It’s already a crime. It’s called assault. I imagine wrongful death could also be added.
You don’t think modern day society would collapse if we forced pregnancy on women? Again with the “saving the poor, poor men” argument. Where are you (and several other people) getting the idea that rape would even be considered an exception if abortion were banned? I believe the SD law doesn’t include it. If, as you say, abortion is murder, then it’s murder no matter how the woman got pregnant. As I so often hear people say, “it’s not the baby’s fault”. I’m quite sure that if the anti-choice side got RvW overturned, rape exceptions would go out the window with it.
Pregnancy is.
The hell? You’ve completely avoided my question. If a woman is no longer entitled to control of her body because pregnancy is a risk of sex, then she isn’t entitled to it when disease is a risk either. You’re saying that act of participating in a chance opportunity removes any ability to deal with its outcome.
So you’re saying there is no difference betwen a baby and a blastocyte? Because next you say…
…which would seem to imply that there clearly is a difference. Otherwise you would have to read my question as “would you save one baby or ten thousand babies?”.
Um, the healthy baby :rolleyes: ? Sucky choice, but if a baby’s terminal, you haven’t really saved it by taking it out of the building. You’ve just added one more baby death to your total.
The healthy adult. If the sickly brother relies on him to stay alive, saving the sick brother and leaving the healthy brother to die results in the sick brother’s death just as much as leaving him in the building.
I don’t see the point of these. Besides the fact that the answers seem obvious, you’re comparing two actual people, not a person and a pile of cells.
I can comprehend it, that does not mean that I accept it - can you accept that?.
FWIM’s I am torn between life at conception and life at the start of brain activity, I am planing the life at conception side here, but could accept the latter.
Wrongful death of who? We don’t count fetuse ‘unpersons’ remember/
Mother walks into the Dr’s office, Says hey doc, after 7 years of trying I’m finally pregnant, and we did it all naturally. The reason I’m here is to see if you can do anything about this morning sickenss. Doc says sure, I can give you a shot of -------, it will take your morning sickenss away in about 2 days. She agrees, the ----- induces a spontainious abortion, which cures the mother of morning sickness.
Crime?
There was no one hurt (we don’t count fetus unpersons), the doc did as she requested, she consented, she is still able to make a person.
First I know of very few anti-choice people, except for those who oppose abortion for rape - as a choice was never granted. As a former pro-lifer, and a current pro abortionist, it is not based on religion, but the belief that: there is more to this life then our time here, Mankind is superior to animals, and there is a ultimate authority - God. It has nothing to do with a particular religion, unless you want to define those 3 things as kanicbirdism.
I’m not saying that there is a movement for no abortions except for rape, I’m saying I can’t justify allowing a fetus the enviroment he needs to develop w/o the woman granting permission (normally done through consentual sex). Just like if you woke up and fond a person was stuck to you and he needed to be there to live for the next 9 months, you didn’t chose this, you should not be allowed to kill this person, but you can remove the life support you are providing if you wish. Now if you agreeded to this deal ahead of time I would not support life support removal - it is something you agreed to.
Yes, no one can chose to get pregnant, they can only chose to engage in acts that might cause pregnacy, sex, IVF, ect - again if she choses to engage in such a act she takes on the responsibility of the possibility of life creation.
No actually I am stating the opposite, she is the one who is responsible for her actions. If she has sex, she could get a STD, she is responsible to her medical care of such a issue. If she creates a life, she is responsible for that life’s care along with her own.
Once pregnant she should control her body MORE, not less to ensure the health of the fetus/baby.
I didn’t answer your question, I just said that was the obvious choice (meaning on the surface this seems to be the answer). So how about you, your choices are:
1 - Healthy baby
or
2 - 2 babies each with no more then 6 months to live?
Which would you save? If you pick #1 I can pick the baby and still stay consistant.
Of course they should be charged with a crime. Assault. On the mother.
As you specified an wanted pregnancy, measures taken to end said pregnancy would be, by definition, an unwanted medical procedure performed on the mother. Hence, assault. We do not force legally competant persons to undergo unwanted medical procedures* that would benefit them, let alone ones that are merely performed without harming them.
This is, naturally, assuming that the person is not only competant but has made their decision based on informed knowledge of the medical procedure in question. It also does not cover emergency situations in the absence of clearly documented evidence of the person’s desires. Of course, terminating a pregnancy is not an emergency procedure, and therefore unlikely to fall within this category of medical treatment.
Functionally the same as a patient complaining of nausea from a treatment she was undergoing for cancer (or infertility, or ulcers, or the ailment of your choice), and the doctor saying “Ahh, okay. Let me adjust your prescription” and then giving the patient sugar pills.
Hey, if “we” can get pregnant then “we” can have a vasectomy.
But seriously…
The most obvious is that it doesn’t have to be a specific nipple on a specific woman (it could be a nipple on another woman or it could be a rubber nipple on a bottle and not on any woman), whereas uterine connections are not (with current medical technology) transferable.
Well, define the parameters of the hypothetical:
[list=#][li]Desert island has limited resources, making survival difficult. The mother can kill (or allow to die through simple neglect) her infant to preserve her own life. This self-preservation over-rides her positive duty to her child.[/li][li]Desert island has unlimited resources, and survival is easy. There is no element over-riding her positive duty so she cannot kill (or allow to die through simple neglect) her child.[/list][/li]I don’t know how simpler I can make it. If you just want me to keep restating my position, fine, but it’ll get pretty boring.
Salt Seller I didn’t see that you chose the healthy baby over the 2 sick/dieing ones on my above post, but anyway…
By engaging in sex you run the risk of pregnancy, even with birth control. We all know thanks to our public school system that no form of birth control is 100% effective, even surgery has failed - the risk is NEVER zero (again thanks to public schools we all know that now - so there is no excuses.
Pregnacy is the creating of human life (again assuming life at conception here). That person has been created by your actions.
You are responsible for your own actions - that action created life, therefore you are responsible for that life.
Again rape throws this out of whack, and I can’t justify denying the right to abortion for rape.
Under your approach, I’m afraid it does. You’re seeking to deny a simple solution preferring to impose a much more arduous and complex one in the name of teaching responsibility, in the same way that ordering a child to take on some unnecessarily tedious chore in the name of teaching them responsibility. In case of the child, the lesson may serve a purpose, and if it’s your child, you have that authority. You are not, however, the parent of all women, and I see no reason they should yield to your authority on this or any other matter.
The flaw in this analogy (aside from it being pretty dumb) is that when the supposedly irresponsible act of sex occurred, the “baby” didn’t actually exist. By your own account, the life wasn’t created until after the act.
It has nothing to do with teaching responsibility, nor parenting all women - it has to do with protecting human life and the anology between a child and a woman old enough to engage in consentual sex does not hold.
So change it to applying super glue to your legs that will only harden the next day when it comes into contact with a baby, when you know the next day you plan to walk through the room.
Also lets look at another example, you shoot a gun, someone is killed by the round you fired, but - here is the thing - the person didn’t get shot till after the trigher was pulled - NOT at the same time.
Being a male, I feel somewhat unqualified to fully understand the debate, but I’m in agreement with the OP and the poster (can’t recall whom) who said that each side in an honest debate should at least acknowledge that the other sides argument has at least some merit, or else there no sense in debating. I really dislike the “pro-lifers must be religious” or “all you’re doing is turning woman into slaves” arguments, because they don’t give credit (or the benefit of the doubt) to the other side’s willingness to honestly debate.
To put it another way, I feel like the abortion issue could be turned into a mathmatical equation:
On one side would be things like [the woman’s health], [the woman’s privacy], [the chance the woman will die], [the woman’s life expectancy], [the woman’s potential benefit to society] . . . on the other side would be [the fetus’ life], [the chance the fetus will survive pregnancy], [the fetus’ potential benefit to society].
(Just using those as examples). Some pro-choicers clearly feel that the value of [the woman’s privacy] is so great, that no values put in the other side will outweigh it. However, to simply dismiss the value of the [fetus’ life] as being 0 seems dishonest. Or to accuse the other side of inserting [god] or [keeping woman as slaves] into the equation is equally dishonest.
I remain somewhat ambivalent on the issue, but I’m pro-choice. But I do agree that the [fetus’ life] has some value, and I feel like that value goes up later in the pregnancy. Once a fetus hits the third trimester (or whenever) and that side of the equation wins out, did I suddently become religious?
I’m pro-choice and non-religious, so I’m not a perfect fit for MrDibble’s claim, but since I do believe that there are non-religious pro-life arguments that can honestly made, I felt a little offended.
I think maybe jsc1953 responded better and far more succinctly… If you don’t want to read all the above, just see his post and add a “me too”.
–KidScruffy
After some further thought on what you posted Bryan Ekers about the child vs woman being taught responsibility, I see that you totally have it backwards. I assume that the woman IS repsonsible for her own actions - FULLY.
Fine. When uterine-transfer technology becomes available, I trust you’ll be happy to have unwanted fetuses moved to your body, in the name of protecting human life.
Fine. If she’s FULLY responsible for a problem, why can’t she resolve it as she sees fit, i.e. an abortion? I know if I was given FULL responsibility over a situation, I’d resolve it in the quickest, simplest manner I could. Why should I respect someone else’s efforts to put barriers in my way? It’s my responsibility, not his.
By way of using an analogy that doesn’t involve supergluing babies to things, I suggest the far more realistic image of a person walking through the aisles of a pottery shop. The person (who is fully aware of the effects of gravity and the fragility of baked clay) accidentally knocks over a vase, which falls and smashes. They are clearly and fully responsible for the damage. One solution, the simplest, is to pay the $29.95, offer an apology, and be done with it. Another solution is for the person to go to pottery classes and spend several months learning how to make a perfect copy of the broken vase, which can then be given to the store. Which of these shows FULL responsibility, or do both of them, or neither?
No. I’m not arguing about perception, I’m arguing about the literal meaning of the word “offspring” You don’t seem to grasp that.
Yes, a crime. This assumes the doctor knew it would cause abortion and didn’t tell her. That’s malpractice in my book, not making a patient aware of the side effects.
My bolding.
How the Holy Blue Hell is that not religion? Never said anything about “particular”.
It wasn’t an argument, it was a question. And you haven’t given an answer to it, BTW. Nice dodge.
No. I’m not arguing about perception, I’m arguing about the literal meaning of the word “offspring” You don’t seem to grasp that.
Yes, a crime. This assumes the doctor knew it would cause abortion and didn’t tell her. That’s malpractice in my book, not making a patient aware of the side effects.
My bolding.
How the Holy Blue Hell is that not religion? Never said anything about “particular”.
It wasn’t an argument, it was a question. And you haven’t given an answer to it, BTW. Nice dodge.
