- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Highlights in red mine.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.
...Okay?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.
opcorn:
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.
opcorn:
Said laws are morally wrong. No life should equal no charges.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.
Isn't it great??? :mrgreen:I see this thread ending in all kinds of good!
opcorn2:
Said laws are morally wrong. No life should equal no charges.
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.
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.
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.
opcorn:
Isn't it great??? :mrgreen:
I am sincere in my point, but I do fully expect a popcorn-worthy debate.
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.
An interesting legal situation, where I think I'd draw the line at the point of viability.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.
opcorn:
No, the act of disconnecting it from its mother results in its death.
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.
opcorn:
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.
opcorn:
That's great... and soooo irrelevant to this thread topic.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.
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?
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.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.
Woman's wishes should be irrelevant. It's either a life worthy of (legal) protection, or it's not. Pick one.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.
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?
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?