The question remains how much protection do they deserve? As much as children? Less? Just enough so that you can’t abort one but can mistreat it by various means? Does a woman’s right to control her own body include drinking but not abortion?
Clearly we want to protect the lives of our children, not only by making murdering them illegal but also by making putting them at excessive risk illegal. What happens at birth to make this latter policy applicable where it wasn’t applicable before? I’m trying to find some coherent point of view in your responses, something beyond abortion is bad and nothing else should change.
It’s not more illegal to drink and drive when there are children in the car; why should it be more illegal to drink and walk when there are children in the womb?
If you want to argue that the state should have the right to take a non-viable fetus away from the custody of an unfit ‘mother’, then, well…
But if your argument is, “This movement is evil because the people that espouse it do nothing to help the women and children after they’re born,” then it’s valid to bring up Kathy in Kentucky, who is pro-life and runs a vocational aid center and free day care for those in need. Her position, as you acknowlegde above, is different from that of the main group, so you cannot dismiss her with that argument; you must address her specifically.
That’s silly; by that logic I can’t call or treat Nazism or Communism or the KKK bad if there’s a theoretical possibility that somewhere there’s a single person with that label somewhere who is good.
The fact is, it’s impossible for me to treat a group with thousand or millions of people as individuals. There’s only one of me. And in practical terms it simply doesn’t matter if that one person doesn’t fit the stereotype; they don’t really matter, and won’t affect what the group as a whole is going to do.
Less. They are not children, they are potential human life.
Do you have the same problem distinguishing between murder and assault? I ask because you seem to think that there are only two positions, that everything that even potentially harms a potential human life should be illegal, or that everything else is allowed. There is, like in every single subject, more than those extremes. If a woman’s action does concrete, discernable, and serious harm to that potential human life, I have no problem with it being illegal.
Umm, yes. Unless that drinking causes concrete, discernable, and serious harm. Is this a problem for you?
Do you still not understand my view? Reread my posts and get back to me. Because it should be fairly obvious.
But it’s a rebuttal to the wrong argument. And the fault is mine, not yours, because I failed to make the correct argument clearly.
You can certainly dismiss the movement based on the majority of its adherents and ignore the outliers.
But if the Nazis or the KKK supported anthro global warming, I assume you’d agree we couldn’t say, “No cap and trade deal; I don’t believe in global warming. After all, the Nazis believe in it!”
Kathy may, in other words, have valid points to raise.
Well, then that’s a separate issue. Because those valid points AREN’T being raised by the movement in general, and if she doesn’t make the point herself, to the public, then few will even hear it much less get to decide if they agree or not.
I hope you don’t get the impression that I am not pro-choice. What I’m trying to do here is to try to get those equating a fetus with a child to see that the natural consequence would be the same sort of protections that society requires for children. Which leads to absurdities, as I hope everyone sees.
So your second paragraph makes a lot of sense. If we could unload a fetus into Bricker’s Wombomatic, wouldn’t it make sense to do so before a drug addled mother harms it? We take at-risk children away from parents after all.
I’m just making an analogy to our current laws on the protection of children, which do not involve anyone either assaulting or killing them.
I’m glad that you admit that they are not human yet, just potential. So, where does the potential become great enough to protect them like children? Surely not before implantation, even though there is a fertilized egg. Is there some threshold of survival where protection becomes important?
As I said, one drink is not likely to cause harm or else we’d all be feeble minded. But if potential harm at least as great as riding in a car without a car seat should be illegal, do you propose to lock up alcoholic pregnant women to prevent them from drinking until they deliver? Drug addicts? Heavy smokers? Clearly fining them is not going to help much.
I understand your view just fine, I just don’t understand how it is logically consistent. But we are making progress. Forbidding abortions is perfectly consistent with locking up women who put their fetuses at risk. I’m sure the pro-lifers would have no problem locking up the unwed potential mother from the ghetto. When we lock up the church-going suburban lush, then we might see some fireworks
How this rates as a mere “some” and not an “all” escapes me. In fact, it sounds like the legal protections extended to everyone already, where the justice system will act if you are injured or killed through malicious or negligent action, but some forms of harm are too trivial or deemed to be accidental and don’t require legal intervention. The law protects you from assaults, but won’t get involved is someone bumps into you in the supermarket.
Can you name a right an adult has that a fetus would not under this system?
I made that very point in my very first point in this thread. You’re just now getting it?
Full range of protection like children? When they become children. Lesser protections, earlier. Currently, and in the eyes of many people, it seems to be viability.
Yes. Implantation. That’s where I would legally draw it.
If they are alcoholics and drug addicts and they insist on continuously harming the potential life, I would suggest treatment for them.
You know, I am now realizing I’m wasting my time with you. You have this entire stereotype of the view of"pro-lifers", and nothing I type is going to change it. Enjoy the rest of the thread.
You want to run through the Bill of Rights? Speech - No. Religion - No. Press - No. Assembly - No. Petition the Government - Not entirely. Firearms - No. Protection of Quartering of Troops (Boy there’s a joke in there screaming to get out) - No.
Even if you believe the fetus is a human being, show me another case of one person being able to use another person’s body without their permission.
If a man uses a woman’s reproductive system without her consent, it’s rape.
If a fetus uses a woman’s reproduction system without her consent, it’s pro-life.
Why? Pregnancy is, oddly enough, a very unique experience. One can determine right and wrong without the need for analogies. Note: I don’t believe a fetus is a human being.
Ah. I shamefully concede that I have a hard time keeping track of what everybody’s position is on everything around here, so unless I’ve gotten hitched up to an ongoing discussion with somebody I tend not to just respond to what I see.
In other words, me gotted whooshed. :smack:
If the removal procedure was sufficiently inexpensive and nonproblematic, it eludes my why anybody would do things ‘the old fashioned way’ with wombots available - or even why we’d make it legal to do so. We don’t let mothers drive babies around without car seats, even if the mother is a careful driver; why would we let women drive fetuses around without taking reasonable precautions to protect the kid from their biology, even if they’re careful about what they partake of?
(Also, pregnancy sounds like six or seven different kinds of no fun. Though I guess some people must like it…)
