CDZ Will any USMB abortion proponents admit that an abortion kills a child?

[Chuz Life]

Understood.

And, for what it's worth, I completely agree that sentience (sapience too) gradually develops in a child over time.

My question for you is.... why doesn't it drive you nuts to see other abortion proponents DENY that it's a child. Some even deny that it is a human being. They call it a parasite, etc.

Do you ever try to correct them? Or is it that because they also support abortion, like you do..... their ignorance about the biological facts is just more tolerable?

I'm sure I hold some bias with abortion proponents, but I never really debate the abortion issue, so I've had no reason to rebut them. I acknowledge the merits of both arguments, and dismiss the extremists on both sides.

I have to say, the thing that drives me most nuts about abortion proponents is their denial of, ignorance of and repulsion to the biological facts that I and apparently you too have accepted.

I also used to be an abortion proponent (kind of) myself. My view was along the lines of "well, I'm not a woman so who am I to day one way or the other."

But, even then. . . I only had to look at the evidence that indicates a child's life begins at conception ONCE. . . in order for me to drop the denials about it altogether.

Fighting that denial, that ignorance is what drives me the most. Not the injustice, the life is sacred crap or any of that.

Anyway, that's why it is actually a relief to find an abortion proponent who is not afraid to admit that an abortion does in fact kill a child.

I have a friend who was a "product" of rape. His mother refused to have an abortion. He grew to be one of the most genuine people I've met in my life. He taught me taekwondo. He's currently a police officer who once saved my sister-in-law's life. I acknowledge that wiping out a fetus wipes out certain possibilities. I will still defend a mother's right to choose.

Understood.

But with what you just said, I have to wonder what your views on fetal homicide laws are.

Do you support them or oppose them?

I'm not familiar with fetal homicide laws. I would need more details before deciding where I stand on the issue. I'd look it up, but I'm lazy.

This is the language of the Federal Law.

Please share your thoughts on it.

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

(B)An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child. 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. 21 U.S.C. 848(e)). 42 U.S.C. 2283).

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

Since 1) a zygote is not a "child" and 2) since you couldn't tell the difference between a dog embryo and a human one, then obviously your OP premise is flawed since, prior to a specific stage of development, abortion does not kill a "child".

I understand that you don't think a child in the zygote stage of their life is a "child." However, that's not what this thread is about.

Actually that's my point in that your OP is flawed logic. It's like if I started a thread that all Europeans are really space aliens and wanted to discuss what to do about them? Negotiate or nuke them? Then someone with common fucking sense comes along and says, "But DW, Europeans are just people. They aren't space aliens! Do you have evidence they are?" and if my response is "Euros being human isn't what this thread is about", would you think I'm a fucking moron with my head buried so far up my ass I can't hear much less see or smell?

Whether you think it is flawed or not Aaronleland AGREES with me that an abortion kills a child.

That's what the thread is about and that's what I was looking for.

I don't really care that you think we are both wrong about it.

That's a debate for another thread.

And I say a zygote is not a child. So, is that how you roll; votes not science?

When dictionaries and laws already recognize a "child in the womb" as " a child. . . " you need to make a very good case for why I should reject those facts and adopt your denials instead.

 

[DarkFury]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

If you'll admit that you do nothing to help the 24,000 children that die every single day around the world that could be saved with help.

How about it?

What part of the OP talks about children around the world? He asked you nicely not to derail. How about you try that?

So life isn't life? If it is far away it isn't important? What is the cutoff distance? Only those children within US borders? Or perhaps only Kristian children? Selective choice of who lives and who doesn't. I'm betting pro-birth means pro-choice when faced with a tough choice.

Major off topic deflection. Reported.

 

[Chuz Life]

Anyone else?

 

[Divine Wind]

Just what the thread title says.

I have participated on a lot of forums and debate sites for nearly 30 years now and though it is very rare, I have in fact encountered abortion proponents who are not afraid to admit that an abortion kills a child. They agree that an abortion denies prenatal children their rights while in the womb. . . etc. Their argument is simply that the rights of the mother trumps the rights of the child.

Strange as it may seem, I actually have a bit more respect for those opponents - because we (at least) have some common ground on the biological facts, when and how life begins, etc.

How about it?

Anybody?

If you'll admit that you do nothing to help the 24,000 children that die every single day around the world that could be saved with help.

How about it?

What part of the OP talks about children around the world? He asked you nicely not to derail. How about you try that?

So life isn't life? If it is far away it isn't important? What is the cutoff distance? Only those children within US borders? Or perhaps only Kristian children? Selective choice of who lives and who doesn't. I'm betting pro-birth means pro-choice when faced with a tough choice.

Clearly only American embryos are sacred. The general consensus from the "Pro-Life" child is that foreign kids, even those starving at our border, can fuck off and die. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, abortion kills a child.

And yes, the mother's rights out way the child's up to a point.

 

[AVG-JOE]

This thread is kind of a baiting thread just by the title.

I would say that it's on the edge for the CDZ.

That said, technically anyone who posts anything other than a 'yes' or 'no' to the title answer is "off topic".

Abortion is a complicated issue and for a discussion to hope to do anything but solidify the existing partisan divide, opinions on the topic which are expressed in a civilized manner need the benefit of the free-speech doubt.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Here's my opinion:

The technology isn't going to go away just because a percentage of the population finds it immoral - even a high percentage.

The secret to running a democracy with this type of technology available is to make the technology available, safe and legal while doing everything politically and educationally possible to keep it from becoming a for-profit industry.

 

[Divine Wind]

Thanks. I'll voluntarily thread ban myself. Have a nice day!

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes, abortion kills a child.

And yes, the mother's rights out way the child's up to a point.

This thread is kind of a baiting thread just by the title.

I would say that it's on the edge for the CDZ.

That said, technically anyone who posts anything other than a 'yes' or 'no' to the title answer is "off topic".

Abortion is a complicated issue and for a discussion to hope to do anything but solidify the existing partisan divide, opinions on the topic which are expressed in a civilized manner need the benefit of the free-speech doubt.

I don't know why you would consider this to be baiting.

Already, Aaronleland and I have had a very interesting and dare I say "civil" discussion based on the OP.

Now Coyote has added his/her name to the list.

Like I said in the OP. This has been my experience in the past too. And I (for one) actually do appreciate the chance to have discussions on rights and abortions without constantly having to rehash the arguments about biology for example.

 

[Chuz Life]

Here's my opinion:

The technology isn't going to go away just because a percentage of the population finds it immoral - even a high percentage.

The secret to running a democracy with this type of technology available is to make the technology available, safe and legal while doing everything politically and educationally possible to keep it from becoming a for-profit industry.

What in the hell does any of that have to do with the op or the reason for this thread?

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes, abortion kills a child.

And yes, the mother's rights out way the child's up to a point.

I suppose you mean "outweigh."

It took me a minute but I figured it out.

Aaronlelland left before I could get his answer about fetal homicide laws.

So, the same goes out to you or to anyone else who accepts the fact that an abortion kills a child but still thinks abortion should be legal....

What are your thoughts about "Fetal Homicide Laws?"

 

[AVG-JOE]

Here's my opinion:

The technology isn't going to go away just because a percentage of the population finds it immoral - even a high percentage.

The secret to running a democracy with this type of technology available is to make the technology available, safe and legal while doing everything politically and educationally possible to keep it from becoming a for-profit industry.

What in the hell does any of that have to do with the op or the reason for this thread?

That's the "baiting" part of the thread title.

If I say "yes" because of the technical facts involved in the act, that's not truly my opinion, because I don't believe women who've aborted should be prosecuted for murder. If I say "no", that is simply not factually correct.

Your title has more to do with scoring political points than it does with addressing the issue or solving the problem of the technology becoming an industry.

 

[Chuz Life]

Here's my opinion:

The technology isn't going to go away just because a percentage of the population finds it immoral - even a high percentage.

The secret to running a democracy with this type of technology available is to make the technology available, safe and legal while doing everything politically and educationally possible to keep it from becoming a for-profit industry.

What in the hell does any of that have to do with the op or the reason for this thread?

That's the "baiting" part of the thread title.

If I say "yes" because of the technical facts involved in the act, that's not truly my opinion, because I don't believe women who've aborted should be prosecuted for murder. If I say "no", that is simply not factually correct.

Your title has more to do with scoring political points than it does with addressing the issue or solving the problem of the technology becoming an industry.

You are clearly either reading more into this than you need to, you are injecting your own slant, bias or prejudices? I don't know. But there is no need to complicate it with all that "technical type of technology" mumble jumbo.

It's two simple questions.

1. Do you agree or disagree that an abortion kills a child?

2. If your answer to number one is Yes (it does).... then, "Do you think abortions should remain legal - DESPITE the fact that it kills a child?"

It's no more complicated than that.

 

[AVG-JOE]

1. Obviously it does.

2. Yes*

* Legal and safe for those who feel like that is their only option.

* I ALSO believe that We, The Peeps should do everything we can, both politically AND educationally to try to reduce the number of women who feel that they must consider that option to zero if possible.

​

See? Easy, but not so simple.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

The fact that it kills a child is not the tragedy of the medical technology we call "abortion"....

The tragedy is how America managed to industrialize it through politics and an unwillingness to invest in basic health-care and sex education.

 

[Chuz Life]

1. Obviously it does.

You say it's obvious buy more than 90% of abortion proponents I encounter (even on USMB) will argue incessantly that it does not.

What do you say to them?

Anything?

2. Yes*

* Legal and safe for those who feel like that is their only option.

* I ALSO believe that We, The Peeps should do everything we can, both politically AND educationally to try to reduce the number of women who feel that they must consider that option to zero if possible.
​

See? Easy, but not so simple.....

As that is your stated concept, it seems simple enough for me.

Why didn't you put it this way the first time?

 

[Coyote]

Yes, abortion kills a child.

And yes, the mother's rights out way the child's up to a point.

I suppose you mean "outweigh."

It took me a minute but I figured it out.

Aaronlelland left before I could get his answer about fetal homicide laws.

So, the same goes out to you or to anyone else who accepts the fact that an abortion kills a child but still thinks abortion should be legal....

What are your thoughts about "Fetal Homicide Laws?"

I'm not to familiar with them exactly but I read what you posted. They seem reasonable with the restrictions that are there.

 

[Chuz Life]

The fact that it kills a child is not the tragedy of the medical technology we call "abortion"....

The tragedy is how America managed to industrialize it through politics and an unwillingness to invest in basic health-care and sex education.

Is it fair to say that you do not agree that a child's right to their life and their right to the equal protections of our laws does not begin when their life does?

 

[Coyote]

A child's rights does not extend to right's over another's body.