Yes, but only during the first 20 weeks, same as a woman.
Yes, but only during the initial period when a non-invasive technique works.
No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.
NO! Only the woman has this right and he remains responsible.
I oppose all abortion, so neither have the right.
I Don't Know.
Here are the facts:
In the 40 years since Roe we have written laws such as Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law which extends to the unborn rights as a person in over 60 scenarios. This fulfills the Roe Section 9a clause and warrents a SCOTUS revisit to so that Roe can ban abortion.ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses , [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ."
The life-cycle of a human begins at fertilization:
Brain death marks the end of life, but brain activity does not mark the beginning. The presence of a zygote marks the beginning.The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote . Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization....
Read more: Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major
"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".
The problem is that the law doesn't always line up with logic. It's one thing to say that the law does not see the embryo as a "person", but it's quite another thing to say an embryo is not a person objectively. Clearly it is, just as black slaves were persons even while the law saw it differently. The law was wrong on slavery, the law was wrong on voting rights not applying to women, and the law is wrong on unborn persons; hence the campaign to change the law.
Last edited by Jerry; 09-15-13 at 01:44 PM.
John Andrew Welden pleads guilty in Tampa abortion pill case
TAMPA — John Andrew Welden pleaded guilty Monday to federal charges of product tampering and mail fraud, admitting in court, as he had to detectives, that he slipped his ex-girlfriend an abortion drug.
Seems even according to you, an embryo is not a person.
This man made a choice and you either support him or you are not pro-choice.
In response to sangha posting, "the unborn are not a person," you just said, "if that were true then this man would not have been convicted of murder. He would have been convicted of some kind of tampering charge or assault on the mother. "
Well, he wasn't convicted of murder, i.e., it is true "the unborn are not a person." You said so yourself.