Fine, then it's a person. It should have all the legal rights that all other persons enjoy. The mother should be held criminally liable if she miscarries because of negligence on her part or if she engages in any sort of reckless activity. Let's legislate female morality to the point that women who become pregnant have no choices whatsoever, other than to serve as a simbioate for the child.With few exceptions, slaughtering the innocent unborn should never have been a choice in the first place and I'll never figure out the "pro-death to babies" crowd.
And everyone who reads this post was at one time a "fetus" so don't feed me your absurd and tiresome arguements about viability!
Let's require mothers to undergo mandatory prenatal care, subsidized at least in part by the State.
Those who injure the mother (whether intentionally or unintentionally) should have their crimes compounded. They should also face civil liability to the person in the womb. Forget tort reform, because we have to protect the person in gestation.
Until you're willing to agree to all of those conditions and others similar to them -- to truly defining a fetus as a person for all purposes -- you're engaging in the same sort of arbitrary line-drawing that the anti-Roe crowd so readily decries.
Again, you can't have it both ways.
Wow, apparently I'm nothing but a walking, talking incubator!
I think I should be re-stripped of my right to vote while we're all at it. I mean, if I'm insignificant enough as an individual to not have any control over my own body...why should I be able to have that kind of impact in the world of MUCH more significant men!?!
And WTF am I doing at work?? Shouldn't I be at home cooking and making babies 'n stuff?
I don't have a problem with any of that.
I wonder if health insurance would start covering voluntary tubal ligation and hysterectomies?
That or it will get virtually impossible for single guys to get laid.
Yeah, shame on the "anti-Roe crowd" for even insinuating that a mother shouldn't be able to smoke crack ( cigs probably do a ton of damage to prenatal development), drink heavily and otherwise up the development of that child in her womb, provided she doesn't opt to kill it first.
Who cares about having a perfect theorectical structure to abortion law? It's not like Roe was grounded in anything close to perfection in cons utional law.
From the way it sounds, perhaps someone should sue God (or whoever you think created the reality we are in) for making the female of our race the childbearer (just don't give that fetus standing).
Such decadence.
In a sense, that's the point. If a mother chooses to smoke crack or cigs, why should she be required to bring that fetus with her in those choices. If you're going to compel women to carry every pregnancy to term, you'd better start imposing stronger laws about what pregnant women can or can't do. Otherwise, the concern for the child is a pretty hollow one.
Who on Earth could possibly want predictability in the law? Such a silly notion, predictability.
Look, I've acknowledged throughout that if you want to define a fetus as a person from the time of conception, I can understand that. But what I don't think many on your side of the argument have considered is how that characterization can have some very long-reaching effects that run contrary to many of the things that that side has fought so staunchly against.
If the law is to provide that the fetus is a person, you have to be willing to accept all of the consequences that come with it, including, in essence, subserviating the rights of pregnant women to those of a dependent fetus that she may or may not wish to carry.
Logically, the anti-abortion argument falls apart, I think, if you aren't willing to impose different legal standards upon pregnant women than those that exist with respect to any other group in our society. From a Cons utional standpoint, there would be a fairly significant Equal Protection problem there, and perhaps even a Due Process problem, because you'd be singling out a group for disparate treatment based solely on status (in that case, pregnancy).
Why is it that the choice to keep or abort a pregnancy can't simply be a choice between a woman and her God?
Such hypocrisy.
So what's wrong with that?
Roe was not predictable. Laws change all the time. I don't think the argument that predictability supplants all concerns is a convincing one.Who on Earth could possibly want predictability in the law. Such a silly notion, predictability.
I don't understand why you have to go back to what others 'on my side' are claiming about this issue. Seriously. I don't care whether some seek perfection in regards to the classification of a fetus as a person and I certainly do not care if they are evangelical Christians, Catholics, Buddhists or Dead Heads.Look, I've acknowledged throughout that if you want to define a fetus as a person from the time of conception, I can understand that. But what I don't think many on your side of the argument have considered is how that characterization can have some very long-reaching effects that run contrary to many of the things that that side has fought so staunchly against. If the law is to provide that the fetus is a person, you have to be willing to accept all of the consequences that come with it, including, in essence, subserviating the rights of pregnant women to those of a dependent fetus that she may or may not wish to carry. Logically, the anti-abortion argument falls apart, I think, if you aren't willing to impose different legal standards upon pregnant women than those that exist with respect to any other group in our society. From a Cons utional standpoint, there would be a fairly significant Equal Protection problem there, and perhaps even a Due Process problem, because you'd be singling out a group for disparate treatment based solely on status (in that case, pregnancy).
How about because it isn't hard nowadays for a child to be cared for outside of the womb, and hey, maybe it's wrong, legal complexities notwithstanding?Why is it that the choice to keep or abort a pregnancy can't simply be a choice between a woman and her God?
Well, since we are into lumping everyone into two camps, congrats on the hypocrisy of claiming to be interested in seeing society take care of its less fortunate, its unwanted. Seems like you are as full of as you believe the other side to be.Such hypocrisy.
Men are singled out for child support payments that would seem to impose a different standard on them than on the womens.
I say you give men the right to give up all rights as a parent in exchange for no liability to provide child support. May seem a bit excessive, but hey, at least they don't want the option to kill the kid.
Having to give up your entire life and body as you know it = 20% of net and dependant health insurance.
Hey, we're only talking about legal equivalence here. It's just like how you can turn what would otherwise be a healthy kid into nothing more than a tumor.
A woman gets pregnant and is instantaneously faced with laws aimed only at her that are far more restrictive than those levied against men and non-pregnant women. You don't see any problem with that?
Why not just declare pregnant women chattel while we're at it? It would be much easier to take care of the incubating babies if society deemed the fetus to be a person but severely limited what the mother could or couldn't do. Do you seriously not see a problem with that?
And if your answer is "I've never said that," then don't you see that the argument is vapid -- you'd be arguing for the primacy of the fetus, but against any laws that would protect the person en gestae. I can't see how those two ideas can be squared.
I think we're talking about different types of predictability. Perhaps the better word from my end is consistent. The law would become a mess (and logically untenable) if a fetus was deemed a person for some purposes but not a person for other purposes. You have to call it one thing or another, I think.
While you and I are engaged in this discussion and I'm referring to your statements as the bases for subsequent posts, I'm not talking only to you. Hence my generalizations. If you would prefer that I discuss this only with you, perhaps we can arrange a time to grab a beer, or PM each other.
But it's wrong because you say so. It may not be wrong to Mary Jane Rottencrotch who lives down the street. Why is it that your sense of morality should dictate what she does?
Frankly, I regretted the choice of hypocrisy. It wasn't the right word.
And I've explained the basis for my generalizations.
Nevertheless, I see no inconsistency in my position (just as, apparently, you see none in yours). Your criticism of my position would require that I define a fetus as a person at the time of conception, a characterization that I'm not ready to make, since the viability standard strikes a reasonable balance to me. My interest, politically, is that people's personal freedoms be respected and not subjugated to the whims of some presumed majority morality. Would I ever want my girlfriend or wife to have an abortion? No. But should I decide for her whether that is an available option? I don't think so.
I think it's a false dichotomy that a fetus would have to legally either be a person with full rights or a nonen y. Children do not have full rights and gain them when they become of age (e.g., 18 for voting, 21 for drinking). Probably a similar approach could be attempted for a fetus with many of the same difficulties that FWD is talking about.
And Spurswomen, do not worry. No doubt any laws restricting women will only be for your good.
That's true, but I don't think it resolves the issue. I'm not talking about extending the franchise to a fetus or allowing it to drink. I'm talking about rights that are, in a sense, more fundamental than those. I'm talking about legal recognition as a person. If a fetus is a person, then any actions taken by or against the mother, and which result in injury to that person, are cognizable at law, whether it be through criminal prosecution or civil suit. As another example, if a mother smokes, drinks, or take drugs during her pregnancy, she could certainly be held liable in a civil case filed by the child for any damage that might ensue.
My bigger problem, though, is that the policy justifications are inconsistent if the law isn't severely revamped to criminalize (as assault, battery, homicide, etc) anything the mother does that might adversely effect the person, whether intentional or not. Again, if the mother's negligence results in a miscarriage, how is that not manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide? Are we just going to say that an abortion is murder, but a miscarriage brought about my the mother's misfeasance is insignificant? I don't see where you draw the line if you don't make each of them a crime. To do otherwise is to say that we're interested in protecting that person, but only up to an arbitrarily-determined limit.
It all strikes me as quite, um, misogynistic.
What I've been trying to figure out is if with the logic that an embryo (not yet classified as a fetus) is granted all the rights of an individual under the law at the moment of conception ... and a woman could potentially be guilty of manslaughter (or even murder) is she miscarries ... if that little glob of DNA implanted itself in my fallopian tube, ruptured, causing major hemorrhaging, and I survived, can I charge it with attempted murder?
Would little glob be incubated, then sent to a juvenile holding facility until it turned 18 and could be tried as an adult?
"Life is unfair", to quote a great conservative thinker.
Parents already face different legal status than Joe Schmoe at large.Why not just declare pregnant women chattel while we're at it? It would be much easier to take care of the incubating babies if society deemed the fetus to be a person but severely limited what the mother could or couldn't do. Do you seriously not see a problem with that?
I'm arguing for some protection for the fetus. Sure, it restricts the ability of the mother to execute it.And if your answer is "I've never said that," then don't you see that the argument is vapid -- you'd be arguing for the primacy of the fetus, but against any laws that would protect the person en gestae. I can't see how those two ideas can be squared.
The law is already a mess, in general. Complexity or a change in direction doesn't strike me as a compelling argument. The law is constantly evolving.I think we're talking about different types of predictability. Perhaps the better word from my end is consistent. The law would become a mess (and logically untenable) if a fetus was deemed a person for some purposes but not a person for other purposes. You have to call it one thing or another, I think.
Well, I'm here to represent my POV in this forum.While you and I are engaged in this discussion and I'm referring to your statements as the bases for subsequent posts, I'm not talking only to you. Hence my generalizations. If you would prefer that I discuss this only with you, perhaps we can arrange a time to grab a beer, or PM each other.
The law today is based on a certain set of values, a morality.But it's wrong because you say so. It may not be wrong to Mary Jane Rottencrotch who lives down the street. Why is it that your sense of morality should dictate what she does?
The law can restrict action without having to give the fetus full legal status as a person. Does the law restrict a person from seeking damages for actions experienced as a child?Frankly, I regretted the choice of hypocrisy. It wasn't the right word.
And I've explained the basis for my generalizations.
Nevertheless, I see no inconsistency in my position (just as, apparently, you see none in yours). Your criticism of my position would require that I define a fetus as a person at the time of conception, a characterization that I'm not ready to make, since the viability standard strikes a reasonable balance to me. My interest, politically, is that people's personal freedoms be respected and not subjugated to the whims of some presumed majority morality. Would I ever want my girlfriend or wife to have an abortion? No. But should I decide for her whether that is an available option? I don't think so.
Once upon a time there was a certain class of people who were regarded as something less than a full person (3/5ths, I believe was the ratio). That was held up due to a desire for legal consistency and private interest.
To me there is not a conflict between mother and fetus unless the fetus ended up there as a matter of something other than the mother's willing participation or if the fetus threatens the life of the mother.
I understood your position Joe, I wasn't implying that you were for abortion.
[QUOTE] No need to go off on a tangent FWD the problem is that you have the rights of more than one person to consider. How about people look at te from the standpoint that a human life hangs in the balance instead of just considering the opinions of those that want to abort this life?
1. Do we choose to allow the child to live?
2. Do we allow the woman (or man as some, perhaps many pressure the woman to abort) to abort his or her life because it's "inconvenient"?
There are already cases where multiple murders have been charged to those that have taken the life of a woman who's pregnant.Those who injure the mother (whether intentionally or unintentionally) should have their crimes compounded. They should also face civil liability to the person in the womb. Forget tort reform, because we have to protect the person in gestation.
An accident is just that so there's no crime committed
[QUOTE]We'll take up the womans right to vote in another thread.
I assume you're doing the same thing my wife is, earning a living.And WTF am I doing at work?? Shouldn't I be at home cooking and making babies 'n stuff?
The issue is abortion so save the straw(wo)man distractions.
I thought you weren't going to get into this discussion?
p.s.I do 95% of the grocery shopping at my house and 90% of the cooking.
I have 3 pounds of thawed chicken breasts, any of the guys in here have suggestions as to what to do with it?
If not I"m gonna do the usual egg/flour/vegatable oil thing.
Sorry, I wouldn't know, mine definitely covers a vasectomy though.
Why are "we" using the word "convenient" like having a child is about as bothersome as having to take a different route in the morning to work because of construction or an accident?
"Inconvenient" is not even in the same universe as the magnitude of the impact of having a child has.
It doesn't reach the magnitude where it warrants taking a life.
[QUOTE]Why does the baby always come up on the short end of whatever hangup the woman might have?
Inconvenient to carry it to term? Eliminate the baby.
Mother can't provide for the baby? Eliminate the baby.
Mother's on drugs? Eliminate the baby.
Boy/Husband doesn't want a kid around? Eliminate the baby.
If the law stated that abortion were illegal other than vs the life of the mother, rape, and incest I bet the pregnancies that lead to abortion would drop dramatically...I'd say maybe about 75% in this Country.If the law is to provide that the fetus is a person, you have to be willing to accept all of the consequences that come with it, including, in essence, subserviating the rights of pregnant women to those of a dependent fetus that she may or may not wish to carry.
As the law is right now they have an easy out so for many it's no more than a minor inconvenience, a temporary problem that can be taken care of at the drop of a hat.
Uhm, Because someone is left out of the equation?Why is it that the choice to keep or abort a pregnancy can't simply be a choice between a woman and her God?
Such hypocrisy.
Again the baby is forgotten.
Actually as of right now it is the womans choice.
I doubt it, but it might be prudent to buy stock in coathanger companies.If the law stated that abortion were illegal other than vs the life of the mother, rape, and incest I bet the pregnancies that lead to abortion would drop dramatically...I'd say maybe about 75% in this Country.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote