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

[Chuz Life]

The fetal homicide laws include murder in the list of charges that a person can face - for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

You say "it goes back to rights."

Please explain / expound on that.

My humble opinion: Fetal homicide laws should not apply to a mother who aborts, but they should apply to third parties who kill a fetus while they are violating the rights of the mother.

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

I understand that you feel differently, and I understand where you are leading with your questioning, but neither of us is right or wrong, it's just politics in a democracy where society must make life and death decisions because there appears to be an absence of a higher power taking control.

Do you understand that 49% is not equal to 51%?

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

My humble opinion is that they are entitled to their humble opinion with regards to the moral, religious and political ramifications of the technology, but the simple biological fact is that an abortion, by definition, terminates a human life.

Do you try to enlighten them when you can?

I would like to see the sources you would use to do that.

My sources are four: Me, myself, I and the interesting things that I find along the way which I choose to discuss.

I'm certainly not shy about expressing my opinion, but for enlightenment to occur, it must be desired.

I take no responsibility for the continued ignorance of people I have conversations with, even when I know damn well that I'm right.

I wasn't asking for you to take responsibility for anyone's ignorance.

You say that you agree that an abortion kills a child. You even said it was obvious that it does. Yet, the vast majority of those who share YOUR view on keeping abortions legal DO NOT agree with you that an abortion kills a child.

In fact, many of them claim that they would change their views on abortion if they became convinced that an abortion kills a child.

I simply wanted to know if you ever care enough to educate them, to share your knowledge, etc.

You could have simply said "no." You don't.

But that's not true... as I stated, I share my opinions as often as the next guy - but it remains up to the audience to decide if I have knowledge or bullshit, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Do you have or use any sources at all?

If I ask you for the sources that you use to support your claim that a child in the womb is a human being, a "child." Could you provide it?

Will you provide it now?

 

[Chuz Life]

The child has no rights over the woman's body.

Believe it or not, I completely agree that a child has no rights over a woman's body. In my opinion, they only have the same (equal) rights one to the other.

That said, there are some things that I think any court would have to also take into consideration.

Specifically, whether or not a woman can invite a child to the use of her body and then Kill it- because she later changes her mind or regrets the risks that she took that created the child and dependent relationship in which it lives.

She is the only one who has rights over her body. If you want to put it in those terms - the child becomes an unwanted tenant. She has the right to evict it.

Do you understand how a court might view claim as dubious, when she claims that a child is an "unwanted tenant" when she is the one who put it there, herself?

 

[Chuz Life]

The best way to end abortion is to make it unnecessary.

Is it your opinion then, that all abortions are necessary?

It's not up to me to make that decision for another person. That's why I prefer doing everything we can to reduce the need for it.

You said the best way to "end abortion" is to make it unnecessary.

That implies that you think all abortions are necessary.

Otherwise, you have to admit that making them un-necessary will still not end them all.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I understand that you feel differently, and I understand where you are leading with your questioning, but neither of us is right or wrong, it's just politics in a democracy where society must make life and death decisions because there appears to be an absence of a higher power taking control.

Do you understand that 49% is not equal to 51%?

Of course. That's the point. If a pregnant female decides that she wants to terminate her pregnancy - her 51% outweighs the 49% afforded the child.

 

[Chuz Life]

I understand that you feel differently, and I understand where you are leading with your questioning, but neither of us is right or wrong, it's just politics in a democracy where society must make life and death decisions because there appears to be an absence of a higher power taking control.

Do you understand that 49% is not equal to 51%?

Of course. That's the point. If a pregnant female decides that she wants to terminate her pregnancy - her 51% outweighs the 49% afforded the child.

Again I ask for your source. . . ANY source, that supports your claim that 49% is equal to 51%.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The fetal homicide laws include murder in the list of charges that a person can face - for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

You say "it goes back to rights."

Please explain / expound on that.

My humble opinion: Fetal homicide laws should not apply to a mother who aborts, but they should apply to third parties who kill a fetus while they are violating the rights of the mother.

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

The difference is third party involvement and that third party intentionally violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

Big difference. Huge.

 

[Coyote]

My humble opinion is that they are entitled to their humble opinion with regards to the moral, religious and political ramifications of the technology, but the simple biological fact is that an abortion, by definition, terminates a human life.

Do you try to enlighten them when you can?

I would like to see the sources you would use to do that.

My sources are four: Me, myself, I and the interesting things that I find along the way which I choose to discuss.

I'm certainly not shy about expressing my opinion, but for enlightenment to occur, it must be desired.

I take no responsibility for the continued ignorance of people I have conversations with, even when I know damn well that I'm right.

I wasn't asking for you to take responsibility for anyone's ignorance.

You say that you agree that an abortion kills a child. You even said it was obvious that it does. Yet, the vast majority of those who share YOUR view on keeping abortions legal DO NOT agree with you that an abortion kills a child.

In fact, many of them claim that they would change their views on abortion if they became convinced that an abortion kills a child.

I simply wanted to know if you ever care enough to educate them, to share your knowledge, etc.

You could have simply said "no." You don't.

But that's not true... as I stated, I share my opinions as often as the next guy - but it remains up to the audience to decide if I have knowledge or bullshit, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Do you have or use any sources at all?

If I ask you for the sources that you use to support your claim that a child in the womb is a human being, a "child." Could you provide it?

Will you provide it now?

I don't need you need a source for basic genetics.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you try to enlighten them when you can?

I would like to see the sources you would use to do that.

My sources are four: Me, myself, I and the interesting things that I find along the way which I choose to discuss.

I'm certainly not shy about expressing my opinion, but for enlightenment to occur, it must be desired.

I take no responsibility for the continued ignorance of people I have conversations with, even when I know damn well that I'm right.

I wasn't asking for you to take responsibility for anyone's ignorance.

You say that you agree that an abortion kills a child. You even said it was obvious that it does. Yet, the vast majority of those who share YOUR view on keeping abortions legal DO NOT agree with you that an abortion kills a child.

In fact, many of them claim that they would change their views on abortion if they became convinced that an abortion kills a child.

I simply wanted to know if you ever care enough to educate them, to share your knowledge, etc.

You could have simply said "no." You don't.

But that's not true... as I stated, I share my opinions as often as the next guy - but it remains up to the audience to decide if I have knowledge or bullshit, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Do you have or use any sources at all?

If I ask you for the sources that you use to support your claim that a child in the womb is a human being, a "child." Could you provide it?

Will you provide it now?

I don't need you need a source for basic genetics.

I don't need you need?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I understand that you feel differently, and I understand where you are leading with your questioning, but neither of us is right or wrong, it's just politics in a democracy where society must make life and death decisions because there appears to be an absence of a higher power taking control.

Do you understand that 49% is not equal to 51%?

Of course. That's the point. If a pregnant female decides that she wants to terminate her pregnancy - her 51% outweighs the 49% afforded the child.

Again I ask for your source. . . ANY source, that supports your claim that 49% is equal to 51%.

I never said that 51 and 49 were equal.

I said that, in my humble opinion, if a pregnant female and her unborn child are not on the same page, the mother decides. Her vote in terminating the pregnancy weighs 51% and the child's vote counts for only 49%.

Her rights count more than those of the unborn child.

And I need no source - it is my political opinion.

 

[Coyote]

The child has no rights over the woman's body.

Believe it or not, I completely agree that a child has no rights over a woman's body. In my opinion, they only have the same (equal) rights one to the other.

That said, there are some things that I think any court would have to also take into consideration.

Specifically, whether or not a woman can invite a child to the use of her body and then Kill it- because she later changes her mind or regrets the risks that she took that created the child and dependent relationship in which it lives.

She is the only one who has rights over her body. If you want to put it in those terms - the child becomes an unwanted tenant. She has the right to evict it.

Do you understand how a court might view claim as dubious, when she claims that a child is an "unwanted tenant" when she is the one who put it there, herself?

Not at all.

And regardless - a woman's body is not a building. It's not a receptical. Having sex is not an invitation. She has 100% rights to her body.

 

[Coyote]

My sources are four: Me, myself, I and the interesting things that I find along the way which I choose to discuss.

I'm certainly not shy about expressing my opinion, but for enlightenment to occur, it must be desired.

I take no responsibility for the continued ignorance of people I have conversations with, even when I know damn well that I'm right.

I wasn't asking for you to take responsibility for anyone's ignorance.

You say that you agree that an abortion kills a child. You even said it was obvious that it does. Yet, the vast majority of those who share YOUR view on keeping abortions legal DO NOT agree with you that an abortion kills a child.

In fact, many of them claim that they would change their views on abortion if they became convinced that an abortion kills a child.

I simply wanted to know if you ever care enough to educate them, to share your knowledge, etc.

You could have simply said "no." You don't.

But that's not true... as I stated, I share my opinions as often as the next guy - but it remains up to the audience to decide if I have knowledge or bullshit, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Do you have or use any sources at all?

If I ask you for the sources that you use to support your claim that a child in the womb is a human being, a "child." Could you provide it?

Will you provide it now?

I don't need you need a source for basic genetics.

I don't need you need?

Sorry - I don't think you need

 

[Chuz Life]

The fetal homicide laws include murder in the list of charges that a person can face - for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

You say "it goes back to rights."

Please explain / expound on that.

My humble opinion: Fetal homicide laws should not apply to a mother who aborts, but they should apply to third parties who kill a fetus while they are violating the rights of the mother.

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

The difference is third party involvement and that third party intentionally violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

Big difference. Huge.

When the "third party" is charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb. . . How is that a crime against the mother?

The murder charge for killing the child in the womb does not mean the woman's rights were violated. It means the CHILDS rights were violated.

 

[Vandalshandle]

[sigh]

 

[Coyote]

The best way to end abortion is to make it unnecessary.

Is it your opinion then, that all abortions are necessary?

It's not up to me to make that decision for another person. That's why I prefer doing everything we can to reduce the need for it.

You said the best way to "end abortion" is to make it unnecessary.

That implies that you think all abortions are necessary.

Otherwise, you have to admit that making them un-necessary will still not end them all.

Only in your opinion.

Whether or not an abortion is "necessary" is not determined by me. Or you. Or anyone else but the pregnant woman.

 

[Chuz Life]

. . . a woman's body is not a building. It's not a receptical. Having sex is not an invitation. She has 100% rights to her body.

If all of that is true.... then I have to ask, what do you suppose the Supreme Court was trying to indicate when they said what they said in the quote I have in my signature.

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

 

[Chuz Life]

The best way to end abortion is to make it unnecessary.

Is it your opinion then, that all abortions are necessary?

It's not up to me to make that decision for another person. That's why I prefer doing everything we can to reduce the need for it.

You said the best way to "end abortion" is to make it unnecessary.

That implies that you think all abortions are necessary.

Otherwise, you have to admit that making them un-necessary will still not end them all.

Only in your opinion.

Whether or not an abortion is "necessary" is not determined by me. Or you. Or anyone else but the pregnant woman.

I am using YOUR words, not mine.

You said that you could "end abortion by making it unnecessary."

Remember?

So, I ask YOU again....

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

 

[Moonglow]

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?

there were debate forums 30 years ago on the internet, and you had to use your Commodore 64 to surf with..

 

[Chuz Life]

I never said that 51 and 49 were equal.

#66

"With regard to the right to equal protection under the law, both my opinion and my political vote give the mother 51% and the fetus 49%. . ."

Yes.

You did.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The fetal homicide laws include murder in the list of charges that a person can face - for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

You say "it goes back to rights."

Please explain / expound on that.

My humble opinion: Fetal homicide laws should not apply to a mother who aborts, but they should apply to third parties who kill a fetus while they are violating the rights of the mother.

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

The difference is third party involvement and that third party intentionally violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

Big difference. Huge.

When the "third party" is charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb. . . How is that a crime against the mother?

The murder charge for killing the child in the womb does not mean the woman's rights were violated. It means the CHILDS rights were violated.

Exactly! But by definition and by necessity in the event, a pregnant female is involved.

The difference is HER decision. Her 51% say in the relationship with her unborn child gives her the right to decide.

Some asshole deciding to assault her is an apples to oranges comparison. The pregnant female, the unborn child and the asshole who assaults them all have 100% equal protection under the law until a jury determines otherwise. If a jury decides that the asshole violated the rights of either or both, appropriate punishment needs to be delivered by the state.

As I said, this is my opinion of how our criminal justice system should work - there is no right or wrong answer here, only differing political opinions.