How Old Do You Have To Be Before You Get Your Constitutional Rights.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Again, you are denying basic biology because of your feelz and nothing more.
In 99% of pregnancies the woman, like the man, made a choice.
They chose to engage in the act of creating a new human being.
That was their choice.
Their agreement.
If THEIR act does produce the new human life, they both agreed to make, then their is a third individual to consider.
The mother freely gave her egg to produce this new human life.
The father freely gave his sperm to produce this new human life.
They both made the choice to try and create this new human life.
If she, or him, decide to end this humans life......
It is murder.


mur·der
/ˈmərdər/

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

The definition does not include 'person' or 'people'. It says HUMAN BEING.
The life they CHOSE to create is a human being.

To deny such is to deny basic science due to your 'feelz'.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Again, you are denying basic biology because of your feelz and nothing more.
In 99% of pregnancies the woman, like the man, made a choice.

Biology doesn't care about choices. Rape victims get pregnant, women on birth control get pregnant, women caught off guard or are otherwise "contraceptively" ill prepared get pregnant. Choice has nothing to do with hormones and biology.

They chose to engage in the act of creating a new human being.

This implies intent when intent may not be there. Biology doesn't care about intent. Lots of people try to get pregnant and fail. A lot of couples have sex with no intent to become parents.

If THEIR act does produce the new human life, they both agreed to make, then their is a third individual to consider.

Sexual intimacy is not consent to create a family. There is no tacit agreement.

The mother freely gave her egg to produce this new human life.

No she didn't. She has no control over when her eggs are going to drop, nor does her body tell her when her eggs drop. It's not like women ejaculate eggs when they have sex and can choose to spill them outside of her uterus.

If she, or him, decide to end this humans life......
It is murder.

It's self-defense.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Even the state of California disagrees with you.

A child conceived but not yet born is to be deemed an existing person insofar as this section is concerned.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...

A child conceived is an existing person.

Dude, that's about custody and child support.

The court, in determining the ability of the parent to support his or her child, shall consider all income, including social insurance benefits and gifts.
The provisions of this section are applicable whether the parents of such child are or were ever married or divorced, and regardless of any decree made in any divorce action relative to alimony or to the support of the child. A child conceived but not yet born is to be deemed an existing person insofar as this section is concerned.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Lol.. okay, I want dad to take custody of this 10 week fetus of ours now.... please???

Do dads have to pay child support for unborn babies in california? Wow.. it would be a first if they do, at least the first I have heard of child support being paid for fetuses.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
WTH did I just read? Absolutely none of that has ANY basis in science.
It is a THOUGHT process that develops from your feelz.
Let me explain:

Biology doesn't care about choices. Rape victims get pregnant, women on birth control get pregnant, women caught off guard or are otherwise "contraceptively" ill prepared get pregnant. Choice has nothing to do with hormones and biology.

In 99% + cases, choice has EVERYTHING to do with it.
In 99%+ cases the choice was made to engage in the act of........
PROCREATION.


pro·cre·a·tion
/ˌprōkrēˈāSH(ə)n/

noun

the production of offspring; reproduction.

"in general animals copulate purely for the purpose of procreation"

This implies intent when intent may not be there. Biology doesn't care about intent. Lots of people try to get pregnant and fail. A lot of couples have sex with no intent to become parents.

The INTENT was to engage in the act of procreation. You are correct. Biology does not care about INTENT.
Sex is for procreation.

Sexual intimacy is not consent to create a family. There is no tacit agreement.

Unless you are a complete moron you understand that sex leads to pregnancy, so yes, there is a tacit agreement.

tac·it
/ˈtasət/
adjective

understood or implied without being stated.

"your silence may be taken to mean tacit agreement"

No she didn't. She has no control over when her eggs are going to drop, nor does her body tell her when her eggs drop. It's not like women ejaculate eggs when they have sex and can choose to spill them outside of her uterus

What? You don't know, as a woman, when you are ovulating, or the approximate time after your period you should be ovulating? You can only, typically, get pregnant 5 to 6 days a month.
Can you count? If not may I suggest :

An ovulation home test is used by women. It helps determine the time in the menstrual cycle when getting pregnant is most likely.

The test detects a rise in luteinizing hormone (LH) in the urine. A rise in this hormone signals the ovary to release the egg.

medlineplus.gov...#:~:text=An%20ovulation%20home%20test%20is,ovary%20to%20release%20the%20egg.

It's self-defense.

How, if it was a choice you freely made, knowing the possible outcome?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Lol.. okay, I want dad to take custody of this 10 week fetus of ours now.... please???

Do dads have to pay child support for unborn babies in california? Wow.. it would be a first if they do, at least the first I have heard of child support being paid for fetuses.

Biologically speaking, that is not his role in nature.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
And?
Still California state law

Just conceived
I believe you have been referring to that existing person in the eyes of the state of California as an embryo.

a reply to: shooterbrody

This thread asks the question, "When do constitutional rights kick in?". Show me where that law you cited grants any rights to the unborn or protects it against abortion.

The law you cited is about abandonment, in this case regarding a dependent pregnant woman, and financial support, including medical needs.

The unborn don't have constitutional rights in California. Pregnant women do, though.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Absolutely none of that has ANY basis in science.

None of your puritan arguments do.

In 99% + cases, choice has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Nope.

Sex is for procreation.

Nope. Sex can result in procreation, but most people, most of the time, don't exercise their sexual appetite for that purpose.

Unless you are a complete moron you understand that sex leads to pregnancy, so yes, there is a tacit agreement.

Science doesn't agree. There are methods to overcome nature and biology.

You don't know, as a woman, when you are ovulating

Correct.

or the approximate time after your period you should be ovulating?

Many women don't have regular periods.

You can only, typically, get pregnant 5 to 6 days a month.

That just proves my point, that most of the time sex isn't about procreation at all.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
ALL existing people in the usa are afforded protection by the constitution.

Or are they not now?

a reply to: Quadrivium

People do stupid risky things all the time. Drag racing down an open highway, letting themselves be launched into space, jaywalking across a street, ignoring the health advisories during a pandemic, the list is endless. Lots of people have played the odds and lost, found themselves in the hospital. They aren't left to suffer needlessly in pain for long extended time. Their health ain't allowed to deteriorate to the point where they need urgent emergency medical treatment to save their life
By law, hospitals can't deny them the appropriate standard of care for their condition...
They can't just say, oh well, foolish you acted stupidly now go home and live with the consequences.

Another thing.. if you get into a car accident and the other driver is found to be at fault and you sue them..
Can you get reimbursement for the time lost from work because of the injuries they caused, or for "pain and suffering"?
At least one of those lawsuits against those religious hospitals was dropped because the judge didn't consider the women who miscarried as having standing because "pain and suffering" didn't qualify in his mind as damages..


People are now worried that their reproductive rights to abortion may be lost, but for many, a myriad of rights have already been lost , replaced by fetal rights, replaced by the religious rights of big hospital conglomerates.

There is no sane reason to deny a miscarrying women whose pregnancy will not progress much further and death of the fetus is unavoidable the acceptable standard of care and wait till the fetus no longer has a heartbeat or she becomes so critically ill that no action will cause death except the women's desires. The courts have shot down lawsuit after lawsuit against these hospitals for over a decade, and now, they are allowing the tx law to stand and limit doctors and hospitals in a similar way.
The rights of pregnant women to her health, to proper medical care, to her life is playing second fiddle to fetal rights and religious rights NOW.

And the republicans in ohio were, probably still are, trying to push through legislation that would enshrine fetal rights into their state constitution at the point of conception... next time you are walking down a street, in a grocery store, a bar, at work... when you see a women or girl, ask yourself if that person is carrying a fertilized egg that would be protected by such legislation. There is no way anyone could know!! So, every law that was passed to protect the unborn, every policy, every health advisory... could pertain to every women of child bearing age. Women could find themselves under an insane amount of scrutiny, denied the most effective medications for their ailments, banned from workplaces because of the chemicals and pollutants involved, and on an on... because, well you never know.. she might be pregnant and we have to protect the health and wellbeing,, the rights of that second person.. which may or may not exist..
And before you say this is an insane idea...
Is it anymore insane than letting a women develope sepsis and practically die for a fetus that has no chance of survival?
No damages for the pain and suffering, no damages for the added days of hospitalization, no damages for the added days out of work... sorry lady, you don't have standing in this court!
I will by your argument about the risks she took when she had sex the day they start refusing the unvaccinated medical care when they get covid!

a reply to: shooterbrody
Read my previous post.. as I see it..
They are not.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody
Read my previous post.. as I see it..
They are not.

Don't really care actually.
California state law defines them as existing people.

You and others here think what you make up is valid?
Make up all you like.
It exposes your lunacy.

a reply to: Quadrivium

"Human and animal", thanks.

a reply to: shooterbrody
I ain't arguing over what legal standing they have..
Call them people, call them babies, call them whatever you wish.
It's you guys arguing that. It doesn't matter when it comes to what I am saying.

No one can deny kyle along with those that he shot that day were all living breathing humans. Kyle killed two of them and i believe the one that lived is still pretty much disabled. His right to self defense was affirmed by the court.. if it wasn't, he would have been found guilty of some homicide law, possibly murder, and he possibly may have been liable for damages and the pain and suffering of the man who lived... right?
One of the arguments that I have read over and over again is that
Pregnancy is the risk one takes when having sex. Ok, but where else in law is it allowed to give substandard care or refuse care to those people when they lose the odds and wind up in the hospital. No, we take care of the health of the risk takers.
Matter of fact, it is the law that provide standard care to any emergency patient. Of which, miscarriage is considered an emergency condition, but not a critical condition.. if treated with the standard of care recommended by the AMA, much of the risks to the women's life and health can be avoided..
Some hospitals don't provide that ama recommended standard of care.. they cited "religious beliefs" as their justification. They refuse to kill the unborn fetus, even though the fetus has no chance of survival. Some might allow it "to save the women's life" and delay to the point where the women's health has deteriorated to the point where she is near death. That could mean hours or days of unnecessary pain and agony because the fetus has 0 chance of survival. Pain and suffering is usually considered in lawsuits, with compensation ordered. But, in one of these lawsuits, the judge decided that the women had no standing her pain and suffering had no meaning to him.

The 14th ammendment grants every person equal protection under the law. You can't section off a portion of the population and decide well, we just ain't gonna protect those people with these laws.

Which means.. if kyle rittenhouse isn't guilty of any homicide charges because he had a right to self protection then any women who chooses to abort because of fear of life or health is not guilty of murder, she has that same right of self protection.

If the drag racer can expect to get the best care his money/insurance can after he crashes, then a pregnant women should be able to expect the best care her money/insurance will buy and not have to accept being denied care when it leads to further and worse suffering, longer recuperation time, and a close brush with death. Any previous risky behavior is meaningless.

If it is common to include pain and suffering and time lost from work in legal judgements, then it should be a reason to grant standing in these lawsuits against the hospitals.

Pregnant women have already lost equal protection under the laws and I think I just proved it. That right can just fly out the window for the benefit of a fetus, even one that is not viable and doomed because of a miscarrisge.

And, it isn't my fault that the prolife crowd spend their time only reading the prolife sites and not venturing outside of their comfort zone. Just because you haven't taken the time to look, doesn't mean I am making # up. The information is just a google search away. The rest is just plain logic.

LINK

Coming soon to a state near you??

a reply to: dawnstar

I ain't arguing over what legal standing they have..
Call them people, call them babies, call them whatever you wish.

Excellent
Acknowledging existing people is a good thing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quadrivium

"Human and animal", thanks.

Perhaps you missed the distinction.

embryo
human and animal

embryo, the early developmental stage of an animal while it is in the egg or within the uterus of the mother.In humans the term is applied to the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus.

www.britannica.com...

I have given you links, data and facts.
All you and others have are 'feelz'.
Feelz don't prove anything put ignorance when you deny facts and logic.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Nope, I didn't. What is this?



Looks like an embryo to me. Maybe it's animal, maybe it's not. Kinda hard to tell when it's in that stage. Frankly I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. You think you're going to make me change my mind on the subject? It's like you enjoy smacking your head against a wall.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

None of your puritan arguments do.

Science is a "puritan argument"? I have not mentioned or linked to anything of the "puritan" nature.

Nope.

Yep

Nope. Sex can result in procreation, but most people, most of the time, don't exercise their sexual appetite for that purpose

Biologically speaking, why do you think we have a sexual appetite? To ensure PROCREATION.

Science doesn't agree. There are methods to overcome nature and biology.

Like murder?

That just proves my point, that most of the time sex isn't about procreation at all.

Sex is always about procreation. It is the very reason you have a sexual drive.

According to evolutionary psychologists humans possess a variety of "sexual ornaments," physical as well as psychological traits that have evolved as adaptations for reproductive advantage. These sexual ornaments serve as sexually selected indicators of fitness that are automatically assessed, inspire attentional adhesion, and evoke sexual desire in those searching for a mate. Mate choice is therefore determined by the relative presence or absence of these sexually selected indicators of fitness in comparison to the competition. Mate value of self and others is assessed through social comparison according to these sexually selected indicators of fitness. Narcissistic equilibrium is to a significant extent regulated by one's self-perceived survival and reproductive fitness.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...