I knew as soon as I saw this reply to cheech he was done. You went all 6 syllable on him. His responses after you said this prove it.
Some forms of the birth control pill have a failsafe called an abortifacient. In the event a conception occurs the abortifacient will prevent the zygote from implanting on the uterine wall and terminates the pregnancy. This is an abortion, and many folks on the pill do not even realize it. Possibly both. Did you take health in high school? In the cases of vasectomy or tubal ligation these prevent fertilization. If fertilization cannot occur then a pregnancy cannot be terminated.
This may not even be relevant, but indulge me for a minute. "Choice" means the mother has the right to determine if her unborn child lives or dies by abortion. That distinction is often defended by choice advocates by saying "its not a person, its a fetus." However, we've seen cases where pregnant women have been murdered or wrongfully killed (car crashes, etc) and charges have been made that account for the unborn child. These charges have been successfully prosecuted in court. So if a woman can kill her unborn child, but an outside agent cannot, doesn't this mean the law allows the mother to determine if the unborn child is a person? As I said, it may be irrelevant, but I can picture such an argument being made to establish the rights of the father.
Embyro. Only first trimester abortions are permitted. That's because a federal law was passed in 2004 that allowed prosecutors to go for double convictions in murder cases. But it has nothing to do with terminating a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade ruled that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Indeed the law itself explicitly contains a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
How do you not see the great lie in this? How is a human embryo not a person. It is clearly alive by any definition. It is clearly unique by its DNA. It is clearly a human being by its genetic make-up, but the argument is it is not a person? What makes someone a person?
It should get easier than that....and I don't want to call Red out too vehemently here, because he's using his own words, but he said.... Excuse me, but when did Congress write that law? They didn't, the Supreme Court did. The courts do not make law. Justice White's dissent on Roe v Wade was dead on:
