Well, I guess I wasn’t the intended audience for this thread anyway, since I’m not a pro-choicer who thinks the judge’s decision was wrong, let alone feels the need to explain why it was wrong.
I’m not actually sure what the abortion angle is, truth be told.
It’s very simple. A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but not to a child. Abortion does not involve a child or cause any harm, death or injury to a child.
Anything else we can clear up for you?
That is pretty much the pro-choice position in a nutshell. We can argue if and when lines should be drawn but the pro-choice position, broadly, is it has to be the mother’s decision on whether or not to have an abortion because it is her life that is most affected.
Personally I am one who is bothered by the notion that my wife could have an abortion and I have no say-so in the decision. However, bothered though I may be, I agree that in the end it has to be her decision and hers alone to make. If she wants to include others in the decision great. Her decision and I hope there are people, particularly the father, who she feels she can discuss it with.
It has to be her decision though because it is her life that is most affected and she is the only one who should be making those decisions.
It is a strawman because it misrepresents the position of the side you are opposed to. I am hard pressed to think of any pro-choice person who is ok with infanticide (there is always someone crazy you could point to but it is far, far from the mainstream pro-choice position). It also is not the logical conclusion of the above listed position. There is a world of difference between a baby who is born and a zygote.
This is nitpicking.
I’d say a newborn is a fully formed human being. Sure we grow and change throughout life but by that measure, since it is a never ending process, you could say no one is fully formed.
I think the jist of my point was clear enough.
Thanks for making the pro-choice point for me. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Try this out…
"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. "
So, why on earth do you think it is YOUR place to tell a woman what to do with her body?
Not many of them. This doesn’t mean she lacked a support system. People, especially teenagers, tend to hide things from their parents for hosts of reasons, which often times have little reflection on the parents.
Mmm… Let’s start over. In issuing her ruling, the judge cited Canada’s lack of abortion laws and used that as the basis of her decision. In fact, she didn’t just cite them, she drew an equivalence between abortion and infanticide, effectively arguing that similar to how a woman who has an abortion because of her circumstances is to be given sympathy, so too is a woman who is guilty of infanticide. As I won’t be getting an answer to the question I originally posed, here’s another set of questions.
Do you think there is any equivalency between abortion and infanticide? Why do you think abortion was mentioned in a case regarding infanticide if not to link the two?
The dictionary would disagree with you. Why do you hate the English language?
What a pathetic comeback.
I’m confused. Just a few short posts ago, someone told me that no pro-choicer argued this. At any rate, no, that’s not the pro-choice position. The argument isn’t about who. I don’t know any pro-lifer who would argue that anyone other than the women be allowed to decide to have an abortion. The argument is when and under what circumstances, if any. But that’s neither here nor there as this thread isn’t about that.
…Okay. Let’s try this again.
An argument isn’t a straw man based on whether or not you agree with the conclusions. For example, let’s assume I’m a rabid utilitarian who adamantly believes that we should do anything and everything which results in a higher utility for society. If someone points out to me that if killing the poor off would result in a higher utility for society that my position necessitates I do so, just because I don’t like that conclusion doesn’t make the argument a straw man. Same deal here. Not liking a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s a straw man. Plus, I’m curious as to where I said pro-choicers would be fine with infanticide. Again I feel the need to point out that I perfectly well realize that most pro-choicers would not be okay with infanticide. I say most because, apparently, some of the more rabid abortion groups in Canada seem to believe it’s the lesser of two evils.
The argument being examined here is the one which doesn’t make reference to stage of development, so this is kind of irrelevant.
No, it’s not. You were the one who bust out the “fully formed” line.
I don’t, which is why I don’t differentiate humans. I treat all humans as equal.
Because it’s not her body 
Now, seriously. Enough of the tangent.
Pathetic, yet highly effective 
I cannot speak for Grey but I would say there is zero equivalency between the two.
Infanticide is murder. Apparently in Canada infanticide is a lesser crime than murder however. I can see a rationale for that but it is still a crime.
You did not quote (from your link in the OP):
So, she was found guilty of murder twice. It was overturned on psychiatric grounds. Given what she did and then tossing it over the fence I’d say this woman has distinct mental issues. Those certainly mitigate the punishment she would receive (same as in the US).
Till you can cite the psychiatric evidence I do not know that we can assess the callousness of this crime. We can argue till the cows come home what an appropriate punishment would be in this case.
Why she didn’t get an abortion is beyond me. To my mind this again speaks to the mental health of this woman.
No, it’s not effective at all. It’s a surrender. It’s vacuous flailing. You had nothing. Abortion does not harm a child. A zygote is not a child. There is no such thing as an “unborn child.” Those are entities which exist only in your imagination as religious fantasy. You are entitled to your fantasy, but understand that’s all it is. Your calling a zygote a “baby” is no different from PETA calling dogs and cats “people.” It’s just as ludicrous.
The pro-choice position is it is a woman’s decision. Period. It is her body. It is her decision.
Certainly there is a lot of room to argue if and where lines should be drawn. I know some here on the SDMB have argued she could have an abortion right up till it pops out of her body. Most pro-choice people do not agree with that. There are lines that are reasonable to draw. The woman has the choice but eventually, when enough time has passed, one could argue the choice has been made. Imagine you are afraid of flying but decide to go to Europe. You can choose to get off the plane up to a point. Once you are halfway across the Atlantic is it too late to change your mind and demand the plane land at the nearest airport.
When discussing a philosophy it is fine to point out the extremes…kinda the point in such discussions on things such as pure Utilitarianism.
The title of this thread is about logical consistency.
As you just agreed most pro-choice people are not ok with infanticide. There is no logical conclusion to draw from anything they stand for that says they are cool with infanticide. Suggesting in the OP that they should be is a strawman. You are misrepresenting their position. Dramatically misrepresenting it.
If you can find some rabid group that thinks it is peachy good for you. It is a big world and you could probably find someone who thinks just about any horror you can imagine is fine. This in no way paints the picture for the vast majority. Fringe loonies are fringe loonies…whatever side they come from.
I’ll rephrase then…
When conception occurs a fully formed teeny-tiny baby does not pop into existence.
If I plugged a hose into you which siphoned nutrients off your body to feed me while I held on to your back to have you carry me around I am willing to bet you’d think it has something to do with your body.
In fact, if I tried, I bet you’d think shooting me would be a reasonable response (and I’d agree).
Finally! And they all know this is true.
To the OP I would guess the judge’s reasoning is as follows (NOTE: this is pure speculation, I do not know the case, the judge or Canadian law).
It appears in Canada there are no laws restricting abortion. In theory a woman could have an abortion ten minutes before she’d give birth and legally that would be ok. I’d be shocked if there was a hospital or abortion provider who would agree to perform the procedure at that point but as a matter of law it could, in theory, be done legally (again I am not up on any Canadian law much less abortion law but this is what I gathered).
So, if a woman pops a baby out and kills it immediately there is little distinction than if she had it (legally) aborted five minutes prior to that.
As such I am guessing that is where the judge is coming from. Why send the mother who killed the baby a minute after birth to jail for years whereas a mother who aborted five minutes earlier is in the clear?
And again…I am just speculating here but looks like that to me.
BTW, some states at least are consistent in giving even a woman who has had a child control over her destiny by making it legal for her to drop off a baby, no questions asked, at a number of locations, such as police stations or hospitals.
If some invents a method to teleport a fetus from the womb to an incubator, then I’d be happy to have that replace abortion, and I trust that the anti-choice crowd would be lining up to adopt all these babies. And pay for their care.
This isn’t correct.
It was the Alberta Court of Appeal that rejected the verdict arrived at by Judge Veit’s jury. Judge Veit allowed the judgment of 2nd degree murder to stand despite the defence’s appeal that the jury verdict be overturned. She said
Cite.
The appeal court rejected the jury’s verdict of 2nd degree murder on the basis that the only way reasonable doubt to the mother’s mental state could exist in the jury member’s minds would be if they absolutely rejected the expert testimony provided to the court. Since the appeal judges could find no reason to doubt the objectivity or qualifications of the experts provided (1 from the defence and 1 from the court and approved by the crown) they elected to reluctantly set aside the 2nd degree murder charge for infanticide.
They then sent the case back to Judge Veit for sentencing.
Now I can’t find any mention of abortion in either cite so I will ask you for the judge’s sentencing statement in their original form please. Otherwise the reading of those statements seems to be that infanticide must take into consideration the mental state of the mother and we should have some sympathy for the distress she was and is in while being appropriately distressed by the fate of the murdered child.
I still don’t see where this case shows any linkage to your original statement of
Since the charge is infanticide, which relies on the mother’s mental state being “disturbed”, it makes little sense to say that she was capable of doing what was “best for her own life”.
Neither do I understand how this case backs up
It doesn’t – it simply states that the woman murdered her child in a disturbed mental state following labour and should be charged with infanticide. If infanticide wasn’t an available judgement it would have remained 2nd degree murder.
Ah, so the thread premise in its entirety is suspect.
I’m shocked.
Come on people let’s get into the spirit of the OP.
Now that OMG has had his turn in the logical consistency strawman game here is my turn.
Pro life people think that babies are always a wonderful thing and that anything that prevents a baby from being born is the same as murder. After all aren’t we all glad that that we were born, and who out there would go up to a baby and say it should exist. Sure we can help bring about more babies by stopping abortion but why stop there. There are all of these empty uteruses that are being wasted when they could be used to produce babies. Logically all girls/women of child bearing age should undergo forced insemination every nine months. Sure many may complain about their bodies being violated, but what is a little inconvenience when compared to the miracle a new life?
So OMG how did I do?
Well, you didn’t address the need for masturbation licenses. That’ll cost you a point.
They can take my masturbation from my sticky, dead hands.
TMI dude.
Incidentally I’ve heard that if you sit on your own hand until it’s dead…
No, it wouldn’t. I looked it up. A child is defined as a human between birth and puberty.
But, I do think you are kinda sorta right here.
:eek:
I know!! But, hear me out.
If your argument is (and I think it is; you are really bad at writing to convey meaning, so I’m not completely sure) that any pro-choicer who believes that elective abortion should be legal up until the moment of birth because a woman should have the right to do what she thinks is best for herself should also be ok with infanticide in cases like this, or at least consider it the lesser of two evils, or else they are logically inconsistent; well, I think you are probably right. And, to further prove you are right, Bryan Ekers agrees that, indeed, he has no problem with this ruling.* And, as a (extremely fringe; trust me) pro-choice person who also is ok with legal elective abortions up until birth, I also have no problem with the judge’s ruling! Logically consistent!!
So, you win. Kinda. I mean, very few people hold these views, but when they do they are logically consistent. We all win? I don’t know. Anyway, you had a point I think you are kind of correct. But, not really, since you thought we would be logically inconsistent and be all, “OH NOEZ!! We hate this ruling!”
*actually, I think this ruling has a lot of extenuating circumstances that have been pointed out that make your original interpretation invalid, but nonetheless, Bryan and myself agree with your original, faulty, interpretation.