- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 34,211
- Reaction score
- 32,891
- Location
- Somewhere over the rainbow
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
americanwoman said:Abortion is legal, however, in most states, if a person murders a pregnant woman they get charged with double homicide. So if the court recognizes the unborn as a living being that is being murdered how come they don't recognize abortion as murdering an unborn? Can someone- preferably a pro choicer- explain that reasoning?
Calm2Chaos said:I found a pretty informative artice if you care to take a look at it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/26/ctv.fetal.homicide/
americanwoman said:Thanks for the link! It made alot of sense as to why some might states might have some laws. My states of NE does charge murder for killing a pregnant woman-- it actually just got voted in- and they do allow abortions from county to county. My county does not allow abortions. I just thought it seems kinda like a contradiction for the courts to say murder is an unborn baby but abortion is nothing. Those crazy judges
americanwoman said:Abortion is legal, however, in most states, if a person murders a pregnant woman they get charged with double homicide. So if the court recognizes the unborn as a living being that is being murdered how come they don't recognize abortion as murdering an unborn? Can someone- preferably a pro choicer- explain that reasoning?
Engimo said:In the same way that it is legal to destroy your own property and it is illegal to destroy someone else's.
Obviously you are anti-choice: she hasn't 'killed an unborn child'. She aborted, either an embryo or a fetus(stats show more during the embryonic stage). Child is a seperate breathing entity.americanwoman said:What about the man? It's also his "property" but sadly many men don't get a choice when it comes to abortion. I know of at least 2 people I know who had abortions without even telling the guy they were pregnant. terrible, isn't it.
So couldn't the guy sue the woman for murder if she kills the unborn child without his knowledge? I have never heard of anything like that but has anyone? thats his property that someone else is destroying.
ngdawg said:Obviously you are anti-choice: she hasn't 'killed an unborn child'. She aborted, either an embryo or a fetus(stats show more during the embryonic stage)..
Engimo said:In the same way that it is legal to destroy your own property and it is illegal to destroy someone else's.
blogger31 said:Interesting, so humans are considered property? Resorting the unborn to property would make it easier on one's concious to kill them I guess.
I have found it doesn't matter what analogy you use here, it will be twisted in such a way as to make the assumption the embryo is whatever the object in your point was:Engimo said:No, humans are not considered property, but embryos are not full-grown humans. As well, I was just making an analogy. You're allowed to cut yourself if you want, but it is illegal for other people to cut you. There's a difference.
Engimo said:No, humans are not considered property, but embryos are not full-grown humans. As well, I was just making an analogy. You're allowed to cut yourself if you want, but it is illegal for other people to cut you. There's a difference.
ngdawg said:I have found it doesn't matter what analogy you use here, it will be twisted in such a way as to make the assumption the embryo is whatever the object in your point was:
Use 'dog'- "so you're saying it's no more important than a dog?"
Use 'dead 'insert anything here'-"oh, so you're saying it's not alive"?
Use 'slavery'- "You mean you see it as human property?"
Use 'embryo'-"you mean 'unborn child', don't you?"
It is actually quite amusing to see it being done.
ngdawg said:A dog has life and most serve a purpose.
No, an embryo can not be 'born'(as in giving birth), hence, it is not 'unborn'. If it's 'out', it's a miscarriage.
slaves were property, I think I made that point...
Don't quit your day job....
Point is, since you have obviously missed it-doesn't matter what facts are placed on the table, what back-up or analogies are used. In the emotional effort to get a word in, everything will get twisted back in hyperbole and nonsensical rephrasing. That doesn't move things along, it just makes the 'twister' look like a troll.
ngdawg said:Insults? Trust me, when I insult a person, they know it....I answered and/or responded. If you are getting offended by that, that is your issue.
Comparing one rights issue to another is not often prudent. No, an embryo can not be 'born', but neither is it an 'unborn child'. It is an embryo, regardless of how you wish to twist fact. Dog embryos are dogs, human embryos are human. That does make them a living breathing dog or human. Got it? Good.
Wherever slavery 'exists' (not saying it doesn't, it's just relevant here), being illegal in and of itself does not compare it to this issue. THAT is the point. Unless of course you want to enslave women just so they can give birth to satisfy your neanderthalic, anti-rights leanings, in which case, it would also be illegal.
Insulted again? Oh well....
I agree with that statement, however.....I do not believe the word "choice" changes the definition of murder.robin said:It's for the mother to decide whether her baby is aborted, not a murderer.
Interesting parallel though isn't it.
Some abortions are justifiable on medical grounds... if the fetus is deformed etc. Seems harsh when abortion is just a means of late contraception though.ProudAmerican said:I agree with that statement, however.....I do not believe the word "choice" changes the definition of murder.
IMO, it doesnt matter if the mother did it, the dr did it, or scot peterson did it.
its still the same act no matter who performed it, or what tools they used.
As a species designation, yes.blogger31 said:So is an embryo human?
Well, something like 65-70% flush into the sewer, either per failing implantation of early miscarriage, likely per genetic defects.How many embryos are commonly born?
Well, it is an "unborn embryo" which is a rather redundant descriptor.I'm thinking since it is human and still in the womb it is unborn.
I can't understand your silly obsession with embryos. :2razz:blogger31 said:Still can't understand your silly obsession with dogs and humans, but what you do in your time is for you.
Embryos and fetuses don't breathe. That's an incorrect claim of yours.Anyhow, yes I got, GOOD. You said "That does make them a living breathing dog or human." I would agree they are living, breathing dogs and humans. Glad we could put that issue to rest. The only part left is that you see fit to kill living, breathing humans and I don't.
No, it is like the pro-life argument, the idea that you have the right to control another person's body against their will.And yes again I agree that slavery is relevant here (again your own words). Also, it is illegal but for much of history it was not. The argument for slavery was quite similar to the argument for abortion.
Could you please point to that decision? Certainly decisions like Dred Scot was about citizenship.Slaves were not persons under the law. Another Supreme Court decision.
Ah, you must be talking to the mirror.We will just ignore your last comments as it appears you are still trying to get a hold of your emotions and move past adolescence so you can have a discussion like big people. No problem, I will remain patient.
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?