Mothers day and abortion

[Moonbeam]

No they weren't.

To quote the Dred Scott case



A person has rights you have to respect, Negroes did not have that and therefore were not people.

At least that's how people at the time viewed it . . .

And in the future people will justly condemn our view of fetuses as not people just as we condemn those who viewed blacks as not people.

You have no idea what the future will bring. However you did cement the case that if the law says a fetus isn't human then it isn't human, just as blacks weren't people. You might want to pick a better argument for your case.

A fetus has to be a human if it's that of a pregnant woman. The problem comes with the incompatibly of absolute rights. A woman has an absolute right to determine if she wants to carry a fetus and if she does only then does it's right to life pertain. You can't have the theoretical absolute right of a fetus violate the actual right of a women to determine the fate of her body. Those who are right to life are pro violence to women. This is why all sensible people seek some rational accommodation between these two fundamentals.

 

[fskimospy]

Go start a separate Trolley thread if you want, i'm not going to 'derail' (haha) the discussions further here.

It's not a derail at all, it is a direct indictment of the fundamental illogic of your position.

You are desperately trying to avoid answering what should be a very simple question.

 

[OCNewbie]

I have no issue with those who opt to carry a pregnancy via rape (of any variety) to full term. Let them have that option all day long, I say, but keep it an option, do not force that upon them.

 

[OCNewbie]

Maybe I could google this to find out if it's already been discussed (I'm sure it has), but I'm curious what the rights would be in a conjoined twin situation. Let's say one of the twins, twin A, is a full-sized, able-bodied adult; the other twin, twin B, however, is very dependent on the "healthy" twin, twin A. Separating the twins is possible, but the chances for survival for twin B are slim to none, yet twin A would likely be just fine. Twin A wants this surgery to take place, regardless of what happens to twin B (for whatever reason). Does twin A have the right to have twin B removed from his/her person even though it would likely mean twin B would die as a result?

 

[zinfamous]

Would the founding fathers allow abortion or consider it an utterly repulsive act against all things that are holy?

Careful who you call stupid alien head.

Dunno, you should probably ask them.

also: LMAO!

 

[mindmajick]

Dunno, you should probably ask them.

also: LMAO!

They were mostly OK with it as far as we know. But it wasn't something you talked about.

Abortion isn't a new thing. Japanese were doing it in the 1200's

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html?m=1

 

[Paratus]

Are you intentionally killing them? Then it's not murder.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say.



Civilization is built on a lot of dead people, *shrug*

Again, everyone dies. Some die in the womb, some die as children, some die at a ripe old age. We do the best we can to help everyone we can, but there is nothing immoral about giving someone their 'shot'.

What I'm saying is based on current law at best procreation becomes Felony Child Endangerment if a law is passed making a fertilized egg a "person".

Felony Child Endangerment

......Child endangerment occurs when a person engages in conduct that places a child in immininet danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.


For child endangerment to be elevated to a felony level offense, states will look to two different aggravating factors. The first aggravating factor is intent. Child endangerment charges factor in that people can make mistakes. If the conduct by a defendant was merely negligent or reckless, he would only face a misdemeanor level of punishment. If his conduct was willful or intentional, then the defendant could face felony endangerment charges.

The second aggravating factor is the degree of risk: the higher the risk, the higher the charge. California and Ohio for example, will increase the charge when the risk is likely to produce great bodily harm or death. Some states also increase a child endangerment charge when the child endures mental suffering. A risk of physical injury is not required. Some risks are presumed by statute. For example, if a defendant consumes controlled substances while in the presence of a child or drives with a child while intoxicated, some states will presume that the child was in some immediate danger of serious injury or death. Understanding the level of proof required for these elements is critical to developing an effective defensive theory.

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

So intentionally having kids is a willful act. The risk of death by that act for the "child" in is on average 67%. Much higher than drunk driving with a two month old.

If you luck out and get pregnant in the first month congratulations you would only be charged with Felony Child Endangerment.

If you took a couple of months to get pregnant it's likely a fertilized egg failed to implant or in Prolife land a child was killed, well now we're into manslaughter or murder 2 I would think.

It doesn't matter if you didn't want to kill them anymore than a drunk driver didn't want to kill someone. Your direct negligent actions endangered a "child" and may have killed them. "I didn't intend to" and "Everyone dies anyway" aren't defenses against endangerment or manslaughter.

 

[nickqt]

Should it be made illegal for a pregnant woman to commit suicide?

Should a pregnant woman who attempts suicide be charged with attempted murder?

 

[glenn1]

Oh, it's the idiotic "would you rather save 1,000 embryos or one baby" question. Which is completely pointless because even if we stipulated that they don't have "equal value" we already know pro-choice people say the embryos have zero value as just a "clump of cells" or "parasite" or whatever other term of art they want to use. They wouldn't bother to save them even if they could as they're no different than the furniture in the burning office. Anything other to admit the fundamental truth that most women who elect abortion are doing so for purely selfish reasons of convenience which we reluctantly allow because it's the least bad choice. That still doesn't mean you should try to sugar coat it and use flowery language to disguise what really happened or make it sound like no big deal because it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, it's the idiotic "would you rather save 1,000 embryos or one baby" question. Which is completely pointless because even if we stipulated that they don't have "equal value" we already know pro-choice people say the embryos have zero value as just a "clump of cells" or "parasite" or whatever other term of art they want to use. They wouldn't bother to save them even if they could as they're no different than the furniture in the burning office. Anything other to admit the fundamental truth that most women who elect abortion are doing so for purely selfish reasons of convenience which we reluctantly allow because it's the least bad choice. That still doesn't mean you should try to sugar coat it and use flowery language to disguise what really happened or make it sound like no big deal because it is.

Well that's a remarkably stupid and/or insane thing to say.

1. I don't know anyone that thinks an embryo has no value.
2. Even if it did, that in no way changes the fact that people who say life starts at conception and deserves all the protections of a baby are full of shit.

Sometimes you have to get past your foaming rage at liberals and think logically.

 

[Moonbeam]

The right to life is the most fundamental right there is. This means that if a woman is raped by her father she has to have the child is she becomes pregnant, she has to have it even if it amniocentesis says it is going to be a genetic monster that will suffer miserably, she has to have it even if there is a good chance she may die because the child will certainly die if she doesn't have it, and she will have to have it even if it means she will have to be strapped down during her pregnancy if she threatens suicide if forced to have it. The violence of those who are wedded to one absolute truth over another and unwilling to accommodate to reality is amazing. Anybody who is willing to accommodate to abortion is one situation and not another has made a compromise with an absolute principle and is in no position to criticize the compromises sectarian law and reason have made in our society.

 

[dank69]

...

Sometimes you have to get past your foaming rage at liberals and think logically.

Never going to happen.

 

[tynopik]

It isn't relevant, dummy.

It's entirely relevant. "If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail."

Since the harm of pregnancy isn't substantial enough to justify killing, then you can't use self-defense to justify abortion.

 

[tynopik]

So the mother has the ability to say "my baby has no brain activity, therefore it is dead," yes?

No, that's not brain death.

After all, a lack of brain activity is a lack of life.

Incorrect. Death is irrecoverable. That obviously doesn't apply in this situation.

 

[tynopik]

You have no idea what the future will bring. However you did cement the case that if the law says a fetus isn't human then it isn't human, just as blacks weren't people. You might want to pick a better argument for your case.

No, I cemented that the law can be wrong.

Just as the law was wrong when it said blacks weren't people, it is wrong when it says fetuses aren't people.

The problem comes with the incompatibly of absolute rights.

All our rights are limited by the rights of others. I have the right to freedom of speech but I don't have the right to slander someone.

A woman has an absolute right to determine if she wants to carry a fetus and if she does only then does it's right to life pertain.

Circular argument. You're saying it should be legal because it's legal. If the law changed then she wouldn't have the right to do that.

You can't have the theoretical absolute right of a fetus violate the actual right of a women to determine the fate of her body.

As soon as the law changes then it will be the actual right right of a fetus.

Those who are right to life are pro violence to women. This is why all sensible people seek some rational accommodation between these two fundamentals.

Those who are pro abortion are pro violence to babies. The only rational accommodation is that you can't kill a fetus unless there's a serious risk to your health.

 

[tynopik]

What I'm saying is based on current law at best procreation becomes Felony Child Endangerment if a law is passed making a fertilized egg a "person".

Risk is relative. Everything in life has risk. Riding a bike is a risk, riding a bike while being towed down the freeway is a much greater risk.

Even though riding a bike is a risk, you can't get jailed for letting a child do it because it's part of the baseline risk of being a child that we as a society accept.

If everyone has a 2/3 risk of dying at a certain point, and that point is unavoidable, then that's the baseline risk and as long as you aren't doing something to increase that risk, then you're not endangering them.

 

[tynopik]

she has to have it even if there is a good chance she may die

No, the health of the mother is a valid reason to terminate.

it means she will have to be strapped down during her pregnancy if she threatens suicide if forced to have it.

No, it means they need counseling, just like anyone else who threatens suicide.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's entirely relevant. "If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail."

The right to bodily integrity is fundamental. No person can be compelled to endure any violation of it. The degree is irrelevant. Waiver of that right must be explicit. You are simply ignorant.

Since the harm of pregnancy isn't substantial enough to justify to killing in self defense, then you can't use self-defense to justify abortion.

The violation implicit in unwanted pregnancy is fundamental to the person's bodily integrity such that any and all force minimally necessary to end the violation is justified and protected. This is not a matter of opinion, it is simply an area where you are totally wrong, and by continuing to contest this plain fact you only succeed in substantiating your own stupidity.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the health of the mother is a valid reason to terminate.

Interesting that we are apparently allowed to murder innocent people who are doing nothing more than simply being alive because they are endangering our health. Now I know that if someone is running a factory that's polluting the air or something like that I can just go kill them.

I'm still waiting for you to address the fundamental illogic of your position that embryos have all the same rights as fully grown people at conception. Any chance we're going to get that soon, or are you just going to continue to pretend it doesn't exist so you don't have to confront uncomfortable thoughts?

 

[tynopik]

The right to bodily integrity is fundamental.

Except I just showed that it's not. All our rights are moderated by the rights of others.

No person can be compelled to endure any violation of it. The degree is irrelevant. Waiver of that right must be explicit. You are simply ignorant.

When you get arrested for DUI they can 'violate your bodily integrity' by sticking a needle in you and drawing blood.

 

[tynopik]

Now I know that if someone is running a factory that's polluting the air or something like that I can just go kill them.

Except you have other options like suing through the legal system or moving.

Killing is only allowed as a last resort, such as in the case of parasitic twins.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And I repeat myself AGAIN, thusly, and like so...

No person, born or "unborn," enjoys the unqualified rights to occupy the body of another person against that person's will, nor to forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from that person's bloodstream, nor to forcibly inject that person with hormones and waste. All persons are protected by their rights to individual sovereignty to be free from such unwelcome intrusions. And waiver of those rights must be explicit.

Anti-choice zealots are ignorant trogolodytes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Except I just showed that it's not. All our rights are moderated by the rights of others.

You showed no such thing. You don't comprehend the passage you yourself cited.

When you get arrested for DUI they can 'violate your bodily integrity' by sticking a needle in you and drawing blood.

So? You waive that right when you apply for a drivers license.

You are seriously one of the most deliberately stupid people this forum has seen in a long time, and that's saying a lot.

 

[tynopik]

And I repeat myself AGAIN, thusly, and like so...

Why would you want to repeat claims that I have already proven are wrong?

Seems kind of silly to me . . .

 

[tynopik]

You showed no such thing. You don't comprehend the passage you yourself cited.

Then what does it mean? It seems pretty straightforward.

So? You waive that right when you apply for a drivers license.

They can draw a blood sample upon arrest for many charges that don't involve driving at all.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/19764592/blood-sample-to-be-required-upon-arrest-in-sc