Question: Should a person who kills a fetus when the woman was NOT choosing it be punished as if they killed a human being? Or should any punishment only be based on whatever damage or inconvenience was caused to the woman's body? I expect most pro-choicers will not want to answer this question. Or some of you will desperately try to think up some excuse to justify severely punishing the perpetrator which does not involve conceding that the fetus has any human rights. Probably with some contorted attempt at argument focusing on how the woman's body was so terribly affected. For those who believe the punishment should only be based on damage to the woman's body, what was exactly that "damage"? I mean yes, she bled out and the fetus came out, but that was still going to happen eventually. The perpetrator only moved up the timetable of when that uterus was going to empty out its contents. What exactly is the harm to this woman that would not be happening to a woman in the same situation who was not carrying a fetus inside her?
I am 100% pro-choice and feel that the criminal should be punished as if he killed a breathing child because it was against the will of the pregnant mother. Its her uterus and her choice. Anyone denying her choice by force should be separated from society.
Let's try to more carefully logically examine this, shall we? Are you claiming the human fetus in there belongs to the woman, that it is her property? Now, how about a newborn baby? Is that the mother's property? Is it possible for one human being to have ownership over another? I'm going to assume you answer no to the second question, that a mother cannot "own" her baby after birth. Why then is the fetus so important then? Shouldn't it be viewed as just a temporary organ in the woman's body that is going to come out anyway? And while it's in there, it's not really doing her any good. Why exactly should the woman's will be so relevant? Why should violating her will in this matter lead to such a serious matter of punishment. Try to logically examine the specifics of that. Yeah, sure. Her uterus, her choice. But if this were really only about her uterus, we wouldn't be punishing perpetrators who do this like they are being punished. You know as well as I do that it's totally disingenuous to be claiming that the main reason we give a perpetrator a 7 year prison sentence (or even longer) is because it was taking away a woman's choice over the function of her uterus. By pulling that up, you're trying to cover over a logical inconsistency. Maybe what you really mean, but you won't say it, is that you kind of do believe that fetus is a human being and person, with an inherent right that should be protected in some circumstances, but you just believe that the woman's right trumps its right. (Now maybe some people are inclined to believe there's not so much reason to protect a baby's right to live if the mother doesn't want it and there's no one to take care of it, but that doesn't really make logical sense either since there is adoption, and some classes of babies are very much in demand on the adoption market)
Odd that you would refer to ownership of an others body while supporting government control over ones body. I believe she should bring the life into the world. I don't believe that my beliefs should be imposed on her using government force. There are no bad guys on this issue. Both are doing what they believe is right. My consistent position is that government has no business in this issue.
But you do believe your beliefs should be imposed on others using government force. So that is what this discussion is about, looking at any seeming inconsistencies. Yes, I already get that you believe in women's choice. But -- and this is just a hypothetical thought experiment -- if there were NOT another life inside there, how much punishment would you give to someone who took away the woman's choice? Let's be realistic here. Look, of course the perpetrator should be punished for any harm or physical pain caused to the woman's body. But to punish for taking away her "choice"? What exactly is the nature this "choice"? Are we talking about the choice over her own body, or are we talking about the choice for the woman to eventually have a child? Isn't it true pro-choicers frequently argue that pregnancy is a major inconvenience to the woman and poses many risks to her health? If that were really the case, then it could be said that a perpetrator who causes her pregnancy to terminate is saving her from a lot of problems, right? If we're talking about the choice for the woman to have a child, then it sounds like the perpetrator has only delayed her choice by one year. She can just try again later.
Both sides have good arguments. I realize you have good intentions and believe you are doing the right thing. Its still her uterus and your feelings must stay on the outside.
It is YOU who is demanding that government override the will of the woman. - Pro choice is about CHOICE by the woman. - YOUR side is about REMOVING CHOICE, and dictating healthcare related to pregnancy by federal and local government. OK?
I'm asking people like you to more precisely examine the root of why people have the acknowledged right of choice in the first place. The right of a woman to "have" or "not have" a baby, when we look on it as a whole, is not exactly the same sort of choice as other things normally inherent in personal freedom. Those who claim this is all about her body are conflating the issues, I believe. Her body may be a factor, but for anyone who is willing to be logical and intellectually honest, "her body" exactly is really only a smaller part of the total issue. Of course pro-choicers don't want to recognize this, because to do so is to admit and concede that there's another big reason, aside from the woman's own personal choice, why she should not be made to abort. And, of course, if that reason holds true when she doesn't want an abortion, it still holds just as logically true when she does want an abortion.
We are discussing beliefs so you cannot honestly call others illogical or dishonest. Moving past beliefs an on to enforcing abortion laws, if I gave you unlimited resources, how would you enforce a ban? Medical tourism, the internet, and abortion drugs render any bans useless.
No, there is plenty of law indicating the rights of individuals to bodily autonomy. And, your idea that her body is a "small issue" is about as morally destitute as it could possibly be. I'm pretty astounded at your bald faced discounting of a human being.
I think you're getting confused now, FoxHastings. Yes, it's the major component of "the" abortion issue, but the specific case I'm talking about in this discussion is not the usual abortion issue.
FoxHastings, one of the major reasons freedom of speech is a right is because it does not physically infringe on the obvious individual rights of other people. (And I would point out, in that case the "right" to freedom of speech means government not punishing people, whereas in the case of a woman's "right" to have a baby, it means government punishing someone. So they are kind of opposites in a way) If you're trying to argue that "having a baby" is a woman's right that extends beyond just her right to her own physical body, then please make that argument.
I'm trying to get us to examine the abortion issue from a different light, from a different perspective. If you are able to view it from the opposite perspective as usual, and then (honestly) compare that to your beliefs. The abortion issue is usually about a woman not wanting a baby, and being forced to have one. But in this thread, the scenario is a woman wanting a baby, but being forced not to have it.
Both scenarios are equally bad/offensive/wrong/ authoritarian / controlling and both show a total lack of respect for women as human beings with rights
What you did NOT include in your "punishment" idea is: Who does that husband sue when your laws kill his wife?
Challenging philosophical, personal and moral dilemmas are best served with a side of snark. That’s truly the path to understanding and compromise.
Did you bother to vote in your own poll mate ? I get that the questions are moronic .. but, you should still vote ?!
