Why killing a fetus is fine.

No, I am simply refusing to accept blindly YOUR definition of the "beginning of human life." And you are blindly refusing to see any other possibility because any other possibility destroys your premise.

Once again, as always, it comes down to "the woman chose to have sex" so she deserves to be punished. The abortion debate will never end so long as a substantial number of people believe that a woman choosing to have sex is evil. Please don't pretend that your concern is for a newly conceived zef, it is obvious that your primary concern is punishing women.

 

Its not my definition of human life though. It is the courts definition of human life. You cannot murder something other than a human being and that the courts have said killing a fetus is murder makes a fetus a human being. That you cannot wrap your head around this self evident fact is stunning.

I am not refusing to see anything, I am simply using the legal definition of human life.

Nobody said that having sex is evil, dont be silly. However a "zef" is not there without permission as you stated. It is there with permission as the effects of having sex are well known and the consequences accepted. It is not about punishing anyone, its about accepting responsibility for your actions.

 

The right to life obviously is not "unalienable" because the state has the power to take away that right. Unless of course the death penalty is also unconstitutional.

 

By your logic the fact that murder occurs also means the right to life is not unalienable as another person has the ability to take it away.

 

Having an abortion is a very responsible action to take. It is usually very thought out before hand as well. Rarely does a woman just jump to get an abortion, often times she will take her current living situation and finances into consideration, consult with her partner and then a decision is made as to whether or not to continue the pregnancy. In fact you will notice a correlation between higher or lesser abortion rates and the current economic situation in a country. When economics are bad, jobs are hard to come by and people are barely scraping by to live you will in fact see more abortions. When economics are good, jobs are widely available and people have a surplus of money you will see less abortions.

The logical conclusion to that would be if you want to stop women from having abortions then you need to help them financially to care for and raise the potential offspring. In fact hospital bills not only for the prenatal care but for the birth (and possibly a C-section which is always more expensive) is a big issue in itself as well. My step-sister just had her second baby and is facing at least $5000 in hospital bills and that's with insurance. If you don't have any insurance it can be upwards of $15,000, taking into account if you had a C-section and also if the baby had any problems afterwards and needed to stay in the NICU, etc.

That's another reason women really need to return to midwives and home birth in my opinion (if everything goes smooth costs can be around $2000). Having a baby has literally become a business for hospitals. I find it no surprise that women are wary of going through the literal 'business' of having a baby, not only because of the ridiculous expenses but because of the way hospital staff treats them.

Women also need to take into account their own physical and mental health and determine if they can bear through nine months of an unplanned pregnancy and then give birth. Every woman knows her own body better than anyone else and having a child takes its toll especially if you're not prepared.

There is definitely a lot to consider when having a baby, so yes, abortion is a totally responsible choice for a woman to make if she is not in a position to care for or raise the potential child or even physically carry it to term.

 

http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/KreeftBeckwith/WhatIsAHumanBeing.html
USA
In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:13 The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)



http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/IrvineCrit2.htm

The only way the question should be approached, and can be approached is from medical, philosophic, and social context and in all those disciplines the only question that has any meaning is "When should we place value on developing humans?" We, as a species, answered the question millennia ago. We know for certain that with birth comes a new member of our species. We also know that without successful birth there is no new member. That is the reason we use birth as our arbitrary starting point for rights and value granting. Since, one thing science can confirm, life is a continuum any point we assign as a starting point will be arbitrary but of all the possible starting points birth is the most recognizable, most traumatic/dramatic, and can be witnessed by others.

It is not necessary to accept the pregnancy effect of having sex, and that is a widely accepted view in our society with the almost universal acceptance of birth control. When "accepting responsibility" for one's actions is a negative, that IS punishment, and don't try to deny that is the intention of anti-choicers since it is obvious.

 

The question is not whether you feel it is a responsible choice or not. The question is whether or not it is taking a human life.

Neither of these paragraphs address fetal homicide laws and the fact that it is required that a fetus is a person before homicide can be considered.

So it isn't neccessary to accept the consequences of ones actions when there is a convient way to avoid it? Hell yes, sign me up!

So someone is punished for having sex every time they contract an STD? That is so unfair...why are people punishing others with STD's?

 

A fetus doesn't have to BE a person to warrant extra punishment for the law-breaker, it is CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ONE LAW to be a person. There are no fetal homicide laws that do not spell out that abortion chosen by the pregnant woman is not covered by that law.

When people get an STD, they get treatment for it, no one says it was a consequence they must accept. When people get pregnant, they can get treatment for it, and it's nobody else's business how they treat it.

 

Legally it does not matter that the law states that life is defined only for the purposes of that law. You still legally defined life and that can certainly be used to apply to abortions if someone wishes to challenge it legally.

You cannot treat all STD's, and my comment was more tounge in cheek as I feel your viewpoint is grossly irresponsible.

 

Of course it takes human life. But so does a woman's period every month with the expulsion of a living ovum, which if you didn't already know, is one of the key factors in creating a zygote. And often times when a zygote is created it STILL fails to implant, dies and is expelled with another menstrual period. Human life dies all the time. This is nothing new.

 

An ovum does not alone represent the potential for human life. That egg must first be fertilized before it can even hope to represent human life. Dying through natural causes is also quite a bit different than having your life taken from you by another.

 

"Legally it does not matter"....Legally, the law is ALL that does matter. Life has been defined as beginning at birth LEGALLY. Challenge away, a majority of the public wants abortion to remain legal.

Your viewpoint is irresponsible since no anti-abortion law can be enforced. BTW, some STDs cannot be cured, but they can all be treated.

 

An ovum alone doesn't carry potential for human life? Are you freaking kidding? Every single ovum has the potential to be fertilized. Every single ovum can potentially lead to the creation of a zygote. You wanna talk about potential... LOL

And yes, an ovum is human life. It may not yet be a human BEING or a PERSON, but it is definitely human life, just like your skin cells, your organs, your blood. All of those are human and they are all alive. Are they people or beings? No of course not, but I do believe they adequately fit the definition of "human life".

 

You peopole have gotten even yourselves confused. Let me help you out, the unique distinct new human being is created at fertilization.

 

Er... no.

Murder is illegal mate.

 

My point was that life has been defined in fetal homicide laws, that this is incovenient for you is certainly true. Neither of the links you presented addressed fetal homicide laws which directly contradict the links you posted.

lol......

So the ovum needs sperm? That tells me that the ovum on its own represents no potential whatsoever. Thank you for making my point.

Semantics will get you no where.

And capital punishment is legal. That isnt what we were talking about.

 

Life has not been defined in fetal homicide laws or anywhere else. Scientists and philosophers are still debating what constitutes life and that debate may never end.

The zygote needs a womb, that tells us that the zygote on its own represents no potential whatsoever? Thank you.

 

Thanks Grannie. Took the words right out of my mouth!

 

Ahh, see now you are thinking. An actual argument out of you instead of emotional bull(*)(*)(*)(*)....love it.

Does a zygote actually need a womb, or has science figured out a way to get it done without a womb? Seems to me they are working on an artificial uterus. Women will soon be obsolete!!!! .

 

Taking the implications of this argument further - A human being must not represent potential because it relies upon air and the earth. You could take this to any extreme you wanted. Nobody has any potential that is not predicated upon something else.

Interesting stuff.

 

Even if artificial wombs are created I am not sure how one could easily detach a fetus that's already inside a woman easily without severely damaging it and then safely place it into the artificial womb.

Artificial wombs are most likely for women who cannot procreate naturally. It seems like it would be an attachment to in vitro fertilization. Creating embryos and then implanting them. It would probably be easier to do this in an artificial womb than on an actual woman. You know, less tests, less injections, less appointments. Having the artificial uterus there 24/7 in office, physicians and scientists can constantly monitor it and continue planting embryos until one successfully attaches. (Which still leaves many others that will fail to implant and that will in fact DIE. So there goes thousands and thousands of 'people' if you truly believe embryos are people.)

As far as men and women go neither will be obsolete when it comes to procreation. You still need their sperm and ovum, unless scientists manage to successfully create artificial sperm and ovums someday.

 

True and that really digs into another thread on here, http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/210713-why-human-life-special.html

Potential is very pointless in determining why laws should be passed. It's just not a good argument to stand on.

 

If a legal right was truly unalienable the state could not take it away. If you're arguing that abortion is unconstitutional then the death penalty must also be unconstitutional. You can't have an "unalienable right" with exceptions, that is contradictory. Either it is or it isn't, and clearly it isn't. Therefore the state can legislate away the "right to life" as is the case with the death penalty.

 

I am not arguing that abortion is unconstitutional. I am only asking that the State be consistent and reconcile fetal homicide laws with abortion laws. Its one or the other. Either Abortion is fine and assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in the loss of her child is nothing more than assault and battery, or Abortion is bad and fetal homicide laws stand.

Thats it...all I want. Some form of consistency.

 

AMEN brother! The abortion promoters OBVIOUSLY do not want this because the rational way to do this is to make abortion illegal.