I know, and it’s depressing. The whole damn debate is the prince of evil, as far as I’m concerned. It’s two groups of people who are differently color-blind, trying desperately to say, “The fireplug is yellow…and so is the grass” to others who say “The fireplug is green…and so is the grass.” We can’t even agree on the basic vocabulary…
(Although I believe a great and good compromise was accomplished when each agreed to call the other by the name they, themselves, prefer. At least the “pro-abortion” and “pro-slavery” rhetoric has gone by the wayside…and to hell with it forever…)
Okay, yes, good point. Fetal homicide laws do, indeed, define the unwanted killing of a fetus as a homicidal act.
Fortunately, those laws do not apply to abortion, and so you are incorrect in extending them to do so.
Since the discussion has been about abortion, and not shooting women in the stomach with shotguns, your little digression is not enlightening, and, in fact, does not put the law on your side.
You spoke, just a bit ago, about moving the goalposts. Thank you for the excellent example.
Grin! No, fortunately those two debate points haven’t come up yet, although we have done the “house in the woods” thing, as well as “skin cells.”
Worse, it’s wholly pointless debate. Nobody is profiting in any way. I know I should just walk away and let it go, but I lack sufficient wisdom. As long as snowballs are coming my way, I’ll heave snowballs right back. Not something I’m proud of.
At the point of implantation it is a baby. Because if you let the natural processes take their course and do not kill it, it will be a baby. You have to kill it to prevent it from becoming one.
The laws, whether you agree with them or not, should at least be consistent. In this case, they are not. The fetus is treated, by law, as full-fledged human being, and killing it is a homicide. And then the fetus is treated, by law, as not a full-fledged human being and killing it is not a homicide. So your whole pro-abortion stance is on very shaky ground, and, I hope, will collapse.
The point is that there is no logical reason to differentiate between fetal homicide and abortion, except that in one case the mother wants the baby and in the other she doesn’t.
Which is, again, equivalent to saying the value of a person depends on whether they inconvenience others.
Other than to suggest that an unwanted pregnancy is a bit more of a violation of one’s rights than an “inconvenience,” yes, I agree. I assign the mother the right to choose how her body will be used.
The facts aren’t really in debate here. Only the “right and wrong.” You hold abortion to be wrong; I hold the compulsion of any woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy to be wrong.
Seriously, what more can be said here? You aren’t going to find any actual inconsistencies in our viewpoint, and I’m not going to find any in yours. The “Aha, you’re wrong because…” strategy doesn’t function in this debate, for either side.
Ah, but the crime in the law is not against the woman. It is against the fetus. So - killing the fetus is a crime against the fetus in one law and not a crime against the fetus in another.
So what? Seriously, is this something you think is somehow meaningful?
If you have a dog, and it’s ailing, you can take it to the vet and have it euthanized. But I can’t come into your yard and kill your dog.
Whether the law considers my crime to be against you, or against your dog, is of no relevance here. You have the right to kill it (within certainly guidelines) and I do not.
Abortion and feticide are completely different events under the law. For you to try to apply one to the other is, frankly, not at all unexpected. Most of us saw this coming, and knew that fetal-murder laws would be used in exactly this way.
You can’t use inapplicable laws to make an end-run around constitutional protections.
A law enforcement officer tried this in California, not too long ago, charging a producer of X-rated movies with pandering, given that he was paying people to have sex. A judge threw the charge right out, and rapped the prosecutor’s knuckles for a totally inappropriate application of the law.
Like you agree with every piece of legislation ever written?
Like the People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea is a Democratic Republic?
I disagree with the language of the law. So what?
So long as it doesn’t apply to abortion, I don’t really care what you call it. If the mother wants it, it’s a sweet little loving baby, her very own child. If she doesn’t want it, it’s a fetus and can be removed surgically.
Are you seriously arguing dictionaries here? Words are magic to you? Bad approach; it won’t carry any water in this bucket brigade.
Can you seriously not get it through your head? I do not agree with you. How hard is that for you to comprehend? At least Hector_St_Clare gets it: different moral universes.
“How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?”
An immoral one is one in which the government prevents, by force, individuals from exercising their right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right to expel anyone or anything that an individual wants out of himself/herself.