Survivors of Abortions

[Tallgeese]

Maybe I can throw this discussion back on track (so that means...cool it with the personal insults, popularity contests, and other assorted smokescreens in play in this thread)...

I have a very simple question:
If an unborn child is not considered a person, why then does someone convicted of killing a pregnant woman receive a harsher sentence than if the woman wasn't pregnant?

And AGAIN...I'm really interested to know if ANYONE thinks that a breathing, living child OUTSIDE the womb should be DENIED care (which is the original issue of this particular thread). Would anyone here deny that child care?

 

[Moonbeam]

Not me and it's a wonam's choice not somebody elses.

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not me and it's a wonam's choice not somebody elses.

Me =
Are these supposed to be answers to my questions?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: MoonbeamThat was a wonderfully emotion filled rant. Too bad it's nothing but a factless emotional outburst. As soon as you at least figure out that you are filled with emotionalism you can begin the difficult task of sorting out which of your emotions is rational and which are the product of insanity. One begins to know, to be capable of discernment, to have wisdom when one can contact and feel fully and freely as your were supposed to. The cold heartedness you describe is so because it is dead, repressed, anally retentive. It is fear of being alive, of living, of being vulnerable, of being able to be hurt. You are in fact up side down in reality. To suppress feeling is to be blind to the source of joy. It is depression, emptiness, and meaninglessness.

You're very poetic but it's just pretty words. Whoever said I wanted to suppress feeling?

You can't eliminate feeling, you can only deny to yourself and others that you have them. It is the inability to feel that makes man a monster.

Your reply just cemented the fact that liberalism = emotionalism. At least in your case. But your reply does nothing to sort out the argument. How the hell does abortion encourage joy and help fight depression, emptiness, and meaningless? Like I said, your words are very poetic but they mean nothing. In my observation conservatives in trend are much happier than liberals. Liberals seem to approach life (no pun intended) as if they have to get back at somebody. As if anybody that tries to stand for what is "right", and not necessarily PC, is simply evil and must be combatted.

At least answer this: do you believe abortion should be okay as a "casual birth control"? do you think something that is acceptable once should be acceptable multiple times?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Nooooo! Watch out! The liberals are eating you alive! Don't fall for the trap!

Here's the scenario - liberals make decisions based on "feelings" and only people's "feelings" have any weight in society. Conservatives make decisions based on "facts" and facts outweigh "feelings". Which is why conservatives are "clones", because their unanimous agreement is based on... facts. Liberals are each unique, very diverse, because they make life decisions based on how it affects their own feelings or somebody else's feelings. Regardless of moral implication. Because morals have no place in feelings - they're restrictive. Feelings have no place in morals, which is why conservatives appear to liberals as being so cold hearted.

Some of my beliefs are very liberal but I'm about as far from a stereotypical socialist liberal democrat as you can get if that's what you infer. I think once you gain a bit of experience you'll find categorizing people (who are often surprisingly complex) into political categories is a mistake and substantially limits your worldview.

I don't have the pleasure of spending a lot of time acquainting myself with you so for the sake of argument I have to focus on a stereotyped side so please don't take it personally. A debate must have 2 sides, and each factor within the debate must have 2 sides or you end up with... well basically what we've got right now.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh man, am I confused. First I get accused of spouting because I believe in right and wrong, even though I confess it's absurd. Then when I explain to everybody what is right and wrong, I get told it's just my opinion. What a terrible mess. Maybe there isn't any such thing as right and wrong, then. Maybe all this is just a big argument between people who have been brainwashed to think one way or another. If there's no truth, no right and wrong, then I guess we'll just have to make something up. OK, how about we give women choice since it's all a subjective decision anyway.

I was pointing out that dehumanization is what the Nazis did to the Jews to justify genocide. Dehumanization is what pro-choice people use to justify abortion. Typical of you to completely miss a point and spout some nonsense that you think supports your opinion. If you were raised in Nazi Germany, would you have accepted that view of Jews just because nobody could *prove* to you that they were equally as worthy as you to life, or would you have given them the benefit of the doubt just on the chance that what was going on was incredibly wrong? I'm sure many Germans bought into that belief and believed it just as strongly as you believe that a fetus is not a human life.

Because nobody can prove that dogs don't have emotions or consciousness or sense of self, there are laws to protect them from cruelty. Yet a developing human in its mother womb can be killed legally.

If you can't come up with a real reason other than "women should be able to kill babies if its more convenient for them" then you're arguing just to keep your conscience clear or to try to come off as condescending because you think it makes you look more intelligent than you are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, TallGeese

The only cement is in your head, Sega. I made my belief on abortion rather plain earlier in the thread.

Hero, same thing. I already expressed my view. You are myopic. You focus on the child and in doing so treat the mother like the Germans treated the Jews. It's about trying to find a middle way in a big mess. The law is that a child can be killed in its mothers womb if the mother does not want to carry it to fruition.

I feel that unless you are willing to support and actually develop technology that will allow you to carry the child in her place than it is none of your business, or mine.

You project your own live into a cell mass that has no sense of self and create in your mind that sense of self. I do to. That's why I wouldn't have an abortion, not that I'll need to. None the less we are crazy. It's like projecting onto a hamburger. It's our minds that make the difference. To make a sensible law in the face of the fact that women also have an interest, one needs be dispassionate to achieve a workable balance. It is a terrible compromise, but one which I think the law as it stands has done the best to achieve.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, TallGeese

The only cement is in your head, Sega. .

Proof positive that some Liberals base their beliefs on fact!

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Are these supposed to be answers to my questions?

Yes, TallGeese

Then you understand my confusion since your post didn't appear to answer my first question, which remains:

If an unborn child is not considered a person, why then does someone convicted of killing a pregnant woman receive a harsher sentence than if the woman wasn't pregnant?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, TallGeese

The only cement is in your head, Sega.

:Q My feelings are hurt. Joyous me!

I made my belief on abortion rather plain earlier in the thread.

Well I guess I'll just have to read back through this thread because I must have missed it... actually the majority of replies spells out your belief so maybe I won't have to reread.

Hero, same thing. I already expressed my view. You are myopic. You focus on the child and in doing so treat the mother like the Germans treated the Jews. It's about trying to find a middle way in a big mess. The law is that a child can be killed in its mothers womb if the mother does not want to carry it to fruition.

The majority of abortions are NOT made by rape victims. The majority is NOT made by abused women. The majority is from girls who dived into world of sex without being responsible, both before, during, and after sex. It is just a scape goat. Of course having a baby is a life altering situation. But it starts at SEX! The stork didn't force a baby into her womb! Is a child that is carried to full term going to be hurt by the fact he/she will have an unmarried mother, and can't financially support them? Sure will. Will the mother that carries the baby to full term going to be hurt by this ordeal? Sure will! Wait! A solution! Let's kill them BOTH!

Why is the girl even forced into this position. Because the liberals are forcing their propoganda into schools - middle schoolers can have sex! No problem. Just make sure you're wearing a condom, it's a sure thing. You guys are two evils. You believe in 1 evil and then use another evil to fix the first. Your beliefs are paradoxed. Hypocritical. Self defeating.

You tell us that adults come first, children come second. Yes, the mom is hurt. But good is decided on the lowest common denominator. The baby (fetus) is the lowest common denominator, not the mother. You guys seem to care more about old trees and fish more than humankind's children.

I feel that unless you are willing to support and actually develop technology that will allow you to carry the child in her place than it is none of your business, or mine.

Do you think that the father of the child has a say in it? After all, she did invite his penis into her vagina which assumes a right of passage sperm into the uterous. So technically she gave up her right to privacy at that point (at least with the guy) and the right of property kicks in. The constitution much more favors the right to property than privacy. (and don't come back with comments about forced sex and rape, I'm keeping that sifted out for now)

You project your own live into a cell mass that has no sense of self and create in your mind that sense of self. I do to. That's why I wouldn't have an abortion, not that I'll need to. None the less we are crazy.

Yep, the pro-choice trick. It's just a ball of cells, so who cares!

It's like projecting onto a hamburger.

Now that's going into my sig.

It's our minds that make the difference. To make a sensible law in the face of the fact that women also have an interest, one needs be dispassionate to achieve a workable balance. It is a terrible compromise, but one which I think the law as it stands has done the best to achieve.

Are you kidding? In Roe vs. Wade, "Jane Roe" was sought out by liberal laywers and convinced her that she should go to court (she didn't persue the matter herself). That wasn't a mandate by the people's of america. It was the liberal minority in all their legal glory shoving their propoganda in our faces. That doesn't make for sensible laws. "Jane Roe" regrets the whole ordeal, and has since converted christianity and is against abortion. You say that we need to think about the poor girl carrying the baby. You do know that the majority of women after abortion are tormented by their decision for the rest of their life? They have nightmares, flashbacks, etc.

There is only ONE solution to this. Women have choice. Men have no say. Women gets pregnant, gets abortion. Man gets 1 testicle removed. That will in many cases prevent him from risking the pregnancy of another woman. If it happens again, two strikes, no testicles, now he can't impregnate women anymore. This entire discussion has been about women and unborn babies but men have an even great role to play here. Prevent the situation from happening! Don't have sex until you're married and ready to have children! Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out!

Bottom line - it's all fun and games when you can call babies just a ball of cells. But when you finally have your own child, nurture them, teach them, watch them grow, you'll realize that everything you see right there was in those ball of cells. I think that's why women tend to get traumatized by having an abortion... because they think they killed someone that could have been... I know when my wife had her miscarriage, only 3 weeks into pregnancy, she cried for months. Because it's a life. You don't find it interesting that the majority of pro-choicers are those that have never had an abortion? Seems that those that abort tend to become pro-lifers real quick. It sounds to me like intential ignorance. Then when the hype is gone and you've experienced, then it's too hard to ignore, reality sets in...

 

[Red Dawn]

Why is the girl even forced into this position. Because the liberals are forcing their propoganda into schools - middle schoolers can have sex! No problem. Just make sure you're wearing a condom, it's a sure thing. You guys are two evils. You believe in 1 evil and then use another evil to fix the first. Your beliefs are paradoxed. Hypocritical. Self defeating.

Wow talk about a brainwahsed tool. Do you make mointhly donations to the 700 Club?

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ATLien247, now that we've got that out of the way preliminaries out of the way, perhaps you'd care to tell me what you meant by:

So, Moonbeam, since you believe there is absurdity in absolutes, do you also believe in the concept of "right and wrong"? and:

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ATLien247, Yes, I have such an absurd belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, that almost explains everything that you spout...
-------------------
--------------

I have to say that I don't know whether you think I'm spouting because I believe in absolutes that I admit are absurd or because I'm not an absolutist or what.

All I can figure for sure, upon reflection, is that you probably chose the word 'spout' to imply that I'm a fountain of wisdom.


By the way, there's nothing quite so gratifying on ATOT, here, as having Red on your side. Pardon me if I savor my temporary delight.


Edit: PS, I'm asking your opinion.

Sorry for the belated response. I only frequent ATOT when I'm at work, and unfortunately, I'm back at work now.

Anyhow, you said that absolutes are absurd. You also said that you believed in the concept of "right and wrong". As far as I know, right and wrong are absolutes. So that led me to assume that you think the concept of "right and wrong" is absurd. Your answer to my original question confirmed that assumption.

To me, that tells me you're the ambiguous type, which is why I chose to use the word "spout". You might think all of the intelligent sounding posts that you "spout" elicit deep thought. In some cases they do, but in most cases they confuse the hell out of the average ATOTer. Regardless, I respect your opinion.

That being said, I will also say that I believe in "right and wrong". I do not consider this concept to be absurd.

Consequently, I believe that abortion is wrong... absolutely wrong.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, TallGeese

The only cement is in your head, Sega. I made my belief on abortion rather plain earlier in the thread.

Hero, same thing. I already expressed my view. You are myopic. You focus on the child and in doing so treat the mother like the Germans treated the Jews. It's about trying to find a middle way in a big mess. The law is that a child can be killed in its mothers womb if the mother does not want to carry it to fruition.

I feel that unless you are willing to support and actually develop technology that will allow you to carry the child in her place than it is none of your business, or mine.

You project your own live into a cell mass that has no sense of self and create in your mind that sense of self. I do to. That's why I wouldn't have an abortion, not that I'll need to. None the less we are crazy. It's like projecting onto a hamburger. It's our minds that make the difference. To make a sensible law in the face of the fact that women also have an interest, one needs be dispassionate to achieve a workable balance. It is a terrible compromise, but one which I think the law as it stands has done the best to achieve.

I think women should be able to do whatever the hell they want to their bodies. They deserve that right. I'm not like the Nazi Germans. You think a baby still in its mother's womb does not deserve any rights. You ARE like the Nazi Germans.

Either way, you can't prove that inception isn't when life starts and I can't prove it is. You make the assumption that leads to the most convenient answer and by so doing risk becoming a metaphoric Nazi in the next great genocide. I make the assumption that it is a life, because, unless somebody kills it, it will become a full grown person. Should abortion be made illegal again, a few irresponsible women will have to take acountability for their actions, but when has that been a bad thing?

America is not a land of total freedom. I'm not free to shoot you. I'm not free to walk into your house and take something. We have laws that restrict freedom for the sake of morality and justice.

Frankly, you have no argument. All your replies have been pathetic smoke screens.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why is the girl even forced into this position. Because the liberals are forcing their propoganda into schools - middle schoolers can have sex! No problem. Just make sure you're wearing a condom, it's a sure thing. You guys are two evils. You believe in 1 evil and then use another evil to fix the first. Your beliefs are paradoxed. Hypocritical. Self defeating.

Wow talk about a brainwahsed tool. Do you make mointhly donations to the 700 Club?

Another postcount++ from Red, and still no meaningful contribution to the debate. Typical liberal - use of insults and scare tactics to "prove" a point.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why is the girl even forced into this position. Because the liberals are forcing their propoganda into schools - middle schoolers can have sex! No problem. Just make sure you're wearing a condom, it's a sure thing. You guys are two evils. You believe in 1 evil and then use another evil to fix the first. Your beliefs are paradoxed. Hypocritical. Self defeating.

Wow talk about a brainwahsed tool. Do you make mointhly donations to the 700 Club?

Another postcount++ from Red, and still no meaningful contribution to the debate. Typical liberal - use of insults and scare tactics to "prove" a point.

First of all Fungus I'm not a Liberal and secondly my contributions to this thread actually are as significant as yours. Sure they might not be as verbose but they actually do the same as yours. Villifying those who think differently than me. You use the word Liberal as an insult and you go out of your way to blame all of societies ills on Liberals. All you are is a typical buck passer.

 

[skyking]

Men should have rights just as they will pay for the child(in most cases) if they pregnancy is allowed to go foward.

Where do you get that information, Millenium? Ducking out on responsibility is a common occurence. What "should be done" and what really happens are worlds apart. When the father makes little or no money, It becomes a moot point. Children are and will always be born into deplorable conditions, and supporting or denying a woman's choice to choose will not alter that. Abortion is a poor choice, one I would not want to make. I'll not deny it to women, though. It is not my place to do so.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why is the girl even forced into this position. Because the liberals are forcing their propoganda into schools - middle schoolers can have sex! No problem. Just make sure you're wearing a condom, it's a sure thing. You guys are two evils. You believe in 1 evil and then use another evil to fix the first. Your beliefs are paradoxed. Hypocritical. Self defeating.

Wow talk about a brainwahsed tool. Do you make mointhly donations to the 700 Club?

Another postcount++ from Red, and still no meaningful contribution to the debate. Typical liberal - use of insults and scare tactics to "prove" a point.

First of all Fungus I'm not a Liberal and secondly my contributions to this thread actually are as significant as yours. Sure they might not be as verbose but they actually do the same as yours. Villifying those who think differently than me. You use the word Liberal as an insult and you go out of your way to blame all of societies ills on Liberals. All you are is a typical buck passer.

*cough* just let me clear my gills of some of these spores *cough*

Woohoo I'm a villian. You're such a patriot.

I must be defeated!

I use the word Liberal as a general classification of a set of ideals. I believe liberalism is wrong. I think it's misdirected. I think it's intentionally blind. For the sake of argument I have to assign Liberal to the farthest end of the spectrum, and equally so for Conservative. That's great that you're defending yourself, but I don't know what the hell you think, if you even do. I don't care what you think. Just what you type. I can't know you as a person. Just as a handle. I have to assume. Only for this thread's sake. In another thread, I could completely agree with you and based on your posts could assign you as a conservative. Just like maybe I'll be an Insect instead of a Fungus.

As far as a typical buck passer... I have no buck to pass. I don't even know what that statement is supposed to mean from you? I'm just taking a side. Just as you could very well be playing Devil's Advocate for a particular side in this discussion, so could I. If I use the word "evil", to me it's a classification. Based on what I define as right and wrong. It's not a metaphor. It's not an attempt to call someone names. That would be childish.

As far as significant contribution... yes they are very entertaining posts but please leave the discussion to us grownups.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why is the girl even forced into this position. Because the liberals are forcing their propoganda into schools - middle schoolers can have sex! No problem. Just make sure you're wearing a condom, it's a sure thing. You guys are two evils. You believe in 1 evil and then use another evil to fix the first. Your beliefs are paradoxed. Hypocritical. Self defeating.

Wow talk about a brainwahsed tool. Do you make mointhly donations to the 700 Club?

Another postcount++ from Red, and still no meaningful contribution to the debate. Typical liberal - use of insults and scare tactics to "prove" a point.

First of all Fungus I'm not a Liberal and secondly my contributions to this thread actually are as significant as yours. Sure they might not be as verbose but they actually do the same as yours. Villifying those who think differently than me. You use the word Liberal as an insult and you go out of your way to blame all of societies ills on Liberals. All you are is a typical buck passer.

*cough* just let me clear my gills of some of these spores *cough*

Woohoo I'm a villian. You're such a patriot.

I must be defeated!

I use the word Liberal as a general classification of a set of ideals. I believe liberalism is wrong. I think it's misdirected. I think it's intentionally blind. For the sake of argument I have to assign Liberal to the farthest end of the spectrum, and equally so for Conservative. That's great that you're defending yourself, but I don't know what the hell you think, if you even do. I don't care what you think. Just what you type. I can't know you as a person. Just as a handle. I have to assume. Only for this thread's sake. In another thread, I could completely agree with you and based on your posts could assign you as a conservative. Just like maybe I'll be an Insect instead of a Fungus.

As far as a typical buck passer... I have no buck to pass. I don't even know what that statement is supposed to mean from you? I'm just taking a side. Just as you could very well be playing Devil's Advocate for a particular side in this discussion, so could I. If I use the word "evil", to me it's a classification. Based on what I define as right and wrong. It's not a metaphor. It's not an attempt to call someone names. That would be childish.

As far as significant contribution... yes they are very entertaining posts but please leave the discussion to us grownups.

Excuse me, Grownups are those who can think for themselves. You only seem to parrot the closed minded retoric one usually hears from Religious and Ultra Conservative Fanantics . BTW, I never said you weren't a Patriot, just an idiot.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why is the girl even forced into this position. Because the liberals are forcing their propoganda into schools - middle schoolers can have sex! No problem. Just make sure you're wearing a condom, it's a sure thing. You guys are two evils. You believe in 1 evil and then use another evil to fix the first. Your beliefs are paradoxed. Hypocritical. Self defeating.

Wow talk about a brainwahsed tool. Do you make mointhly donations to the 700 Club?

Another postcount++ from Red, and still no meaningful contribution to the debate. Typical liberal - use of insults and scare tactics to "prove" a point.

First of all Fungus I'm not a Liberal and secondly my contributions to this thread actually are as significant as yours. Sure they might not be as verbose but they actually do the same as yours. Villifying those who think differently than me. You use the word Liberal as an insult and you go out of your way to blame all of societies ills on Liberals. All you are is a typical buck passer.

*cough* just let me clear my gills of some of these spores *cough*

Woohoo I'm a villian. You're such a patriot.

I must be defeated!

I use the word Liberal as a general classification of a set of ideals. I believe liberalism is wrong. I think it's misdirected. I think it's intentionally blind. For the sake of argument I have to assign Liberal to the farthest end of the spectrum, and equally so for Conservative. That's great that you're defending yourself, but I don't know what the hell you think, if you even do. I don't care what you think. Just what you type. I can't know you as a person. Just as a handle. I have to assume. Only for this thread's sake. In another thread, I could completely agree with you and based on your posts could assign you as a conservative. Just like maybe I'll be an Insect instead of a Fungus.

As far as a typical buck passer... I have no buck to pass. I don't even know what that statement is supposed to mean from you? I'm just taking a side. Just as you could very well be playing Devil's Advocate for a particular side in this discussion, so could I. If I use the word "evil", to me it's a classification. Based on what I define as right and wrong. It's not a metaphor. It's not an attempt to call someone names. That would be childish.

As far as significant contribution... yes they are very entertaining posts but please leave the discussion to us grownups.

Excuse me, Grownups are those who can think for themselves. You only seem to parrot the closed minded retoric one usually hears from Religious and Ultra Conservative Fanantics . BTW, I never said you weren't a Patriot, just an idiot.

How is the retoric from the right any different than the retoric of the left? You've got one side agreeing with each other, expressing the agreement. You got another agreeing with each other, expressing the agreement. If a majority of liberals agree with everything that Tom Daschel or Jesse Jackson says, how is that any different? Why are liberals the only ones that are free to think for themselves? Because their ideals must be right, so every single person must have concluded it on their own, with the media or a spokesperson to guide them along? That's BS. You're "wisdom" clouds your judgement. You do realize that when people make a choice to be a lefty or a righty, the way they think and what they conclude had to start in either direction at some point. As far as the patriot comment... I didn't mean it in that way, it was just sarcasm. You can call me an idiot but you can't tell me why except that what I believe in means brainwashing, you can't defend yourself with intelligence, just insults.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by:SagaLore
you can't defend yourself with intelligence, just insults.

Well for me to defend myself I would need to be under attack from a credible source. Fortunately for me you don't fit that bill.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: TallGeese
Maybe I can throw this discussion back on track (so that means...cool it with the personal insults, popularity contests, and other assorted smokescreens in play in this thread)...

I have a very simple question:
If an unborn child is not considered a person, why then does someone convicted of killing a pregnant woman receive a harsher sentence than if the woman wasn't pregnant?

And AGAIN...I'm really interested to know if ANYONE thinks that a breathing, living child OUTSIDE the womb should be DENIED care (which is the original issue of this particular thread). Would anyone here deny that child care?

To answer you first question, laws like that get passed by republicans looking to appease the their pro-life constituency. Instead of attemting to directly outlaw abortion (which would be political suicide), these politicians instead pass laws like the above so pro-life arguments like the one above can be made.

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: TallGeese
Maybe I can throw this discussion back on track (so that means...cool it with the personal insults, popularity contests, and other assorted smokescreens in play in this thread)...

I have a very simple question:
If an unborn child is not considered a person, why then does someone convicted of killing a pregnant woman receive a harsher sentence than if the woman wasn't pregnant?

And AGAIN...I'm really interested to know if ANYONE thinks that a breathing, living child OUTSIDE the womb should be DENIED care (which is the original issue of this particular thread). Would anyone here deny that child care?

To answer you first question, laws like that get passed by republicans looking to appease the their pro-life constituency. Instead of attemting to directly outlaw abortion (which would be political suicide), these politicians instead pass laws like the above so pro-life arguments like the one above can be made.

I'm interested in Moonbeam's response moreso than yours, since you take the cop-out answer of blaming it on a political party.
However, since you did answer...let me be absolutely clear about your response to my question...
In your opinion then, there should be no consequence concerning the unborn child levied against someone who causes an injury or death to a pregnant woman that results in the termination of her pregnancy.

Let me pose another, less extreme example:
When my wife was 6~7 months pregnant with our first child, she was knocked down in the Charlotte terminal by some jackass woman.
(I've posted this story before on AT, if anyone wants to know the full details)
Luckily, everything was OK, and no harm came to our child.
By your thinking, however, if something HAD gone wrong as a direct result of that incident, my wife and I could not/should not expect any recourse, since, after all, our child was not yet born, and could not be considered a person.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: TallGeese

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: TallGeese
Maybe I can throw this discussion back on track (so that means...cool it with the personal insults, popularity contests, and other assorted smokescreens in play in this thread)...

I have a very simple question:
If an unborn child is not considered a person, why then does someone convicted of killing a pregnant woman receive a harsher sentence than if the woman wasn't pregnant?

And AGAIN...I'm really interested to know if ANYONE thinks that a breathing, living child OUTSIDE the womb should be DENIED care (which is the original issue of this particular thread). Would anyone here deny that child care?

To answer you first question, laws like that get passed by republicans looking to appease the their pro-life constituency. Instead of attemting to directly outlaw abortion (which would be political suicide), these politicians instead pass laws like the above so pro-life arguments like the one above can be made.

I'm interested in Moonbeam's response moreso than yours, since you take the cop-out answer of blaming it on a political party.
However, since you did answer...let me be absolutely clear about your response to my question...
In your opinion then, there should be no consequence concerning the unborn child levied against someone who causes an injury or death to a pregnant woman that results in the termination of a pregnancy.

Let me pose another, less extreme example:
When my wife was 6~7 months pregnant with our first child, she was knocked down in the Charlotte terminal by some jackass woman.
(I've posted this story before on AT, if anyone wants to know the full details)
Luckily, everything was OK, and no harm came to our child.
By your thinking, however, if something HAD gone wrong as a direct result of that incident, my wife and I could not/should not expect any recourse, since, after all, our child was not yet born, and could not be considered a person.

First of all, I'm not copping out by attributing these laws to republicans. Do you want to argue otherwise?? Sure, some dems may have voted for such laws, but really, who are the ones advancing this agenda?? I'm not trying to politicize the debate, I'm just pointing out the obvious.
In my opinion, yes, there should be consequence if someone causes injury or death to a pregnant woman. But these consequences are not contigent on the fetus being defined as a person. In the example you provide, you could pursue legal recourse because the person in the airport caused harm to the fetus in your wife's body - the same kind of legal recourse you could pursue if your wife broke her leg due to that persons actions.

Edit:
Let me provide my own example to a law such as this:
Suppose I was a pregnant woman. I don't want the pregnancy, I don't want a child. If I started working out every day, and starting doing everything in my power to make my body miscarry, and eventually I do, am I a murderer? After all, I voluntarily forced that "human being" out of my body, thus killing it.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: SagaLore



Just an observation! Deny it all you want. (and denial = ignorance!)

btw, sorry to have hurt your feelings!

Haha, do you honestly think a twit like you could hurt my feelings by a post on some message board? To make blanket statements about anything in our world is foolish, and a sign of immaturity.

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
First of all, I'm not copping out by attributing these laws to republicans. Do you want to argue otherwise?? Sure, some dems may have voted for such laws, but really, who are the ones advancing this agenda??

If a Dem voted for such a law, then it stands to reason that by that vote, that person is, as you put it, "advancing the agenda."

In my opinion, yes, there should be consequence if someone causes injury or death to a pregnant woman. But these consequences are not contigent on the fetus being defined as a person. In the example you provide, you could pursue legal recourse because the person in the airport caused harm to the fetus in your wife's body - the same kind of legal recourse you could pursue if your wife broke her leg due to that persons actions.

You're talking about civil liability. I'm talking about criminal liability. Something along the lines of willful disregard for human life. Which IS contingent upon the fetus being defined as a person.

Anyone here care to tell me that my first-born isn't a person?
If no takers, then how about someone tell me at EXACTLY what point she became a person?
I'm interested, because my wife is right now pregnant with our second child, and at the same point when she was knocked down 3 years ago.
I'm seriously interested to know if some motherfvcker can decide to do whatever the hell they please to end my 2nd child's life and not be criminally liable for it. :|

BTW: If anyone cares to answer another question, which I posted earlier in this very thread, and which was never answered:

Do you think it is OK for a pregnant woman to take drugs/narcotics (and the illegality of the drugs themselves is not in question)

Anyone?

BTW2: And an easier one: Do you think it is OK for a pregnant woman to smoke or drink?