what
You are making a sophist argument. I will also assume that should a child with a disorder that causes them to be unable to feel any physical sensation, and is still unable to feed himself, this would be a freebie using your logic. Should sedated people be allowed to me killed? Also, it is debatable as to whether or not pain is felt.
Let me make it easier. This is premeditated, cold blooded, lack of remorse murder.
Why do we all not know there is full and complete evidence of human self awareness, smell and sound , remembered and aquired in the womb…
Should your life as a human be merely snuffed out if you lose self awareness… and for how long in a particular coma…???
Why not study more of the facts of your being in a womb and learn that there are no more questions regarding self awarenesses and ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL THAT PAIN IS FELT ALONG WITH VOLUNTARY MUSCLE CONTRACTIONS AND GRIMACING OF THE UNBORN BABY AS EARLY AS TH EARLIEST SUCCESSFUL PREMATURE BIRTH , KNOWN TO ALL WHO STUDY THIS.Does the fact that this human is incapable of feeling pain and is unaware of its own existance and is completely dependent upon draining the physical resources of an unwilling host to survive have any impact AT ALL on how this wrongful killing should be punished? Even the teensiest tiniest bit?
PLEASE STATE CONDITION #1, B~N,
is a fetus a living human being baby , or not ?
2nd, Please, politely asking,
Where does your judgement of fair morality stem from ?
Then conditionally discorse of penalties will have its meanings from the courts of ‘Man is the morality’ or another as a ‘Giver of morality’,
with relative definitions of love and hypocracy following a stem belief.
Simply,
does judgement/consideration of your Q’s come from molten rock solidified by cooling rains and protein goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo,
or
do we accept belief(s)
of any moralty handed to us to choose from?
GeoJon, if you want your questions answered try phrasing them in a more coherent manner. Your writing style is difficult to understand, to say the least.
PLEASE STATE CONDITION #1, B~N,
is a fetus a living human being baby , or not ?
Why not study more of the facts of your being in a womb and learn that there are no more questions regarding self awarenesses and ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL THAT PAIN IS FELT ALONG WITH VOLUNTARY MUSCLE CONTRACTIONS AND GRIMACING OF THE UNBORN BABY AS EARLY AS TH EARLIEST SUCCESSFUL PREMATURE BIRTH , KNOWN TO ALL WHO STUDY THIS.
(videoed reactions of unborn baby in the womb submitted to point of probe and finally suction-dismemberment showed absolute reactions …)
Susananne,
You never really answered the question about what would happen if the fetus was endangering the life of the mother. You said it would be a lifeboat situation. Maybe my brain is on Saturday speed, but I didn’t get an answer out of that.
What if it is determined at 5 or 6 months that the mothers life is being endangered by the fetus? Who gets to decide who is going to live in that situation? The mother? If she chooses herself then by your rigid definition, she’s guilty of murder. If she chooses her child, then you are permitting suicide. For being so “compassionate” that doesn’t seem to be consistant. Would you just make her go through the pregnancy and see what happens? By your rules, if she chooses herself she’s guilty of murder and would face execution anyhow. So basically, you’re guilty of murder in that situation, by leaving her no choice but to commit suicide.
CITE?
GeoJon, I didn’t ask you to repeat the same gibberish. I asked you to write more clearly.
Blalron
Thank you for your response, I’ll space it out for you style of understanding to make it easier…
Current Q-
What are you saying, “CITE?” to the others ?
Prerequisit for me to answer your list:
PLEASE STATE CONDITION #1,
Is a fetus a living human being baby , or not ?
The crux of my argument is that you can’t drain the physical resources of an unwilling person in order to save another.
For example, I could lay dying in a hospital and desperately need a blood transfusion from somebody who has compatable blood.
Even if you are the only person in the entire world who can keep me alive, nobody can FORCE you to give me your blood.
If I die because of your refusal to give blood, it may be a tragedy, and you may be a complete jerk for not giving me your blood, but it is still within your rights not to give me your blood.
Even if you’ve been giving me your blood and keeping me alive for a few months, you could suddenly decide to STOP giving me any more blood. Even if that kills me, even if you are a complete jerk for doing so, it is within your rights to do that.
The fact that a fetus is not self aware, has never been self aware in the past, makes this even less of a tragedy than it could be.
Cite means I am asking you to give me the source of your claims.
It is living. It is human. It is not a baby.
Your open accusatory style of rational is noted, Bla~
“incohe~” , “Gibber~”
Now
back to a question:
2nd, Please, politely asking,
Where does your judgement of fair morality stem from ?
This question regards all of us noting that either You are your own Morality, or do you believe that it is ‘Given’ to you, received other than of yourself, received by another , other than you?
Only then will your questions clearly explain you to us.
Thank you,
Now we know that your idea of penalty can not regard a baby, so your questions regard something else, but human , other than a baby.
What manner of humanity is this ?
Please explain to the point of understanding what might be a crime against this ‘human’…
ie) Any rights?
Within your morality.
Or just in the context of a GIVEN morality as a belief system.?
And what semmantic breaks down this fact in your thinking:
Fetus = Baby, [Latin] ?
What was the baby before, say, a premature birth, of 4 months since conception , that lived …?
JustThink about it Blalron… 
commitment
a “supposed-Majority” or “popular” opinion is exposed with knowing what each of our realities really are, and if we want a less-than-majority thought process to rule the majority, then let us be sure all thoughts are still of your true self, tabled fairly (as you call ‘fair’).
There are not any WRONG answers here, as we study each other a bit.
I’ll attempt to review your careful simplicity to the reader and mimic your style for understanding and discourse~
~Please, politely asking,
Where does your judgment of fair morality stem from ?
further for later this week: Good Bye for now, Thanx~
commitment
a “supposed-Majority” or “popular” opinion is exposed with knowing what each of our realities really are, and if we want a less-than-majority thought process to rule the majority, then let us be sure all thoughts are still of your true self, tabled fairly (as you call ‘fair’).
There are not any WRONG answers here, as we study each other a bit.
I’ll attempt to review your careful simplicity to the reader and mimic your style for understanding and discourse~
~Please, politely asking,
Where does your judgment of fair morality stem from ?
This internal prerequisite discourse regards all of us~
That WE can be asking
1-
is that fair judgment either one person being their own Morality,
or 2-
is that morality ‘Given’ to that one
(or if, even equally ‘Given’ to all persons),
-as morals (fair concepts within mental constructs) ‘Given’
that are simply received other than of oneself, that is a morality received by Another , other than you?
Side:
Does this human in the womb have free choice alone,
does this mother have free choice alone
or
does the not-so-silent connection to the human within that mother persuade herself to make a cross-willed commitment among all of her thoughts
-to the best of her knowledge-
then if applicable, -
actions considered among counselors-
among who she may lean upon (trusted -proven, if any)
of not just a legal consideration…bearing bare consequences that mere legal questions wont solve for either decision of life for that human or not life …
Then answer your Q’s.
You have got to be kidding me. You are asking me to contemplate every possible circumstance in which an abortion could occur and let you know how I’d prosecute, eh?
OK, I’ll get back to you in a few years. Please don’t hold your breath.
Hmm, Susanann’s world where reproductive rights are so restricted (and laws restricting them so harshly punished) would make an interesting setting for a science fiction story. For one thing, considering the number of natural miscarriages and the fact that these would have to be investigated would probably mean that a sizable percentage of the population would have to work in law enforcement to handle the caseload. It would also drastically effect the USA’s relations with other countries, as we would have to closely monitor potentially pregnant females who travel abroad to make sure they aren’t sneaking out to get an abortion. Since this law would greatly reduce the number of abortions (if not eliminate them), the population distribution would start to shift as well, and social programs for taking care of unwanted children would have to be much more complicated and invasive.
Hmm…