Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
If they were, it'd be murder. It's either an abortion or murder.
But......freedom.
Maybe We Should Always Show Pictures .....
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
If they were, it'd be murder. It's either an abortion or murder.
But......freedom.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Thus, the crux of our problem. You think it's murder if and only if the cord is cut - everything prior is not (I realize I'm placing words in your mouth - my point is to say that the only way to be consistent is to say that a born baby with the cord not yet cut would not be murder, but once it's cut it would be murder). I believe that once the child is scientifically identifiable as a separate human life (less than two weeks after conception), then it is an identifiably separate human life, and therefore killing it in cold blood is murder.
I make the presumption you'd be fine with a 35 week baby being the mother's choice to kill because it is not yet born. Am I correct in this assessment? If not, can you explain the exact day that it should be ok to stop leaving the choice to the mother and start calling it murder?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
No. I fully realize that at some point in the womb, the child is...a child. Not a mass of cells. At that point, and after, an abortion shouldn't happen.
I think real science should dictate what and when an abortion can happen, but I also realize that's a contested topic regarding when that point is.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, science tells me that the baby is identifiable as a separate human at about the 12th day. Can we agree that every abortion after the 12th day is murder?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
12th day? At 12 days it's a microscopic ball of cells in the uterus lining.
The heart doesn't start to beat until week 5, when they are the size of a sesame seed.
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week
No, I wouldn't say that after 12 days. And before we go down this road, I don't exactly know when I would consider it.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Other than it being her body, you mean?
Imagine, for just a moment, if you will, if you can, that men are the ones that get pregnant. Can you honestly see an 18 year old male, or 30, or 40, who is knocked up and really doesn't want the child, being told, forced, by the state to carry, successfully, healthfully, to term? Then what? Be a good parent to the kid they didn't want? Are you freaking kidding me?
Men, who will go to war, revolution, over being required to pay more taxes than they feel like putting up with? Men who go to war and always have to get more stuff, women, gold, territory. Men whose idea of a good time is to have as many hobbies as possible that can and do injure them, seriously, and, some times, kills them?
So, go ahead and argue men and women are different. Fine. So, then, does it follow that rights, the law, should be applied unequally? That say, women shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or their vote only counts 3/5's? Shouldn't be allowed to drive? No skimpy dress? Then what? Some races shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms? The same rights? Any way you look at it, you're seeking control over women, at least women, are grounds you see as rational, moral and proper. How far back in time do you wish to go?
So, the question, as a simple matter of law, were men to be the ones who got pregnant, can you, in your wildest dreams, see us accepting that level of control over our bodies? You have a tough case to make there and if, somehow, you can make that case, that then, yes, the law would apply equally, that we are all subject to limitations such as these, then, you're work has only just begun as you are still at the beginning of the original task of defining limits on individual freedom.
If you see drunk or impaired driving as murder, each and every time, we obviously start at enormous differences across the board, issue by issue. And I presume I have not made clear that most of the harm to innocent people, in my view, as regards the drug 'war' are harms we, the people, inflict in our quest to control one another. You say go after users, well, that is the ultimate in tilting at windmills as even the most strident of prohibitionists knew that was a simple impossibility in this nation. There'd have never been ANY prohibition. And it does not follow that the exact same risk/reward motivations disappear if you go after users. The same corruption and disrespect for our law and violence WILL, not may, WILL follow as you ramp up your fines.
The point is you deal with behavior that harms the rights of others. You or I smoking dope at home, not driving, harms no one. Same for any drug. And if OTHER harms do occur, child neglect or abuse, public intoxication, DUI, THOSE are infractions. You say what about abortion, the harm to the unborn, why this day OK and the next day, birth, not ok? I say freedom is messy. That child is an autonomous being after birth and not before.
Then, what if I crash, drunk, stoned, into a car and harm a pregnant woman's unborn? I then am, at the very least, guilty of killing that kid. Is it murder? I don't think so but it is totally different from her choosing, CHOOSING to abort; I violate her, and the babies rights. She, in aborting, however horrific I think it is, is exercising her rights to her own body.
It's fine to argue for limits but I think I've done a pretty good job of exposing that as going backwards. Make America great again? Maybe that is part of Trump's idea of a great America? Reduced rights for some?
This_person
Well-Known Member
I've seen heartbeat as early as 18 days, but the one I believe is as early as 21 days (3 weeks) (https://www.ehd.org/fact_text.php).
I'm convinced there is separate DNA prior to 12 days, but 12 days is about the outside of when the baby could split into twins. That's what drives my beliefs that 12 days is the right time.
I respect an answer of "I don't know". That's probably more honest than 99.9% of people that favor the mother having the legal right to choose to kill their child. But, I don't know isn't something one can write a law on. I'm very comfortable from a secular-law point of view of saying that elective abortion for a pregnancy not produced from non-consensual adult or statutory incest is murder, period, but I am equally comfortable saying that there can be a compromise of up to 12 days after conception for those who just have a driving need to kill someone and can't be placated by killing themselves instead.
I'm much more conflicted by rape and non-consensual adult and/or statutory incest. At least one party to those situations was not a willing participant, so it's very difficult to suggest that there is a personal-responsibility issue. When both parties are willing (and/or capable of granting consent), the "choice" is whether or not to take the risk. If at least one party is unwilling (or incapable of granting consent), that position is gone. Yet it is not the child's fault, either. So, for those miniscule percentage of abortions, I'm going to copy your line of "I don't know". I'm torn.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's non sense. You just made the innocent, unborn child's life conditional. If there is no case to be made for abortion, be it a contraception failure, which does happen, or some ho running wild weekend after weekend until the inevitable happens or a woman who thought she wasn't able to have kids suddenly finding she can, and that, too, does happen, then there is none, NO case to be made to abort a child conceived of rape OR incest. If your argument is that the unborn are innocent and must be protected, that can not be changed, is not changed by how their conception came about.
Now, let's look at that the other way; you DO see it as conditional based on how conception occurred. That, really, is what I think you're position is. Fooling around? Too bad. Have it. What about failed contraception? Too bad, have it? What about a woman who'd never be able to or had been told she could not conceive? Too bad, have it? Then, as long as you're rummaging around in Pandora's box, (be careful not to knock her up while you're in there, pal
) what of defects? You gonna make up a chart for that? George Will LONG made a compelling case for his son's life being as precious as any other. Down's Syndrome IIRC. How about rape? What if YOU say "OK, kill it" and SHE wants to have it? What if YOU say "Didn't think you could get pregnant? OK, kill it" and SHE wants to have it? It's the other side of the same coin; CHOICE. Hers.
Thus ugly, awful thing, the most barbaric thing we, as humans, do, in my view, never the less, in our system, individual freedom, liberty, must be a decision made by her. We can talk about age of consent but we are talking, generally, about adult women.
This_person
Well-Known Member
No, it's not. She's not killing herself, she's killing someone else.
If she were popping a zit, that's her body. If she wants to cut off her left leg - that's her body!
The child is not her body, it is a separate human life.
And, if our nose was above our eyes instead of below, what would eyeglasses look like?
This has nothing to do with control over women. You know that. It's about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the child willingly created.
It is fair to say that it is common knowledge among drivers that drivers are impaired by alcohol, yes? And, if we know that drivers are impaired, we can reasonably say that driving drunk is common knowledge to be a dangerous thing to do, yes? And, since one is sober when one takes their first drink, it's reasonable to assume that drinking before driving was a conscious, sober choice, yes? Therefore, one chooses when sober to drink and drive, putting other people at risk. Imagine if someone started randomly shooting a firearm in a shopping center. They may get off several dozen rounds without hitting anyone, or they may kill someone first shot, or anywhere in between. This is a situation that is reasonable to anyone to be dangerous to the point of fatality - like drinking and driving. Would we give the shooter a small fine and a short-term suspension of their firearms license for choosing to shoot aimlessly in a shopping center if they were drunk?
Defend.
That's an interesting distinction - autonomous. I would say that the baby is completely incapable of sustaining itself inside and outside the womb. The baby requires support external to itself in either case.
Actually, per the law, that is dual murder (or, at the very least, killing two beings). See Scott Peterson.
You say that her choosing to kill is somehow different from Scott Peterson choosing to kill his unborn child. Since it demonstrably two separate beings, and the baby is the product of the father as much as the mother, why is the father not able to kill the child with the same impunity?
I read "Make America Great Again" as "Hope for a Change that is what YOU think is the right change". I've heard that before, and I was not a fan of the change. I've read Trump's positions, and I'm a fan of a few, not a fan of most major ones that he could actually influence. I'm not sure what the Trump reference is, but I don't think you did a good job of exposing it as going backwards.
The general disagreement it seems you and I have on abortion is different from Chris and I. You seem to feel that the baby is physically a part of the mother, and science and I disagree with you on that.
The general disagreement it seems you and I have on drugs is what harm is, to a reasonable person (legal standard) likely to happen to others for drug use. I submit that 30 people being killed a day for alcohol is unacceptable - low though it may be by past standards. I submit that I do not want to see that increase for more drugs, or increase in coworker deaths/injuries, etc. I hear you that this is controlling others' behavior, and I do not have a good argument against that because EVERY law is about controlling others' behaviors. I would submit that if you or I are toking up at home and not driving or going to work or something, that's a law we could break 7 days a week without fear of being prosecuted. I would not support random drug testing of all citizens, for example, even in my draconian world where drugs are not sold at KMart. I agree with you that TWOD actually causes more harm than it rids in society because it is fought like Prohibition. Change the tactics, change the results.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I actually said I don't know, and I'm torn.That's non sense. You just made the innocent, unborn child's life conditional. If there is no case to be made for abortion, be it a contraception failure, which does happen, or some ho running wild weekend after weekend until the inevitable happens or a woman who thought she wasn't able to have kids suddenly finding she can, and that, too, does happen, then there is none, NO case to be made to abort a child conceived of rape OR incest. If your argument is that the unborn are innocent and must be protected, that can not be changed, is not changed by how their conception came about.
Now, let's look at that the other way; you DO see it as conditional based on how conception occurred. That, really, is what I think you're position is. Fooling around? Too bad. Have it. What about failed contraception? Too bad, have it? What about a woman who'd never be able to or had been told she could not conceive? Too bad, have it? Then, as long as you're rummaging around in Pandora's box, (be careful not to knock her up while you're in there, pal
How about rape? What if YOU say "OK, kill it" and SHE wants to have it? What if YOU say "Didn't think you could get pregnant? OK, kill it" and SHE wants to have it? It's the other side of the same coin; CHOICE. Hers.
Thus ugly, awful thing, the most barbaric thing we, as humans, do, in my view, never the less, in our system, individual freedom, liberty, must be a decision made by her. We can talk about age of consent but we are talking, generally, about adult women.
From a moral standpoint, I believe that child's life is still valuable and valid and should be born. However, laws are based on secular views, and I think it is reasonable to say that forcing a raped woman to bear a child is just that - force. She's now forced to do something for which she took no willing action to risk. That is not fair to her.
Broken condom? So what - condoms and the pill and other methods are well-documented and any reasonable person knows those are not 100%. Tubes tied? Vasectomy? Not 100%. Take the risk, assume the responsibility for the results of the risk. You're far less likely to win the lottery than get pregnant from a given sexual interaction. Does that mean the state is not responsible for paying you since the chance you would win was so low? It's a stupid argument on both sides, so let's just stay away from stupid arguments.
The lives of which I was speaking are the 95% of abortions that are willing sexual partners who just don't want to take responsibility for the risks they took. Now, if the consequence of not taking responsibility for action is someone eats and dashes at a restaurant, that sucks for the restaurant owner but not likely to put them out of business, let alone take their life. The consequence for the subject action is someone dies. Intentionally killed by someone fully aware of the results to a separate human of their actions. That's a pretty serious consequence.
I don't know what the law should be for rape/incest, because it is the only place where the argument of forcing the woman to carry a child actually holds water. For those 1 or so percent of the abortions, I am torn on the answer.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Nope. Not so. You're making the case that the childs life IS conditional. You actually want to wade into those 95% of abortions and what is behind them, the motives, the intentions? You force yourself to do so by casting your net so wide. IUD failures brings into play corporate responsibility or medical professionals. Did they eff up? People go after gun manufactures when their products WORK. You take away abortion and get ready for the law suits against Trojan and pill makers for failures. Rhythm method, what some ate in conjunction with how it may have interfered with a chosen method, environmental factors, hell, man made global cool warming changey thing. You name it. As is, a woman doesn't want it, she makes that choice, however tough it is for her and on her, and it's done.
And am I waiting for a response on your view if YOU got pregnant, if men did, or is that not forthcoming?
This_person
Well-Known Member
That's quite a list, but we know that all of the things you mention that apply tell people up front that the method is not 100%. So, you could sue, but for what? Maybe if a batch Trojans were known to be defective, Trojan could be shown to be 30% instead of 90+% effective, then a lawsuit might be valuable. Otherwise, any reasonable person knows that - regardless of method except abstention - there is no 100% effective birth control method. Therefore, every sexual encounter is a risk of pregnancy. Every willing pregnancy implies an assumed responsibility on the part of the parents. This is the very basis of child support and parental supremacy over their children. This is why we can charge parents but not neighbors or passers-by with child neglect. I would say it is very neglectful to suck a child into a blender and hit puree.
Rape is a different thing. There is no willing action on at least one parent's part. That means to force a woman to carry that child to term is actually forcing a woman to carry a child to term. When she and the father chose the risk, no one is forcing her to do anything - she took the risk willingly. So, if the law forces that, there is a problem. If the law allows her to kill the child, there is a problem. See how this is something for which I admit no answer. Can you see that there is a difference between raping a woman and a couple willingly engaging in an activity for which there is a calculable risk of pregnancy?
And am I waiting for a response on your view if YOU got pregnant, if men did, or is that not forthcoming?
And I'm waiting for an answer on what glasses would look like
If I were the one who got pregnant, I would not expect the right to kill people for being inconvenient to me. When I drive down the highway, I don't get to kill someone who is going to get the good parking spot because the next parking spot is inconvenient. Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his unborn child because it was inconvenient to him, but if his wife did the same thing it would just be "choice". The same child is the same level of inconvenience two months after it's born, yet killing it then is murder. There's no scientific reason that is true.
So, if I got pregnant through willing action, I would expect it to be simply assumed by one and all that I take responsibility for the life I willingly created.