Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

No, that's your own personal opinion. You keep saying there is no middle ground because you don't want there to be.

You cannot say that she should never have to give up her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus but also suggest that such a position offers "middle ground".

If she should never have to give up her bodily autonomy then all abortion is legal anytime and for any reason.

Again, those are mutually exclusive statements. It's not simply an opinion that they are.

You know that most people have no problem with early term abortions, so you want to force all pro choice people to defend late term abortions in hopes of turning people pro life.

If you feel that women should never have to give up her bodily autonomy then you're putting yourself in a position of having to defend late-term abortions. :think:

I personally have no qualms with late term abortion for other people. I don't care.

:sigh:
Fair enough. Is it OK that I do care?

Partial birth abortions, for example, do not strike you as immoral and/or unnecessary?

Elaborate.

A fetus is a new human. An organ is a part of a human. When you abort, you are not removing a part of yourself, you are removing another human.

That's just for starters. Comparing organ donation to abortion shows a lack of comprehension of the biological facts that differentiate between the two.

But, I'll humor you. If you went to a doctor and told him to remove one of your lungs, do you think he/she would do so if there was no reason to do so?

That depends on the state. Some states have no limit on abortion.

Which state? Please include a citation. :e4e:

What if only the mother will die?

How can a fetus survive inside a dead mother?

I'm not asking about Ron Paul's opinion. I'm asking about yours and what punishments you would like to see handed down to women that have abortions. Yet you can't even give me a straight answer or max/min prison term limit.

Because, again, it would depend. What is the prison term for manslaughter? It depends. There is no cookie cutter sentence for feticide nor for most crimes. You're not looking for a straight answer, you're looking for a simple answer.

There is no simple answer as it depends on A) jurisdiction B) circumstances of the case C) criminal history of the defendants

Like all criminal cases, there are a plethora of factors that are weighed before determining a sentence.

If you were curious research feticide or suggest a state and I can offer a more concrete answer.

Why not premeditated murder? What factors would the sentence depend on?

I am happy with abortion being criminalized. This will put providers out of business (yes, it's a big business).

In some states, the charge is similar to murder.

Map of US, feticide laws

Will it still be feticide if the pregnancy is not yet in the fetal stage? What if she's only 4 weeks pregnant?

Again, what state is she in? It would depend on the jurisdiction as it does with all criminal cases.

So why is it that when a person hires a contract killer both are charged with murder?

:think:
Are you comparing an abortion to contract killing?

 

[PureX]

That reminds me of idiot politicians who say they are personally against abortion but will not tell other people what to do. What hypocrisy!!

Apparently you don't understand the definition of the word hypocrisy.

Why are they "personally" against abortion other than the fact that it is the taking of an innocent life?

Well, they could be against it because they feel it's wrong to make assumptions about what is a human life when one doesn't actually know. Or maybe they feel it sets a precedent that could lead to the actual destruction of human life. It's possible to be against abortion even when you don't believe an early term abortion is "baby murder".

Yet they don't want to tell other people not to take an innocent life!! They might as well say, "I am against murder, but if someone else wants to murder someone I won't tell them not to."

Or perhaps they realize that their own ideas and opinions are not the measure of all truth and action for all mankind. Unlike yourself.

 

[WizardofOz]

dodge?

:yawn:
First of all, you never responded to this post from a few months ago.

Was that a dodge?

Second, you responded for PureX as if you are his spokesperson, even including "our" as a collective. Do you speak for PureX or for yourself?

Lastly, I will respond to you but please stop pretending that you represent PureX or any poster other than yourself.

So?

If PureX voted "For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy" this answer implies that abortion after this "certain period" would be illegal.

It is his opinion that some (late) abortion should be a criminal act. I too agree that certain abortion(s) should be a criminal act. We both share an opinion that some abortion should be illegal. Yes, my scale is larger (and more consistent) than his but for him to repeat over and over that it's just an opinion is pointless. If we're talking about the law then yes, the law would be binding on all.

I don't know why he so fears the implications his answer make.

The narrow focus of your poll simply asked for our opinions.

Your opinion about what the law should be.

That doesn't imply that our views represent the views of millions of others.

No kidding. It's an opinion. The inconsistency with the pro-choice collective really isn't my concern.

Again, you're conflating personal moral views with objective legal views...that (potentially) affect everyone.

:idea:
That's why I asked "When should abortion be a legal option?"

If PureX thinks certain abortions should be illegal then yes, this opinion (if made law) would effect everyone. :duh:

basically you could read our answers as being:"In a perfect rational world (regarding abortion/contraception) we would choose a relevant abortion law that would allow abortion for any reason up to a certain period 'X'." Of course, we don't live in such a world while 'X' is up for debate...and, as such, personal liberties trump mere opinion.

So all abortion should be legal for anyone for any reason and at anytime. Guess what, that was an option. I wonder why he didn't vote for it.

You certainly should have since that is your actual position anyway.

 

[Rusha]

That reminds me of idiot politicians who say they are personally against abortion but will not tell other people what to do. What hypocrisy!!

Why are they "personally" against abortion other than the fact that it is the taking of an innocent life? Yet they don't want to tell other people not to take an innocent life!! They might as well say, "I am against murder, but if someone else wants to murder someone I won't tell them not to."

:jawdrop:

Yup ... it's right up there with "I am personally opposed to rape/murder/child abuse ... however, I won't tell others it's wrong for them".

Selective morality at it's finest.

 

[WizardofOz]

So you think it's the courage of your conviction that justifies your wanting to force other people to comply with them?

Do you think late(r)-term abortions should be illegal? Because that is the choice you voted for.

Should people be forced to comply with the law that you suggest? Why did you vote for outlawing abortions after a certain period of pregnancy if you don't actually want people to obey this law?

Playing both sides of the debate as usual, huh? Why not stand behind your answer and its legal implications?

 

[Rusha]

When should rape be legal?

Anytime for any reason. (Suffient force.)
Anytime, but only as long as there's no loss of life
Anytime, but only if the woman is asleep or drugged. (No pain)
For any reason, but only up to a certain number of rapes per month. (quota)
Only in cases where the other person tricks the rapist into thinking they enjoy being raped.

How dare you try to tell a rapist what they can or cannot do with their own body!

 

[WizardofOz]

When should rape be legal?

Anytime for any reason. (Suffient force.)
Anytime, but only as long as there's no loss of life
Anytime, but only if the woman is asleep or drugged. (No pain)
For any reason, but only up to a certain number of rapes per month. (quota)
Only in cases where the other person tricks the rapist into thinking they enjoy being raped.

Are you pro-choice? If not, the poll wasn't meant for you....:thumb:

 

[Rusha]

Not having your view=/=inconsistent.

My feelings and attachment do change how I decide on my pregnancy.

Which is EXACTLY why you are inconsistent ...

Abortion is always wrong or always fine and dandy. Which is it?

Are you prepared to state that if is fine for a doctor or woman to exterminate her unborn child when she is 9 months pregnant as long as he/she is still in the womb?

 

[Padre Kinsey]

Most often when people, especially those who are pro-life, which I consider myself to be, discuss abortion they are immediately distracted and redirected into discussions on the potential exceptions to the pro-life stance (i.e. instances of rape, incest , or threat to the mother). The discussion then becomes weighed down with semantics on whether or not a possible incestuous child may or may not have the right to life, which is almost entirely un-related to the real issue of abortion. A vast majority (90+ percent) of abortions are in response to inconvenient pregnancies. The remaining percentage is comprised of all those who have some extenuating circumstance which they feel entitles them to the choice of abortion. I feel the discussion is best left on the 90+ percent which are most often more a question of responsibility and maturity. Expectations within western society have steadily lowered when it comes to the acceptance of responsibility and emotional maturity of young adults, which for the purposes of this discussion I will define as those old enough to conceive a child. I do not feel that an abortion is an appropriate or moral response to immature and irresponsible behavior. Not only does it result in the loss of life (which I understand is politically debatable), it also reinforces the idea that the consequences for irresponsible behavior can be easily avoided, which I believe only perpetuates the propensity for irresponsible behavior.
I believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization of the egg; that is the miracle of God. I agree with majority position that pregnancy begins at the moment of implantation, and it is at that point that I feel no one should be legally allowed to interfere with the development of life as a means of mitigating the natural consequences of irresponsible behavior.
As for the other less than ten percent of cases, those have to be looked at on a case by case basis. The only situation where I feel an abortion is a morally appropriate possibility is in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, which is a very small percentage of abortions. In that case I feel each person has a God given right to the preservation of their own life. Whether or not they choose to exercise that right is between them, their family, and God, but they are at that point entitled to the right to choose.

 

[quip]

:yawn:
First of all, you never responded to this post from a few months ago.

Was that a dodge?

First of all, tu quoque. Second of all, Me (from prior discussion): There's nothing false about the dilemma...you simply refuse to answer it because it's the death knell for your argument...and you know it.... you kept going in circles avoiding this point ...thus, hypocrisy squared on your behalf.

Second, you responded for PureX as if you are his spokesperson, even including "our" as a collective. Do you speak for PureX or for yourself?

Myself. It seems my name was included - along with PureX's - in a laundry list posted by you (#382). So, if you don't want me to respond then don't post my TOL moniker within your argument. Otherwise, man-up.

Lastly, I will respond to you but please stop pretending that you represent PureX or any poster other than yourself.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort. I'm not sure how that could be possible in the first place as 'quip' clearly addresses my posts. :doh:

If PureX voted "For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy" this answer implies that abortion after this "certain period" would be illegal.

It is his opinion that some (late) abortion should be a criminal act.

No, not necessarily (as I pointed out). PureX is free to correct me any time he feels it necessary...yet, I believe we're on the same page here. Nonetheless, either way I've showed you that your logic is incomplete here....you're imposing a conclusion, willfully ignoring pertinent facts.

I don't know why he so fears the implications his answer make.

Your opinion about what the law should be.

No kidding. It's an opinion. The inconsistency with the pro-choice collective really isn't my concern.

:idea:
That's why I asked "When should abortion be a legal option?"

If PureX thinks certain abortions should be illegal then yes, this opinion (if made law) would effect everyone. :duh:


So all abortion should be legal for anyone for any reason and at anytime. Guess what, that was an option. I wonder why he didn't vote for it.

You certainly should have since that is your actual position anyway.

You're being disingenuous. The poll was a hypothetical, it was implied that you wanted our personal opinion regarding a rational compromise on the issue..."where do you draw the line?" but now you want to equivocate upon the thread's intentions and draw unqualified conclusions. You're simply avoiding the fact that pro-choicers value relevant liberties over tyrannically imposing personal views. Add this to your self-serving calculus, and you'll realize your own intellectual dishonesty...hopefully.

 

[Jezebel]

You cannot say that she should never have to give up her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus but also suggest that such a position offers "middle ground".

Except it does, but you don't want to accept it because you want to lump late term abortions in with early term, because you know most people have no problem with early term abortions.

If she should never have to give up her bodily autonomy then all abortion is legal anytime and for any reason.

The fetus living doesn't remove her bodily autonomy. Forcing her to keep it inside her does.

Again, those are mutually exclusive statements. It's not simply an opinion that they are.

Just because you say they are doesn't mean they are.

Partial birth abortions, for example, do not strike you as immoral and/or unnecessary?

Are you asking me what I think the law should be or my own personal opinion?

A fetus is a new human. An organ is a part of a human. When you abort, you are not removing a part of yourself, you are removing another human.

That's just for starters. Comparing organ donation to abortion shows a lack of comprehension of the biological facts that differentiate between the two.

You're missing the point of the analogy entirely. The woman is not obligated to let the fetus use her organs to sustain itself. Just like you are not obligated to donate your kidney to me. People aren't entitled to other people's bodies. If you can't live without my body tough. That still doesn't give you a right to it.

But, I'll humor you. If you went to a doctor and told him to remove one of your lungs, do you think he/she would do so if there was no reason to do so?

Doesn't matter, as long as I'm legally allowed to go from doctor to doctor until I find one willing to do so.

How can a fetus survive inside a dead mother?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/pregnant-life-support-texas/

and
Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute," she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. "I fought it," she says. "But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

Because, again, it would depend. What is the prison term for manslaughter? It depends. There is no cookie cutter sentence for feticide nor for most crimes. You're not looking for a straight answer, you're looking for a simple answer.

There is no simple answer as it depends on A) jurisdiction B) circumstances of the case C) criminal history of the defendants

Like all criminal cases, there are a plethora of factors that are weighed before determining a sentence.

If you were curious research feticide or suggest a state and I can offer a more concrete answer.

Again, I'm asking what you, yourself think the law should be. It doesn't matter which state. What do you think she deserves. Why is that so hard to answer?

In some states, the charge is similar to murder.

Shouldn't it be exactly like murder?

:think:
Are you comparing an abortion to contract killing?

If you believe it's murder, then logically the woman that has an abortion is legally no different then someone who hires a contract killer. Answer the question though.

 

[Jezebel]

Which is EXACTLY why you are inconsistent ...

No I'm not. Like I said to WizardofOZ. You keep drawing these conclusions with no reason to back them up, just because you say so. Just because you want me to be inconsistent doesn't mean I am. You asked what decisions I would make for my own pregnancy vs what I think the law should be. No inconsistency there.

Abortion is always wrong or always fine and dandy. Which is it?

Are you prepared to state that if is fine for a doctor or woman to exterminate her unborn child when she is 9 months pregnant as long as he/she is still in the womb?

If a woman has an abortion at 9 months I don't believe she should face criminal charges. However, I don't think the doctor should face any penalties should he deliver the fetus alive. If a law was drawn up that said after the point of viability the doctor can deliver the fetus alive and face no penalty. I'd have no issues with that law. I'm only interested in women being able to keep complete rights to their bodily autonomy.

 

[PureX]

No, not necessarily (as I pointed out). PureX is free to correct me any time he feels it necessary...yet, I believe we're on the same page here. Nonetheless, either way I've showed you that your logic is incomplete here....you're imposing a conclusion, willfully ignoring pertinent facts.

Yes. I perceive it's the tactic of hiding the lack of a defense by increasing the 'noise' of attack. I have asked multiple times for WOZ's justification for imposing individual ideas and opinions on everyone else, and have gotten only more aggressive and irrational accusations in return. It's clear that this question of ignoring the rights of others is not going to be acknowledged, let alone answered. Yet this is, in fact, the essential issue fueling the abortion debate, rather than the argument over it being right or wrong.

You're being disingenuous. The poll was a hypothetical, it was implied that you (WOZ) wanted our personal opinion regarding a rational compromise on the issue..."where do you draw the line?" but now you want to equivocate upon the thread's intentions and draw unqualified conclusions. You're simply avoiding the fact that pro-choicers value relevant liberties over tyrannically imposing personal views. ...

Yes, I think that's the whole point of WOZ's rather disingenuous argument ... to avoid the issue of individual liberty all together.

 

[drbrumley]

Yes, I think that's the whole point of WOZ's rather disingenuous argument ... to avoid the issue of individual liberty all together.

Liberty doesn't include murder sir.

 

[PureX]

Liberty doesn't include murder sir.

That abortion is "murder" is your opinion. Is it really that impossible for you to recognize that your own opinions are opinions? Or are you just repeating your opinions over and over in the hopes that they will somehow magically be transformed into a reality unto themselves?

 

[WizardofOz]

First of all, tu quoque. Second of all, Me (from prior discussion): There's nothing false about the dilemma...you simply refuse to answer it because it's the death knell for your argument...and you know it.... you kept going in circles avoiding this point ...thus, hypocrisy squared on your behalf.

I have explained numerous times and in great detail why a blastocyst need not be considered a moral equivalent to its mother thus making your "death knell" an empty declaration.

Again, from the post you've dodged (from October 9th, 2013):

Is a blastocyst the moral equivalent of the mother?
Yes - They are both members of the same species and both should have equal protection under the law.

No - While not a moral equal of the mother, it is immoral to needlessly kill any human regardless of its current state of development.

Your moral scale aside, there is still an issue of morality in general. It is immoral to kill a human unless there are objective extenuating circumstances (war, self defense, etc) whereby the killing may be justified. Therefore, elective abortion is not morally justifiable.

In the case of abortion, unless the mother's life is at risk it's a false dilemma to weigh the moral weight of the mother's life versus that of the unborn (your pitting of them against one another). If her life is not at risk, the unborn need not necessarily be viewed as a moral equal (my personal views aside).

Your perpetuating of this strawman does make perfect sense now. You must present one in order to obtain some fantasy 'gotcha'. This certainly isn't and it's quite laughable that you think your strawman can in any way be a "death knell" for my argument. Counter my actual argument(s) not what you think they must be or what you feel they imply.

I refused to answer? :nono: That's just you projecting, quip. The refutation of your strawman/false dilemma has been there since at least October.

Myself. It seems my name was included - along with PureX's - in a laundry list posted by you (#382). So, if you don't want me to respond then don't post my TOL moniker within your argument. Otherwise, man-up.

:doh:
I responded to his and highlighted his name in that response. Your name was also in that list because that is how you voted even though you oddly voted for a position you don't actually adhere to.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort. I'm not sure how that could be possible in the first place as 'quip' clearly addresses my posts. :doh:

Why do you think I highlighted PureX? My post was not, in any way, addressed to you. That is why his name was highlighted whereas yours was not. I could understand your confusion had I not highlighted his name.

But I did.

No, not necessarily (as I pointed out). PureX is free to correct me any time he feels it necessary...yet, I believe we're on the same page here. Nonetheless, either way I've showed you that your logic is incomplete here....you're imposing a conclusion, willfully ignoring pertinent facts.

Yet, you don't show how or what I am ignoring. You just make more and more declarations devoid of evidence supporting them.

You're being disingenuous. The poll was a hypothetical, it was implied that you wanted our personal opinion regarding a rational compromise on the issue..."where do you draw the line?"

Where do you draw the line regarding the law. Does my question mention the law? :readthis: "When should abortion be a legal option?"

Yup, it does thus implying that it should cease to be a legal option at some point for anyone who voted for the "For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy" option.

I did mention the law whereas I never said anything about a rational compromise.

but now you want to equivocate upon the thread's intentions and draw unqualified conclusions. You're simply avoiding the fact that pro-choicers value relevant liberties over tyrannically imposing personal views. Add this to your self-serving calculus, and you'll realize your own intellectual dishonesty...hopefully.

Ah, so once we pass the magical week X when abortion should no longer be a legal option it's only a tyrannical position to hold for some people who feel this way.

If a person considers themselves pro-choice but feels abortion after week 26 should be illegal, how is their position not tyrannical but mine is?

Seems to me like any position that doesn't mirror your own is "tyrannical". Keep making unfounded declarations about my honesty. I'm sure anyone paying attention isn't buying it anyway. :e4e:

 

[Rusha]

Not having your view=/=inconsistent.

My feelings and attachment do change how I decide on my pregnancy.

Which is EXACTLY why you are inconsistent ...

Abortion is always wrong or always fine and dandy. Which is it?

Are you prepared to state that if is fine for a doctor or woman to exterminate her unborn child when she is 9 months pregnant as long as he/she is still in the womb?

No I'm not. Like I said to WizardofOZ. You keep drawing these conclusions with no reason to back them up, just because you say so. Just because you want me to be inconsistent doesn't mean I am. You asked what decisions I would make for my own pregnancy vs what I think the law should be. No inconsistency there.

If a woman has an abortion at 9 months I don't believe she should face criminal charges. However, I don't think the doctor should face any penalties should he deliver the fetus alive. If a law was drawn up that said after the point of viability the doctor can deliver the fetus alive and face no penalty. I'd have no issues with that law. I'm only interested in women being able to keep complete rights to their bodily autonomy.

Then WHY would your *feelings* change about having a late term abortion yourself?

IF you truly feel there is nothing wrong with it, you would have stated "I would have no problem with having an abortion at nine months".

Your *feelings* have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not killing your unborn child is okay.

IF we based everything on *feelings*, then going by your standard, a rapist would have every right to say "well it was fine that I committed that rape because I felt like it".

IF you wish to make a case of why it is okay for a physician to perform abortion on fully formed babies at the mother's request, then do so.

There is a reason you made a point of claiming late term abortion might not be right for you.

 

[drbrumley]

That abortion is "murder" is your opinion. Is it really that impossible for you to recognize that your own opinions are opinions? Or are you just repeating your opinions over and over in the hopes that they will somehow magically be transformed into a reality unto themselves?

How do you figure it is merely opinion? Is not a fetus a human being? Has life which is in the blood, it's own blood.

 

[quip]

I have explained numerous times and in great detail why a blastocyst need not be considered a moral equivalent to its mother thus making your "death knell" an empty declaration.

Again, from the post you've dodged (from October 9th, 2013):

Is a blastocyst the moral equivalent of the mother? Yes - They are both members of the same species and both should have equal protection under the law. No - While not a moral equal of the mother, it is immoral to needlessly kill any human regardless of its current state of development. Your moral scale aside, there is still an issue of morality in general. It is immoral to kill a human unless there are objective extenuating circumstances (war, self defense, etc) whereby the killing may be justified. Therefore, elective abortion is not morally justifiable. In the case of abortion, unless the mother's life is at risk it's a false dilemma to weigh the moral weight of the mother's life versus that of the unborn (your pitting of them against one another). If her life is not at risk, the unborn need not necessarily be viewed as a moral equal (my personal views aside). Your perpetuating of this strawman does make perfect sense now. You must present one in order to obtain some fantasy 'gotcha'. This certainly isn't and it's quite laughable that you think your strawman can in any way be a "death knell" for my argument. Counter my actual argument(s) not what you think they must be or what you feel they imply.

I refused to answer? :nono: That's just you projecting, quip. The refutation of your strawman/false dilemma has been there since at least October.

Did you read this rhetoric? You answered both yes and no to the question: "Is the mother the moral equivalent to a blastocyst?".

Oh it was quite verbose, I'll give you that...as a matter of fact, it was quite the wordy dodge. Up to this point in our prior argument I was simply getting more of the same....like arguing with a bratty child, it was getting me nowhere....similar to the wordy tripe I'm getting here. :juggle:

:doh:
I responded to his and highlighted his name in that response. Your name was also in that list because that is how you voted even though you oddly voted for a position you don't actually adhere to.

Why do you think I highlighted PureX? My post was not, in any way, addressed to you. That is why his name was highlighted whereas yours was not. I could understand your confusion had I not highlighted his name.

So? By association my vote reflected the "highlighted" vote...plus its an open forum. Get over it.

Yet, you don't show how or what I am ignoring. You just make more and more declarations devoid of evidence supporting them.

umm, yes I did while PureX even reiterated and bolded it! To jog your selective memory: You're simply avoiding the fact that pro-choicers value relevant liberties over tyrannically imposing personal views.

Where do you draw the line regarding the law. Does my question mention the law? :readthis: "When should abortion be a legal option?"

Yup, it does thus implying that it should cease to be a legal option at some point for anyone who voted for the "For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy" option.

I did mention the law whereas I never said anything about a rational compromise.

Does the concepts of implication, hypothetical and compromise somehow elude you?
Are you really this thick...or just too proud to admit you jumped to conclusions?

Ah, so once we pass the magical week X when abortion should no longer be a legal option it's only a tyrannical position to hold for some people who feel this way.

If a person considers themselves pro-choice but feels abortion after week 26 should be illegal, how is their position not tyrannical but mine is?

Because you've overreached on your own thread. Okay, so if we're to take your poll as literal as you assert...our votes did not reflect your ulterior motives. So, I suppose the jokes on us...you baited us and caught us in your "trap". Cue Woz's chest-thumping K: .....ok you win, so what?

Seems to me like any position that doesn't mirror your own is "tyrannical". Keep making unfounded declarations about my honesty. I'm sure anyone paying attention isn't buying it anyway. :e4e:

Explain to PX and I how allowing others to choose their own moral compass regarding abortion....is being tyrannical? :sigh:

 

[WizardofOz]

Except it does, but you don't want to accept it because you want to lump late term abortions in with early term, because you know most people have no problem with early term abortions.

If a woman should never have to give up her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus how can you justify criminalizing late-term abortions?

If you don't want to outlaw late-term abortion then you'll have to present your justification.

If a woman should never have to give up her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus then what middle ground do you feel you are offering?

You cannot say that a woman should never have to give up her bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus and also say that you're offering middle ground. They are mutually exclusive statements.

The fetus living doesn't remove her bodily autonomy. Forcing her to keep it inside her does.

Women are currently forced to keep it inside if they are too far along to abort. Is this unfair in your view?

Just because you say they are doesn't mean they are.

I have shown that they are so there's that.

Partial birth abortions, for example, do not strike you as immoral and/or unnecessary?

Are you asking me what I think the law should be or my own personal opinion?

:sigh:
Take your pick.

You're missing the point of the analogy entirely. The woman is not obligated to let the fetus use her organs to sustain itself. Just like you are not obligated to donate your kidney to me. People aren't entitled to other people's bodies. If you can't live without my body tough. That still doesn't give you a right to it.

It's a terrible analogy. If a woman is beyond week X she is obligated to let the fetus use her organs to sustain itself, legally speaking.

Do you find this unfair as well?

How can a fetus survive inside a dead mother?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/pregnant-life-support-texas/

and
Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute," she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. "I fought it," she says. "But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

And, if she died (completely not just brain dead) the fetus would die as well. As long as the baby inside of her has a chance to survive they should keep the body "alive". That's why she is still on a ventilator.

Again, I'm asking what you, yourself think the law should be. It doesn't matter which state. What do you think she deserves. Why is that so hard to answer?

I told you what I think the law should be, feticide. She deserves to be charged with feticide if she self-aborts. The sentence would depend on a variety of factors that I had previously laid out. Does she have a prior criminal record? How did she abort? Did she confess? Did she reject a plea deal with the DA? et al.

Shouldn't it be exactly like murder?

I am content with the charge of feticide. If a drunk driver hits a car and the pregnant woman in that car loses her 4 week old fetus, what, if anything, should the driver be charged with?

If you believe it's murder, then logically the woman that has an abortion is legally no different then someone who hires a contract killer. Answer the question though.

I already have...repeatedly. I would charge them with feticide. I believe it is feticide so that is what I would charge them with. If a woman hires a hitman to kill another woman's baby, I would charge them both with......:idea: feticide