A question for pro choice advocates..

[Kat]

And in all of that lies the abortion issue. Why do you think its such a flammable subject?

I am pro choice. I have no issue with a woman having 100% control over her body.

Therefore to the OP's sad attempt at a metaphor...abortion is not murder.

I am for a woman having 100% control over her body as well. We aren't talking about a woman's body. We are talking about an unborn child. 2 bodies.

Fine... then separate the bodies and each can go on its own merry way. Each with its own life.

If that is not possible at 4,8,12 weeks... then it is one body.

Is it? If that were true, you couldn't separate them. Can't separate something that isn't there.

 

[Avatar9]

And in all of that lies the abortion issue. Why do you think its such a flammable subject?

I am pro choice. I have no issue with a woman having 100% control over her body.

Therefore to the OP's sad attempt at a metaphor...abortion is not murder.

I am for a woman having 100% control over her body as well. We aren't talking about a woman's body. We are talking about an unborn child. 2 bodies.

Fine... then separate the bodies and each can go on its own merry way. Each with its own life.

If that is not possible at 4,8,12 weeks... then it is one body.

That's not how biology works. You aren't part of your mother's body just because you're in the middle of the gestational period. You are another organism.

If it were her body, then it couldn't be a parasite- a parasite, by definition, is another organism in a parasitic relationship with the host organism.

You can't have it both ways. By calling the child a parasite, you admit it's not her body- you declare the child to be a separate entity. If you declare the child to be part of her body, then the child can't be a parasite- one organism cannot be in a parasitic relationship with itself.

Why can't you stick to a single line of argument, if you actually have any intelligent argument to make? Do you have anything other than knee-jerk parroting of a learned script to contribute to the discussion? Are you capable of thinking for yourself and putting forth an actual argument and line of reasoning you're sat down and thought out to reach a logical conclusion?

Or are we wasting our time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you?

 

[syrenn]

I am for a woman having 100% control over her body as well. We aren't talking about a woman's body. We are talking about an unborn child. 2 bodies.

Fine... then separate the bodies and each can go on its own merry way. Each with its own life.

If that is not possible at 4,8,12 weeks... then it is one body.

Is it? If that were true, you couldn't separate them. Can't separate something that isn't there.

You can separate unwanted cells from a womb. If that is a "body.".. feel free to let it have its life.


One body of the woman who has 100% control over her body.

 

[Kat]

Fine... then separate the bodies and each can go on its own merry way. Each with its own life.

If that is not possible at 4,8,12 weeks... then it is one body.

Is it? If that were true, you couldn't separate them. Can't separate something that isn't there.

You can unwanted separate cells from a womb. If that is a "body.".. feel free to let it have its life.


One body of the woman who has 100% control over her body.

 

[syrenn]

Is it? If that were true, you couldn't separate them. Can't separate something that isn't there.

You can unwanted separate cells from a womb. If that is a "body.".. feel free to let it have its life.


One body of the woman who has 100% control over her body.

i laughed too as i saw it post ...

 

[yidnar]

Then c section it out..give it birth...sit it on the table and see if it lives to answer the question. I somehow don't think 12 week old cells will make it.

And you won't survive if we throw you out into space or hold you under water. Surprisingly, very few things survive for long outside their natural environment, deprived of the necessities for their continued sustenance and biological functions. How you figure that makes it okay to kill you... well, frankly, it's just a really really stupid argument.

No, its not. If it cannot survive on its own, without the help of a host... it does not have a life of its own. If the host does not want to preform its part of the relationship... tough luck for the cells that require the corporation of the host.

thats like saying diabetics that cannot survive on their own without insulin should be allowed to die!!

 

[yidnar]

If it is born and living...it is a life of its own once outside the host.

One toe in the mother? One leg? Crowning? Ten seconds before that? At what moment, exactly, does what actually change, other than the current law as it reads today (which isn't an argument, or you'd have to say spousal rape was okay until it was made legal in the 1970s)?

Why, exactly, is it okay to kill you one second and not the next? Location?

A one month old baby is not 4 week old cells

That's not entirely accurate. Many of the child's cells are actually likely to be around four weeks of age. Some of the red blood cells, for instance, will likely be around that age. Heck, the cells lining your gut don't last a week.

Now what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

It changes when it can live on its own outside of a womb. That is the point it has a life of its own.

The subject at hand is if abortion doctors are murders. My answer is no.

if they terminate human life for no other reason than someone wishes them to .....yes they are murderers !!!

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Fine... then separate the bodies and each can go on its own merry way. Each with its own life.

If that is not possible at 4,8,12 weeks... then it is one body.

Is it? If that were true, you couldn't separate them. Can't separate something that isn't there.

You can separate unwanted cells from a womb. If that is a "body.".. feel free to let it have its life.


One body of the woman who has 100% control over her body.

Siamese twins share the same body but are recognized as seperate individuals with distinct heads each entitled to a vote at the polling booth. They share the same body, but they have their own mind and brain wave patterns.

Likewise, A fetus has its own brain with its own throughts that are seperate from the mother, and therefore must be considered an independent organism even though temporarily conjoined to another body. It has a heart beat, can feel pain, and even from inside the womb can distinguish its mother's voice from someone else's.

If one of the twins stabbed the other to death would they escape prosecution? Of course not, they would be guilty of murder. The same should apply to violence inflicted on a soon to be born person.

 

[George Costanza]

A fetus becomes the subject of murder at seven weeks. Prior to that time, it is considered in the embryonic stage, and not a human being for purposes of the homicide statutes. At least, that is the law in California. A number of other states make the fetus the subject of murder from the moment of conception on.

If you want to read up on it, try this

'When we become human'?

Uh... what species are we before that?

We're human from our conception. How is there even a debate about this? The science couldn't be any more cut-and-dry. I mean, humans beget humans- how is that even being questioned with any seriousness?

I don't recall saying "when we become human," but I see your point.

Yes, we are "human" from the point of conception in once sense, I suppose. But for legal purposes, a distinction has been drawn based on how far along in the birth process a fetus is when certain things happen to it.

 

[Avatar9]

Congrats, you edited your post. You could have at least admitted that my post was clearly in response to your original post. I find your chosen course of action rather dishonest.

As for what the law is, that's not relevant. The discussion is what the law ought to be and why.

Are you familiar with the Mormon Execution Order?

 

[LAfrique]

Yidnar, the case you state has nothing to do with pro-choice.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Is it? If that were true, you couldn't separate them. Can't separate something that isn't there.

You can separate unwanted cells from a womb. If that is a "body.".. feel free to let it have its life.


One body of the woman who has 100% control over her body.

Siamese twins share the same body but are recognized as seperate individuals with distinct heads each entitled to a vote at the polling booth. They share the same body, but they have their own mind and brain wave patterns.

Likewise, A fetus has its own brain with its own throughts that are seperate from the mother, and therefore must be considered an independent organism even though temporarily conjoined to another body. It has a heart beat, can feel pain, and even from inside the womb can distinguish its mother's voice from someone else's.

If one of the twins stabbed the other to death would they escape prosecution? Of course not, they would be guilty of murder. The same should apply to violence inflicted on a soon to be born person.

Until it develops a nervous system, it's just a mass of cells. You even stated as much when you said that the twins had different brains which is what made them different.

 

[chikenwing]

the question for pro choice advocates is this.....if a pregnant woman is attacked, and the attacker purposely injures the unborn child so that even though the woman lives she still has a miscarriage....is the attacker guilty of manslaughter or murder??

if the woman considers her baby to be a child, it is murder.
if she considers the baby to be a fetus, it is a forced abortion.

either way it is an assault, it is against her will,
and it depends on what she believes if it is murder or not.

if everyone agreed on the law, then yes, even if there is a religious issue
involved, laws can be made that reflect public consensus

the laws on murder and the death penalty depend on the public
agreeing for the state to have authority to judge and to punish

so there should be consensus on issues of abortion and unborn
babies in the womb, in order for laws to be constitutional
and not impose any unfair religious bias

in this case, if there is not agreement religiously on the status of the baby,
I would go with what the woman believes.

if there are other people who feel the loss of this baby as a child,
such as a husband/partner or other family, I believe they have the
right to argue it is a murder in their case. they may not be able
to argue for other people, but certainly they have the right to
state what their losses and damages are in their own case.

by equal religious freedom, I would respect the people in any such case
to have their beliefs taken into account; just not imposing one person's
beliefs on any other case, but respecting the individual religious beliefs.

if there can be consensus on all cases, yes I would support laws based
on consent, but not imposing values or laws on each other without consent.

this issue of children in the womb is a religious matter until and unless
teh conflicts in law are resolved, either by proof or agreement on belief,
or whatever is required to form a consensus. in the meantime I do not think
it is fair or constitutional to impose laws that carry a bias one way or another
to exclude or discriminate against other views, so I urge consensus instead.

I used to rationalize/ intellectualize this subject all the time,then it just kinda over time and never ending arguments I found myself just going with what felt right,so I now know that when I have to account for my actions here in this life and there will be some this topic will not be part of my explaining.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

You can separate unwanted cells from a womb. If that is a "body.".. feel free to let it have its life.


One body of the woman who has 100% control over her body.

Siamese twins share the same body but are recognized as seperate individuals with distinct heads each entitled to a vote at the polling booth. They share the same body, but they have their own mind and brain wave patterns.

Likewise, A fetus has its own brain with its own throughts that are seperate from the mother, and therefore must be considered an independent organism even though temporarily conjoined to another body. It has a heart beat, can feel pain, and even from inside the womb can distinguish its mother's voice from someone else's.

If one of the twins stabbed the other to death would they escape prosecution? Of course not, they would be guilty of murder. The same should apply to violence inflicted on a soon to be born person.

Until it develops a nervous system, it's just a mass of cells. You even stated as much when you said that the twins had different brains which is what made them different.

I'll go along with that. A fetus becomes a person when it has a brain and detectable brain wave activity, about 6 weeks after conception. Prior to that it isn't murder, after it is.

 

[lilbug]

I beleive this is a matter of law, not really the call for pro-life or pro-choice folks to make.