Less punishment for killing when it is inside the womb? (part 2)

But that doesn't mean a generalization can't be drawn, in these sort of situations.

I believe what you are doing (while not technically untrue) is trying to make things overcomplicated to bog the other side down into impossible to manage details.

I would even call it an "overspecificity fallacy", but I think currently that name is usually used to refer to another different logical fallacy, not relevant here.

You seem to be trying to overspecify and overgeneralize at the same time.

I mean, your argument is really one of degrees, and really could be applied to virtually any issue. Though of course it would not be reasonable to do so.

 

Uh, what? Does that have anything to do with the TOPIC....a thing you seem to want to avoid in your threads...

 

YOU miss the point! This entity did not intentionally invade the woman and take over her body. Unless she did not consent to the sexual act, this entity was invited in and then killed when he/she became inconvenient.

 

It is the point brought up until it is shut down by people pointing out the fact that there are the rights of a second person involved here, then the argument immediately shifts to something else. Usually the stupid argument " well then who is going to pay to support the child" as if that is justification for a homicide!

 

Consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act.

Consent to sex is NOT consent to be pregnant....and consent may be withdrawn at any time ...as it often is

 

NOPE, NO "second party"....

IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have?


WHY NOT?!!



Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else?

 

Definitely. Women who had abortion should be viewed similarly to how Senator John McCain was viewed. They did not violate any American Laws. But we have a right to view their actions as unethical.

 

Definitely. In many cultures prior to XXth century, infanticide was tolerated as a form of birth control.

All Superpowers have engaged in genocides -- and those who took part were rewarded.

Abortion is legal because the Vast Majority of people in USA supports its legality.

 

They have not broken the law of the land, and they do not deserve a legal penalty.

But if they try to shame men for being men and accuse all men of some oppressive wrongdoing, then it is our duty to remind them of their wrongdoing. Much Social Justice rhetoric consists of accusing men of being oppressors, sexists, potential rapists, etc., and expecting men to humbly apologize and make amends.

An Example.

 

I think "it's the mother's choice" is a good guideline.

 

Once again, you are wrong!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NOPE, NO "second party"....

IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have?


WHY NOT?!!



Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else?

Saying "you are wrong" proves NOTHING.

 

Funny how Anti-Choicers have never been able to address these very pertinent questions:

IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have?


WHY NOT?!!

Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else?

 

I'm pro-choice

#1 - after birth. Murder
#2 - before birth it is not murder, but if sinister and either secretly done (like man secreting causing her to chemically abort) or in a violent attack against the mother by a 3rd party it should be a crime with the same punishment as murder.

It's her choice includes her choice to give birth and have the child. That child gains independent human rights when born alive. But prior, the mother's right to give birth to that fetus is absolute.

There was a rape case where a man abducted a young female teen, raped her in the desert - and because she had scratched him fighting him he chopped off her arms. Somehow she lived. It's not murder, but more horrific a crime than most murders and they should have hung him. Slow strangulation too - not drop. Just kick out the chair for a loose noose. Publicly as a warning.

What a crime is called doesn't matter. What matters is the punishment regardless of what the crime is called.

 

You are wrong because a fetus, like any other small child, cannot form intent to harm another person and; therefore, should be treated as an infant. Now, what restrictions are placed on an infant that you would like to impose on a child in utero?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NOPE, NO "second party"....

IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have?


WHY NOT?!!

Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else?


Saying "you are wrong" proves NOTHING.

Doesn't matter...if someone is harming you you can stop them....whether they intend to or not...

Answer my questions first...I asked first :

IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have?

Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else?

 

Depriving a woman her choice is a crime. Double murder charges for the killers.

 

Why are we (as a society) willing to punish an offender for death of a fetus, but claim it's no inherent loss if that's what the woman wants?

Shouldn't this (according to pro-choice logic) only be all about choice of the woman? So the offender should only be punished for "taking away choice from the woman", not punished for the actual death of the fetus (which pro-choicers claim is not a person and has no rights).

Is it because some of these pro-choice arguments are just rhetoric, and the majority of us actually do recognize the fetus has some inherent right to live, even if those rights are cut back in relation to the woman?

And does the woman even really have much of an inherent right to not have the fetus killed? That could be another separate question we could ask.

 

It is her body. No one on either side would support forcing abortions.

 

Yes, but the two sides have different logical reasons for justifying it as wrong.

It seems to me, if one is to try to remain truly logically consistent here, the amount of punishment should be properly and proportionally based on the reason.

Why do pro-choicers remain eerily silent when it comes to amount of punishment such a perpetrator gets?
I mean, these are the same people who claim "No one dies" (when it comes to an abortion).


Like I said before, we are left with only one logical conclusion: Pro-choicers actually KNOW on some level that someone dies. They just don't want to come out in the open and admit it.

 

I believe the killer should be put to death regardless of whether or not his victim was pregnant.

 

I thought we were talking about cases where the unborn baby was killed but not the woman.

 

THIS Pro-Choicer says NO ONE dies in an abortion because one has to be BORN to be a "someone".


You do not have logical conclusions, just your opinion …..which doesn't matter.

 

Because it's her body....a concept that you obviously don't want to "get".

 

Ok. If it is done against her will, it is murder. Anything done by force or fear is a crime.