Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[quip]

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.

A mere biased declaration.

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?

If the mother in question views it as such..then yes it is.

Nope. You're not paying attention. Clearly

Another wonderful dodge! Answer the question Oz. If the pregnant mother's life is in danger...do you agree to murder the baby to save her life? A simple yes or no will suffice Oz.

: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.

Saving B doesn't directly kill A. The (external condition) fire does. Nor is A the direct cause of the endangerment to B. Something this sophomoric analogy conveniently fails to analogize.

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

The moral status of the fetus was apparently a key factor prior to the perilous scenario....why the switch...are you blaming the fetus on an act of nature?

 

[WizardofOz]

Another wonderful dodge! Answer the question Oz. If the pregnant mother's life is in danger...do you agree to murder the baby to save her life? A simple yes or no will suffice Oz.

:sozo: NO

It's not a dodge when I've answered this same question multiple times already in this very thread.

Nor is A the direct cause of the endangerment to B. Something this sophomoric analogy conveniently fails to analogize.

Another point that went over your head when you first suggested the burning building analogy.

Remember?

 

[quip]

If the pregnant mother's life is in danger...do you agree to murder the baby to save her life?

:sozo: NO

Then you'd allow your sister/girlfriend/wife to die so as not to commit/condone murder!...how noble (on her behalf!)...and what utter B.S.!

Another point that went over your head when you first suggested the burning building analogy.

Remember?

It had nothing to do with abortion per se. Rather it's point was the juxtaposition of "humans" and the relative value mankind places upon each. That is, 100 human embryos in test tubes against 1 adult human...in a fiery lab. And how - without exception - the vast majority would instinctively save the single adult human over the hundred-fold, incipient ones.

Remember? or rather, comprehend now?

 

[WizardofOz]

try to save the fetus rather than purposely killing it.

Why does the fetus dying later matter?

It matters if a human purposely kills another human as opposed to a human dying from other causes.

You don't see a differentiation?

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.

No. The girl caused it. The surgeon did not kill the fetus. If the fetus would live without surgery I would not perform the surgery.

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.

I never said kill them. You're failing to differentiate again.

How can performing an abortion ever be anything other then purposely killing?

:doh: You are the one who suggested that viable fetuses be removed alive if the mother does not want to continue being pregnant. That is an abortion and yet is not killing the fetus. So yeah, it's possible.

Your "middle ground" is predicated on it.

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?

Perceived necessity by the mother and/or doctors. You've never heard the phrase "elective abortion" before?

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?

I would like to see abortion outlawed. That is my focus. You're focusing on what happens next. I am not as concerned about what the charge is for an illegal abortion. Currently, it varies by state, a fact I am OK with. If the charge was feticide, I would be content. If the charge was murder, that would be just fine as well.

I personally feel that a softer approach may be fruitful for the pro-life movement. Rather than shout for the "execution of murderers", I prefer to look at existing laws that do recognize the right to life for the unborn. Within this framework a coherent and workable plan of attack can be implemented with less resistance.

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.

Right. You base the right to life on geography. If the human is located inside the mother, it can be killed with no consequence to any party involved (other than the dead baby, of course). If the human escapes the womb, it can no longer be killed.

Makes perfect logical sense lain:

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.

Murder is not at all black and white regardless of the age of the victim. To ask what the sentence for murder should be is very much like asking what the sentence for robbery should be. There are so many other factors that weigh in on such a determination.

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.

It does depend on the circumstances, doesn't it? :think:

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

Of course not

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

lain: Really? Now who's splitting hairs? A right to life implies a right not to be physically harmed just like you cannot attempt murder or because of a right to life. I don't know what other rights you think exist for a baby.

We're discussing abortion. Abortions do not simply seek to injure their target so you're argument is really just a red herring. In the context of this thread, I am arguing for the right to life of the unborn.

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.

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

Despite you're dismissal, my point has been made. You can kill a being with a right to life and not be charged with murder.

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?

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

You are still not answering the question. "All the rights", like what?

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.

Explained above. I am not at all concerned with what pro-choicers recoil at.

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?

I prefer that abortion be outlawed. Whatever makes that happen, I am in support of. Which is more likely to occur? :think:

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 conflating morals with laws. Morals =/= laws. It's that simple. My ideal may not be societies ideal.

Do you feel that elective or late-term abortion is a moral act?

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.

Apologize for what, exactly? You didn't quote me putting words in their mouth and/or making assumptions about their position so what makes you think I have done this?

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.

Show me.

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

No. The law would say abortion is an illegal act, which is in perfect harmony with my moral stance.

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.

Speaking of poor comparisons....

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.

You are the extreme. The majority of pro-choicers out there do become pro-life after a certain point in the pregnancy.

Heck, just look at this poll. 5/29 who consider themselves to be pro-choice feel as you do, that any and all abortion should be legal regardless of length of term or circumstance. They do have a "magic moment" of sorts when they no longer feel the woman should have the choice to abort. They then make the switch to being pro-life in that particular pregnancy.

Almost this entire thread has been about partial birth abortions

I don't think it has. :idunno: You may be overstating a bit but of course it will come up.

which comprise 1.5% of total abortions.

Would that number be higher if partial birth abortion was legal/reportable?

What could be more extreme fringe than that? Even abortions for rape, incest and health of mother are more common.

Would you be OK with all abortion being outlawed other than these 3? Of course not so stop throwing out red herrings.

 

[Jezebel]

It matters if a human purposely kills another human as opposed to a human dying from other causes.

You don't see a differentiation?

Except in the case of interrupting a life threatening pregnancy, you're causing the death when they would have lived longer without your interruption.

It's the difference between letting a person die of cancer naturally vs pushing them out of a boat. You didn't directly kill them, but you knowingly caused their death with your actions.

No. The girl caused it. The surgeon did not kill the fetus.

It was meant to be hypothetical, as in if the surgeon had performed the surgery.

If the fetus would live without surgery I would not perform the surgery.

But you said:

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.

Also, I'm not interested in what you would/wouldn't do. I'm asking what you think should be legally allowed. Should it have been legal for the doctor to perform the surgery, knowing that it would kill the fetus but cure the girl's paralysis?

I never said kill them. You're failing to differentiate again.

How do you end an early term high risk pregnancy without killing the fetus/embryo?

:doh: You are the one who suggested that viable fetuses be removed alive if the mother does not want to continue being pregnant. That is an abortion and yet is not killing the fetus. So yeah, it's possible.

But that's when the fetus is viable. What happens when it's not?

Your "middle ground" is predicated on it.

But we agreed that middle ground was unworkable did we not?

Perceived necessity by the mother and/or doctors. You've never heard the phrase "elective abortion" before?

Is the result not still the same? The killing of an innocent child? Why is it necessary? The fetus will live without it. They may have a shorter life than other fetuses and may not even make it to term, but we don't kill people because of short life expectancy.

All abortions are elective unless it is a miscarriage. You elected to have an abortion performed, however your reasons may vary but an abortion is an abortion.

The only difference is that you think one abortion is okay and the other is not. Are they not all innocent children worthy of life? Why should that be taken from them just because their mother is sick?

I would like to see abortion outlawed. That is my focus. You're focusing on what happens next. I am not as concerned about what the charge is for an illegal abortion. Currently, it varies by state, a fact I am OK with. If the charge was feticide, I would be content. If the charge was murder, that would be just fine as well.

I'm simply saying that the laws you want put into place are inconsistent with what you're claiming. Law makers, judges and regular people would point that out as well should this ever become an actual possibility. One of the pro choice's major arguments is that pro lifers don't truly think abortion is murder and don't truly think that fetuses/embryos are equal to humans. You're not doing anything to dispel that claim by advocating a lesser charge for killing a fetus vs killing a born person. You're just as "illogical" as people that advocate for abortion to be illegal, because you are also just making a distinction based on geography.

I personally feel that a softer approach may be fruitful for the pro-life movement. Rather than shout for the "execution of murderers", I prefer to look at existing laws that do recognize the right to life for the unborn. Within this framework a coherent and workable plan of attack can be implemented with less resistance.

And see again, why I explained that it likely wouldn't be.

What if you could cause our abortion rate to plummet without outlawing it and receive more public support? Why is outlawing it your first choice when it isn't as effective as other policies aimed at lowering abortion rates and it receives the most opposition?

Right. You base the right to life on geography. If the human is located inside the mother, it can be killed with no consequence to any party involved (other than the dead baby, of course). If the human escapes the womb, it can no longer be killed. Makes perfect logical sense lain:

It's only illogical if you completely erase the woman's rights from the equation. Her body isn't just a place. It's her. The only difference between walking down the street and trespassing is geography, that doesn't make the differentiation any less valid.

Murder
is not at all black and white regardless of the age of the victim. To ask what the sentence for murder should be is very much like asking what the sentence for robbery should be. There are so many other factors that weigh in on such a determination.



It does depend on the circumstances, doesn't it? :think:

Yet I still managed to give you a general outline, accounting for most circumstances. It took pages for you to do that and you refused to do it even with a scenario. And I never asked what the sentence for murder should be, I asked what the sentence for abortion should be. Abortion seems pretty direct to me. Would it be hard for you to give an idea of what sentence a father should get for hiring a man to murder his infant? What is the difference between that and abortion to you?

lain: Really? Now who's splitting hairs? A right to life implies a right not to be physically harmed just like you cannot attempt murder or because of a right to life. I don't know what other rights you think exist for a baby.

You already stated another in this post.

We're discussing abortion. Abortions do not simply seek to injure their target so you're argument is really just a red herring. In the context of this thread, I am arguing for the right to life of the unborn.

Is removing them before they are viable physically harming them?

Despite you're dismissal, my point has been made. You can kill a being with a right to life and not be charged with murder.

You can say that but it hasn't at all. Animals and humans are two totally different legal entities. Unless you're suggesting that fetuses/embryos should be under the same legal code as pets.

And you're not charged with murder for killing an animal. People kill perfectly healthy dogs and cats all the time. Shelters are practically killing factories The charges are usually for torture/abuse/neglecting the animal in question.

You are still not answering the question. "All the rights", like what?

How is this:

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

Not an answer? Or do you need me to spell out some of the rights an American child has?

Explained above. I am not at all concerned with what pro-choicers recoil at.

I was clearly explaining why charging women with feticide instead or murder wouldn't help your cause at all. I didn't say you were concerned with pro choicers feelings.

I prefer that abortion be outlawed. Whatever makes that happen, I am in support of. Which is more likely to occur? :think:

I'd say they're both equally unlikely.

You're conflating morals with laws. Morals =/= laws. It's that simple. My ideal may not be societies ideal.

I'm asking you for your ideal, or rather what you think societies ideal should be. Is that not the premise this thread was started on?

Do you feel that elective or late-term abortion is a moral act?

Morally neutral.

Apologize for what, exactly? You didn't quote me putting words in their mouth and/or making assumptions about their position so what makes you think I have done this?



Show me.

Going to answer this in another post because I don't want this post to sidetracked and the points in it to be ignored.

No. The law would say abortion is an illegal act, which is in perfect harmony with my moral stance.

What if was just a misdemeanor and the only punishment was a fine and maybe a night or two in the county jail. Would that be in perfect harmony with your moral stance?

Speaking of poor comparisons....

My point is that when it comes to something horrific and extremely harmful there is no real middle ground.

You are the extreme. The majority of pro-choicers out there do become pro-life after a certain point in the pregnancy.

We are both the extreme. The majority of pro lifers become pro choice for certain extenuating circumstances in a pregnancy.

Heck, just look at this poll. 5/29 who consider themselves to be pro-choice feel as you do, that any and all abortion should be legal regardless of length of term or circumstance. They do have a "magic moment" of sorts when they no longer feel the woman should have the choice to abort. They then make the switch to being pro-life in that particular pregnancy.

So? My position does not hinge on what is popular. They may have a different line of reasoning for why abortion should be legal up until that point. As I said before your position is just as unpopular as mine if not more when you start discussing charging and imprisoning people.

I don't think it has. :idunno: You may be overstating a bit but of course it will come up.

The basis of this thread is where you draw the line on abortion time limits. The OP is about banning or not banning partial birth abortion.

Would that number be higher if partial birth abortion was legal/reportable?

It is legal in some states and no it wouldn't be higher. What do you mean if it was reportable? It already is.
It's legal in all of Canada yet:
Over 90% of abortions in Canada are done in the first trimester, only 2-3% are done after 16 weeks, and no doctor performs abortions past 20 or 21 weeks except for compelling health or genetic reasons

and they have no law against late term abortion.

Would you be OK with all abortion being outlawed other than these 3?

No, would you?

Of course not so stop throwing out red herrings.

You're being hypocritical by complaining about pro choicers harping on fringe cases, when you're doing the exact same thing. How is that a red herring?

If you don't pro choicers using the 3% of abortions to rationalize all of them, then you should use the 1.5% of abortions to rationalize banning all of them.

 

[Jezebel]

Apologize for what, exactly? You didn't quote me putting words in their mouth and/or making assumptions about their position so what makes you think I have done this?



Show me.

Gladly

When you assumed granite believed abortion at a certain point should be illegal, though he never stated that


and when you insisted that quip was pitting the life of the fetus vs the life of the mother pages 17 and 16.

and when you insisted that PureX must want to force his position of late term abortions on others.

Throughout this thread you've been declaring that if people believe x then they must believe x or their position is inconsistent. How have I done anything different to you?
and second of all how did I put words in your mouth when I said you believe people that have abortions are are murderers when earlier in this thread you stated:

I don't see it that way. Those opposed to abortion feel strongly that it is immoral and a travesty akin to murder. They want it to be against the law because they feel strongly about how wrong it is. It isn't about judging sex or women, it is about saving innocent lives.

and your signature says:

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul

 

[intojoy]

And they journeyed from Beth-el; and there was still some distance to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; for now thou shalt have another son. And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath (the same is Beth-lehem). And Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave: the same is the Pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day. (Genesis 35:16-20 ASV)


Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

 

[One Eyed Jack]

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

Would you give a woman a lesser sentence for killing her child if that child happened to be the product of rape?

Yes.

Then I would say they're mature enough to face the consequences.

 

[intojoy]

And they journeyed from Beth-el; and there was still some distance to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; for now thou shalt have another son. And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath (the same is Beth-lehem). And Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave: the same is the Pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day. (Genesis 35:16-20 ASV)


Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

I would not abort a child because it came from rape. What kind of stupid thinking is this?

Two wrongs make a right?

That child will grow up enjoying his/her life with no regard for how he was conceived, he will expect the love and affection due to any child. He is still a human being and still very very very much a part of the woman, her flesh and blood.

I know what it felt like without mother or father, I've cried oceans of tears in my life and I can tell you getting rid of a child born of rape does not heal any woman ever.


Why don't you ask the Ariel Castro girl if shed like her child stripped away from her? Foolish foolish foolish thinking indeed.


Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

 

[WizardofOz]

Except in the case of interrupting a life threatening pregnancy, you're causing the death when they would have lived longer without your interruption.

It's the difference between letting a person die of cancer naturally vs pushing them out of a boat. You didn't directly kill them, but you knowingly caused their death with your actions.

The difference is causation. Letting a person die of cancer is not the same as killing a person. Cancer killed them. Perhaps apathy allowed the person to die of cancer but cancer is still the cause of death. My car analogy worked quite well even if you don't feel it did. If you let people drive, some will die. That doesn't mean you caused their death by letting them drive.

If the mother and fetus will die without action, take action. This is not a matter of choice this is a matter of necessity. The best chance of saving the fetus in this case may be removing it. Even if it dies you're giving it (and the mother) a chance by intervening in a situation that would otherwise result in both of them dying.

So yes, it is very different.

Also, I'm not interested in what you would/wouldn't do. I'm asking what you think should be legally allowed. Should it have been legal for the doctor to perform the surgery, knowing that it would kill the fetus but cure the girl's paralysis?

A human life is more important than repairing paralysis. I don't think it should be legal to kill a fetus in order to attempt to reverse the damage causing paralysis.

How do you end an early term high risk pregnancy without killing the fetus/embryo?

But that's when the fetus is viable. What happens when it's not?

Don't try to kill it. Again, unless the mother will die or the fetus isn't viable, let nature take its course. "High risk" is ambiguous.

But we agreed that middle ground was unworkable did we not?

You conceded that your middle ground was unworkable, yes.

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?

Perceived necessity by the mother and/or doctors. You've never heard the phrase "elective abortion" before?

Is the result not still the same? The killing of an innocent child? Why is it necessary? The fetus will live without it. They may have a shorter life than other fetuses and may not even make it to term, but we don't kill people because of short life expectancy.

No, we don't. I am having trouble following your point here. Sorry.

All abortions are elective unless it is a miscarriage. You elected to have an abortion performed, however your reasons may vary but an abortion is an abortion.

Not true. An elective abortion is one done for non-medical reasons.

The only difference is that you think one abortion is okay and the other is not.

I don't think any abortion is "okay".

Are they not all innocent children worthy of life? Why should that be taken from them just because their mother is sick?

If the fetus would die alongside the mother, action should be taken in an attempt to save one or both lives. I cannot be anymore clear on this point.

I'm simply saying that the laws you want put into place are inconsistent with what you're claiming. Law makers, judges and regular people would point that out as well should this ever become an actual possibility.

It already is a possibility. It already is a reality. And, it's often called feticide (depending on the jurisdiction).

One of the pro choice's major arguments is that pro lifers don't truly think abortion is murder and don't truly think that fetuses/embryos are equal to humans.

And it's a strawman. We are discussing the legal system. If a person is killed in a robbery and the perpetrator is charged with manslaughter, is the person killed less of a person because the perpetrator was not charged with 1st degree murder? Are policemen/women more of people because criminals that kill an officer in the line of duty face stiffer penalties?

The sentence given to the offender does nothing to determine the value of the victim.

You're not doing anything to dispel that claim by advocating a lesser charge for killing a fetus vs killing a born person. You're just as "illogical" as people that advocate for abortion to be illegal, because you are also just making a distinction based on geography.

It has to do with the circumstance of the crime. That's how the justice system works.

What if you could cause our abortion rate to plummet without outlawing it and receive more public support? Why is outlawing it your first choice when it isn't as effective as other policies aimed at lowering abortion rates and it receives the most opposition?

One word. Justice. There should be justice for the human being indiscriminately killed. Reducing abortions is but one goal. Seeking justice is another.

We could play "what if" all day. What other policies?

It's only illogical if you completely erase the woman's rights from the equation. Her body isn't just a place. It's her. The only difference between walking down the street and trespassing is geography, that doesn't make the differentiation any less valid.

How did she become pregnant? Having sex should limit woman's right to have an abortion as she is directly responsible for the action that resulted in her pregnancy.

Actions have consequences.

Yet I still managed to give you a general outline, accounting for most circumstances.

Even after all that, you conceded that it depends. This was my point all along.

It took pages for you to do that and you refused to do it even with a scenario.

I didn't refuse. I am attempting to be as precise as possible, your transparent attempts to pigeonhole me notwithstanding.

And I never asked what the sentence for murder should be, I asked what the sentence for abortion should be.

And I answered, even differentiating between "should be" and what I am suggesting.

Abortion should be illegal. Those involved in abortion should be charged with murder (see my signature, it's right there). I am arguing for those involved in abortion to be charged with feticide.

It's progress.

This has all been explained before.

Abortion seems pretty direct to me. Would it be hard for you to give an idea of what sentence a father should get for hiring a man to murder his infant? What is the difference between that and abortion to you?

To me? No difference.

You already stated another in this post.

We're discussing abortion. Abortions do not simply seek to injure their target so you're argument is really just a red herring. In the context of this thread, I am arguing for the right to life of the unborn.

Is removing them before they are viable physically harming them?

Of course it is. Removing them was your idea, not mine.

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.

Animals and humans are two totally different legal entities. Unless you're suggesting that fetuses/embryos should be under the same legal code as pets.

I suggested no such thing. I showed you that killing an entity with a right to life does not always result in a murder charge. This is equally true with humans but I proved my point regardless.

And you're not charged with murder for killing an animal. People kill perfectly healthy dogs and cats all the time. Shelters are practically killing factories The charges are usually for torture/abuse/neglecting the animal in question.

This only proves my point.

Do pets have a right to life? Yes.
Does killing them result in a murder charge? No

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?

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

You are still not answering the question. "All the rights", like what?

Not an answer? Or do you need me to spell out some of the rights an American child has?

Yes. What rights does a child have that a 5 month old fetus does not?

What if was just a misdemeanor and the only punishment was a fine and maybe a night or two in the county jail. Would that be in perfect harmony with your moral stance?

Of course not. A night or two in jail for taking a human life is not justice.

My point is that when it comes to something horrific and extremely harmful there is no real middle ground.

Woman not being able to abort is horrific and harmful? Alright, "horrific" is subjective so we'll skip that.

What is harmful about outlawing abortion? Before you go off about "dangerous back-alley abortion", if women choose to "back alley" abort, they are causing harm to themselves. The law is not harming them.

Again, causation.

Is it the laws fault that a john got herpes from a prostitute? If prostitution was legal, it would be safer, right?

People are responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions. Stop trying to shirk the blame onto society.

The basis of this thread is where you draw the line on abortion time limits. The OP is about banning or not banning partial birth abortion.

:liberals:
The OP said nothing about banning or not banning partial birth abortion. It's about discovering where each pro-choicer becomes pro-life.

Even you have that point. For you, it's after birth. Everyone believes that killing a newborn is wrong and should be illegal. But, prior to birth, pro-choicers differ on when it should no longer be legal to kill that same being.

If you answer nothing else from this post, answer this:
Why should it be considered immoral to kill a newborn? Explain why society should outlaw the practice and why it's in our best interest to do so. :think:

Would that number be higher if partial birth abortion was legal/reportable?

It is legal in some states and no it wouldn't be higher. What do you mean if it was reportable? It already is.
It's legal in all of Canada yet:
Over 90% of abortions in Canada are done in the first trimester, only 2-3% are done after 16 weeks, and no doctor performs abortions past 20 or 21 weeks except for compelling health or genetic reasons

and they have no law against late term abortion.

Why is that? Not a great example if doctors are unwilling to engage in the practice. Telling, isn't it?

So, if there were no restriction on abortion in the United States whatsoever, there would not be more late-term abortions? That is your argument?

 

[quip]

Oz, you're not answering my questions.

Before I can go any further I need clarification - in the case of a fatal pregnancy - if indeed you (at least hypothetically) would allow yourself and fetus to perish rather than murder said fetus inside of you in order to save your life....or alternatively, allow a loved one to die under identical situations?

Yes or no? And explain, please.

 

[WizardofOz]

Gladly

When you assumed granite believed abortion at a certain point should be illegal, though he never stated that

Quote or post #?

and when you insisted that quip was pitting the life of the fetus vs the life of the mother pages 17 and 16.

Or, I was debunking his false dilemma. You're reading that wrong.

quip - "Rather I'm disputing the de facto assumption/implication that a human blastocyst is morally equal to that of fully developed humans."

This is a false dilemma. He was attempting to create a false dilemma between the life of a blastocyst and that of a fully developed human.

and when you insisted that PureX must want to force his position of late term abortions on others.

Never said that. Quote me.

Throughout this thread you've been declaring that if people believe x then they must believe x or their position is inconsistent. How have I done anything different to you?

I have never said people must believe anything.

Throughout this thread you've been declaring that if people believe x then they must believe x or their position is inconsistent. How have I done anything different to you?
and second of all how did I put words in your mouth when I said you believe people that have abortions are are murderers when earlier in this thread you stated:

and your signature says:

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

That is my direct quote from a previous post.

 

[WizardofOz]

Oz, you're not answering my questions.

Before I can go any further I need clarification - in the case of a fatal pregnancy - if indeed you (at least hypothetically) would allow yourself and fetus to perish rather than murder said fetus inside of you in order to save your life....or alternatively, allow a loved one to die under identical situations?

Yes or no? And explain, please.

I'm sorry, is there a question in here somewhere? :liberals:

 

[quip]

I'm sorry, is there a question in here somewhere? :liberals:

the question mark didn't give you a clue?

Give me a break Oz....quit being dodgy.

Here it is again:

.... in the case of a fatal pregnancy - if indeed you (at least hypothetically) would allow yourself and fetus to perish rather than murder said fetus inside of you in order to save your life....or alternatively, allow a loved one to die under identical situations?

Yes or no? And explain, please.

 

[WizardofOz]

the question mark didn't give you a clue?

Give me a break Oz....quit being dodgy.

Here it is again:

.... in the case of a fatal pregnancy - if indeed you (at least hypothetically) would allow yourself and fetus to perish rather than murder said fetus inside of you in order to save your life....or alternatively, allow a loved one to die under identical situations?

Yes or no? And explain, please.

There still is no question. Putting a question mark at the end of an awkward incomplete sentence doesn't make a question. If you're attempting to ask what I think, it's already been addressed. You're just presenting yet another false dilemma.

In my response to Jezebel: If the mother and fetus will die without action, take action. This is not a matter of choice this is a matter of necessity. The best chance of saving the fetus in this case may be removing it. Even if it dies you're giving it (and the mother) a chance by intervening in a situation that would otherwise result in both of them dying.

What murder?

 

[quip]

There still is no question. Putting a question mark at the end of an awkward incomplete sentence doesn't make a question. If you're attempting to ask what I think, it's already been addressed. You're just presenting yet another false dilemma.

Another dodge! :sigh:

There is no false dilemma here, just a dilemma...she either aborts the fetus or dies. Quite simple .....really.

What murder?

The murderous act of aborting: the unborn; fetus; embryo; blastocycst; zygote; incipient human lifeform, baby....pick one!

If the mother and fetus will die without action, take action. This is not a matter of choice this is a matter of necessity. The best chance of saving the fetus in this case may be removing it. Even if it dies you're giving it (and the mother) a chance by intervening in a situation that would otherwise result in both of them dying.

I could care less regarding your justifications for aborting in such situations. Matter of fact, such a choice remains rather unremarkable given that 99.9% of individuals, under the same circumstances, would choose likewise.

Rather, I'm interested in the nature of this life/death situation which compels the pro-lifer to morally subjugate the unborn in favor of the mother....whom, interestingly enough, was held zero moral status/liberties - per her pregnancy - prior to this life/death situation.

How did this perilous act of nature change the seemingly inherent moral nature of the fetus...to such a diametric degree? Or rather, is the moral nature of the fetus simply arbitrary and subjective....it only took a life and death scenario to underscore this fact to the otherwise stringent pro-lifer.

Yet, if this all comes down to the subjective moral view regarding the unborn...then the mawkish pro-lifer lacks any objective grounds prohibiting abortions of the freely elected variety.

Let's say, a woman elects to abort because it may interfere with her career aspirations. Lifer's would undoubtedly take an indignant stand against such a choice yet, it's only a matter of moral degree...all such choices are subjective...per the life/death choice to abort so aptly illustrated by the lifer...no?

So, I really don't see this as a "pro-life" situation as it is an anti-choice one..being that when push comes to shove even the lifer would choose to abort the baby under extreme circumstances yet, special pleads against the mother's free choice to abort otherwise.

You agree Oz?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

What's the point you're trying to make, quip? Are you suggesting that just because it would be acceptable to remove a fetus in a life-or-death situation, it should be regarded as acceptable simply due to freedom of choice? Or are you trying to lay a guilt-trip on somebody? Are you preparing a treatise on relative morality? I'm trying to figure out your angle here.

 

[WizardofOz]

repeating the same fallacies

repeating the same fallacies

There is no false dilemma here, just a dilemma...she either aborts the fetus or dies. Quite simple .....really.

Your argument is that it is either murder or allowing the mother and fetus to die. This is either a false dilemma or a strawman.

Quite simple .....really.

The murderous act of aborting: the unborn; fetus; embryo; blastocycst; zygote; incipient human lifeform, baby....pick one!

False dilemma. It's not murder when intervention is necessary to save a life. Hence, pro-life.

If doing nothing will result in the death of both mother and fetus, action is necessary. If removing the fetus is the best chance they have at surviving then that is what must be done. I would also make all attempts to save both; treat both like patients, treat both like humans.

After all, that is what they are.

Rather, I'm interested in the nature of this life/death situation which compels the pro-lifer to morally subjugate the unborn in favor of the mother....

False dilemma. You keep propagating this fallacy. No one is choosing the mother over the fetus. When both will die the choice is to either act and try to save one or both or do nothing and allow them to both die. That is the choice.

There is no choice between mother and unborn. This is the fallacy you keep repeating over and over and over. If the mother dies in surgery, will they try to save the fetus or just allow it to die due to lack of moral standing?

If two conjoined twins will die without intervention are you murdering one if one dies and one survives after separating them? Are you subjugating the left twin in favor of the right twin by making all attempts to save them both, even if one ultimately dies?

How did this perilous act of nature change the seemingly inherent moral nature of the fetus...to such a diametric degree?

It doesn't, not in the least, even if you want it to and want to repeat these same fallacious arguments ad naseum.

Or rather, is the moral nature of the fetus simply arbitrary and subjective....it only took a life and death scenario to underscore this fact to the otherwise stringent pro-lifer.

The dire medical necessity of such circumstance doesn't negate or define the moral value of the patient(s) involved just as separating conjoined twins doesn't make the one who survived a more worthy moral agent than the sibling who did not.

Yet, if this all comes down to the subjective moral view regarding the unborn...then the mawkish pro-lifer lacks any objective grounds prohibiting abortions of the freely elected variety.

It doesn't so your fallacious arguments do not carry any more weight than the first time you dreamed them up.

You are effectively arguing that because medical intervention is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother that may or may not result in the death of the fetus, all abortion should be legal.

Even for you, that's quite the leap. You've made yet another empty declaration devoid of logic connecting the two scenarios.

Let's say, a woman elects to abort because it may interfere with her career aspirations. Lifer's would undoubtedly take an indignant stand against such a choice yet, it's only a matter of moral degree...all such choices are subjective...per the life/death choice to abort so aptly illustrated by the lifer...no?

It's not a matter of moral degree. That's your strawman fighting your battles for you yet again.

If person A donates a kidney to person B and person A dies from complications are they valued less morally because they died from the result of the procedure?

Or, using the conjoined twins example, if they grow up conjoined and then want to be split should the doctors purposely kill one to save the other? Of course not, both are treated as patients and all skill and care is used in an attempt to save them both.

So, I really don't see this as a "pro-life" situation as it is an anti-choice one..being that when push comes to shove even the lifer would choose to abort the baby under extreme circumstances yet, special pleads against the mother's free choice to abort otherwise.

You agree Oz?

Nope. Again, this is not a matter of choice this is a matter of necessity. Treat them both as patients and make all attempts to save both. Elective abortion is not justified due to other cases involving medical necessity.

You also don't understand what special pleading it.

 

[quip]

Your argument is that it is either murder or allowing the mother and fetus to die. This is either a false dilemma or a strawman.

Quite simple .....really.

Don't pro-lifers equate abortion to murder? if so, then you must murder the unborn baby to save the mother's life. No matter how you justify it....it is quite simple....really.

False dilemma. It's not murder when intervention is necessary to save a life. Hence, pro-life.

Sure it is. What has changed in regard to the moral status of the fetus? You can't have it both ways...though you'll certainly justify it to yourself. :AMR1:

If it was murder prior to the medical situation, it's murder now...the physical situation has now forced the lifer to recognize the relative moral position (subsistence within the womb) the fetus has existed under.

If doing nothing will result in the death of both mother and fetus, action is necessary. If removing the fetus is the best chance they have at surviving then that is what must be done. I would also make all attempts to save both; treat both like patients, treat both like humans.

Ahh I see... it's "removing the fetus" when a lifer chooses to murder the unborn. How convenient! :chuckle:

False dilemma. You keep propagating this fallacy. No one is choosing the mother over the fetus. When both will die the choice is to either act and try to save one or both or do nothing and allow them to both die. That is the choice.

Of course you are...you just told me as much in the prior paragraph. Remember: "removing the fetus."

There is no choice between mother and unborn. This is the fallacy you keep repeating over and over and over. If the mother dies in surgery, will they try to save the fetus or just allow it to die due to lack of moral standing?

What?

If two conjoined twins will die without intervention are you murdering one if one dies and one survives after separating them? Are you subjugating the left twin in favor of the right twin by making all attempts to save them both, even if one ultimately dies?

Of course not. Yet, what's this to do with abortion? There's no anti-choice policy regarding the elective separation of conjoined twins. Where's the moral outrage for making such a decision...there's none to speak of ...red herring Oz. :nono:

The dire medical necessity of such circumstance doesn't negate or define the moral value of the patient(s) involved just as separating conjoined twins doesn't make the one who survived a more worthy moral agent than the sibling who did not.

Of course it doesn't ...the individuals involved do! Subjectivity. That's the point!

You are effectively arguing that because medical intervention is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother that may or may not result in the death of the fetus, all abortion should be legal.

No, I'm using pro-life terms to state that pro-lifers must choose to murder said fetus in order to save the mother's life.

If you believe that the term "murder" not befit the situation...then question your own pro-life motivations for using the term... because nothing has morally changed, from the fetus' perspective, prior to the necessary medical intervention.

If person A donates a kidney to person B and person A dies from complications are they valued less morally because they died from the result of the procedure?


Or, using the conjoined twins example, if they grow up conjoined and then want to be split should the doctors purposely kill one to save the other? Of course not, both are treated as patients and all skill and care is used in an attempt to save them both.

More irrelevant red herrings.

You also don't understand what special pleading it.

Well, keep telling yourself that if it quells your cognitive dissonance...yet, abortion is either murder or not murder. You can't plead for one case of abortion while condemning others. :idunno:

 

[PureX]

Freedom of choice trumps singular opinion. And right now, the "babies from conception" claim is a singular opinion. Until someone on the anti-abortion side can offer something more than their singular opinion, I have to side with freedom of choice.