• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
18,576
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:
 
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?
 
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.
 
I see this thread ending in all kinds of good!

:popcorn2:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
'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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
No, the act of disconnecting it from its mother results in its death.

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