• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why Are The Progressives Pro Abortion If They Are Anti Death Penalty?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Let me ask this of someone who is pro abortion, should someone who kills a pregnant woman be charged with double murder?
 
Patranus said:
Let me ask this of someone who is pro abortion, should someone who kills a pregnant woman be charged with double murder?
Click to expand...

There's no requirement for it, but also nothing wrong given the potential value assigned by adults involved.

Value is subjective, thus all laws are related to perception. There need not be a singular end point. There's no objective standard.

If I pull you out of your car to steal it, or I pull you out of your car because you're incapacitated and it's on fire, the law need not treat the act of pulling you out of your car the same. One can be called assault and battery, and the other overlooked. There's no objective value attached to the act, it's in how we look at it.

As long as there's an easily understood line of demarcation, the law can treat the same object or act different ways on either side. And pro-lifers do understand that there is a line of demarcation in this.
 
Last edited:
Patranus said:
Let me ask this of someone who is pro abortion, should someone who kills a pregnant woman be charged with double murder?
Click to expand...

Is the scentence different when you kill more people or is it just consecutive life scentences or the death penalty.

To answer the question with my opinion (which may or may not be what the law is) I'd say a double murder charge would be based off of when the courts have decided life begins (24 weeks I think).
 
nixium said:
The liberals in this thread are just advancing idiotic arguments about "manning" up or "keeping your dick in your pants" that can easily be used against abortion by asking the woman to do the same. I wish they would just "man" up and admit that yes, men get screwed over in the whole pregnancy thing. There's no question that the woman gets more choices to keep the child, and the laws are purely for the child's interest at the cost of screwing an unwilling man over.

However, I'd like the resident liberal bleeding hearts to explain this. After the child is born, if the woman doesn't want it, she can abandon it at the nearest orphanage. However, the man gets no choice to do so (if he doesn't want it) and has to support it throughout his life. How do you use the "interests of the child" argument in this case?

I don't hate women or anything, but I'm going to call out unfair treatment when I see it.
Click to expand...

What does this or any of the previous and post arguments about a men being equal to women in the birthing process have to do with the OP's topic?

If you feel the law is unfair you don't remove rights from other people to "get back at them".

Create your own god damn threads and you can whine and play the victim card.
 
ivwshane said:
What does this or any of the previous and post arguments about a men being equal to women in the birthing process have to do with the OP's topic?
Click to expand...

It is yet another example of liberal hypocrisy on abortion

ivwshane said:
If you feel the law is unfair you don't remove rights from other people to "get back at them".
Click to expand...

Liberals want there to be a right, at least for women, to be able to have sex without having to worry about having children. And lets be honest that is exactly what liberals want. Which is why they normally have no problems with abortions after 24 weeks. All the song and dance about "a woman's body" is just a post-hoc excuse.

Lets imagine a future where artificial wombs exists that can support a zygote from the moment of conception. Do you think that liberals will suddenly oppose all abortions since viability is now from conception? Lets say there was a way to easily remove the zygote from the woman and put it in the artificial womb (thereby avoiding the need for an abortion). Do you think liberals would support forcing women to raise such a child?

And the idea is not to remove rights to "get back at them". It is to threaten to remove rights so men get equal rights. Seems like a highly effective way to make sure everyone has skin in the game so to speak.
 
Abortions are not concidered murder currently so why would murder of the mother count as a murder of the fetus?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but it is. Makes utterly no sense to me.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. Such legislation is hotly debated under names such as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these acts, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and provide an opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers.
Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a "slippery slope" that could jeopardize a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim.
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).
Click to expand...
 
bshole said:
I don't know, but it is. Makes utterly no sense to me.
Click to expand...

You may legally demolish your house. If I decide to put a bulldozer through your house, have I committed no crime? Your house has no right to "life."
We can treat a wanted house or existent and potentially wanted house different from one that is unwanted by the recognized controlling authority without there being a contradiction. There's no such thing as inherent value, so nothing is ever in response to something's possession of such a quality.

A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. If she does not wish to exercise that right, we can now define the remainder however we want. It's now public domain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top