Sorry, i just don't get it.

[mac]

Abortion is a matter of law and falls under a legal purview. It seems you can't support your assertion from a legal standpoint and are just grasping at straws now.

That doesn't change the definition of homicide and abortion fits that definition.

 

[Gordy327]

There need not be a legal source. The definition of the word suffices.

Actually, yes there does! One cannot be charged with a homicide if an action is not legally defined as such. You don't get to make up your own laws or legal definitions.

 

[Gordy327]

That doesn't change the definition of homicide and abortion fits that definition.

Legally incorrect.

Where does the law say a fetus is not a person?

1 US Code ss 8 and the 14th Amendment.

If you feel you are at risk of death or grievous bodily harm, you can protect yourself. You will likely have to explain your reasoning in court, though.

A woman can use the same reasoning to have an abortion. Especially if medically supported.

 

[mac]

Actually, yes there does! One cannot be charged with a homicide if an action is not legally defined as such. You don't get to make up your own laws or legal definitions.

You should actually read the definition of the word. One is usually charged with murder, not homicide. Perhaps you are confusing homicide with manslaughter. Is English your first language?

 

[quip]

With freedom comes responsibility.

"With freedom comes forced responsibility." How incredibly ironic, moronic ....and an obvious dodge to boot!
I asked about your delicate use of semantics. Your 'forced responsibility' upon a woman to rear a child comes - surprisingly enough - with an actual child, they're a packaged deal. QED, your petty distinction is for shit.

That's not true. I said I acknowledge the necessity of the exception, not that I "have little qualms" with it.

Yet, the end results remain identical, that is (at least) one dead baby. How does a pro-lifer reconcile this ugly contradiction - unless - preserving "life" is truly considered a lesser motivation than say....what exactly? Please do explain yourself.

Actually, your false comparison is irrational not to mention being based on a false premise.

It not a comparison in the least. Rather, it's you moving the goal-post by irrational fiat.

Who said that it was "more applicable"?

You imply as much by subjugating her choice in the matter to your moral dictates, lest you'd be promoting pro-choice on abortion.

You're not a pro-choicer now are you?

 

[mac]

Legally incorrect./quote

Nope.

1 US Code ss 8 and the 14th Amendment./quote

Read the first sentence of that code, and the 14th doesn't claim an unborn baby is not a human.

A woman can use the same reasoning to have an abortion. Especially if medically supported.

Correct.

 

[Gordy327]

Nope.

Yup! You certainly have not legally proven otherwise. Neither have you cited any case where a woman was charged (and/or convicted) of homicide for having an elective abortion.

Read the first sentence of that code, and the 14th doesn't claim an unborn baby is not a human.

It specifically states a person or human being is "born alive." The unborn (fetus/embryo) are not yet born and therefore are not legal human beings or persons. The 14th Amendment explicitly states "All persons BORN...." Not born, then not a person. Simple legal fact!

 

[multivita-man]

Sorry, it is. Along with everything you said here.

Well just stamp your feet and tut, tut, tut on why don't ya.

Ok.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If it puts the mother's life at risk. I agree that it's a stretch, but see it as a necessary exception.

So you're against abortion in the cases of rape and incest as long as the mother's life is not endangered?

 

[AGENT J]

Because many of us understand the psychological impact (harm) that carrying the pregnancy to term can cause the mother. Also, such abortions amount to a very small percentage over all. Of course the unborn baby in question is completely innocent of the circumstances of its creation, those circumstances may fit into the catagory of "defense" of the mother. Many of the rape and incest pregnancies that do occur are to children where the physical impact of a pregnancy may be as harmful or more harmful than the psychological impact.

Personally, I would rather see the child put up for adoption than aborted, but acknowledge that denying abortion in these cases is draconian.

so hypocrisy, got it lol

 

[AGENT J]

Not law...English. Homicide.

Ok.

abortion =/= homicide

 

[lwf]

No law can be written that isn't affected by the victim's willingness to participate in the investigation/prosecution.

Laws against everything suffer the same problems which, in my view, is a general argument against federal laws. It is very challenging to write an effective law while keeping it compassionate.

Isn't this also a general argument against state laws? Isn't it better to err on the side of freedom and autonomy? Why should the state have the right and authority to get involved in and legislate a woman's personal healthcare choices?

Seems like the libertarian argument would favor the pro choice position: Keep the "state" (meaning federal and state government) out of a woman's womb. Once the baby is born and can be safely separated from the mother without killing him or her, then we can apply the protections of human rights. Before birth it seems like it should be between the mother and her healthcare provider if we are taking a small government libertarian stance, since it is her body. We can be disgusted by later term abortions all we want and we can pass any moral judgment we want to on the mother and the doctor. But maybe we ought not to assume we have the authority to forcibly prevent it through legislation?

 

[mac]

"With freedom comes forced responsibility." How incredibly ironic, moronic ....and an obvious dodge to boot!
I asked about your delicate use of semantics. Your 'forced responsibility' upon a woman to rear a child comes - surprisingly enough - with an actual child, they're a packaged deal. QED, your petty distinction is for shit./quote

Not forced responsibility, just responsibility. Not wanting to face the outcomes of your decisions doesn't legitimize homicide.

Yet, the end results remain identical, that is (at least) one dead baby. How does a pro-lifer reconcile this ugly contradiction - unless - preserving "life" is truly considered a lesser motivation than say....what exactly? Please do explain yourself./quote

As I stated several times, abortions resulting from incest and abortion are a very small portion of abortions overall. Given that and the harm that such a pregnancy make it a reasonable exception. Again, as I said, my personal preference in these cases would that the baby was born and put up for adoption.

It not a comparison in the least. Rather, it's you moving the goal-post by irrational fiat.

You imply as much by subjugating her choice in the matter to your moral dictates, lest you'd be promoting pro-choice on abortion.

You're not a pro-choicer now are you?

Well, I don't find homicide in a non-self defense situation to be morally acceptable....as a human being.

 

[mac]

So you're against abortion in the cases of rape and incest as long as the mother's life is not endangered?

Personally, yes, but I don't think it should be illegal in those cases.

 

[mac]

Isn't this also a general argument against state laws? Isn't it better to err on the side of freedom and autonomy? Why should the state have the right and authority to get involved in and legislate a woman's personal healthcare choices?/quote

Because it's not simply a "personal healthcare choice". It involves the termination of a human life.

Seems like the libertarian argument would favor the pro choice position: Keep the "state" (meaning federal and state government) out of a woman's womb. Once the baby is born and can be safely separated from the mother without killing him or her, then we can apply the protections of human rights. Before birth it seems like it should be between the mother and her healthcare provider if we are taking a small government libertarian stance, since it is her body. We can be disgusted by later term abortions all we want and we can pass any moral judgment we want to on the mother and the doctor. But maybe we ought not to assume we have the authority to forcibly prevent it through legislation?/quote

I think that would better fit the anarchist ideology than the libertarian. Libertarians recognize the intersection of rights. In this case the intersection of the right of personal sovereignty and the Unborn child's right to life.

 

[lwf]

Because it's not simply a "personal healthcare choice". It involves the termination of a human life.

I think that would better fit the anarchist ideology than the libertarian. Libertarians recognize the intersection of rights. In this case the intersection of the right of personal sovereignty and the Unborn child's right to life.

I suppose the question is what rights a human loses when he enters the body of someone else without their consent, and what measures the victim is allowed to use to remove said human from their body. I don't see any contradiction with removing someone's right to life on a self-defense basis when they are inside your body against your will and the only way to remove them is to kill them.

 

[AGENT J]

I suppose the question is what rights a human loses when he enters the body of someone else without their consent, and what measures the victim is allowed to use to remove said human from their body. I don't see any contradiction with removing someone's right to life on a self-defense basis when they are inside your body against your will and the only way to remove them is to kill them.

and nobody would unless they view the woman as a lesser, its the only way it works.
we all pick and choose. Abortion iss the same no matter which end one is on. We all pick and choose which life we value more. The only difference is when and why.
To want abortion banned or mostly banned requires valuing the woman as the lesser

 

[mac]

Yup! You certainly have not legally proven otherwise. Neither have you cited any case where a woman was charged (and/or convicted) of homicide for having an elective abortion./quote

Still no.

It specifically states a person or human being is "born alive." The unborn (fetus/embryo) are not yet born and therefore are not legal human beings or persons. The 14th Amendment explicitly states "All persons BORN...." Not born, then not a person. Simple legal fact!

As applied to statements by Congress. Context is important. And the phrases "All persons Born..." implies that there are unborn persons. Besides, that phrase is defining citizenship, not personhood.

 

[mac]

I suppose the question is what rights a human loses when he enters the body of someone else without their consent, /quote

in this case the human didn't enter the body of someone else, s/he was created there without her/his consent.

and what measures the victim is allowed to use to remove said human from their body. I don't see any contradiction with removing someone's right to life on a self-defense basis /quote

Neither do I.

when they are inside your body against your will and the only way to remove them is to kill them.

They are not in your body against your will. This implies a conscious effort to be there. Intent is important, specially in cases of self defense.

 

[lwf]

in this case the human didn't enter the body of someone else, s/he was created there without her/his consent.

Neither do I.

They are not in your body against your will. This implies a conscious effort to be there. Intent is important, specially in cases of self defense.

I think you are hairsplitting here. "Enter" vs. "created there" is a distinction without a difference. And obviously it is possible for a woman to have sex without the intent to get pregnant.

One of the difficulties with the abortion argument is that there is no reasonable analog with which to compare it. So if if we use our imaginations to invent a fanciful comparison: Let's say you meet and befriend a wizard. One day he gets angry with you and he waves his magic wand and magics me inside of your body against both of our wills. I am unconscious and kept alive by feeding off of your body. You suffer some very uncomfortable health issues due to this, need to buy new clothes to accommodate your new body which has been distorted by having me inside, and find it difficult to do your job. The wizard assures you he will reverse the spell in 9 months, provided both of us survive that long. Keep in mind, I didn't "enter" your body. I was magically teleported there through no fault or desire of my own or yours. You willingly interacted with this wizard, so you should have known that this could happen.

What are your options here? What should your options be? Where do your rights end and my rights begin? I say that because I am located inside of your body and neither one of us can do anything about it, you have the right to hire a surgeon to remove me from your body by any means necessary, even if it results in my unfortunate death. Yes, that sucks for me, but your right to your own bodily autonomy outweighs my right to life in this specific case. Under normal circumstances, my right to life outweighs all other rights, but not when I am actively violating your bodily autonomy, even if it is not a willing violation.

 

[Gordy327]

Still no.

As applied to statements by Congress. Context is important. And the phrases "All persons Born..." implies that there are unborn persons. Besides, that phrase is defining citizenship, not personhood.

Without supporting legal text for your assertions, your opinion is still wong and summarily dismissed.
All persons BORN means one has to be born first to be considered a person. There is no law or legal text which recognizes the unborn as a person.

in this case the human didn't enter the body of someone else, s/he was created there without her/his consent.

But that "human" only remains there at the consent of its host. If the host does not want it there, then it cannot remain against the host's will. Neither can the host be legally compelled to donate her body for the benefit of another.

 

[quip]

Not forced responsibility, just responsibility.

No, that's not what you're advocating. You're forcing parenting responsibility upon women then claiming it as their freedom for doing so. Are you thick or simply enjoy conservative double-speak?

Not wanting to face the outcomes of your decisions doesn't legitimize homicide.

Facing the outcomes of her decision freely, entails allowing her the choice in aborting it or not. Else, you're begging the very question of 'outcomes'.

As I stated several times, abortions resulting from incest and abortion are a very small portion of abortions overall. Given that and the harm that such a pregnancy make it a reasonable exception. Again, as I said, my personal preference in these cases would that the baby was born and put up for adoption.

Then clearly a small percentage of babies dying does not make for a pro-lifer. Apparently, casting moral judgments are more to your liking. Though, why should your extrinsic judgment hold sway more than her own?

Well, I don't find homicide in a non-self defense situation to be morally acceptable....as a human being.

No less acceptable then the aforementioned castle doctrine.

 

[Lursa]

First, no one is forcing them to give birth. The pregnancy is a result of personal choices. Not allowing a homicide to be the fix is not morally equivalent to forcing. Second, poor lives matter just as much as rich ones.

What is denying women a much safer medical procedure? That forces that woman to remain pregnant.

What is the justification for the govt to deny women that safer procedure and force her to take the much greater risk to her life, her health, and her ability to care for her family, contribute to society fully, etc?

Where else does the govt demand a person take such a risk with their life without their consent? Only the draft, which I'm against, but at least that is for national security reasons. There are no negative effects of abortion on society...unless you can list some?

 

[Lursa]

With freedom comes responsibility.

Agreed, and having an abortion can be a very responsible option (previously posted):

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and believe you will abuse or neglect.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will lead to mental and physical defects in a baby.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other responsibilities and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less child waiting will find a home.​

If your objection is about responsibility, dont you agree then, that if birth control fails, as it can...abortion can be a responsible choice?

If:

This thread is all about what people believe.

Then it is awfully hard to ignore that list and still believe that a woman who chooses an abortion is not being responsible.

 

[mac]

No, that's not what you're advocating. You're forcing parenting responsibility upon women then claiming it as their freedom for doing so. Are you thick or simply enjoy conservative double-speak?/quote

No, that's not what I said.

Facing the outcomes of her decision freely, entails allowing her the choice in aborting it or not. Else, you're begging the very question of 'outcomes'./quote

If you presume that homicide is a valid choice, I don't.

Then clearly a small percentage of babies dying does not make for a pro-lifer. Apparently, casting moral judgments are more to your liking. /quote

You are free to view it anyway you like.

Though, why should your extrinsic judgment hold sway more than her own? /quote

I didn't claim it did.

No less acceptable then the aforementioned castle doctrine.

How do you compare it to the castle doctrine?