freedomlover
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 14
- Location
- No man's land
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Pro-life supporters contend for the idea that every fetus is a person, whereby abortion is the killing of a person and therefore a crime. Yet, a fetus is no person in any other respect. Thus, census bureaus do not count fetuses as members of the population. If someone kills a pregnant woman the killer is not charged with two crimes but with only one. Insurances companies do not ensure a fetus’s life to birth, except as fashion models insure their legs or surgeons ensure their hands, that is, as parts of a body. Fetuses are rarely—if ever—buried in cemeteries. A fetus’s rights are only mentioned as reason to ban abortion. Hhmm…
Most of your statement is completely false.
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SCOTT PETERSON DOUBLE HOMICIDE DEATH PENALTY
Bishop of El Paso presides at funeral of unborn child :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
Family Mourns Death Of Educator, Daughter, Unborn Child | Today's TMJ4 - Milwaukee, Wisconsin News, Weather, Sports, WTMJ | Local News
Holy Mary, keep me a child’s heart - Catholic Herald
Lawsuit filed over mix-up involving remains of unborn child | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
You need to do some more research.
Your links show that sometimes, some places, a murderer who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two crimes. They also show that sometimes, some places, although nothing shows it to be commonplace, a fetus is mourned with a funeral and perhaps burial. You are still left with the census and insurance questions.
Real research takes a bit of time, Grannie.
Sobeck vs. Centennial Insurance Co. 560 A.2d 1309 (N.J. Super. L. 1988)
In a 1988 New Jersey case, the mother of a child who prematurely delivered after she was involved in an automobile accident at approximately 21-weeks gestation sued her insurance company seeking expenses associated with the infant's care, treatment, and hospitalization under personal protection benefits. The preponderance of the evidence supported the conclusion that stress related to the accident caused the premature birth. The child weighed 840 grams at birth and experienced numerous difficulties associated with premature birth, such as respiratory distress, sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage and retinopathy. The court held that the unborn child was an "eligible insured person" within the meaning of the personal injury protection endorsement and was also a "resident of the same household as the named insured" (her mother), and ordered the insurance company to pay the reasonable and necessary expense of $105,387.
p.s. Over half of US states have fetal homicide laws on the books, half of the remainder have prosecuted (and won) cases of double homicide involving an unborn child based on other existing laws. Commonplace? How blatant does a thing have to be before you see it?
Your links show that sometimes, some places, a murderer who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two crimes. They also show that sometimes, some places, although nothing shows it to be commonplace, a fetus is mourned with a funeral and perhaps burial. You are still left with the census and insurance questions.
The census issue is a strawman. The purpose of the census is to gauge the appropriate number of representatives in Congress. The appropriate number of representatives is based on the number of voters each state has, since a voter is over the age of 18, counting unborn children is unnecessary.
Of course, a just born baby is an "eligible insured person" What does it prove?
The court held that the unborn child was an "eligible insured person"
Therefore, counting people under the age of 18 is unnecesary as well, isn't it?
That would depend on the frequency of the census, wouldn't it?
Whatever the frequency, they count from birth to death, don't they?
Whatever the frequency, they count from birth to death, don't they?
No, they don't. If one moves to a different state, you count towards that state.
So, people under the age of voting are not included in the total population figure. Is that it?
You certainly are clinging to your one thread, aren't ya?
Just for fun. Any problem?
No, not really. I just don't see how it much benefits your original post, though. How about I just concede that one? It's inconsequential to the issue of fetal rights, after all.
Ok, thanks.
Let’s talk from moderate to moderate. Fetal rights are a contentious issue, to say the least. My point is that abortion ban is pivotal to such rights. Why? There are different answers to the question. One is the religious one. Should abortion be banned because religion says it must be banned? Should be freedom to believe be banned because religion once said it must be banned?
Another answer is utilitarianism: society is better off with every newborn. I could agree with you on that. However, prohibition of abortion is an authoritarian way to reach the desired outcome. And fetal rights are a hypocritical means to enforce the authoritarian solution. The fact that abortion is undesirable does not justify its outlawing; the same as alcoholism is an evil did not justify Prohibition. Why not aiming at the same target through inducement rather than compulsion? Freedom would win.
I don't disagree, and indeed it is my position to argue against abortion not abortion legality. The arguments I make can easily be construed as someone trying to have abortion banned, but the truth is, there is no way to argue against abortion itself without making many of the same arguments.
Most all arguments for abortion completely ignore the death of a human child in favor of individual rights. In my view, this is a classic case of rights coming into conflict with each other. The right to life and the right to privacy. Unfortunately, only one of those is fully recognized at this point. Though I'm only concerned with getting the right to life recognized, and not in outlawing abortion, I recognize that doing so will probably mean an end to legal abortions. This is not my intent, but is an outcome I can live with.
I'm also not in the least bit concerned with the religious aspect of it or what their reasoning is for supporting the pro-life movement. If it's religion that makes them value human life, than more power to them. The pro-life movement can't be disregarded solely based on being supported by religious people however. The religious beliefs are irrelevant. We're talking about human life, and if they're with me, I care not what religion they follow.
The census issue is a strawman. The purpose of the census is to gauge the appropriate number of representatives in Congress. The appropriate number of representatives is based on the number of voters each state has, since a voter is over the age of 18, counting unborn children is unnecessary.
From what you say, I infer that you accept the banning of abortion as a lesser evil, in order to protect the rights of the unborn.
However, not only is the ban a constrain imposed on freedom as an abstract value—which is how you seem to view the issue—but also an unbalanced arrangement in which virtue a fraction of society, that is, pregnant women are bound—however unwilling—to suffer a kind of serfdom, that is, to perform productive services without due reward. And that, it seems to me, is contrary to the very foundations of an open society.
Actually if you look closely at all the states, a majority of states do not consider it a crime when the fetus is pre-viable or not "quick" either by not having any fetal homicide laws or specifically excluding fetuses in the early stages as I mentioned.p.s. Over half of US states have fetal homicide laws on the books, half of the remainder have prosecuted (and won) cases of double homicide involving an unborn child based on other existing laws. Commonplace? How blatant does a thing have to be before you see it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?