Mississippi and "personhood"

[bosk1]

Personally, I think this entire situation perfectly represents the inherent sadism and misogyny in religion and its followers.

And you've been warned from eternity and back about insulting either individuals or groups of individuals in P/R.  You have now lost your posting privileges in this subforum.

[Scheavo]

Is that not preferable to murder?

Say a woman get's pregnant, and since they won't know they're pregnant for, ya know, a while, what if they go out drinking, and end up having a miscarriage because of that. Are they murderers?

[73109]

Look up the Donohue/Levit study.

[73109]

Apparantly I can still post. Anyway, the study showed that in the 18 years after Roe v. Wade, the areas that legalized abortion experienced lower crime rates.

[Omega]

Making a woman suffer for getting raped isn't my definition of justice. If the woman wants to keep the baby, and put it up for adoptions, all the better for her. But considering if a woman doesn't want the baby, she's going to do something about it anyways, I'd rather make the situation as best as possible, and not cause more problems than there already are.

And are miscarriages murder?

Who ever mentioned justice? Putting up the baby for adoption is the least sufficiently moral action that could be taken by the mother in the situation. Obviously getting raped and having to deliver the baby is not fair or just in any way, but this isn't about logistical fairness; its a moral issue.

And are miscarriages murder?

And, no, miscarriages are obviously not murder. No offense, but I'm not sure why condescending, nonsensical questions like these are even asked at times.

[Omega]

You keep using the pejorative term "murder" as if it's an established fact that abortion is murder.  I hate to tell you this, but it's not an established fact.

If not murder, then what is the willful killing of an unborn child?

[bosk1]

You keep using the pejorative term "murder" as if it's an established fact that abortion is murder.  I hate to tell you this, but it's not an established fact.

If not murder, then what is the willful killing of an unborn child?

He's saying it isn't a "child," so while it may be "willful killing," it can't qualify as murder. 

(I don't agree with him, and you may feel free to refer to it as murder if you like; I'm just clarifying what he meant since you seem to not understand)

[Scheavo]

Making a woman suffer for getting raped isn't my definition of justice. If the woman wants to keep the baby, and put it up for adoptions, all the better for her. But considering if a woman doesn't want the baby, she's going to do something about it anyways, I'd rather make the situation as best as possible, and not cause more problems than there already are.

And are miscarriages murder?

Who ever mentioned justice? Putting up the baby for adoption is the least sufficiently moral action that could be taken by the mother in the situation. Obviously getting raped and having to deliver the baby is not fair or just in any way, but this isn't about logistical fairness; its a moral issue.

Can morality advocate injustice? That seems to be incongruous to me. Morality is just, if morality is unjust, somethings wrong with the morality.

And are miscarriages murder?

And, no, miscarriages are obviously not murder. No offense, but I'm not sure why I condescending, commonsensical questions like these are even asked at times.
[/quote]

Because if it's murder to kill an unborn fetus, so that means an unborn fetus is a human life to you. Should it at least be manslaughter? I mean, a human life is ending because of someone else actions. Miscarriages could be intentional if abortion is illegal as well, so you still have to deal with intentional killing of the fetus, which si by your definition, murder.

I'm asking the question because it's the logical result of how you're defining murder, what ou define as human life, etc.

[Omega]

Is that not preferable to murder?

Say a woman get's pregnant, and since they won't know they're pregnant for, ya know, a while, what if they go out drinking, and end up having a miscarriage because of that. Are they murderers?

Of course not. If the mother drinks and kills the unborn unwillfully and/or unknowingly, it is not murder.
If the mother drinks willingly, and with the intent to end or maim the unborn's life, that would be murder / immoral.

I hate to sound like a douche, yet this is another condescending question with a commonsensical answer that need not be asked. I feel these are the type of questions psychopaths are asked to determine their mental sate before trails and such...

[Omega]

You keep using the pejorative term "murder" as if it's an established fact that abortion is murder.  I hate to tell you this, but it's not an established fact.

If not murder, then what is the willful killing of an unborn child?

He's saying it isn't a "child," so while it may be "willful killing," it can't qualify as murder. 

(I don't agree with him, and you may feel free to refer to it as murder if you like; I'm just clarifying what he meant since you seem to not understand)

No, yes I understand him and thanks for the clarification. Yet I'm not sure why a fertilized egg can be considered a child only a subjectively set X amount of time after being fertilized and not since the moment of (confirmed / obvious) fertilization.

[Omega]

Making a woman suffer for getting raped isn't my definition of justice. If the woman wants to keep the baby, and put it up for adoptions, all the better for her. But considering if a woman doesn't want the baby, she's going to do something about it anyways, I'd rather make the situation as best as possible, and not cause more problems than there already are.

And are miscarriages murder?

Who ever mentioned justice? Putting up the baby for adoption is the least sufficiently moral action that could be taken by the mother in the situation. Obviously getting raped and having to deliver the baby is not fair or just in any way, but this isn't about logistical fairness; its a moral issue.

Can morality advocate injustice? That seems to be incongruous to me. Morality is just, if morality is unjust, somethings wrong with the morality.

Consider this analogy:

Suppose I'm a renowned archaeologist and survivalist on a long hiking trip in a extremely desolate part of the world with two other people: a trial guide and his pesky, uneducated 4 year old son, whom he clearly doesn't even care about. One night, the trial guide steals my possessions, most of my food, and other equipment while I sleep and leaves, never to be seen again. The man is so cruel that he leaves his son behind with me, too overjoyed from the equipment he stole from me. The child obviously cannot survive without me. It would take about 9 months to leave the area and make it back to civilization. Finding food for both in the desolate region would be near impossible, yet I have a decent amount of food for only myself and could possibly survive if I were to hunt solely for myself. Do I care for the pesky child and attempt provide food for him and me, risk my life for him, and make various other sacrifices until the 9 months are through and deliver him to civilization and a caring place? Or do I simply toss him aside, more or less assure my survival, and let him fend for himself in the wild, knowing it will lead to his death?

The scenario I was (theoretically) placed in was far from just or fair. Yet I would choose to attempt to save the child and deliver him to civilization even though it would certainly tax me or even mean the death of me trying to provide food, etc. You could say that it would be even convenient or reasonable of me to leave the kid behind and stock up resources for the 9 months in an effort to survive. Who's gonna miss some unknown, futureless 4 year old kid, right?

And are miscarriages murder?

And, no, miscarriages are obviously not murder. No offense, but I'm not sure why I condescending, commonsensical questions like these are even asked at times.

Because if it's murder to kill an unborn fetus, so that means an unborn fetus is a human life to you. Should it at least be manslaughter? I mean, a human life is ending because of someone else actions. Miscarriages could be intentional if abortion is illegal as well, so you still have to deal with intentional killing of the fetus, which si by your definition, murder.

I'm asking the question because it's the logical result of how you're defining murder, what ou define as human life, etc.

This is a fair question, and obviously the woman would be doing an immoral act by willingly and malevolently killing her unborn or causing a miscarriage, yet I haven't thought of the legal actions that could or should be taken in these cases.

[El Barto]

I won't question the ban since I have no knowledge of previous warnings,  but I will point out that to some of us,  constantly referring to abortion as murder is just as insulting as pointing out tendencies towards sadism and misogyny is to the religious. 

[j]

Because if it's murder to kill an unborn fetus, so that means an unborn fetus is a human life to you. Should it at least be manslaughter? I mean, a human life is ending because of someone else actions. Miscarriages could be intentional if abortion is illegal as well, so you still have to deal with intentional killing of the fetus, which si by your definition, murder.

Ignoring all of the idiotic comments from both sides (as is the norm when discussing this topic), this is an interesting question IMO.  A fetus is indisputably a human at an early stage of development; whether or not it is entitled to the same rights as a kid that's already been born (or whether it can be justified to kill it in certain situations) could be more of a philosophical matter.  But if it is, then it follows that women who miscarry and were negligent while pregnant with regard to stuff like eating and drinking habits, etc, ought to be held responsible for "manslaughter" in some capacity.  And it raises a lot of questions as to what would constitute "negligence" in such a situation (i.e. she wasn't taking prenatal vitamins versus she was drinking a fifth of vodka every night and abusing narcotics).

I hardly think that outlawing abortion in most cases would be the unforgivable infringement on "women's rights" that some seem to think it would be, but to me, the above sounds like an absolute fucking nightmare of government intervention.

On a side note, I think it's funny how the more partisan members of this board on each side reverse their usual opinions with respect to government regulation, human rights, etc. when it comes to this particular issue.

-J

[kirksnosehair]

You keep using the pejorative term "murder" as if it's an established fact that abortion is murder.  I hate to tell you this, but it's not an established fact.

If not murder, then what is the willful killing of an unborn child?

A fetus is not a child

[Omega]

You keep using the pejorative term "murder" as if it's an established fact that abortion is murder.  I hate to tell you this, but it's not an established fact.

If not murder, then what is the willful killing of an unborn child?

A fetus is not a child

Is that your opinion, or is this the accepted standard across the globe?

When is a "child" considered a child?

[Scheavo]

Suppose I'm a renowned archaeologist and survivalist on a long hiking trip in a extremely desolate part of the world with two other people: a trial guide and his pesky, uneducated 4 year old son, whom he clearly doesn't even care about. One night, the trial guide steals my possessions, most of my food, and other equipment while I sleep and leaves, never to be seen again. The man is so cruel that he leaves his son behind with me, too overjoyed from the equipment he stole from me. The child obviously cannot survive without me. It would take about 9 months to leave the area and make it back to civilization. Finding food for both in the desolate region would be near impossible, yet I have a decent amount of food for only myself and could possibly survive if I were to hunt solely for myself. Do I care for the pesky child and attempt provide food for him and me, risk my life for him, and make various other sacrifices until the 9 months are through and deliver him to civilization and a caring place? Or do I simply toss him aside, more or less assure my survival, and let him fend for himself in the wild, knowing it will lead to his death?

The scenario I was (theoretically) placed in was far from just or fair. Yet I would choose to attempt to save the child and deliver him to civilization even though it would certainly tax me or even mean the death of me trying to provide food, etc. You could say that it would be even convenient or reasonable of me to leave the kid behind and stock up resources for the 9 months in an effort to survive. Who's gonna miss some unknown, futureless 4 year old kid, right?

There's a huge difference between a fetus and a 4 year old child. The 4 year old is conscious, and you can talk with him. A fetus does not fall under these conditions, it is no more conscious than one of my skin cells, but it's not murder for me to get a tattoo. Potential is not actual, and many fetus's don't make it. We could get into some very weird scenarios regarding potential human life, and how those would be cases of murder, under such assumptions. There's a point where I agree with you (for instance, third trimester abortions; unless that's to save your own life, it's fucking wrong), but where that line falls I'm not entirely sure.

I hardly think that outlawing abortion in most cases would be the unforgivable infringement on "women's rights" that some seem to think it would be, but to me, the above sounds like an absolute fucking nightmare of government intervention.
-J

Pro-choice to an extreme means third trimester abortions, which is basically infanticide. Pro-life taken to an extreme means the government being involved in the activities of any women's womb, which is , as you put it, a fucking nightmare.

[yeshaberto]

what is different between trimester and earlier that allows one to draw a line between right and wrong?

[Scheavo]

The brain, consciousness, etc. The fact that third trimester babies can be born, and live; whereas a fetus can only survive in the mother's womb.

Consciousness is a key for morality though. Just compare with the debate over vegetarianism and omnivorism.

[Omega]

The brain, consciousness, etc. The fact that third trimester babies can be born, and live; whereas a fetus can only survive in the mother's womb.

Consciousness is a key for morality though. Just compare with the debate over vegetarianism and omnivorism.

But give the fetus a couple of months and it will eventually make it to the third trimester stage. A human life is a human life, regardless of whether it began 5 minutes ago or 30 years ago.

[yeshaberto]

The brain, consciousness, etc. The fact that third trimester babies can be born, and live; whereas a fetus can only survive in the mother's womb.

Consciousness is a key for morality though. Just compare with the debate over vegetarianism and omnivorism.

thanks, I can see the reasoning between the two.

[Scheavo]

The brain, consciousness, etc. The fact that third trimester babies can be born, and live; whereas a fetus can only survive in the mother's womb.

Consciousness is a key for morality though. Just compare with the debate over vegetarianism and omnivorism.

But give the fetus a couple of months and it will eventually make it to the third trimester stage.

That's no guarantee. Many fetus's don't make it past the first trimester. I had a very good friend get pregnant, and I was one of the first to find out. She told me not to tell anyone, becuase there was still a very good chance that there would be a miscarriage, intentional or not. There is no "eventually," it all depends upon a variety of circumstances.