Ethics: Is Abortion Taking A Life?

[alang1216]

what good is a child's right to their life and to the protections of our laws. . . if that right does not begin when their life does?

That is not the question, the question is WHEN does that life begin. You may believe there is an simple and obvious answer but many, including me, would disagree.

Disagree all you want. We are going to keep building on the principles established by our fetal Homicide laws and aren't going to stop and wait for you or for others to agree with those principles.

Keep on building all you want but your foundation is not solid. I doubt you'll be able to convince a majority that a few strands of DNA are entitled to the same rights as an adult female.

 

[Chuz Life]

Did the Supreme Court also say that for all eternity, their ruling on abortion is infallible and off limits to ever be questioned or challenged in any way again?

No?

I didn't think so.

How are you going to stop abortions? Got anything?

As I am a realist, I understand that there is no way to "stop" all abortions. After all, we have laws against all sorts of things like rape, molestation and abuse but those laws get broken every day.

Do we do away with other laws that deal with the violation of children's rights because THEY don't "stop" those crimes, either?

Of course we don't.

So, the want for laws against the violation of prenatal children's rights are no different from that.

Laws like these are based upon the child's right to not be murdered, abused or molested. They are not predicated on the thought that we can bring an end / stop to the violations with a law.

So you'd put women who've had an abortion in jail for murder?

Yes.

I expect consistency in our laws. If a total stranger can be sent to jail - charged with murder - for even accidentally killing her child while robbing a bank or driving while intoxicated.
. Why should the woman be held any LESS accountable when she INTENTIONALLY kills her child herself. . . Or pays Planned Parenthood to KILL it?

Brah, you're in serious need of a dictionary. Then look up the word "child". You're welcome.

No worries.

I think I will stay with the definition established by our fetal Homicide laws. The same definition that has already been used to prosecute the murders of prenatal children in the past.

If you think you have a definition that trumps that one, why aren't you using it to get any of those convictions overturned?

 

[Chuz Life]

what good is a child's right to their life and to the protections of our laws. . . if that right does not begin when their life does?

That is not the question, the question is WHEN does that life begin. You may believe there is an simple and obvious answer but many, including me, would disagree.

Disagree all you want. We are going to keep building on the principles established by our fetal Homicide laws and aren't going to stop and wait for you or for others to agree with those principles.

Keep on building all you want but your foundation is not solid. I doubt you'll be able to convince a majority that a few strands of DNA are entitled to the same rights as an adult female.

I am already on record saying how I think things will progress on this issue and it will have nothing to do with me personally or with any other's ability to prove personhood.

In my view it will come down to consistency between our fetal homicide laws which define a child in the womb as a human being / MURDER victim and our abortion laws which says they are not.

 

[BreezeWood]

In my view it will come down to consistency between our fetal homicide laws which define a child in the womb as a human being / MURDER victim and our abortion laws which says they are not.

if you separate yourself from a child, does the child die ?

... and it will have nothing to do with me personally or with any other's ability to prove personhood.

why be deceitful, there is no other position than a personalized one when taken by you and others that attempt tailor made legislation to promote results based on self endearing and unwarranted merit. your self denial is the furthest from the truth as possible.

.

 

[Coyote]

It is a life I suppose...given that strict definition. But so is a dog. So is a worm. The real question is what value does it have and why should it rate a higher value than other life?

Isn't the question also about consistency?

Is it wrong to ask why it is a crime of murder for a drunk driver to ACCIDENTALLY kill a child in the womb. . . But not murder for the mom to pay someone to kill it?

No.

It's about the value of a life.

Why is the life of an embryo more valuable than the life of an elephant?

 

[Coyote]

If abortion is murder every miscarriage will become a potential murder investigation. How progressive.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is a life I suppose...given that strict definition. But so is a dog. So is a worm. The real question is what value does it have and why should it rate a higher value than other life?

Isn't the question also about consistency?

Is it wrong to ask why it is a crime of murder for a drunk driver to ACCIDENTALLY kill a child in the womb. . . But not murder for the mom to pay someone to kill it?

No.

It's about the value of a life.

Why is the life of an embryo more valuable than the life of an elephant?

We have many laws which place more "value" on other animals more than they do on prenatal children.

So, let's flip your question and ask WHY are things like spotted owls, sea turtles and Eagle's eggs more valued than the lives of prenatal children are?

Before you answer that. . . try to understand what a red herring it is to the debate.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

So, that's why the whole "it's a matter of value" is a non starter in an actual legal / Constitutional debate or discussion.

 

[Chuz Life]

If abortion is murder every miscarriage will become a potential murder investigation. How progressive.

If you are not trying to suggest that the difficulty in enforcing laws to prevent the violation of children in the womb is a valid reason for not having those laws. . . what's your point?

 

[Coyote]

If abortion is murder every miscarriage will become a potential murder investigation. How progressive.

If you are not trying to suggest that the difficulty in enforcing laws to prevent the violation of children in the womb is a valid reason for not having those laws. . . what's your point?

I think that fetal homocide laws are very tricky and they are based on the child in the womb being wanted (ie having a value). Once you start to make it broader you are violating the mother's rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

In my view it will come down to consistency between our fetal homicide laws which define a child in the womb as a human being / MURDER victim and our abortion laws which says they are not.

if you separate yourself from a child, does the child die ?

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter either way in our Fetal Homicide Laws or anywhere else. So, it's a Red Herring.

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

... and it will have nothing to do with me personally or with any other's ability to prove personhood.

why be deceitful, there is no other position than a personalized one when taken by you and others that attempt tailor made legislation to promote results based on self endearing and unwarranted merit. your self denial is the furthest from the truth as possible..

I'm flattered that you think I will personally affect the outcome on any future legislation dealing with this issue. I doubt very much that I will, though. So, there is no deceit.

My views are take it or leave it. If you don't like my arguments or observations and you don't want to acknowledge any of the lacking in your own arguments or any of the hypocrisies that I have tried to point out?

There is nothing I can do about that.

 

[Coyote]

It is a life I suppose...given that strict definition. But so is a dog. So is a worm. The real question is what value does it have and why should it rate a higher value than other life?

Isn't the question also about consistency?

Is it wrong to ask why it is a crime of murder for a drunk driver to ACCIDENTALLY kill a child in the womb. . . But not murder for the mom to pay someone to kill it?

No.

It's about the value of a life.

Why is the life of an embryo more valuable than the life of an elephant?

We have many laws which place more "value" on other animals more than they do on prenatal children.

So, let's flip your question and ask WHY are things like spotted owls, sea turtles and Eagle's eggs more valued than the lives of prenatal children are?

Before you answer that. . . try to understand what a red herring it is to the debate.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

So, that's why the whole "it's a matter of value" is a non starter in an actual legal / Constitutional debate or discussion.

What's a person then? When our founders wrote that - it did not include blacks, women, native americans, or even children.

 

[Chuz Life]

If abortion is murder every miscarriage will become a potential murder investigation. How progressive.

If you are not trying to suggest that the difficulty in enforcing laws to prevent the violation of children in the womb is a valid reason for not having those laws. . . what's your point?

I think that fetal homocide laws are very tricky and they are based on the child in the womb being wanted (ie having a value). Once you start to make it broader you are violating the mother's rights.

How then do you explain the cases where the women (would be mothers) themselves have been charged with illegal abortions under these same laws?

 

[Chuz Life]

It is a life I suppose...given that strict definition. But so is a dog. So is a worm. The real question is what value does it have and why should it rate a higher value than other life?

Isn't the question also about consistency?

Is it wrong to ask why it is a crime of murder for a drunk driver to ACCIDENTALLY kill a child in the womb. . . But not murder for the mom to pay someone to kill it?

No.

It's about the value of a life.

Why is the life of an embryo more valuable than the life of an elephant?

We have many laws which place more "value" on other animals more than they do on prenatal children.

So, let's flip your question and ask WHY are things like spotted owls, sea turtles and Eagle's eggs more valued than the lives of prenatal children are?

Before you answer that. . . try to understand what a red herring it is to the debate.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

So, that's why the whole "it's a matter of value" is a non starter in an actual legal / Constitutional debate or discussion.

What's a person then? When our founders wrote that - it did not include blacks, women, native americans, or even children.

I agree that the meaning has been broadened since the original concept and I think rightly so.

Our Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws. Right? So that is a really inclusive statement.

Isn't it?

So, naturally as cases have been made that certain human beings should not be excluded, the laws have changed accordingly.

Including our laws which now make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.

 

[Coyote]

If abortion is murder every miscarriage will become a potential murder investigation. How progressive.

If you are not trying to suggest that the difficulty in enforcing laws to prevent the violation of children in the womb is a valid reason for not having those laws. . . what's your point?

I think that fetal homocide laws are very tricky and they are based on the child in the womb being wanted (ie having a value). Once you start to make it broader you are violating the mother's rights.

How then do you explain the cases where the women (would be mothers) themselves have been charged with illegal abortions under these same laws?

What specific cases?

 

[Coyote]

It is a life I suppose...given that strict definition. But so is a dog. So is a worm. The real question is what value does it have and why should it rate a higher value than other life?

Isn't the question also about consistency?

Is it wrong to ask why it is a crime of murder for a drunk driver to ACCIDENTALLY kill a child in the womb. . . But not murder for the mom to pay someone to kill it?

No.

It's about the value of a life.

Why is the life of an embryo more valuable than the life of an elephant?

We have many laws which place more "value" on other animals more than they do on prenatal children.

So, let's flip your question and ask WHY are things like spotted owls, sea turtles and Eagle's eggs more valued than the lives of prenatal children are?

Before you answer that. . . try to understand what a red herring it is to the debate.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

So, that's why the whole "it's a matter of value" is a non starter in an actual legal / Constitutional debate or discussion.

What's a person then? When our founders wrote that - it did not include blacks, women, native americans, or even children.

I agree that the meaning has been broadened since the original concept and I think rightly so.

Our Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws. Right? So that is a really inclusive statement.

Isn't it?

So, naturally as cases have been made that certain human beings should not be excluded, the laws have changed accordingly.

Including our laws which now make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.

So there again...you are opening up every miscarriage to be looked at as a potential murder.

A woman loses her right to her privacy, her body and her reproductive choices. The best and most effective methods of birth control have abortificant properties by preventing the implantation of a blastocyste, so they would be out. A woman would be forced to house, against her will, and unwanted tenant.

It's not murder. It's eviction.

 

[Chuz Life]

If abortion is murder every miscarriage will become a potential murder investigation. How progressive.

If you are not trying to suggest that the difficulty in enforcing laws to prevent the violation of children in the womb is a valid reason for not having those laws. . . what's your point?

I think that fetal homocide laws are very tricky and they are based on the child in the womb being wanted (ie having a value). Once you start to make it broader you are violating the mother's rights.

How then do you explain the cases where the women (would be mothers) themselves have been charged with illegal abortions under these same laws?

What specific cases?

Though critical of the practice of prosecuting women for illegal abortions on themselves. . . Here is an article that at least acknowledges some specific cases for example.

 

[Chuz Life]

Isn't the question also about consistency?

Is it wrong to ask why it is a crime of murder for a drunk driver to ACCIDENTALLY kill a child in the womb. . . But not murder for the mom to pay someone to kill it?

No.

It's about the value of a life.

Why is the life of an embryo more valuable than the life of an elephant?

We have many laws which place more "value" on other animals more than they do on prenatal children.

So, let's flip your question and ask WHY are things like spotted owls, sea turtles and Eagle's eggs more valued than the lives of prenatal children are?

Before you answer that. . . try to understand what a red herring it is to the debate.

Our Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.

So, that's why the whole "it's a matter of value" is a non starter in an actual legal / Constitutional debate or discussion.

What's a person then? When our founders wrote that - it did not include blacks, women, native americans, or even children.

I agree that the meaning has been broadened since the original concept and I think rightly so.

Our Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws. Right? So that is a really inclusive statement.

Isn't it?

So, naturally as cases have been made that certain human beings should not be excluded, the laws have changed accordingly.

Including our laws which now make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.

So there again...you are opening up every miscarriage to be looked at as a potential murder.

A woman loses her right to her privacy, her body and her reproductive choices. The best and most effective methods of birth control have abortificant properties by preventing the implantation of a blastocyste, so they would be out. A woman would be forced to house, against her will, and unwanted tenant.

It's not murder. It's eviction.

No one has the right to murder or to molest a child and then to hide the act behind their so called right to privacy (sic.)

You can twist and perceive that fact however you want to - but it's not likely to change.

 

[alang1216]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

 

[Chuz Life]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

I don't see how it would be helpful to speculate about that.

 

[ChrisL]

Conjoined Twins may or may not die if separated from one another. They are still recognized as two persons with equal rights, under our laws.

Interesting point... If one twin wants to be separated but the other does not, whose rights take precedence. Can one hold the other "hostage"?

Of course this point will go unacknowledged.