregnant when I was 17 and *GASP* unmarried? People shunned me from their churches. They told me that if I didn't give my son to a total stranger that I was going against God because "married parents are what children need to be raised properly". I still get judged, harshly, even though I am now older and MARRIED to the father of my children (yes, all THREE children).
So many people are against abortion, but tear down women who choose to have their babies and keep them because they are "too young" or "don't have enough money" or "aren't married" or don't meet one of a thousand other of their qualifications.
Again, it comes back to if you want to really be pro life, then you need to be an advocate for the mother too.
Lastly, biased means arguing with prejudice. That site isn't biased because I am pro choice, it is biased because it presents the argument with only one end result in mind. I didn't make it biased-they did. And the fact remains that if you want people to take your argument seriously, and you choose to use empirical evidence in your argument, then you need to provide factual information from unbiased sources or it detracts from your credibility.
For example-Ford is the best car manufacturer. I can say I love Ford and that's why it's the best-that's my right to say, and if I base the measurements off of my own feelings, no one can say that I'm wrong.
However if I say Ford is the best car manufacturer because the Ford Research Initiative, then my whole argument is worthless because it is based on biased information.
In the same way saying "abortion is wrong because Pro-Life-Group-A says so" detracts from your argument. Your personal morals cannot be discredited, and are a worthy argument on a personal level, however they have no place in the law.
September 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM
First thing I want to say is how much I enjoy this kind of lively debate. I don't even care if anybody changes their mind, it's just fun talking with such intelligent people. Also, Ms. Lib, I want to thank you for sticking it out in this discussion despite being in the minority among this readership (commenter-ship?). But unfortunately you're wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. No I'm kidding, but I do disagree on 2 points.
First, yes, we are supposed to interpret the constitution. That is what congress has been doing for Amendments XI through XXVII, from 1789 all the way until 17 years ago when the last amendment passed. That is the point of having a structure open to amending, so as to allow for changes in how we see the world and how we address new problems. Can you imagine if in 1919 congress would have said, "Sure, you're right ladies, you do deserve the right to vote, but unfortunately it says male white land owners only so your just out of luck.
More than that, the entire existence of the judicial branch of our federal governement is "to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases". Their job description includes interpreting the constitution.
On a side note, you suggest that while a human fetus does in fact have life, it should have no more rights than a plant. I feel like that if a child, born or not, has the potential to live a life of liberty, pursuing happiness, they should be afforded the rights necessary to fulfill that potential. Since a plant has no such potential, I don't feel your analogy is apt.
September 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Miss Lib R Tea,
Do you not believe in EVER amending the constitution? Because, if that is the case, then it means you will never see any arhuemnt we give as valid.
We are saying we want to law changed to recognize a fetus with AS MANY rights as the mother.
You are comparing a fetus to a liver. How can you, on one hand, say you believe a fetus is alive, but on the other hand, say it doesn't deserve more rights than your liver?
My argument is that although no one has a right to tell you what to do with your body, no one has a right to say what to do with that fetus' body either, including the "mother". That fetus deserves more rights than a body part. It is a living being, not an organ.
September 24, 2009 at 5:51 PM
To answer both of you, I believe that the Constitution can ONLY be amended within the parameters of the Constitution's original intent (ie granting autonomy and equality to all citizens). Amending the Constitution to outlaw slavery or give women the right to vote is aligned with this purpose. Giving a fetus the right to use a woman's vital organs would lessen her absolute right to autonomy, and thus not be in alignment with the Constitution's original purpose.
Nookleerman-I am a libertarian...I often find myself alone in a debate. It doesn't bother me any =)
The "Living Constitution" view of the Constitution is not the only one. I for instance happen to be an Originalist. Many supreme court judges have been Originalist, though Modernist or "Living Constitution" judges are more prevalent in today's court.
The job of the court is to interpret law (and the application of law) using the Constitution, not to interpret the Constitution according to the law they want to create.
If you don't like comparing a fetus to a plant, please see my law analogy (a law student, while a potential lawyer, does not have the right to practice as an attorney). Or, if you don't like that one since it's not biologically related, think of it this way. A caterpillar and a butterfly are two entirely separate creatures. A caterpillar is not a butterfly and a butterfly is not a caterpillar. However, one day, due to growth and genetic changes based on DNA most caterpillars will become butterflies....however, the fact remains the same that despite the eventual outcome, a caterpillar is just a caterpillar biologically speaking.
I understand the morals behind this. I see the caterpillar for the butterfly, and the fetus for the baby-but that is based entirely on morals and can have nothing to do with fair, equal, unbiased law.
September 24, 2009 at 5:57 PM
GOPmama-You cannot grant exactly equal rights to a fetus. Because they are sharing one body it is impossible-one of them must have superior rights to their shared body. Constitutionally speaking the woman, who is already born and has guaranteed rights, cannot have her rights taken away without a huge violation of the Constitution so the superior rights must go to her.
Do you not see how granting a fetus the right to live off it's mother's internal organs is granting it unequal rights, while taking away the rights of the mother to decide who uses her body, when it is used, and how it is used?
That sacrifice-the sacrifice of your own health and body systems-can only be done of your own free will. Legally requiring people to give up the rights to their internal organs is against the Constitution and against the rights woman in question.
September 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Ms Lib R. Tea, if you give someone a cell phone and they use it then are they using it without your consent? If you tell someone they can stay the night at your house in your guest room and they sleep in the bed in that guest room are they using it without your consent? I don't see how anyone could argue yes to either of those so how can you say a fetus is using anything without your consent when it is there because of a choice to create it.
As for your story about your pregnancy, that happens way to often and I'm truly sorry that happened to you.
You are right, in order to be pro-life you have to think about the mother as well which is why as much as I feel abortion is wrong and I know I would never be able to choose that option no matter what, I think the woman should have the option if her life is in danger.
September 25, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Ms Lib R. Tea- A caterpillar is not just a caterpillar it IS a stage of the butterfly. An infant is not just an infant, it IS a stage of a human. A fetus is not just a fetus, it IS a stage of a human. If you look at the life cycle of a butterfly what will it show? It will show several stages, one of which is a caterpillar. So yes, a caterpillar is in fact a butterfly. If you look at the life cycle of a human it will in fact show that a fetus is infact a stage of a human. Same as an infant, child, and adult. You wouldn't argue any of those are not human would you?
September 25, 2009 at 9:24 PM
texas gurl-Most people do choose to have sex (but let's not entirely overlook the fact that rape victims did not), but that is not the same as choosing to get pregnant. I have sex with my husband 3-5 times a week and I have absolutely NO intention of getting pregnant again. I choose NOT to get pregnant, and yet I am still having sex thanks to birth control-your argument doesn't really make much sense.
I'm not sorry that we got pregnant on birth control-I chose to have my baby and keep my baby and my husband and I are completely in love with our son. However, I am glad that I had the right to choose for myself.
Even though we don't agree on other aspects of this debate, thank you for recognizing the mother's right to her own life as well.
September 25, 2009 at 9:29 PM
texas gurl-A caterpillar is in the same genetic family as a butterfly, and it is a part of the butterfly life cycle, however you absolutely cannot set a caterpillar next to a butterfly and say that they are the same-they each have unique genetic makeup. They're related but not equal, which is why the caterpillar/butterfly analogy is related to this debate.
September 25, 2009 at 9:31 PM
And I never said that a fetus is not human. It is. It is alive. It is of human DNA. However, it does not have rights under the law just because of those two facts. A cow is alive, yet it has no Constitutional protection. My eggs have human DNA but have no protection under the Constitution. In order to be covered under the objective law of the Constitution you must be a born, living, individual, human being. There's just no getting around that.
September 25, 2009 at 10:43 PM
I can see the points you are making, please don't misunderstand me. I just find is appalling.
I think of myself, an adoptive mother , who struggled with infertility for YEARS until finally having a successful & difficult pregnancy and just can not imagine EVER putting my life before that of ANY of my children.
For that matter, I can not imagine ever putting my life before that of ANY child, even if they are not my own.
Believe me, LONG ago, I used to believe that women who had abortions should be forced to have them in a shack in the woods and die at the knife of the butcher. Then, for a long time, I believed that I had no right to tell a women what to do with their body.
Then, I became a mother and suddenly, my own selfish wants and needs disappeared.
Here's the thing, I can get the argument about rape victims, to some extent (although I just don't get why you wouldn't report a rape. I have such a hard time understanding weak women...I know, they exsist, so don't worry about convincing me of this)
However, what irks me to no end, are the repeat abortion "users" or people that just "opps" got pregnant and choose to abort. In hindsight, they would probably make lousy mothers anyway, but believe me, there are SO many families out there that would LOVE to adopt and yet, there aren't babies available.... it's SO selfish to murder a baby because "I don't want someone else to raise my baby.". Give me a break!
September 26, 2009 at 1:18 AM
You've been on the receiving end of the adoption process, so it's really not fair for you to assess the feelings of a "birth mother" because you're biased.
Life isn't like Juno. Most of the girls I knew ended up in grief counseling, many on antidepressants, and one girl I knew even attempted suicide because of the pain and guilt of giving up a baby. My own step grandmother had a baby at 14, gave her up for adoption, and went on to have five more children with my step grandpa...all of whom she had strained, distant, and painful relationships with because of the feelings associated with giving away her first born child.
The adoptive parents may see it as all sunshine and roses and "doing what's best" and blah blah blah blah, but that's not what it's like to a woman who gives up her child. Carrying a child for 9 months, laboring, giving birth and then giving away a baby is more often than not a devastating blow, a huge emotional burden that some women never overcome-and that shouldn't be forced on the unwilling.
I get where you're coming from, and though to me you are certainly very cold to the women in this scenario I know it stems from your personal beliefs and experiences which I respect. Still, like the rest of America, we have to just agree to disagree. No matter the personal feelings or idealogical perspectives, the bottom line is that we can't force our morals onto the law.
September 26, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Why isn't is ALSO mentioned, that there are women who ALSO are in grief counseling, antidepressants, and have considered, attempted, or have committed suicide, BECAUSE they have had an abortion.
Not all women are happy that they killed a fetus.
It's unfair of you to say that women who choose to give their child up for adoption suffer through these things, without ALSO mentioning that there are just as many women who have abortions that regret it.
September 27, 2009 at 12:22 AM
There are a thousand different view points-there are women who are happy and there are women who are not over any one of the choices we've discussed here. I addressed adoption specifically because that is what GOPmama was talking about, and I felt that she was not considering the birth mother's side of things.
You're right, there are women who are devastated that they had abortions. There are women who are perfectly fine with it-even glad they did it. There are women who are devastated that they gave their child up for adoption, and there are women who are happy about it. There are women who are so glad they continued an unplanned pregnancy and kept their child, and yet so many who hate motherhood and take it out on their unsuspecting child by resenting, abusing, and neglecting them.
The range of human emotions is vast and complex. I wasn't trying to represent them all, I was just addressing a single point that was made.
September 28, 2009 at 8:40 AM
I also come from a viewpoint that very much appreciates logic and science but I have to disagree with your definition of when a fetus becomes a human. To me, when the cells/organism/fetus/baby becomes viable (ie. if something were to happen to the mother and it had to be born right then it would live) then abortion become murder. Until that point, it's a part of the mother's body. Even if the baby has a heart beat at three weeks there is absolutely no way it could survive in the outside world, therefore it's not yet a being that should be afforded the same rights as say an eight month old fetus.
September 28, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Ms Lib R. Tea said-Your egs have no protection under the Conststitution because they are not human. Having human DNA does not make something human, it simply makes it a part of a human. Your eggs have to be fertalized before they can become a human. As for your cow arguement, 1-that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand because a cow isn't human. 2-a cow actually is protected to a point, there are certin things you can't do to/with a cow according to the law.
September 30, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Cait-I think a fetus is always human, I just don't think that it is always protected under the law, nor should it be. I definitely can see merit in your argument, and I think that laws could be put into place that are in alignment with the Constitution to avoid the abortion of viable babies, so long as it was very carefully worded to preserve the rights of the mother (ie did not prohibit earlier abortions, and still allowed for abortions in the rare cases where a woman's life was in jeopardy because of labor induction).
It should be noted though that viability is currently recognized as 24 weeks, and less than 1% (.08%) of abortions occur after this point, so the vast majority of abortions would still be legal.
September 30, 2009 at 9:57 PM
texasgurl-Having human DNA does not make something human? So something can have human DNA and not be human?
Still, I'm not arguing that they are not human, I'm arguing that they are not Constitutionally protected persons.
Also-a cow does not have Constitutional protections, it has regulatory laws placed on it, just as any other piece of property does.
October 1, 2009 at 6:19 AM
Ms Lib R. Tea- Yes things can have human DNA and not be human. Blood, livers, hearts, basicly any part of your body has human DNA but that does not make it human. It makes it PART of a human. Your eggs have human DNA but they are not human. They are part of a human. A fetus on the other hand has human DNA and IS a human. It has different DNA then YOU do there for it is seprate from you.
October 1, 2009 at 6:19 AM
Ms Lib R Tea - You're right. I should have used a different word than human. I meant Constitutionally protected being.
And as to the DNA thing, there is some validity to saying that just because something has a particular DNA that doesn't make it that particular thing. For example, scientists have grafted a human ear onto the back of a mouse. The mouse's body accepted the tissue as it's own and continued to nourish it. That does not however, make that mouse a human. Or vice vera - because someone got a pig's heart as a transplant doesn't mean they're now a pig.
October 2, 2009 at 12:37 AM
TexasGurl-First, see Cait's excellent example-having human DNA (or pig DNA) alone does not make you a person (or a pig).
A fetus is not separate from it's mother, it is a genetically different being but the whole idea here is that a fetus cannot survive separated from the woman carrying it. However, like I have said before, being a genetically separate being does not entitle them to rights, since in order to have them they would have to usurp the already established rights of the mother, and to grant unequal rights to the fetus-something that the law cannot do while upholding the Constitution.
October 2, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Ms Lib R. Tea- First off, I allready said that having human DNA does not autamaticly make it human. A fetus however is scientificly human.
A fetus IS seperate from the mother in the sense that it has different DNA and is a completly different being. It is something that the woman chooses to have in her by creating it and it is a liming person.
A human is a person. A fetus is scientificly a human. Therefor a fetus is a person.
If you are a heavy drinker and destroy your liver then go in for a transplant you can be denied to the the CHOICE you made to destroy the liver you already have. Why should drinkers have to live with their choices that only effect themselves but mothers who are ending a human life do not?
Also your whole point about rights is null because letting the mother end a human life that she chose to create is giving her more rights then the fetus. Just because she was here first does not mean she should have more rights. Yet that is how it is.