Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

Don't pro-lifers equate abortion to murder?

Ah, so we're back to pigeonhole attempts.

Usually this would be true but like most human death, the equating depends on the circumstance. If a robber kills a home owner, it's murder. If a home owner kills a robber, it's justifiable homicide.

So, your simplistic terms betray you.

If a woman aborts because having baby might interfere with her career, that (to me) is (should be considered) murder. If a doctor removes a fetus from a dying woman in an attempt to save her and the fetus' life, I wouldn't even call it a crime as the death was the result of medial emergency/necessity.

With a murder charge, malice is a factor, intent is a factor, et al.

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.

Supra
Not as simple as you would like it to be.

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

Sure it is.

Are you expecting me to take your evidence-free declaration serious?

If a doctor tries to save a dying mother-to-be and her fetus by removing the fetus and the fetus dies, that should be considered murder by a pro-life individual who considers elective abortion murder?

Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

What has changed in regard to the moral status of the fetus?

Nothing at all. This was covered in my last post to you. But, I'll repeat: 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.

You can't have it both ways...though you'll certainly justify it to yourself. :AMR1:

The killing of any given human is or isn't murder depending on the circumstance behind the killing. This is reality that you're arguing with right now.

And, I'll easily debunk your current little game. You said earlier that if a person (like a drunk driver) kills a fetus that person should rightfully be charged with a crime but if the mother aborts she should not be.

You want it both ways now don't you? It's no different as the circumstance that caused the death matters....a great deal.

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.

Wrong. The result of surgery does nothing to define the moral worth of the human being operated on.

Again, the medical staff should go in and do everything possible to save both patients, the fetus and the mother.

Why you feel anyone would label death from surgery as murder is beyond me but given your agenda it's crystal clear.

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

That is exactly the difference. If a fetus must be removed in an attempt to save the mother and the fetus all care should be given to both patients in the hopes that they both survive.

When a "choicer" gets an abortion, no such attempt is made and the fetus is purposely killed. As with the justice system, intent is a factor in determining whether a crime was committed.

Can you differentiate between purposely killing a human and a human dying as a result of a medical procedure? I know it would cause your fallacious reasoning to crumble but there is a vast difference to be sure.

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:

Perfectly apt comparison. Both mother and fetus and conjoined twins are physically connected to one another. If you must separate one from the other due to medical emergency any of the four should be treated equally and all attempts should be made to save any of the four patients involved.

There is no murder if one dies despite your desperate declaration that it must be.

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!

Ah, so until the fetus is old enough to speak for itself and declare its subjective worth to the world it's moral worth is wholly determined by its mother. Is that your argument? lain:

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.

Repeating fallacious reasoning is somehow compelling?

You should highlight murder in red a few more times to really make this (non) point stick.

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.

It depends on the situation.
Otherwise, this is like saying that a child who dies from surgery was actually murdered the same as a child who was shot in the head.

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:

Just like in the death of any other human being on planet earth, of course I can.

It depends on the circumstance.

 

[WizardofOz]

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.

This is a red herring as you feel the freedom of choice should extent throughout the entire pregnancy.

Babies from conception is a non-point given your position.

 

[PureX]

This is a red herring as you feel the freedom of choice should extent throughout the entire pregnancy.

No, I think it should extend until the point when we know the fetus has become a human being. Or when a significant majority of us agree that the fetus has become a human being. Right now, the courts have used the criteria of independent physical viability, because they view the issue in terms of an individual's right to their own physical body. And for lack of any better criteria, I cede to that decision. But if the majority of citizens came to feel that this was not an appropriate criteria, and agreed on some other, I would cede to that decision, also. And I do so in both cases because I believe we need to respect the rights of the individual. Including the rights of the individual child, when those rights become manifested as determined by either the facts of science of by societal agreement. Right now we have neither, and so we must cede to the determination of the courts.

 

[quip]

Ah, so we're back to pigeonhole attempts.

Usually this would be true but like most human death, the equating depends on the circumstance. If a robber kills a home owner, it's murder. If a home owner kills a robber, it's justifiable homicide.

Yes, this is the very crux of the matter. Again, nothing has changed (regarding the fetus) from prior to the medical situation. There is no "robber"; you've only justified the abortion and your moral stance on the fetus because of medical necessity...the fetus remains innocent.

So, your simplistic terms betray you.

Quite the contrary, simplistic terms betray the pro-lifer who's propped his entire position upon such proclamations: "all life is sacred" ...et.al.

If a woman aborts because having baby might interfere with her career, that (to me) is (should be considered) murder. If a doctor removes a fetus from a dying woman in an attempt to save her and the fetus' life, I wouldn't even call it a crime as the death was the result of medial emergency/necessity.

Ok, your biased opinion noted.

With a murder charge, malice is a factor, intent is a factor, et al.

You're advocating an intent to abort! Abortion means murder (per lifer rhetoric). Follow your own pro-life logic. :juggle:

If a doctor tries to save a dying mother-to-be and her fetus by removing the fetus and the fetus dies, that should be considered murder by a pro-life individual who considers elective abortion murder?

Do you realize how ridiculous this is?

Of course I do, That's the dilemma you've placed yourself...and subsequent spin to free yourself from. :idea:

Nothing at all. This was covered in my last post to you. But, I'll repeat: The dire medical necessity of such circumstance doesn't negate or define the moral value of the patient(s) involved

And I'll repeat: I never said it did...rather it's the individuals involved that alter it's moral value...by necessity.

The killing of any given human is or isn't murder depending on the circumstance behind the killing. This is reality that you're arguing with right now.

Supra.

And, I'll easily debunk your current little game. You said earlier that if a person (like a drunk driver) kills a fetus that person should rightfully be charged with a crime but if the mother aborts she should not be.

ok, point?

You want it both ways now don't you? It's no different as the circumstance that caused the death matters....a great deal.

Huh? Were talking elective abortion here not drunk driving accidental deaths.

Wrong. The result of surgery does nothing to define the moral worth of the human being operated on.

Been discussed. Supra

Again, the medical staff should go in and do everything possible to save both patients, the fetus and the mother.

Perhaps, but that's not the scenario being discussed here. Irrelevant.

Why you feel anyone would label death from surgery as murder is beyond me but given your agenda it's crystal clear.

Good then, we both understand the hypocrisy in assigning an absolute moral status to the unborn.

That is exactly the difference. If a fetus must be removed in an attempt to save the mother and the fetus all care should be given to both patients in the hopes that they both survive.

Supra. While this is feasible in only certain circumstances..its not practical otherwise. Plus, your scenarios are becoming far too irrelevant and desperate. Stick with the subject at hand.

When a "choicer" gets an abortion, no such attempt is made and the fetus is purposely killed. As with the justice system, intent is a factor in determining whether a crime was committed.

It's purposely killed under this scenario..the circumstances differ yet, if it's all a matter of subjective interpretation then you've no more than an opinionated, finger wagging admonition against the latter.

Perfectly apt comparison. Both mother and fetus and conjoined twins are physically connected to one another. If you must separate one from the other due to medical emergency any of the four should be treated equally and all attempts should be made to save any of the four patients involved.

There is no murder if one dies despite your desperate declaration that it must be.

More desperate irrelevancies.

Ah, so until the fetus is old enough to speak for itself and declare its subjective worth to the world it's moral worth is wholly determined by its mother. Is that your argument? lain:

I'm not sure. This seems more an outburst than a cogent question.

You should highlight murder in red a few more times to really make this (non) point stick.

Yes, annoying isn't it!

It depends on the situation.

Rather, entailed by the situation.

Otherwise, this is like saying that a child who dies from surgery was actually murdered the same as a child who was shot in the head.

No, not in the least.

 

[WizardofOz]

quip - your entire premise is predicated around an all or nothing fallacy; that if I consider elective abortion to be murder then I must consider the removal of a fetus from a dying mother murder, even if all attempts to save both the mother and fetus are made in the latter scenario.

It's fallacious reasoning and is ridiculous on its face.

I can consider elective abortion murder because the human fetus is targeted for death and is killed. I can also not consider the removal of a fetus from a dying mother out of medical necessity as murder because doing nothing would result in them both dying and the fetus should not be simply killed. All attempts should be made to save both patients. Without intent to kill there is no murder.

There is no conflict despite your desperate declarations that I must either agree that both or neither are murder.

 

[quip]

quip - your entire premise is predicated around an all or nothing fallacy; that if I consider elective abortion to be murder then I must consider the removal of a fetus from a dying mother murder, even if all attempts to save both the mother and fetus are made in the latter scenario.

It's fallacious reasoning and is ridiculous on its face.

I can consider elective abortion murder because the human fetus is targeted for death and is killed. I can also not consider the removal of a fetus from a dying mother out of medical necessity as murder because doing nothing would result in them both dying and the fetus should not be simply killed. All attempts should be made to save both patients.. Without intent to kill there is no murder

There is no conflict despite your desperate declarations that I must either agree that both or neither are murder.

LOL. Your convenient addendum (highlighted) to the scenario is no more than a laughable attempt to alleviate the obvious dilemma posed. No one here is claiming not to save both if possible. If and when the situation arises, where it becomes physically feasible and medically practical to save both....then the issue of abortion is thus rendered moot. :doh:

This is clearly not the case when contemplating aborting the fetus in an effort to save the mother's life.

The logic is inescapable (further evident by your circumvention tactics.). This is simply a situation where you're forced to confront your own inflexible, pro-life ideology....and inevitably fail.

 

[WizardofOz]

LOL. Your convenient addendum (highlighted) to the scenario is no more than a laughable attempt to alleviate the obvious dilemma posed. No one here is claiming not to save both if possible. If and when the situation arises, where it becomes physically feasible and medically practical to save both....then the issue of abortion is thus rendered moot. :doh:

Wait until the fetus is viable and then remove it (as I've said many times) in an effort to save it and the mother. Don't purposely kill a fetus. If it is too early in the pregnancy it will not survive outside the womb then :idea: wait until it is feasible to save it.

If the fetus is not viable and must be removed immediately (ectopic pregnancy perhaps), remove it and make all efforts to save it. Do not purposely kill the fetus.

Moot you say? :think:

fool laid out some really good points regarding ectopic pregnancy in this thread.

ONLY if the point is lost on you that there's a difference between killing someone and not being able to save them.

Exactly

No one here is claiming not to save both if possible.

lain:
Riiiight. Just give it time. Let's test that claim.

If a woman walks in to an abortion clinic and is 23 weeks pregnant will the abortionist try to save the fetus despite its viability?

Would you require by law that all efforts are made to save this fetus rather than purposely kill it? Or, are you actually just fine with no effort being made to save a viable fetus?

It is possible to save a 23-week-old fetus.

This is clearly not the case when contemplating aborting the fetus in an effort to save the mother's life.

Whichever option gives both patients the best chance at survival is the best option.

It seems you agree....

 

[WizardofOz]

No, I think it should extend until the point when we know the fetus has become a human being.

Should all abortion after 21 weeks be illegal?

Or when a significant majority of us agree that the fetus has become a human being. Right now, the courts have used the criteria of independent physical viability, because they view the issue in terms of an individual's right to their own physical body. And for lack of any better criteria, I cede to that decision. But if the majority of citizens came to feel that this was not an appropriate criteria, and agreed on some other, I would cede to that decision, also. And I do so in both cases because I believe we need to respect the rights of the individual. Including the rights of the individual child, when those rights become manifested as determined by either the facts of science of by societal agreement. Right now we have neither, and so we must cede to the determination of the courts.

If a "significant majority of us agree" that blacks are 2/3 a human being should we revert to the times when they were considered such?

And if "the majority of citizens came to feel" that global warming is a hoax, should we cede to this belief?

The courts and the majority have been wrong about a great number of things. Why cede to "majority rule" just for the sake of it?

Of course we must cede to the determination of the courts but that does not make them right. I know what the law is, I am here to debate what it should be. You're saying it should be the status quo because it is the status quo.

 

[quip]

Wait until the fetus is viable and then remove it (as I've said many times) in an effort to save it and the mother. Don't purposely kill a fetus. If it is too early in the pregnancy it will not survive outside the womb then :idea: wait until it is feasible to save it.

If the fetus is not viable and must be removed immediately (ectopic pregnancy perhaps), remove it and make all efforts to save it. Do not purposely kill the fetus.

Moot you say? :think:

fool laid out some really good points regarding ectopic pregnancy in this thread.



Exactly


lain:
Riiiight. Just give it time. Let's test that claim.

If a woman walks in to an abortion clinic and is 23 weeks pregnant will the abortionist try to save the fetus despite its viability?

Would you require by law that all efforts are made to save this fetus rather than purposely kill it? Or, are you actually just fine with no effort being made to save a viable fetus?

It is possible to save a 23-week-old fetus.



Whichever option gives both patients the best chance at survival is the best option.

It seems you agree....

:juggle:

Is seems you'll go all over the place to avoid the logic at hand. I'll take the irrelevant red herrings as your concession to my point.

 

[WizardofOz]

:juggle:

Is seems you'll go all over the place to avoid the logic at hand.

Projection, plain and simple. The only one engaging in avoidance is you with this post devoid of rebuttal or counter argument.

I'll take the irrelevant red herrings as your concession to my point.

:yawn:
More declarations of imaginary red herrings.

I'll take your lack of proper reply as a concession to mine.

 

[WizardofOz]

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.

Bump for quip/One Eyed Jack

 

[quip]

Bump for quip/One Eyed Jack

Bump for Oz/'No' to all the above.

Bump for OEJ/ask Oz...he knows the answer.

 

[Jezebel]

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.

Not trying to speak directly for quip, but I think this whole argument against life saving exceptions is that if aborting an "innocent child" is immoral, then it is always immoral and should be illegal across the board. Otherwise you're being hypocritical.

 

[Jezebel]

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

Knowing what it's like to not have parents =/= knowing what it's liked to be raped.

You do not speak for all rape victims and their feelings on their abortions.

 

[intojoy]

I know I don't. So many tears, so much pain. I know. God bless you sis


Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

 

[Angel4Truth]

Terminating a pregnancy is only ok imo when the life of the mother is at risk and they would both die anyway if it wasn't terminated.

That was acceptable and done even before roe v wade so shouldnt even be considered abortion as the term is used today.

 

[intojoy]

I guess my feelings about rape babies is based upon the fact that life in general, sucks.

No matter how good some folks seem to have it, it's just a matter of time before stuff hits the fan. Amen?

There are so many wicked and unreasonable men in our world, it is heart wrenching jez. If you only knew what I do know about children and rape and pregnancy you would rend your heart and give thanks to God that these precious children can become the objects of God's omnipotent love and that they can sing, they can rejoice in Him. Pray for me and pray for those I know and love who suffered beyond imagination. If you have endured likewise pain dear friend, seek truth, seek light, by all means seek unconditional all accepting love.

I'm out


Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

 

[Jezebel]

I guess my feelings about rape babies is based upon the fact that life in general, sucks.

No matter how good some folks seem to have it, it's just a matter of time before stuff hits the fan. Amen?

There are so many wicked and unreasonable men in our world, it is heart wrenching jez. If you only knew what I do know about children and rape and pregnancy you would rend your heart and give thanks to God that these precious children can become the objects of God's omnipotent love and that they can sing, they can rejoice in Him. Pray for me and pray for those I know and love who suffered beyond imagination. If you have endured likewise pain dear friend, seek truth, seek light, by all means seek unconditional all accepting love.

I'm out


Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

My beliefs on rape and abortion aren't hinged on a belief that children conceived in rape are bad or evil people. I didn't mean for it came across that way.

I hope you feel better and the situation your dealing with works out for the best.

 

[Jezebel]

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.

Exactly, and killing a fetus that will die anyway is not the same as allowing them to die naturally.

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.

It didn't because allowing people to drive doesn't directly cause their deaths. The irresponsible drivers/faulty cars/road conditions are responsible for their deaths. You said so yourself below when speaking of back alley abortions. It's causation.

In the case of abortion, you're doing something to someone that will cause their death. Removing a pre viable fetus will cause their death.

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.

This is not true. Explain to me how performing an abortion on a woman that is 11 weeks pregnant because she has preeclampsia in the best change at saving the fetus?

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.

Not always true.
“In other situations we were able to save the child though we lost the mother immediately after the delivery, for example by keeping her alive with a terminal brain tumour. Sometimes the woman’s partner declares that they feel unable to raise the child in case the mother would not survive her cancer and termination of pregnancy is opted for.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-treated-for-cancer-without-harming-baby.html

So yes, it is very different.

How? You still performed a surgery to cause the death of an innocent person.

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.

So the doctors that refused to perform the surgery and instead allowed the girl to remain paralyzed made the right decision?

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.

When is the risk high enough for the woman to be able to have an abortion?

If there is just a 50% chance that she will die? 90%? How long do they have to wait until they can perform an abortion? What if her health and likelihood of surviving is steadily declining as they wait?

Again, why is the fact that the mother will die relevant? Why do you get to murder an innocent person to save your own life?

While the fetus may not die without an abortion, they will most certainly die if you perform one.

You conceded that your middle ground was unworkable, yes.

That's what I said.

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

My point is that the fact that the fetus will die anyway is irrelevant in deciding whether or not to kill it.

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

All abortions unless spontaneous are elective. You elected to have it done. You could have elected not to.

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

So abortions performed to save the mothers life are wrong?

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.

Someone being terminally ill is irrelevant in making the decision to kill them.

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

Except that fetuses/embryos aren't recognized as persons as born American citizens are. If they were that is liable to change.

And it's a strawman. We are discussing the legal system.

No, we are discussing how you would like to see the legal system punish people that have abortions. I think I've stated this.

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

So is it acceptable to make it a lesser offense to killing black people compared to white people? What about males compared to females? People over 50 compared to people under?

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

Why should age be a determining factor?

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

So you don't simply want to end abortion, you also want to punish the people that have them.

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

My earlier post:

I think the three biggest things are sex education, better social safety nets, and contraception.

Abstinence only education should be done away with completely. The states with the worst teen pregnancy rates tend to have it(New Mexico, Mississippi etc) have it while the states with the best (New Hampshire, Minnesota) don't. Now, teenagers account for only 6.4% of abortions but many women have repeat abortions and hopefully teenagers that are responsible about sex will continue throughout their lives.

One of the biggest links between abortion and pregnancy is poverty not legality. Women are just as likely to have abortions in countries where it is outlawed. Women with incomes under the poverty line account for 42% of abortions. From 2000 to 2008 abortions declined across the board for every group except poor women. For poor women they rose 18%. 75% of women that chose abortion cited their inability to care for a child. I think there should be more support in place for single mothers especially students. Daycare vouchers, mandated paid maternity leave and better maternal health coverage(thanks obamacare) to start with.

Probably the most effective at reducing abortions is widespread contraception. First off I think the pill/patches/rings should be done away with unless absolutely necessary. There is just to much room for error. Most people don't take daily medications or like they should and aren't as vigilant with their patches/rings. IUD's and implants have an almost flawless success rate. 0.3 for every 100 women. There was actually a controlled study done on this in St. Louis and abortion and unplanned pregnancy rates fell dramatically. You can see this on an international level as well. Western Europe has the lowest abortion rate in the world but they have legal abortion. They also have widespread contraception use and a higher usage rate of IUD's and implants.

The abortion debate will always be around no matter what. Abortion has been legal then illegal all throughout history. The only way to make the debate go away completely is to virtual eliminate unplanned pregnancy once and for all. It's something that both groups could get behind and is statistically much more effective, leads to a lot less dead or imprisoned women, and a lot less abortions.

For info on some of the things I talked about:

St.Louis study and the effectiveness of IUD's and implants
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/29/iud-implants-birth-control/1644647/

Abortion laws being ineffective

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21255186/#.UtRiCH7nZy0

IUD usage in Europe vs America

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/09/why-are-iuds-unpopular

Abortion and Poverty
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...cline-overall-but-increase-in-poor/47506252/1
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

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.

So women that are raped should have an unlimited right to an abortion?

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

I never said that you couldn't account for circumstances. I even asked you what those circumstances would be and how they should effect the sentence. Robbery is much more broad then abortion and yet I was still able to account for circumstances and give you an answer.

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

How is asking you questions trying to pigeonhole you? I was trying to see what your take on the severity of abortion was and what you thought of women that had them.

This is my first time encountering pro lifers who openly admitted that women that have abortions should be imprisoned and I wanted to know what you think they deserve.

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.

I know you explained it. I was clarifying what I was asking you earlier in the conversation instead of what you thought I was asking.

To me? No difference.

Would it be hard for you to decide what sentence both mother and hitman should receive?

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

And I agreed that it wasn't feasible when you pointed out that simply removing them would present added risk to the mother.

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.



This only proves my point.

False equivalencies do not prove your point.

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

Except you aren't charged for the killing of the animal per se. You're charged for the extreme torturing/abuse/neglect of the animal. Pets don't have a right to life. I can take my perfectly healthy dog to the vet to have her euthanized right now simply because I don't want her anymore.

Pets aren't human, fetuses are. You're purposely ignoring WHY pets don't have a murder charge and that has nothing to do with their age.

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

These include the right to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education.

. Specifically, they have the a right to equal protection, which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. - See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/emancipat...-rights-of-children.html#sthash.q4WdZ7hd.dpuf

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

So your sole aim is not for abortion to be unlawful then. It's also to make sure that doctors that perform and women that have abortions are severely punished.

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.

You're missing the point. I know you don't think outlawing abortion is harmful/horrific. I do, hence why I don't believe their can be any middle ground when it comes to outlawing it and imprisoning women. I wasn't going to bring up back alley abortions. I don't need to. Forcing a woman to incubate a fetus against her will and imprisoning her for choosing not to are harmful and horrific.

Forced pregnancy is harmful in and of itself.

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

The OP was asking if abortion should be panned after a certain time. That is essentially asking if late term/partial birth abortion should be illegal even if using different words.

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.

Killing a newborn isn't an abortion.

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:

Newborns are living humans that aren't infringing on your rights in anyway. Choosing to give birth and keep custody of the newborn means you are obligated to care for said newborn unless you decide to give them up for adoption.

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

I don't know why and don't care. My point was that laws surrounding partial birth abortion haven't caused a huge decline in them. They were always low to begin with. And Canadian doctors aren't completely unwilling to perform them, only when they aren't done for extenuating circumstances. That doesn't tell anything anymore then the amount of doctors willing to perform 1st trimester ones does. Abortions 12 weeks+ are illegal, and yet those are still very rare cases.

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?

It wouldn't go up meaningfully higher no. I'd wager that it wouldn't even double. This is of course accounting for ones that aren't done for extenuating circumstances. My argument was that late term abortions are even less then rape/health of mother abortions so if you're going to complain on pro choicers harping on those, pro lifers shouldn't harp on late term abortions. Like I said in the bottom part of the post that originally got us on this conversation:

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]

Quote or post #?

#283

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.

But he never expressely said that he was pitting the blastocyst against the life of the fully formed human.

Never said that. Quote me.

Your poll vote is one reason:

When should abortion be a legal option?​

For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy
alwight, Balerion the Black, gcthomas, Greenrage, illusionray, Paulos, pqmomba8, PureX, quip, rexlunae, Sitamun, The Horn, xAvarice

You seem to think abortion should be against the law after a certain point. At least you did when you voted on the poll :idunno:



But I asked you....in this poll....and you voted/answered.



Well, apparently you did waste time thinking about what other people should or should not be thinking or doing when you voted in this poll because your answer indicates that you do think about what people should be doing or not doing.

Backtrack all you want. You don't have to be "ruler of mankind" to have an opinion, PureX

I have never said people must believe anything.

You've argued that if they don't believe

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.

So your signature is misleading then, no? And were you being dishonest when you said:

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.

How am I putting word in your mouth when you've posted things that would lead me to believe you feel that way.

Again, I was simply pointing out why I felt you were being inconsistent. Isn't part of this discussion the inconsistency on both sides of the coin?