Originally posted by Silent Master
Figured I'd ask as there seems to be some confusion, Eternal Idol says that your question about abortion wasn't about abortion. is that true?
I can't see how it can be claimed it's not about abortion since I specifically mention abortion...but yes it was.
The argument can be applied to other things too though, like immigration. For some reason the "if it saves even one life" logic is only applied to guns.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
YouTube video
If a fetus isn't a human being then it should not be possible to charge someone with murder for killing it.
In fact if a fetus isn't human you shouldn't be able to be charged with any crime related to it's destruction, yet we see stuff like:
A doctor laced his ex-girlfriend’s tea with abortion pills and got three years in prison
"Imran was charged last June with premeditated killing of a fetus of another and illegally causing abortion or miscarriage. Online records show he was also charged in November with assault and altering food, drink and drugs. He pleaded guilty earlier this year to fetal homicide, The Associated Press reported."
Originally posted by Surtur
If a fetus isn't a human being then it should not be possible to charge someone with murder for killing it.
Is this a recent case or law you keep referring to?
Either way, I think there should be some type of legal penalty for causing the miscarriage of an unborn baby the expected mother intended to have. A murder charge seems like too much, but something akin to manslaughter makes more sense to me. First-degree if the guilty party knew the woman was pregnant, second degree if there was no way they could have known.
And in case Darth Goober is still following the thread, no, an expecting mother should not be charged with a crime if her ignorance or recklessness caused her to miscarry a child she intended to have.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Is this a recent case or law you keep referring to?Either way, I think there should be some type of legal penalty for causing the miscarriage of an unborn baby the expected mother intended to have. A murder charge seems like to much, but something akin to manslaughter makes more sense to me. First-degree if the guilty party knew the woman was pregnant, second degree if there was no way they could have known.
And in case Darth Goober is still following the thread, no, an expecting mother should not be charged with a crime if her ignorance or recklessness caused her to miscarry a child she intended to have.
I gave an example above, dude was charged with "fetal homicide". Got 3 years.
As for manslaughter, I got this off wiki:
"Manslaughter is a crime in the United States. Definitions can vary among jurisdictions, but the U.S. follows the general principle that manslaughter involves causing the death of another person in a manner less culpable than murder, and observes the distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter."
So a fetus is now a person?
An example of a guy being charged with two counts of murder:
Wyoming man charged with killing pregnant girlfriend argues fetus death isn't murder
"A Wyoming man charged with killing his girlfriend in Idaho in July 2016 argues the death of her unborn baby does not qualify as a second murder that makes him eligible for the death penalty."
Originally posted by Surtur
In fact if a fetus isn't human you shouldn't be able to be charged with any crime related to it's destruction, yet we see stuff like:A doctor laced his ex-girlfriend’s tea with abortion pills and got three years in prison
[b]"Imran was charged last June with premeditated killing of a fetus of another and illegally causing abortion or miscarriage. Online records show he was also charged in November with assault and altering food, drink and drugs. He pleaded guilty earlier this year to fetal homicide, The Associated Press reported."
[/B]
Just saw this after my last post, but it doesn't change my perspective.
Anyone who causes a pregnant woman to miscarry a child she intended to have should face some kind of legal penalty.
Originally posted by Surtur
So a fetus is in fact a person?
Think of a fetus as the mother's biological property, if it helps you and any other conservative posters understand the issue from the pro-choice perspective. Her body, her fetus entirely dependent on her body and care, her choice whether to keep it or abort it, and not anyone else's.
Originally posted by Surtur
So a fetus is in fact a person?
Originally posted by Eternal IdolI think this is what most pro-life/pro-choice debates are about.
A fetus is an undeveloped human being, incapable of surviving on its own without its mother or perhaps by some artificial medical means I'm not aware of. Until it is born, it is a part of the mother.Think of a fetus as the mother's biological property, if it helps you and any other conservative posters understand the issue from the pro-choice perspective. Her body, her fetus entirely dependent on her body and care, her choice whether to keep it or abort it, and not anyone else's.
For me, it's life because it's an almost certain future baby, barring any complications. For others, it's not a life until there's a heartbeat or the baby is viable outside the womb. I do think the vast majority of people are against partial birth abortions.
Just an aside, if we find microbes on Mars it would be considered life. I do believe a fertilized embryo is more alive than some microbes. That's just me though.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
A fetus is an undeveloped human being, incapable of surviving on its own without its mother or perhaps by some artificial medical means I'm not aware of. Until it is born, it is a part of the mother.Think of a fetus as the mother's biological property, if it helps you and any other conservative posters understand the issue from the pro-choice perspective. Her body, her fetus entirely dependent on her body and care, her choice whether to keep it or abort it, and not anyone else's.
What is the worth of biological property?
Children and wife used to be property.
Man changes definitions all the time, depending on social politics. Call it what you will, if not for human intervention, that fetus would likely develop into a person.
To my eyes, I see this issue as "What is the value of life"?
But since when has being human, made life sacred?
Originally posted by Badabing
I think this is what most pro-life/pro-choice debates are about.For me, it's life because it's an almost certain future baby, barring any complications. For others, it's not a life until there's a heartbeat or the baby is viable outside the womb. I do think the vast majority of people are against partial birth abortions.
Just an aside, if we find microbes on Mars it would be considered life. I do believe a fertilized embryo is more alive than some microbes. That's just me though.
It is life, though I would not consider it a person yet.
Person suggests an individual, and a fetus is far from being an individual, as it's still completely dependent on its mother as a host while it develops and grows.
As far as the issue of late-term abortions, the proposed law in New York stipulates that the abortions would only be performed if childbirth put the mother's life at risk, which is perfectly understandable.
Originally posted by Silent Master
What is the worth of biological property?
Giving birth and raising babies baby may be their dreams. To women like this, motherhood is more important than anything else and likely view it as their purpose in life.
Other women may want to have babies in the future, but the timing and their present situations may not be ideal, and would not be worth it for them to have their babies now. Their finances may not be in order, or they're not fully independent yet, or it could be that they feel they are just not ready for motherhood yet, either from a preparedness standpoint or are not done living their own childless lives yet.
She may not have any desire to be a mother for her own personal reasons. Women love to **** every bit as much as we do, and shouldn't be forced to endure pregnancy for several months and birth a child she does not want simply because she ****ed and failed to prepare, or her contraceptives failed. Worse still would be to force a woman who was raped to carry the unwanted child of her rapist.
Whatever it is, it's the woman's choice.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Just saying whatever a mother wants isn't a real standard. it's what people say when they want to avoid giving a real answer.
You're looking for a quantitative value for a situation that is quite clearly dependent on the qualitative value to lives of the expectant mothers.
Life isn't sacred, but if it were, then the life of the woman with established relationships, life experience, and self-awareness would certainly have more value to it than the life of the blank slate of a human being she'd have to carry, birth, care for, and raise...which in and of itself defeats the idea of life being sacred.