Question for anti-abortion people

[Cephus]

Numerous states allow for the prosecution for 2 murders when a pregenant mother is murderd..

Most do so on the basis of a wanted pregnancy and that's fine. Somehow, I think you'd have a hard time prosecuting for two murders if the woman was on her way to get an abortion at the time.

 

[talloulou]

See, the laws were changed and the slaves were freed. Up until that point, it didn't matter if you were pro-equality or not, it was a legal fact that people could own slaves.

If you don't like abortion, then get the laws changed. Until then, you're just wasting your breath, abortion is legal, and if the polls are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep it that way. Your wishful thinking doesn't mean diddly squat.

Passionate blowhards have brought about the change of many laws. I can't think of one law that was ever changed because all the people that were unhappy about it just shut up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most do so on the basis of a wanted pregnancy and that's fine. Somehow, I think you'd have a hard time prosecuting for two murders if the woman was on her way to get an abortion at the time.

Well, OK, but...
If the unborn isnt a human life - or, as the 'pro-choice' crowd likes to say, a person - how then can you murder it...?

 

[Ikari]

Well, OK, but...
If the unborn isnt a human life - or, as the 'pro-choice' crowd likes to say, a person - how then can you murder it...?

It's the double standard we like to employ. Most people I think are comfortable with calling an unborn child an actual human life, and thus the loss through violent external means is murder. But with abortion we are presented with different forms of arguments about oppression and such to allow for abortion. Choice of the mother=fine, choice of someone else=bad. But between the two circumstances there is actually a radical redefining of how we view the unborn child. Choice of the mother=parasite/group of cells/unviable life. Choice of someone else=human being.

As it relates specifically to the OP, a kidney is not a child. It is not something with the potential to live on its own, it's not conceived with the purpose of birth to continue the human race. Therefore it is mine, I can do with it as I please ('cept sell it on Ebay apparently). An unborn child is a human life and should be treated as such.

 

[rivrrat]

Well, OK, but...
If the unborn isnt a human life - or, as the 'pro-choice' crowd likes to say, a person - how then can you murder it...?

Personally, I don't think you can "murder" it since the legal definition states the unlawful killing of a person. I sit firmly against the laws stating that it is murder.

However, an attacker IS taking something away from that mother and father if the birth of a child is desired. And punishment should indeed be forced on an attacker for that.

 

[heatmiser]

The primary flaw in your scenario is that, in an abortion scenario, you excercised your right to choose when you chose to have unprotected sex. In your scenario, there is not that initial right nor the chance to exercise good judgement.

 

[rivrrat]

The primary flaw in your scenario is that, in an abortion scenario, you excercised your right to choose when you chose to have unprotected sex.

Incorrect. Putting aside the fact that one can indeed get pregnant while having protected sex AND incidents of rape or molestation... Your premise is still flawed since it implies that consent to sex (protected or not) is consent to pregnancy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Personally, I don't think you can "murder" it since the legal definition states the unlawful killing of a person. I sit firmly against the laws stating that it is murder.

But, the law says you can.
Doesnt that mean that, in some situations, the unborn ARE 'people' and DO have rights?

 

[rivrrat]

But, the law says you can.
Doesnt that mean that, in some situations, the unborn ARE 'people' and DO have rights?

The laws are stupid and contradictory. And should therefore be altered.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The laws are stupid and contradictory. And should therefore be altered.

I see. Well, we can't have that.

Given that the law recognizes that the unborn DO have rights and are people in certain situation, why then should not the law bw altered to say that they are people/have rights in all situations?

Or does your personhood simply rest on who happens to have killed you?

 

[rivrrat]

I see. Well, we can't have that.

Given that the law recognizes that the unborn DO have rights and are people in certain situation, why then should not the law bw altered to say that they are people/have rights in all situations?

No, the law should be altered to be clear that the unborn have no rights in any situation. (except for third trimester, which I'm okay with personally)

Or does your personhood simply rest on who happens to have killed you?

Me, I've achieved personhood. So my personhood status doesn't depend on who kills me. And neither does the personhood status of the unborn.

 

[heatmiser]

Incorrect. Putting aside the fact that one can indeed get pregnant while having protected sex AND incidents of rape or molestation... Your premise is still flawed since it implies that consent to sex (protected or not) is consent to pregnancy.

I believe, though I am not certain, that most states have certain exceptions regarding rape/molestation cases, that most people support (myself included). On that basis, I was under the impression that we were talking about "convenience" abortions. I may have interperted the scenario wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the law should be altered to be clear that the unborn have no rights in any situation. (except for third trimester, which I'm okay with personally)

Wy should the law be changed to reflect that, when it currently states that there are situations where it IS a person and DOES have rights?
On what grounds should that status be removed?

Me, I've achieved personhood.

We arent talking about you.

 

[rivrrat]

I believe, though I am not certain, that most states have certain exceptions regarding rape/molestation cases, that most people support (myself included). On that basis, I was under the impression that we were talking about "convenience" abortions. I may have interperted the scenario wrong.

Abortions resulting from rape or molestation are still convenience abortions. If the pregnancy is not threatening the life of the mother, then the abortion is one of convenience.

 

[rivrrat]

Wy should the law be changed to reflect that, when it currently states that there are situations where it IS a person and DOES have rights?
On what grounds should that status be removed?

On the grounds that it's not a person.

 

[M14 Shooter]

On the grounds that it's not a person.

Wait.
The law states that is IS a person.
Given that 'personhood' is a legal status, how can you argue that it isnt a person when the law says it is?

 

[rivrrat]

Wait.
The law states that is IS a person.
Given that 'personhood' is a legal status, how can you argue that it isnt a person when the law says it is?

The laws that state that it is a person are wrong. And should therefore be changed.

 

[heatmiser]

Abortions resulting from rape or molestation are still convenience abortions. If the pregnancy is not threatening the life of the mother, then the abortion is one of convenience.

I wouldn't say that a woman who was raped, who is seeking an abortion, could be said to be seeking said abortion for the sake of one's own convenience. Though to define a "convenience abortion" is a moral call, which is why I don't like these issues, I prefer factual issues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The laws that state that it is a person are wrong. And should therefore be changed.

But, the law defines personhood.
Given that personhood is defined by the law, how can they be wrong?

 

[rivrrat]

But, the law defines personhood.
Given that personhood is defined by the law, how can they be wrong?

Laws can't be wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws can't be wrong?

When the law is the final arbiter as to what something is/isnt, then you can argue a position contrary to the law all you want, but since the law defines what is/isnt, then you're just stating your opinion as to what should be rather than what really is/isnt.

That is, the law is correct; your disagreement to that effect doesnt mean the law is wrong.

 

[rivrrat]

When the law is the final arbiter as to what something is/isnt, then you can argue a position contrary to the law all you want, but since the law defines what is/isnt, then you're just stating your opinion as to what should be rather than what really is/isnt.

Of course I am stating my opinion, I never said I wasn't. I'm surely not stating someone elses.

That is, the law is correct; your disagreement to that effect doesnt mean the law is wrong.

I think the law is wrong. *That* is my opinion, and that is why I attempt to change it by petitioning, voting, etc. I think many, many of our laws are wrong, and I strive to enact change for all that I deem important enough to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course I am stating my opinion, I never said I wasn't. I'm surely not stating someone elses.

I think the law is wrong. *That* is my opinion, and that is why I attempt to change it by petitioning, voting, etc. I think many, many of our laws are wrong, and I strive to enact change for all that I deem important enough to do so.

Ok, just so you understand that the law, being that which defines these things, is right, and your opinion here, one contrary to the law, is wrong.

That is, after all, what the pro-choice people say to the pro-life people all the time.

 

[Felicity]

I wouldn't say that a woman who was raped, who is seeking an abortion, could be said to be seeking said abortion for the sake of one's own convenience. Though to define a "convenience abortion" is a moral call, which is why I don't like these issues, I prefer factual issues.

If one subscribes to relative morality--the issue isn't based on "facts"--but if one subscribes to absolute morality, the is most definitely a "right" position.

 

[jallman]

If one subscribes to relative morality--the issue isn't based on "facts"--but if one subscribes to absolute morality, the is most definitely a "right" position.

But who assigns the absolute rights and wrongs? In the end, this has to become a discussion about religion because human beings are not capable nor required to think in terms of absolutes.