I made no assumption on whether the fetus is a person or not. I commented on what I believe is the endgame for the religious right.
I'm not part of the "religious right" so I can't speak on their behalf but I don't think they want to regulate what a mother can eat.
To an extent I can empathize with the argument that a person should be able to do what they want with, or make use of, their body in the manner they see fit. Even in areas like drug use or prostitution I think a legitimate argument on those lines could be made. When the use of the body involves direct physical harm or even the death of another person we need to have limits though. That argument [do what I want with my body] doesn't hold much weight when it comes to abortion. It's on par with an argument like this: "If I want to ball my hand up into a fist and swing it forward really hard over and over when another person is standing in front of me then that is my right.... don't tell me what I can or can not do with MY fist, MY body." It involves more than one person. One the persons ends up dead.
It is more like "If I want you to stop touching me, I can force you to stop touching me. If this requires me to kill you, so be it. Of course, I can only go that far if there are no other ways to get you to quit touching me."
I see that it can be removed. If it can be removed without killing it (such as most later third term babies), then killing it should be murder. I support technology to be able to remove the baby even earlier without killing it.It seems you are accepting that it is a person but you believe you would have the right to kill this person because for a nine month period this person would be in contact with another persons body?
If a person was raped I could see them rationalizing it this way but certainly if a person had consensual sex and were knowledgeable of the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy I don't think it would be much of an argument at all.
If Jill consents to sex with Bob, Joe still can't touch Jill.A person could simply refrain from having sex if they are so concerned about another person touching them.
Sometimes actions have consequences and we have to live with them rather then disposing of the person who results from the action. I think one would also have to take into consideration that the child isn't in conact with another persons body due to any choice of their own but rather because of the choice of one (rape) or two (consensual) other people. The child can hardly help it.
That is because they are still busy with abortion in general. They want to protect the child, and that includes making sure the mother is healthy.
Then again, many conservatives think that as long as the parent isn't killing the child, they should have the freedom to do what they want to them (to varying degrees).
If a woman consents to sex, but half way through says no, it is rape to continue.
If Jill consents to sex with Bob, Joe still can't touch Jill
I haven't seen any evidence of that but I guess I can't say it's impossible. Even if it is correct it really doesn't prove much of anything regarding the issue of abortion though. Either abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life or it isn't. Arguments about how conservatives think or how liberals think or if some conservative have faulty or illogical views on other issues (or are hypocrites, etc) are not particularly relevant imo.
I don't disagree. But I'm a practical person. I'm concerned about the practical effects of our laws. The biggest problem I have with pro-lifers is that their only legal approach to abortion seems to be criminalization. Criminal law is such a blunt instrument. If abortion is criminalized, how do you deal with the hard cases? What hoops will a sick woman have to go through in order to get a necessary medical procedure? Will there have to be hearing before a judge? And are we going to have over-zealous prosecutors second guessing physicians as to whether an abortion was really necessary? Conservatives talk about government intrusion into our health care and our personal lives. Don't you see how this could be an egregious example of such? Aren't there ways to reduce abortions without using the police power of the state?
I haven't seen any evidence of that but I guess I can't say it's impossible. Even if it is correct it really doesn't prove much of anything regarding the issue of abortion though. Either abortion is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life or it isn't. Arguments about how conservatives think or how liberals think or if some conservative have faulty or illogical views on other issues (or are hypocrites, etc) are not particularly relevant imo.
Just like it is Jill's fault for consenting to sex that some man is inside her. But when she says no, it means they have to get out.Makes sense to me. I think that is how the law views it as well.
If you are using "Joe" as a name for the baby they conceived then yes Joe would have every right to be in Jill's body. Joe didn't ask to be conceived or sneak into her womb when she wasn't looking. It's Jill's "fault" that Joe is there in the first place.
Such as unhealthy living by a pregnant woman.I know people hate this idea for some reason but people do need to take responsibility for their actions. Especially when failing to do so would lead to the death of another person.
Only in so far as to care for them up till removal. At any point a parent can decide to terminate parenting by putting their children up for adoption. Some states even have drop off areas where a parent (often a young mother of newborn) can leave the child, no questions asked. They only must take care of it till that point, much like a pregnant mother must take care of the child till the removal procedure can take place. For example, if a mother is pregnant in the third trimester, she must take care of the child for the couple hours or days it will take for doctors to induce premature birth.Do you think a mother has a duty to feed her children? She consented to sex and giving birth but what if she decided not to consent to doing that with her body ( i.e. moving her legs in such a way as to go to the store and then moving her arms in such a way as to pick food up and put in the shopping cart...etc..). Do people have any responsibilities whatsoever for their children?
I keep seeing that word in conjunction with abortion. Is there some reason a person who is not innocent is less deserving of life then someone who is? What defenition of innocent are we even using?
Only in so far as to care for them up till removal. At any point a parent can decide to terminate parenting by putting their children up for adoption. Some states even have drop off areas where a parent
It's bad enough to take the life of a person who is guilty of a heinous crime (I also oppose the death penalty ) but to take the life of a child who hasn't wronged anyone is an even more obvious transgression of moral law.
Such as unhealthy living by a pregnant woman.
I didn't say it was a worse transgression. I said it was a more obvious transgression. Many people are not aware that it is wrong to kill someone who has wronged them but even they understand that you don't kill the innocent. At least in killing a person guilty of a crime you could contrive a plausible excuse. Even a person with a very coarsely informed conscious should know that you don't kill the innocent. It takes a more refined conscious to know that you don't kill your enemies either.It is? Why is it a worse transgression?
No. Both would be murder.Would it be worse for someone to take the life of a fetus then my life? Why or why not?
I didn't say it was a worse transgression. I said it was a more obvious transgression.
No. Both would be murder.
Not all people agree with me that no one should be killed. They feel that it is ok to kill the guilty. For those people I'm stressing that the child is innocent.So the innocent portion is, in point of fact, superfluous? So why include it?
Unless you directed the question to me, I do not feel obligated to search for it - at my inconvenience - to answer it, just because you demand that I do. I note, however, that you've avoided my questions. Too difficult to answer I suspect?
What if they don't want to feed their child but they also don't want to do that with their body (take it to a drop off point) ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?