Perhaps, but that hardly settled the issue. And I’ll hazard that they were speaking in terms of when a fetus is to be legally recognized as a person rather than in actuality.
Beagledave, by “clamoring” I meant to imply that politically weighty numbers of people are not expressing a need that they be able to do just that. I suspect that AHunter and the others are speaking “in theory” and doing so in the context of a threat to roll back abortions rights that can produce a hardening of positions, a refusal to give an inch.
That’s the world’s point of view and rather stupid imho. A baby whether inside or outside the womb is a baby regardless of the feelings of the mother. A baby doesn’t magically morph into a non being just because the mother doesn’t want it. One on end we have people wanting to prosecute for 2 murders because of the death of a pregnant mother but at the same time it’s okay to kill that baby because mommy doesn’t want it. That sure makes a lot of sense.
Huh. When you said No one, I thought you meant, ummm… No one as opposed to “politically weighty numbers”. :shrug:
Well you “suspect” wrong, unless those pro choice folks are lying (maybe they were?). There have been numerous posters on these boards who have said emphatically that the developmental stage of the organism does not matter as long as it is occupying the uterus. Terms like “parasite” got bandied about. Another poster said she didn’t care, for example, if David Letterman was inside her uterus, she had the right to determine its fate.
And since we will probably eventually have to set a legal definition, how would the third trimester do for a start? You’ll never be able to convince some people (me, for example) that life begins at conception when the body can abort it naturally simply by the cell not attaching to the uterine wall, the hormones not kicking in, etc. So how about we set a point where the kid can survive without extreme outside care–beyond normal care or even what would be normal somewhat premature care (whatever that is)?
His!
That was exactly my point. Its quite okay to kill a fetus cause the “mother” doesn’t want it, but not okay if she’s killed while pregnant.
I agree with you completely, I guess I should’ve added a roll eyes.
It is going to be extreamly hard if not impossible to prove that (unlike his beautiful wife), he killed the fetus “With Malice”.
The fetus was more like (please excuse me for sounding cold) collateral damage" .
We don’t base our laws on feelings. A fetus is not legally a person and thus can’t legally be murdered. The feelings of the mother are not relevant to the matter.
I would support laws putting harsher penalties on those who would assault or murder a pregnant woman, considering her more vulnerable condition. Perhaps murdering a pregnant woman should be an aggravating circumstance that would make someone eligible for the death penalty.
But the important point is that the woman should be protected by the law, and not the fetus.
I think it will be rather easy to prove malice towards the fetus if they can prove malice towards the mother. It will be easy to prove that he knew his wife was pregnant. It won’t be hard to show that when a mother dies, the fetus dies shortly thereafter. If they show that he intended to kill his wife, and therefore that offense was with malice, the law will allow them to transfer that malice to the killing of the fetus.
Oh come on!. The concept was not “put in there”. The “concept” is an interpretation, period. And a very liberal one I might add. If I worked for a gaming company and they put in my contract that a shall not establish a gaming company while in their employ using any technology I may have garnered for them, or even thaught of myself, does not stop me from playing friggin video games or even helping my friend who works for the competition on some code. So your sanrkiness is arrogant an childish.
What you meant was:
Blalron
Well, my wife cannot legally commit, or attempt to commit, suicide. She cannot drive without a seatbelt fastened. And there are many situations where she does not have the freedom to control her own body by having an abortion “just because she may want to”. SCOTUS drew a similiar line on third trimester. So while it may sound good that RvW somehow gave women the unfettered right to “control their own body”, it actually only allowed them to have an abortion under certain circumstances. Otherwise all laws prohibiting abortion would be unconstitutional.
“sanrkiness” will be copyrighted by yours truly when I get the chance, so the use of it on any public text will be highly fowned upon and I will ask my lawyer if I can sue the users.
But here in California, the law says it is murder…feelings or no feelings. No matter how hard you try to argue about the status of the fetus, it will still be considered murder here in California. Did you read 187 & 188?
Spite: Last I heard, some of the Founding Fathers were the guys who not only wrote the Constitution, but also one of them was the guy who came up with the term “separation of church and state.” You can call it a liberal interpretation all you want–the fact remains is that the concept, according to them they said what I said in my attempt at humor above.
Oh, and if you’re going to quote the Constitution in your pissed-poor (because it’s inaccurate) rewrite of my funny “memo,” don’t stop at a convenient point–go ahead and finish quoting the stuff that matters; i.e., is on point for this discussion.
Gaudere and I had a pretty informative debate on this topic. What she came up with was the proposition that all that really matters, all that makes us human is our minds.
If our goal is to protect human life, what that really means is protecting human thought. If it has a human brain capable of human thought it is by her definition a human being, entitled to the rights and protections of a human being.
We found pretty strong scientific evidence to suggest that the brain of a fetus was capable of human thought and consciousness at some point in the second trimester. I argued earlier in the second, she held out for later.
At 8 months though that fetus posessed a brain capable of human thought and is therefore a human being in my book.
Most of the FF’s where slave holders and believed in the inherent superiority of white, landowning men. Ben Franklin urged the CC to open with prayer. And seeing as how they “invented” the concept after the CC, why is it not easily acceptable that SOC has everything to do with the non-establishment of a government religion, and not the total seperation of government and religion. Wouldn’t such clarification in the Constitution itself be more than private letters and speeches decades later by two of the few?
And I was at a loss myself on what SOCS had to do with the current topic, or even what His said, but could you please tell me what was inaccurate?
