Hey defenders of killing unborn children.

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Edit: your entire mentioning of 'depression' is a nonsensical red herring as well (which, in your language, means irrelevant point) Even if it did cause depression (which it doesn't due to recent sudies), the importance of that factoid is irrelevant due to preference utility. If they want an abortion to expell a parasite, that overrides any imaginary or real psychological damage.

 

[Howard Beale]

prison sentence or a possibility of a execution for murder.

First, thank you for your clear and direct answers. That is a rarity and much appreciated.

And a woman who gets drunk and causes an abortion or serious damage to the fetus, should she be charged with a crime?

 

[DHard3006]

is accepted as gospel by everyone, and how he couldn't even understand how anyone could possibly disagree with him. Unless he assumes that 60% of Americans are homicidal maniacs, that clearly isn't the case.

I believe the question asked was how do you defend killing unborn children and then be against self defense or the execution of murderers.
You have all ready tried to use the old line it is a fetus and not a child. The problem with that old line is if anything thing else but a child would come out, you would then have an argument.

Self-awareness is the single most important characteristic in determining a right to life.

Then why are insane people not put to death when they commit crimes such as murder? I believe they use the awareness line to prevent the execution of insane people.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Well, it depends on what they are meaning by aware. Do you have a source that states this from some law organization? The most significant part in the "insane" criterion in law is the ability to comprehend right and wrong. There are many wackos that have claimed to be insane, yet are fully aware. They merely have no awareness of right and wrong. Awareness typically refers to the ability to recognize yourself exist as an entity. You can be self-aware and be unable to distinguish between right or wrong or have some mental illness that affects that particular part of your brain.

There is also something called temporary insanity, which is also different. You are still an aware being, albeit not for a short while. YOu still had preferences prior to insanity that ought to be carried out and taken into consideration. A fetus has no proferences prior to brain activation.

If you are truely insane, and you have no awareness, then that is a different story. However, you are also forgetting that even if someone's mentally ill, he's still physically independent from you, which gives him autonomy, which is one of the three unified criteria that need to be present. It's quite expensive to execute people as well.

Creatures need to be physically/mentally autonomous from another, they need to have some type of minimal self-awareness, and have to be able to at least have the ability to feel pain. Pain awareness is the minimal criterion that needs to be present. That works in conjunction with awareness, since aware creatures can comprehend more, so their suffering is typically greater.

If someone truely has no idea of what's going on, the only justified reason to ill it (because it still feels pain and is autonomous from you) would be to prevent more damage or costs that could not be maintained. Further, family members might want the person around to take care of; you have to take into consideration their preferences as well.

This doesn't apply to normal criminals, however: cost of killing vs housing and worse benefit of the several options available.

 

[Kandahar]

I believe the question asked was how do you defend killing unborn children and then be against self defense or the execution of murderers.
You have all ready tried to use the old line it is a fetus and not a child. The problem with that old line is if anything thing else but a child would come out, you would then have an argument.

Whether or not a fetus turns into a child is not the issue being debated here. The point is that a fetus has no sense of self-awareness and doesn't care whether or not you kill it.

Then why are insane people not put to death when they commit crimes such as murder? I believe they use the awareness line to prevent the execution of insane people.

The non-execution of insane people has nothing to do with judgments on the insane criminal's "right to life." It has to do with the legalities of whether or not he knew what he was doing was wrong.

These are two different issues. The same concepts barely even come into play.

 

[DHard3006]

Whether or not a fetus turns into a child is not the issue being debated here. The point is that a fetus has no sense of self-awareness and doesn't care whether or not you kill it.

I believe the defenders of killing unborn children used this old line first. I merely pointed out that if it was possible for something else other then a child to come out of a women then the defenders of killing unborn children would then have an argument.

The non-execution of insane people has nothing to do with judgments on the insane criminal's "right to life."

Once again the question was how do you defend killing unborn children and not executing insane people. Both of these groups of people are not aware of their surrounding. You know the awareness thing.

These are two different issues. The same concepts barely even come into play.

It appears to be one issue when the final thing is the death of a human

 

[jamesrage]

First, thank you for your clear and direct answers. That is a rarity and much appreciated.

And a woman who gets drunk and causes an abortion or serious damage to the fetus, should she be charged with a crime?

Of course.
It is not just her life that she is responsible for.

 

[Gibberish]

I believe it is the mothers right to take care of her pregnancy. If she wishes to go forward or terminate the pregnancy she must do so both as healthy as possible. Though I would say no to abortions after the 10th week or start of the second trimester when the embryo becomes a fetus.

If a woman aborting her child is to be considered murder would a miscarriage be considered manslaughter? Since this would be her unwillingly killing the "child".

 

[Howard Beale]

Of course.
It is not just her life that she is responsible for.

But should she be charged with a criminal act if she gets drunk and causes damage to the fetus?

 

[George_Washington]

But should she be charged with a criminal act if she gets drunk and causes damage to the fetus?

Yes, of course. No mother should be drinking. That is not only stupid but irresponsible.

 

[Kandahar]

I believe the defenders of killing unborn children used this old line first. I merely pointed out that if it was possible for something else other then a child to come out of a women then the defenders of killing unborn children would then have an argument.

That doesn't make any sense, since no one is disputing that a fetus will turn into a baby.

Once again the question was how do you defend killing unborn children and not executing insane people. Both of these groups of people are not aware of their surrounding. You know the awareness thing.

But "the awareness thing" is not the reason we don't execute insane people. No one claims that insane criminals have a greater right to life than sane criminals because they AREN'T self-aware; the issue is whether or not they knew whether they were doing wrong.

Furthermore, most insane individuals do have some awareness of their surroundings; certainly much moreso than a fetus does.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Excluding the abortionist, every abortion produces at least two victims.

Initially, there is the dead child who is deprived of its life, thereby making it a victim. Think of it this way. Had you been aborted, you would have been deprived of your life, thereby making you a victim.

Similarly, if your parents had never met you would have been deprived of your life. If your great (x10)-grandfather hadn't met your great (x10)-grandmother, you would have been deprived of your life. Lots of things could have deprived you of life, but we don't try to legislate to protect every potential life. Furthermore, if you were aborted you wouldn't be around to regret having been deprived of life.

And, to carry it a step further, if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. The point does not concern conceptions which have not occurred, but conceptions which have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Subsequently, it has been discovered, women, some early, some later, experience, some to a lesser, some to a greater degree, depression and related mental health conditions.

Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone you know in the mental health to tell you about the condition referred to by the acronym PASS, Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. It seems that many women are unable to avoid thinking about the chronological milestones the dead child would have reached. Birthdays, starting school, teen years, graduation, and so on.

Although abortion proponents deny the esistence of PASS, with the passage of time, the volume of women seeking psychiatric relief from its symptoms has been steadily on the rise.

This is true. However I wonder how much of this psychological stress is natural to having an abortion, and how much can be attributed to social factors such as the pro-life movement drilling into the minds of women that they are horrible murderers if they have an abortion.

Keep wondering. The net effect is misery which could have been avoided.

As long as women are informed of the possible side effects, this point is moot.

The irony is that while every TV commercial for a medicine must include a recitation of all possible side effects, there is no such requirement for abortions, which have far more serious direct and side effects.

A quote from a Texas Department of Health website carries this:

A woman must be furnished "...With a copy of the department's "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet created for women seeking an abortion, if the woman chooses to view it."

Note the words, if the woman chooses to view it. Imagining the atmosphere in the aboratorium, the "advice" offered, and the intent of the mother who doesn't wish to be dissuaded, it is unlikely that very many of these booklets are actually viewed.

Here's an excerpt:

Emotional Side of an Abortion​

You should know that women experience different emotions after an abortion. Some women may feel guilty, sad, or empty, while others may feel relief that the procedure is over. Some women have reported serious psychological effects after their abortion, including depression, grief, anxiety, lowered self-esteem, regret, suicidal thoughts and behavior, sexual dysfunction, avoidance of emotional attachment, flashbacks, and substance abuse. These emotions may appear immediately after an abortion, or gradually over a longer period of time. These feelings may recur or be felt stronger at the time of another abortion, or a normal birth, or on the anniversary of the abortion.

The entire piece, which is quite interesting may be found at: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/pdf/booklet.pdf

 

[Howard Beale]

Yes, of course. No mother should be drinking. That is not only stupid but irresponsible.

There is research going on now showing that the sperm of a man who is legally drunk can cause serious damage to a fetus if a woman gets impregnated by him. I assume that men should be held as responsible as women and should be jailed for impregnating a woman while intoxicated, correct?

 

[George_Washington]

False. It produces no victims. Lots of things die; death does not a victim make. Saying, 'had I beet aborted" is an appeal to emotions fallacy. Don't use it.

Appeal to emotions is irrelevant because a person is still allowed to call on hypocrisy and it's hypocritical of you to say that aborting a fetus is perfectly fine because you're saying this when you were given the chance to live.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."

-Ronald Reagan

Think about what that sentence means.

Of course it is. However, you are using emotion instead of logic.

A fetus is a developing human. It is only a matter of time before it becomes a thinking entity with a human brain. Using time to justify murder is not only immoral but it's illogical. The only way abortion can be morally and logically justified is if we are in such a population crisis that one more child would harm the rest of us or it can be proven that the child will greatly suffer by being born.

 

[Gibberish]

Here's an excerpt:

Emotional Side of an Abortion​

You should know that women experience different emotions after an abortion. Some women may feel guilty, sad, or empty, while others may feel relief that the procedure is over. Some women have reported serious psychological effects after their abortion, including depression, grief, anxiety, lowered self-esteem, regret, suicidal thoughts and behavior, sexual dysfunction, avoidance of emotional attachment, flashbacks, and substance abuse. These emotions may appear immediately after an abortion, or gradually over a longer period of time. These feelings may recur or be felt stronger at the time of another abortion, or a normal birth, or on the anniversary of the abortion.

The entire piece, which is quite interesting may be found at: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/pdf/booklet.pdf

Basically the patient will have feelings, good or bad, and these feelings maybe strong or weak, and may come fast or slow.

 

[George_Washington]

I need not substitute anything, since you have no substantiated point. Death does not a victim make. You can kill something and still be ethicall justified.

Huh? No. The only way you can justify murdering someone is if that person is trying to kill you or somebody else in return. For example, say if a burglar broke into your house or you were in a war. There are simply is no ethical reason to abort a baby because the baby wasn't trying to harm anyone. Unless you can show evidence that the woman was raped and was impregnated against her free will or that the child poses a severe health risk to the mother. But even then, the question is, who's life matters more-the life of the mother or the child? And you can't say the fetus isn't a child yet because it will be and you can't use time in and of itself to justify murder.

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Howard Beale
But should she be charged with a criminal act if she gets drunk and causes damage to the fetus?

Yes she should be charged with a criminal act if she gets druk and causes damage to the unborn child.

There is research going on now showing that the sperm of a man who is legally drunk can cause serious damage to a fetus if a woman gets impregnated by him. I assume that men should be held as responsible as women and should be jailed for impregnating a woman while intoxicated, correct?

If it can be proven that the damage to the unborn child was a result of the father's fault, then yes he should be charged.

 

[Gibberish]

Huh? No. The only way you can justify murdering someone is if that person is trying to kill you in return and it is self defense. For example, say if a burglar broke into your house or you were in a war.

You blew your argument by contradicting yourself in the first sentence.

There are simply is no ethical reason to abort a baby because the baby wasn't trying to harm anyone. Unless you can show evidence that the woman was raped and was impregnated against her free will or that the child poses a severe health risk to the mother. But even then, the question is, who's life matters more-the life of the mother or the child? And you can't say the fetus isn't a child yet because it will be and you can't use time in and of itself to justify murder.

But you can use time to proclaim murder?

Using your logic a person would actually be aborting a child if they chose not to have intercourse on a night that would have produced a child. Since in time a child would have been produced.

 

[George_Washington]

You blew your argument by contradicting yourself in the first sentence.

I edited it to include if you are trying to stop someone from killing somebody else as well. But I never contradicted myself; please explain how I did.

But you can use time to proclaim murder?

Huh?

Using your logic a person would actually be aborting a child if they chose not to have intercourse on a night that would have produced a child. Since in time a child would have been produced.

No because the actual act to have produced a child didn't occur, so there's no fetus in progress.

 

[Fantasea]

Whether or not a fetus turns into a child is not the issue being debated here. The point is that a fetus has no sense of self-awareness and doesn't care whether or not you kill it.

The entire concept of self-awareness as it applies to the occupant of a womb is pure, unadulterated B.S.

It is simply an invention used by the pro-death crowd and their apologists as an attempt to de-humanize unborn children. It goes hand in hand with the suppression of the words baby, child, and the like, when referring to unborn children, and encourage use of only the strict medical terms, zygote, embryo, and fetus.

To the average unsophisticated person, killing a living, human, unborn child would be seen as an abhorant, atrocious act. On the other hand, terminating a zygote, embryo, or fetus that's not even a person is of no consequence.

So that's the drill. Use some of George Orwell's 1984 "newspeak" to turn persons into non-persons by claiming that they lack self-awareness. Once that's done, the next step is easy.

These folks support my position. Can you come up with some equally qualified persons who support yours?

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

 

[Gibberish]

I edited it to include if you are trying to stop someone from killing somebody else as well. But I never contradicted myself; please explain how I did.

Technocratic_Utilitarian said "You can kill something and still be ethically justified."

You said. "No" then you continued to state a scenario where a murder would be ethically justified.

That is contradiction to me.

If I misread what you were saying "No" to I apologize for the contradiction claim.


As for the proclaim murder part:

You said "And you can't say the fetus isn't a child yet because it will be and you can't use time in and of itself to justify murder."

You are stating someone is justifying murder by claiming a fetus is a child, but should not do so because the fetus will one day be a child. You are proclaiming a murder using time because the aborted fetus would have one day been a child. So you are stating it is false to use time to justify a murdering but ok to use time to proclaim a murderer.

 

[Fantasea]

There is research going on now showing that the sperm of a man who is legally drunk can cause serious damage to a fetus if a woman gets impregnated by him. I assume that men should be held as responsible as women and should be jailed for impregnating a woman while intoxicated, correct?

Your hypothetical argument (since the research is not yot conclusive) is akin to trying to split hairs or picking specks of fly turds out of pepper.

 

[George_Washington]

Technocratic_Utilitarian said "You can kill something and still be ethically justified."

You said. "No" then you continued to state a scenario where a murder would be ethically justified.

That is contradiction to me.

If I misread what you were saying "No" to I apologize for the contradiction claim.

In the context of the subject matter we're discussing, which is abortion, what Tech said wasn't correct because a fetus isn't trying to kill anyone, so you can't justify killing it based on ethical grounds or any grounds for that matter.

 

[jallman]

I dont see how you can even begin to involve the topic of capital punishment with abortion. First, abortion is a medical procedure used to remedy and unwanted medical condition. So long as there is no sentience or awareness in the growth of tissue in the womb, it remains a fetus. Sometime right around the 26th week of pregnancy, the spine and the brain meet and sentience becomes evident through the use of encardio encepholagram to detect a change in brain wave pattern. At this point, it becomes undeniable that something has happened in the fetus and it must be recognized as a child. Prior to this point, you have a mass of tissue with the general morphology of an infant and the potential to complete development resulting in an infant upon the achievement of sentience.

The death penalty is an entirely different matter. It is a punishment, a punitive action against a predatorial element in our society. It should be exercised with full respect for the fact that it is permanent and cannot be undone. Each time this punishment is inflicted, there should be no doubt...not even the inkling of reservation that the individual could be innocent. It should also be conducted with a heavy heart and a burdensome collective guilt on our society that we allowed such a corruption of the spirit that this individual cannot be reformed and so must be terminated to spare society the expense of maintaining a human being who has devalued himself to nonexistence through his on predatorial actions.

Abortion and the death penalty are mutually exclusive topics and there is no fallacy in supporting one or the other or not either. Nice shot, but still a miss there dhard.

 

[Gibberish]

In the context of the subject matter we're discussing, which is abortion, what Tech said wasn't correct because a fetus isn't trying to kill anyone, so you can't justify killing it based on ethical grounds or any grounds for that matter.

It matters on your view. Reading here many pro-abortionists see the zygote or embryo as nothing more then an addition to the female body that may produce fetus. I say may because there are many instances where miscarriage occur, which is not always predictable. So using their logic removing a zygote or embryo from the uterus would be ethically the same as removing a body part.

As I stated in other threads I use embryo and zygote as examples as I do not believe in partial birth abortions or abortions once the fetus is defined as having noticeable intellect.