In abortion threads gone, I’ve on more than one occasion pointed out if one argument (among many bad ones) for the legalization of abortion is that a woman has the right to decide what’s best for her own life, that infanticide should, could and would be legal if the woman deems it would be the best choice for her own life, as that would be logically consistent. To argue that a woman be disallowed from killing her newborn would be to assert that someone else other than the woman knows what’s best for her life, which would violate the basic principles of the “deciding what’s best for yourself (and your family, if you have one, or however it goes)” line. Needless to say, I was met with pages upon pages of negative comments from unnamed posters. Mmmkay, whatever.
So fast forward to a few days ago. In a case stemming from a 2005 incident in which Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta (that’s Canada ;)) gave birth secretly in her parents’ downstairs bathroom, strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence, Justice Joanne Veit handed down a three-year suspended sentence. Essentially, Katrina walks free. She has to abide by a few conditions, but there is no jail time involved.
In other words, what she might have done was wrong, but in doing that wrong she was acting in a manner which was best for her own life. Now, aside from patting myself on the back for recognizing that it was only a matter of time until someone took the aforementioned argument in favor of abortion legalization to its logical conclusion in justifying infanticide, I want one of those pro-choicers who typically argue that a woman should be able to decide for herself what’s best for her own life to come forward and explain to me, under what basis, the judge’s decision was wrong.
(If you’re not one of the aforementioned pro-choicers or a pro-lifer, then you can ignore this thread, because it ain’t for you.)
Well, it’s clearly a strawman, so what do you expect? Try actually understanding some of the pro-choice arguments. Until you do, this discussion is pointless.
Everybody has to draw a line somewhere. Personally, I draw it where the child can survive without forcing another human being to be its home. Obviously, this judge had a different perspective. Either way, I don’t understand what the fence has to do with it.
When you discussed this before, did anyone point out that, in the case of a child that has actually been born, it is absolutely unnecessary to kill it in order to unburden the mother. You only need take it away and have someone else care for it. That alone must represent a pretty sharp bump on your slippery slope.
Well, since you actually didn’t “aforemention” anyone, I’ll just assume that I can respond anyway.
In your game of “logical consistency,” I think you can assume that anyone who says, “a woman should be able to have an abortion because it’s the best choice for her own life,” doesn’t mean a woman can do anything she wants no matter what if it’s the ‘best’ choice for her own life. Pretending like that’s what your unaforementioned posters meant is disingenuous, and sets up a strawman the size of the Eiffel Tower. Do you think they truly meant a woman could, oh, shoot a stranger in the head, just because? No, you don’t. So, you caught someone in potentially sloppy language. Yay you.
So, back up a step. What could they possibly mean? Probably that the specific act of having an abortion is one that they think should be allowed if it is ‘best for the woman’s life’.
Now that I’ve cleared that up, maybe you could ask for this thread to be closed, since it was clearly started based on an erroneous assumption about what the aforementioned posters meant when they clearly did not mean it at all.
This has nothing to do with choice. The judge didn’t rule that she has the right to decide, in fact her conviction for second degree murder was overturned because she was mentally unbalanced at the time of the incident. The crown is appealing this to the Supreme Court of Canada so the case isn’t over yet either. She didn’t walk free exactly, since she served part of a 90 sentence for disposing of the body and was in custody for psychiatric care for 7.5 months pre-trial as well as living under restrictions related to her bail conditions for 6 years.
The mother was convicted. The op is simply disagreeing with the sentence imposed. Reasonable minds can differ, the judge did what she thought was right.
Clearly, it’s not. Would you like for me to pull up specific quotes? I’d much prefer not to, but if you’re going to cry “straw man!”, then apparently I must.
It’s not a bump at all; in fact, it’s irrelevant because doing what is best for one’s self doesn’t hinge on what’s necessary and unnecessary. If this was the case, then abortion would mostly be illegal, since the majority of abortions are unnecessary. And as I’m sure you don’t want to go down that route, I won’t. Unless you want to.
Go ahead. This ought to be fun.
You know, if you’re going to accuse others of setting up a straw man-- and apparently you are-- could you at least try not to set one up yourself? No one, least of all me, said because a woman can have an abortion she should be allowed to do whatever she wants. I can link you to every thread I’ve ever participated in on abortion, and will mail you a check for a thousand dollars if you can find any post of mine in which I’ve ever stated this or even come close to insinuating it. If I were you, I’d take that bet. It’d be easy money. Assuming I ever said or insinuated as much (which I haven’t).
For what it’s worth, what I’ve said, and probably much to your consternation, is that if a woman can have an abortion for reason X because it’s in her best interest to do so, then it should also be permissible for a woman to kill her newborn (or any child of any age) for that same reason because it’s in her best interest, assuming X is some reason that can be held as equal between the two situations. If a woman, for example, does not feel like she is financially able to care for a child, and she can’t bear to give that child up for adoption, it doesn’t matter if she kills it the fifth week of pregnancy, the thirtieth week or pregnancy or thirty seconds after it is born. The end result is the same and in every case she’s acting out of the same reason and deciding what’s best for her own life. Notice how that’s entirely different than the straw man you set up? Probably not, but I can only hope.
As it is, this is precisely the rationalization behind the judge’s ruling. My original question still stands-- a question, unsurprisingly enough, no one has bothered to try to touch.
It’s entirely possible to say nothing while writing something. Abortions are carried out for specific reasons. They don’t just “happen” and women don’t have them just to have them. There’s a reason behind them, and for the majority of abortions these reasons boil down to there being an associated cost with raising a child, with the woman either being unwilling to take on those costs or simply not believing she can.
You do realize that you didn’t “clear anything up”. You just talked yourself into a circle without actually saying anything.
When are you going to be of help?
It wasn’t.
No. The Alberta judge used the fact that Canada has no abortion law as an argument to not sentence the woman to jail, trying to draw an equivalence to a woman having an abortion because she lacked support and a woman killing her newborn because she lacked support. This is why she mentioned abortion in the first place.
When I saw the thread title and who posted it I had no idea what would be inside but I was pretty sure there would be no logical consistency to be found.
I was right.
Other posters have noted the glaring flaws so I’ll go largely with what others have said about the strawman in the OP.
The end result is the same ONLY if you hold that life begins at conception and ending that life is tantamount to murder.
Obviously some people hold this view. Many do not and the law as it stands in the US does not see it that way.
For this thread you are asserting that life begins at conception for the rest of your logical consistency to hold. You may personally believe that. It remains your assertion though and certainly not an assertion all will agree on.
Ok, so how many pro-choice supports do you know that think late term abortion on demand (i.e., not situations where the health of the mother is at risk) is ok? If the answer is at or near zero, then you’ll have to concede that, in their minds at least, there is a difference between abortion and infanticide.
Since you base your whole argument on the lack of a difference, you have created a strawman. QED.
Number two, I’d play the “beliefs” game, but it’s a game I can’t win, simply because you will treat your beliefs as de facto correct and everyone else’s as de facto wrong. For example, let’s assume we have three people with differing “beliefs”. One who “believes” life begins at conception, one who “believes” life begins at birth and one who “believes” life begins after birth. You’ll agree that the individual who “believes” that life begins at birth shouldn’t have to conform to the “beliefs” of the person who says life begins at conception, yet you don’t argue that the individual who “believes” that life begins after birth should not have to conform to the “beliefs” of the individual who says life begins at birth. You won’t argue that the individual who “believes” that life begins after birth to be allowed to operate according to his or her own “beliefs”; you’ll force them to conform to the “beliefs” of someone else. Buuut I’ve been over this ad nauseum in the past, yet the cherry-picking and half-hearted application of one’s argument persists. Oh well… That’s not really the point of the thread, anyway.
Number three, I think you might want to read what the judge wrote out, since that’s the central point to the thread. Since I don’t think I’ll be getting my original question answered, what do you think the point of mentioning abortion laws in Canada was? I’m curious to know.
