Political Crossfire Forums

[Sailor Moon]

To give the fetus the right to live its life naturally can easily take assisted abortion out of the equation. There is NO SUCH THING as an explicit right to live. We all die. The fact that a fetus can die in utero is not new news. The fact that we also drive, and have all these new technological advances, like trampolines and roller coasters, that cause our bodies much more distress than anything natural ever could, then there needs to be an addendum protecting the woman against criminalization as a result of these new technologies. Everything is left to chance. Why would we say "a fetus HAS the right to live, and thats the final word"... because WE dont have a final word in the matter. Miscarriages happen. Stillbirths happen. WE will not change this by making up a law that does not account for this.

Therefore, it should state (to avoid any confusion about "willful" or "with ill intention" abortions, etc) that women who are pregnant or trying to conceive still have the right to partake in their day to day lives, whatever content their lives might have that could possibly damage a fetus. This keeps autonomy intact. The only explicit protection we can possibly give to fetuses, without infringing on the womens rights, is the right to not be subjected to surgical abortions or chemical/ medical abortions, also known as assisted. Obviously it doesnt have to be worded "assisted" to be made into a law. Just saying "no chemical or surgical abortions are allowed" can do this.

This gives the fetus as equal a right to live as anyone else. After all, arent all our lives subject to end by chance at any given moment? Taking "chemical/medical and surgical abortions" out of the picture, I would say so!

Obviously it can also have a stipulation for whomever (fetus or mother) is most likely to kill the other.. this would allow for abortions/ C sections to take place to save one or both lives, whichever it might be.. Like if the woman has coded (heart stopped) or something, then they can cut her open to save the baby, while doing manual CPR... or for ectopic pregnancies, obviously, the fetus could be removed to spare mom... but I dont have a very open mind about even saving the womans life, if it cant include saving the fetus, as well...

Remember, even born people dont have such a strong right to live that the chances of dying are not accepted. We all have the right to live and with that comes the right to die.

Anyways, sure- equal rights can still apply, as its all a matter of chance.

[anselfir]

Let me rephrase my answer then.

Your conception of rights is inadequate in addressing these issues.

Instead of asking whether something is absolutely entitled, we judge each scenario individiually. Ask, if this guy is right in killing this other guy. This is simple enough, and rights framed under this lens is a valid tool of analysis.

The pro-life position is not pro right to life, it is against the right ot kill someone, k?

[Sailor Moon]

oneofthem wrote: Let me rephrase my answer then.

Your conception of rights is inadequate in addressing these issues.

Instead of asking whether something is absolutely entitled, we judge each scenario individiually. Ask, if this guy is right in killing this other guy. This is simple enough, and rights framed under this lens is a valid tool of analysis.

The pro-life position is not pro right to life, it is against the right ot kill someone, k?

Dude, I am 100% pro life, ok? I realise this. Some pro lifers do not share the same views as we do. Some pro lifers truly believe that if a woman jumps on a trampoline, and miscarries, she is, or should be considered, negligent and should be charged with a crime. Its insane, and thats the whole purpose of the thread, to show just how rotten it is to not be thinking outside the box, ok?

This still leaves plenty of room for criminalizing women who do things on purpose to kill their babies... so dont hate, ok? :-D

[Korimyr the Rat]

The problem is, I cannot logically draw a line between surgical abortion and deliberately-induced miscarriage.

If it is not moral-- and cannot be legal-- to have a doctor kill your baby, how can it be moral or legal to do it yourself?

And, if it is not legal to deliberately induce miscarriage, how is accidentally doing so-- through reckless behavior-- not negligence? There's a difference between falling down in the street and jumping on a trampoline.

[Sailor Moon]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: The problem is, I cannot logically draw a line between surgical abortion and deliberately-induced miscarriage.

If it is not moral-- and cannot be legal-- to have a doctor kill your baby, how can it be moral or legal to do it yourself?

And, if it is not legal to deliberately induce miscarriage, how is accidentally doing so-- through reckless behavior-- not negligence? There's a difference between falling down in the street and jumping on a trampoline.

Whats the difference?

BOTH are autonomous. You could say that smoking is negligent, or driving is, you could make up laws requiring women to wear belly armor when they drive, or trains could be made off limits, or airplanes, due to turbulence...you could put pineapples in the mix, as they can cause abortions.. jacuzzis, too, uhh... going to the beach, if you get in the sun you can get cancer, or say dont go in the waves, cause this can be turbulent...you could make flowers off limits to women with bad allergies.. you could say that a woman cannot even sit on a horse and walk it, in case the horse runs- as she would be negligent..the list goes on and on...

right?

Negligence is a BAD idea to use in conjunction with miscarriage.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Sailor Moon wrote: Negligence is a BAD idea to use in conjunction with miscarriage.

I agree. That is why I can not agree with the idea that deliberate surgical abortion is immoral or that it should be illegal.

It's logically inconsistent to say that one method of killing a baby is morally better than another-- especially if it involves a greater possibility of inflicting pain or, worse, a greater possibility that the child will survive but be permanently deformed.

[Sailor Moon]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Negligence is a BAD idea to use in conjunction with miscarriage.

I agree. That is why I can not agree with the idea that deliberate surgical abortion is immoral or that it should be illegal.

It's logically inconsistent to say that one method of killing a baby is morally better than another-- especially if it involves a greater possibility of inflicting pain or, worse, a greater possibility that the child will survive but be permanently deformed.

I am never saying that one "method of abortion" is moral.. I am stating that a fetus does not have an entitlement to live, even with abortion being illegal in the future.

I am asking people to take the blinders off and think outside the box, just once.

[Gilbert1908]

Sailor Moon wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: The problem is, I cannot logically draw a line between surgical abortion and deliberately-induced miscarriage.

If it is not moral-- and cannot be legal-- to have a doctor kill your baby, how can it be moral or legal to do it yourself?

And, if it is not legal to deliberately induce miscarriage, how is accidentally doing so-- through reckless behavior-- not negligence? There's a difference between falling down in the street and jumping on a trampoline.

Whats the difference?

The difference is intent. If I point my car at a person in a cross walk and hit the gas specifically to run him over that is a crime.

If I swerve to miss a person in a cross walk because he crossed against the light and came out of no where and I hit my breaks spin out of control and accidently hit him that is not a crime. (I am not advocating that abortion be made a crime merely providing an answer to your question by example.)

But if I am driving 60 in a 30 mile an hour zone on a snowy day and I can not stop as a person in a cross walk steps in front of my speeding car on a snowy slippery road my intention toward the individual crossing is irrelevant, since I have stll committed a crime (reckless endangerment or something similar) that may not be murder but certainly makes me responsible for the death.

Sailor Moon wrote: BOTH are autonomous. You could say that smoking is negligent, or driving is, you could make up laws requiring women to wear belly armor when they drive, or trains could be made off limits, or airplanes, due to turbulence...you could put pineapples in the mix, as they can cause abortions.. jacuzzis, too, uhh... going to the beach, if you get in the sun you can get cancer, or say dont go in the waves, cause this can be turbulent...you could make flowers off limits to women with bad allergies.. you could say that a woman cannot even sit on a horse and walk it, in case the horse runs- as she would be negligent..the list goes on and on...

right?

Negligence is a BAD idea to use in conjunction with miscarriage.

[anselfir]

SO just to make sure, do we still have trouble understanding rights?
consider this, do i hve a right to money in your framing? No. But do you consider someone stealing my money wrong? And duh the difference is intent, the intent judges the soul. As for the temporal punishment side, all effort should be directed at prevention.

[Gilbert1908]

oneofthem wrote: SO just to make sure, do we still have trouble understanding rights?
consider this, do i hve a right to money in your framing? No. But do you consider someone stealing my money wrong? And duh the difference is intent, the intent judges the soul. As for the temporal punishment side, all effort should be directed at prevention.

Intent does not judge the soul it judges the motivation and therefore the cause of a result in order to assess blame. Intent is not simply a metaphysical or spiritual term it is a legal term as well.

My example is for Sailor who insists that while medically induced abortion is wrong a woman who wants to cause induced abortion is perfectly acceptable.

Korimyr the Rat and I draw differing conclusions from the agreement that either both are acceptable or both are wrong but one can not be wrong and the other acceptable since the intent and the results are the same.

I'm not seeking to run 'round this argument with Sailor again she is cemented in her illogical conclusion, I am only attempting to point out to her again that there is an obvious conflict in her position.

[anselfir]

"in order to assess blame"

This be my meaning.

[Gilbert1908]

oneofthem wrote: "in order to assess blame"

This be my meaning.

How else does one determine the outcome of the death of an individual caused by another?

Sometimes no one is to blame, sometimes someone is indirectly responsible and sometimes someone is directly responsible.

Intent becomes key in that determination. If I were to substitute responsibility for blame would feel better?

[anselfir]

bleh, me syntax was messed up.

[Sailor Moon]

Youre talking about forcible intent. I am talking about one person, living their life like they normally do and having a miscarriage. I really dont care if that person didnt give a crap about their fetus. thats not the point at all. The fetus's life depends entirely on how the woman carrying it lives her life. Just like "traveling with a live baby"... cars can hit them.. shoot thats going to happen.. you cant get around that.. but a woman having a miscarriage because she fell asleep at the wheel, being charged with intent? COME ON...

Now, Take those situations I gave before, and tell me- if you wanted an intent cause placed on miscarriages- wouldn't ALL of those scenarios still apply? Flower allergies, waves, smoking, all kinds of negligence crap... ???

YOU are talking about INTENT TO INDUCE A MISCARRIAGE. INTENT TO KILL, whatever... Any intent argument that falls outside of a "NON CHANCE EVENT" (getting hit by a car, of course, can happen anytime-its called chance. who on earth would take an added chance at their own safety just to miscarry?) CAN NOT APPPLY HERE. Why? Because 1- the woman herself has a much tougher body than her fetus does, and therefore can survive a car accident. 2- If the woman has a tougher body, then she can survive a roller coaster ride. 3- If it doesnt hurt the woman, but it kills the fetus, esp. a car accident or roller coaster, then NO CHARGES APPLY. I mean, really- if it hurts HER as well, then obviously she must have been far enough along to know shes pregnant and not reading the sign can be called intent. Or if its her first time riding a coaster...but then again, youre talking about implicating the ride operation, as well, for letting her ride it, too, and anyone who was with her, too... isnt that a bit silly, over a friggin roller coaster ride? Its called a miscarriage. GET OVER IT.

A non chance-like event. Something that happened due to a person going out of their way to kill their fetus.

Like I said before, it still leaves room to charge people who go to get illegal surgical or medical abortions. It leaves room to charge people who stick things inside of their bodies in an attempt at aborting..

NOW.

Think outside the box, for ONE MINUTE, please. Tell me how on earth it would not be oppresive to women, and people in general, to have an intent clause for things that happen pertaining to day to day life.

YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT CHANCE IS INEVITABLE, AND YOU CANT AVOID IT.

[anselfir]

We dont charge people for accidents, to a certain degree. This applies to all situations dealing with human interactions, and may require a better framing of fetal entitlements.

And please don't use the word oppressive, use right and wrong.

[Sailor Moon]

oneofthem wrote: We dont charge people for accidents, to a certain degree. This applies to all situations dealing with human interactions, and may require a better framing of fetal entitlements.

And please don't use the word oppressive, use right and wrong.

I cant tell you whats right and wrong, but I can tell you what would feel oppressive to me as a woman.. Youre not a woman, and you will never have to worry about being restrained from living a normal life due to pregnancy law, so dont tell me how to word my responses, thank you.

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Negligence is a BAD idea to use in conjunction with miscarriage.

I agree. That is why I can not agree with the idea that deliberate surgical abortion is immoral or that it should be illegal.

It's logically inconsistent to say that one method of killing a baby is morally better than another-- especially if it involves a greater possibility of inflicting pain or, worse, a greater possibility that the child will survive but be permanently deformed.

I am never saying that one "method of abortion" is moral.. I am stating that a fetus does not have an entitlement to live, even with abortion being illegal in the future.

I am asking people to take the blinders off and think outside the box, just once.

So, if the fetus doesn't have an entitlement to live, why outlaw abortion?

[Sailor Moon]

UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Negligence is a BAD idea to use in conjunction with miscarriage.

I agree. That is why I can not agree with the idea that deliberate surgical abortion is immoral or that it should be illegal.

It's logically inconsistent to say that one method of killing a baby is morally better than another-- especially if it involves a greater possibility of inflicting pain or, worse, a greater possibility that the child will survive but be permanently deformed.

I am never saying that one "method of abortion" is moral.. I am stating that a fetus does not have an entitlement to live, even with abortion being illegal in the future.

I am asking people to take the blinders off and think outside the box, just once.

So, if the fetus doesn't have an entitlement to live, why outlaw abortion?

The fetus has the RIGHT to live.. having the right does not indicate an entitlement. It does indicate the protection against being killed on purpose.

We have the right to live. We are not entitled to it though. We can all die at any given moment, and so can a fetus. Nobody is allowed to kill us, by conscious choice. For equal rights sake, nobody is allowed to kill a fetus in a conscious manner. A fetus can still die, though, as a result of chance, just like anyone else.

Having the Right to live and having an entitlement to it, are two separate things. Plus, since the woman herself is essentially the fetuses life support, then the fetuses chance at death is basically higher than even the womans.. so if the woman falls down, shes not negligent, for not holding the handrail.. If the fetus dies as a result of tramploine exercise, she is not negligent... but if she intrduces a chemical or medicine to her body for the sole purpose of killing her fetus, then shes negligent. If she introduces a tool into the uterus expressly to kill the fetus, she is equally negligent. Everything else is allowable, as long as someone doesnt punch her in the stomach or knock her down, for the purpose of harming either her or her fetus, and as long as SHE doesnt punch her self in the stomach or baseball bat her belly, whatever, for the express means to kill the fetus..

obviously, these would be extreme, dont you think? And it doesnt take much to find out that someone did it.. you dont need to do a medical examination, just lift your shirt and show that belly, so forensics can take photos, please.. or take a urinalysis in case a detox is needed... or question the witnesses..or even do an ultrasound. Obviously if the woman refuses to submit to doing these things, then she is pretty much admitting guilt. Obviously, too, the false accusations can lead to lawsuits against the state, as well...
which is a good thing, IMO.. let them spend their money on lawsuits, and hire less cops. GOOD idea.

[HomoUniversalis]

Sailor Moon, perhaps I will better understand the whole issue if you can explain to me why limiting the freedom of women is not oppressive, and giving them the choice is oppresive.

Mr U

[Sailor Moon]

HomoUniversalis wrote: Sailor Moon, perhaps I will better understand the whole issue if you can explain to me why limiting the freedom of women is not oppressive, and giving them the choice is oppresive.

Mr U

Its oppressive to women, while keeping abortion legal, by enabling womanizing men to take advantage of them, coerce them, threaten them, rape them, etc.. Its also oppressive to women because its harmful to them psychologically, as well as physically.

I could name a hundred specific reasons why legal abortion is oppressive.

Thats not what this thread is pertaining to, however you are more than welcome to start your own thread if you wish to discuss this.

How making abortion illegal CAN be oppressive, is if fetuses are awarded some kind of entitlement to life, rather than a normal (cause and effect respective) right to live, due to the nature of how life and death works. For more information on the "oppressive" nature of how abortion being illegal affects women, please scroll up.

If you want to discuss oppression to women through legal abortion, then start a new thread, like I asked, please.

We wont be discussing this in THIS thread, though. If you wish to address the issues pertaining to this thread, then please post anything "on topic" you wish. No hijacking, please. Thanks.