She murdered her own child, and you claim she basically got off. Sorry that alone sounds like a lifetime sentence.
On this board? Off the top of my head, there’s Bryan Ekers and Der Trihs. I know there are, at the very least, three more. But really, who is arguing whether or not they draw a distinction between abortion and infanticide? I perfectly well realize that virtually every pro-choicer will differentiate between abortion and infanticide (they usually do so on the basis of location). I’m not so sure what the point of bringing that up was, since no one has ever stated they wouldn’t.
No, my argument isn’t based on the lack of difference. My original assertion which people laughed and scoffed at was that if abortion for reason X is rationalized away, then infanticide for reason X should, would and could also be rationalized away, assuming that X is something that holds true for both situations. Just look at the quote from the judge. She was the one who drew a distinction to abortion when ruling. I’m just pointing out that she did and wanted to know from the people who use the aforementioned argument about a woman being able to decide what’s best for her own life what, if anything, is wrong with the judge’s ruling.
(For people who love to scream straw man, I sure do spend a lot of my time correcting the straw men of others.)
You are way off base. I don’t think any pro-choice people argue that abortion should be legal because a woman has the right to decide what’s best for her own life. I think that most pro-choice people hold the belief that the state should not be able to force a woman to bear children she does not desire to carry to term. Limited government and all that.
But no one uses that argument. That’s what makes it a strawman.
Just so you know, she intended to kill her child before giving birth to it, had tried to miscarry and then lied about killing it. Just throwing that out there. For context.
I think you are being purposely obtuse, infanticide is about committing violence against a separate individual, abortion is about control of your own body. I don’t see any connection between the two.
…Really? Okay, fine. How many examples would you like?
…Really? No one? I guess I’ve just been arguing with myself all these months.
Too much subjective content in that statement already to justify a reasonable argument based on logical consistency.
All the rest is mindless drivel.
How about 1?
You are using the Canadian case to point to your larger vision of “logical consistency” in the abortion debate which applies here in the US as well as anywhere. You are pointing out that killing the child after it is born is logically consistent with abortion and you point to a case in Canada to illustrate the horror of such thinking.
Your strawman is the misrepresentation of the pro-choice side to suppose, for them to be logically consistent, they must be ok with mothers killing their born children.
As for “belief” the pro-choice side has science on its side. A fully formed, albeit tiny, human does not pop into existence at conception. We know this for a fact. Not a belief.
You (or at least many pro-lifers) want to assert full personhood with all the rights attendant to those of us who are born on a zygote. It is not a “belief” to note distinct and important differences between a zygote and you.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then the OP is wrong.
It’s ridiculous. Pro-choice people do not want to be tied down and forced to be brood mares with all the physical and chemical changes that go with the process. The death of a potential human is an unfortunate side effect, not the goal.
The thing is that you, along with most conservatives, want the government to have complete control over peoples lives. You want the government to grow into a police state that dictates morality all aspects of life, but especially in those areas that are most private: birth, marriage and death. I just hope you don’t get your way and are forced by a judge to live for months in agony long after you have begged your doctor to let you die.
(Heck. They even put forth the argument of aborting because it’s in the child’s best interest because it might have self-esteem issues later on in life or simply because the woman doesn’t want to give it up for adoption.)
Did you not read my OP where I clearly said I’m speaking only to those individuals who argue that abortion should be legal under the basis that a woman should be able to decide for herself what’s best for her life?
(And, yes, there are people on these boards who use that exact argument.)
And this is the problem. You’re misusing the term straw man. Taking a specific argument to its logical conclusion does not constitute a straw man. If you don’t use the argument stated in the OP then-- guess what?-- this thread isn’t for you.
Nope. Not playing this game. I’ve quote mined enough only to have said quotes flatly ignored, so doing it again would serve no purpose.
…Though, I must say, that there’s no such thing as a “fully formed” human being before one reaches, at the very least, puberty, and more than likely not until one reaches their early to mid twenties.
How do you know which distinctions are important? …Oh, wait. Because you’ve decided they’re important. I’m guessing you don’t see the problem with that. This goes back to my point I made before, about you treating your “beliefs” as the de facto criteria whereas everyone else who would disagree with you is wrong. That’s a game I can’t win and you can’t lose, so I’m not going to play it.
You’re offended by the relevant Criminal Code sections when applied to what appears to be a smothered 19 year old girl that had to hide her pregnancy and give birth in a basement? Odd.
Incidentally the infanticide provisions in the Canadian Criminal code appear to be roughly 60 odd years old placing them well before the striking down of Canadian abortion laws. They don’t flow from some sort of pro-life mindset but predate it.
I… Am actually quite interested how you came to the conclusion that she was smothered. Yes, I’d love to hear it. And, no, I’m not offended by anything. I’m just pointing out to you that she had intended to kill her child before giving birth to it. Long before.
That’s great, but I’m not the judge who mentioned Canada’s lack of abortion laws and stated how they’re (not) fashioned with both the mother and child in mind when making a ruling on an infanticide case, whereas the woman in question walks free. I’ve noticed how no one wants a take a stab at the actual ruling by the judge, or any of the words she wrote out.
Let’s logically extend Conservatives ideas.
- The fetuses right to live supersedes the mothers right to choose
- The fetuses rights are above those of the mother
- The fetus is more important than the mother
- Let us all hail our new fetus overlords!
Well, since my name was dropped, I may as well comment.
-Yes, I see a distinction between abortion and infanticide.
-Yes, I’m okay with keeping late-term purely-elective abortion legal.
-I’m not particularly outraged by Effert (or young women in similar circumstances) getting a suspended sentence.
I don’t see how the above three concepts form a logical inconsistency (or even if they do, why that should be a concern), nor any reason to consider imposing a new abortion law in Canada.
I get that OMG wants to suss out some mathematical formula by which the pro-life position is proven correct, and I wish him good luck with that.
You don’t see any logical inconsistency between those three because there is no logical inconsistency between those three. And no one said anything about imposing a new abortion law in Canada. That’s another topic for another thread. Simple, huh?
“The judge said Effert, unlike most people her age, was not allowed to have a beer on a hot day and her parents had to chaperone her every move outside the home.” CTV News, besides how many assured outgoing 19 year olds with a decent support system hide a pregnancy for 9 months and give birth in their basement?
The infanticide law predates the abolition of the abortion laws and so was considered a valid assessment of culpable murder while abortion laws were in effect. How you get a judgment based on a 60 year old law as evidence of the 30 year absence of an abortion law is odd.