The fetal child IS protected by the law, just not to a degree sufficient to your ideology. As for "my opinion" on the matter, I concur with the (successful) constitutional challenges brought about by Roe.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
The fetal child IS protected by the law, just not to a degree sufficient to your ideology. As for "my opinion" on the matter, I concur with the (successful) constitutional challenges brought about by Roe.
glassjester
Well-known member
Why shouldn't an infant lack the same legal protections that a fetus lacks?
Again, because an infant does not imperil the rights of the mother in question such as those brought forth within the Roe/Wade discussion.
glassjester
Well-known member
Which rights?
Privacy... from government intrusion/obtrusion.
glassjester
Well-known member
I don't get it - if the police break down the door to someone's house to prevent them from killing their infant, hasn't the government intruded?
I fail to see any relevance here.
Womens 14th amendment right was likewise violated by the then existing abortion laws.
glassjester
Well-known member
The government can and must intrude upon the private property of a citizen, in order to prevent the killing of another human being.
Why is an intrusion of privacy perfectly permissible in order to protect an infant, but not a fetus?
This is not about property right but rather personal rights. You're comparing apples to oranges.
glassjester
Well-known member
Has the government abrogated my personal rights if they, without my consent, put my body in prison? That is, after all, what they will do if I attempt to kill an infant.
Seems you've effectively 'abrogated' your own right in such a case.
glassjester
Well-known member
How so? You have not been able to answer, Quip.
Why do you find it acceptable for the government to take away a woman's rights (ie, by invading her private property, putting her body in prison) when she seeks to take the life of an infant, but not if she seeks to take the life of a fetus?
Because she's not simply "taking the life of" in relation to the fetus...rather she's refusing to sustain the fetus via her body; there's no legal precedent that a fetus entertains the same level of protection to that of birthed individuals....
glassjester
Well-known member
A circular argument:
1. A fetus does not have the right to live because it would invade a women's privacy, to keep the fetus alive.
2. We cannot invade a women's privacy to keep a fetus alive, because a fetus doesn't have the right to live.
There's no expressed right denying the fetus any right to life. This is a straw-man.
glassjester
Well-known member
Um... what? Killing the fetus is the whole point of the abortion "right."
Again, there's no specified nor expressed right denying the fetus life. 2 fails. 1 fails on its attempt to set up 2.
Straw-man
eider
Well-known member
Charity? Oh no...... not charity!!
What a disgusting cop out. So, let's take one example in hundreds..... a couple discover that their unborn child has hydracephalus, spina bifida and with clubbed feet at, say, 18 weeks. But they do not terminate the pregnancy and the child is born. And you think they're trying to hold you to ransom over its care each day for the rest of its life?
And with no apparent further interest you now tell me that they're going to have to ask you to pay out in extra taxation for that person's total care for life? And all the other disabled folks?
hmmm...... Now I begin to see the hypocrisy in all this.
Nope! We are following the ProLife code, and now we expect you to have the courage of your convictions, who make demands upon others in hypocritical self righteous judgement with absolutely no apparent intention of lifting a finger towards supporting your beliefs and moral code...? Hypocrisy! That's more like it.
Well then...... support that tenet and pay for the care of all children in every way..... Pro-Life!
Until you can suppoort that you're not Pro-Life, just Pro-hypocrisy.
So every government should introduce National Medical support for all children, not as a charity but as a human right, and it should be payed for by the people.
So don't hide, because you have aleadty said that a +11 day baby is as important as a -11 day baby. ime to be Pro-Life.
glassjester
Well-known member
Such folly.
I never said charity was a bad thing. I never even said that universal healthcare was a bad thing. I did say (and continue to say) that my right to be alive should not be contingent upon "free" healthcare or charity.
Do you agree or disagree?
And if free healthcare is not provided by the government, then those children have no right to live.
...that is what you're saying, right?
glassjester
Well-known member
So people who seek abortion, don't want their fetal child killed?