No, he's got it right. Many years ago I happened across a news article that in some South American country, where abortion was illegal, a woman was arrested and faced criminal charges for having a miscarriage. The point is that women can be, and are, charged for the death of the fetus in locations where abortion is illegal.
No he doesn't have it right this is the United States if you're accused of a crime you have to be proven guilty. So you would have to prove that a woman intentionally had a miscarriage. Like I said before or accidental deaths manslaughter?
Manslaughter means "the unintentional killing of another", if it is intentional it is murder. Causing accidental death is exactly what manslaughter is Heeeeeelloooooooooo! .
You have this exactly opposite: immunization isn't just about your own health, but about the community's (unless you are willing to stay separate, from that community). As to a pregnant woman being in a special class, regarding the decision to abort her fetus, see the bottom quote, below. This is a false equivalence (though I would support legalized prostitution). See my explanation, below, in the bottom quote. I moved this to the abortion forum, since it is a much better fit, than in that thread about China, which has gone way, way off, the rails.
.A woman has a right to kill her ZEF because it is part of her body....NO one else has that right because it isn't part of their body. Pregnant women aren't really in a "special class"...just the same "class" as all born humans who have the basic right of bodily autonomy.
That really doesn't answer ShadowX's charge of hypocrisy, to which I was replying, since the basic right of bodily autonomy does not include, for anyone but a pregnant female, killing a developing human being. I support the mother's having this right, but to treat it as no different from my own right to lance a boil, or remove a skin tag, is a poor argument, IMO. My actual argument was not part of your quote, since it appeared as a quote, along with ShadowX's, which I relocated from a thread that was not about abortion. His argument had been that if the fetus was no more than a part of a woman's body, as you seem to claim, here, it should not be possible to charge anyone else with murder, either, for killing it; yet the law does treat it that way: as a human life, if an attacker kills it; not so, if it is the mother's choice. I explain that it is not a matter of considering the fetus in two contradictory ways, in different circumstances, but that the situation of a mother making this choice is considered as a special, allowable case as, for example, killing someone else is considered not a crime, when it is done in the special case of self-defense (even though it is still killing someone). Or the special case of a soldier, fighting opposing soldiers, in a war, and so forth. Hence, your argument, that the fetus is merely a part of a woman's body, would provide no justification for the law to charge an assailant with murder, should he kill that fetus. Do you feel, as does ShadowX, that murder is an inappropriate charge, for this circumstance?
Answer: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the UVVA.... It is an act designed to give stiffer sentences for those who kill someone else's ZEF. IT DOES NOT GIVE A ZEF STATUS OF A LEGAL HUMAN BEING. If an assailant attacks a pregnant woman and TAKES AWAY HER CHOICE in gestation ( a criminal act for anyone IMO), they are charged with whatever charge the UVVA provides...(it may vary from state to state) A ZEF is NOT "merely" a part of a woman's body it IS part of her body , it is NOT a separate legal human being. I understand what you are trying to say but: Pregnant women aren't really in a "special class"...just the same "class" as all born humans who have the basic right of bodily autonomy.
Again, if the charge is, "murder," the undeniable implication is that the fetus (what does your ZEF abbreviation stand for?), is a human being, even if it does not have that legal status, in life. No one is charged with murder for killing any other creature, or for killing any part of a person's body (except the brain). Murder can only be of a whole being. So, it would appear, that you agree that a charge of "murder," for taking away a woman's choice, is a hypocritical double standard.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Answer: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the UVVA.... It is an act designed to give stiffer sentences for those who kill someone else's ZEF. IT DOES NOT GIVE A ZEF STATUS OF A LEGAL HUMAN BEING. If an assailant attacks a pregnant woman and TAKES AWAY HER CHOICE in gestation ( a criminal act for anyone IMO), they are charged with whatever charge the UVVA provides...(it may vary from state to state) A ZEF is NOT "merely" a part of a woman's body it IS part of her body , it is NOT a separate legal human being. I understand what you are trying to say but: Pregnant women aren't really in a "special class"...just the same "class" as all born humans who have the basic right of bodily autonomy. A human ZEF(zygote/embryo/fetus) is human ( adjective) it is NOT A human being (noun) as in legal human being, it has NO rights, it is a part of the woman it's in . The UVVA does NOT grant a ZEF rights! It can't. AND it expressly says so. NO, I don't...I never have called the death of a fetus "murder"... The UVVA may, I'd have to look it up....maybe you should..but it would NOT matter what they called it since using the word "murder" does NOT bestow rights.
That seems like an overly- specious argument: "a ZEF is human (but) it is not A human being." You are making a unique distinction; that is, it is hard to really interpret your meaning, because I know of no other instance of "humans," being distinguished from "human beings," except maybe in discussions of early "human ancestors." So you are saying that a ZEF is a different species? You are focusing intently on the idea of ZEF rights, which was really not at all the point of question, of whether or not a double standard existed, in the ending of a fetal existence, as @ShadowX maintained. The salient facts would be that, if a ZEF was part of a woman, and nothing else, no one should be able to be charged, for damaging it, for anything worse than assault. I guess we should research this, as you suggest, but I am very confident that there are many states, at least, in which killing a ZEF can result in charges of manslaughter or murder. Whether or not you, personally, use that term, is somewhat beside the point, except that it would seem to indicate that, if you do not call it murder, then you do not think of it as murder, and so you should be against it being charged as murder, because murder is a well-defined crime, that cannot occur, without the death of a human being. So, by your argument, ShadowX is completely right, in claiming a double standard. Granted, I recognize that this question puts you into a tight corner, as you are evidently reluctant to either call a ZEF, a person, or to call its termination, which could be compared to abortion, a "killing." But, on the other hand, you do seem to support the idea of adding to the punishment of any assaulter of a pregnant woman, that leads to the loss of the woman's "choice." I will point out, however, that it was your own choice, to wade into this argument. So what, then, would you think should be the appropriate charge-- something newly- invented, for just this purpose, because nothing else in our extensive code of laws, could apply to this?
NO, THIS is what I wrote : FoxHastings said: ↑ A human ZEF(zygote/embryo/fetus) is human ( adjective) it is NOT A human being (noun) as in legal human being, it has NO rights, it is a part of the woman it's in . Nouns are called nouns because they aren't adjectives. The UVVA does NOT grant a ZEF rights! It can't. AND it expressly says so. UNTIL THE UVVA WAS ENACTED. It is beside the point even IF the UVVA uses it. I do NOT have to call it anything ...IF a woman is harmed or killed charges should be brought.... I did NOT invent the UVVA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No "tight corner here....killing a ZEF IS KILLING. I NEVER said I supported that idea... that leads to the loss of the woman's "choice." SO??? From what I know of the UVVA (and you don't seem to know anything about it like you didn't even know what ZEF meant!) what it does is fine with me......no matter what TF they call it....
Abortion and vaccination is a false equivalence. Abortion is intentionally destroying a life. Abortion is equivalent to knowing you have covid/AIDS and still choosing to have unprotected sex with someone high risk and not telling them that you are sick and they end up dying. You are deliberately and knowingly hurting them in order to make your life better or get what you want. Vaccination mandates are equivalent to fining bad food habits and forcing pregnant women out of work in order to prevent accidental miscarriages.
You totally miss the point. And my being familiar with the abbreviation ZEF, is meaningless to one's ability to think logically; this abbreviation's meaning does not enter into the argument, so is irrelevant (logically speaking). Then what is this post, saying? I know what you wrote-- I even quoted it. But you are making a nonsensical point to say that one can use the adjective "human," about something living, yet have it be divorced from calling it a human being. What other kinds of "human" lives, are there? Give me another example of this, that is not meant merely figuratively. Can you have a human (adj.) dog? Also-- if we can accept, for the sake of argument, that some are being charged with murder (which is, in no uncertain terms, the killing of a human being)-- how can you rectify this, with your belief that a ZEF is not human, and yet *whatever punishments doled out, under this law, are suitable, in your mind (as stated in your quote, at top), though those charges equate the killing with the taking of a human life? This view, as I said, seems to be a textbook example of a double-standard (which my own argument, avoids). Well thanks for being clear about that, at least. If it is a killing, that means that it had a life of its own. The questions remain, if it is not a human being: 1) what kind of being/life, is it? and 2) how can murder or manslaughter be charged, since the taking of a human life is the requirement for either of those charges?
The Right constantly invents buzzwords to try and sneak their agenda in. It's childish, but everyone has their intellectual limits.
Until you realize that I did NOT WRITE THE UVVA then further discussion is silly. Until you quit "misreprenting" what I said : You claim I said "with your belief that a ZEF is not human," NO WHERE DID I EVER SAY A HUMAN ZEF WASN'T HUMAN. WHY are you claiming I did????
1) I am not holding you responsible for what is in the UVVA-- I don't know where you got the idea, that I am. But you understand, that your personal opinion is allowed to vary from whatever is in the UVVA, right? 2) I never, at least not purposely-- though your meanings have not all been completely clear-- misrepresented you. From what I take you to now be saying, you view a ZEF, as a human being-- before you, once again claim misrepresentation, here is your quote from above: [Snip] You claim I said "with your belief that a ZEF is not human," NO WHERE DID I EVER SAY A HUMAN ZEF WASN'T HUMAN [End] This is a situation in which there are really only two options: it is a human, or it is not. Since you claim that my saying that you don't consider it a human (at least not fully) is untrue, that only leaves the positive option. If that's how you feel, fine, but you were far less than crystal clear, on that point: So, to most people, to say that something is "part of (a woman's) body," IS equivalent to saying that it is not a human being, because human beings are generally considered to be independent organisms, not "parts," of other peoples' bodies. This is a very confused picture, you are painting. So you accept that it is human, but you have no qualms with it being aborted? Very strange. I could have sworn, in an earlier debate on the subject, our views were roughly in- line that, before it reaches the point of viability, outside of the womb, the fetus is not a fully-fledged human being. But if you accept that it is a human, it is hard to fathom your seeming nonchalance, over the fact that it does not have the legal rights, of a human. Do you know who usually has those two views-- that a ZEF is a human, and that it is not given the rights of a human? It is Pro-Life advocates who, understandably, with those views, feel that the simply unborn human being SHOULD HAVE the rights, due to any human. But your accepting a human, though with no legal rights-- I admit it, you fooled me, there, because it is incomprehensible to me how you do those mental gymnastics. Also, I will note-- since you have accused me of misrepresentation-- the contradiction in your quote, above, that strongly implied that you do not consider abortion to be murder. I don't think of it that way, because I don't feel that an only partially-formed person, can yet be deemed a human. But if you do, the killing of a human, by definition, is murder (or manslaughter; or justified killing in self- defense). It seems a really weak excuse to say, "Yeah, totally a human-- but not legally one-- so, you know, what can you do?" And I love that you think that describing it as human-- the adjective, not the noun-- is a sensible explanation that anyone should be able to understand.
I've read your OP a few times and I'm not connecting the dots apparently. Are you saying that because the same catchphrase is used for both arguments there can be some wiggle room for the abortion debate based on the COVID vaccine debates? If so, those are opposing teams in each argument. "My body, My choice" - Women protesting anti-abortionists. "My body, My choice" - People protesting COVID vaccine mandates. However, if your point is the inverse, I agree. Nobody should be able to force someone to get vaccinated if they don't want to be vaccinated (and will accept full responsibility for what that looks like whether they get sick or lose their job, etc.) and nobody should be able to tell a woman or girl they have no say in managing whatever is happening in her womb. And, along that same line, I don't believe people should be able to decide what type of relationship qualifies as a "real" relationship and therefore eligible for the benefits available to other couples allowed to legally marry (with the exception of incest and statuary rape situations). The slogan for 99% of it is "Mind your own business".
Yes, I mistakenly thought that most people could tell a noun from an adjective. There is a reason there are two different words , "noun" and "adjective"...if they had the same meaning , as you insist, it wouldn't make sense...but they have different meanings which really shouldn't need to be explained to anyone who speaks English.
