Against abortion and against person-hood?

[PureX]

It is too hard to draw the line with acceptable behavior and unacceptable Behavior if there are person-hood laws.
If a pregnant women smokes, will she is punished? If she drinks alcohol will she? What about coffee? There is no clear line. And also who makes the decision on what that line should be? It sounds like a way to control women.

On another note...
If I tell you to shoot me, and you do... Then you are a murderer.
My point is that... If anyone should be punished it should be the person performing the abortion, they are the ones that are actively killing. It seems like everyone is so quick to blame the mother but I don't hear anything about the people who are actually doing the abortion.
Yes the mother is wrong. But it's the doctor who is actually the murderer so to speak.

These are excellent comments because they illuminate the depth of the dilemma that occurs when we start passing judgment on other people's responsibilities as human beings.

My only comment in response is that the same complexity applies to the abortion providers, as well. As women were dying horrible and unnecessary deaths from "back-alley abortions" when abortion was illegal. Such that many of the current providers are doing so to save women's lives. Not because they want to "murder babies" as the anti-abortion people are forever trying to insinuate.

 

[ok doser]

It is too hard to draw the line with acceptable behavior and unacceptable Behavior if there are person-hood laws.
If a pregnant women smokes, will she is punished?

if a mother of young children smokes in her house, should she be punished?

If she drinks alcohol will she?

sure, why not?

If I tell you to shoot me, and you do... Then you are a murderer.
My point is that... If anyone should be punished it should be the person performing the abortion, they are the ones that are actively killing.

if you tell me to shoot your child and i do, then i am a murderer and you are an accomplice

 

[katiecrna]

These are excellent comments because they illuminate the depth of the dilemma when we start passing judgment on other people's responsibilities as human beings.

My only comment in response is that the same complexity applies to the abortion providers, as well. As women were dying horrible and unnecessary deaths from "back-alley abortions" when abortion was illegal. Such that many of the current providers are doing so to save women's lives. Not because they want to "murder babies" as the anti-abortion people are forever trying to insinuate.

Exactly. This reminds me of Margaret Sanger the women who made planned parenthood and legalized birth control. She hated abortion, and she was super against it, but she understood why women got it done. That's why she made it her mission to legalize birth control, bc she thought if we could prevent pregnancies, there would be no more abortions.
I agree with her. We need more education and availability of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.

 

[ok doser]

... women were dying horrible and unnecessary deaths from "back-alley abortions" when abortion was illegal.

they were breaking the law to murder their children

and some of them suffered unfortunate consequences?

 

[katiecrna]

I agree. Being an accomplish vs being a murderer are completely 2 different things in the justice system, especially when we talk about finding a punishment that fits the crime.

 

[glassjester]

If a pregnant women smokes, will she is punished? If she drinks alcohol will she? What about coffee?

Bad comparison. Here's a better one:

If a pregnant woman robs a bank, will she be punished? If she steals a car, will she?

What about if a pregnant woman murders another woman's unborn child?

 

[The Horn]

A cell is not a "person ". Period . Get over it !

 

[serpentdove]

A cell is not a "person ". Period . Get over it !

Pr 8:36

 

[glassjester]

A cell is not a "person ". Period . Get over it !

Abortionists are killing much more than 1 cell, aren't they?

And for clarity's sake: how many cells must an individual homo sapiens have before you consider its life worthy of protection?

 

[Rusha]

A cell is not a "person ". Period . Get over it !

At what point would you be against abortion? Month three. Five. Six. Eight. Nine?

 

[ok doser]

A cell is not a "person ". Period . Get over it !

let's start with basics

would you agree with the following statement?

at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created

 

[patrick jane]

let's start with basics

would you agree with the following statement?

at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created

He obviously doesn't agree or he would say so. Let's assume he says no

 

[Rusha]

It is too hard to draw the line with acceptable behavior and unacceptable Behavior if there are person-hood laws.
If a pregnant women smokes, will she is punished? If she drinks alcohol will she? What about coffee? There is no clear line. And also who makes the decision on what that line should be? It sounds like a way to control women.

How about drawing the line at "if it's not safe for a newborn or toddler, it's not safe for the unborn baby". Seems fairly simple.

On another note...
If I tell you to shoot me, and you do... Then you are a murderer.
My point is that... If anyone should be punished it should be the person performing the abortion, they are the ones that are actively killing. It seems like everyone is so quick to blame the mother but I don't hear anything about the people who are actually doing the abortion.

Your example doesn't hold up. A more apt example would be ... if you pay someone money with the understanding it's to shoot someone, you are complicit in their murder.

Yes the mother is wrong. But it's the doctor who is actually the murderer so to speak.

Seriously? Both are wrong, but without the request and action of the mother, the doctor would not be performing an abortion.

 

[PureX]

And for clarity's sake: how many cells must an individual homo sapiens have before you consider its life worthy of protection?

That's exactly what no one actually knows, yet we all have an opinion about. Which is why the abortion issue is so controversial. Because the answer to that question, and to how we determine the answer to it, is the basis for when we allow the 'right to life' ideal to apply.

For most people, it's not about the number of cells, per se, it's about the complexity of their interactions. At some point the organism becomes complex enough to be considered an 'independent human being'. But no one knows at exactly what point that occurs.

 

[ok doser]

... how we determine our 'answer' to it...

simple - by considering the following fact:

at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created

 

[katiecrna]

http://time.com/4278462/donald-trump-abortion-filipovic/

Here is a good article done by the times about the topic of person-hood laws

 

[katiecrna]

Bad comparison. Here's a better one:

If a pregnant woman robs a bank, will she be punished? If she steals a car, will she?

What about if a pregnant woman murders another woman's unborn child?

I don't understand what this is about? I was talking about person-hood laws. When the unborn baby is declared a human therefore needs laws in place to protect itself. So we're basically talking about setting rules on the pregnant women so they can't harm their baby... Like abortion, taking drugs, doing anything that puts this baby at harm. That's why I was saying that if there are person hood laws, it's hard to draw the line at what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. That's why I was asking about coffee and alcohol.

 

[glassjester]

I don't understand what this is about? I was talking about person-hood laws. When the unborn baby is declared a human therefore needs laws in place to protect itself. So we're basically talking about setting rules on the pregnant women so they can't harm their baby... Like abortion, taking drugs, doing anything that puts this baby at harm. That's why I was saying that if there are person hood laws, it's hard to draw the line at what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. That's why I was asking about coffee and alcohol.

The activities you mentioned (ie, smoking) are not illegal. That's what makes it a bad comparison.

Murder is illegal. So why on Earth should a pregnant woman (or her doctor) be allowed to murder someone?
Do laws not apply to pregnant women or their doctors?


Under current law:

If someone steals my money, they're guilty of theft.
If my own mother steals my money, she's guilty of theft.

If someone punches me in the face, they're guilty of assault.
If my own mother punches me in the face, she's guilty of assault.

If someone kills me before I'm born, they're guilty of murder.
If my own mother kills me before I'm born, she's guilty of... nothing.

Ridiculous.

 

[katiecrna]

I think we are just talking about different things. Smoking is not illegal... But it's harming your fetus, and if there are personhood laws in place, the pregnant women smoking could be charged with crime bc she is putting her fetus Health at risk. As well as other crazy things.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personhood_laws

Of course laws apply to pregnant women and their doctor. And if abortion was illegal then they both should be punished. I was just making a point that there is a difference between agreeing to the killing of your baby and actually being the one to kill the baby. There is a difference between being an accomplish and being a murderer.

 

[glassjester]

For most people, it's not about the number of cells, per se, it's about the complexity of their interactions. At some point the organism becomes complex enough to be considered an 'independent human being'. But no one knows at exactly what point that occurs.

If there's a condemned building, but "no one knows" whether someone might still be inside, should I still go ahead and demolish it? Or should I wait until I'm sure there is no person in there?