Liberals: Personhood Starts With Paul Ryan’s Jizz

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nope, I believe that all persons are equal in value. I had to ask Oerdin that - because it's a required presupposition in my argument that Abortion takes priority, because far more people are killed in abortion than in all the other things.

Actually, very few people are killed in abortion.

[Kidlicious]

It's a mindless slogan, not a legal argument.

I already know that killing babies is legal.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I was responding to a question from a guy in the UK on an international board. Be less boring next time, MtG. Given the hue and cry over attempts to restrict late term abortions in the US, it's a fair bet that alot of the American pro-choice movement supports late term terminations as well.

On the subject of abortion in the US. May as well talk about the Taleban's position on the issue. It's close to yours.

The hue and cry is kneejerk reflexive reaction to rather disingenuous legislation, banning a specific procedure, but not all late term abortions. It's part of a (in some cases admitted) strategy of incrementalization and also simply trying to pack the books with abortion laws to make the pro-choice groups go broke trying to litigate them all. Sort of like the way Scientology got its tax exemption by inducing thousands of members to concurrently sue the IRS.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I already know that killing babies is legal.

It isn't, at least in the US.

[Kidlicious]

It isn't, at least in the US.

If a fetus weren't a baby, why would you kill it?

[Ben Kenobi]

Not really, considering there's still a fair amount of crack babies, HIV+ babies, FAS babies, etc. The numbers may be down percentage-wise, or they may be up in the absolute sense, but they're out there. So where do we get the funding for the prego-police and prison nurseries again?

Allocate it from the budget already devoted to detox. Mothers with their children should be a higher priority to get the mothers clean, asap. Money saved on this will save FAS treatment down the line.

And what the **** is "continuity of the person?"

Simple. X is X is X. Is the dna of the embryo in the petri dish the same as the dna of the fetus in the womb, and the dna of the infant? Yes. Ergo you've proved 'continuity of the person' through all three stages of life.

There's a fertilized egg. Implant it, and of course it doesn't suddenly magically become Lindsey Lohan's egg fertilized by Michael Jackson's sperm. Its still a fertilized egg, not a child.

Fertilized Egg ceases to exist at conception.

It is coming. Less than ten years unless legislated away, perhaps less than five. And we have clumps of cells with a distinct DNA profile that later become individuals, if everything goes well/

Since we're delving into science fiction - does that mean that abortion should be banned with the advent of the artificial womb?

Come on, Ben. You're Catholic.

Yes, but I've not always been Catholic. Nor have I always been Christian. I agree that there is a religious argument against abortion - but it's not what made me prolife. I'm giving you here the exact argument that made me prolife.

It is (recent) Catholic doctrine that human life begins at conception.

It is recent because it has changed with the advent of scientific evidence demonstrating fertilization.

Your argument starts with conception as the beginning point

True, yes it does start here. The thesis I am trying to prove is that the dna of the child at conception is the same dna of the child at birth. I am trying to establish a relationship between the two. How would you go about proving this to be the case? IVF lets you do this. Get a sample of the child's DNA shortly after fertilization. Ok. Done.

Now, I'm not assuming that my thesis is true. I don't even know yet, if the DNA will be the same at the beginning as the end. All I have is the initial DNA sample. What's the next step?

Obtain a sample of dna from the child at, say, 3 months. Ok. Done. Does the sample of DNA match? Yes. Can it be proven empirically that these DNA samples also match? Yes. Has it been done experimentally? Yes. So now we can say, conclusively, that there is continuity between the child at fertilization and the child in the womb.

Then, do the same at, say, 6 months. Does the DNA match? Yes. Has this been done experimentally? Yes. Can I thus prove that the child in the womb is the same child at fertilization? Yes. Is the child in the womb at 6 and 3 months also the same child? Yes. Do all three match? Yes. Then I have proven that there is continuity from 6 months in the womb to the child at fertilization.

Then the final step, test the child at birth. Does the DNA match? Yes. Do all four samples match? Yes. Then we are finished her and it is conclusively proven.

Now how would we go about disproving this? You'd have to break any one of these steps. Good luck.

you know there is no scientific or medical basis for the concept of "personhood" - it is a legal concept.

Legally unborn children can inherit property. Ergo, there is legal precedent for personhood preceding birth. If personhood is merely a legal concept, then one would have to admit that an unborn child cannot legally be considered a person in some circumstances and not a person in other circumstances. Personhood, at least since the 14th amendment is binary. You either are or you are not.

You are free to believe what you want. You are not free to impose that belief by force of law on others with nothing more than your emotional/religious argument.

Am I allowed to kill someone because I believe they are not a person? Am I allowed to restrain someone from killing someone because they believe the person that they want to kill is not a person?

it is a healthcare matter between the doctor and patient

If the father wished to keep his child would the father have a say?

IVF could disappear entirely

But it's here. Why?

Irrelevant *as a basis for an objective standard of legally cognizable personhood.*

Ok, that brings us to the second argument then.

Unborn children are human beings
All human beings are persons

Ergo the unborn is a person.

Which presupposition (1 or 2), fails?

Go to Somalia and preach the gospel. Then talk to al Shabaab about your "natural rights" before one of them takes a dull saw and slowly saws your head off. Of course "rights" can be taken away by people. Ask Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot. For that matter, ask Torquemada.

If someone else is deprived of their right to free speech, through their execution, does that also deprive you of your right to free speech?

Ok, fair enough. I'm amused that despite different presuppositions we share this conclusion. Yes, once the "uppity ******s" and their "outside agitators" made some progress towards being treated like human beings, women had the nerve to want to get in on the act. They were only about 60 years behind on getting voting rights.

Is there a right to contraception in the constitution of the US?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, and? IVF relies on certain principles being true in order to work. If those principles are not true, then IVF doesn't work.

Which still doesn't mean that IVF *assumes* anything.

It? When do children acquire their sex?

I was quite clearly referring to the IVF process in that sentence.

Yes, you do have a child in that petri dish. Which is why you are paying thousands of dollars to get a doctor to stick the embryo into your wife.

If you had a child, you'd just take it out of the dish and go home with it. You have a collection of cells that will develop into a child if successfully implanted and if it then stays implanted and grows to full term.

I have a standared. Fertilization. Why? becuase this is when the dna forms to indentify the child from the parents.

Good for you. Now you just need a viable (no pun intended ) basis for legislatively imposing that standard on everyone else. Good luck with that.

How many women have been charged and arrested under Roe for having a late-term abortion?

Maybe you better go back to some 101 level civics on the judicial system, unless that was another troll question??? You don't charge anyone with anything under any judicial opinion. A judicial opinion is not a criminal statute. Roe allows states to set particular standards and prohibits them from setting others. Prosecutions generally happen with the doctors, since the women can argue they were ignorant of whether they were too far along and relied on the doctor's expert opinion. You can start with Massachusetts v. Edelin and go forward from there. States have the authority, whether they use it or not is called prosecutorial discretion.

And how does fertilization fail?

It has long been estimated that fertilization "fails" more often than not. Ever hear of spontaneous abortion? Fertilized eggs fail to implant, or implant imperfectly, or fail to properly develop once implanted on a regular basis.

Do you believe the state does not have the obligation to protect people's lives?

I'm getting a little bored with your word twists and semantic masturbation. The ENTIRE ****ING QUESTION IS WHAT LEGALLY CONSTITUTES "A PERSON" Got it?

Yes, I can. Louise Brown, back in 1982, was the first, and thousands more since then have been conceived through IVF. The process has been completely documented and proven - there is no break.

Yes, egg + sperm becomes zygote becomes blastocyst becomes embryo becomes fetus becomes child.

The embryo in the petri dish has the same dna as the fetus in the womb, and the infant.

It's not an embryo at that point, in the dish it's still a blastocyst.

Therefore there is just one person through the whole process from fertilization onwards. Louise Brown did exist in that petri dish. Louise Brown existed in her mother's womb.

There is one set of cells with a particular combination of DNA that becomes a person, assuming the fetus develops to term. "Louse Brown" may have been named three generations prior to birth for all I care, it's still a blastocyst in the dish, and IVF is totally irrelevant to the regulation of abortion.

So someone becomes something after we kill her?

No, something will become someone, if not aborted, or miscarried.

Empirical means that we can prove this through outside observation. We can prove continuity of existence by testing the genetic code of the embryo in the petri dish, and then doing the same for the fetus in the womb, and then the infant child. If the same genetic code is found in all three sections, then yes, we have decisively proven that there is continuity of existence of the child from the petri dish to the cradle. This has been done, and was done - 30 years ago. This is proven science.

It's more of your verbal masturbation. You choose for your own purposes to label a blastocyst "a child." Yet you can't even do that consistently, because you also use the term embryo and fetus.

You would have to show that the child inside of the womb was a different person from the child outside of the womb. That the child inside the womb at 8 months is the same child at birth, all that takes is an ultrasound. We *know* this is true, MtG.

It's not a child in the womb until it is viable.

How many times do you see people put up ultrasounds of their children? Why do they do that, if what you say is true?

Why do they have baby showers before birth, or bridal showers before a wedding. People like to celebrate hoped for future events. I have a friend who has an ultrasound as her FB background image. She's miscarried twice already. She's classed as a high risk pregnancy. She HOPES to have a child, but knows it isn't certain, in fact, it may not even be probable.

If Birth is the empirical standard, then when can we observe the development of the child in the womb, all the way up to birth.

Birth is *an* emprical standard, but, as I said, an arbitrary one. Turning 18 is *an* empirical standard, but again arbitrary. Being an American citizen is an empirical standard, and again, arbitrary. That something is empirical does not give it inherent value as a standard.

You're correct, that Birth was an empirical standard, in medieval times. Science marches on.

Actually, quickening was the standard.

So do I. My criteria is empirical. Can it be proven by an unbiased observer? Does it rely only on facts which can be observed, and facts which are collectable? Can it be shown, indisputably so. that the child in the petri dish is the same child in the womb? Yes. Ergo - the only standard that makes sense is fertilization. Once this one fact is conceded. One fact - that is all it takes.

Now that you've painted yourself in the corner, I agree that it's ok to restrict abortions (except in case of medical necessity) for woman who have had IVF implant procedures. You've picked a "standard" that fits your pre-conceived belief. News at 10. You still haven't even addressed, other than your insisting that a fertilized egg is a "child," any rationale for imposing your standard on others, particularly with a "no rape exception."

Sure, if I wanted a standard that was vague, undefined and relies upon unreliable observations, absolutely I could use any of these 'standards'.

You can "choose" to be medically and scientifically ignorant.

Or I could use a better one that can be indisputably proven to be true. Up to you MtG. Which will you choose?

I'll choose a standard based on observable levels of fetal development, consistent with medical and biological science. It would be nice if you used a better standard than the arbitrary, emotionally driven one you insist on.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If a fetus weren't a baby, why would you kill it?

To prevent it from becoming an unwanted (or unsafe to bear to term) baby in the future. It's a fetus. Or an embryo. Or a viable fetus, at which time, you can equate it to a baby with some scientific or medical validity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which still doesn't mean that IVF *assumes* anything.

Sure it does. IVF assumes that the child that you're putting into the mother is the same child that comes out. Same way a CRT assumes that magnetic induction exists. Every process has assumptions which must be true in order for them to work. If those assumptions did not exist - then the process wouldn't be successful.

If you had a child, you'd just take it out of the dish and go home with it.

"It"? When do children acquire their sex?

You have a collection of cells that will develop into a child if successfully implanted and if it then stays implanted and grows to full term.

How does this 'collection of cells' differ from the 'collection of cells' we term a toddler?

Now you just need a viable (no pun intended ) basis for legislatively imposing that standard on everyone else.

I believe the fact that everyone's life passed through this point is sufficient.

Maybe you better go back to some 101 level civics on the judicial system

Your argument was that, "Roe banned late term abortions", I'm arguing that Roe did no such thing. Your definition is incorrect. Since exactly zero women have been charged with having a late term abortion, I can only conclude that the actual result is that Roe actually permits all abortions.

It has long been estimated that fertilization "fails" more often than not. Ever hear of spontaneous abortion? Fertilized eggs fail to implant, or implant imperfectly, or fail to properly develop once implanted on a regular basis.

No, what I meant is how does fertilization 'fail to meet' this same standard? Sorry for being unclear.

I'm getting a little bored with your word twists and semantic masturbation. The ENTIRE ****ING QUESTION IS WHAT LEGALLY CONSTITUTES "A PERSON" Got it?

Thank you. Then it doesn't matter if you don't believe that someone is not a person. If someone is a person then legally restraining you from killing them is legal. Arguing that 'interfering in someone's life is wrong', is a red herring. It is fine to 'intervene in someone's life', when another person's life is at stake.

Yes, egg + sperm becomes zygote becomes blastocyst becomes embryo becomes fetus becomes child.

You are aware that children at 8 months are considered to be a fetus? Apparently not.

in the dish it's still a blastocyst.

Nope. Embryos are implanted into the mother.

There is one set of cells with a particular combination of DNA that becomes a person, assuming the fetus develops to term

Only one was implanted into Louise Brown's mother. Ergo we can prove that the DNA sampled at fertilization is the same DNA sampled at birth. In order to prove that a test-tube baby were in fact possible - you would have had to prove this continuity. If the DNA did not match, then that would be evidence against the possibility of a test-tube baby. Which is not the case.

No, something will become someone, if not aborted, or miscarried.

You're assuming that someone is something after she has been killed. This is wrong. If someone is someone, how she eventually dies is irrelevant to who she is.

Yet you can't even do that consistently, because you also use the term embryo and fetus.

If I call someone an infant, does that mean they are no longer a person? Embryo and fetus refer to different developmental stages in life, no different than teenager or toddler.

It's not a child in the womb until it is viable.

Same child, MTG. I could take an ultrasound at 4 months and 5 months for the same child and show you that this is the case. The identity of the child does not change between 4, 5 and 6 months.

Why do they have baby showers before birth, or bridal showers before a wedding. People like to celebrate hoped for future events. I have a friend who has an ultrasound as her FB background image. She's miscarried twice already. She's classed as a high risk pregnancy. She HOPES to have a child, but knows it isn't certain, in fact, it may not even be probable.

She takes the ultrasound believing that the child she will have is the same one as on the ultrasound?

Birth is *an* emprical standard, but, as I said, an arbitrary one.

*Sigh*.

Empiricism requires observation. Would anyone observe that the same person at 17 is not the same person at 19? No. Ergo, 18 is not an empirical standard. Birth was an empirical standard, because we couldn't confirm through observation that the child inside the womb was the same child outside of the womb. We could infer this were the case through logic and understanding of reproduction, but we could not observe it. This is a inductive reasoning. Now that we can see fetal development inside the womb - we can establish that there is empirical evidence that the child inside the womb is the same as the child outside the womb.

Actually, quickening was the standard.

And why was that? Because it offered evidence that could be observed that the child was alive in the womb of the mother. Nowadays, we possess ultrasounds that demonstrate that this is true - that the same child in the womb is the same child outside of the womb.

Now that you've painted yourself in the corner, I agree that it's ok to restrict abortions (except in case of medical necessity) for woman who have had IVF implant procedures.

Interesting tack. Oddly enough, one can obtain DNA samples after 8 weeks. This would require you to ban all abortions done after 8 weeks, since we have observational evidence that the dna samples at 8 weeks are reliable.

[MichaeltheGreat]

[QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;6188480]Allocate it from the budget already devoted to detox. Mothers with their children should be a higher priority to get the mothers clean, asap. Money saved on this will save FAS treatment down the line. [/qupte]

Which budgets are already insufficient. Plus you fail to account for judicial and law enforcement costs for an entirely new class of criminal cases.

Simple. X is X is X. Is the dna of the embryo in the petri dish the same as the dna of the fetus in the womb, and the dna of the infant? Yes. Ergo you've proved 'continuity of the person' through all three stages of life.

You've proved continuity of the DNA, which has never been questioned. By anyone. Congratulations for proving the sun rises in the east. You haven't even touched the real question, which is whether and why a blastocyst or embryo or non-viable fetus should have the legal status of being a "person."

Fertilized Egg ceases to exist at conception.

Conception IS the fertilization of the egg. If successful, it then starts dividing into multiple cells.

Since we're delving into science fiction - does that mean that abortion should be banned with the advent of the artificial womb?

No - the state of development of the fetus should be the limiting factor. If it's 16 cells on a slide, who cares? There's no heart, brain, thought process, pain response, nothing. It's 16 cells. It has no legally cognizable rights. My cat is sentient. It should have superior "rights" than a collection of cells with no sentience.

Yes, but I've not always been Catholic. Nor have I always been Christian. I agree that there is a religious argument against abortion - but it's not what made me prolife. I'm giving you here the exact argument that made me prolife.

I haven't been either, but those influences are all around. And a huge majority of pro-lifers are self-identified religious, and use religion as their basis for the same pro-life arguments.

It is recent because it has changed with the advent of scientific evidence demonstrating fertilization.

Again, fertilization only represents potential.

The thesis I am trying to prove is

Irrelevant. Nobody who knows anything about DNA questions that the DNA doesn't change (although it can, ever heard of mutation?)
The existence of a specific DNA fingerprint doesn't provide a basis for granting any specific rights to a collection of cells, superior to the rights of the host organism to make her own reproductive choices. A certain stage of fetal development and sentience does do that, however.

Legally unborn children can inherit property. Ergo, there is legal precedent for personhood preceding birth.

No, they can't, at least in the technical sense in the vast majority of jurisdictions. They can be named prospective heirs, but the inheritance is only valid if they are actually born. If they could inherit property in the technical sense, then the fetus (through an appointed guardian) could transfer that property to a third party. That transfer would then trigger all sorts of tax implications. If you'd care to cite precedent for an inheritance of an estate that was perfected in favor of an in utero heir, I'd love to see it. Even better, the estate tax or gift tax returns for the in-utero inheritor.

Same thing with child support cases for a pregnant woman - that's why divorce forms have questions about pregnancy. There are two issues - prenatal medical care (which insurers have defined as being attached to the woman, not the fetus), and prospective child support.

If personhood is merely a legal concept, then one would have to admit that an unborn child cannot legally be considered a person in some circumstances and not a person in other circumstances. Personhood, at least since the 14th amendment is binary. You either are or you are not.

Please feel free to cite any case law using the 14th Amendment to convey legal personhood to a fetus. Take your argument to the IRS and claim you should get dependent exemptions for your pregnant's spouse's "unborn child." Go apply for a social security number for a fetus. Keep trying, Ben.

Am I allowed to kill someone because I believe they are not a person?

Your beliefs are irrelevant to the law.

Am I allowed to restrain someone from killing someone because they believe the person that they want to kill is not a person?

Unless someone is committing a crime in your particular jurisdiction, you have no legal right to restrain them. Technically, it's considered kidnapping.

If the father wished to keep his child would the father have a say?

If he can find a place in his body to implant the embryo or fetus, or magically remove it from the woman's body without any invasive means or medical consequence, then sure, why not? Otherwise, unless he's carrying it or at risk from doing so, he has no say.


[q]But it's here. Why?[/q[

I mean in the context of when a fetus becomes a legally cognizable person for purposes of abortion law. It doesn't matter if IVF exists or not, it has no bearing on the personhood question.

Unborn children are human beings
All human beings are persons

Ergo the unborn is a person.

Which presupposition (1 or 2), fails?

Either, neither or both. Again, it depends on the definition games. "Unborn children" is a, no pun intended, pregnant term. It deliberately fails to make any distinction in level of development. If you define blastocyst according to the biological definition, and then argue a blastocyst is a "person" in the legal sense, you have the same construct, and it's laughable. The only way for it to make sense in your view is apparently to change the words and definitions to fit your pre-formed conclusion.

If someone else is deprived of their right to free speech, through their execution, does that also deprive you of your right to free speech?

It depends. If you'd suckered me into going with you, then my free speech rights would be next up on the block. The point is they are not "natural" rights -there are no rights but what are given or taken by humans.

Is there a right to contraception in the constitution of the US?

The Constitution was designed to define the rights, limits and roles of the government of the United States, not to grant generalized rights to citizens. The more operative quesion would be is there any provision in the Constitution which allows the United States to deny access to contraceptives? The answer would be yes, if and only if you could demonstrate that such denial promoted the general welfare. Good luck with that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Interesting tack. Oddly enough, one can obtain DNA samples after 8 weeks. This would require you to ban all abortions done after 8 weeks, since we have observational evidence that the dna samples at 8 weeks are reliable.

You're the one hung up on genetic identity. I couldn't care less if it randomized on a daily basis. Genetic identity != level of fetal development or sentience.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which budgets are already insufficient. Plus you fail to account for judicial and law enforcement costs for an entirely new class of criminal cases.

Who says they have to be handled criminally?

You've proved continuity of the DNA, which has never been questioned. By anyone. Congratulations for proving the sun rises in the east. You haven't even touched the real question, which is whether and why a blastocyst or embryo or non-viable fetus should have the legal status of being a "person."

Finally. You concede the point.

I agree with you - personhood is quite another standard. How do we legally establish a person's identity from another person?

Conception IS the fertilization of the egg. If successful, it then starts dividing into multiple cells.

Yes, but the ovum itself ceases to exist after fertilization. There is no such thing as a 'fertilized egg'.

No - the state of development of the fetus should be the limiting factor.

How can you abort what you aren't carrying?

If it's 16 cells on a slide, who cares? There's no heart, brain, thought process, pain response, nothing. It's 16 cells. It has no legally cognizable rights. My cat is sentient. It should have superior "rights" than a collection of cells with no sentience.

So if I were to collect your sperm samples, and fertilize them and keep them tucked away, and then later on, implant them into a friend of mine, would you care then? Legally it is a huge issue and there have been quite a few court cases over it. I suppose I could drag out precedents, but will you take my word for it so that I don't have to dig them up?

I haven't been either, but those influences are all around. And a huge majority of pro-lifers are self-identified religious, and use religion as their basis for the same pro-life arguments.

I agree, but that is why I'm giving you this particular argument, and not that argument. Just because someone may believe in X, doesn't mean that X is a part of every argument that they make. It is possible to give a cogent prolife argument without making reference to religion at all.

Again, fertilization only represents potential.

Legal Personhood is binary. You either are or you aren't.

The existence of a specific DNA fingerprint doesn't provide a basis for granting any specific rights to a collection of cells, superior to the rights of the host organism

Actually, personhood rights say exactly that. Inconvenience to one person doesn't justify killing another person in order to relieve the inconvenience.

No, they can't, at least in the technical sense in the vast majority of jurisdictions. They can be named prospective heirs, but the inheritance is only valid if they are actually born. If they could inherit property in the technical sense, then the fetus (through an appointed guardian) could transfer that property to a third party. That transfer would then trigger all sorts of tax implications. If you'd care to cite precedent for an inheritance of an estate that was perfected in favor of an in utero heir, I'd love to see it. Even better, the estate tax or gift tax returns for the in-utero inheritor.

I'll see what I can find on this. I'm aware of precedents but I'm not sure which cases specifically. Writing it on my to-do list tomorrow.

Same thing with child support cases for a pregnant woman - that's why divorce forms have questions about pregnancy. There are two issues - prenatal medical care (which insurers have defined as being attached to the woman, not the fetus), and prospective child support.

Well, the problem with child support (and I haven't brought this in yet), but it looks like I won't have to make that argument. Interesting. Usually I have to resort to that. Can be proven at 8 weeks, which explains why those services are there if the divorce courts require evidence of paernity + pregnancy.

Please feel free to cite any case law using the 14th Amendment to convey legal personhood to a fetus. Take your argument to the IRS and claim you should get dependent exemptions for your pregnant's spouse's "unborn child." Go apply for a social security number for a fetus. Keep trying, Ben.

Skipping ahead a few chapters. I'm not arguing that, MtG.

The argument is that personhood is binary. You can't go almost sorta potential person. And that's in the 14th.

Your beliefs are irrelevant to the law.

Then killing someone who is proven to be a person is still wrong. Arguing, "I didn't believe they were a person" won't work.

Unless someone is committing a crime in your particular jurisdiction, you have no legal right to restrain them. Technically, it's considered kidnapping.

Even if someone is trying to kill someone else? I couldn't even sit on them?

If he can find a place in his body to implant the embryo or fetus, or magically remove it from the woman's body without any invasive means or medical consequence, then sure, why not? Otherwise, unless he's carrying it or at risk from doing so, he has no say.

Then I don't see why he should be required to pay child support for an unwanted child. If the mother cannot be forced to carry to term, then the father cannot be compelled to support the mother and child.

Either, neither or both. Again, it depends on the definition games. "Unborn children" is a, no pun intended, pregnant term. It deliberately fails to make any distinction in level of development.

I've already established continuity via DNA, which you conceded awhile back. If continuity exists than level of development fails as there is no distinction in identity across different ages.

If you define blastocyst according to the biological definition, and then argue a blastocyst is a "person" in the legal sense, you have the same construct, and it's laughable. The only way for it to make sense in your view is apparently to change the words and definitions to fit your pre-formed conclusion.

It actually doesn't matter - now that I've established continuity, all I have to prove is that the unborn child at any point of development before birth is a person.

It depends. If you'd suckered me into going with you, then my free speech rights would be next up on the block. The point is they are not "natural" rights -there are no rights but what are given or taken by humans.

It doesn't depend. Someone else getting executed does not deprive you of your natural rights. If this were so, then your right to freedom of speech ended with Patrick Henry.

The Constitution was designed to define the rights, limits and roles of the government of the United States, not to grant generalized rights to citizens. The more operative quesion would be is there any provision in the Constitution which allows the United States to deny access to contraceptives? The answer would be yes, if and only if you could demonstrate that such denial promoted the general welfare. Good luck with that.

Free exercise of religion does exist and prevents forcing Catholics to pay for contraception.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're the one hung up on genetic identity. I couldn't care less if it randomized on a daily basis. Genetic identity != level of fetal development or sentience.

Presuppositions, presuppositions, presuppositions. Identity determines how we connect each stage of development to each other. Genetic identity is an empirical means to establish said connections.

[Alexander's Horse]

Ben must be Mike's special project :

[Kidlicious]

To prevent it from becoming an unwanted (or unsafe to bear to term) baby in the future. It's a fetus. Or an embryo. Or a viable fetus, at which time, you can equate it to a baby with some scientific or medical validity.

Have you ever heard a mother or father refer to their child as their baby before it was born? Have you ever heard other people refer to babies before they were born? Do people call them fetuses where you are from? Stick your legal, scientific and medical terms up yer ass.