The government doesn't say that. You can be charged for double murder for killing a pregnant woman. There are also time limits on abortions.
It is consistent within a few days. Much more consistent than the timing of when a woman will give birth. It isn't really arbitrary.
Shall we go through the laundry list of the things that the government has, at one time, not protected or failed to protect. The government is not perfect; it is crafted by mere men and women... who often disagree!
The government will NEVER give a SSN to the unborn. No government anywhere in the world or at any time in history recognizes the unborn as a citizen. I will concede that we have added a handful of protections at this point ...but the fact remains that the unborn are not citizens and not afforded the same liberties of those of us that have a SSN. That is a FACT. It's indisputable. A fetus has not been born and is not afforded the same rights as a citizen. Period. I TOTALLY agree with you that the moral questions differ than the legal questions. Since we have the moral objection against abortions, my solution is to fix the root cause (unwanted pregnancy) ...not the result (abortion). Fix A and B is moot!
re: Social Security Numbers: http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/wolfe0310.html You don't even need a SS number until you are born. It is of absolutely no use whatsoever. You seem to have completely dodged the "fact" of double homicide in the case of a murder of a pregnant woman.... what about that protection? Working on A is fine but lots of the Bs want to be around, too. Why do you guys act as if one must choose one or the other? Glad Rowdy in particular who thinks that anyone who would have the temerity to disagree with him can't hold two thoughts in their head at the same time... really?!?
I believe that life begins pre-conception. If someone kills another person, they should always be charged with multiple homicide because they are killing the lives that will exist from that one person. When you kill anyone, the sperm or egg die. Because those sperm or egg are people and could have gone on to create more sperm or egg who would naturally also be people, who would likely create more people ad infinitum. I effect, you have murdered infinite persons. Even self defense is multiple homicide because while you might be justified in defending yourself from your attacker, you are not justified in killing their sperm or egg (people) who are not acting as an aggressor.
Exactly, because you are not a citizen. I acknowledged there are some protections (added recently). ...but note the double homicide is a state law ...not federal. Actually YOUR side refuses to acknowledge A as an option. You guys circumvent every effort to address contraceptives and women's health. It's for THIS reason why I feel the your position is fundamentally dishonest. You guys are not interested in minimizing abortions ...you only seem to be interested in painting democrats into a corner.
Several points. If you want to be scientifically detailed, then you'd probably need to do fetal brain scans on a case-by-case basis. Even then, the scientific community can't yet figure out what to define as "consciousness." You need some mix of: data integration, awareness of surroundings, and self-awareness. (In terms of defining consciousness for a person who, for instance, may seem brain dead after a terrible accident, or after reading a post by giddyup.) And if you want to go with consciousness, you get into some tricky territory for the very newly born as well. Finally, if you want to look at historical definitions, you could bring up Aristotle advocating the termination decision to about age 4. He believed that people were not unique persons until about that age. I mean, yikes. But it just demonstrates that a debatable spectrum has existed for thousands of years. So endless threads are endless. And I always end up on a pragmatic side. If half of our 7 billion on Earth can't find decent drinking water, why don't we worry about that before we try to maximize the population further? That's just me though. OH, Also: I very sincerely recommend that all right-to-life warriors check out what happens in the IVF field of fertility clinics. You want to save some embryos, bros? Have at it.
I my opinion abortion is ALWAYS murder. To me killing a child in the womb is no different than killing one outside of it. I know people do but I honestly do not see how anyone could think differently.
You bring up a good point that I must expand upon. In almost every jurisdiction, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. There are several states that will charge a defendant with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman...one for the woman and one for the unborn child. Convicting the defendant for killing the fetus in the commission of killing the mother, is a judicial finding that e fetus is a human being in order to fit the statute. However, the fetus is not defined as a human being when the mother has an abortion. It is a curiosity in the law.
And I don't see why thinking the way you do why you wouldn't think that a sperm or ovum are just a much life as a blastocyst. To me a blastocyst is not a child because it bears none of the qualities which intuitively define people in my mind. Of course, defining children and life by some set of nebulous qualities is impossible. As a result, I am forced to take a more pragmatic view. If I were to extend the intuitive qualities of a person argument to absurdity, why not do as Aristotle proposed and destroy these things that are born at some point before they become people which may or may not be at a time after they have already exited the womb. I personally have to settle on a pragmatic workable view. Let me peer down what I see is the other slope here, but first off, I need to preface this with an apology in advance for my layman's understanding of human reproduction. When I hear anti-abortion crusaders say that life begins at conception, I think why stop there. Why not extend that belief to its logical end? I mean, just 5 days before the creation of the blastocyst, the egg and sperm existed as separate parts, capsules of the genetic materials of two individuals. If you think that a blastocyst is a person because it has the potential to be a person, why wouldn't you hold the same view point toward the sperm and the egg. If you believe that it is a person because it simply is, why? I think it is a potential person because it could always be lost and be expelled from the woman. It can even be lost due to choices made by the woman. http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html Because so many pregnancies end after the point where you define conception naturally, it doesn't make sense to me to define life as beginning as conception. I'm also hesitant to define it in that manner because it means that, if a woman does anything at all that COULD result in a miscarriage, she is committing attempted murder (if she does indeed cause the miscarriage, she has become a murderer). This troubles me and I believe it should trouble you, so I will presume you view conception as the beginning of life because the embryo is a potential person. But if you believe that life begins at conception because that is the point where a potential person is created, why not start earlier? Why isn't masturbation or non-procreational sex murder? Why isn't procreational sex murder since many thousands of sperm are destroyed during each copulation and each individual who engages in sex knows that this will occur. Why isn't ovulation considered murder if the egg is not fertilized? The woman knew that if she did nothing (didn't get pregnant) that an egg would be destroyed, but even knowing this she chose not to act. Given that she carries her own egg which is a potential person, she should bear the penalty for her inaction and should be punished accordingly. How could you not think that destroying the two halves of what could have made a potential whole is not also murder, but I feel like you have to if you believes life begins at conception the point at which a potential person is created. So no, I cannot see your point just as much as you can't see mine. I don't understand your definition of life and how it helps us understand when something is or isn't a child. Abortion cannot ALWAYS be murder in my mind because things like a blastocyst are not life just like a sperm / egg are not life because so many of them are destroyed daily even without the aid of an abortion doctor. If they were, everyone would be committing murder all the time. I am fairly content with the idea that a life begins at the point in which it can sustain itself outside the body or the point at which we can recognize cognizant thought through brain scans, though that necessarily means a inexact point in time which is always moving. I am forced to because I believe that I do not wish to go down either slippery slope.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZCWC4sHbIV0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> :grin:
Some do, yes, but not all do. I don't. I don't recall even reading a word here of anyone who objects to contraceptive education. Every abortion is a child that dies, so it matters to them whether or not we take aggressive or passive action in trying to reduce abortions-- down to 2 million or down to 14,000 or down to ZERO are very different realities. Is it so wrong to expect the best from people?
It isn't the end of the debate just because you choose to ignore other people's views on the subject. To many, it isn't a "living human being inside the female," and you don't get to determine the definition of "living human being" for another person. Why don't you spend your efforts on this subject helping to reduce unwanted pregnancies? At least that effort would bear fruit, unlike an abortion ban.
Apparently, you didn't comprehend what I wrote. The particular poster to whom I replied was unable to keep two differing thoughts in his head regarding the opinion of pro choice people. I explained how I felt about the subject and you made two faulty assumptions... 1- That my statement applied to you (unless you were similarly confused by the stance of pro choice folks WRT their willingness to accept any abortion restrictions). 2- That I said that people who disagree with me can't keep two thoughts in their heads (I said "different thoughts" and was specifically talking about why I am willing to accept abortion restrictions as someone who supports a woman's right to choose).
Actually it isn't getting "air," it receives oxygen through the umbilical cord, but there is no "air" in the womb to be breathed. The first breath isn't taken until it is born.
As I quoted before: "Perfection is the enemy of good" If you strive for perfection, not only will you never get there ...but you probably won't even get to good because you can't even agree how to start. If perfection is attainable, we would have already done it. In the real world you strive for good with continual improvement. We need to focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies AND providing reasonable compromises to abortion. Not focusing all our energy on reversing Roe v Wade. If we applied that money and energy to reducing pregnancies, the number of abortions in America would be a FRACTION of what it is now. I don't hear anybody talking like this, right or left ...but mostly right.
