• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder!

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.
6 Abortion Myths We Need to Put to Rest Once and For All — Everyday Feminism

Myth #1: Abortion is baby-killing.

This is something you’ve probably heard a lot.

The fact is that a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is a developing mammal; in humans, a fetus develops at the end of the second month of gestation.

A baby, on the other hand, is a human offspring who has already been born.

It’s important to understand that there is a difference: development.

A zygote (a fertilized egg) that has implanted in the uterus just two days ago is not the same thing as a human life that has already come into being.

In terms of the person housing the pregnancy, this difference is important: a fetus cannot survive without its parent during gestation—there is no separation. A baby, on the other hand, is an autonomous being.

Therefore, a fetus is a part of the person housing the pregnancy. For a mother, that makes its existence a part of her, making it her choice to terminate; hers, and hers only.

And the talk about fetal pain? That’s just phony science.

This logically leads to the conclusion that a baby and a fetus are not the same things. A baby can survive without using its mother as a life-source; a fetus cannot.

When you have an abortion, you aren’t taking the life of an autonomous being, like in cases of infanticide. Rather, you are removing a part of your own body.
Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

:popcorn:
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,631
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

:popcorn:
...Okay?
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,733
Reaction score
20,429
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

:popcorn:

I believe it depends on the jurisdiction.

I distinctly remember that Scott Peterson, in California, was charged with special circumstances murder, that brought the death penalty, because his murdered wife was pregnant. I'd also have to do some research, but I believe there are similar laws here in Canada that support a pregnancy as a second life in a murder case.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,468
Reaction score
21,417
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I see this thread ending in all kinds of good!

:popcorn2:
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I believe it depends on the jurisdiction.

I distinctly remember that Scott Peterson, in California, was charged with special circumstances murder, that brought the death penalty, because his murdered wife was pregnant. I'd also have to do some research, but I believe there are similar laws here in Canada that support a pregnancy as a second life in a murder case.
Said laws are morally wrong. No life should equal no charges.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,733
Reaction score
20,429
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Said laws are morally wrong. No life should equal no charges.

The good folks in California disagree.

I suppose it depends on the stage of the pregnancy as well.

Considering your views, are you saying that late term abortions should be legal because it's not a life until it's born?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A zygote (a fertilized egg) that has implanted in the uterus just two days ago is not the same thing as a human life that has already come into being.

Ummm...what? How is that a fact? It is human life and it does exist. :lol:
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When you have an abortion, you aren’t taking the life of an autonomous being, like in cases of infanticide. Rather, you are removing a part of your own body.

Oh my ****ing god. :doh

No, the unborn is not PART of her body, it is ATTACHED to her body. There is a difference.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

:popcorn:

But everyone knows that we have chosen to define humans as persons once they are born and not earlier. But that is only the way lawyers argue cases to get, what they want. A similar line of thought was used to justify euthanasia and other mass killings of humans that had been defined as killable. So where is the news?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh my ****ing god. :doh

No, the unborn is not PART of her body, it is ATTACHED to her body. There is a difference.

So in an abortion all the girl does, is cut it lose. Sort of like a tour guide might cut the rope.
 

Ntharotep

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,503
Reaction score
663
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Purely by the jubilance displayed in the thread thus far, I am guessing some in the country think a person killing a pregnant woman should get a medal.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So in an abortion all the girl does, is cut it lose. Sort of like a tour guide might cut the rope.

No, the act of disconnecting it from its mother results in its death.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'Person' is a legal fabrication. I'll stick with the objective observations of science.

A tomato is a fruit. The government says its a vegetable. For tax reasons. Same thing.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,993
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

:popcorn:
An interesting legal situation, where I think I'd draw the line at the point of viability.

In my opinion: We can't have legal abortion, yet also charge murder in the death of a fetus that's of abortable age. Yet there should be some serious charge levied if an individual causes the death of a late-term viable baby.

So I would propose making the cut-off for more serious charges set at the state's age of viability. I'm still not sure if I'd go as far as a murder charge, but it might be appropriate depending upon the criminal intent. Perhaps some lesser charge would be appropriate?
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem is the intention of the act of abortion is specifically to take a life. And not in self defense, but for mere convenience. Lesser chargers are because their wasnt intent to kill, but was the result of your actions anyways.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, the act of disconnecting it from its mother results in its death.

Cutting the climber lose will splatter him across the canyon floor. ;)
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,912
Reaction score
9,733
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

:popcorn:

The personhood of the fetus is literally of no concern during a discussion of abortion. Even if we just grant the fetus full personhood, a birth certificate etc. That still doesn't mean that we can force a woman to use her body in a way that she doesn't agree with against her will. If there is a person at the hospital that needs blood transfusions of they'll die, I can't use government force to hold you down and take your blood against your will to give to him, even though this person has full rights. In this same manner we can't force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. It's her body.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

:popcorn:

Actually - your argument only applies during part of pregnancy where the fetus cannot survive without the mother. But after a certain point that probability shifts and instead of becoming an impossibility, it because a strong likelihood.

Rights are ever-shifting as people grow and develop in the US, and I apply that same shifting scale to abortion. I don't support it 100% - and the later a woman is into pregnancy the less I support it and I certain don't support it if a fetus has reached a point where it can survive apart from the mother. On top of that, I add her intent. Since I put a lot of value on her choice to HAVE a child - her view of her pregnancy (whether she intends to carry to full term and have the baby) strongly influences things. If she decides the moment she finds out she's pregnant that she's keeping the child - even if that's day 1 - then anything after that point will be death of both child and mother.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The personhood of the fetus is literally of no concern during a discussion of abortion. Even if we just grant the fetus full personhood, a birth certificate etc. That still doesn't mean that we can force a woman to use her body in a way that she doesn't agree with against her will. If there is a person at the hospital that needs blood transfusions of they'll die, I can't use government force to hold you down and take your blood against your will to give to him, even though this person has full rights. In this same manner we can't force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. It's her body.
That's great... and soooo irrelevant to this thread topic.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
An interesting legal situation, where I think I'd draw the line at the point of viability.

In my opinion: We can't have legal abortion, yet also charge murder in the death of a fetus that's of abortable age. Yet there should be some serious charge levied if an individual causes the death of a late-term viable baby.

So I would propose making the cut-off for more serious charges set at the state's age of viability. I'm still not sure if I'd go as far as a murder charge, but it might be appropriate depending upon the criminal intent. Perhaps some lesser charge would be appropriate?
Actually - your argument only applies during part of pregnancy where the fetus cannot survive without the mother. But after a certain point that probability shifts and instead of becoming an impossibility, it because a strong likelihood.

Rights are ever-shifting as people grow and develop in the US, and I apply that same shifting scale to abortion. I don't support it 100% - and the later a woman is into pregnancy the less I support it and I certain don't support it if a fetus has reached a point where it can survive apart from the mother.
Establishing a "point if viability", whatever that may be, would be acceptable... provided it is consistently applied. No option for an abortion as a choice, and criminal charges if someone else unnaturally terminates.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Btw, these laws don't exist because the state cares about the unborn, but because the state wants to protect the interests of the mother. If a pregnant woman gets assaulted and it results in a miscarriage murder charges aren't filed because the unborn is of some value to the state, but because it violated the woman's wishes.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Btw, these laws don't exist because the state cares about the unborn, but because the state wants to protect the interests of the mother. If a pregnant woman gets assaulted and it results in a miscarriage murder charges aren't filed because the unborn is of some value to the state, but because it violated the woman's wishes.
Woman's wishes should be irrelevant. It's either a life worthy of (legal) protection, or it's not. Pick one.

Btw, I know that, legally, you're correct, at least in part.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,733
Reaction score
20,429
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
An interesting legal situation, where I think I'd draw the line at the point of viability.

In my opinion: We can't have legal abortion, yet also charge murder in the death of a fetus that's of abortable age. Yet there should be some serious charge levied if an individual causes the death of a late-term viable baby.

So I would propose making the cut-off for more serious charges set at the state's age of viability. I'm still not sure if I'd go as far as a murder charge, but it might be appropriate depending upon the criminal intent. Perhaps some lesser charge would be appropriate?

I find your use of the term "cut-off" interesting in an abortion forum.
 
Top Bottom