Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[One Eyed Jack]

Thank you for your honesty. Two more questions and I'm done, I should have put this in the OP.

Does the woman being a victim of rape/having an abortion because of health risks affect your stance any?

Not really -- two wrongs don't make a right. As for health risks, I think they're vastly overstated, although I'd be willing to consider them on a case by case basis.

If she's a juvenile should she be tried as an adult?

Do you think a juvenile is mature enough to decide to have an abortion?

 

[gcthomas]

Not really -- two wrongs don't make a right. As for health risks, I think they're vastly overstated, although I'd be willing to consider them on a case by case basis.

According to the research here, one in 11000 women die in childbirth, compared to one in 167000 due to abortion complications, making giving birth 15 times more dangerous than having an abortion.

 

[WizardofOz]

The fetus must be removed if the mother is going to die without such action. All care should be made and all attempts should be made to keep the fetus alive, but if the mother dies, they both die, and the end result for the fetus is the same.

This isn't always true. I've shown you this.

There are always exceptions. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus dies if/when the mother dies. Exceptions should not be the basis for rules/laws.

You want to believe that both have to die to make it easier for you to justify it.

:liberals:
Justify what?

Here are cases of pregnant women who decided to forgo chemotherapy treatment, died and their children lived.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...ild-dottie-mae-article-1.964103#ixzz1bEj3EBhN
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woman-dies-of-cancer-after-refusing-treatment-to-save-unborn-child/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/28/idaho-teen-loses-cancer-fight-after-delivering-son/

Heroes :thumb:

Should it be mandated that women who are pregnant be barred from chemotherapy if it will kill their fetus?

If a doctor's professional opinion is that both mother and the fetus will likely die, then the fetus may be removed if the mother is going to likely die without such action. All care should be made and all attempts should be made to keep the fetus alive. If the mother decides to take the risk, I would applaud her bravery.

What about the case of a 13 year old girl who had to have an abortion before doctors could operate on her spine so that she wouldn't be permanently paralyzed from the neck down?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...eatment-and-abortion-left-paralyzed-for-life#

She shouldn't have jumped.

If they operate and the fetus dies, this isn't an abortion. The loss is a result of the surgery; a surgery that was intended to heal rather than kill.

Another question, why does it matter if the fetus will "die anyway"? When have we ever killed terminally ill people in this country because they would die anyway?

Non sequitur.

Again, it depends on the state but I did do some digging for you.

"Louisiana is one of at least 38 states with fetal homicide laws, and one of 23 with such laws applying to the earliest stage of pregnancy, according to the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Feticide in Indiana is a Class B felony, and a conviction could carry a six-to-20-year prison sentence"

This seems fair.

Again, I didn't ask you about the sentences states actually give. I was asking what you think it should be. Why do you keep hiding behind state laws and just can't bear to give your actual opinion?

I did. It's in yellow ^

You're looking for a simplistic response when none exists. A six-year prison sentence is suitable barring other circumstances I previously mentioned.

One a completely unrelated note but in an attempt to get you to understand the chaotic nature of the justice system, what should the sentence for robbery be? This question is rhetorical only if you get my point about the impossibility of the simplicity you seek on this point. Circumstances matter a great deal.

He should be charged with poisoning. If it it was up to me he would be sentenced to 1 to 5 years in prison, depending on what the woman wanted. Personally I would give him 1.

One year in prison for giving a pill that killed her fetus? Don't you think many more unwilling fathers-to-be will take the risk of one year in prison and will poison their SO's in order to get out of having to care and/or pay for a child? Would that seem like justice to you?

Depending on what the woman wanted? Do you think she would be satisfied with 1 only year? 5? Does what she wants really matter?

What if she was 8 months pregnant and he pulled this trick, killing the fetus? Would you give the fetus any legal recognition even when the mother doesn't want to abort?

What is the difference between the woman who hired the hit man to kill her newborn and the woman who hired an abortionist?

Why should they be charged differently? For example, when a woman murders her infant she is not charged with infanticide and given a lesser sentence because her victim is young. She is charged with murder. Why should it be different for fetuses if they are the same as infants with all the same legal rights?

Again, I am content with the charge of infantcide (my middle ground). If the charge was instead murder I would lose no sleep over it.

I seek one legal right, not "all the same legal rights". The only right I seek is a right to life.

That's it.

What other legal rights to infants have? :idunno:

Why offer middle ground to people you believe are murderers?

Murder is a legal term. Abortionists are not murderers until the law says they are. Please do not tell me what I believe when I have made myself clear on this point.

If you have no qualms about it, why not come out and say you support it?

Because there is a difference between ardently supporting a murder charge for all involved in abortion and my position.

Abortion should be illegal. That is my argument. You want to push my argument to an extreme so you can put it in a box and discard it. Why else would you put words in my mouth and make assumptions about my position not being tough enough on those involved with abortion?

If abortion were criminalized would you prefer those involved be charged with murder or with feticide?

to balance the interests of both the woman and the fetus, the fetus should be delivered alive as long as it adds no extra risks to the woman.

It would add extra risk as you would have to induce and give live birth or perform surgery (c-secton). In partial birth, the brain is sucked out so the head collapses making extraction easier. If they are going to attempt to save the baby (which it is at this point of pregnancy, semantics aside) it would add extra risk so you are right back to square one with who's "rights" trump.

Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]

Horrifying, isn't it?

Would this law strike you as middle ground? I would not be opposed to it.

I find it impracticable for numerous reasons and you would be forcing added risk to the mother as outlined above so ultimately I'm not sure you are even sincere in this course of action once you think it through more thoroughly.

A woman may have end her pregnancy at anytime by removal of the fetus/embryo. However if the pregnancy is to the point that the fetus can survive the fetus should be removed per the women's request but must be removed alive.

I would not be opposed to this law. I don't believe it erases women's bodily autonomy. Would you?

The cost associated with such law would be immense. If every otherwise aborted fetus was removed and treated as other premature babies are there would be an explosion of required care. Keeping a healthy baby in the womb is inexpensive (thank you nature) compared to this option. Who would fund this? If the baby survives, they would then be cared for by the state and put up for adoption, I assume?

The logistics would be difficult to say the least.

 

[Rusha]

According to the research here, one in 11000 women die in childbirth, compared to one in 167000 due to abortion complications, making giving birth 15 times more dangerous than having an abortion.

And 167,000 babies out of 167,000 babies DIE due to abortion ... which makes the statistics you supplied insignificant.

 

[gcthomas]

And 167,000 babies out of 167,000 babies DIE due to abortion ... which makes the statistics you supplied insignificant.

Most are undifferentiated cell clusters, so I don't consider them the moral equivalent of a late stage baby or a woman.

 

[WizardofOz]

Most are undifferentiated cell clusters, so I don't consider them the moral equivalent of a late stage baby or a woman.

FTFY

 

[gcthomas]

FTFY

Yes, I don't consider an undifferentiated cluster of cells to have any moral worth at all. And, apart from religious dogma reasons and simplistic word-play, I have not seen any reason why I should.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yes, I don't consider an undifferentiated cluster of cells to have any moral worth at all. And, apart from religious dogma reasons and simplistic word-play, I have not seen any reason why I should.

Take a look at this case. Should he not be charged with a crime at all?

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — The 28-year-old son of a Florida fertility doctor has been charged by federal authorities with tricking his girlfriend into taking a pill used to induce labor and cause an abortion, killing the embryo she was carrying. John Andrew Welden was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of product tampering and first-degree murder and faces up to life in prison if convicted of the murder charge. He's also the defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court by his ex-girlfriend, 26-year-old Remee Lee.

Your thoughts?

Or, take a hypothetical drunk driver hitting a pregnant woman and causing no injury other than the loss of her pregnancy.

No charges other thank for the drunk driving?

 

[gcthomas]

Take a look at this case. Should he not be charged with a crime at all?


Your thoughts?

Or, take a hypothetical drunk driver hitting a pregnant woman and causing no injury other than the loss of her pregnancy.

No charges other thank for the drunk driving?

Criminal injury, perhaps? Actual bodily harm? There is mo reason to have to call the cells a person to consider an act that injures a person a crime. If the pregnant lady had received a fractured skull, that would have been a crime, no? Do you award the skull the moral equivalence of a whole person? Is that necessary to prosecute someone?

Your reasoning is bunk.

 

[WizardofOz]

Criminal injury, perhaps? Actual bodily harm?

The woman ticked into taking pregnancy-terminating pills was not injured other than the miscarriage. How would a prosecute prove that he physically injured her?

There is mo reason to have to call the cells a person to consider an act that injures a person a crime.

He didn't injure her and I even specifically said in the hypothetical...

Or, take a hypothetical drunk driver hitting a pregnant woman and causing no injury other than the loss of her pregnancy.

No charges other thank for the drunk driving?

If the pregnant lady had received a fractured skull, that would have been a crime, no? Do you award the skull the moral equivalence of a whole person? Is that necessary to prosecute someone?

Your reasoning is bunk.

Nice declaration but your rebuttal has absolutely nothing to do with my reasoning.

Kindly try to answer the question I actually asked.

If a drunk driver hits a pregnancy woman and she is not injured in any way other than the loss of the pregnancy should he be charged with anything beyond the drunk driving offense?

The fetus is not the mother. If the fetus is injured that is not injuring a part of the mother (like a skull is a part of the mother). A fetus is a new organism developing inside of another.

 

[gcthomas]

The woman ticked into taking pregnancy-terminating pills was not injured other than the miscarriage. How would a prosecute prove that he physically injured her?

He didn't injure her and I even specifically said in the hypothetical...

Nice declaration but your rebuttal has absolutely nothing to do with my reasoning.

Kindly try to answer the question I actually asked.

If a drunk driver hits a pregnancy woman and she is not injured in any way other than the loss of the pregnancy should he be charged with anything beyond the drunk driving offense?

The fetus is not the mother. If the fetus is injured that is not injuring a part of the mother (like a skull is a part of the mother). A fetus is a new organism developing inside of another.

I consider the loss of a pregnancy to be an injury, which is comprehensively defined legally as "any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property."

It doesn't matter whether the embryo is considered part of the mother or belonging to the mother as property. An injury can refer to almost any type of loss. Pregnancies included.

So, to address your question, an assault that caused miscarriage would by definition be an injury to her, based on the legal definition of injury.

And, despite your objections, it is quite easy to word a law on assault to specifically include causing miscarriage. Here in England, it is included in the Offences against the Person Act. It is illegal, and carries criminal sanctions, but the law has no need to speculate on the personhood of an embryo, or pass judgement as to whether it is to be considered a part of the mother or independent, in order to consider the act criminal.

 

[Jezebel]

Not really -- two wrongs don't make a right. As for health risks, I think they're vastly overstated, although I'd be willing to consider them on a case by case basis.

When I say consider it, I mean would you give a woman a lesser sentence if she was a rape victim.

Do you think a juvenile is mature enough to decide to have an abortion?

Yes.

 

[Jezebel]

There are always exceptions. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus dies if/when the mother dies. Exceptions should not be the basis for rules/laws.

But the law should not ignore them altogether

:liberals
Justify what?

Having an exception for life of the mother.

Heroes :thumb:

But should they have been mandated by law to do it?

If a doctor's professional opinion is that both mother and the fetus will likely die, then the fetus may be removed if the mother is going to likely die without such action.

What about the right to life for the fetus?

[/QUOTE]

She shouldn't have jumped.

Because a 13 year old that has been repeatedly raped, is pregnant and has discovered she will be forced to keep the pregnancy against her will is going to have a rational train of thought. It's all her fault for jumping.

If they operate and the fetus dies, this isn't an abortion. The loss is a result of the surgery; a surgery that was intended to heal rather than kill.

So it's okay to do something that you know will kill someone as long as you didn't mean to kill them?

Non sequitur.

Except it does follow. Fetuses are humans and should have human rights no? Then since when have we ever seen it as legally acceptable to humans because they would die anyway? Why should it be okay to do it in the case of a fetus?

You're looking for a simplistic response when none exists. A six-year prison sentence is suitable barring other circumstances I previously mentioned.

Would a six year sentence be suitable for murdering a 2 year old?

One a completely unrelated note but in an attempt to get you to understand the chaotic nature of the justice system, what should the sentence for robbery be? This question is rhetorical only if you get my point about the impossibility of the simplicity you seek on this point. Circumstances matter a great deal.

Except robbery is not near as black and white as killing is. If you ask me what the prison term should be for shooting a 5 month old in the face, I'd say life in prison.

If you asked me what the prison term for rape should be, I'd say life in prison.

I even gave you a specific scenario.

One year in prison for giving a pill that killed her fetus? Don't you think many more unwilling fathers-to-be will take the risk of one year in prison and will poison their SO's in order to get out of having to care and/or pay for a child? Would that seem like justice to you?

And some would do clearly do it anyway with the standards we have now, as you can see. He's an idiot for sure, but don't think he deserves to have his life ruined.

Depending on what the woman wanted? Do you think she would be satisfied with 1 only year? 5? Does what she wants really matter?

A victim's wants aren't the only thing involved when deciding a person's prison sentence.

What if she was 8 months pregnant and he pulled this trick, killing the fetus? Would you give the fetus any legal recognition even when the mother doesn't want to abort?

The fetus any legal recognition? Nope. I'd be willing to up the charges though since that would be increased risk and damage to the mother.

Again, I am content with the charge of infantcide (my middle ground). If the charge was instead murder I would lose no sleep over it.

I seek one legal right, not "all the same legal rights". The only right I seek is a right to life.

That's it.

So are you okay with it being legal to do things that will permanently damage a fetus but not kill them?

How can fetuses have a right to life but killing them be anything but murder?

We don't charge people that kill infants with infanticide. That's the point. We charge them with murder. So how are you logically going to argue that with fetuses it should be different without arguing that a fetuses life is different then that of a born person?

What other legal rights to infants have? :idunno:

What would happened if I say, punched a 5 month old in the face?

Murder is a legal term. Abortionists are not murderers until the law says they are. Please do not tell me what I believe when I have made myself clear on this point.

Do you believe that abortion is the moral equivalent to murder?

Because there is a difference between ardently supporting a murder charge for all involved in abortion and my position.

Yes, and that makes you inconsistent.

Abortion should be illegal. That is my argument. You want to push my argument to an extreme so you can put it in a box and discard it.

How would supporting a murder charge make you extreme? Either abortion is unjustifiably killing a person or it is not. If it is then the people that do should be treated accordingly, if it is not then it shouldn't be illegal to begin with.

Why else would you put words in my mouth and make assumptions about my position not being tough enough on those involved with abortion?

I'm not doing anything to you that is different then what you have been doing to the pro choice people in this thread.

It's not tough enough if abortion is killing someone. You want to give fetuses the 'right to life' but can't fully support what that right to life would entail.

If abortion were criminalized would you prefer those involved be charged with murder or with feticide?

Neither, because I don't believe abortion is legally wrong.

It would add extra risk as you would have to induce and give live birth or perform surgery (c-secton). In partial birth, the brain is sucked out so the head collapses making extraction easier. If they are going to attempt to save the baby (which it is at this point of pregnancy, semantics aside) it would add extra risk so you are right back to square one with who's "rights" trump.

If that's always the case, then abortion should be legal until the 9th month of pregnancy and there should be no middle ground. I wasn't sure if induced birth was the same risk as late term abortion but I assumed it was.

The cost associated with such law would be immense. If every otherwise aborted fetus was removed and treated as other premature babies are there would be an explosion of required care.

Not really. Most abortions aren't late term, and in the case of a lot of late term abortions the fetus would die anyway.

Keeping a healthy baby in the womb is inexpensive (thank you nature) compared to this option. Who would fund this?

The state.

If the baby survives, they would then be cared for by the state and put up for adoption, I assume?

Yes.

 

[WizardofOz]

Having an exception for life of the mother.

It is logical to allow such an exception as in the majority of cases the fetus will die along with the mother. But again, try to save the fetus rather than purposely killing it.

But should they have been mandated by law to do it? What about the right to life for the fetus?

See above

Because a 13 year old that has been repeatedly raped, is pregnant and has discovered she will be forced to keep the pregnancy against her will is going to have a rational train of thought. It's all her fault for jumping.

I am simply noting that her suicide attempt is what caused her paralysis.

So it's okay to do something that you know will kill someone as long as you didn't mean to kill them?

Intent is important, yes. If a surgery is performed that may result in the death of the fetus this is very different than targeting the fetus for death.

This particular argument of yours can easily be deconstructed. We know that if people are allowed to drive cars, some people will die in car accidents. Should we then not allow people to drive cars? We don't mean for people to die by allowing them to but we know that some will inevitably die.

Except it does follow. Fetuses are humans and should have human rights no? Then since when have we ever seen it as legally acceptable to humans because they would die anyway? Why should it be okay to do it in the case of a fetus?

I honestly have no idea what this means or what point you're trying to make. Please clarify.

Again, I would never want a fetus to be purposely killed when the mother will die if she continues the pregnancy. Try to save the fetus after removal. Do not purposely kill it.

Would a six year sentence be suitable for murdering a 2 year old?

Again, I am just fine with abortionists being charged with murder. I am content with simply getting abortion to be illegal and having those involved charged with feticide.

Pro-choicers are the ones blurring the lines between a baby in the womb and a baby out of the womb not me. I can be pragmatic in my opinions in order to come to a more reasonable approach.

Except robbery is not near as black and white as killing is.

Really? 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, et al. Murder is hardly black and white.

And you've dodged answering the question. What should the sentence for robbery be?

If you ask me what the prison term should be for shooting a 5 month old in the face, I'd say life in prison.

On that we would agree. But, that's not what I asked, is it? :nono:

If you asked me what the prison term for rape should be, I'd say life in prison.

I even gave you a specific scenario.

Also not what I asked.

So are you okay with it being legal to do things that will permanently damage a fetus but not kill them?

Of course not.

How can fetuses have a right to life but killing them be anything but murder?

Even pets have a right to life but you would not be charged with murder if you lynch kittens.

We don't charge people that kill infants with infanticide. That's the point. We charge them with murder. So how are you logically going to argue that with fetuses it should be different without arguing that a fetuses life is different then that of a born person?

I have looked at existing laws. I would simply extend these existing laws.

What would happened if I say, punched a 5 month old in the face?

You're trying to answer a question by asking a question. Other than a right to life, what right(s) does a 5 month old have that a 5 month old fetus does not? :think:

I am talking about one right and one right only. A right to life.

Do you believe that abortion is the moral equivalent to murder?

Yes.

Yes, and that makes you inconsistent.

How? I am offering middle ground. How does that make me inconsistent. My personal view is Y. I am suggesting society adopt Y-X because a lot of society disagrees with Y and prefers W.

Feticide is not my ideal. It is my way of being reasonable

How would supporting a murder charge make you extreme?

Really? What is more extreme than advocating that everyone involved in abortion be charged with murder? I am not saying it's a wrong view I am saying it is an extreme.

Either abortion is unjustifiably killing a person or it is not. If it is then the people that do should be treated accordingly, if it is not then it shouldn't be illegal to begin with.

You're attempting to rationalize an all-or-nothing approach. Abortion is the unnecessary killing of a human. This is objectively true unless the mother will die without intervention, thereby creating necessity.

I agree that the people who participate should be treated accordingly. What accordingly is is what is up for debate and offers a lot of grey area. It's not as simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be.

I'm not doing anything to you that is different then what you have been doing to the pro choice people in this thread.

:sigh:
Really? 1) quote me doing this so I can apologize to the person I did it to 2) No offense but this is a rather immature approach to take. If you're conceding that you're behavior is wrong then why rationalize it as justified because you perceive me as engaging in the same behavior?

It's not tough enough if abortion is killing someone. You want to give fetuses the 'right to life' but can't fully support what that right to life would entail.

I would support it. I am simply not the one advocating this particular approach.

If abortion were criminalized would you prefer those involved be charged with murder or with feticide?

Neither, because I don't believe abortion is legally wrong.

You've dodged the question. The hypothetical premise is that abortion is illegal. Would you prefer those involved be charged with murder or with feticide?

If that's always the case, then abortion should be legal until the 9th month of pregnancy and there should be no middle ground. I wasn't sure if induced birth was the same risk as late term abortion but I assumed it was.

If a baby was just born, what would be immoral about sucking it's brain out? Should that be illegal? Yet, if that same baby is in the womb about to be delivered, do you find it morally acceptable to do the same?

That is the inconsistency with every pro-choice position. There is always a magic moment somewhere along the line between fair game and should be protected against being killed.

 

[quip]

It is logical to allow such an exception as in the majority of cases the fetus will die along with the mother.

Yet, abortion isn't about logic...rather (to the lifer) it's in regard to the inherent immorality of the act...that is, the moral status of the fetus. yes?


So, if the mother-to-be is in mortal peril ...you agree to murder the baby to save her life?!

What has changed morally? Does the fetus of such a fatal pregnancy somehow hold less moral worth than the fetus of a non-fatal one? How does this "moral switch-a-roo", from unborn child to mother, transpire exactly?

 

[journey]

The truth of this matter is simple: the VAST majority of abortions are performed for CONVENIENCE purposes only - to AVOID RESPONSIBILITY. Over 50 million abortions have been performed that involved no special circumstances at all. The special circumstances are an excuse to justify the horrible, BARBARIC murder of millions of innocent babies. The procedures are gross and INHUMANE - we wouldn't treat a dog or a cat with such brutality. Barbaric or not, it's still the premeditated MURDER of millions. This should be enough to make every American sick and angry.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yet, abortion isn't about logic...rather (to the lifer) it's in regard to the inherent immorality of the act...that is, the subjective moral interpretation of the fetus. yes?

Far from it. The pro-life position is much more logical than the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position is untenable unless one takes the extreme view you've conveniently adopted; that all abortion should be legal. Otherwise, eventually, all pro-choicers switch to being pro-life at some point during any given pregnancy.

I don't need to discuss subjective morality which may mean little to you.

But hey, let's give it a shot. Is partial birth abortion moral?

So, if the mother-to-be is in mortal peril ...you agree to murder the baby to save her life?!

Nope. You're not paying attention. Clearly

What has changed morally? Does the fetus of such a fatal pregnancy somehow hold less moral worth than the fetus of a non-fatal one? How does this "moral switch-a-roo", from unborn child to mother, transpire exactly?

:hammer:

Let's look at your burning building. There are two people in the building. One is in room A the other is in room B. If you attempt to save the one in room A they will likely both die. If you attempt to save the one in room B there is a chance you might save that individual. Who do you try to save and why?

It's really that (logically) simple.

Does the perilousness of the scenario define the moral worth of either? Of course not.

 

[WizardofOz]

The truth of this matter is simple: the VAST majority of abortions are performed for CONVENIENCE purposes only - to AVOID RESPONSIBILITY. Over 50 million abortions have been performed that involved no special circumstances at all. The special circumstances are an excuse to justify the horrible, BARBARIC murder of millions of innocent babies. The procedures are gross and INHUMANE - we wouldn't treat a dog or a cat with such brutality. Barbaric or not, it's still the premeditated MURDER of millions. This should be enough to make every American sick and angry.

Shush you. They don't want to talk about that. They want to rationalize the extreme fringe cases so that the above can be neatly tucked under the rug.

 

[Jezebel]

It is logical to allow such an exception as in the majority of cases the fetus will die along with the mother. But again, try to save the fetus rather than purposely killing it.

Why does the fetus dying later matter?




I am simply noting that her suicide attempt is what caused her paralysis.

Intent is important, yes. If a surgery is performed that may result in the death of the fetus this is very different than targeting the fetus for death.

If you don't perform the surgery the fetus lives.

If you do the fetus dies. How is this very different? You're knowingly doing something that will result in the death of another human being. The fetus is very much dead in both cases, and the surgeon caused it.

This particular argument of yours can easily be deconstructed. We know that if people are allowed to drive cars, some people will die in car accidents. Should we then not allow people to drive cars? We don't mean for people to die by allowing them to but we know that some will inevitably die.

Not even remotely close to what you're proposing. At least try to come up with something comparable. This is a direct action taken by the surgeon who full well knows that what he is about to do will kill the fetus.

I honestly have no idea what this means or what point you're trying to make. Please clarify.

Again, I would never want a fetus to be purposely killed when the mother will die if she continues the pregnancy. Try to save the fetus after removal. Do not purposely kill it.

You're arguing that abortion to save of the life of the mother is okay because the fetus will die if the mother dies. That doesn't matter. Somebody being on the verge of death doesn't give you the right to kill them.

How can performing an abortion ever be anything other then purposely killing? You're splitting hairs just for the sake of argument. What is the difference between an abortion performed at 11 weeks because a woman have preeclampsia vs a woman that simply doesn't want to be pregnant?

Again, I am just fine with abortionists being charged with murder. I am content with simply getting abortion to be illegal and having those involved charged with feticide.

But you didn't state your support of it until I brought it up except when you mentioned your signature. Why?

Pro-choicers are the ones blurring the lines between a baby in the womb and a baby out of the womb not me. I can be pragmatic in my opinions in order to come to a more reasonable approach.

I don't think there's any biological difference between a newborn and a 9 month fetus. That doesn't change my view on abortion any at all.

Really? 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, et al. Murder is hardly black and white.


And you've dodged answering the question. What should the sentence for robbery be?



On that we would agree. But, that's not what I asked, is it? :nono:



Also not what I asked.

Now you're pretending to be ignorant. I gave you a scenario and a comparison. Murder of an innocent child(which we're supposedly talking about here) is quite black and white.

But I'll humor you:

If there was a weapon involved or a home invasion: 20 years
Simple shoplifting/purse snatching/pickpocketing:6 months to a year and they have to pay back what they stole plus some for inconvenience.

Of course not.

But I thought you were only interested in giving them the right to life?

Even pets have a right to life but you would not be charged with murder if you lynch kittens.

Animals aren't humans and the set of laws governing their care are different.

You're trying to answer a question by asking a question. Other than a right to life, what right(s) does a 5 month old have that a 5 month old fetus does not? :think:

They are legally recognized as person's and have all the rights of a human child.

How? I am offering middle ground. How does that make me inconsistent. My personal view is Y. I am suggesting society adopt Y-X because a lot of society disagrees with Y and prefers W.

Except the majority of people that would recoil at the idea of charging a woman with murder for having an abortion would be equally horrified at charging her with feticide. Both positions will be opposed by the same people and both will be seen as extreme and anti woman. So why not go with the one that is consistent with your moral beliefs.

Feticide is not my ideal. It is my way of being reasonable

That's all you needed to say. So you would prefer murder charges, but feel it would be easier to get the public on board with feticide charges correct?

Really? What is more extreme than advocating that everyone involved in abortion be charged with murder? I am not saying it's a wrong view I am saying it is an extreme.

If advocating that everyone involved with abortion be charged with murder is extreme then so is saying abortion is the moral equivalent to murder.



You're attempting to rationalize an all-or-nothing approach. Abortion is the unnecessary killing of a human. This is objectively true unless the mother will die without intervention, thereby creating necessity.

I agree that the people who participate should be treated accordingly. What accordingly is is what is up for debate and offers a lot of grey area. It's not as simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be.

:sigh:
Really? 1) quote me doing this so I can apologize to the person I did it to 2)

Then off the top of my head some apologies should be issued to Quip and Alwight for starters.

No offense but this is a rather immature approach to take. If you're conceding that you're behavior is wrong then why rationalize it as justified because you perceive me as engaging in the same behavior?

I never said it was wrong, I'm just pointing out that you're using the same style of debating as you're complaining about from me.

I would support it. I am simply not the one advocating this particular approach.

So you advocate laws that are inconsistent with your moral stance.

You've dodged the question. The hypothetical premise is that abortion is illegal. Would you prefer those involved be charged with murder or with feticide?

Because you're trying to argue that preferring feticide automatically means you're offering a middle ground and it doesn't. If somebody asked would you rather be tortured for 2 months or 3 months, that doesn't mean offering 2 months is a middle ground.

If a baby was just born, what would be immoral about sucking it's brain out? Should that be illegal? Yet, if that same baby is in the womb about to be delivered, do you find it morally acceptable to do the same?

That is the inconsistency with every pro-choice position. There is always a magic moment somewhere along the line between fair game and should be protected against being killed.

It's not really a magic moment. In one instance the fetus is in the woman's body without her permission and she has the right to remove it, and in the other it is not in another persons body and not infringing on their right to control their body. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

[Jezebel]

Shush you. They don't want to talk about that. They want to rationalize the extreme fringe cases so that the above can be neatly tucked under the rug.

Almost this entire thread has been about partial birth abortions which comprise 1.5% of total abortions. What could be more extreme fringe than that? Even abortions for rape, incest and health of mother are more common.