If abortion isn't murder...

[cricket0206]

If abortion is murder than by that logic a miscarriage is manslaughter.

 

[Jade Margery]

Wow. It really boggles the mind that womankind needs to be taught elementary things about what it means to be a woman. That the purpose of a womb is to protect and nurture the life that's there. That just because it's your womb doesn't mean you should use that as a license to destroy what's growing inside. To have to explain to women that it is a good thing to sacrifice for their growing child, the way mothers have done for human history. To have to explain to a woman that they shouldn't intentionally harm their child. To read people mocking the thought of doing what's right for a child....There is something seriously wrong with that. What a scary generation we live in.

So... we good on the pregnancy camps then? When can we schedule you for a nice freedom-free visit?

Edit: Oh, and while you may derive some pious pleasure from wringing your hands about how terrible the less-enlightened members of your generation are, bear in mind that throughout 'human history' parents have sacrificed, maimed, abandoned, sold into slavery, AND aborted their children. This generation is no more scary (and indeed much less scary) than any generation previous.

 

[Gadarene]

If abortion is murder than by that logic a miscarriage is manslaughter.

I've often made the point that if Christians are really concerned about abortion, then they should get praying to God and get him to stop a few more miscarriages.

Especially given that they vastly outnumber elective abortions.

 

[Desk trauma]

So... we good on the pregnancy camps then? When can we schedule you for a nice freedom-free visit?

Would not the monthly forced pregnancy exam be a better place to start?

 

[Skaloop]

Wow. It really boggles the mind that womankind needs to be taught elementary things about what it means to be a woman. That the purpose of a womb is to protect and nurture the life that's there. That just because it's your womb doesn't mean you should use that as a license to destroy what's growing inside. To have to explain to women that it is a good thing to sacrifice for their growing child, the way mothers have done for human history. To have to explain to a woman that they shouldn't intentionally harm their child. To read people mocking the thought of doing what's right for a child....There is something seriously wrong with that. What a scary generation we live in.

What exactly does it mean to be a woman?

 

[medieval_lady83]

My comment was not intended to provide a definition of womanhood. But rather to point out that there are things that women should understand innately, because they are women. It should come naturally to women to nurture and protect a life growing inside her. Just like it's instinctive for a woman to protect her children outside of the womb, it is instinctive for her to protect her child in the womb. We all owe our lives to some woman who, most likely, followed those instincts. Had they done otherwise, we would not have been born or would have been born with birth defects, disorders, addictions, etc. But again, these are not things that I think need to be explained to reasonable people. As evidenced by the fact that when they want to have children, they follow the protective instincts I'm describing.

People have enjoyed a few decades of having a right to decide when life is life, when it should be protected, and when it can be destroyed, and they are not willing to give up that right, even though it's based on blatantly inconsistent logic. All that matters is that it is self serving. That's why they are not willing to relinquish it.

And to those people suggesting that miscarriages are manslaughter if abortion is murder. Um, no. There is a difference between committing suicide and dying of natural causes. There is a difference between intentionally killing your toddler in their sleep and your toddler dying on their own from some disease. The person who thinks abortion is murder would not consider a miscarriage a crime. Since it is not an act a person does. If a woman induces a miscarriage intentionally, that would be a different story.

Ultimately the issue is intentionality. And I believe that people are smart enough to recognize that, but simply enjoy raising non issues as if they were actual points with merit, or they simply enjoy mocking people who value human life.

 

[Skaloop]

My comment was not intended to provide a definition of womanhood. But rather to point out that there are things that women should understand innately, because they are women.

No, there aren't.

 

[Desk trauma]

The person who thinks abortion is murder would not consider a miscarriage a crime. Since it is not an act a person does. If a woman induces a miscarriage intentionally, that would be a different story.

Were abortion classed as murder and all rights conveyed to fetuses then every miscarriage would need to be investigated to determine its cause. Were a miscarriage cause due to the actions of the woman, lacking intent, that would make it manslaughter or negligent homicide.

 

[Ariadne_GR]

Were abortion classed as murder and all rights conveyed to fetuses then every miscarriage would need to be investigated to determine its cause. Were a miscarriage cause due to the actions of the woman, lacking intent, that would make it manslaughter or negligent homicide.

She's not going to understand that logic, she thinks all women should be incubators, whether they want to be or not.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

...if someone punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and caused her to have a miscarriage, should they only get the basic assault charge that one would get if she wasn't pregnant at all?

Yes, unless she over the abortion time.

 

[Jade Margery]

My comment was not intended to provide a definition of womanhood. But rather to point out that there are things that women should understand innately, because they are women.

And I suppose you are personally gifted with the knowledge of what all women *should* understand innately? You are one woman. This may be what you understand about being a woman, but you don't speak for all of us, and you don't get to decide what all of us should do or feel.

It should come naturally to women to nurture and protect a life growing inside her. Just like it's instinctive for a woman to protect her children outside of the womb, it is instinctive for her to protect her child in the womb.

That is very true. When a woman becomes pregnant, the hormones released in her body tend to make her feel a strong instinct to protect the baby. That is why most women DO carry to term, even if they got pregnant accidentally. But instinct is not the only factor here. Even if the woman has a natural instinct to take care of the fetus, other things going on in her life may give her a reason to overcome that instinct. Humans are not slaves to their instincts, for good or ill.

We all owe our lives to some woman who, most likely, followed those instincts. Had they done otherwise, we would not have been born or would have been born with birth defects, disorders, addictions, etc. But again, these are not things that I think need to be explained to reasonable people. As evidenced by the fact that when they want to have children, they follow the protective instincts I'm describing.

Indeed, and those who don't follow the protective instincts don't have children. You need explain nothing. This is all common knowledge.

People have enjoyed a few decades of having a right to decide when life is life, when it should be protected, and when it can be destroyed, and they are not willing to give up that right, even though it's based on blatantly inconsistent logic. All that matters is that it is self serving. That's why they are not willing to relinquish it.

It may be selfish, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it.

When the blood banks come around looking for donations, I don't line up. I know some people don't donate because they are afraid of the pain. Others simply don't care that with some minor inconvenience, they could save a life. A few selfishly don't want to give their blood to someone else. Some have religious reasons not to. Some are not allowed to give blood because their blood is unfit for transfusions.

For me, the reason is physiological--I've tried several times and each time they just end up breaking my tiny vein, no matter how much I drink before hand. Finally they just said I should stop trying, it would only waste blood bags.

What's my point? Everyone who decides not to give blood can do so for whatever reason they want. Even if it is purely selfish. Even if they have a rare blood type and without their donation, someone else will die. It is their body and their decision about who gets access to it when. Just because you choose to use a right selfishly, doesn't mean you shouldn't have it.

And to those people suggesting that miscarriages are manslaughter if abortion is murder. Um, no. There is a difference between committing suicide and dying of natural causes. There is a difference between intentionally killing your toddler in their sleep and your toddler dying on their own from some disease. The person who thinks abortion is murder would not consider a miscarriage a crime. Since it is not an act a person does. If a woman induces a miscarriage intentionally, that would be a different story.

Sure, and how can you tell whether she induced it intentionally unless you investigate every miscarriage? As Desk pointed out, we would have to start with monthly pregnancy screenings, since so many miscarriages happen early enough that the woman doesn't even know she's pregnant.

Ultimately the issue is intentionality. And I believe that people are smart enough to recognize that, but simply enjoy raising non issues as if they were actual points with merit, or they simply enjoy mocking people who value human life.

Heavily implying that we -don't- value human life. Classy.

I consider a little sarcasm to be small beans compared to what you are advocating--stripping me of the right to control my own body. Which of us is really being less respectful here?

 

[morningstar2651]

...if someone punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and caused her to have a miscarriage, should they only get the basic assault charge that one would get if she wasn't pregnant at all?

Yes, unless she over the abortion time.

I'm a horrible person...all I can think of is this gif...

 

[Ariadne_GR]

And I suppose you are personally gifted with the knowledge of what all women *should* understand innately? You are one woman. This may be what you understand about being a woman, but you don't speak for all of us, and you don't get to decide what all of us should do or feel.



That is very true. When a woman becomes pregnant, the hormones released in her body tend to make her feel a strong instinct to protect the baby. That is why most women DO carry to term, even if they got pregnant accidentally. But instinct is not the only factor here. Even if the woman has a natural instinct to take care of the fetus, other things going on in her life may give her a reason to overcome that instinct. Humans are not slaves to their instincts, for good or ill.



Indeed, and those who don't follow the protective instincts don't have children. You need explain nothing. This is all common knowledge.



It may be selfish, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it.

When the blood banks come around looking for donations, I don't line up. I know some people don't donate because they are afraid of the pain. Others simply don't care that with some minor inconvenience, they could save a life. A few selfishly don't want to give their blood to someone else. Some have religious reasons not to. Some are not allowed to give blood because their blood is unfit for transfusions.

For me, the reason is physiological--I've tried several times and each time they just end up breaking my tiny vein, no matter how much I drink before hand. Finally they just said I should stop trying, it would only waste blood bags.

What's my point? Everyone who decides not to give blood can do so for whatever reason they want. Even if it is purely selfish. Even if they have a rare blood type and without their donation, someone else will die. It is their body and their decision about who gets access to it when. Just because you choose to use a right selfishly, doesn't mean you shouldn't have it.



Sure, and how can you tell whether she induced it intentionally unless you investigate every miscarriage? As Desk pointed out, we would have to start with monthly pregnancy screenings, since so many miscarriages happen early enough that the woman doesn't even know she's pregnant.



Heavily implying that we -don't- value human life. Classy.

I consider a little sarcasm to be small beans compared to what you are advocating--stripping me of the right to control my own body. Which of us is really being less respectful here?

Perfect post, completely agree!

 

[medieval_lady83]

Part of valuing human life means recognizing that another human being has a right to live. The debate about abortion isn't really about a woman's right to do with her body what she wants. It's about whether or not a woman should have the right to end someone else's life. Some people think that if it's in their body, they get to decide if they feel like calling it a human being or a blob of cells, completely based on their desires at the moment. They also believe that they should have the right to act as executioners simply because that life is living inside of them. Those on the pro-life side argue that a new separate human being exists at conception, and has an inherent right to exist. Therefore, they have human rights just like the new born baby. Ultimately the issue boils down to when does a separate human life begin? This must be a fixed moment that applies in every single pregnancy. It can't vary based upon the feelings and circumstances of the parents.

 

[medieval_lady83]

She's not going to understand that logic, she thinks all women should be incubators, whether they want to be or not.

When children get sick and die, do the authorities always investigate to see if the parents possibly murdered the child? Or is it just in cases that seem suspicious?

Despite what you've implied, I'm smart enough to recognize that it would be impossible to determine every case of induced miscarriage. That doesn't mean abortion should be allowed.

Back to the original question, we can't have it both ways. If abortion is not murder, than beating up a pregnant woman and causing her to lose her child should not carry an offense beyond having assaulted her. Unless you want to say you caused damage to her "property" being the unborn child/blob of cells. No one should take any pity on her loss, because it was just a blob of cells or a mass of tissue. Women fight for the right to say it's just a tissue or cells. If we applied this logic consistently, it would backfire on them, because even the pregnancies they wanted would be at risk from thugs who knew they could assault them to the point of ending their pregnancy without being charged with murder. And in those cases they would want the thug charged with murder, and the law would not be able to help them.

The definition of murder cannot depend upon whether or not a child was wanted. It's simply illogical.

 

[Skaloop]

Back to the original question, we can't have it both ways. If abortion is not murder, than beating up a pregnant woman and causing her to lose her child should not carry an offense beyond having assaulted her.

But beating up a woman and causing a miscarriage is not an abortion, so it could qualify as murder even though an abortion wouldn't.

Similar to how a doctor cutting me is not assault, but a guy on the street doing it would be.

 

[medieval_lady83]

But beating up a woman and causing a miscarriage is not an abortion, so it could qualify as murder even though an abortion wouldn't.

Similar to how a doctor cutting me is not assault, but a guy on the street doing it would be.

That made no sense whatsoever.

 

[Jade Margery]

That made no sense whatsoever.

A doctor cuts you with a knife: that's surgery.

A man on the street cuts you with a knife: that's assault.

A doctor kills and removes a fetus while minimizing risk to the mother: that's an abortion.

A man on the street punches a woman in the gut and makes her miscarry: that's assault, plus feticide/homicide depending on where you live and how old the fetus was.

Does it make more sense now?

The definition of murder cannot depend upon whether or not a child was wanted. It's simply illogical.

No, but it can depend on whether or not the person who killed it was allowed to do so. We do not call executioners 'murderers', nor soldiers, nor people who kill in self defense. Context matters. You say you are smart enough to recognize that not every miscarriage could possibly be investigated as possible manslaughter, so why are you having trouble understanding that two other acts with the same outcome do not automatically require the same laws to apply to them?

 

[Skaloop]

That made no sense whatsoever.

Just trying to point out how the context and circumstances matter in determining what is and is not illegal.

Jade clarified it well enough, so hopefully it makes sense now.

 

[medieval_lady83]

His whole logic didn't make sense. And your comments didn't remedy that.

"But beating up a woman and causing a miscarriage is not an abortion, so it could qualify as murder even though an abortion wouldn't."

Different means of killing can qualify as murder. Either way a fetus is dead as the result of willful violence. That would qualify both situations as murder. I could post images of fetal remains from the result of abortions, to prove my point, but I'm sure none of us want to see that.

"Similar to how a doctor cutting me is not assault, but a guy on the street doing it would be."

No, it's not similar to a doctor cutting you. From the point of view of the fetus, abortion is similar to the guy on the street cutting you to pieces and throwing your body parts in the trash, against your will.

Hence, his whole comment didn't make sense.