Printable View
Yup, while deaths were perhaps not in their thousands there were quite a few, but many more suffered infections and subsequent loss of fertility.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
I agree that to bring abortion down it would have to be a a drive at making it an unwanted choice. Much like drunk driving has become, it is simply unpopular now. Previously it was 'manly' to drive home in a 2.0 stupor.
Well, I'm not sure what you would consider an expert point of view. If a lawyer would qualify, then you've already gotten one. I'm not arguing with Kanamori, just explaining how the system works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
The only reason I can think of for Pro-Life groups to be pushing state laws against abortion is as a backup in case the Supreme Court doesn't make a full shift for or against. Currently the Court requires states to allow abortion, but it lets states decided how they want to implement it, within certain limits, e.g. no third trimester abortions. If the Court changed their decision and decided to let all states decide whether or not to allow abortion altogether, then the individual state laws would come into play.
Quote:
Punishment should be execution, or at the very least, life imprisonment with zero possibility for parole. Both for the "woman" and the "doctor" who participated in the murder of the baby. I put quotes around the words because in reality they are neither; that would require humanity first - but humans would not murder babies.
and true Christians wouldn't go around calling for the death of everyone who did something they disapproved of. Nor would they throw a woman in the hole forever with no hope of release. Remember that Jesus taught forgiveness and compassion.
But over the centuries religious zealots have promoted some seriuos evil in the name of righteousness, so I guess I shouldn't be shocked by your inhumanity.
ichi:bow:
BTW abortion doesn't involve murdering babies, unless it is a very late term abortion.
According to you. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
Just about every ethnic and social group has something they are/should be embarassed about. What is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
This is true. I doubt that Jesus would have been much of a fan of abortion, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
Well, let me ask you-- why are the Irish laws a failure? Has the frequency of abortions not been reduced?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
Just because some women go to N. Ireland or England is not evidence of failure. I'd be willing to bet you a good sum of money that there is a lower occurrence per capita of abortions in Ireland than there would be if abortions were legal.
If your goal is the complete elimination of abortion, then you WILL fail. But a reasonable goal of reducing their frequency CAN be achieved through legislation and regulation. It's not like crack. People aren't addicted to it. Something as simple as a long journey, a high monetary expense, or a strong moral taboo could easily dissuade a woman who might otherwise have gotten an abortion.
There will always be a few who are adamant-- in which case, let them travel to California/England/wherever. That's the beauty of having some states where it's legal, and others where it's not. You remove the incentive to illegal activity.
DA
That won't happen DA. Laws are done right from the idea of equity, not all get results, not all are simply pragmatic. It will not be right and just to charge the medic with a crime and not the part that gives consense. Sorry but it will never happen, and I hope that law never turns like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
How is it unfair?? The Doctor is the professional, it is his JOB to know what is right to do and what is wrong, and if he fails then it is more than just for him not only to lose his license, but in some cases to face actual criminal punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The woman has no professional qualification, she is not getting paid for any expert knowledge, and in most cases is simply a young, ignorant, scared girl. She has no license, she has no publicly-endowed trust to uphold.
DA
Well, she does have a uterus...... ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
The doctor is the professional but that has nothing to do. Penal law represses conducts of mans yes, the wrongness of the conduct is explicit in the mother,who let's the abortion happen giving her conssent, and also on the medic, who pratices it. Simple. Both are responsable for the crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
First, you've to have a law that sais specially to this cases of children we propose this, bla, bla, bla... The general law will talk about general dispositions and circumstances. If the mother has legal conssent is enough to make she responsable for the crime. It's very simple really she knows she is destroying the fetus then she is responsable, she receives punishment, period.Quote:
The woman has no professional qualification, she is not getting paid for any expert knowledge, and in most cases is simply a young, ignorant, scared girl. She has no license, she has no publicly-endowed trust to uphold.
Ha! You think that the Christians follow that kind of doctrine. Do you know why was it that in ancient times, at the very begining some Pope said "we are going to be the only ones who can interpret the Bible"? Simple, because the Bible was and is full of serious moral stupidity and evilness, also the people were and are ignorant, and there was a lot of "aphpocrifal" texts... Nobody can call himself a true Christian, because there isn't such thing, you only have the Bible, and if you want to be a true beleiver then you've to follow it at the letter or the interpretation of the Catholic Church, wich is not better...Not the best thing to do if you want to really win "heaven", even like a moral guide.Quote:
and true Christians wouldn't go around calling for the death of everyone who did something they disapproved of. Nor would they throw a woman in the hole forever with no hope of release. Remember that Jesus taught forgiveness and compassion.
Of course abortion involves murdering babies. "Abortion" is just a pleasant-sounding codename for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
It is not merely "something that is disapproved of", but rather it is the act of murdering a baby.
It would be an expression of inhumanity to say that someone who has murdered a baby should be allowed to live as if nothing happened.
To allow such murders to occur and do nothing about them, that is the serious evil going on.
On the other hand, to deliver fair justice to the murderers is noble.
[QUOTE=Navaros]Of course abortion involves murdering babies. "Abortion" is just a pleasant-sounding codename for that.
QUOTE]In fact you're wrong. In the technical sense of the term it's used to diferenciate the killing of a born person from one that hasn't born yet. The not-born is not considered a person, just an eventual imperfect person, that's why you require a different word to describe it. Also some other medical-technical considerations that I really don't have clear, but the process involving abortion is very different from an objective and even more subjective point of view.
Yes, the words are not the same. We all understand that...:dizzy2:
medically, how ever, there is little difference between "aborting" a baby that would be born in one week, and aborting a baby that has been born for a week.
And, for the record, i'm not a fanatic. Early Abortions are OK, but "aborting" an infant is wrong.
The baby is still dead. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I have a feeling you'd like the movie Boondock Saints.Quote:
On the other hand, to deliver fair justice to the murderers is noble.
And what about abortions where the baby could have lived had it been born and not aborted?Quote:
The not-born is not considered a person, just an eventual imperfect person, that's why you require a different word to describe it.
When you start saying it's okay to kill a baby since its in a woman's body, soon you have idiots like Peter Singer saying its okay to kill babies after they've been born.
Crazed Rabbit
Yes I agree. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What about it? In my statement I don't support abortion (though you may know my possition from other threads). The baby can be aborted because IMO it's not a person at all. Imperfect categories of person don't exist, however in juridical matter it appears that to limit the freedom of the mother, it's ok to give that category to some thing growing inside the uterus.Quote:
And what about abortions where the baby could have lived had it been born and not aborted?
To me you're not killing anyone, you're destroying a thing of your pertenence (wich is not a crime by the way). Once the will-to-be person is born, or the thing (ie fetus) is born (the way you like to qualify it) it's considered a full real separated and independent living person, for instance killing him/her will be murder, more clear imposible.Quote:
When you start saying it's okay to kill a baby since its in a woman's body, soon you have idiots like Peter Singer saying its okay to kill babies after they've been born.
Now lately I've being changing my position a lot. I understand the arguments gave in defence of the eventual person, so I'm right in the middle. I'm willing to accept that possition and remain in the status quo (at least in my legislation), when the mother is justified (and for instance the medic) if she is in danger to suffering serious damage to her health if the birth continues. However for exhaustive and long reasons I don't accept (from that position) the justification in cases of light damage, moral damage, rape or any other. I don't accept any other political conception that's totally outside the dogma of the law, like for example the institution of birth control, to me it's atrocious. And finally I don't accept the prescription for abortion. From this middle position, abortion is never possible, unless the already proposed. From the extreme position, it's not acceptable because there's no juridical relevant difference between a will-to-be person of 1 month and other of 6 months. I think I was pretty clear.
Lets not start arguing if abortion is right or wrong or when it is abortion and when it is murder or whatever. My original questions were…
From other abortion threads we all know where this one could go.:bow:Quote:
Lets imagine that in the future that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Now individual states can make abortion a criminal offence, basically pre-meditated murder. What should the punishment for a woman who gets an abortion be? Should the doctor also be charged?
Should it be legal for a pregnant woman to go to another state or country where abortion is legal and have it done then come back to her state without a criminal investigation?
Soulforged
You didn't reply to my post.
I want to see a MEDICAL difference between aborting a baby that will be born in an hour and aborting baby that has been born for an hour~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Both can feel pain, and think to a limited extent. they can also survive with out the mother.
As is my limited understanding....:bow:
Actually I would like to see that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Soulforged you say:
What is that opinion of yours based on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
In itself the juridical semantics have no value at all. The juridical definitions should reflect what society considers to be right or wrong - they cannot be the basis for an argument whether something is morally right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The not born baby is connected to the mother and resides INSIDE the mother. The born baby is not. Rather simple actually.....Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Actually I did many times in that old discussion in wich many of the pro life left because they couldn't argue properly. Go back to that and read them, there are a lot of pages to read. If you've any other doubt, then I'll be happy to enlight you, but I'll no repeat myself. Also you're confusing my possition, and confusing terms. A baby born for an hour will not be aborted, but killed, you don't appear to know the real meaning of the separation of those terms. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Is not only my opinion Ser Clegane, it's the opinion of all the juridic community. The position varies from one possition to the other this way: 1- let's stablish that all the juridic international community doesn't accepts the fetus to be a person, it's categorized as a object in the middle of things and person, obviously the caracter of person is given by the law, that doesn't mean that the fetus is not an human being. But if you want medical arguments, for what I know it acts like a parasit, so it cannot have the same heirarchy of an independent autonomous human being, that's the person. 2- The universal position sais that, though the fetus is not a person, it will be, eventually, one (or at least has an abstract possibility), so it deserves protection. This is not just semantics, the human and the person are different in essence, of what they can do, what they mean to society, the effects that they've on society, so the separation of both is important to understand this. 3- In my extreme position, it's not like that. To me we cannot simply limit the freedom of the mother just because some human is not still a person and depends in life and in death of the same mother, it's part of the mother. 4- However I'm turning, like I said, to a less extreme possition. For different reasons I find both arguments (on the one side and on the other), a little weak... But I admit that I like more the arguments given against abortion legalization, not by prolifers, but for real jurists that care for the very dogma of social understanding.Quote:
What is that opinion of yours based on?
Absolutely right. But the problem is that the definition of person is not necessarilly attached to the human being. All persons are human beings, but not all human beings are persons. One of the possitions sais that the fetus is an imperfect person, one that has imperfect rights, wich become irrebocable when it becomes a full person (here when it borns alive, in France when it lives and prooves viability). The question is can there exist an imperfect person? Not, that will be the same as trying to give the corpse the same qualification, the person is ot not is, simple. Now that's why I find strange that this question is still being asked. When I said juridically I didn't mean legal semantics, the juridic science studies the movements of social traditions and morality and tries to give some form to it. If this studies show that there cannot be imperfect persons. Then how it's possible that will give that to the fetus, and worst, resulting on the loss of freedom of the mother? If the critical point is the separation or viability, then there's no difference between a fetus of 1 week or other of 6 months.Quote:
In itself the juridical semantics have no value at all. The juridical definitions should reflect what society considers to be right or wrong - they cannot be the basis for an argument whether something is morally right or wrong.
actually, i meant medical evidence that it's not alive. whether or not it's inside the mother is a very abstract and ignorant way of deciding if somemething is alive or not.:book:Quote:
The not born baby is connected to the mother and resides INSIDE the mother. The born baby is not. Rather simple actually.....
No it wouldn't, because a corpse is not alive.Quote:
The question is can there exist an imperfect person? Not, that will be the same as trying to give the corpse the same qualification...
the fetus(If it's about to be born in an hour...), is just as much alive as an infant. There isn't any difference, except that one is inside the mother and the other is not.Quote:
One of the possitions sais that the fetus is an imperfect person, one that has imperfect rights, wich become irrebocable when it becomes a full person (here when it borns alive, in France when it lives and prooves viability).
Once again, you are arguing in a abstract legal way. the "critical point" Is when it is alive. Laws are like numbers; they are suppossed to reflect reality/Morality, not change it. it used to be legal to keep blacks as slaves, that didn't make it right.Quote:
If the critical point is the separation or viability, then there's no difference between a fetus of 1 week or other of 6 months.
No it dosen't. a baby that will be born in an hour can survive with out the mother.Quote:
To me we cannot simply limit the freedom of the mother just because some human is not still a person and depends in life and in death of the same mother, it's part of the mother.
PS:Sorry i couldn't quote the entire post. Will try to do that once i have more time.
Well, the "alive" argument seems rather pointless to me. My hair is alive, yet no one cries murder when I cut it. It's not "alive" that causes the problems, it is "sentient." Barring those extremists fruitarians, we all eat living things. Even vegans are not remorseful for killing a plant for their own needs. The same is true of living human matter. The important difference is when you are extinguishing the life of something that is aware of its own existence. A fetus is not self-aware when it is one, two or four cells in the womb. A fetus is aware just before it is born. Given our current level of science, we are unable to determine exactly when the fetus transforms from a mass of living matter into a sentient creature.
As such logic dictates that aborting the fetus before sentience occurs should be acceptable to most societies. Aborting it after sentience occurs should not be acceptable to most societies. Current laws proposing a complete ban on abortion are not doing so to protect the warm mass of globular goo that exists 24 hours after fertilization. These laws exist or are proposed in order to prevent any mistakes being made in the process. The idea behind them is that it is better to err on the side of caution than to extinguish a life.
While this is a laudable reason, it is laughable in a nation that allows the death penalty. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that putting prisoners to death is acceptable despite the fact that mistakes are likely to be made and innocent lives taken. If this is the case then early term abortion, when possible sentience is little more than a slim chance, should also be legal.
You are trying to create a reference that provides you with what you need. Your "alive" argument is irrelevant. It's not a question if the baby/fetus is alive or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Furthermore, "inside the mother" is neither abstract nor ignorant. It's a very easily proven state of the baby, both medically, legally and morally.
Any restriction on abortion is a direct restriction on the mother and her control of her body. If your true intention is to protect the fetus, you have to make a lot of restrictions on the mother and her life. I don't accept that.
ROFLQuote:
Any restriction on abortion is a direct restriction on the mother and her control of her body. If your true intention is to protect the fetus, you have to make a lot of restrictions on the mother and her life. I don't accept that.
it's OK to slaughter a human being who hasn't committed any crime because it's convenient?:dizzy2:
~:eek:Quote:
You are trying to create a reference that provides you with what you need. Your "alive" argument is irrelevant. It's not a question if the baby/fetus is alive or not.
Erm, it DOES matter when you're debating on wheter it's OK to destroy something or not.
There are no differences between a baby that will be born in afew minutes and a baby that has been born for afew minutes other then the fact that one is inside the mother, the other is not. IIRC, if the mother died, the baby could be removed and it would survive.Quote:
Furthermore, "inside the mother" is neither abstract nor ignorant. It's a very easily proven state of the baby, both medically, legally and morally.
in itself, being inside the mother means nothing.
It is futile to reason with you~:handball: This is probably my last post on the matter.
It's a collateral damage when upholding the mothers rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Abortions primary reason is not to destroy the fetus. I think in this we have your largest misunderstanding on abortion. A women who choses to make abortion doesn't do that because she wants to kill the fetus, but out of reasons of her own well being.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Semantics. This has nothing to add to the actual discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
That is the ONLY thing that means something.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Giving up are we ?? ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Well I treated you with respect, I think I deserve the same, but if you want to play that game..."Abstract and ignorant"? Huh, I think you don't know the meaning of "abstract". In any case it's not, it's the result of centuries of studies, something that you don't have on civil matter my friend. The point is not being alive...UFFF...Look I'm a man an a person I'm alive. The fetus is a man but not a person, it's a life. Happy. (notice that that doesn't disprooves anything, just trying to make it easy for you to eat). Hell you didn't even readed my previous posts, but also ignored the last one, good work. :rtwyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Of course but the argument is not directed against the essence of the object, but to the abstract (see abstract) conception of personality given by the law. Doctrine doesn't acecpts imperfect personality, one is a person or not. However it's ok to give that to the fetus...Quote:
No it wouldn't, because a corpse is not alive.
Well if you knew something about law, you'll know that that difference is a great one.Quote:
the fetus(If it's about to be born in an hour...), is just as much alive as an infant. There isn't any difference, except that one is inside the mother and the other is not.
Of course not, but I'm arguing the phylosophy of law, not just the dogma in itself, that's, in final instance, a derivation of the first. Laws = numbers? Because they reflect reality/morality? You need a dictionary...Again you're confusing human being with person. Now are the two concepts completely alien to each other? That's a real question. Not: If he alive or not? :wall:Quote:
Once again, you are arguing in a abstract legal way. the "critical point" Is when it is alive. Laws are like numbers; they are suppossed to reflect reality/Morality, not change it. it used to be legal to keep blacks as slaves, that didn't make it right.
No he can't. As you see you are arguing in circles. The born child of 1 year also depends on the mother, that doesn't makes him abortable from my extreme point of view. However if he depends organically of the mother, if he's part of another individual, then that's another case, it could be aborted.Quote:
No it dosen't. a baby that will be born in an hour can survive with out the mother.
~:eek: WOW...Now I realize, all this was because you didn't have enough time, then sorry for any condecendent comments.Quote:
PS:Sorry i couldn't quote the entire post. Will try to do that once i have more time.
I was refering to bmolsson, who's argument was not as well though out as yours...Quote:
Well I treated you with respect, I think I deserve the same, but if you want to play that game..."Abstract and ignorant"? Huh, I think you don't know the meaning of "abstract". In any case it's not, it's the result of centuries of studies, something that you don't have on civil matter my friend. The point is not being alive...UFFF...Look I'm a man an a person I'm alive. The fetus is a man but not a person, it's a life. Happy. (notice that that doesn't disprooves anything, just trying to make it easy for you to eat). Hell you didn't even readed my previous posts, but also ignored the last one, good work. :rtwyes:
what im arguing is that after a certain point, the fetus is a person. If it was to be removed from the mother, and others cared for it, it would survive. It is capable of living with out direct attachment to another person.Quote:
Of course but the argument is not directed against the essence of the object, but to the abstract (see abstract) conception of personality given by the law. Doctrine doesn't acecpts imperfect personality, one is a person or not. However it's ok to give that to the fetus...
Well if you knew something about law, you'll know that that difference is a great one.
No, what i meant by that poorly worded statment was that claiming that laws change morality is like claiming that numbers can change reality. They don't; they're simply supposed to reflect what is rightQuote:
Of course not, but I'm arguing the phylosophy of law, not just the dogma in itself, that's, in final instance, a derivation of the first. Laws = numbers? Because they reflect reality/morality? You need a dictionary...Again you're confusing human being with person. Now are the two concepts completely alien to each other? That's a real question. Not: If he alive or not? :wall:
What meant was that it dosen't need to be attached to the mother to survive.Quote:
No he can't. As you see you are arguing in circles. The born child of 1 year also depends on the mother, that doesn't makes him abortable from my extreme point of view. However if he depends organically of the mother, if he's part of another individual, then that's another case, it could be aborted.
See how you are?~DQuote:
~:eek: WOW...Now I realize, all this was because you didn't have enough time, then sorry for any condecendent comments.
At anyrate, this debate isn't going any where. In my defense, debating here is like trench warfare; an over the top attack is sometimes the only way to break the stalmate, though not in a good way....~;)
Still, I apologize for any over the top comments i might have made in this thread~:grouphug:
Just wanting to point something out (as I see data used wrongly too often in the newspaper already):
Of the American population 75% is white (according to this). This means that compared to other ethnics white women have less abortions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
To get back on topic:
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this: Gambling is forbidden in some states yet loads of people go to Las Vegas to gamble. Nobody is sentenced for doing that. Now if you replace gambling with abortion why would it be any different?
My arguments are facts. I guess that is why you hate them..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Yes exactly. It's more a question of morality than of law, thus the state doesn't has to exercise power (of course it shouldn't that doesn't mean it's not going to do it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
Ok, but that's an emotional appeal, not logical constructions over the bases that I've provided. Though until certain point I agree with you, that's why I changed my possition. The quality of person cannot be totally alienated to that of human being, one is the instrument of protection of the second greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
I never pretended to say something like that. In fact I always separate the two with care, while stating clearly that the morality is the basis of all law, in fact in ancient times they were confused.Quote:
No, what i meant by that poorly worded statment was that claiming that laws change morality is like claiming that numbers can change reality. They don't; they're simply supposed to reflect what is right
Perhaps, and I thought as much...But science is based on facts. Also juridic science interprets the things from another non-positive point of view. The point is not if he/she is capable of sruvival, the point is: Is he/she worthy of juridical protection? The basis for the answer of those two question are totally different, one is the medical fact other the social one.Quote:
What meant was that it dosen't need to be attached to the mother to survive.