Late Term Abortion

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Then you are against capital punishment?

That's a bad comparison - with capital punishment, you have a (usually) guilty party. With an unborn child...well, it's kind of hard for it to be guilty of a crime.

I'm against capital punishment in peacetime anyways. But that's another topic.

[Strike For The South]

Then you are against capital punishment?

That's a bad comparison - with capital punishment, you have a (usually) guilty party. With an unborn child...well, it's kind of hard for it to be guilty of a crime.

I'm against capital punishment in peacetime anyways. But that's another topic.

[Samurai Waki]

We have discovered that after we have killed certain "guilty" people, all evidence actually points out that they were innocent. This doesn't happen a lot, but it happens and is worthy to note. So it would seem hypocritical to kill a prisoner, who could later be found to be innocent, and not abort a fetus (during the first trimester of course) who is also innocent. I refuse to play that moral game.
The question it seems, is not whether abortion should be banned or not, but what is "human"?. Its not very defined, and the argument for or against aborting a fetus is superfluous. You ban it, and it will still happen, only another innocent person (along with fetus) is putting their life in danger, physically and/or judiciously. If you don't put restrictions on it (such as late term abortions without direct physical danger to the mother) and it could very well be abused, not just by uneducated teen girls, but also partners who "don't think its the right time yet."

Unfortunately, it is a quagmire topic, and nobody can agree wholeheartedly, and I wouldn't expect it to. However, having studied law for several years now, and having read the Inalienable Rights of Man, a fetus which cannot sustain life outside the mothers womb is not a citizen of this country, is not human as Children have rights of their own Inalienable Rights, under sed Human Rights Articles, which have been provisioned under the United States Constitution.

"Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival."

These rights can only be applicable to the "holder" of the Fetus, as naturally the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness trumps.

Liberty is divided into four types : natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable, the latter two are government granted. What this means, is essentially, that in Nature's law, and in her own personal world, if a mother wants an abortion, she will have it. Civil Law, however can regulate her own personal views, but it cannot ban them entirely. If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist. This is why, Society's views on Marijuana have softened so much, its more acceptable because it is widespread, and theres very little we can do to actually stop it. Not to mention, it isn't that heinous.

Now it falls under the "mother's" Pursuit of Happiness; because we cannot completely get rid of abortions entirely, it can still be regulated up to a point. Under Civil Law, which is what this argument would fall under, if we ban abortion, then Mother's who seek out such a practice, would not get proper medical treatment, and the mother puts herself in great risk, of death, or contracting an infection, or illness. You get hedge-abortionists, who may not have qualification to do the job, which leads to the possibility of causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death. I'd rather have it done as professionally, as clean, and as harmless as possible to both mother, and safely dead fetus.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist.

Fine them. Heavily.

[Strike For The South]

We have discovered that after we have killed certain "guilty" people, all evidence actually points out that they were innocent. This doesn't happen a lot, but it happens and is worthy to note. So it would seem hypocritical to kill a prisoner, who could later be found to be innocent, and not abort a fetus (during the first trimester of course) who is also innocent. I refuse to play that moral game.
The question it seems, is not whether abortion should be banned or not, but what is "human"?. Its not very defined, and the argument for or against aborting a fetus is superfluous. You ban it, and it will still happen, only another innocent person (along with fetus) is putting their life in danger, physically and/or judiciously. If you don't put restrictions on it (such as late term abortions without direct physical danger to the mother) and it could very well be abused, not just by uneducated teen girls, but also partners who "don't think its the right time yet."

Unfortunately, it is a quagmire topic, and nobody can agree wholeheartedly, and I wouldn't expect it to. However, having studied law for several years now, and having read the Inalienable Rights of Man, a fetus which cannot sustain life outside the mothers womb is not a citizen of this country, is not human as Children have rights of their own Inalienable Rights, under sed Human Rights Articles, which have been provisioned under the United States Constitution.

"Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival."

These rights can only be applicable to the "holder" of the Fetus, as naturally the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness trumps.

Liberty is divided into four types : natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable, the latter two are government granted. What this means, is essentially, that in Nature's law, and in her own personal world, if a mother wants an abortion, she will have it. Civil Law, however can regulate her own personal views, but it cannot ban them entirely. If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist. This is why, Society's views on Marijuana have softened so much, its more acceptable because it is widespread, and theres very little we can do to actually stop it. Not to mention, it isn't that heinous.

Now it falls under the "mother's" Pursuit of Happiness; because we cannot completely get rid of abortions entirely, it can still be regulated up to a point. Under Civil Law, which is what this argument would fall under, if we ban abortion, then Mother's who seek out such a practice, would not get proper medical treatment, and the mother puts herself in great risk, of death, or contracting an infection, or illness. You get hedge-abortionists, who may not have qualification to do the job, which leads to the possibility of causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death. I'd rather have it done as professionally, as clean, and as harmless as possible to both mother, and safely dead fetus.

I dont see how the mothers prusuit of happnies trumps the babies life. An infant is just as depandant on its mother as a fetous and when people kill infants there is an outrage. Saying it should be legal becuase others will get hurt isnt a valid arguement. They will only get hurt if they choose to break a law and they will only be put in that postion by a personal choice they made.

causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death.

Biut its just a clump of cells......

[Samurai Waki]

I dont see how the mothers prusuit of happnies trumps the babies life. An infant is just as depandant on its mother as a fetous and when people kill infants there is an outrage. Saying it should be legal becuase others will get hurt isnt a valid arguement. They will only get hurt if they choose to break a law and they will only be put in that postion by a personal choice they made.

During the first Trimester, a fetus is just a clump of cells, ergo the fact that it has no rights as a human being. But, hey, if you want to go make an amendment be my guest, just don't get pissy when it turns out much like the 18th amendment, it gets overturned in a couple of years and we're all worse off for it. But, hey I don't like Alcohol that much anyways, do you think I should go throw every person who drinks in the poky? or fine them heavily?

Or Beef. A cow has the right to live! No Beef, or cowboy hats for you. And I don't like Texas much as a state, we should turn texas into about ten smaller states, and give at least one of them to Mexico...

[ajaxfetish]

Re: Adrian

I know you aren't inline with Xiahou or Crazed Rabbit on gun rights, and I'm not sure where you stand on home defense in general, so this analogy may not be meaningful to you. If not, I apologize for my poor attempt.

A person has the right to defend their home from invasion. If an armed intruder comes into their house and threatens their person, family, or property, they have the right to attack and possibly kill the intruder. It is not the same if the intruder has been invited in. I cannot invite a neighbor I dislike to my home, then kill him, and claim I am innocent because he had invaded my home. It's flawed to say a woman has the complete right to abortion simply because the fetus is invading her person. She has in most cases invited it in by voluntarily engaging in sex. Involuntary impregnation is of course another matter.

The analogy breaks down somewhat, since the homeowner can demand the guest leave, and if the guest refuses to leave they become an invader and the rules of the game shift. The fetus does not have the ability to voluntarily leave the womb if the mother demands it goes.

Overall, the issue comes back to the same place it always does. When does a fetus become a human--or in legal terms, when does it become a person--with rights of its own. As Viking points out, the cells involved have always been alive, since prior to fertilization on. If all living human cells have a right to life, masturbation is mass murder. Life is not the issue: humanity/personhood is. The traditional lines in the sand (conception and birth) are both very unconvincing to me, and any line between those is, as Viking has said, arbitrary. For legal purposes, it must be drawn, just as an arbitrary line between child and adult (for purposes such as voting rights, substance use rights, driving privileges, sexual consent, method of trial, etc.) has been drawn (or rather, several have been drawn depending on the issue). I don't know where the best place to draw that line is. The beginning of the third trimester seems a reasonable place, and it sounds like most of the western world has chosen something along those lines. America is still struggling with the issue.

Ajax

[Craterus]

Why does being human give you a right to life anyway?

[CountArach]

Why does being human give you a right to life anyway?

Well the Declaration of Human Rights does specifically state the right to life.

[Strike For The South]

During the first Trimester, a fetus is just a clump of cells, ergo the fact that it has no rights as a human being. But, hey, if you want to go make an amendment be my guest, just don't get pissy when it turns out much like the 18th amendment, it gets overturned in a couple of years and we're all worse off for it. But, hey I don't like Alcohol that much anyways, do you think I should go throw every person who drinks in the poky? or fine them heavily?

Or Beef. A cow has the right to live! No Beef, or cowboy hats for you. And I don't like Texas much as a state, we should turn texas into about ten smaller states, and give at least one of them to Mexico...

Abortion shoudnt be legal in a perfect wrold yes But not now. I am deeply saddened by this fact but when there is no decency left in the wrold I guess thats how it is Equating humans with cows has no plaice in this disscusion. Human life is worth much more you know this and your Texas refrence is made merley to get a rise out of me nice try.