No, one is a possible consequence of another, it’s not a certain consequence. But we often make choices that have a wide range of consequence without choosing a specific consequence.
If I choose to have sex using a condom, and the condom fails, I certainly didn’t make a choice to have a baby. My choice was to not have a baby, and by using a condom, I clearly expressed that choice.
It is quite clearly not obvious, since we’re having a spirited argument about that very issue.
Repeating something doesn’t make it true. You keep doing this, and you don’t understand why people keep disagreeing with you.
I don’t know that we need one (“product of conception” or (in a general sense) “embryo” are both correct.
In specific reference to humans, “embryo” is the term most often used up until 8 weeks of development, then “fetus” is employed.
When I hear “pre-born human” I get the feeling someone is trying to sell me a used car.
Which is usually the case.
If the anti- abortion stance is a fetus is not a person, then how is it possible for someone to be charged with murder when they cause the death of said fetus?
There have been numerous cases where people have been charged with murder when the fetus is killed.
If I am on my way to the clinic to get an abortion, and I get hit by a drunk driver and lose the fetus, that driver will be charged with vehicular homicide. If I get stabbed outside the clinic by a crazy anti-abortion protester, they will get charged with not only assault, but murder as well.
Granted, depending on the state, there are sometimes a calendar of viability of the fetus, however, there is definitely overlap on the time limit.
Yeah, except that people have different definitions for things. My definition may be very different from yours, and i’m on the same nominal side as you on this one. And i’m sure they have the same opinion as you, so simply stating “I’m right, you’re wrong” gets nobody anywhere.
Being pro-choice doesn’t mean that someone’s had an abortion. Hell, something like half of all pro-choicers can’t have an abortion. Perhaps those that do do so in the hope of changing their compatriot’s mind; perhaps they feel that a person who is mistakenly in favour of allowing killing is equivalent to a person going out and knowingly murdering themselves. And no, I find that I do not know whether such people have pro-choicers over for tea, nor those on the Pill, though I bask in the radiant glory that is your mystical knowledge that they do, to the confidence that you may call them liars or those who do not examine their life.
Out of interest, you appear to be phrasing a few of statements in this post as questions. Are you actually asking me to share my knowledge based on knowing the friendship habits of all pro-lifers who think abortion is murder, or are you rhetorically asking based on the evidence you’ve gathered from all those self-same people?
Surprisingly enough, it wasn’t commonly thought of as murder until fairly recently in our nation’s history.
For example, in a particularly infamous case in 1969 in California, an estranged husband assaulted his ex-wife. She was pregnant with what he thought was her lover’s baby, and he proceeded to stomp on her stomach. The result was the fetus was severely fractured, and the baby was delivered stillborn by Caesarian. The wife, however, lived (although she too was severely injured).
The husband was convicted of murder. However in the case of Keeler v. Superior Court, 470 P.2d 617 (Cal. 1970), the CA Supreme Court held that murder statute prevented only the unlawful killing of a “human being,” and that to extend the murder statute to protect the fetus would be an unconstitutional ex-post facto application of the law.
CA subsequently amended its murder statute to explicitly apply to the “unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus” (see CA Penal Code Se. 187). The distinction here being that abortion is the lawful killing of a fetus, while fetal homicide is the unlawful killing of a fetus.
Essentially, if you kill someone’s fetus without their permission, then you will be charged with murder. But it’s not the same crime as killing a human being. The two have the same name and penalties (mostly), but there is a distinctly different element.
We don’t want people going around stomping on people’s stomachs in order to kill their fetuses, so we’ve criminalized that behavior. But that’s completely distinct from a woman choosing to have a medical procedure performed on her.
With respect to arguments along the line that people should have control over their own bodies, I would say that a woman’s right over her own body extends only to the point of having a fetus removed. It does not naturally allow for the destruction of the fetus.
Of course with today’s technology, there’s not many options other than the destruction of the fetus. But once artificial wombs are perfected (and I have no doubt they will be eventually), there will be more choices. It would be possible for a society to be both pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously, by allowing a woman to end her pregnancy, while still bringing the fetus to term artificially. Perhaps the expense of the artificial pregnancy would be paid by charities (allowing the pro-lifers to put up or shut up). Perhaps the government would mandate the gamete donors to pay (be responsible for your choices). Perhaps the government would be happy to cover the cost itself (low fertility is a problem in some societies).
In general, I will agree with you. A natural death is not the same as euthanasia.
Still, it is the mother’s decision as to the method of abortion e.g. medically induced labor vs traditional abortion.
Still, it is the mother’s decision whether life support be provided for her child; whether she places her child up for adoption.
Peace
rwj
The trouble with this argument is that, while it has a certain intellectual appeal, it has zero practical value for abortion legislation. How are we to define rape for allowing abortions? It can’t be simply a conviction for rape, because that would be time prohibitive. Filing of rape charges? If so then the prosecutor determines if abortion is allowed? Filing a complaint? Well then you will see a LOT more complaints filed…
I had a miscarriage once at six weeks along, and it sure wasn’t a kid that came out of me.
It’s called dishonesty and delusion. It IS obvious; the anti-abortion side just isn’t interested in reality.
And what makes you think that ? I’m sure that if they had the power the majority of anti-abortionists would LOVE to execute women who get abortions. Probably personally, by stoning. They certainly don’t mind or outright gloat when their policies get women killed.
Oh, really. Eric Rudolph the anti-abortion bomber had quite a lot of help and support in his evasion of federal custody, not to mention songs written praising him.
They don’t have the power.
Correct. The “murder” part is just an attempt to demonize women, to justify abuse of them. The POINT of the anti-abortion movement is the systematic hatred, abuse and oppression of women.
The political power of the anti-abortionists; it’s an attempt to drive a wedge against the civil rights of women and define a fetus as a person.
If what a fetus is is unknown, then it can’t be treated as a fact that it is a particular something.
The default position is that the world is not a cube. Thousands of years ago, the default position was that it is not a cube and not a sphere. Since then, enough evidence has accumulated to assert that it’s a fact that the world is round.
I’m not saying it’s a fact that a fetus is something other than a person (although I very well could, given what we do know), I’m saying that it’s not a fact that it is. Therefore, any assertion that it is is a belief, and so subject to the logical limits of beliefs.
Huh?
Can’t believe no one called you on this already.
Leaving your house is not an acceptance of being mugged. Taking off your panties for your boyfriend is a proactive step to having sex which, most people should know, comes with a risk of pregnancy. We engage in all sorts of behaviors that carry various risks and we should own up to accepting the consequences if the roll of the dice goes against us.
Look, I am pro-choice all the way (I worked for Planned Parenthood for years). But that post as argument is crap and does no service to reproductive health rights.
I agree. Was just repeating the sorts of arguments I have heard against abortion. If you choose to play you have to accept the consequences that might result (pregnancy).
Of course rape tosses that argument on its ear for the reasons you pointed out. I have yet to hear the anti-choice contingent propose a compromise between the two. What I usually got from them was that while the woman was raped her baby should not be “murdered” as it is not its fault. Rather lame to my ears but that’s me.
A good chunk of regular fertilized zygotes end up not implanting. It seems like researching drugs that would increase implantation would be an easy way to save millions of lives! :dubious:
True, but likewise it cannot be treated as a fact that it is not a particular something.
Do you really want to give someone else the right to use your body withoiut your permission? Should only women who can prove they were using birth control and thus weren’t giving consent by having sex to getting pregnant be allowed to have abortions?
If a woman does chose adoption over abortion, should she be able to give the child to a gay couple? A couple of Wiccan practicing lesbians? A single person? A convicted child molester?
The anti-abortion scream for adoption, but many only want adoption by the “right people.”
You had me till “convicted child molester”.
What if he is a 39 year old single man who twenty years ago was convicted of having sex with a 16 year old?
That guy would not be defined or have been convicted as a child molester. At the outside maybe statutory rape but even that I doubt. Just looking up the law in Illinois what you stated does not meet the definition of even statutory rape (of course there are 49 other state laws but I am not going to read through all of them).