Georgia's Move to Ban Abortion.

[Poliwanacraca]

I always do. I'm also fairly certain I'm older than you.

Never stopped me before.

I did notice your tendency not to let the flagrant inaccuracy of your terminology stop you from using it, it's true. It seems like rather a strange thing to brag about, though.

Which is why we give rights to people, not clumps of cells that might one day become people if all goes well for them.

Three points: You are a "clump of cells." I am a "clump of cells." All the human beings participating in this thread now are all "clumps of cells." All multi-celled organisms are "clumps of cells." Your choice of wording doesn't prove your point. It only demonstrates your cheeky imagination.

A cancerous tumor is also a clump of cells. So is the mold growing on your bread. So is a fingernail clipping. No one disputes that human persons are also clumps of cells. The thing is, though, we have these things like "actual functioning brains" and "self-awareness" that the embryo, the tumor, the bread mold, and the fingernail clipping do not.

I'm curious as to how calling an embryo a clump of cells demonstrates "imagination" at all, let alone that said imagination is "cheeky."

Last point: Fetuses are human beings. Wasn't this already discussed?

No. They are HUMAN. They are not HUMAN BEINGS. Again, your fingernail clippings are human. They are not persons.

Furthermore, though you apparently take pride in getting your terminology wrong, you should really stop referring to fetuses in a debate that is explicitly about embryos.

The problem comes when lawmakers try to overstep the bounds of their authority and make laws which interfere with individuals' rights, such as, say, the right to privacy and the right to bodily autonomy.

Who defines those boundaries?

The Constitution.

You? Who will agree with you? Your clone?

Nope. I haven't got a clone, being a unique individual and thus responsible for the fate of my own unique, individual body.

I see government as a community of individuals working together to effectively govern, regulate, and lead a nation of people. The government follows a common philosophy. In our case, key parts of that philosophy are expressed in fundamental documents.

You allude to something more grand; as though the right is concretely defined somewhere.

It's called "the Constitution." You should read it sometime!

What has bothered me is that you speak of these rights as though they are written on some massive stone tablet sitting next to you and you act like: "Here, they are right here! Can't you see them?"

Well, it's not so much a "stone tablet" as a "electronic thingie," but yes, they are easily accessible for both of us to read. See? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

No! I can't, because it isn't that simple. People need to determine said rights. What are we overstepping? That is left to be determined.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court made nice explicit rulings in Roe and Casey as to what women's rights are in this country with regard to abortion. You can disagree with those rulings if you like, but they're not "left to be determined."

Lastly, I find it worth mentioning that there is no expressed right to privacy in the constitution; that such a right has been derived and interpreted. (Hey what do you know!)

Apparently somewhat more than you, since I am aware of the existence of the 9th Amendment.

Dying because you couldn't get a needed medical procedure performed safely is stupid.

On both ends.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Yup. I absolutely sanction the killing of even born human beings who are trying to use your body against your will.

"Even"? You say that as though the fetus is among them.

...no, I say that as if any sane person would tend to agree that actual, conscious, sentient, walking-around-independently human persons have more rights than embryos. Hence why, for example, you don't see a lot of embryos voting.

If someone is attempting to rape or murder you, you are well within your rights to kill them if that's what it takes to make them stop.

...
...
I fear we have met elsewhere.

Why, did you try to rape or murder someone and I stopped you? Go me, I guess...

Why on earth would I give something that isn't even a person rights that no born person possesses?

Because no born person is in utero.

And precisely why would NOT being sentient confer greater rights?

[Ryadn]

My mother, father, sister, and I consider the miscarried twin of my youngest sister to have been "human". If you continue to resort to these childish tactics, I'm going to stop. I realize we get snippy here but I demand to be taken seriously when it really gets down to it.

How on earth was that childish? I posed a legitimate question. Did you even read it? Because I was not talking about a miscarriage. Here, let me post it again:

She didn't miscarry; the fertilized egg--what you consider to be a human being--divided and multiplied many times, but it never became a person. It was just tissue. This is called a molar pregnancy. Now tell me--was it a boy or a girl growing in there? What color skin did that "baby" have?

See that bit in bold? Try reading that, educating yourself, and then answering a reasonable question instead of calling names.

[Intangelon]

It isn't anyone else's place to decide but the woman carrying the embryo. She has to answer to herself and to her God (if any) for her choice. As such, the choice should be available. Simply because I wouldn't advocate the use of abortion as birth control (or for reasons less grave than anencephaly-level fetal malformation, rape, incest, or serious risk to the mother) doesn't mean I should get to demand that others cannot. The difference is this: my point of view leaves the option open. Those who would ban the practice close the option down. Having options is more of a characteristic of freedom than restricting them.

[Elaborate Design]

Lastly, I find it worth mentioning that there is no expressed right to privacy in the constitution; that such a right has been derived and interpreted. (Hey what do you know!)

It wasn't worth mentioning as it is fucking irrelevant and ignorant. Whether or not a right or liberty interest is expressly stated in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't protected by the Constitution.

[...]

To further illustrate the point, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "expressly stated" in the Constitution but that are protected by the Constitution:
[list][*]the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
[*]the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens

Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

Hey, we all know some of these rights are just a formality in the states, don't we?

You say privacy, I say: Patriot Act.
You say voting? I say: only for about 40 per cent of the American population.

The other rights you mentioned, maybe, I wouldn't know, but these two are a tad controversial, based on non-american news sources.

[Elaborate Design]

It isn't anyone else's place to decide but the woman carrying the embryo. She has to answer to herself and to her God (if any) for her choice. As such, the choice should be available. Simply because I wouldn't advocate the use of abortion as birth control (or for reasons less grave than anencephaly-level fetal malformation, rape, incest, or serious risk to the mother) doesn't mean I should get to demand that others cannot. The difference is this: my point of view leaves the option open. Those who would ban the practice close the option down. Having options is more of a characteristic of freedom than restricting them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

This discussion started about the possibility of choice, and who should have it. Choice is all about free will, and the possibility to follow it, legally. If you don't agree with certain practices, you can simply don't get involved. Nobody around is saying we should force people to have abortions, right? That would probably be considered a scandalous proposition by many. Then why is it much better to force somebody NOT to have one? Both equally infringe on this freedom of choice...

Myself, I'm from the Netherlands. We tend to be liberal in a lot of things, to a point where some people think we kill all our old people and most of our embryo's, while everyone in between is high on something. Except that we don't. All these things are merely results of the right to choose to do something, whether it is smoking pot, ending your life if you deem it unbearable to continue living it (many protocols and regulations there, I can tell you), or a choice to terminate pregnancy. None of these things can be forced on anybody. It's just an option, and in two of these three cases there are a lot of rules intending careful consideration and regulation. And partly because we have this open, liberal society, in which people can learn about these options, as well as about pretty much all contraceptive options (for instance in high school), the abortion one isn't used very often.

Free choice on the subject does not necessarily lead to a rush on abortion treatments and the tossing overboard of all decency or morale.

[Ryadn]

You say voting? I say: only for about 40 per cent of the American population.

To what is this referring? Do you mean that only 40% of the population is allowed to vote because of age and citizenship requirements? Or do you mean only 40% of eligible voters actually vote in elections? Or something else entirely?

[Elaborate Design]

You say voting? I say: only for about 40 per cent of the American population.

To what is this referring? Do you mean that only 40% of the population is allowed to vote because of age and citizenship requirements? Or do you mean only 40% of eligible voters actually vote in elections? Or something else entirely?

Combination of these three options, really. It was a bit of a thing in the news last two elections that of those who were legally eligible voters many were denied voting rights because of a "technical mistake", like having ever had a parking ticket being counted amongst felonies restricting your voting rights (, with the added detail that the majority of those were part of an ethnic minority). Also, there were several reports on issues with voter registration involving quite a lot of people.

Then there were the various incidents involving votes not being counted or declared void, and the questionable validity of the votes from abroad. Say, if you're voting from abroad for Florida, you might ask yourself whether it's worth trying

And indeed the percentage of people actually bothered to turn up is included in that figure, I suppose, but that's not related to any rights, except the right to choose not to choose

[SaintB]

Time to start dragging every woman who's ever had sex to court for murder because they may have had a miscarriage. This is stupid.

wow. impressive exaggeration.

Its not that big of an exaggeration; if a woman flushes an unatached zygote or a blastamere during menstration then she is guilty of indirectly causing murder, which is manslaughter. That law says that they are people and as people are privvy to all the same rights as a fully formed newborn baby; which means a miscarriage is at the very least manslaughter and if the prosecution is good (and cruel) enough then its murder of her own child via neglect because she didn't immediatly rush her fertilized cells to the hospital to seek treatment.

[Ashmoria]

Time to start dragging every woman who's ever had sex to court for murder because they may have had a miscarriage. This is stupid.

wow. impressive exaggeration.

Its not that big of an exaggeration; if a woman flushes an unatached zygote or a blastamere during menstration then she is guilty of indirectly causing murder, which is manslaughter. That law says that they are people and as people are privvy to all the same rights as a fully formed newborn baby; which means a miscarriage is at the very least manslaughter and if the prosecution is good (and cruel) enough then its murder of her own child via neglect because she didn't immediatly rush her fertilized cells to the hospital to seek treatment.

aye

when a PERSON dies the state has a duty to find out whether or not it was a natural death, accidental death or homicide.

how is the state to even KNOW if she was carrying a tiny person? women are wantonly killing micro-persons all the time through bad nutrition, substance abuse, and who knows what else. we dont normally let persons die without making sure that there was a non-criminal reason for it. if a woman is flushing away a micro-person she is at least improperly disposing of human remains and perhaps tampering with evidence of homicide.

[Molested Sock]

75% of single-celled 'humans' end up being rinsed from the body during meunstration. They better hire a hell of a lot of rescue workers because every bloody tampon in America will need emergency life-saving care on site just in case.

Would that equal 1/4 of all possible menstruations result in a pregnancy?

No, because women don't have sex during each cycle. It means that 75% of fertilized eggs(single celled humans) don't implant in the uterine wall and end up leaving the body during the woman's period.

What you say is stupid enough to be true.
Quite interesting still.

[Muravyets]

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

Why should a disabled person with serious brain injuries be allowed to drain resources from the state?

I haven't caught up with the whole of Concurria's Circus of Circular Non-Sequiturs yet, so apologies if someone already pointed this out but --

-- The brain injured or comatose patient example is a bad one to use because that patient will be allowed to drain resources from the state ONLY as long as there is money to pay for it. When the money runs out, that patient is on his own -- or else the plug gets pulled. So tell us, how much can the woman charge the unwanted embryo-fetus for the use of her body, and how far in arrears on its payments does it have to be before she can evict it?

Also, the state has more resources to drain than one woman does.

[Concurria]

I did notice your tendency not to let the flagrant inaccuracy of your terminology stop you from using it, it's true

Your parents must have showered you with all sorts of praise as a child, I'm guessing.

The thing is, though, we have these things like "actual functioning brains" and "self-awareness" that the embryo, the tumor, the bread mold, and the fingernail clipping do not.

I didn't realize the tumor, the bread mold, and the fingernail clipping were gestating human beings on their way to self-awareness.

I'm curious as to how calling an embryo a clump of cells demonstrates "imagination" at all, let alone that said imagination is "cheeky."

Because, unless you have an active, rebellious imagination going on, when that Auntie from down South walks into the dining room and announces she's pregnant, the first thing I don't think of is: "God, I wonder what her little clump of cells will look like when it's born."

The Constitution.

I didn't realize the Constitution was so definite. You better tell the Courts you have the secret key to read it. Did you find it in a cereal box?

Nope. I haven't got a clone, being a unique individual and thus responsible for the fate of my own unique, individual body.

If the current SC serial killer comes into your room quietly and takes you out without a word, how exactly are you responsible for your fate in that situation? Sitting at the wrong computer desk at the wrong time, perhaps?

It's called "the Constitution." You should read it sometime!

Strangely enough, I have. That's why I'm here!

You can disagree with those rulings if you like, but they're not "left to be determined."

Only to be overturned. Dare I say it—and I sincerely don't mean this but—the Constitution may be more of a lively document than those fetuses we're discussing.

The beauty of our country's philosophy of government (I'll assume you're American) is that we can make our governance work for us. A well-defined Constitution would probably be more meddlesome than anything.

Apparently somewhat more than you, since I am aware of the existence of the 9th Amendment.

Oh the enumerated rights! Are they written in invisible ink underneath the sentence discussing enumerated rights? Because unless they are, the 9th Amendment is just a clever way of the framers saying "This document is not an exhaustive list."

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Dying to an abortion, in a back alley is stupid.

...no, I say that as if any sane person would tend to agree that actual, conscious, sentient, walking-around-independently human persons have more rights than embryos.

I don't believe embryos deserve more rights than anyone; I only believe they deserve as many rights that allows them safe deliverance from womb into the world. Many would object that these are "special" rights. Then so be it. Some do have "special" rights because some do live in special scenarios. That isn't something anyone should be livid about.

Why, did you try to rape or murder someone and I stopped you? Go me, I guess...

Do you find it not just a tad rude to imply that I'd try to rape someone? Just wondering.

And precisely why would NOT being sentient confer greater rights?

I wasn't aware a fetus has normal rights, to begin with, seeing as how:
The fetus isn't sentient, and therefore couldn't utilize the majority of normal rights.
The fetus can be aborted—and if many traditional and non-traditional pro-lifers got their way—could still be aborted in select situations.
The fetus would be considered—because it'd be the most sensible argument—a minor, which entail a unique set of rights not as great as those given to a major.

[Muravyets]

Ever heard of baby formula?

You're missing the point. My point was that nutrients are used in the creation of breast milk, which is produced because a baby has been born.

Wrong!!!

I love how people say shit without knowing the first thing about it. Pregnancy DOES NOT cause breast milk to be produced. NURSING causes breast milk to be produced. This is why, the first few days of nursing, the baby gets very little milk, but the more it sucks, the more the glands produce. When the baby stops suckling, the glands slack off and stop producing milk. This is why there are women in the world who put off weaning their children and are still breastfeeding children over 5 years old.

[Galloism]

I love how people say shit without knowing the first thing about it. Pregnancy DOES NOT cause breast milk to be produced. NURSING causes breast milk to be produced. This is why, the first few days of nursing, the baby gets very little milk, but the more it sucks, the more the glands produce. When the baby stops suckling, the glands slack off and stop producing milk. This is why there are women in the world who put off weaning their children and are still breastfeeding children over 5 years old.

So, if I suck on a woman's breasts enough, will she start producing milk?

Not mocking you, just asking.

[The Class A Cows]

From what I know of biomedical ethics, what it boils down to, is that a fetus cannot hold responsibilities, and thus does not have any rights (the same is true for animals).

However, in abortion, there is another concern. The fetus is a parasite totally dependent on the mother. Even if it was more intelligent than the mother and very sentient, the mother is still sentient and does not have to carry the parasite against her will. If superintelligent alien leeches come down and latch to you, burdening you but depending on you to live, is it really a crime to take a pill that poisons and kills the parasites? Add to this the fact that when they finally unlatch, there is a chance they'll kill you in the process.

One revealing argument against abortion is actually that it's meant to punish the mother for having sex and abortion shields them from responsibility from their supposedly immoral acts. I think this really sums up the actual motivation behind social conservatives who oppose it.

[Galloism]

However, in abortion, there is another concern. The fetus acts similarly to a parasite totally dependent on the mother. Even if it was more intelligent than the mother and very sentient, the mother is still sentient and does not have to carry the parasite against her will. If supe4rintelligent alien leeches come down and latch to you, burdening you but depending on you to live, is it really a crime to take a pill that poisons and kills the parasites?

Fixed. Not that I completely disagree, but the fetus is not a parasite. It acts similarly to a parasite, but it fails to meet the definition.

[UNIverseVERSE]

So, if I suck on a woman's breasts enough, will she start producing milk?

Not mocking you, just asking.

Apparently so, although use of drugs to induce it will make starting easier.

[Galloism]

So, if I suck on a woman's breasts enough, will she start producing milk?

Not mocking you, just asking.

Apparently so, although use of drugs to induce it will make starting easier.

*writes this down*

Wrong!!!

I love how people say shit without knowing the first thing about it. Pregnancy DOES NOT cause breast milk to be produced. NURSING causes breast milk to be produced. This is why, the first few days of nursing, the baby gets very little milk, but the more it sucks, the more the glands produce. When the baby stops suckling, the glands slack off and stop producing milk. This is why there are women in the world who put off weaning their children and are still breastfeeding children over 5 years old.

Hmm, according the to the wikipedia article that Universe linked, the initial cause of milk production is the hormonal shift that comes about due to pregnancy and subsequently childbirth.

This is what it says:

From the fourth month of pregnancy (the second and third trimesters), a woman's body produces hormones that stimulate the growth of the milk duct system in the breasts:

* Progesterone—influences the growth in size of alveoli and lobes. Progesterone levels drop after birth. This triggers the onset of copious milk production.[2]
* oestrogen—stimulates the milk duct system to grow and become specific. Oestrogen levels also drop at delivery and remain low for the first several months of breastfeeding.[2] It is recommended that breastfeeding mothers avoid oestrogen-based birth control methods, as a spike in estrogen levels may reduce a mother's milk supply.
* Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH)
* Luteinizing hormone (LH)
* Prolactin—contributes to the increased growth of the alveoli during pregnancy.
* Oxytocin—contracts the smooth muscle of the uterus during and after birth, and during orgasm(s). After birth, oxytocin contracts the smooth muscle layer of band-like cells surrounding the alveoli to squeeze the newly-produced milk into the duct system. Oxytocin is necessary for the milk ejection reflex, or let-down to occur.
* Human placental lactogen (HPL)—From the second month of pregnancy, the placenta releases large amounts of HPL. This hormone appears to be instrumental in breast, nipple, and areola growth before birth.

By the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy, the breasts are ready to produce milk. It is also possible to induce lactation without pregnancy.

However, after that, it's definitely supply and demand, according to Wiki.

[Intangelon]

It isn't anyone else's place to decide but the woman carrying the embryo. She has to answer to herself and to her God (if any) for her choice. As such, the choice should be available. Simply because I wouldn't advocate the use of abortion as birth control (or for reasons less grave than anencephaly-level fetal malformation, rape, incest, or serious risk to the mother) doesn't mean I should get to demand that others cannot. The difference is this: my point of view leaves the option open. Those who would ban the practice close the option down. Having options is more of a characteristic of freedom than restricting them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

This discussion started about the possibility of choice, and who should have it. Choice is all about free will, and the possibility to follow it, legally. If you don't agree with certain practices, you can simply don't get involved. Nobody around is saying we should force people to have abortions, right? That would probably be considered a scandalous proposition by many. Then why is it much better to force somebody NOT to have one? Both equally infringe on this freedom of choice...

Myself, I'm from the Netherlands. We tend to be liberal in a lot of things, to a point where some people think we kill all our old people and most of our embryo's, while everyone in between is high on something. Except that we don't. All these things are merely results of the right to choose to do something, whether it is smoking pot, ending your life if you deem it unbearable to continue living it (many protocols and regulations there, I can tell you), or a choice to terminate pregnancy. None of these things can be forced on anybody. It's just an option, and in two of these three cases there are a lot of rules intending careful consideration and regulation. And partly because we have this open, liberal society, in which people can learn about these options, as well as about pretty much all contraceptive options (for instance in high school), the abortion one isn't used very often.

Free choice on the subject does not necessarily lead to a rush on abortion treatments and the tossing overboard of all decency or morale.

I now know where I should live when the nanny-mob gets too annoying for me. Thanks for that post, ED.

[Poliwanacraca]

I did notice your tendency not to let the flagrant inaccuracy of your terminology stop you from using it, it's true

Your parents must have showered you with all sorts of praise as a child, I'm guessing.

Actually, they were abusive. I'm sure that won't stop you from asserting the opposite, though, given your much-vaunted love of inaccuracy. Speaking of which, I love how you snipped the passage informing you that the term you are looking for is "embryo," not "fetus," out of my post and continued to use "fetus."

The thing is, though, we have these things like "actual functioning brains" and "self-awareness" that the embryo, the tumor, the bread mold, and the fingernail clipping do not.

I didn't realize the tumor, the bread mold, and the fingernail clipping were gestating human beings on their way to self-awareness.

Neither is the embryo, without the direct participation of a woman's body. When science advances enough that we can clone a person from a fingernail clipping, will your fingernail clippings be people?

I'm curious as to how calling an embryo a clump of cells demonstrates "imagination" at all, let alone that said imagination is "cheeky."

Because, unless you have an active, rebellious imagination going on, when that Auntie from down South walks into the dining room and announces she's pregnant, the first thing I don't think of is: "God, I wonder what her little clump of cells will look like when it's born."

That's true. I'd more likely think, "Oh, that's nice for her, assuming she wants to be pregnant, and if not, I hope she can still find a Planned Parenthood in Georgia or whichever 'down south' state she lives in, seeing as those states like to pass crazy laws, per the actual topic of this thread."

The Constitution.

I didn't realize the Constitution was so definite. You better tell the Courts you have the secret key to read it. Did you find it in a cereal box?

No, I found it in my head, when I was about three years old. It's called "literacy."

Nope. I haven't got a clone, being a unique individual and thus responsible for the fate of my own unique, individual body.

If the current SC serial killer comes into your room quietly and takes you out without a word, how exactly are you responsible for your fate in that situation? Sitting at the wrong computer desk at the wrong time, perhaps?

Funny, that would, in fact, be why murder is illegal. You don't really understand how these "rights" and "responsibilities" things work, do you? I am responsible for myself, my actions, my property, my dependents, and my body. When someone else takes over control of one of those against my will, that is rather obviously their fault, but that doesn't make the items on that list any less inherently my responsibility.

It's called "the Constitution." You should read it sometime!

Strangely enough, I have. That's why I'm here!

Oh, were you wanting us to explain it to you?

You can disagree with those rulings if you like, but they're not "left to be determined."

Only to be overturned. Dare I say it—and I sincerely don't mean this but—the Constitution may be more of a lively document than those fetuses we're discussing.

"Capable of being overturned" is not, in fact, the same thing as "yet to be determined." Kinda like how fetuses are not the same thing as embryos. You really need to work on this whole "deliberately using inaccurate terminology" thing.

The beauty of our country's philosophy of government (I'll assume you're American) is that we can make our governance work for us. A well-defined Constitution would probably be more meddlesome than anything.

I am very much in favor of people having well-defined and inalienable rights, seeing as it is, in fact, one of the principles our nation was founded on. It's certainly interesting that you think the government allowing women control over their own bodies is "meddlesome," while the government interceding to tell women what they can and cannot do to their own bodies is not.

Apparently somewhat more than you, since I am aware of the existence of the 9th Amendment.

Oh the enumerated rights! Are they written in invisible ink underneath the sentence discussing enumerated rights? Because unless they are, the 9th Amendment is just a clever way of the framers saying "This document is not an exhaustive list."

See TCT's post on this subject.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Dying to an abortion, in a back alley is stupid.

Oh good. So you're agreeing that these procedures should be performed legally in safe environments, then, since it's well-established that abortions WILL occur one way or the other?

...no, I say that as if any sane person would tend to agree that actual, conscious, sentient, walking-around-independently human persons have more rights than embryos.

I don't believe embryos deserve more rights than anyone; I only believe they deserve as many rights that allows them safe deliverance from womb into the world.

...which would be more rights than any born human possesses. As you're about to admit.

Many would object that these are "special" rights. Then so be it. Some do have "special" rights because some do live in special scenarios. That isn't something anyone should be livid about.

Why on earth not? I have every right to object to the government stripping away MY rights in order to give "rights" to something that is not only not even a person, but not even at the sentience or self-sufficiency level of, say, a goldfish. Wouldn't you be a little peeved if the government declared that you had to let goldfish live in your stomach (risking serious health problems for you) whether you liked it or not?

Why, did you try to rape or murder someone and I stopped you? Go me, I guess...

Do you find it not just a tad rude to imply that I'd try to rape someone? Just wondering.

I'm just trying to figure out what your nonsensical comment was supposed to mean.

I also think it's more than a tad rude to imply that you'd try to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will, but you seem to be doing that one all by yourself.

And precisely why would NOT being sentient confer greater rights?

I wasn't aware a fetus has normal rights, to begin with, seeing as how:
The fetus isn't sentient, and therefore couldn't utilize the majority of normal rights.
The fetus can be aborted—and if many traditional and non-traditional pro-lifers got their way—could still be aborted in select situations.
The fetus would be considered—because it'd be the most sensible argument—a minor, which entail a unique set of rights not as great as those given to a major.

An embryo - which is, again, what we're discussing, not a fetus - doesn't have the rights given to a person, seeing as it's not a person. I'm glad you've figured that out. Neither does it have the rights given to a child, because it is not a child. If it did have the rights given to a child, we come right back to prosecuting women for miscarriages, because if you inadvertently let your child die because, say, you didn't feed it well enough, or didn't go to the hospital when it needed medical care, you will be prosecuted.

[Muravyets]

I love how people say shit without knowing the first thing about it. Pregnancy DOES NOT cause breast milk to be produced. NURSING causes breast milk to be produced. This is why, the first few days of nursing, the baby gets very little milk, but the more it sucks, the more the glands produce. When the baby stops suckling, the glands slack off and stop producing milk. This is why there are women in the world who put off weaning their children and are still breastfeeding children over 5 years old.

So, if I suck on a woman's breasts enough, will she start producing milk?

Not mocking you, just asking.

Some women, yes, depending on their hormone levels. Pregnancy adjusts hormone levels to trigger the mammilary (sp?) glands to be active, but it is suckling that stimulates them to actually produce the milk. And yes, I have heard instances of women who are not pregnant and have not been pregnant for a good long while starting to lactate as a result of regular and prolonged suckling. Again, it depends on their hormones.

[Muravyets]

<snip for length>

However, after that, it's definitely supply and demand, according to Wiki.

Exactly. Hormones make it possible, but actual lactation requires the physical stimulus of suckling. If a woman give birth but never breastfeeds (for whatever reason), then her body will not be drained of nutrient resources as suggested by NNLD.

[Muravyets]

Words fail me.

I would think the lack of period would be a really big hint, but what do I know.

Do you know as little about 13 year old girls as NNLD knows about lactation? Puberty is not an on/off switch (for either sex), nor does menses run like a clock. A girl/young woman may become pregnant without ever having had her first period. And a girl/woman whose period is very irregular cannot rely on the calendar to tell her to get a pregnancy test kit.

[Milks Empire]

No! I can't, because it isn't that simple. People need to determine said rights. What are we overstepping? That is left to be determined.

No, it isn't. The Supreme Court made nice explicit rulings in Roe and Casey as to what women's rights are in this country with regard to abortion. You can disagree with those rulings if you like, but they're not "left to be determined."

And, to expand on this a bit for the "Ebil Fedrul Guvment" folks, what Roe v. Wade did was take the power out of government hands entirely and place it into the hands of the people themselves.
What this means, in effect, is that the state of Georgia (and the other state that did it - South Dakota, I think?) took a power allotted to the people away from the people. It's not about states' rights. It's about controlling the bodies of women, plain and simple.

[Muravyets]

Sounds like Georgia.

But no, I don't think ignorance or fear is good enough reason to kill a fully viable homo-sapien once it can survive outside the body of its mother.

Knowing that you are not anti-choice, and that it has been established in this thread that if a late term pregnancy has to be ended but the fetus is still viable, it can be ended by induced labor or surgery which the fetus may survive, I cannot understand why you insist on arguing this pernicious myth of the "elective late term abortion."