Political Crossfire Forums

[EugenicHegemony]

jlrobe wrote: EugenicHegemony, you make a pretty decent legal argument, and a case like this might go to a grand jury and make it to trial.

I doubt the case would be won. EVen if Miss Moon was found guilty, she would must likely appeal until it reached a high federal court. At the higher federal court I am sure it will be discovered that you cannot prove beyone a reasonable doubt how a miscarraige happened in regards to a rollercoaster. The court would then have to go on three seperate routes.
1) Intent. They would have to establish that she intended to miscarry her baby by riding on the rollercoaster.
2) Depraved indifference. She reasonably knew and was warned that riding on the roller coaster would jeopardize the health of the fetus and violated its right to life.
3) Gross negligence. She neglected her fetus and that ultimately led her death.

Now gross negligence would never fly becasue that would mean that women who go to dangerous countries, eat questionable food, took kickboxing, or dont maintain a balanced diet would be at risk. A federal court would never risk this. THus you only have the two left.

Depraved indifference is a tough one. In this case, the mother KNEW that her actions would most likely result in the death of her fetus while causing no direct harm to herself. This would be a stretch and hard to win as well at the higher courts, but I will list this as a "stretch".

The last one, which is intent, would be sufficient if a court could prove such a thing. There would have to be sworn testimony that the woman told someone she intended to kill her fetus by her actions.

Interesing post however.

I was making a valid point about subjective morality. Hell, some woman will just jump around and throw themselves down a flight of stairs, continue to fall on their stomachs or repeatedly hit themselves there. These forced birthing wackos seem to have a problem if a woman actually inserts something into her body that has the same result, and I could care less what they think. It's absurd that people think they can control what a woman does with her body, and if we had the AOC we wouldn't even be having this discussion now.

[jlrobe]

EugenicHegemony wrote: jlrobe wrote: EugenicHegemony, you make a pretty decent legal argument, and a case like this might go to a grand jury and make it to trial.

I doubt the case would be won. EVen if Miss Moon was found guilty, she would must likely appeal until it reached a high federal court. At the higher federal court I am sure it will be discovered that you cannot prove beyone a reasonable doubt how a miscarraige happened in regards to a rollercoaster. The court would then have to go on three seperate routes.
1) Intent. They would have to establish that she intended to miscarry her baby by riding on the rollercoaster.
2) Depraved indifference. She reasonably knew and was warned that riding on the roller coaster would jeopardize the health of the fetus and violated its right to life.
3) Gross negligence. She neglected her fetus and that ultimately led her death.

Now gross negligence would never fly becasue that would mean that women who go to dangerous countries, eat questionable food, took kickboxing, or dont maintain a balanced diet would be at risk. A federal court would never risk this. THus you only have the two left.

Depraved indifference is a tough one. In this case, the mother KNEW that her actions would most likely result in the death of her fetus while causing no direct harm to herself. This would be a stretch and hard to win as well at the higher courts, but I will list this as a "stretch".

The last one, which is intent, would be sufficient if a court could prove such a thing. There would have to be sworn testimony that the woman told someone she intended to kill her fetus by her actions.

Interesing post however.

I was making a valid point about subjective morality. Hell, some woman will just jump around and throw themselves down a flight of stairs, continue to fall on their stomachs or repeatedly hit themselves there. These forced birthing wackos seem to have a problem if a woman actually inserts something into her body that has the same result, and I could care less what they think. It's absurd that people think they can control what a woman does with her body, and if we had the AOC we wouldn't even be having this discussion now.

Oh, well, I was merely making a legal argument. I can see the point you are trying to make now. One thing I must say however, is that we arent controlling what women do to their bodies so much as we are making the medical pratice illegal.

I hate to be technical, and please, respond if I rub you the wrong way but, say that breast augmentation was illegal becasue it was too dangerous to practice. True, a woman has a right to control her body, but the goverment is illegalizing the medial procedure to augment her breast.

Just like a woman can control her own body, the goverment is trying to illegalize the medical practice of removal.

now. Making it illegal for a woman to perform her own abortion may be different.

[jlrobe]

Mycroft147 wrote: hey a little off subject, why exactly arent animals considered on t he same level as humans? Besides species difference obviously...

Subjective. THose who have power grant it to those who they identify to the most. White man gave other white men power, men gave men of every race power, humans give other humans power, et.c

[Mycroft147]

jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: hey a little off subject, why exactly arent animals considered on t he same level as humans? Besides species difference obviously...

Subjective. THose who have power grant it to those who they identify to the most. White man gave other white men power, men gave men of every race power, humans give other humans power, et.c

So your saying their is no difference, we just dont want to give animals the same rights as us?

[Sailor Moon]

I was reviewing these arguments on autonomy. I love how its only okay to you for someone else to have the sense to do something properly/ safely TO a woman, but not the woman herself.

How SEXIST!!!!!!!

OPPRESSIVE, TOO,

AND.....

CHEUVENISTIC OF YOU!!!!

:evil:

[DynamicUno]

jlrobe wrote:

I dont see it as killing or murder , just like Americans didnt feel that killing slaves was killing, or killing a civilian accidentally in war was killing. Back then people justified it by saying that the skin pigmentation is higher and thus we can kill. I am justifying it now by saying it hasnt left the mothers body yet, and thus she still "owns" it so to speak. I think of it more as an organ, than a person because a person is singular and autonomous, but a fetus is not. Anyhow, we arent talking about partial-birth abortions or sucking brains out. I strongly discourage abortions in the second trimester.

It depends on how you define autonomous, though, doesn't it?

A 2 year old infant is physically seperated from the mother, yet still 100% dependant on her. That's hardly "autonomous" in any by the most semantic sense.

Science makes a fairly clear case - an individual of a species is considered just that - an individual of the species - by means of chromosomes. A human being is a unique individual with 23 chromosomal pairs. By that logic, a sperm cell is not a unique human being (with just 23 chromosomes - not pairs) and an egg is not a unique human being, but a fertilized egg - with 46 chromosomes, or 23 pairs - most certainly is.

If we define muder as the voluntary cessation of the life of a human being by a different human being, then abortion most certainly qualifies.

[DynamicUno]

Mycroft147 wrote:

So your saying their is no difference, we just dont want to give animals the same rights as us?


If animals want the same rights as us, they are welcome to form a civil government and demand them.

Until then, I don't see how they're entitled to those rights.


This is also exceptionally off topic. :lol:

[Selfish_Meme]

Mycroft147 wrote: Your argument is off subject anyways, you should be debating whether or not the baby is a human before viability. If it is then they have a right not to be murdered.
Why? Human is just a species designation. If I cut your arm off, it is still genetically human.

[Mycroft147]

DynamicUno wrote: Mycroft147 wrote:

So your saying their is no difference, we just dont want to give animals the same rights as us?


If animals want the same rights as us, they are welcome to form a civil government and demand them.

Until then, I don't see how they're entitled to those rights.


This is also exceptionally off topic. :lol:

Ha, i already stated that it was off topic. Are you saying that 2 year olds shouldnt have rights either because they cant form a civilised government and demand them? you didnt answer the question.

[Mycroft147]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Your argument is off subject anyways, you should be debating whether or not the baby is a human before viability. If it is then they have a right not to be murdered.
Why? Human is just a species designation. If I cut your arm off, it is still genetically human.

Yeah but no one considers the arm a human being, do they. Yes human is just a species designation, but right now the embryo isnt considered a human being with human rights. thats the point.

[Selfish_Meme]

DynamicUno wrote: If we define muder as the voluntary cessation of the life of a human being by a different human being, then abortion most certainly qualifies.
Yes it can be, if human being is interperated that way, however that is not how the law interperets it. The law inteperates human being as 'person'. Therefore a brain dead human bieng cannot be 'murdered', a fetus is the same because they have no personhood. There is now a special law about killing a fetus but it is not homicide.

[Selfish_Meme]

Mycroft147 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Your argument is off subject anyways, you should be debating whether or not the baby is a human before viability. If it is then they have a right not to be murdered.
Why? Human is just a species designation. If I cut your arm off, it is still genetically human.

Yeah but no one considers the arm a human being, do they. Yes human is just a species designation, but right now the embryo isnt considered a human being with human rights. thats the point.
Never said the arm was a human being, you used the term human, so did I. And still a human being is not necessarily a 'person'. A brain dead human being is not a 'person'. When they kill a brain dead human being it is not 'murder'.

Mainly all this muddle is caused by the impreciseness of english. When I can say things like deceptively truthful, and it actually mean something you know it is the terminology at fault. Life, a life, human, a human, human being, person, they can all mean one thing and all mean something entirely different to each other.

[Mycroft147]

Selfish_Meme wrote: DynamicUno wrote: If we define muder as the voluntary cessation of the life of a human being by a different human being, then abortion most certainly qualifies.
Yes it can be, if human being is interperated that way, however that is not how the law interperets it. The law inteperates human being as 'person'. Therefore a brain dead human bieng cannot be 'murdered', a fetus is the same because they have no personhood. There is now a special law about killing a fetus but it is not homicide.

If you take it from the legal perspective its obvious that the laws definition of person is wrong. The constitution only allows BORN people to have rights, which almost everyone agrees is wrong. As for whe nthey become an actual person, that could be considered anywhere up to the age of 2 or 3 since they dont have a real personality before that.

[Selfish_Meme]

Mycroft147 wrote: If you take it from the legal perspective its obvious that the laws definition of person is wrong. The constitution only allows BORN people to have rights, which almost everyone agrees is wrong.
Do you have some evidence for the claim that most people think the legal definition of personhood is wrong?

Let me know if it changes because maybe when I'm in the states I could knock the missus up, the embryo can then claim citizenship?

[Selfish_Meme]

Maybe they will pass a law that we have to take contraceptive pills while in the states, or maybe they will provide chaperones so we don't conceive 'accidentally'.

[jlrobe]

Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: hey a little off subject, why exactly arent animals considered on t he same level as humans? Besides species difference obviously...

Subjective. THose who have power grant it to those who they identify to the most. White man gave other white men power, men gave men of every race power, humans give other humans power, et.c

So your saying their is no difference, we just dont want to give animals the same rights as us?

For now, yes. That is my opinion. Why accomodate everyone? You dont want everyone to have equal rights. We as humans always make distinctions. For many of us, human rights supersede animal rights, because we have the power and we will protect our own interests first. There is a bit more to it than that though.

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: I was reviewing these arguments on autonomy. I love how its only okay to you for someone else to have the sense to do something properly/ safely TO a woman, but not the woman herself.

How SEXIST!!!!!!!

OPPRESSIVE, TOO,

AND.....

CHEUVENISTIC OF YOU!!!!

:evil:

Umm, I am not sexist. Fist of all, I am one of the only pro-choicers who will admit to oppressing the rights of a fetus knowingly. I dont know if you are white but if you are, talk to your great grandpa about oppression. He is the one that fought for white mens rights, not me. Anyhow, autonomy is autonomy. I am not making any other judgemments.

[Mycroft147]

jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: hey a little off subject, why exactly arent animals considered on t he same level as humans? Besides species difference obviously...

Subjective. THose who have power grant it to those who they identify to the most. White man gave other white men power, men gave men of every race power, humans give other humans power, et.c

So your saying their is no difference, we just dont want to give animals the same rights as us?

For now, yes. That is my opinion. Why accomodate everyone? You dont want everyone to have equal rights. We as humans always make distinctions. For many of us, human rights supersede animal rights, because we have the power and we will protect our own interests first. There is a bit more to it than that though.

Yeah,i guess what i was getting to is that most people say humans are different form animlas because we can reason. Now obviously this would be a bad way to decide when fetuses become human because they dont really reason until much after birth right? plus if they are mentally handicapped they might not be able to reason at all. This makes it seem that either animals deserve the same rights as humans, or else we need to rethink how we define becoming a human being.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: I was reviewing these arguments on autonomy. I love how its only okay to you for someone else to have the sense to do something properly/ safely TO a woman, but not the woman herself.

How SEXIST!!!!!!!

OPPRESSIVE, TOO,

AND.....

CHEUVENISTIC OF YOU!!!!

:evil:

Umm, I am not sexist. Fist of all, I am one of the only pro-choicers who will admit to oppressing the rights of a fetus knowingly. I dont know if you are white but if you are, talk to your great grandpa about oppression. He is the one that fought for white mens rights, not me. Anyhow, autonomy is autonomy. I am not making any other judgemments.

Sorry, honey, but youre the only one assuming that everyone is oppressing you. My grandparents were yankees.

The discussion has led to autonomy, and women not being allowed to perform their own abortions, or find ways to miscarry safely, because these paternal men like you, who dont trust women to have the sanity to make wise choices about their body.

Furthermore, lets say this, hypothetically:

(to make you understand- and only because you have strong feelings about race)

"Black people can EAT food, but they may not grow their own, or else they might do it unsafely. Blacks may not swim without a buddy, because history shows us that they might drown if they dont know how to swim." (pretty ridiculous right?)

Now. See where I am coming from with women? I did not mean that racial remark at all, just to make a point about autonomy. I also want to add that I have NO white friends, besides a few in Colorado (its pretty much all white and hispanic), so please dont DO NOT think that the racial thing was meant for anything BUT to show you, who feels strongly about racial inequality, how hypocritical it is to use this sort of power and oppression on women.

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: jlrobe wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: I was reviewing these arguments on autonomy. I love how its only okay to you for someone else to have the sense to do something properly/ safely TO a woman, but not the woman herself.

How SEXIST!!!!!!!

OPPRESSIVE, TOO,

AND.....

CHEUVENISTIC OF YOU!!!!

:evil:

Umm, I am not sexist. Fist of all, I am one of the only pro-choicers who will admit to oppressing the rights of a fetus knowingly. I dont know if you are white but if you are, talk to your great grandpa about oppression. He is the one that fought for white mens rights, not me. Anyhow, autonomy is autonomy. I am not making any other judgemments.

Sorry, honey, but youre the only one assuming that everyone is oppressing you. My grandparents were yankees.

The discussion has led to autonomy, and women not being allowed to perform their own abortions, or find ways to miscarry safely, because these paternal men like you, who dont trust women to have the sanity to make wise choices about their body.

Furthermore, lets say this, hypothetically:

(to make you understand- and only because you have strong feelings about race)

"Black people can EAT food, but they may not grow their own, or else they might do it unsafely. Blacks may not swim without a buddy, because history shows us that they might drown if they dont know how to swim." (pretty ridiculous right?)

Now. See where I am coming from with women? I did not mean that racial remark at all, just to make a point about autonomy. I also want to add that I have NO white friends, besides a few in Colorado (its pretty much all white and hispanic), so please dont DO NOT think that the racial thing was meant for anything BUT to show you, who feels strongly about racial inequality, how hypocritical it is to use this sort of power and oppression on women.

For one, I never said I was oppressed. Number 2, if you are not black, you have crossed the line. How dare you tell me whether or not I am oppressed. I am not oppressed, but you have no right to declare that. Your grandfather had no right to declare women were not oppressed when they still couldnt vote.

Please explain to me how I am sexist and get one pro-lifer to back you up . I am not sexist because of my scientific definiont of autonomy. I never took a stance on autonomy, i am just stating the facts.

And who cares if your grandpa is a yankee. Newflash, yankees owned slaves. Newsflash....yankee men didnt allow women to vote.

Your black comment makes no sense. Black slaves were not autonomous because they were not allowed to be. What dont you get?

CAN SOME pro-lifer please help me understand what sailor is saying? MyCroft, do me a huge favor and help me understand what sailor is saying.

Please!!!!