Correct. No amount of “deciding” turns a fetus into a child.
Your opinion only. No amount of “deciding” turns an unborn child into a fetus, clump of cells, etc. Of course, I know it’s easier to dispose of the baby if you declare it to be not a child. There is no such medical procedure as a "partial birth abortion."
Uh, where’ve you been? Yes, there is. What would you call it? I call it legalized murder, not a “medical procedure.” There’s been nurses who have witnessed the procedure so I hope you’re not saying that it isn’t done, because it is.
** it does not take a human life. It is a crime against the mother, and only against the mother.**
Once again, your opinion. Not fact. Who are you to decide it’s not a human life? :smack:
Typing in bold face are quotes from Diogenes the Cynic
You can call it a child if you want. That just makes it OK in my book to be a childkiller - as long as the child is a clump of a few cells, or an early trimester foetal child, or a late trimester foetal child that is severely damaged or causing damage or death to the person housing it.
1.) I’m talking about the legal status of a fetus. The legal staus of a fetus does not change if a mother wants to carry a pregnancy to term. It is still not a child by law until it is born.
2.) There is no medical procedure called “partial birth” abortion. This is not a medical term, it is a political term invented by anti-abortion activists in order to demonize a procedure which is more properly called 'intact dilation and extraction" (or “intact D and X”).
This procedure acounts for less than one hundreth of one percent of all abortions perormed in America, and is usually performed only if the health of the mother is threatened. Less than one percent of abortions are performed in the third trimester.
3.)
Again, I’m talking about legal status. A fetus is not a person (legally), and therefore cannot be a victim of a crime. Furthermore, who are you to decide that it is a child? Do you have the authority to go around willy-nilly designating things as “human” and do the rest of us have to humor you? If you decide that chickens are people does that mean KFC is guilty of genocide?
I believe that’s incorrect, as per my previous cites. Roe v. Wade does not explicitly state that the unborn have no legal status or rights prior to birth. Quite the contrary. The status of the unborn child may or may not be related to the mother’s decision to carry the child to term. But I don’t think that leads us to conclude that unborn are not children as a matter of law just by virtue of being unborn (though clearly the SC assigned a great deal of weight to the stage of the pregnancy).
Again, I would argue that Roe v. Wade seems consistent with the argument that an unborn child can be the victim of a crime, and the state can have a compelling interest in protecting that unborn child. The very decision that is the foundation for abortion rights in America allows for this, IMO. Again, this is from a legal, not necessarily ethical, perspective. Diogenes, you already know my personal philosophy regarding abortion (and I believe I know where you stand).
Bob, Roe V. Wade does not say that viable fetuses must be protected, only that they may be if a state so decides. Even if a state does decide that a late term fetus deserves protection, this is not the same as granting the fetus full legal status as a person.
We have different philosophies on whether a fetus is a child and whether it should be granted the same legal protections as a child. I understand your position and I think it’s perfectly defensible if you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a child. I do not believe that, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect those who do. I know where you’re coming from. I am a parent, and I thought of my daughter as a person before she was born. If someone had caused my wife to miscarry, I would have though of that person as a murderer. I’ve said several times in this thread that a person who commits such a crime should be punished as though it were a murder. I still think, however, that we must stop just short of calling it a murder. I think that this would simply be a backdoor strategy to grant personhood status to *all]/i] fetuses and thus provide a wedge against all abortions. I think even you would agree, Bob, that this is the unspoken intent of this legislation (although, you probably don’t think that’s a bad thing.
**To me, this is not a meaningful distinction. If the state can protect the unborn against the mother’s direct wishes to abort, this is essentially recognizing the unborn as a person.
I think that is a likely intent of such legislation, and, no, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Furthermore, I’d argue that regardless of the intent, the legislation is correct on its own merit and consistent constitutionally with Roe v. Wade–meaning, to fall short of calling something murder purely because it may have some other outcome is not justifiable. But, again, I understand your position and the reason for it.
And, Diogenes, I don’t know you or your daughter, but even so, rest assured that your daughter would never have been anything that was not essentially human and deserving of respect and dignity, born or unborn, from my perspective. So we agree on at least one more thing.
That really depends on the law of the state. For example, NY covers homicide, abortion and related offenses under the same article of the penal law. The definition of homicide is conduct causing the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant more than 24 weeks under the circumstances constituting particular crimes. Person is defined as a human being who has been born and is alive. The victim under all of the crimes in that article must be a person, except for the crimes of abortion and self abortion, and in those crimes there must be intent to cause a miscarriage (reckless or negligent behavior isn’t enough). Pretty explicitly does not recognize a fetus as a person. I personally don’t see why the other homicide statutes (murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide and criminally negligent homicide) couldn’t be re-written so that the victim could be either a person or a fetus with which a woman has been pregnant more than 24 weeks. I can ,however think of reasons not to define a fetus past 24 weeks as a person that have nothing to do with abortion or murder statutes.Because while Roe v. Wade may not have said anything about the rights of an unborn fetus compared to a born child, there are plenty of other instances where unborn fetuses are not treated as born children are. (inheritance, taxes, government benefits, etc).
Doreen, your points are valid, and I agree that while Roe v. Wade may permit the protection of the unborn, it does not appear to demand it.
As far as the rights/duties you describe that are not typically assigned to the unborn (inheritance, taxes, government benefits, etc), I’d also agree that the law, in total, does not create an equation between the born and the unborn, just as it doesn’t among the “born” (e.g., I can vote, but felons can’t).
But as far as the right to live goes, I would still argue that if abortions are proscribed specifically to protect the life of a viable unborn child, regardless of the mother’s wishes, then any distinction regarding the legal status of the unborn with regard to that particular right is not meaningful. It’s a distinction without a difference. And it’s that right that’s under discussion, and the very right that would define the act in question as murder, IMO.
Istara chill out. Diogenes the Cynic wanted a cite for Gods position on abortion. I chose this one because it clearly illustrates that if a fetus is considered human the punishment for killing one would be the same for killing any other human. My point is that God does not view the killing of a fetus the same as killing a man. This seems to support Diogenes’ belief that killing the fetus is a crime against the woman.
Oh, can I have one on the ripping the unborn out of wombs, then? I suppose we should assume that some of the “first born sons” god ordered killed were babies, but I don’t recall anything else about God ordering babies, born or not, to death- which might be a fault of memory. Most of the baby-killing that I recall being in the bible was done by men at their own behest. (Harod for example.)
well, here’s my opinion. we value human life, not life itself. the (trivial) reason we consider human life more valuable than others is because it has…uhh…value…to us. so, i believe it is actually a decision that gives value to a human life. a mother that does not value the life growing inside her does not have a human life. since that potential human life has no intrinsic value (it does not value itself), we must go by its extrinsic value (its value to the mother). so yes, one is a human child, and the other is just another part of the mother’s body.
since god hasn’t been terribly vocal on the subject, it seems like a decision we have to make for ourselves.
for real! i can’t imagine how you must’ve felt when people got it in their heads that they could start having sex and creating human life, how dare they play god!
