Abortion Defiles the Unspoken Rights of an Unborn Baby

The point made about equality on the part of abortion rights is not about different interest groups but about the nature of equality itself. In our strive for equality you state that certain interest groups are disregarding those who are apparently at equal risk for inequality. "It's interesting because you mention the men and heterosexuals in the same group as unborn children. The interesting thing is that men and heterosexuals are often those that disregard the rights of women and sexual minorities(1)(2)(3)." In the name of "feminism" many times you see that in order to build "sexual equality", women belittle the men. A group of people (women) who are fighting for equality (to be equal with men) tend to belittle men (a situation where a woman would feel herself superior over the man) in the name of equality (the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities) [1] If "feminism" is the act of a woman proving herself SUPERIOR over a man, it is no longer "sexual equality" it is the act of women being the superior gender. You group unborn children with men and heterosexuals. For all you know these unborn children could be lesbian women. They are undetermined as an interest group. They are not yet born and cannot have any interests. And a newborn baby has not made the decision to be either heterosexual or homosexual. So therefore they are undetermined as an interest group. A newborn baby does not have interests. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What does the term person mean? Person = a human being regarded as an individual. (2) What does the term human mean? Human = of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings; a human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien. (3) "NOR SHALL THE STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY..." A person is a human regarded as an individual. If you can use the evidence found in pregnancy for the intellectual development of a fetus, and use the evidence to justify abortion, then you can also justify killing a newborn baby. A newborn is not born with "intellectual development". I am not saying that a newborn in brain-dead, but neither is a fetus. At ten weeks after conception, the fetus' vital organs such as kidneys, intestines, brain and liver are starting to function. (4) At ten weeks after conception, a baby's vital organs, including the brain, start to FUNCTION, not FORM, but FUNCTION, which means to work or operate in a proper or particular way. (5) If the brain starts to function, then that would lead any intellectual person to assume that the fetus is not brain dead, but a living organism with functioning body parts such as we have. A mother should not be required to have a child she does not want.Interesting point. I'll touch on this later in my argument.And your definition of a "person" was not the same thing I Googled, and you did not provide a source so I'm afraid that definition is irrelevant and could have been forged by you. Regarding the implication that at the time of birth a newborn child's "quality of life" is no different than that of an unborn fetus's. This is exactly the implication. At the time of birth there is no difference between that of the baby and the fetus in terms of their person hood. They are human, but not yet persons. So you have admitted to the fact that fetus's are "human" but not yet "persons". What defines a person? Their stance in society? Their view on politics? What their goals are? So, if you haven't checked out my profile yet, I'll let you know that I am a teenage girl. Let's say I got pregnant and decided to deliver the baby. I have the baby but I realize, "oh crap, I'm too young for this." So I take my two-day-old baby home and kill it. What you have just done, is that you have compared a newborn baby to a fetus, as in terms of quality of life and rights. If it is legal for me to abort my unborn child (according to your statement made above) then it should be legal for me to kill my newborn baby, which is in no terms more advanced than a fetus (according to you). You say, "the only reason that a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of rights that the fetus is not is why abortion is legal." There are other reasons beyond the rights that the women gets. There are also economic and social reasons as to why a woman may not want to have a child. Perhaps she is too poor, or doesn't have the time to take care of a child. There are a myriad of reasons why a woman may not or should not have a child. Perhaps they are inept as a person and not responsible enough to have one. I have already affirmed that simply because the child is out of the womb, does not mean that they have any right to life. This is where I comment on your other point made, "A woman should not be required to have a child she does not want". Perhaps she is too poor, or doesn't have the time to take care of a child. That sounds like a personal problem to me. If a woman knows that she is too poor or does have the time or the desire needed to raise a child, maybe she should use birth control or contraceptives. It isn't the fetus's fault that its mother was irresponsible, so why should it face the death penalty? The fetus had no control over how it was conceived and who its parents are; so why should it be killed? And if a woman any regard for life, maybe she should give her unborn child a chance at life and put it up for adoption. The only two options are not abort or raise the child. Adoption is a healthy alternative. Thus it can be said that abortion is within the right of the mother and is unrelated to the child itself. This means that the child should have no say in this argument. It has no right to life if the mother wishes not to give it. Abortion is in the right of the mother but it is not unrelated to the child (*gasp* you used the word "child" to describe a fetus??????? *shocked*). The child is the one dying, so it has everything to do with the child. And yes the child has no say in the argument but a newborn baby has no say in whether it can be flushed down a toilet or left in a garbage bin. Your argument clearly does not differentiate the difference between a newborn and a fetus (which is what most pro-choicers do), and your stance is very disturbing in nature. My point has been proved. Vote Pro like your life depended on it. (1) https://www.google.com... (2) https://www.google.com... (3) https://www.google.com... (4) http://www.babycenter.com... (5) https://www.google.com...