Does an unborn child also have reproductive rights, or is it only women?

[msc545]

Like, perhaps the right to not be murdered while it is still growing?

[abc3643]

Unborn children are just that — unborn. The unborn do not have rights. However, the state does have some interest in the unborn who are about-to-be-born. How much so is up to the legislative and judicial processes, both of which the unborn have no say or rights.

I asked Google Gemini:

PROMPT:
Does an unborn child also have reproductive rights?

RESPONSE:
In the current United States legal system, the answer is no. Under existing constitutional law, reproductive rights (and constitutional rights in general) are tied to legal personhood, which the Supreme Court has consistently ruled begins at birth, not conception.
...

Summary
An unborn child has no reproductive rights because:

• Legal Status:
  They are not considered "persons" under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
• Nature of the Right:
  Reproductive rights are about making choices for one's own body, which an unborn child cannot do.
• Priority of the Born:
  The law historically prioritizes the rights of the person who is already born and living.

[msc545]

An unborn, in fact, does have rights. It does not matter what the hell some AI thinks about it.

[msc545]

Unborn children actually do have rights in the moral sense and arguably in the legal sense. The fact that the laws do not recognize this clearly at this point is beside the point.

[abc3643]

The law is never beside the point. Ask anyone in prison.

I won't comment on the "moral sense" aspect of it because life is never black and white.

[msc545]

No, you won't comment on the moral sense aspect of it because you know that morally killing an unborn child is wrong. You just can't say it.

[Chazmatazz269]

It seems like a stretch to conflate not being born with “reproductive rights”.
Way back in 2004, the federal government implemented “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act” as a matter of uniformity. That’s because every US state had, in various ways and at various times, prosecuted people for being involved in the death of an unborn child. At no time in US history did feminists and democrats decry this practice. Only when they decided to make women an even more privileged class are unborn children now just “clumps of cells”, “parasites”, or “not even alive”.
That is all they’re doing with their ideals concerning “reproductive rights” and abortion. It’s unconstitutional on the face of it. It’s a human being when the mother wants it, and if the baby dies by anyone else’s doing it’s murder. But when she doesn’t want it, she gets to kill it with impunity.
In short, yes every US state and the federal government has previously recognized an unborn child as a person with a right to life.
Reproductive rights aren’t a factor until the child has developed its own ability to reproduce. Therein lies another hypocrisy of the modern left. Women already have more reproductive rights than men, and way more body autonomy. Their endless ignorant whining about reproductive rights and body autonomy is as aged and ridiculous as the often debunked “gender pay gap”. It doesn’t stop them from feeling some sort of way about it, and we all know that they function entirely on their feelings. Facts no longer have a place in the left’s figuring.

[Anonymous]

Now I don’t think it matters due to the recent Supreme Court decision that brings it to the states making it a free for all.
Like abortions didn’t stop, it made it more difficult to seek one out.

We’ve seen little girls who were raped, having to cross into neighboring safe strongholds for bodily autonomy to be able to end the pregnancy. Under the age of 12.

I give Pro Choice to all ages, which isn’t Pro Abortion more than The Freedom To Choose to carry to term, carry a rapist’s child, abort if you are in no health condition to do so, saves the life of the carrier, or other.

It is up to the girl, woman, female period to come up to a decision.
The amount of people uplifting is amazing, the amount trying to control is cruel and unusual.

[goaded]

This is not 20 oak trees

This is an oak tree

[msc545]

That is a very appropriate visual metaphor. All seeds contain within them the creation of an oak tree.

[goaded]

Thank you, I think it is a very appropriate visual metaphor, too. You would have us believe that this is woodland, despite the fact that, apart from the wood of the tree they're on, there's no wood there, let alone a tree. Crushing an acorn is not the same as cutting down a tree, or even a sapling.

They have no roots, they have no trunk, they have no leaves, none of the things that define a tree.

In the same way, an early fetus has none of the things that define a person. I think it's extreme and even fanatical to claim a fertilised ovum is a person, worthy of even more rights than the mother (the right to use the mother's body for 9 months). Compromises can be reached, but only with good faith arguments and the understanding that not everyone agrees with you.

If you want fewer abortions in the US, try increasing the minimum wage, giving new parents statutory paid leave, universal health care, and generally supporting them to raise children.

[msc545]

You can have your own definitions of what constitutes a person that serve your political purposes, but they aren't necessarily accurate. In fact, they are not accurate as far as I'm concerned.

[goaded]

My "political purposes"? Come off it. It's common sense.

Maybe you should demand a law that says all women must use moon cups every month after sex and bury the results in consecrated grounds in case there's a person in there that didn't implant properly. Lock them up for "Unlawful disposal of remains", otherwise.

[Bricealan]

@msc545 I don't understand what you are talking about here by connecting "reproductive rights' with the ethics regarding abortion? The constant and ongoing battle of right and wrong about terminating a pregnancy will never be resolved, and it has, at times, resulting in some nut case going to a Planned Parenthood clinic and murdering doctors who perform abortions!

"SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO LIFE, OR I WILL KILL YOU" - DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

IT CERTAINLY MUST IN THE MIND OF A MAN/MEN THAT CAN DO THAT KIND OF INSANE THING.

[msc545]

We are not discussing the ethics of killing people except to the extent that abortion also involves killing a person.

[Bricealan]

@msc545 I understand, but the debate regarding abortion and abortion rights will wage on forever, because the subject is so personal to women who want the right to chose

[msc545]

I understand it's personal to women, and I frankly do not care. Murder is personal to me because I think it is immoral and unethical, and the worst crime someone can commit. Just because you cloak that crime in something like women's rights doesn't make it any better.

[Bricealan]

@msc545 Well, we can agree to disagree, in a polite way, and I appreciate your exchange in this civil manner. My attitude was formed by my days in college, when thinking of doing Social Work, and looking at Stats, for adoption of those kids and Foster Homes, which is a kind of Temporary solution for those children given up by the mother.

[msc545]

Hi, I'm Just Towne. I did my residency at a children's hospital where we had a child abuse unit, and I wound up working in that unit in the ER a lot.

[Anonymous]

Apparently only women have reproductive rights, and believing otherwise makes you a woman hating sexist who just want's to control a woman's body. I agree with this women of color that abortion is age based discrimination.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/X0-mDI-pHlY

[NaultD]

What's the end goal here? Want the least amount of abortions possible? Sex education and avaliable reproductive management including abortions is needed.

People don't go to jail for miscarriages or still borne. Shit happens and you have access to doctor's with knowledge and you take of it.

[msc545]

Murdering unborn children because they are inconvenient is absolutely reprehensible.

[NaultD]

Again miscarriage and still borne isn't murder or even negligence. It's below what's called "Loss of Chance" Doctrine. Birth is by nature a dangerous rhing in of itself.

Let's focus on what we can do to make everyone safer.

[msc545]

You don't call it murder because to call it murder would be to admit two things:
1. That an unborn child is a human being
2. That from a legal standpoint it constitutes murder
It is the taking of a human life. That is murder. Birth may be a dangerous thing, but abortion makes it a fatal thing.

If you had to admit to these things yourself, then you could no longer support abortion. That is what led me to this position.

[NaultD]

A fetuse can't sustain itself. Like I said a miscarriage or even a stillborn isn't murder.

[NaultD]

Just a quote I resonate with. Take it as you will.

"The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

[msc545]

The ability to sustain oneself is not a prerequisite for life. It's a new world because you are trying to find excuses for murder. A miscarriage or a stillborn is an unfortunate occurrence, and no, that is not murder because people do not create those things deliberately, except in the cases of abortion, which actually is murder. Abortion is a deliberately caused miscarriage or stillborn, depending on your definitions of those events.

[msc545]

The fact that one cannot sustain oneself because of one's developmental stage is not a reason to therefore decide that that person can be murdered with impunity.

[loveslongnails]

We have agreed on many things in the past, and I truly respect and appreciate your fervent belief in your stance. However, you start from a position where you demand the listener acknowledge your premise, and belief and accept it as an undeniable truth while you allow for no other premise or belief.

Let's take the ages old debate within the Roman Catholic Church as an example. For years, they argued over the concept of "ensoulment", or the quickening. There was the belief that no soul was attached to embryo until a certain point in time, and therefore, it was not a human being until then.
Then this was disregarded, then reinstated by Gregory the XIV, and so on it raged.

While the Church still condemns abortion now, regardless of the quickening debate, there has never been anything amounting to "proof" either way. You believe what you choose to believe, much the same way you choose to believe in God, or a God, or no God.

My point with you before, which I admit I did not make clear enough, is that I firmly object to one group of people making laws about a thing that has NO consensus, based on their beliefs alone. This is not an easy subject, but that's exactly what's being done. Women are being told "you're committing murder... because WE SAY it's murder, and we're in charge and we make the laws."

This subject is more about moral signaling and religious beliefs than it is about finding a workable solution. And that is what the GOP intended it to be when they made it a dog whistle. They knew by combining it with the "Christian right Nationalist Movement", it would divide a great many people and cause chaos. They were right. How many folks in the USA are focused on this, while the rest of their world is being dismantled?

[msc545]

@loveslongnails I don't need to compromise with people who are intent on taking life. Murder is murder, and I don't compromise with people that do this.

[loveslongnails]

You're proving my point exactly, though I don't think you realize it. This is precisely the divisiveness the GOP sought to achieve. What you see as compromising your principles or beliefs, a vast number of others see as a dictatorial infringement on their autonomy and rights, especially over a subject with no consensus.

So my point remains - you don't have to change your mind about it, but do you think you have the "right" to legislate your position and enforce it on others because you believe you're infallibly correct? The answer is, for you, "Yes, I do, because I'm right".

I leave you with this thought, if "might is right", the majority of people who vote do not agree with you. The majority of people in the USA as a whole, men and women alike, do NOT support all out abortion bans NOR a 6 week ban. Yet, 28 states have them, even states where their own voters do not support it. Many of those people are just as vehement in their belief as you are, but you see this as a final line in the sand?

[msc545]

@loveslongnails I have the right to legislate against criminal behavior, including murder. We have strong laws against murder in every state in this country. There needs to be a recognition that abortion itself is also murder, and there needs to be strong bans against that as well. I'm sorry if it inconveniences people. That's just the way things are sometimes. Many laws are inconvenient, but we have to live with them in order to keep order in our society. As I said to you before, I am never going to agree to murder.

[loveslongnails]

" There needs to be a recognition that abortion itself is also murder"... And as I said before, you will never consider any discussion, or any points, from anyone who disagrees with you as valid, because it is what it is to you.

Let's play "what if": What IF -- the Pope came out and said: "God came to me and spoke, saying there is no ensoulment until the 6th month. There is no soul, or any of my spirit, associated with the embryo, until the 180th day. You are not committing an act of murder".

Would that be enough to alter your position, at least from a legislative standpoint? Again my point is, you're so damn sure you are RIGHT about all this to the point where you are willing to legislate another's body, what if you weren't right about murder? Would you alter your reasons because you simply don't like abortions, or is the idea of "murder" the only thing keeping you so steadfast?

Would you agree to abortion if it were proved to you, by word of the Pope, that is wasn't murder, or would his Testimony still not be enough for you?

[msc545]

No, it would not be enough. God and I both know murder when we see it.

[loveslongnails]

Right wingers are always priding themselves on "controversial positions", right? I mean, that was CK's claim to fame. OK, so here's my controversial position: "If you're not a PERSON, i. e. living, you have no rights. Why would you? You're not born yet, you have no rights". How's that, GOP? Oh but wait... wasn't THAT the position of the Republican Party for years until abortion became their dog whistle? Excuse me, I though I was being controversial.

[msc545]

Please define very carefully what you mean by "person" and then we can discuss it. Other than that, it's just your use of a term that essentially is a made-up term.

[loveslongnails]

It's definitely not a made-up term; it's the same term used in the US Constitution. That's why I used it. I. E, the 14th Amendment
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ...(etc, etc)
* 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."

"Person" is used quite often in the US Constitution and in laws throughout the USA. No sir, I did not make up the term for the sake of argument. Also, I do not wish to engage in any kind of abortion/women's rights debate as to whether or not it's "murder". No one's mind gets changed and it just usually creates hostility. I'm more inclined to discuss the idea that the topic is disagreed on by doctors, scientists and even the Papacy over the years, and remains that way.

My concern is "given that disagreement, is it fair and just for one particular group to inflict their will upon others when there are such diverse opinions within a given society"? If someone holds the view that it's unequivocally "murder", the discussion ends.

[msc545]

I'm really uninterested in you quoting the Constitution to me since I have probably read it and considered it many more times than you have. If you want to use the term "person," then you need to define and describe what you mean by "person." If you can't define it, stop using it.

[loveslongnails]

I didn't realize you'd be so hostile about it. lol Or maybe it's my perception. I don't know what prompts you to think there's a contest about who has read the Constitution more often, or considers it more often.

So I will say again, perhaps I over-nuanced my statement? One of my points was to intentionally NOT give a specific personal definition for the word "person", mainly because, and to show, that this is how laws are written!

When the right-wing went to court to argue their deportation case, they didn't argue the "person" aspects, they argued the legality of a non-documented individual having rights at all. The people making abortion laws will argue whether or not it's a person at conception, at a heart beat, at this point, at that point, and so on.

If I decide to take the position that it's not a person till it takes a breath, which by the way has been an Abrahamic position held by Hebrews, why is my position more controversial than the one holding you're a person at the moment of fertilization?

I really posted this to make a point about the whole discussion, and what determines the tipping points where one group decides "my definition of "X" is the one we have to live by, because we are the ones in power making the rules, or we have divine guidance, or some other agenda.

My personal definition of "person" isn't relevant to the point I'm trying to make, because when that's how the law is written, someone else makes that definition for me, or you, and you become bound to accept it. So again my question is ---- in a matter such as I brought up, is that a fair method? I think not.

[Ariesman81]

@loveslongnails

This is why it's important to realize that the constitution was written within the context of Christian ethics.
A Christian would never make the argument that a "Person" didn't include children in the womb, as according to the bible, they are already children of God, deserving of human rights.
As for the argument of Illegal aliens not getting "due process", said person is already in violation of the nation's laws. And according to Christian law, while deserving of human rights, they are to abide by the law of the land. Hence the reason why altering the faith behind the laws is so problematic.

[msc545]

The terms "person" and "living"They're not synonymous although you would have them be so, apparently. A dead person can actually still be a person, at least in our language. An unborn human being is still a person given your definitions. Causing a living person to become unliving is otherwise called murder if it is done deliberately. An abortion is an act of violence against a person designed to deprive the person of life. The fact that it is often often convenient is what creates its frequency, unfortunately.

[loveslongnails]

@Ariesman81 Nice group of assumptions to fit your narrative, but it doesn't work at all. The Constitution is not a Christian document, or a Christian based document, no matter how many times you nationalists want to say it out loud. The founders couldn't have been more clear as to their thoughts on religion, but you guys persist with the lies.

The Constitution does not differentiate between legal those persons here with papers and documents and those here without them, when it comes to due process. You can repeat "but you're already violating the law" till your face is red, but clearly, that's NOT what the Constitution says. It just doesn't fit your narrative.

And besides that point, your idea of good government is "just go sweep up anyone who is brown, tan, possibly Mexican, obviously not white, transport them to Alligator Alcatraz, deny them counsel and family contact, and just assume they're undocumented because they look like they could be? That's what you're currently doing, no matter how you shine it.

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

Careful with your understanding of murder. While true that murder is a violent act against an INNOCENT person, that does not mean that all killing is murder. Self defense is the epitome of such a case.

The argument of a mother claiming she is defending her life by aborting is probably the most difficult to prosecute. While she may be right that the baby will negatively affect her life, it does not absolve her of her responsibility in creating the problem for herself.

[Ariesman81]

@loveslongnails

Ahhh... more with the gaslighting racism shit. It's like clockwork with you guys.

Yes, we'd love to have more law abiding Christians in the country. And yes, we'll deport the ones that aren't.

[loveslongnails]

@Ariesman81 Excuse everyone for telling you what's really happening. Gaslighting racism? Do you even know what gaslighting means? Apparently not. Tell you what, blind man, when white people start getting scooped up off the street and sent to places A. A., let us know.

As to "law abiding Christians", are you referring to those now currently breaking the law by circumventing the Constitution? Yeah, probably. Or maybe you're referring to the Christian population committing 70% of all sexual assaults in the country, while you piss and moan about one or two immigrants who do the same thing. Maybe those are the law abiding citizens you're so proud of. GFL

[Ariesman81]

@loveslongnails

Do you need a safe space while you calm down?

[msc545]

@Ariesman81 a loss of life does not always, or even frequently, follow the birth of a child.

[msc545]

What women who claim such a thing really mean is that the child will be inconvenient, thus neglecting the possibility of adoption by others.

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

I agree, abortion is an extremely selfish act.

Can you explain what you mean by "a loss of life does not always, or even frequently, follow the birth of a child." I'm not following the rationale.

[loveslongnails]

@Ariesman81 My favorite point is that one group of individuals, because they power, thinks it's righteous to create laws based on their "beliefs" alone, when scientists, doctors and other medical experts can not come to consensus on the central point of the issue... when does life begin?

Back to reality now and not Christian Nationalism please. There have been several cases where a fetus was found to be abnormally developed, as in missing vital organs so that it could not possibly survive if brought to term. Because the woman was unfortunate enough to be a red state with stupid abortion laws, she was told she had to carry the fetus to term despite knowing it would not survive, and by doing so, it put her own life in great danger. Supposedly there was an exception in the state law to allow for this, but in reality, NO hospital and NO doctor would step up and perform the abortion.

Why? Because the AG of the state had publicly said " we will prosecute anyone who performs an abortion", even though the law in his own state allowed for it. So the woman left the state to receive proper HEALTH CARE, and then faced charges for doing that.

So do tell us about murder, and how in several other cases the state was not the "ipso facto" murderer of the women who showed up to hospitals with serious complications, but told to come back when they were "closer to dying"?

I'm plenty calm, but we've been calm too long while the mf'ing fascists have moved in.

[msc545]

@Ariesman81 I mean that giving birth to a child while inconvenient does not end a person's life, typically.

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

Got it. It sure as hell alters it though.

[Ariesman81]

@loveslongnails

Alright... cool.

Again... I know you want to have a scientific debate about this, but I don't believe it's possible. There has to be an authority which governs the creation and execution of the laws. The objective morality.

But even in your own statement you claim that science, doctors and medical professionals can't point to when life begins. I'm not trying to beat you down, but you're ignoring the authority that can... God and faith.

I'm not gonna lie man, the scenario you pose about the woman with the deformed baby is a very difficult moral argument. All I'm gonna say is that I'm not the one to make that judgement call.

[NathanDavis]

is it alright to murder someone once they have grown up?

[msc545]

No, it is never okay. You have to be an unborn child to be legally murdered.

[NathanDavis]

but it is also legal to murder born children...

[NathanDavis]

as in, every ordered execution was... someone's child

[Twalli]

An unformed human is as much a person as a tadpole is a frog. Have you ever heard of anyone who ate tadpole legs?

[Ariesman81]

Oooooo... look who's joining the fight!

[msc545]

I have never approved of abortions.

[Ariesman81]

Please remind the 18-24 anonymous "male" coward that approximately 1% of the 1.4M abortions in the U. S. in 2024 were cited as rape. 0.5% cited as incest.

Conservative estimate is that 95% of abortions are women saying "I don't want this thing I am responsible for creating"

If you'd be so kind as to tell him to grow a pair of balls it'd be greatly appreciated.

[msc545]

Not my job, sorry.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

I believe they should, but I feel like a minority.

[Titlover01]

No. They are unborn

[msc545]

How does being unborn mean you have no rights.

[DrPepper12]

No!!!