Abortion protester

[Brooklyn]

Legality is not the same thing as morality, which is what people are concentrating on when they discuss this issue.

Morality should never be what dictates legality, which is the real issue. When people compare abortion to murder they are missing the point that murder laws are necessary to protect the peace of mind of the general populace. They are a deterrent against violent acts against other people. Abortion, however, is a consensual medical procedure. When people muddle the issue they betray their own confused sense of morality and a belief in man as a higher being than those whom he hunts or squashes below foot. All of this is contrivance, supported by the many religions the world has had. It is only in recent times where man has had the ability to look beyond the limitations of his small-minded ancestors and begin to understand more clearly his own existence. It's too bad that the veil of self-deceit is still so comfortable that it is easy to be blind to the reality beneath.

Abortion is at best an unfortunate procedure, but it is far better in many cases to abort a fetus than to bring the unwanted child into the world. Those who constantly spout that the unwilling mother should love the resulting child or give it up for adoption are blissfully unaware of the reality of either resulting situation.

 

[Nullifidian]

NOTE: This is a technical observation, not a personal opinion.

If the law were truly consistant, then a woman would legally be able to abort a child right up until the moment it is born. The reason is that "life" as defined by the government begins when you are born and not a moment sooner. The length of a person's life is always measured from the day they were born to the day they died. Not from the day they were conceived. Not from the first day of the third trimester. From the day they were BORN.

So if consistancy were necessary, no child would have any rights whatsoever until it is actually born.

Additionally, the point before about double counts of vehicular manslaughter when a pregnant woman is killed is definitely a valid concern as well. It doesn't make sense for there to be additional counts of manslaughter when no additional people were killed. However some distinction does need to be made. Sinec what was destroyed was a particularly precious part of the woman in quesiton, moreso than just the woman had she not been pregnant, a special case should of course be made. However its distinction should not be manslaughter or any other form of murder but IMO an extensive of the original murder. Basically a completely new crime. Somehing akin to property damage, but one that carries felony consequences similar to manslaughter.


Of course, since when was the law ever consistant?



And btw, this quote:

Now im not here to voice my opinion on abortion, arguing on the web is pointless. I will say, however, that this pic deeply disturbed me.

Was clearly very much a lie. And the picture posted was a very thinly veiled intentional posting of pro-life propaganda. I have no issue with someone posting their opinion. I have no problem someone posting propaganda along with their support of it. But I DO have a problem with someone posting propaganda with the intention of pushing that agenda, all while falsely claiming no intention of debate. It's deceitful.



As for my actual opinion on the issue, I don't have one. I can't have a baby, so I don't feel I'm in a position to rule one way or another. Thus I leave this issue for women to decide.

 

[jrkarp]

I thought me saying pro choice meant I'm for abortion.

There are times when having a child is not beneficial for anyone. Why have the child grow up in a bad environment (poor, single parent, or parent who abuses drugs, etc.) or ship them off to adoption where they might go in foster care where the child has different parents or abusive parents who use them to get more government money?

You are obviously unfamiliar with adoption and foster care, and what differentiates them. While many children who are above a certain age end up in foster care, there are long waiting lists to adopt newborns (so much so that people go to China, Korea, etc to adopt children, rather than wait here). If a woman is pregnant and wants her child to be adopted, there are plenty of agencies that will start the process for the child to be adopted by a family that has passed background checks. Plus, in most states, a court of competent jurisdiction will require a report on the fitness of the adoptive parents and anyone else living in the household, and a probationary period for the child living with the prospective new parents.

Secondly, foster care and adoption are two different things. Foster care is theoretically a temporary solution, wherein the children will eventually end up back with their parents or if they don't, they will (hopefully) be adopted.

Adoption is a permanant legal procedure. When you adopt a child, a "legal fiction" is created, whereby you become that child's natural parent as far as the law is concerned. There is no legal difference between your adopted child and your child that your g/f or wife gave birth to.

What if the woman was raped and the rapist was HIV positive. How fair is it for the kid to have HIV problems all his life? To me, its better to spare the child the pain of HIV and have the child aborted. Its better to spare the child a life of living in the dregs of society where he gives up on hope and becomes a criminal. Its better to spare the child the pain of where he moves between abusive foster parents and noncaring foster parents.

First of all, the transmission rate of HIV a mother to an unborn child is around 20%. Use of antiviral drugs and Cesarian section reduces this rate to around 1%.

Second, I hardly think that being HIV positive damns a child to being one of the dregs of society.

 

[jrkarp]

If the law were truly consistant, then a woman would legally be able to abort a child right up until the moment it is born. The reason is that "life" as defined by the government begins when you are born and not a moment sooner. The length of a person's life is always measured from the day they were born to the day they died. Not from the day they were conceived. Not from the first day of the third trimester. From the day they were BORN.

You and I have already had this discussion, if I recall.

The measure of a person's life (from when the person was born) has no legal significance whatsoever. As I said last time, this probably is used because it used to be impossible to say for certain when a person was conceived, when the third trimester began, etc.

There is no standard legal definiftion for "life" or "alive."

In any case, the existance of the current restriction on abortions and the passage of fetal protection statutes indicates that the legislatures and courts intend to protect children who are capable of being born alive and surviving independently. So I would argue that the de facto legal definition of "life" or "alive" relates to fetal viability.

 

[Nullifidian]

You and I have already had this discussion, if I recall.

The measure of a person's life (from when the person was born) has no legal significance whatsoever.

And if you remember correctly, I demostrated their birth does in fact very much have legal standing.

A citizen may not vote until 18 years TO THE DAY of the moment of their birth.

A citizen may not legally purchase alcohol until 21 years TO THE DAY of the moment of their birth.

State laws dictate driving age from moment of birth.



In fact, ALL laws are based on years from moment of birth. A citizen isn't considered a citizen until they are born. Whether their mother's pregnancy was 9 months, 10 months, or 6 months doesn't matter in the eyes of the law; only the day they were born. They could be born 4 months early and be sitting in a friggin coma for the first 3 months fo their life, but the government recognizes them as alive from the moment of their birth and begins counting from that point anyway despite their being put in an "artificial womb" to keep them alive.

The law recognizes day of birth. And the reason it does is because it is one of the only things they can be certain of. This we agree, they cannot be certain fo day of conception, etc. However that is precisely why the laws are there and are based on birth: because of certainty. Remember, the law is always morally based, in many cases laws are written the way they are simply because of certainty of facts.

 

[jrkarp]

And if you remember correctly, I demostrated their birth does in fact very much have legal standing.

A citizen may not vote until 18 years TO THE DAY of the moment of their birth.

A citizen may not legally purchase alcohol until 21 years TO THE DAY of the moment of their birth.

State laws dictate driving age from moment of birth.

First, you are talking about age. Age and life are not the same thing.

Second, what I meant was that the use of DOB has no legal significance as to when life begins. Obviously DOB is used to measure age.

In fact, ALL laws are based on years from moment of birth. A citizen isn't considered a citizen until they are born. Whether their mother's pregnancy was 9 months, 10 months, or 6 months doesn't matter in the eyes of the law; only the day they were born. They could be born 4 months early and be sitting in a friggin coma for the first 3 months fo their life, but the government recognizes them as alive from the moment of their borth and begins counting from that point anyway despite their being put in an "artificial womb" to keep them alive.

The law recognizes day of birth.

First, I point to my argument last time that DOB has to be used because it is a definite, verifiable, recorded event. There is no guesswork as to when a person is born, assuming they have a birth certificate. The day of conception, day of third trimester, etc is generally not definite, verifiable, and recorded. There is a necessity to use a date that can be verified.

Second, the use of DOB to measure age has nothing to do with the issue of whether a fetus is alive. As I said above, age and life are not the same thing.

A fetus is legally alive if the law says it is. Fetal protection statutes indicate that certain fetuses are considered alive.

You may argue that the law is inconsistent, but that's pretty damn common. See what I said above about legal fictions. You adopt a child, the law considers you a natural parent, even though you are not.

 

[brogers]

Pretty sick that people can argue for the "right" to kill unborn babies.

 

[spatch]

And btw, this quote:



Was clearly very much a lie. And the picture posted was a very thinly veiled intentional posting of pro-life propaganda. I have no issue with someone posting their opinion. I have no problem someone posting propaganda along with their support of it. But I DO have a problem with someone posting propaganda with the intention of pushing that agenda, all while falsely claiming no intention of debate. It's deceitful..

By me saying "Im not goign to argue" I meant I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with someone, because that would be pointless. I am strictly debating.

As for my actual opinion on the issue, I don't have one. I can't have a baby, so I don't feel I'm in a position to rule one way or another. Thus I leave this issue for women to decide.

I really do believe abortion clinics are the 21st centuries concentration camps. Leaving abortion up to woman is the same as leaving the jews up to the nazis.

 

[Beelzebub]

I really do believe abortion clinics are the 21st centuries concentration camps. Leaving abortion up to woman is the same as leaving the jews up to the nazis.

let me get this straight. you're saying that women are uncapable of making rational decisions by comparing them to nazi's?