Political Crossfire Forums

[Obilisk18]

Gitana wrote: Quote: And the slim-majority the pro-choice community currently holds

You appear to be in error. Only a few Americans want abortion completely eliminated:

A compilation of numerous polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

One poll tracks opinions from 1999 to 2006; prochoicers are increasing. Another tracks from 2003 to 2006, those who wish it eliminated are decreasing. On another, taken in '05 and again in '06, the question was "Overturn Roe?"

'05 - yes, overturn: 28% no: 63%
'06 - yes, overturn: 25% no: 66%

That's because the vast majority of the public doesn't have the foggiest idea what Roe v. Wade is. The general perception is that Roe legalized abortion and that, were it overruled, abortion would be made completely illegal. This is because the pro-choice movement has spent the last 33 years spreading mass hysteria about back alley abortions (always a distinct minority of illegally performed abortions) and convincing the general public that they'd be better off without democracy. Of course a majority of the public doesn't want abortion completely illegal. I don't want abortion completely illegal (life of the mother, rape, incest exceptions). When questions are phrased in terms of what sort of circumstances abortion should be legal under, the results are much different. Normally, about 30-35% hold my position, 10% hold the under no circumstances position, and the rest support some variation of the status quo, and more restrictions. In fact, the most recent poll on the very site you linked, shows an even more substantial pro-life conviction, with 45% supporting a law banning abortion except to save the life of the mother. No matter how you slice it, the public is not at all comfortable with the situation which Roe has created. And there's no signs that they're getting any more comfortable. The problem is a lack of education. Many of these polls directly contradict each other, showing deep ambivalence and confusion about Roe and abortion.

Gitana wrote: There are lots of poll results, from many different sources. One can come to a reasonable conclusion that most Americans want abortion to remain legal, with some restrictions. On the many that are polling whether to increase restrictions or not, it appears that most people want it to remain as is, or with slight increase in restrictions.

None of the polls said anything about slight increases. No spin for you. When taken as a group, these polls show that less then a third of the public is happy with current abortion laws. And nearly half would prefer the official stance of the Republican Party (illegal except for life, rape, or incest) to the current situation. The rest want more restrictions (with no slight anywhere to be found). How you can possibly conclude from this data, that the general consensus levels out to "the status quo or slight increase in restrictions" is beyond me.

Gitana wrote: This is interesting, because it would appear than, that a politician running on a strict 'eliminate abortion' platform may actually harm his chances of election - despite the right to life movement. I suspect that the louder the anti-choice groups get, the further they push some Americans (in private) from their more extreme policy. Demonizing those that speak about the woman's rights, or her right to choice, probably accomplishes the same thing. It also appears, with minimal variations, that the majority of Americans who hold an opinion pro or con have pretty much remained firm in their opinions for decades; which would also seem to indicate that the increased PR of the prolifers in the last six years has not really affected opinions one way or the other. I think this is because largely (yes, I know there are exceptions), the prochoicers come across to many Americans as religious extremists, which the majority of Americans has a natural aversion to.

What politicians run on a strict "eliminate all abortion" platform? The official stance of the Republican Party, and the only stance Republican presidential candidates have taken of late, include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. A position supported by anywhere from 40-50% of the public, as shown by the very polls you cited.

[Lumina]

Obilisk18 wrote: What politicians run on a strict "eliminate all abortion" platform? The official stance of the Republican Party, and the only stance Republican presidential candidates have taken of late, include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. A position supported by anywhere from 40-50% of the public, as shown by the very polls you cited.

What politicians run on a strict "no abortions--none!" platform? NONE.

As for the "official stance of the Republican Party, and the only stance Republican presidential candidates have taken of late, include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. A position supported by anywhere from 40-50% of the public," the percentage of those Americans who oppose abortion strictly because the mom is unmarried/doesn't want the baby/convenience is 57%

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for the reason that 57% of Americans explicitly reject. Not because of rape, profound birth defect, incest, and risk to the mother's health. They're performed for the reason that 57% of us reject abortion on-demand.

So let's set fire to the strawmen. Or at least call them what they are. Sophistry.

[Gitana]

Quote: What politicians run on a strict "no abortions--none!" platform? NONE.

As for the "official stance of the Republican Party, and the only stance Republican presidential candidates have taken of late, include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. A position supported by anywhere from 40-50% of the public," the percentage of those Americans who oppose abortion strictly because the mom is unmarried/doesn't want the baby/convenience is 57%

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for the reason that 57% of Americans explicitly reject. Not because of rape, profound birth defect, incest, and risk to the mother's health. They're performed for the reason that 57% of us reject abortion on-demand.

So let's set fire to the strawmen. Or at least call them what they are. Sophistry
Start that fire on yourself first. You continue to post from a single poll that's framed as an 'abortion for convenience' issue. That's classic straw polling; and means nothing, as there would be never be a way to know why a woman was choosing an abortion, nor a way to enforce such a conditional abortion law should one come to pass. So unless you have a way to be Thought Police, it's a non-issue. You also left out the following info from that same poll:
Quote: These views, however, do not constitute a call for broad anti-abortion activism. Forty-one percent say the government and the courts should not alter the current availability of abortions, and an additional 15 percent say they should be easier to get; that leaves the 42 percent, cited above, who want abortions made harder to obtain. As I said, a minority wants to force its views on all of us.

Btw, please link to credible info to validate your claim that the "overwhelming majority of abortions are performed because the woman is unmarried/doesn't want the baby/for convenience"; since, to the best of my knowledge, clinics do not ask why one is choosing an abortion.... I'm curious how you would know with such certainty, as you have stated that numerous times, through several threads, as fact.

Can we assume though, from your repeated use of this poll, that you will support choice in the areas of rape, incest, profound birth defect, risk to mother, and contraceptive failure?

Quote:
What politicians run on a strict "no abortions--none!" platform? NONE.
Wrong again - see my post above re Dobson. But - if the only stance Republicans are taking of late allows for exceptions, than that is purely for the sake of their election chances, as they know most Americans don't want all abortion outlawed. As I posted to you in another thread, the national Republican party requires candidates to sign agreement to their complete party platform (lockstep) before they will be supported as a Republican candidate. So let's not be disingenuous and pretend that we don't know they will temper their campaign PR (read: lie) for the sake of getting elected.

Quote:
As for the "official stance of the Republican Party,

- from the 2004 Republican Party Platform:

"We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

As you pointed out in another thread to me, you should know your own State's politics:

-from the 2006 Texas Republican Party Platform:

Quote:
2. We believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God. Life begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at the point of natural death. All innocent human life must be protected.
http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_platform

Poli-speak for strict anti-abortion, anti stem cell research, and anti assisted suicide - and frequently, anti-fertility assistance...(except Texas must invoke God, of course.) :lol:
This language is echoed verbatim at the NRLC, Republican Right To Life group, and most major prolife groups that are against all abortion. I was unable to find, in either platform, a mention of abortion exceptions of any kind.

[Harbinger]

I am pro-choice and I have absolutely no problem with legally defining conception as the beginning of the life of a person. If fact, I would rather they do that just to get it out of the way. Now, you might be thinking "How then can you possibly keep abortion legal?". Well, it's because law states that NOBODY has the right to do anything to you without your consent. If anybody touches you without your consent, it's assault. If anybody tries to have sex with you without your consent, it's rape. After you've given your consent, you still have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. As soon as you say 'stop', you've withdrawn you consent and the other person must stop. Notice how the guilt or innocence of another person is entirely decided by whether or not they have your consent. If they don't stop, you then have the right to use whatever force is necessary to make them stop- up to and including the use of lethal force. Everyone has a fundamental right to life but, it is not an unconditional right.

The exact same logic applies to abortion. When a pregnant woman decides that she no longer wants to be pregnant, she withdraws her consent to her baby to remain within her body. It doesn't matter whether the women is a married homemaker who wanted to get pregnant with her husband or a prostitute who got pregnant by accident. The only fact that matters at moment is that the mother has withdrawn her consent and that alone gives her the right to use whatever means necessary to end the pregnancy and abortion is, by definition, the only way to end a pregnancy.

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: I am pro-choice and I have absolutely no problem with legally defining conception as the beginning of the life of a person. If fact, I would rather they do that just to get it out of the way. Now, you might be thinking "How then can you possibly keep abortion legal?". Well, it's because law states that NOBODY has the right to do anything to you without your consent. If anybody touches you without your consent, it's assault. If anybody tries to have sex with you without your consent, it's rape. After you've given your consent, you still have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. As soon as you say 'stop', you've withdrawn you consent and the other person must stop. Notice how the guilt or innocence of another person is entirely decided by whether or not they have your consent. If they don't stop, you then have the right to use whatever force is necessary to make them stop- up to and including the use of lethal force. Everyone has a fundamental right to life but, it is not an unconditional right.

The exact same logic applies to abortion. When a pregnant woman decides that she no longer wants to be pregnant, she withdraws her consent to her baby to remain within her body. It doesn't matter whether the women is a married homemaker who wanted to get pregnant with her husband or a prostitute who got pregnant by accident. The only fact that matters at moment is that the mother has withdrawn her consent and that alone gives her the right to use whatever means necessary to end the pregnancy and abortion is, by definition, the only way to end a pregnancy.

:tsk:

Minors cannot grant consent.

[Harbinger]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
:tsk:

Minors cannot grant consent.

Of course. Teenage girls under the age of 18 are effectively slaves to their parents or legal guardians and the state.

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: Of course. If pregnant girls under the age of 18 cannot give concent then they cannot withdraw it either. They must follow the will of their parents or legal guardians for better or for worse.

I'm talking about the unborn person. If you define a human legally starting at conception, then you'd require consent to have an abortion. However, under age of consent laws, minor can never give consent to any action, thus, you would be unable to have an abortion.

Also, are you talking about legally defining "life", or "citizen"?

[Harbinger]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
I'm talking about the unborn person. If you define a human legally starting at conception, then you'd require consent to have an abortion.

Does a woman need the consent of her rapist to stab or shoot him? No! A women doesn't need her baby's consent to abort her pregnancy either.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Also, are you talking about legally defining "life", or "citizen"?

Either or both- it doesn't really matter.

[Obilisk18]

Harbinger wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
I'm talking about the unborn person. If you define a human legally starting at conception, then you'd require consent to have an abortion.

Does a woman need the consent of her rapist to stab or shoot him? No! A women doesn't need her baby's consent to abort her pregnancy either.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Also, are you talking about legally defining "life", or "citizen"?

Either or both- it doesn't really matter.

The type of consent you're referring to cannot apply to pregnancy. If a woman agrees to sex, then withdraws her consent midway through, for whatever reason, the man is obligated to cease. But this is because sex is a continuous act; one in which the boundaries are constantly being re-defined. That is to say, the man is obligated to stop because the consent involved in sex is re-constituted each moment. The woman says "you may do this with me right now...you may do this with me right now" each and every second. Pregnancy is no way functions in such a manner. Consent, to the extent that it is ever granted, is a broad consent. Consent must deal with the nature of act to which one consents. Imagine for instance, if sex was an act where it was biologically and physically impossible for a man to stop once the act had begun. And every woman in the world knew this. Because of the very nature of the act itself, partial or momentary consent is impossible. Indeed, no person can be made to, through the terms of consent, forfeit their life.

Pregnancy operates under these premises. It is physically impossible for the fetus to "stop" his habitation voluntarily upon entry into the womb. So, to the extent that a woman has consented, and to the extent that fetus has accepted, the consent extends for the duration of the pregnancy.

[Lumina]

Gitana wrote: Btw, please link to credible info to validate your claim that the "overwhelming majority of abortions are performed because the woman is unmarried/doesn't want the baby/for convenience"; since, to the best of my knowledge, clinics do not ask why one is choosing an abortion.... I'm curious how you would know with such certainty, as you have stated that numerous times, through several threads, as fact.

Based on two primary reporting sources, the CDC and AGI:

According to the CDC report, in 2002:

40 percent women who had abortions in the U.S. had no other children;
44 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. had at least one previous abortion;
80 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. were unmarried.


According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood:

At current rates, an estimated 43 percent of American women will have at least one abortion by the age of 45.

Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women.
Fifty-two percent of U.S. women having abortions are younger than 25 years old.
About 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest—representing 1 percent of all abortions.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bioethics/facts/a0027730.cfm

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp

The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women aged <25 years (52%), women who were white (57%), and unmarried women (81%).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm[/b]

[Obilisk18]

Lumina wrote: Gitana wrote: Btw, please link to credible info to validate your claim that the "overwhelming majority of abortions are performed because the woman is unmarried/doesn't want the baby/for convenience"; since, to the best of my knowledge, clinics do not ask why one is choosing an abortion.... I'm curious how you would know with such certainty, as you have stated that numerous times, through several threads, as fact.

Based on two primary reporting sources, the CDC and AGI:

According to the CDC report, in 2002:

40 percent women who had abortions in the U.S. had no other children;
44 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. had at least one previous abortion;
80 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. were unmarried.


According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood:

At current rates, an estimated 43 percent of American women will have at least one abortion by the age of 45.

Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women.
Fifty-two percent of U.S. women having abortions are younger than 25 years old.
About 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest—representing 1 percent of all abortions.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bioethics/facts/a0027730.cfm

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp

The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women aged <25 years (52%), women who were white (57%), and unmarried women (81%).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm[/b]

Not to question your statement, but are unmarried teens included in those stats? I mean, while I don't condone abortion in any situation, and only view it as permissable in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger, I'm not sure I'd put a 15 year old pregnant girl squarely in the category of "for convenience". It seems to me, they have just as much a reason to not want to have a baby as a married woman. I still don't think this justifies abortion, but it's slightly more compelling. I'd consider unmarried adult women to be having abortions largely, or almost entirely, for convenience, i.e. abortion on demand.

[gemma]

Obilisk18 wrote: I'm not sure I'd put a 15 year old pregnant girl squarely in the category of "for convenience". It seems to me, they have just as much a reason to not want to have a baby as a married woman. I still don't think this justifies abortion, but it's slightly more compelling.

This is where I get confused, when pro-life people who seem so passionate in their views, make exceptions such as this. The baby is a person who deserves life at almost any cost, or it's not, right?

I realize you are saying you don't want abortion to occur in any case; but you are also waffling on occasions it might be more acceptable? Or am I reading this wrong?

Having an abortion at age 15--or 16 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 25 or 35--could make it more "convenient" for a girl to finish school, grow up, get her life together, have the will and the way to support a family, etc.

[Obilisk18]

gemma wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: I'm not sure I'd put a 15 year old pregnant girl squarely in the category of "for convenience". It seems to me, they have just as much a reason to not want to have a baby as a married woman. I still don't think this justifies abortion, but it's slightly more compelling.

This is where I get confused, when pro-life people who seem so passionate in their views, make exceptions such as this. The baby is a person who deserves life at almost any cost, or it's not, right?

I realize you are saying you don't want abortion to occur in any case; but you are also waffling on occasions it might be more acceptable? Or am I reading this wrong?

Having an abortion at age 15--or 16 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 25 or 35--could make it more "convenient" for a girl to finish school, grow up, get her life together, have the will and the way to support a family, etc.

I think there can be a legitimate marshalling of values on both sides, as far as abortion is concerned. So yes, I think there are scenarios where abortion is more permissable in the sense that the party involved has a more legitimate reason for desiring one. I simply don't think, except in the cases I've mentioned, that those interests overrule the interest the state has in protecting the life of the fetus. Nor, do I believe they supercede the rights the fetus possesses as a uniquely developing person. Either way, I think there should be some marshalling of values occuring, by democratically elected representatives. As it stands, the only values being considered are the Supreme Court's.

I took slight umbrage with Lumina's statement simply because I don't believe it's useful to lump practically everyone who has an abortion into a "for convenience" category. These girls and women are often in tough situations and if you fail to acknowledge that (which I don't think Lumina purposely meant to do), you do a disservice to the issue.

[gemma]

Obilisk18 wrote: gemma wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: I'm not sure I'd put a 15 year old pregnant girl squarely in the category of "for convenience". It seems to me, they have just as much a reason to not want to have a baby as a married woman. I still don't think this justifies abortion, but it's slightly more compelling.

This is where I get confused, when pro-life people who seem so passionate in their views, make exceptions such as this. The baby is a person who deserves life at almost any cost, or it's not, right?

I realize you are saying you don't want abortion to occur in any case; but you are also waffling on occasions it might be more acceptable? Or am I reading this wrong?

Having an abortion at age 15--or 16 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 25 or 35--could make it more "convenient" for a girl to finish school, grow up, get her life together, have the will and the way to support a family, etc.

I think there can be a legitimate marshalling of values on both sides, as far as abortion is concerned. So yes, I think there are scenarios where abortion is more permissable in the sense that the party involved has a more legitimate reason for desiring one. I simply don't think, except in the cases I've mentioned, that those interests overrule the interest the state has in protecting the life of the fetus. Nor, do I believe they supercede the rights the fetus possesses as a uniquely developing person. Either way, I think there should be some marshalling of values occuring, by democratically elected representatives. As it stands, the only values being considered are the Supreme Court's.

I took slight umbrage with Lumina's statement simply because I don't believe it's useful to lump practically everyone who has an abortion into a "for convenience" category. These girls and women are often in tough situations and if you fail to acknowledge that (which I don't think Lumina purposely meant to do), you do a disservice to the issue.

Sounds reasonable.

However, I would not wish to be a legislator in your scenario. IMHO it's not anyone's place to judge whether the anguish of a 15 year old is greater, and therefore somehow more entitled to choice (which itself is probably an agonizing one), than the anguish of a 25 or 35 or 40 year old woman facing the prospect of pregnancy and motherhood when not ready for it.

[Gitana]

lumina: Thanks for the stats, but they do not validate your repeated assertion that all those abortions were for convenience. Unmarried/no previous children/previous abortion does not equal your assertion, that all those catagories automatically mean abortions for convenience. You cannot prove that all those women had "abortions for convenience" - because you have no way of knowing that; it's an assumption on your part - and that's not fair, is it?

Unless you believe that unmarried people shouldn't have sex? If that's the case, than I can see if you were coloring those stats with your beliefs, ie, "I'm unmarried and got pregnant; o, no, I must get rid of it."

Quote: Can we assume though, from your repeated use of this poll, that you will support choice in the areas of rape, incest, profound birth defect, risk to mother, and contraceptive failure? Did you have a response to this? I can understand your irritation with the idea of irresponsibility if it's based on not using contraceptives.

[Harbinger]

Obilisk18 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
LostSoul3412 wrote:
I'm talking about the unborn person. If you define a human legally starting at conception, then you'd require consent to have an abortion.

Does a woman need the consent of her rapist to stab or shoot him? No! A women doesn't need her baby's consent to abort her pregnancy either.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Also, are you talking about legally defining "life", or "citizen"?

Either or both- it doesn't really matter.

The type of consent you're referring to cannot apply to pregnancy.

There is only one type of consent and it applies to any conceivable act.

Obilisk18 wrote:
If a woman agrees to sex, then withdraws her consent midway through, for whatever reason, the man is obligated to cease. But this is because sex is a continuous act; one in which the boundaries are constantly being re-defined. That is to say, the man is obligated to stop because the consent involved in sex is re-constituted each moment. The woman says "you may do this with me right now...you may do this with me right now" each and every second. Pregnancy is no way functions in such a manner.

Bologna! First all, the consent a woman gives to her unborn baby has nothing to do with the consent she gave to the father to have sex. They are two completely different cases of consent involving two completely different persons in two completely different acts. I'm only talking about the case between a woman and her unborn baby. Second, there is no expiration date on consent, therefore, it doesn't have to be re-issued every second. Consent is a constant condition until it is withdrawn.

Obilisk18 wrote:
Consent, to the extent that it is ever granted, is a broad consent.

What do you mean 'broad'?

Obilisk18 wrote:
Consent must deal with the nature of the act to which one consents.

No it doesn't. Consent works the same way regardless of the act.

Obilisk18 wrote:
Imagine for instance, if sex was an act where it was biologically and physically impossible for a man to stop once the act had begun. And every woman in the world knew this. Because of the very nature of the act itself, partial or momentary consent is impossible. Indeed, no person can be made to, through the terms of consent, forfeit their life.

Than men would have to consider those risks before having sex. You think a woman's right to withdraw her consent to participate in an act should be forfeit just because it may threaten the life of the other party or parties involved? I fundamentally disagree. Indeed, no person can be forced, by an infringement of their right to give and withdraw their consent at any time, to submit themselves into slavery. Not even if the other person's life depends on it.

Obilisk18 wrote:
Pregnancy operates under these premises. It is physically impossible for the fetus to "stop" his habitation voluntarily upon entry into the womb.

Irrelavent. Consent to pregnancy does not depend on whether or not the fetus is able to stop. It only depends on whether or not the mother consents to allow the pregnancy to continue. It's her body, she has total authority over it.

Obilisk18 wrote:
So, to the extent that a woman has consented, and to the extent that fetus has accepted, the consent extends for the duration of the pregnancy.
The duration of which may be ended at any time if and when the mother withdraws her consent. Thank you.

[Lumina]

lumina: Thanks for the stats, but they do not validate your repeated assertion that all those abortions were for convenience. Unmarried/no previous children/previous abortion does not equal your assertion, that all those catagories automatically mean abortions for convenience. You cannot prove that all those women had "abortions for convenience" - because you have no way of knowing that; it's an assumption on your part - and that's not fair, is it?[/quote]

I think the fact that 80+/-% of those seeking abortions were unmarried pretty well explains the "inconvenience." Having to be a single parent is an enormous "inconvenience" even if you're educated and have a good job.

I'm no statistician; someone else will have to figure in the overall percentages of abortions performed for medical reasons and etc. and then extrapolate them. But again, the vast majority of abortions are performed on unmarried women, and based on the larger stats, we all do know that rape, incest, and health risks comprise only a very small number of the abortions performed in the United States.

Gitana wrote: Unless you believe that unmarried people shouldn't have sex? If that's the case, than I can see if you were coloring those stats with your beliefs, ie, "I'm unmarried and got pregnant; o, no, I must get rid of it."

Yes, I think that's why most abortions are performed.

Gitana wrote: Can we assume though, from your repeated use of this poll, that you will support choice in the areas of rape, incest, profound birth defect, risk to mother, and contraceptive failure? Did you have a response to this? I can understand your irritation with the idea of irresponsibility if it's based on not using contraceptives.

I understand that you're trying to lead me down the garden path, and it's not going to work, Gitana. I have never expressed my opinion on abortions performed because of rape or incest, profound birth defect, or risk to the mother. I don't intend to. I do like how you kinda slipped in that last one--contraceptive failure--but surely you can see that this reason doesn't fit with the others, can't you?

So let's stick to the real point: 80% of abortions are performed because the mother is not married. I think it's pretty safe to assume that not being married is a significant reason for abortion.

[Prog]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Both definitions conflict. Which one is right? The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is newer.

They both seem to be "right". The human-being classification in reference to the unborn within the latter act is a legal distinction used in the prosecution of individuals who commit murder/assualt on pregnant women; similar to charging a minor as an adult in a case of a extremely violent or heinous act.
The law allows itself some latitude in such manners.

The bottom line is: it is the mother's choice to abort or not, no "outside agency" is allowed to interfere with the fetus without her consent. I agree with both definitions here.

[Lumina]

When in doubt, I urge us all to err on the side of life.

[Obilisk18]

Harbinger wrote: Obilisk18 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
LostSoul3412 wrote:
I'm talking about the unborn person. If you define a human legally starting at conception, then you'd require consent to have an abortion.

Does a woman need the consent of her rapist to stab or shoot him? No! A women doesn't need her baby's consent to abort her pregnancy either.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Also, are you talking about legally defining "life", or "citizen"?

Either or both- it doesn't really matter.

The type of consent you're referring to cannot apply to pregnancy.

There is only one type of consent and it applies to any conceivable act.

Wrong. If I board a roller-coaster, my consent to the operators extends throughout the entire ride. I cannot withdraw my consent after the ride begins. I cannot sue the theme park afterwards, no matter how much I scream to be let off during the ride. Because the understanding that I've consented to the entire ride is tacit in the very nature of the activity itself.

Harbinger wrote: Obilisk18 wrote:
Consent, to the extent that it is ever granted, is a broad consent.

What do you mean 'broad'?

See above.

Harbinger wrote: Obilisk18 wrote:
Consent must deal with the nature of the act to which one consents.

No it doesn't. Consent works the same way regardless of the act.

Wrong. See my roller coaster example.

Harbinger wrote: Obilisk18 wrote:
Pregnancy operates under these premises. It is physically impossible for the fetus to "stop" his habitation voluntarily upon entry into the womb.

Irrelavent. Consent to pregnancy does not depend on whether or not the fetus is able to stop. It only depends on whether or not the mother consents to allow the pregnancy to continue. It's her body, she has total authority over it.

No, see my vaccination thread. The government has every right to to violate a person's body.