I have DEFINITELY heard this argument before...

(also pro-choice)

BARREL BREAK wrote: iirc, those sentencing arrangements were introduced to strengthen anti-abortion claims.

That is certainly true in some cases, but not necessarily in all.

But there are many interesting odd-ball legal situations that arise from this political battle.  Missouri a few years back enacted a law declaring that life begins at conception - presumably to set up an abortion fight (other states have similar laws).  Two lawsuits followed shortly:  A <poopy> 20-year-old charged with underage drinking who claimed he was actually 21 (if you counted from conception), and an imprisoned pregnant woman demanding release because her unborn child was being unlawfully detained in prison.

Rambino wrote: smartass 20-year-old

bat signal...

Rambino wrote: A smartass 20-year-old charged with underage drinking who claimed he was actually 21 (if you counted from conception

I would so do that.

FlimFlam wrote: Rambino wrote: smartass 20-year-old bat signal...

I wondered if anybody would call me on it...  but of course this is the internet.   :)

Fixed.

Philosophical discussions make my head hurt...

Pro-life...

Panda Man wrote: Rambs, does that mean everyone that "quoted" you gets a strike.

Believe me, I was tempted.

I am against abortion because it is clear that the baby is NOT part of the mothers body.  She can do whatever she wants to her body but the baby is not part of it, it just hangs out in thre for 9 months.  The DNA of the mother and baby are different and thus they are not the same person. 

Thats my opinion atleast.

.636 wrote: Susan Storm wrote: What if the fetus has exited the womb, but is still attached by the umbilical cord?  Free to be killed or not? Tis outside of the womans womb and that means abortion season is ended.

So your saying you would give someone in their third term of pregnancy an abortion? Even though the child has started forming features? Calling it a fetus doesn't make it's heart stop beating. I'm almost 18, don't want a baby, but if I knock someone up I'd better be dead or in jail if she's going to kill that baby. It isn't *YOUR* body, your sharing it with another body, and the male should have as much say as the female.

unless it's .636s child, in which case I would gladly pinch the head off and sell the milk.

Reb Cpl wrote: I never understood the people who can be 'pro-choice' yet against the death penalty. Its okay to kill an unborn child, but don't you dare whack a 40 year old serial rapist who eats the kidneys and cuts off the breasts of his victims? I just don't get it.

The way you state it, it does not make sense.

But how about this:  It is ok to destroy a blastocyst, but don't kill the criminal.

Whether consciously or otherwise, I believe most pro-choicers do not accept that an embryo is an "unborn child".

Animal, yes - biologically speaking.

Person, no.  Moral object, only partially.

Reb Cpl wrote: So it is morals that define humans, even prior to them being birthed, raised, and schooled in ethics and morality? Perhaps prior to proper education in morality, the infant is a.......rattlesnake? What is it if not human?

Sorry - Moral OBJECT.  As in something to which we owe a moral duty.  We owe a moral duty to a dog, but not to a rock.  A dog is a moral object; a rock is not.

The extent of that moral duty varies.  A fetus is certainly a moral object, but not to the same extent as a child.  We owe a moral duty to a fetus, but not nearly as great of a moral duty as to a child.

Reb Cpl wrote: Where is the line? Our moral duty to a child of say......3 consists of many things. Educate, guide, protect.

There is no line.

Morality is not black and white, unless we arbitrarily assign those values.  Reality is all about degrees and gradual changes.  One cell becomes two, becomes 4, becomes 8...  eventually becomes an actual person, but it is a gradual process. 

It is too simple to declare an embyo the same as a person - moreover, it is contrary to actual human morality.  Any close examination of any actual moral dilemma will uncover a full range of moral issues, rather than simple yes or no solutions.

Asking where "the line" is to be found is asking the wrong question.

Where do we decide that the moral obligation of protection should begin or end? If there is no moral obligation to protect at all, then perhaps there were no obligations to begin with, but, since to me, moral obligation to a being is centered around protection and nurturing that being until it can sustain itself, it would seem to me that to even a blastula, with the potential to grow and learn would demand a significant amount of these moral obligations.

Those are good questions, and I would wager that if you spent some time thinking hard about them, you would discover that you would find more questions.  BTW - If you say that first cell is sacred, then why not the sperm as well, or the carbon atoms that we are all made of?  Blood has human DNA, but it doesn't get special treatment.  They also have the "potential" to become human beings - heck, the water molecules you drank for lunch probably WERE human beings at some point.

At what point are we obliged to forget these obligations and abandon what has the potential to educate and protect US in the future?

Perhaps when we set them against other obligations?  Obligations to existing humans?  No obligation exists in a vacuum, and all obligations conflict with other obligations.

But let me ask you this - do you believe abortion should be permitted to save the life of the mother?

Reb Cpl wrote: I never understood the people who can be 'pro-choice' yet against the death penalty. Its okay to kill an unborn child, but don't you dare whack a 40 year old serial rapist who eats the kidneys and cuts off the breasts of his victims? I just don't get it.

But once again, like Clark has stated: You're assuming the fetus should be granted the same rights as humans. Also, you're assuming the death penalty is a flawless system of punishment that could not ever kill an innocent person due to a mistake.

The death penalty issue is not even on the same wavelength as abortion. Especially when one issue could be considered more empiracle while the other is a basis of morality.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Whenether you are against abortion or not, it is still an unborn child that we are talking about.

You simply state this as if it is obvious.

Let me ask you - do you believe that an abortion is warranted to save the life of the mother?  Reb is right that this is a complex question, but let me pose a very simple/simplified hypothetical:

A woman is 6 weeks pregnant.  She has a medical condition that will kill her if she carries the child to term, c-section or not.  If she has an abortion, she will will live.  If she carries the child to term, the child will live while the woman dies.  All certainties.

Should she be allowed to have an abortion?

bunkered apparently wrote: I'm not against abortion, but I think people who are "pro-choice" should live with the fact that they're baby-killers rather than pretend what they did was the equivalent of squashing a fly and is no big deal.

I didn't realize that "baby-killer" and "fly-squasher" were the only options.  Again with the black or white morality.  Only the coldest of hearts believe that abortion has no moral implication - but that does not mean that the fetus is a full person for moral purposes.  Gradation, people.

CarbineKid wrote: mbro wrote: Man It's my legal philosophy class all over again. What I want to know is if you make abortions illegal what punishment would be appropriate for the women that had one? Wouldn't the punishment be for the doctor who did the procedure?

But she paid him.  Not only is that murder, but by hiring somebody else it becomes death-penalty eligible in every state that has the death penalty.

By current law, if we equate an embryo to a person, it is murder in the first degree, with aggravating circumstances, for both the mother and the doctor, and anybody else that helped pay for it.

Accessory to murder for whoever drove her to the clinic, and for anybody that advised her to have an abortion. 

Pretty much death penalty or life in prison for everybody involved.

carl_the_sniper wrote: That's why the law would obviously have to change.

Why?

If fetuses are people, then it is murder, plain and simple, and life/death sentences are perfectly appropriate.  You hire somebody to kill your child, and you expect leniency?

Unless, of course, a fetus isn't really the same as a child after all...

Let me pose you this hypothetical:  A mother has an illness that will kill her unless she gets a transplant, and her 5-year-old child is a donor.  Unfortunately, the procedure will kill the child.

Should the mother be allowed to kill her 5-year-old to save herself?

carl_the_sniper wrote: Susan Storm wrote: Should the mother be allowed to kill her 5-year-old to save herself? Obviously not.

So let me recap:

If a mother needs to kill her 5-year-old to save herself, that is obviously not permitted.

If a mother needs to kill her unborn fetus to save herself, that is permitted - at least some of the time.

I suspect 95% of people would agree with you.

This, of course, means that you (and everybody else) aren't really for treating fetuses the same as real people after all.