JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in:Secular Sevens
originally posted in: Are forced miscarriages murder?
5/10/2013 9:33:28 PM
13
It'd be pretty hypocritical of the government to say that forced-abortions are murder while regular murders aren't. The "desires" of the mother shouldn't determine whether squashing a baby is legal or not.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Quantum: 5/10/2013 10:57:15 PM
    There is something called [b]consent. [/b]That's like saying "pretty hypocritical of the government to say that forced-sex is -blam!- while regular sex is not. The "desires" of the mother shouldn't determine whether having sex is legal or not."

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by HM Rob: 5/12/2013 12:53:40 AM
    You're really missing the point. In an abortion, 'consent' means that the mother, a third party, is making the decision to end another person's life. In sex, 'consent' means that the person, a first party, is making the decision to have sex. For something to be considered murder, the person has to be a living being. Evidently, fetuses aren't considered "living beings". That doesn't mean that fetuses aren't alive -- it simply means that feticide isn't considered murder from a legal standpoint. It would be extremely hypocritical of the judicial system to say that the fetus is magically a living being based upon the desires of the mother. Not only is that somewhat sexist (in that it implies that a mother has the right to designate a baby "living" or "not living", while the father doesn't), but it's also contradictory.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • How can the child in the stomach give consent?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I was referring to the mother.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I wasn't.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Boy people sure seem to have this massive problem with understanding the pro-choice argument aren't they?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Yes we are, because we're seeing many different and conflicting answers on these important questions, like "when does life begin", "when is an embryo/fetus a human being and is thus protected by law", and the latest trend in this debate so far, "what is the difference between aborting with consent or without consent?" It's frankly quite fun to make you pro-choicers try to find the hoops to jump through in order to justify your beliefs. I apologize for taking too much pleasure in that.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Random: 5/11/2013 12:59:09 AM
    This stems from the thing many people have a problem with saying. "I don't know." There doesn't exist a set point where foetus becomes a person, because it's all a sort of shady line the whole way through. All we know is that it's definitely not a person with rights at the start, and definitely is a person that we have decided to grant rights to at the end. Some (including myself) think that some semi-arbitrary time should be designated as 'point of viability', where the baby is likely to be able to survive outside of the womb, and say that is the point where a foetus becomes a 'person' with rights. Others disagree and say that it should be at birth because that's the only definite line we have. What pro-lifers don't seem to understand is that [u]it does not follow that the pro-life stance is correct just because pro-choice people cannot agree universally[/u]. Another thing is pro-lifers consistent misunderstanding of terminology. Everyone knows that upon conception the blastocyst (clump of cells) is genetically human and alive. What doesn't follow is that life = personhood and human = personhood, or even life+human = personhood. It just doesn't.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Everyone knows that upon conception the blastocyst (clump of cells) is genetically human and alive. What doesn't follow is that life = personhood and human = personhood, or even life+human = personhood. It just doesn't.[/quote] That is no better than racism or sexism. Arbitrarily denying an alive, genetically human personhood, regardless of race, sex, you know the spiel, including not yet being born, is wrong. No one's saying the baby deserves a vote in the womb or anything silly like that. We're not even demanding the mother keep the baby. If the mother doesn't want it, she can give it up for adoption. All we're saying is, it deserves to not die, [i]precisely[/i] because it [i]is[/i] genetically human, and it is alive, and it is no difference from us at its age [i]literally[/i] and it will be no different from us when it reaches our age. What is so hard to understand about that?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • It's not the same as racism or sexism because it's not an arbitrary distinction. Not granting a clump of cells rights is not the same as not grating a sentient, volitious person rights. [quote]If the mother doesn't want it, she can give it up for adoption.[/quote]You know what, I'm not going to baby you on this one. Go and do your own research and come back with a practical answer rather than this tired line. (Here's a hint though, compare current abortion rates with adoption rates and how crowded the system already is). There is a principal distinction between (many of) the born and aborted foetuses. We were wanted. The mother was willing to put her body through pregnancy in order to have us. You cannot force them to do that, that would be (lol) tyrannical. And fine, if you grant personhood to blastocysts and foetuses and the lot, what are you going to do in the case of a god abor- sorry, miscarriage? Is the mother to be charged with manslaughter, or gross negligence every time a pregnancy unexpectedly ends? After all, it is her fault a [u]person[/u] died.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • >Pro-choicers >Beliefs

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • more like the definition of murder.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • wat.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon