This thread never seas to amaze me with the kind of things people come out with.
To some people, treating women as a mare fetus incubator with only responsibility to keeping the baby alive is just plain ridiculous.
Particularly for those in the United States, Supreme Court over one hundred years ago, declared the following -
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, then the right of every individual to the possession and control of its own person, free from all restraint and interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by judge Cooley: ''The right to one's person may be said to be right of complete immunity: to be left alone''
Source: Union Pacific Railway v Bostford, 141 U.S 250, 251 (1891)
^^ in case anyone wants to check.
So why the heck doesn't this apply to a pregnant woman?
It is woman's body - her own, and she has the right to decide what she would like to do with it.
Interferance from the people on the outside is the invasion of her own body.
Which looks even more ridiculous if compared to the fact that some fatal life-saving operations are not allowed to be performed without that person's consent.
And if the person decides that he/she does not want the operation, then the operation is NOT carried out.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So why the heck doesn't this apply to a pregnant woman?
That's exactly why--she's pregnant. In the U.S. of A., if you whack a pregnant woman then its double homicide. Or say if someone's drunk driving and they accidentally hit a person--its involuntary manslaughter, but if its a woman who's knocked-up, then it automatically bcomes double 2nd degree murder.
"Under the common law, if an assault on a pregnant woman resulted in a stillbirth, it was not considered murder, because the child had not drawn breath outside the womb. Remedies were limited to criminal penalties for the assault on the woman, and a tort action for loss of the economic services of the child and/or emotional pain and suffering. With the widespread adoption of laws against abortion, the assailant could of course be charged with that offense, but the penalty was often only a fine and a few days in jail."
That's the way it was, and the way it should be. Because a foetus in utero isn't free from being dependent on it's host.
-AC
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This thread never seas to amaze me with the kind of things people come out with.To some people, treating women as a mare fetus incubator with only responsibility to keeping the baby alive is just plain ridiculous.
Particularly for those in the United States, Supreme Court over one hundred years ago, declared the following -
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, then the right of every individual to the possession and control of its own person, free from all restraint and interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by judge Cooley: ''The right to one's person may be said to be right of complete immunity: to be left alone''
Source: Union Pacific Railway v Bostford, 141 U.S 250, 251 (1891)
^^ in case anyone wants to check.
So why the heck doesn't this apply to a pregnant woman?
It is woman's body - her own, and she has the right to decide what she would like to do with it.
Interferance from the people on the outside is the invasion of her own body.Which looks even more ridiculous if compared to the fact that some fatal life-saving operations are not allowed to be performed without that person's consent.
And if the person decides that he/she does not want the operation, then the operation is NOT carried out.
U.S. society is partially to blame. We are raised to believe that our way is THE way and people of other beliefs are heathens. Still, I would think the people would have matured past this and realize that their opinions do not apply at all to others when noone's rights are being infringed upon.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
That's exactly why--she's pregnant. In the U.S. of A., if you whack a pregnant woman then its double homicide. Or say if someone's drunk driving and they accidentally hit a person--its involuntary manslaughter, but if its a woman who's knocked-up, then it automatically bcomes double 2nd degree murder.
And? That is not the legitimate reason to treat a woman as a fetus incubator, jsut because she is pregnant.
Noone has the right to interfear with anyone's body, because such would be considered anything from rape to assult to harrasment to murder. Yet as soon as a woman becomes preganant, somehow everyone else magically gets the right to interfear with what is she going to do with her body.
Second, I promise you drunken driver, unless he did a hit-and-run would not be charged with 2nd degree murder. 2nd degree murder is inentional, but NOT pre-meditated murder. Him being charged with 2nd degree murder over hitting a pregnant woman depends on many factors, and it certainly is not as simple as you put it.
The laws which apply to pregnant woman are a mirror of how the society views pregnant women in society.
Fetus for some reaosn seems to have more rights than any one who is actually living.
Fetus - not a person. Its a damn fetus...
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Exactly, you expect mentality to change over night? "Life is precious" is how most Americans are raised.
Originally posted by botankus
Sorry for a little off-topic, butThe debate that my one post entered into...men have been arguing and consistently losing since the prohibition era!!
Originally posted by StyleTime
Several, myself included, have been saying this for 298 pages. I am pretty sure the opposition is deliberately ignoring that fact now.U.S. society is partially to blame. We are raised to believe that our way is THE way and people of other beliefs are heathens. Still, I would think the people would have matured past this and realize that their opinions do not apply at all to others when noone's rights are being infringed upon.
Indeed, and I think you'll find that attitude in England as well - or rather many countries in the West too.
Its that sheer arrogance west holds of ''how it should be is how we do it''
We are a 'liberal' society - but I think the biggest irony is, how our laws treat certain things....
AC> I must salute your unwavering patience around here! Really...
docb77>"Looks like adoption is a workable alternative." Girls/women are not breeding-machines for those who can't have kids on their own!
AC>"How many anti-abortionists here are on the adoption list and would willingly adopt a kid tomorrow?"
And also... How many anti-abortionists send money to UNIFEC and other organisations helping the millions of kids around the world who live in absolute poverty? If you don't you're actually indirectly killing children! REAL BORN children!
Now, to me a foetus is a living "thing". Of course it is, although the debate in the "when is something alive" is kinda interesting in this regard, as peopel debate that a virus is not a living entity as it needs a host to survive.
This is MY point, for the gigazillionth time. A foetus is not a "human being" as it is not capable of indenpendent life. Take it out of the womb and it will die!
Also - I am not in favour of using abortion as contraception! And this of course requires proper sex-ed in all schools so no guy or girl is in doubt about how to protect themselves and how conception occurs.
I get the idea that the non-fundamentalist anti-abortionists have the view that people like me just go "Oh, yeah, just you go abort away, girl." I don't. And I doubt any pro-abortionists around here hold that view. My stand-point is just that to ENSURE womens liberties and rights in the world, she MUST have the right to abort if she does not wish to become a parent. Yes, the reasons may be selfish, but fundamentalists Christians who claim they'´re out to save itsy bitsy ga-ga babies are just as selfish, as they think it's a one way ticket to Heaven.
The hypocracy!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Psh, Nebraska isn't even a real place. Like South Dakota.-AC
LOL!--Tell me about it! I miss Hawai'i all the time!
btw: You've been here???
-DB
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Second, I promise you drunken driver, unless he did a hit-and-run would not be charged with 2nd degree murder. 2nd degree murder is inentional, but NOT pre-meditated murder. Him being charged with 2nd degree murder over hitting a pregnant woman depends on many factors, and it certainly is not as simple as you put it.Fetus - not a person. Its a damn fetus...
1) Depends on the state. (There's 50, if you didn't know)
2) You were there at one point.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
1) Depends on the state. (There's 50, if you didn't know)2) You were there at one point.
The laws on what is considered a 2nd degree murder is on a Federal Level, not a state level. And yes, I know how many States there are.
No, I didn't think so. Please refrain
Technically I was also partly in a sperm and in an egg - and? I was, adn still am a bunch of molecules, and?