Votes for fetuses! They are people too.

Makes sense to me, Sheelzebub! A fetus has to be more intelligent than some of the Arizona legislators.

I agree with you Jessica, regarding providing rights to fetus' being a back door method of promoting an anti choice agenda.

If the law passes, I plan on suing "God" or "Mother Nature" for second degree murder when a woman miscarries. Someone must be held accountable for such an awful crime.

Jessica-

An unborn child should have the same rights as a born child, as each is a person, a human being. And if there are lines to be drawn, they should be drawn by the legislature, rather than imposed by an unelected judiciary. Why should a judge's definition of who is a person count more than anyone else's?

Moreover, assuming the judiciary is solely responsible for determining who is a person and who is not, what are you going to say when they decide that the unborn are persons? or that you are not?

Ahhhhhh.....the heart of the isssue. At what point in the development of the fetus does it become endowed with the inalienable rights (liberty, pursuit of happiness, and oh yeah, LIFE)? Does this conflict with a womans autonomy over her body? you betcha!! Is the government responsible for ensuring the rights of all? you betcha!

While I'm not sure if Roe Vs. Wade will be relevant if states pass laws giving fetus' rights to existence, a good compromise could be reached if federal legistlation is put into place restricting abortion procedures to certain terms and/or circumstance.

The heart of the issue is civil rights, after all.

An unborn child, in a perfect world without rape and with unfailing birth control, without pregnancies at age 14 and with universal access to trained doctors during childbirth, should have the same rights as a born child.

However, in our unperfect world, there's a problem with this rosy view: the above do happen, and the unborn child is still inside and attached to its mother. The born child is not. I agree with tfreridge -- giving a fetus rights equal to a born one is going to create myriad problems when they're opposed to the mother's needs/rights.

Now, I'm not saying that the fetus should have no rights. But legislators need to think ahead and look at what this is going to do to women's health and rights, and where the lines need to be drawn.

1) There's no such thing as an "unborn child". It's a made up term, just like "partial-birth" abortion. No need to take my word for it. The Arizona legislature defines "unborn child" as both:

A) ..."UNBORN CHILD" MEANS AN UNBORN CHILD AT ANY STAGE OF ITS DEVELOPMENT. (scroll to bottom of page)*

B) ...an unborn child shall be considered to be a child who is under twelve years of age. (scroll to the middle of the page)**

2) "An unborn child should have the same rights as a born child, as each is a person, a human being."

A genital ridge/fertilized egg (zygote)/blastomer/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is not a person. The lines are drawn by anatomy and physiology, not the legislature, or the judiciary.

3) When divvying up rights between the woman and the fetus, please keep this in mind. The conceptus is part of the woman; it doesn't exist as a separate entity. [For example, the fetus does not, and cannot breath as long as it's in utero. It has to literally be delivered to be able to initiate breathing. Also important to note: viability in no way = livebirth.]

*http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/47leg/1r/bills/sb1052p.htm

**http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/47leg/1r/proposed/s.1052mj1.doc.htm

ema-

you are wrong. a zygote is a human being, a fetus is a human being, etc. at that stage of development; just as an adoloscent or adult is a human being at that stage of development. If you want to argue that they are a human being, but not a person, then we can debate that all day, but we should simply agree that there are several arguments to be made each way. That being the case, don't you think we should have a vote? Or are you going to impose your definition on me, even though I guarantee you cannot prove that it is "better" or more logical in any sense.

And you are wrong again when you assert that "The lines are drawn by anatomy and physiology, not the legislature, or the judiciary."

The supreme court has held that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. So if you think that the judiciary has not drawn the line, you are mistaken.

Mark,

Please read my comment. I specifically make no mention of "human being". "Person" is enough of an imprecise definition [I'm using it in the biological sense]; in the context of this discussion, "human being" is too fuzzy. Maybe your point is that the various developmental stages = the end stage, the person? If so, I don't see how you can support your argument. [A bunch of cells do not equal a fully formed organism; a fetus without breathing ability does not equal a newborn, etc.]

I'm not sure what we're voting on?

The definitions aren't mine, they're biological ones. [And, as such, they're neither "better", nor "more logical". They just are.] I'm not the one imposing them; nature is.

Just because you say I'm wrong, doesn't actually mean I am. And just because politicians/lawyers draw [theoretical] lines, doesn't mean those lines exist in real life [which was my point]. Decreeing that a 10 year old child is unborn has no basis in reality. Anatomy and physiology (the size of the uterus, the process of parturition, etc.) determine what unborn is, not politicians/lawyers.

ema-

Here's one for you:

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology 54 (2d ed. 1952).

Here's another:

"human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male."

Moreover, "birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 1 (4th ed. 1988).

Sounds to me like once a sperm and egg unite, you've got a human life.

Well 40 million dead babies later you would think women would learn that sex without a rubber makes a baby! Well with sexually liberated school girls what would you expect!

When a sexually liberated woman that services a 30 year old goddess that was invented by hardline social democrates, what do you as a humang being expect? A liberated independant taxpaying free hooker!

32,000,000,000 was made by these "Liberated" bunch! What kind of evil is this, first they break down the family unit, then you have all these sexually liberated free pre-wives walking around! What gives ladies? It's fun to break laws isn't it?

Mark,

Wrong sound. You're sources are a bit dated.

Briefly, "the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material" does not, in fact, mark "the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Once fertilization occurs (this, in itself, is not a momentary event; it's a 2-day process), the process of individuation (the ability of a fertilized egg to develop into a new individual) takes approximately 14 days*. Think of this process this way. You have a large, busy highway, and a car (the fertilized egg) in the express lane. To reach its destination (development of new individual), the car has to get off at a certain exit. Unless the car gets out of the express lane, into the exit lane, and takes the correct exit, it will not reach its destination. In other words, just because you have a car on a highway, doesn't mean it will reach its destination. And, just because you have a fertilized egg, doesn't mean a new individual will develop. Several interim steps have to occur for that to happen.

"human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male."

This says that "human development is a continuous process", not that the various developmental stages are indistinguishable from each other.

"birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment."

I'm not sure what your point is with this quote? Is it that birth is just one stage in development, on equal par with all the other stages, and, as such, a 10 year old child can be considered unborn [kind of an unborn, but with air, and/or ex utero]? In any case, just one point. The "change in environment"--moving from in utero to ex utero--establishes independent body function (circulation, breathing, etc.). This makes birth the defining event (not "merely a dramatic" one).

*Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG p73
(not sure of its availablity to the general public, but a copy can be ordered from ACOG 800-762-2264, or www.acog.org)

Hm, no preview. "Your" sources

Don't look ladies if you don't like seeing dead fetuses on next page...(I warned you girls)...

Gentlemen carry on...

http://home.thezone.net/~nfrtla/photos-aborted-babies.htm

How could a woman do that to her baby inside of her body and still be proud of it.

The major thing about feminism that pisses me off is the fact they tell wimmen to have sex like wild fire and be liberated and free. To do the exact opposite that the bible says...then they make the whole human race look bad by killing an unborn life, as if the woman is now a small god and can choose between life and death!! I call it rubbish and you should pray and ask your Maker His plan for you life before you decide to choose the fate of an entire human being!!! What selfish, self abosrbed women you all have become, we are all going to burn in hell!!!

Those were some tough images to look at, but I've also seen young girls who were sexually abused, raped woman, starving children, diseased and dying people, and other tough and disgusting activities allowed by our "Maker".

I am a practicing Episcopalian so don't tell me I'm not a "Christian".

You Verlch, are part of the problem, not the solution. You have not followed the teachings of our Lord. You have cast stones, while bearing sin. You have failed to walk a mile in anyones shoes. Your uncompromising rigidness of view, shows that you have little compassion. Perhaps you have compassion for the unborn, but you use it as a rallying cause for battle, to force your view on others.

I don't believe that there has ever been a woman who was "proud" to have had an abortion.

True compassion comes from listening, and then attempting to help, and solve the problems.

I have spoken to others on this post, telling them that their "abortion at any cost" view is not only irresponsible, but will make them irrelevant in the nationwide debate. Your extreme view will also make you irrelevant.