freeman3 wrote:With regard to the murder of a fetus Calcrim 520 states that a "fetus is an unborn human being that has progressed beyond the embryonic stage after major structures have been outlined, which typically occurs st 7 or 8 weeks after fertilization." So it's not just a clump of cells. There is a further reason to give a fetus more protection with regard to a third-party committing a criminal act against it as opposed to its interests vis-a-vis the mother with regard to abortion: the interests involved are different. With regard to abortion, the rights of the fetus are weighed against that of the mother and once it reaches viability its interests are deemed legally significant enough so that the mother can be constrained from an unfettered right to abortion. There is no weighing of interests with regard to a third-party killing the fetus, so protection at an earlier stage is possible.
This simply is not true. And, the Democratic position is no restriction at anytime for any abortion. There is no "balance."
You seem to be arguing with regard to the examples I set forth with regard to procreation rights that liberals are in favor of such things. If they were, why would they favor a legal interpretation that does not allow for them? So if liberals gain power and pass such laws would conservatives say, well, nothing we can do about it because there is no fundamental procreation rights?
Your scenarios are worthy of dystopian sci-fi novels and not much else. Sorry.
I think we have a fundamental right to make decisions related to reproduction. Apparently, you do not agree or else you would just say you agree instead of trying to blame liberals for actions that are not allowed under the right of privacy interpretation of the Constitution favored by liberals.
"Reproduction" does not include "ending a production."