Abortion and the death penalty

[super animator]

Putin of Russia noted the hypocrisy of people in the West. Liberals and Obama. People that pontificate about how wrong it is to put serial killers to death via court sentence, yet they go about sipping their coffee and shrugging "collateral damage" off when drone strikes kill innocent children in some part of the world.

Horse shoe theory, that's all you need to know.

 

[TomZzyzx]

An abortion is not the "killing" of anything.
It is the termination of a pregnancy. Which is not the same thing.

The equivalent here is to force someone to donate his kidney to you to save your life.
Do you feel like you can go out, find a match and then harness organs from that person against his will, to save the life of another?

Would refusing to give you a kidney be the same as "killing" you?

Your ignorance of abortion and the unborn is frightening.

The unborn is a living human being before an abortion and a dead human being after an abortion.

That means that the unborn died as a result of the abortion. And how did it die? By the abortionist ripping it limb from limb out of the mother's womb.

Remember, only living things die.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Parasites are living things that use other living things for food and a place to live.
Regardless of species.



It's pretty much the same thing though.
The point of the idea is that it requires a host, draws energy and food from this host and uses the host's body as a place to live.

I'ld say that a human has a right to refuse playing life-support machine for another (human or otherwise).



No. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It is the removal of the the fetus from the womb. There is no killing involved. Yes, the fetus can't survive outside of its host. But again, nobody is killing the fetus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

There's no mention of the words "kill", "killing", "murder" or alike there.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own.[note 1] An abortion which occurs spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage. An abortion may be caused purposely and is then called an induced abortion. The word abortion is often used to mean only induced abortions. A similar procedure after the fetus can possibly survive on its own is called a "late termination of pregnancy".[1][note 1]


There is no "killing" involved.



If you say so.
Next time a misscariage occurs, will you support a lawsuit for involuntary manslaughter?

Is the unborn child alive before the abortion?
Is the unborn child torn limb from limb during the abortion?
Is the unborn child dead before it is fully removed from its mother?
Then the unborn child was killed during the abortion.

Every abortion kills a defenceless human being.
Every abortion is morally wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

Is the unborn child alive before the abortion?
Is the unborn child torn limb from limb during the abortion?
Is the unborn child dead before it is fully removed from its mother?
Then the unborn child was killed during the abortion.

Every abortion kills a defenceless human being.
Every abortion is morally wrong.

About 50% of pregnancies end in natural abortion/miscarriage. In other words, there are far more natural abortions, than there are abortions, by choice.

Should all these mothers, be investigated to determine if they did something, to cause the miscarriage?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your ignorance of abortion and the unborn is frightening.

The unborn is a living human being before an abortion and a dead human being after an abortion.
That means that the unborn died as a result of the abortion. And how did it die? By the abortionist ripping it limb from limb out of the mother's womb.

Where have I denied that a fetus dies as a result of an abortion?

What I said was that abortion is NOT defined as "killing a fetus/baby/human".
Abortion means: the termination of a pregnancy.

Look it up.

Why do you insist on denying women control over what happens in and to their bodies?

 

[TomZzyzx]

About 50% of pregnancies end in natural abortion/miscarriage. In other words, there are far more natural abortions, than there are abortions, by choice.

Should all these mothers, be investigated to determine if they did something, to cause the miscarriage?

No.

Moving on...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is the unborn child alive before the abortion?
Is the unborn child torn limb from limb during the abortion?
Is the unborn child dead before it is fully removed from its mother?
Then the unborn child was killed during the abortion.

Every abortion kills a defenceless human being.
Every abortion is morally wrong.

If you need a kidney to live and I am the only "match", could you then force me to donate a kidney?
If I don't donate a kidney, could I then be sued for murder?
Could it be said that I "killed" you?

Does every miscarriage then require a criminal investigation for (involuntary) manslaughter?

If you don't believe every miscarriage should result in a criminal investigation, if you don't believe that I "killed" you by not donating a kidney..... then you are not being consistent.

Then clearly, you do not REALLY believe that the fetus is a "human being" with all the rights of an actual "human being".

It's either a human being or it isn't.
If it is, then it has all the rights of an actual human being.

This means that every miscarriage requires a criminal investigation.
This also means that if a woman can be forced to surrender her bodily autonomy to be used as life-support-system for a fetus, then you every human could also be forced to do the same for the harnassing of organs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No.

Moving on...

Why not?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Where have I denied that a fetus dies as a result of an abortion?

What I said was that abortion is NOT defined as "killing a fetus/baby/human".
Abortion means: the termination of a pregnancy.

Look it up.

Why do you insist on denying women control over what happens in and to their bodies?

It doesn't matter if it's difined or not. The process of abortion kills an unborn child.

Because killing her unborn child is morally wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't matter if it's difined or not. The process of abortion kills an unborn child.

Because killing her unborn child is morally wrong.

Why does God allow it to happen so often with natural abortions then?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It doesn't matter if it's difined or not. The process of abortion kills an unborn child.

Because killing her unborn child is morally wrong.

A woman thus has no say in what happens in and to HER body?

 

[TomZzyzx]

If you need a kidney to live and I am the only "match", could you then force me to donate a kidney?
If I don't donate a kidney, could I then be sued for murder?
Could it be said that I "killed" you?

Does every miscarriage then require a criminal investigation for (involuntary) manslaughter?

If you don't believe every miscarriage should result in a criminal investigation, if you don't believe that I "killed" you by not donating a kidney..... then you are not being consistent.

Then clearly, you do not REALLY believe that the fetus is a "human being" with all the rights of an actual "human being".

It's either a human being or it isn't.
If it is, then it has all the rights of an actual human being.

This means that every miscarriage requires a criminal investigation.
This also means that if a woman can be forced to surrender her bodily autonomy to be used as life-support-system for a fetus, then you every human could also be forced to do the same for the harnassing of organs.

No.
No.
No.
And no.

You are confused by the differences between a misscariage and an abortion.

Most misscariages happen naturally and all abortions are by choice.

So no, no woman should be investigated for having a misscariage. That sounds like something only a pro-choice advocate would want.

 

[TomZzyzx]

A woman thus has no say in what happens in and to HER body?

Not if it involves killing her unborn child.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Why does God allow it to happen so often with natural abortions then?

I don't know, I'll ask Him when I see Him.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know, I'll ask Him when I see Him.

Thanks, let us know.

 

[Chriliman]

If you need a kidney to live and I am the only "match", could you then force me to donate a kidney?
If I don't donate a kidney, could I then be sued for murder?
Could it be said that I "killed" you?

This is not a good analogy. I did not create your kidney with my body, therefore I have no rights over your kidney. I hope you can see the difference between a kidney and a human fetus. Every man and woman should be fully aware by now that having sex creates new humans. To then think that they can just freely have sex and not worry about creating a human is very irrational and quite frankly just stupid.

Good rational choices must come before conception, this goes for both men and women, it's as simple as that. After conception the only right a woman has to kill the fetus is if the pregnancy is threatening to kill her and the only way a pregnancy can threaten to kill a woman is if a doctor determines the pregnancy will kill the woman. If a doctor tells a woman she may die from this pregnancy, she can then chose to abort the fetus through her right to self defense. This is the only moral way abortion should be performed. I can't imagine having to make such a horrific choice.

A perfectly healthy fetus results in a healthy pregnancy that never threatens to kill women.

 

[asherahSamaria]

This is not a good analogy. I did not create your kidney with my body, therefore I have no rights over your kidney. I hope you can see the difference between a kidney and a human fetus. Every man and woman should be fully aware by now that having sex creates new humans. To then think that they can just freely have sex and not worry about creating a human is very irrational and quite frankly just stupid.

Good rational choices must come before conception, this goes for both men and women, it's as simple as that. After conception the only right a woman has to kill the fetus is if the pregnancy is threatening to kill her and the only way a pregnancy can threaten to kill a woman is if a doctor determines the pregnancy will kill the woman. If a doctor tells a woman she may die from this pregnancy, she can then chose to abort the fetus through her right to self defense. This is the only moral way abortion should be performed. I can't imagine having to make such a horrific choice.

A perfectly healthy fetus results in a healthy pregnancy that never threatens to kill women.

A perfectly healthy fetus results in a healthy pregnancy that never threatens to kill women - but unfortunately that is not always the case. Hence the medical procedure of abortion in some cases - including where the mental state of the mother is detrimentally affected - that's not a healthy pregnancy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are confused by the differences between a misscariage and an abortion.

Most misscariages happen naturally and all abortions are by choice.

So no, no woman should be investigated for having a misscariage. That sounds like something only a pro-choice advocate would want.

This doesn't add up with your earlier statements.

You identified a fetus as a HUMAN BEING.
Human beings have certain rights.
When a human being dies, an investigation is set up to look for the cause of death.

Are you aware what "involuntary manslaughter" means?
It's not really killing by choice...

If a woman eats or drinks something that directly leads to a miscarriage, and if a fetus is a human, then why wouldn't the woman be sued for involuntary manslaughter?


Also, if a fetus is a human and if a woman can thus be forced to use her body for this human to survive, then why couldn't you force ME to use MY body to make you survive, by for example donating a kidney or bone marrow?

See, all these issues become REAL issues if you wish to identify a fetus as being an actual human - with all the rights that come with that.

Please explain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not if it involves killing her unborn child.

So then why do I have a say in what happens in and to my body when you need one of my kidney's in order to survive?

Let's use an hypothetical example analogous to an unwanted pregnancy...

Let's say that I wake up one day and notice that someone connected my veins to yours through a tube, pumping my blood into your body. If I disconnect the tube, then you die. I never gave permission to do this.

Can I disconnect the tube?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is not a good analogy. I did not create your kidney with my body, therefore I have no rights over your kidney.

That's funny.
The woman DID create the fetus with her body. Therefor, following your logic, the woman HAS rights over the fetus.

I hope you can see the difference between a kidney and a human fetus.

Good job missing the point of the analogy.
The actual point is, off course, that the fetus uses the body of the woman.
If you wish to see this fetus as an actual human, then we have a situation where one human uses the body of another human to survive.

You are arguing for FORCING this human to have her body used by another human.
In that sense, this analogy is perfectly sensible.

If one human can make force the use of the body of another in order to survive.... why shouldn't you be able to do the same?

Every man and woman should be fully aware by now that having sex creates new humans.

And you should be fully aware that contraception exists (and sometimes fails) and that plenty of women are forced to have sex against their will. Not withstanding your cruel comments about trying to lay blame on the rape victims for being raped.

To then think that they can just freely have sex and not worry about creating a human is very irrational and quite frankly just stupid.

Talk about stupid... rape is real.

After conception the only right a woman has to kill the fetus is if the pregnancy is threatening to kill her and the only way a pregnancy can threaten to kill a woman is if a doctor determines the pregnancy will kill the woman.

Including when the conception happened against the woman's will?

If a doctor tells a woman she may die from this pregnancy, she can then chose to abort the fetus through her right to self defense. This is the only moral way abortion should be performed. I can't imagine having to make such a horrific choice.

You can't imagine a lot of things it seems. Like being raped.

A perfectly healthy fetus results in a healthy pregnancy that never threatens to kill women.

More stupidity....

EVERY pregnancy is a threat to a woman.
Pregnancy is a heavy burden to carry. It demands a LOT from a woman's body.
Your pregnancy can be medically perfect for 9 months and still the delivery will remain a risk.

Then there's all those other things that can go wrong... Like preeclampsia.

My girlfriend is 8 months pregnant at this point. No woman should be forced to go through those 9 months against her will.

Next to a right to self defense, humans also have a right to bodily autonomy.
Which is why I gave the kidney example. That is what that analogy is about.... the right to decide what happens to your body and what is allowed in and what not.

It's called freedom.