Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder (1 Viewer)

[Oborosen]

Well, OB...The topic is fetus rights. If you can list any rights a fetus has, sure, list them and we can discuss. If you can't list any rights a fetus has, there's really no need for further discussion regarding this topic.

I would agree with. Though that opens up for more questions than I would say ends the conversation.

Because if a fetus has not right. What is to prevent someone from doing something to the mother that only affects the fetus and the fetus alone. Especially without her knowledge, or her consent.

 

[Logician Man]

That poster doesn't need to list anything when the law already recognizes the rights a fetus has.... Argue your own moral relativism as a reason unborn babies have no rights aka fetuses, but long story short, you won't win

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

Like I stated earlier, and Slyfox also validated. Get back when you decide which of your 2 positive claims you want to go with. Until then, you can just argue with yourself, since you've stated both that that fetus has rights, and doesn't have rights.( post 57 )

 

[Oborosen]

I'm really not seeing that as discussing any 'legal' rights a fetus has, OB. We were discussing any rights a fetus may have, and Trix first stated the fetus does have rights, then did a complete 180 and said the fetus doesn't have any rights. ( which is clearly posted above for all to see ).So, it appears you are wanting to discuss a different topic, that being the 'value' of the unborn. Is that a fair analyisis ?

I opt we merge both our conversations at this point.
Two, on one thread might be a bit wasteful and time consuming.

 

[Logician Man]

I would agree with. Though that opens up for more questions than I would say ends the conversation.

Because if a fetus has not right. What is to prevent someone from doing something to the mother that only affects the fetus and the fetus alone. Especially without her knowledge, or her consent.

Minnie has explained this in depth many times. In short, the fetus has no legal rights. But should the fetus die as a result of the mother being harmed,assaulted, murdered...the state retains the right to charge the perpetrator with a double homicide. Something I am an avid supporter of.

 

[Logician Man]

I opt we merge both our conversations at this point.
Two, on one thread might be a bit wasteful and time consuming.

Works for me, OB. What would you like to discuss. You can go first.

 

[trixare4kids]

Like I stated earlier, and Slyfox also validated. Get back when you decide which of your 2 positive claims you want to with. Until then, you can just argue with yourself, since you've stated both that that fetus has rights, and doesn't have rights.( post 57 )

That would be my post #40, (keep up), and I stand by every word, and every documented source I've provided thereafter which supports my original opinion.
You are so lost on the concept of women's rights as it relates to CHOICE, but I will gladly sit back and snicker at your vapid attempts to dig yourself out of your piles of steamy straw.

:lol:

 

[Logician Man]

That would be my post #40, (keep up), and I stand by every word, and every documented source I've provided thereafter which supports my original opinion.
You are so lost on the concept of women's rights as it relates to CHOICE, but I will gladly sit back and snicker at your vapid attempts to dig yourself out of your piles of steamy straw.

:lol:

I'm lost??!! You're the one saying one thing in one post, then contradicting yourself in another post as was displayed by Slyfox and myself, using your very own posts and words.....But by all means, take your imaginary 'victory' lap if you think it helps you save face. ( it doesn't, and won't )

 

[trixare4kids]

Minnie has explained this in depth many times. In short, the fetus has no legal rights. But should the fetus die as a result of the mother being harmed,assaulted, murdered...the state retains the right to charge the perpetrator with a double homicide. Something I am an avid supporter of.

Scott Petersen, was convicted of second degree murder of his unborn son, Conner,... err, I mean his fetus.

Since daddy2bdearest was convicted, it only stands to reason his fetus did have rights.

Keep trying. Maybe someday you will finally understand what Roe v. Wade stands for...

G'nite.

 

[trixare4kids]

I'm lost??!! You're the one saying one thing in one post, then contradicting yourself in another post as was displayed by Slyfox and myself, using your very own posts and words.....But by all means, take your imaginary 'victory' lap if you think it helps you save face. ( it doesn't, and won't )

I feel only pity for you at this point in the discussion.

 

[Logician Man]

I feel only pity for you at this point in the discussion.

I'm sensing you're not feeling much of anything. Probably a good idea you call it a night and hit the hay, lest you further embarrass yourself.

 

[Oborosen]

Works for me, OB. What would you like to discuss. You can go first.

Okay, for the premise that a fetus has no rights, or if it has rights. We need to acknowledge first that at the federal level, they do not have recognized rights. Though with Alabama being the first, this might change in the months, or years to come.

I am an supporter of fetal rights myself. Simple because that if nature were to carry it's normal course. Said fetus has a high chance of being brought to term and then being born. In short, the fact that it is a life. Is the source, for my side at least, for the proposition that the fetus has rights.

 

[Logician Man]

Okay, for the premise that a fetus has no rights, or if it has rights. We need to acknowledge first that at the federal level, they do not have recognized rights. Though with Alabama being the first, this might change in the months, or years to come.

I am an supporter of fetal rights myself. Simple because that if nature were to carry it's normal course. Said fetus has a high chance of being brought to term and then being born. In short, the fact that it is a life. Is the source, for my side at least, for the proposition that the fetus has rights.

Well, as I stated previously, Minnie ( who knows the laws and such as well as anyone ) has stated the fetus has no rights,at least as of now, but the state does retain the right to charge a perpetrator with murder, should the fetus die during an assault or an attack. On the other issue, we simply part ways. I am of the opinion the mother can do as she pleases up to the point of viability....and beyond should her life become endangered. I am interested in precisely what fetal rights you are in favor of, though.

 

[Oborosen]

Well, as I stated previously, Minnie ( who knows the laws and such as well as anyone ) has stated the fetus has no rights,at least as of now, but the state does retain the right to charge a perpetrator with murder, should the fetus die during an assault or an attack. On the other issue, we simply part ways. I am of the opinion the mother can do as she pleases up to the point of viability....and beyond should her life become endangered. I am interested in precisely what fetal rights you are in favor of, though.

The right that the fetus is a life and that no one has the right to affect that life termination, or otherwise. Barring the need for abortive practices to save the mother's life.

Plenty of countries have laws that protect the life of the fetus. Honduras, Kenya, Uganda, 17 if I'm correct.

For those on the pro-life side. It's more to the understanding that the fetus is a life and must be granted the same protections and dignities that it's mother could benefit from.
All the way back in the roman empire, the fetus possessed rights that would protect it and benefit it.

 

[Logician Man]

The right that the fetus is a life and that no one has the right to affect that life termination, or otherwise. Barring the need for abortive practices to save the mother's life.

Plenty of countries have laws that protect the life of the fetus. Honduras, Kenya, Uganda, 17 if I'm correct.

For those on the pro-life side. It's more to the understanding that the fetus is a life and must be granted the same protections and dignities that it's mother could benefit from.
All the way back in the roman empire, the fetus possessed rights that would protect it and benefit it.

So, if it was your call to make, assuming you would totally outlaw abortion, or discerned a women pounded her stomach, or somehow otherwise terminated her pregnancy....how would you enforce these laws, and what penalty would you impose on the abortion receiver and/or the provider, if any ?

 

[Oborosen]

So, if it was your call to make, assuming you would totally outlaw abortion, or discerned a women pounded her stomach, or somehow otherwise terminated her pregnancy....how would you enforce these laws, and what penalty would you impose on the abortion receiver and/or the provider, if any ?

My call, I would not outlaw abortion. It's a viable medical procedure and given the circumstance, a completely necessary one to protect the life of the mother, or if the mothers rights were violated in conceiving the child.
My law would take into account that both the man and woman were responsible adults, choosing to conceive a child and that both would be allotted the necessary care and resources to ensure that the child would be brought to term healthy, and with no unforeseen complications.

Though as it sits. Such things are currently unavailable by our standards of medical care.
A woman attempting to abort her own child, would be charged with unlawfully trying to end the life of her child. Giving it the same distinction of life, as a fully developed human child. It would simply dictate that she does not have the right to, without the ruling of the law. To end another human life, without a clear justification as for why and that it fell within the boundaries of the law.

People would have to be responsible for the most part. No unprotected sex unless you're absolutely willing to have a child.

 

[Logician Man]

My call, I would not outlaw abortion. It's a viable medical procedure and given the circumstance, a completely necessary one to protect the life of the mother, or if the mothers rights were violated in conceiving the child.
My law would take into account that both the man and woman were responsible adults, choosing to conceive a child and that both would be allotted the necessary care and resources to ensure that the child would be brought to term healthy, and with no unforeseen complications.

Though as it sits. Such things are currently unavailable by our standards of medical care.
A woman attempting to abort her own child, would be charged with unlawfully trying to end the life of her child. Giving it the same distinction of life, as a fully developed human child. It would simply dictate that she does not have the right to, without the ruling of the law. To end another human life, without a clear justification as for why and that it fell within the boundaries of the law.

People would have to be responsible for the most part. No unprotected sex unless you're absolutely willing to have a child.

and the penalty for not obeying these laws and getting caught terminating the pregnancy would be ?

 

[Oborosen]

and the penalty for not obeying these laws and getting caught terminating the pregnancy would be ?

Tantamount to the murder of a child. Prison time, not withstand the parent, or parents in question. Being able to prove that they did not intentionally do as such. Accidents from everyday events can be just as hazardous to the life of the child. So I would like to make sure that the parents are protected as well as can be, in case it was actually an accident that caused such an event to come to pass.

As well as having the child remanded into the custody of the state after it's born. Should it actually survive the original event. With the parents being given a stern punishment comparable to attempted murder.

 

[Logician Man]

Tantamount to the murder of a child. Prison time, not withstand the parent, or parents in question. Being able to prove that they did not intentionally do as such. Accidents from everyday events can be just as hazardous to the life of the child. So I would like to make sure that the parents are protected as well as can be, in case it was actually an accident that caused such an event to come to pass.

As well as having the child remanded into the custody of the state after it's born. Should it actually survive the original event. With the parents being given a stern punishment comparable to attempted murder.

I'm foreseeing a massive rise in male homosexuality in Alabama as females run like hell en masse to exit the state that would dare attempt to enact such draconian laws and deprive women of bodily autonomy under threat of potential life long prison sentences. But if any state would go there, Alabama would certainly be at the top of the list. Will be interesting if these new abortion laws actually pass, just what the ramifications will be for your state.

 

[Oborosen]

I'm foreseeing a massive rise in male homosexuality in Alabama as females run like hell en masse to exit the state that would dare attempt to enact such draconian laws and deprive women of bodily autonomy under threat of potential life long prison sentences. But if any state would go there, Alabama would certainly be at the top of the list. Will be interesting if these new abortion laws actually pass, just what the ramifications will be for your state.

If you want to call them draconian, I would at least suggest you explain why and then explain why expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions. Somehow accounts for depriving women of their bodily autonomy.

Because that is not what is going on here.

I for one don't care what a woman does with her body. But the moment she becomes verifiably pregnant, it's no longer just "her" body.

 

[Logician Man]

If you want to call them draconian, I would at least suggest you explain why and then explain why expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions. Somehow accounts for depriving women of their bodily autonomy.

Because that is not what is going on here.

I for one don't care what a woman does with her body. But the moment she becomes verifiably pregnant, it's no longer just "her" body.

That really doesn't make any sense when you say you don't care what a woman does with her body until she becomes verifiably pregnant, because it's no longer 'just her body.'. From my POV,pregnant or not,the woman retains bodily autonomy, and what she does with her body is her and her doctor's business, and no one else's. Let's see what happens if those new abortion laws actually pass in your state. I predict you may very well learn just exactly how women feel about others threatening them with imprisonment for exercising their right to bodily autonomy. It kinda wreaks of the burning of witches at the stake. ( a draconian concept in which males try to control women like they did as long as 2000 years ago )

 

[Oborosen]

That really doesn't make any sense when you say you don't care what a woman does with her body until she becomes verifiably pregnant, because it's no longer 'just her body.'. From my POV,pregnant or not,the woman retains bodily autonomy, and what she does with her body is her and her doctor's business, and no one else's. Let's see what happens if those new abortion laws actually pass in your state. I predict you may very well learn just exactly how women feel about others threatening them with imprisonment for exercising their right to bodily autonomy. It kinda wreaks of the burning of witches at the stake. ( a draconian concept in which males try to control women like they did as long as 2000 years ago )

You're conflating two things that do not belong side by side. Especially seeing as women still have a say in who gets elected to the positions that impact laws such as this. So Draconian is more viably seen as attempting to poison the well on your part. As that isn't how things are really done, especially in this day and age.

This child is verifiably not just a part of her body. At the very best a statement can be made that the child is a parasite and even then, it's still considered an entity that is apart from herself and that is at the barest of concepts.

If the child were a part of her body, it would poses her genes. That is not what this is.
If the child were a part of her body, she would not need sperm from a man to create this extra part.
If the child were a part of her body, it would have her blood type. Yet in many cases it does not possess the mother's same blood type.

These are just a few of the reasons as to why when a mother is pregnant. That it's not just "her body".

Aborting a fetus could be considered comparable to killing an autonomous, living human being.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Abortion is against science and its against common sense, its murder plain and simple. We need to ban it altogether, this article hits the nail right on the head.
Penny Nance: World'''s tiniest surviving preemie shows abortion isn’t in line with science or common sense | Fox News

So does science say killing is murder?

How about the billions of animals killed each year in the US alone?

How about the people who die in the US's wars abroad?

How about the kids who die from poor healthcare in the US?

How about the numbers of people who die on the roads each year?

 

[minnie616]

Haha, you wish.
The fetus has rights; see the state of CA. vs. Scott Peterson.
Why do you suppose the state found him guilty of second degree murder?
For the fun of it?

But I've already mentioned all this above, so either learn to read or learn to tuck that big old tail feather of yours.

That fetus, you'd like to dismiss as having NO rights, has a name. His name is Conner Peterson.

ETA:
I say the above proudly as a PRO-CHOICE WOMAN.
See if you can figure out what this means taking my words into context.

There are no rights for a fetus.

States can pass laws that protect non person/ non human being.
Some states have laws protecting animals ( anti cruelty laws ) even though animals have no rights.

State Feticide laws recognize abortion within the parameters of Roe are legal.

States have rights and California passed a state law they can ( as the right of a state ) charge first degree murder for the killing of human being or second degree murder for the killing of afetus.

California makes it clear in their code that a fetus is not a human being.

From :

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being
or a fetus with malice aforethought.

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

 

[year2late]

I asked a simple question. Pleas don't clutch your pearls because of it.

I never said a fetus has no value as life.

I elected to stay pregnant even when my kidneys and vascular system were being damaged. So I will thank you to keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

 

[GodlessBrandy]

Well I think we should expand on Abortion to include stupid people.