Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 81 to 86 of 86
  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    OK, I stand corrected. But in that case, you have not yet shown any inconsistencies.
    Well then, prepare to stand corrected again...

    Actually I supported it with two links, but as those cases seem to have left you less than impressed let us see what the gov't actually has to say on the subject. It doesn't seem to match well with how you have been presenting it. To wit:
    The little human is a person while in the womb with a right to life and killing it (other than "legal" abortion) is a crime and not an "injury to the mother" as you propose.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx
    "Common references to such laws include the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these laws say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and address both unborn children and their mothers."

    Further, the distinction you propose as to the "value of the life increasing over time" runs quite counter to actual law:
    "At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");

    So, a person from conception in at least 29 states.
    In AZ for instance:
    " The law specifies that the defendant shall not be released until the completion of 35 years if the murdered person was under 15 years of age or was an unborn child. The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age."


    Note there is no reference to the stage of the "unborn child" changing anything in the 38 states referenced.

    ---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    In cases where a legal person effectively loses autonomy, someone else takes control. In the case of a fetus, the person in control defaults to it's mother.
    1. And when can this "someone else takes control" allowed to kill the life they are now responsible for?

    2. Did you know pregnant woman can be arrested for not taking proper care of their fetus?
    https://www.thenation.com/article/pr...-helps-no-one/
    "Dischman has been in prison since June, when she overdosed on heroin seven months into her pregnancy, delivered prematurely, and was charged with felony aggravated assault of an unborn child."

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    All true.
    As such, the next time SCOTUS takes up the subject it may likely turn out quite differently

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But regardless of that, Drunk Drivers are something you can't control. The same goes for whether you get pregnant when having sex. You can take measures, but you can't control the situation 100%. Nor can you when you are driving a car.
    1. You had no part of the drunk drivers decisions.
    2. Women certainly have some control of getting pregnant.
    3. Are you aware female tonsils are 100% effective as a birth control.
    4. There are lots of ways to have sex that do not involve intercourse.
    5. A single method of birth control can be 99% effective, use more than one and chances are very remote.
    6. The number of pregnancies that occur when one uses birth control would be a incredibly small number compared to the current abortions overall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, it doesn't. I've had sex with a few women in my life. None of them agreed to be a mother. (BTW: You are using the word explicit whin you should use implicit. Explicit would be "**** me, I want a baby!"
    Either you raped them or they knew they could get pregnant.
    That is consent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Because this particular dead human doesn't have much moral value. I think I've explained that before.
    Yes you claim this based on fuzzy criteria with no clear definition and I have shown many can apply to other groups a well...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You keep blurring the line between moral decisions and legal decisions.
    Legally, it is not in any way shaky because said human has no rights.
    It is a legal matter after all, especially since we have agreed morals seem to be subjective.
    It has a right to life in all other cases except (at the moment) when the mother wants to kill it and there are still a number of restrictions on that because of this fact (in at least 38 states)!
    Last edited by Belthazor; November 12th, 2019 at 05:04 PM.

  2. #82
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Either you raped them or they knew they could get pregnant.
    That is consent.
    Humans have sex for more reasons than just reproduction.

    Is it possible to carry all pregnancies to full term?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #83
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Well then, prepare to stand corrected again...

    Actually I supported it with two links, but as those cases seem to have left you less than impressed let us see what the gov't actually has to say on the subject. It doesn't seem to match well with how you have been presenting it. To wit:
    The little human is a person while in the womb with a right to life and killing it (other than "legal" abortion) is a crime and not an "injury to the mother" as you propose.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx
    "Common references to such laws include the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these laws say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and address both unborn children and their mothers."

    Further, the distinction you propose as to the "value of the life increasing over time" runs quite counter to actual law:
    "At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");

    So, a person from conception in at least 29 states.
    In AZ for instance:
    " The law specifies that the defendant shall not be released until the completion of 35 years if the murdered person was under 15 years of age or was an unborn child. The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age."

    Note there is no reference to the stage of the "unborn child" changing anything in the 38 states referenced.
    You are looking to show contradictions in the law. But, you are dealing with state laws (which are different in nearly every state) and federal law which overrides state law when the two are in conflict.

    Federal law does not recognize a fetus as a constitutional person. It is not protected by the bill of rights the way an adult is or even the way a corporation or a church is. They don't have a federal right to life.

    These state laws ascribe value to the fetus, but it doesn't imbue it with rights at the federal level. And when these state laws come into conflict with a federal right, like a woman's right to privacy, the federal right supersedes the state law.

    "Note there is no reference to the stage of the "unborn child" changing anything in the 38 states referenced"

    Except...
    Maryland: establishes that a prosecution may be instituted for murder or manslaughter of a viable fetus as defined in Md.
    Massachusetts: a viable fetus is within the ambit of the term "person" in the vehicular homicide statute.
    Michigan: defines the willful killing of an unborn quick child
    Mississippi: related to the death of an unborn quick child.
    Rhode Island: defines "quick child." The willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of that child is deemed manslaughter.
    Washington: declares that a person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when he or she intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such a child.

    And all of them cite the fact that federal law prevents these from being applied to the case of abortion. If they didn't there would be a contradiction and they would be unconstitutional laws and therefore unenforcible.

    1. And when can this "someone else takes control" allowed to kill the life they are now responsible for?
    The grammar of the sentence is very confusing such that I can't answer it. Are you asking when can someone else take control? or Can the party that takes control then kill the child?

    2. Did you know pregnant woman can be arrested for not taking proper care of their fetus?
    https://www.thenation.com/article/pr...-helps-no-one/
    "Dischman has been in prison since June, when she overdosed on heroin seven months into her pregnancy, delivered prematurely, and was charged with felony aggravated assault of an unborn child."
    She has been in prison, but she has not been convicted of a crime. If you read the article, you will find she is being held on another misdemeanor charge, not for this assault charge. Her lawyer has correctly pointed out that: " the law says the commonwealth cannot prosecute pregnant women for their conduct during pregnancy" And a judge agreed but the government appealed and in the meantime, she is stuck in prison despite clearly having not violated the law.

    As such, the next time SCOTUS takes up the subject it may likely turn out quite differently
    Probably not.

    1. You had no part of the drunk drivers decisions.
    Nor do we control our sperm or eggs.

    2. Women certainly have some control of getting pregnant.
    Some, but not all.

    3. Are you aware female tonsils are 100% effective as a birth control.
    Humor?

    4. There are lots of ways to have sex that do not involve intercourse.
    Irrelevant.

    5. A single method of birth control can be 99% effective, use more than one and chances are very remote.
    So is being hit by a drunk driver. Though it did happen to me once.

    6. The number of pregnancies that occur when one uses birth control would be a incredibly small number compared to the current abortions overall.
    Also irrelevant.

    Either you raped them or they knew they could get pregnant.
    That is consent.
    Nope, could ain't would my man.

    Yes you claim this based on fuzzy criteria with no clear definition and I have shown many can apply to other groups a well...
    I don't find it to be so fuzzy, it's quite clear for me. That doesn't mean it works for you. But as you agreed to elsewhere, morality is subjective.

    It is a legal matter after all, especially since we have agreed morals seem to be subjective.
    Of course, there is a legal matter, but the legal arguments and moral arguments are not the same. It helps to be clear which one you are addressing.

    It has a right to life in all other cases except (at the moment) when the mother wants to kill it and there are still a number of restrictions on that because of this fact (in at least 38 states)!
    No, it doesn't have a right to life in the same way you do under the US constitution. A number of states have criminal statutes for killing a fetus. Those two things are not the same.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #84
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Either you raped them or they knew they could get pregnant.
    That is consent.
    Consent to sex. Not consent to get pregnant.

    Consent is an agreement to X, not agreement to something other than X that could possibly result in X (especially if the person definitely doesn't want X). The very fact that the woman does not want to get pregnant means that if she does get pregnant, she did not consent to pregnancy.

    You are clearly engaging in the equivocation fallacy when you blur the definition of "consent" to include activities that might happen if one consents to something else.

    So no, consent to sex is not automatically consent to pregnancy even if a pregnancy results. Consent to pregnancy is "I want to get pregnant and am engaging in sex with the hopes of getting pregnant".
    Last edited by mican333; November 13th, 2019 at 07:58 AM.

  5. #85
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, it doesn't have a right to life in the same way you do under the US constitution.
    Please show me in the US constitution where it speaks of a fetus rights or lack there of.

    (Not the 1973 SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution or any other interpretation for that matter.)


    You have argeed the unborn is a human life, so where in the constitution does it say the 14th amendment does not apply until this human life exits the womb?

  6. #86
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Please show me in the US constitution where it speaks of a fetus rights or lack there of.
    (Not the 1973 SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution or any other interpretation for that matter.)
    Nowhere. Nor does it speak to the rights of dogs or cats, nor to computers or turnbuckles. Nor does it delineate the rights of humans.

    The language used in the bill of rights is "people" or "persons" and sometimes a specific class like "soldier"

    "Person" has been defined to not include the unborn humans among us by the supreme court and they are the arbiter of what the legal understanding of the constitution is.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. Likes CowboyX liked this post
 

 
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Similar Threads

  1. Is infanticide just a very late term abortion?
    By theophilus in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 26th, 2011, 01:04 AM
  2. infanticide and morality
    By tARoPINOS in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 10th, 2007, 11:27 AM
  3. Too Little, Too Late
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2006, 01:02 PM
  4. Infanticide
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 19th, 2005, 03:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •