By this definition, it is also clear that a fetus is a child upon conception, but if you need another definition, here is the one for conceive: "to become pregnant with (a child)". So, following our course of logic here, it still stands that it very well could be unconstitutional to have an abortion regardless of whether you believe a woman should have that right or not.

I echo Manwe (or perhaps vice versa, as see the top half of page 2).

"So, following our course of logic here, it still stands that it very well could be unconstitutional to have an abortion regardless of whether you believe a woman should have that right or not."
I like this. It sounds (potentially) internally contradictory at first yet turns out not to be. Nicely done!

Manwe, I clearly said I used Apple Dictionary. I guess they're not all the same. I also conceded that point awhile ago.

A fetus is not a child upon conception, it is a fetus.

Or, rather, it's an embryo, and then it becomes a fetus.

JamesYanik asked (what I thought was) a worthwhile question, and it was never really addressed. I'm not sure re-posting it will produce a different outcome, but I'm willing to try.

James said:

"HERE!!! Should a woman with plenty of money, a loving boyfriend who would be the dad, who has no scheduling problems with a child, no chance of a miscarriage, no pain or injury during pregnancy, be allowed to get an abortion after a month of pregnancy? Is it her right? (Please if you respond to this only address my situation that is given, do not address the probability of my situation happening. I want to keep this question purely off of human morals, to establish a core idea of what we're dealing with.)"

Scientifically speaking, yes, because that isn't a child yet, but I understand the moral platform against that.

A disadvantaged woman (from an economic, relationship, or medical standpoint) should have the right to an abortion, judging by my morals.

However, can we pick and choose who is allowed abortions and who is not? Maybe, but there would be a blurry line between eligibility and ineligibility for abortion that would lead to arbitrary speculations about what defines "the capacity to mother a child" or something like that.

In any case, a mother who does not want a child is simultaneously unfit to have a child, and should be at the liberty to, well, abort it.

Ah, you did say you used apple dictionary, I missed that somehow, sorry. But I do not understand why you are still saying a fetus (and an embryo) is not a child when a page ago you agreed with Outside Smoker that it was. And I will not discuss Yanik's situation because it is irrelevant to the main topic of this thread.

I said that the dictionary definition of certain words seemed to imply that a fetus is at some point in its existence as a fetus also a child, even though that is scientifically incorrect. I didn't say that that was right, I just said that the dictionary said it, and since that's what I used to make my argument, I can't really say that it's not a valid way of doing so. It's just wrong.

You're all aware than even dictionaries have bias when describing words right? There is a reason why they are all different.

Do I? Yes, a dictionary can stipulate its own definition as it pleases. That doesn't mean that a widely used dictionary isn't a fairly reliable source for the widely used definitions of words.

Well, you can believe the definition of a child should not be able to imply that a fetus is not a child all you want, but the fact of the matter seems to be that it does. We have already established that the definition of a mother also implies that women who have conceived an offspring are mothers. Therefore, we can say that based on the naturalization laws of the United States, some fetuses (children) may already be U.S. citizens if their mother is a U.S. citizen or has been naturalized already. This would grant all fetuses the right to all rights conveyed to U.S. citizens in the Constitution including those in the fourth and 14th amendments making abortion unconstitutional.

that a fetus is a child*

This would grant at least some fetuses* (I know, I should have proof read)

Manwe, my point is that, scientifically speaking, a fetus is not a child. I'm saying that that definition is simply incorrect.

Also, if you are going to say that fetuses created in the United States should be citizens, then you're saying that anyone who had sex and conceived a child in the United States who was later born in Mexico is perfectly legal to walk over any time they want. You can't choose between the two.

Well, that is not what I said at all because I said that the mother had to be a U.S. citizen (I will now add that the father could also be a U.S. citizen) for the child to be eligible to automatically be a citizen. Where the fetus is created does not matter, it only matters that at least one of the parents is a U.S. citizen at the time of conception.

Under our naturalization laws, does the mother have to be a US citizen if the child is born in this country?

@ ""HERE!!! Should a woman with plenty of money... be allowed to get an abortion after a month of pregnancy? Is it her right?"

Yes. And no child should be brought into this world be a woman who doesn't want to do just that. It is contrary to the childs welfare.

What the boyfriend wants here is irrelevant, and there is always a risk to the health of the mother, so this situation literally never occurs. But in principle, yes, the woman should be able to abort after one month, and shoul he able to choose to take the morning after pill within 72 hours of having sex ( to prevent implantation ) and should be able to take 'the pill' to provide a 'hostile environment in the first place, again preventing implantation.

All of these methods should he available so that women can control their bodies and choose if/when they bring a child into the world. And all children will be better off as a result. This is a moral principle, and it is not our place to determine when to restrict those rights based on the wealth, health, time, or existance of a supportive boyfriend... It is the woman place to take her circumstances into account. Always. Every. Single. Time.

First the liberals want to change the traditional definition of marriage.
Now they want to change the definition of person and citizen!!!!

@Jeff Kuta
Personhood laws are typically advocated for by pro-lifers, not liberals.

Ora, what do you mean by "implantation," the IUD?

The deinition of marraige has never not been changing.

Jeff you are conpletely blind if you do not see this.

@Bo - what i mean by implantation is the process after conception where the zygote implants into the uterus wall, (or in ectopic pregnancies into the fallopian tube wall). This is a necessary step for that single cell to be fed an then go on to develop into an embryo. (If my biology is half decent, and i admit to being a physicist not a biologist)

And implantation doen't occur if the woman is about to begin menstrating. As that uteral wall lining is about to he flushed out. Or indeed if implantation does occur, the embryo gets flushed out anyway because it was too late.

The morning after pill or emergency contraception is just one way to stimulate this natural process. There are many places you could draw the line.

Is this any different than taking the contraceptive pill?

@jeff, are you arguing that black people should count as 3/5ths of a person for constitutional purposes? Just because that is the original definition agreed by whoever compromised that piece of work?

I mean maybe you could argue for giving them 3/5ths of all their rights... Maybe the right to 3/5ths of life would be better than what happened in fergusson.

My comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. I guess I need to use more exclamation points.

Clearly the definition of marriage, a human legal and moral construct, changes over time. It should. I just think that pro-lifers (mostly conservatives) should recognize that *they* are the ones trying to redefine citizen, child, person and individual. They are the activists fighting for change.

Oh, so that's a different process. How far into a pregnancy can you do that? Admittedly, I am not familiar with that procedure.

72 hours?

I believe our current laws state that any child born on American soil does automatically gain citizenship. But the keyword there is born. A child that belongs to an American parent upon conception gains naturalization from their parents being a citizen, a child conceived by foreigners in America does not have American parents and can not gain naturalization from them so he/she must be born on American soil.

Children being born here and gaining citizenship has nothing to due with the naturalization laws, it has to do with the language of the fourteenth amendment which specifically states that children have to be born (not conceived) in order to gain citizenship through birthright. Naturalization is a separate process for those who were not born here but who have American parents.

Or it can be used by people who move here and live here for a period of time who wish to gain citizenship.