Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
False analogy. Death by natural causes is neither classified nor legally recognized as a homicide. Killing a child in utero IS.
While manslaughter is a form of homicide...child endangerment laws don't involve anyone's actual death, so much as parents placing the child into situations that are needlessly dangerous...such as, for example, the 10-20% of pregnancies that end in miscarriages.
The problem is that you're placing the child into a situation where dying of those natural causes is likely. You're not supposed to do that...so you need to tell people to stop getting pregnant. it's endangering children, based on my understanding.
If I can't let my kids fly kites in a hurricane...you can't get pregnant.
Because they can use the morning after pill...or get an abortion...if what you say is true at all.
But why would they intentionally put themselves into the position of enduring the pain and physical stress of either of those when it would have been SO much easier to use birth control in the first place (referring to the 95% who become unintentionally pregnant but fully admit they don't use birth control consistently or even at all)?
Quote:
So, the problem is that you appear to believe that abortion itself is causing more harm than it actually does.
Not at all. My position is firmly based on the US Constitution.
1) Regulation of abortion is indeed the purview of each respective state legislature, so the imminent SCOTUS decision is Constitutionally correct. (Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment)
2) Since killing a child in utero is already legally recognized as criminal homicide when most commit such an offense, it would be Constitutionally correct to legislate it as the same for women. Equal Protection Clause.
I understand both arguments of pro life and pro choice.
But the fact remains, the mother will always have the final say on whether she wants a baby. You can’t force someone to have a baby they don’t want.
Taxes will either be paid to raise the baby via welfare or taxes will paid to abort the baby via PP, and only one of those is cheaper than the other.
I understand both arguments of pro life and pro choice.
But the fact remains, the mother will always have the final say on whether she wants a baby. You can’t force someone to have a baby they don’t want.
That's why various forms of birth control are easily accessible and either free (for the no/low-income) or inexpensive. There are over 4,000 federal taxpayer-funded Title X Family Planning Clinics located throughout the US for exactly this purpose. HHS maintains a list.
Quote:
Taxes will either be paid to raise the baby via welfare or taxes will paid to abort the baby via PP, and only one of those is cheaper than the other.
Federal funds can't be used for abortion (Hyde Amendment). Some states use state taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, but that could be brought before SCOTUS at anytime for violating some taxpayers' First Amendment Rights.
But why would they intentionally put themselves into the position of enduring the pain and physical stress of either of those when it would have been SO much easier to use birth control in the first place (referring to the 95% who become unintentionally pregnant but fully admit they don't use birth control consistently or even at all)?
Presumably because sex is a very powerful drive for most people, and they might want to have children later, so they don't want to get their tubes tied yet...and because they're not at risk of going through that pain because they have legal access to abortion and morning after pills.
Quote:
Not at all. My position is firmly based on the US Constitution.
1) Regulation of abortion is indeed the purview of each respective state legislature, so the imminent SCOTUS decision is Constitutionally correct. (Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment)
2) Since killing a child in utero is already legally recognized as criminal homicide when most commit such an offense, it would be Constitutionally correct to legislate it as the same for women. Equal Protection Clause.
I said you saw abortion as causing more harm than it does. Those three statements don't have anything to do with harm. I was talking about ethics at that point...not legal issues.
The reason why we consider the killing in utero(against the mother's wishes) to be murder is because it's in society's interest to discourage unwanted harm to born people...and ending a fetus's life against the mother's will does that...harms the mother.
If, on the other hand, we say that the ending of all fetal life is comparable to murder...chaos breaks out. See my previous comment about all pregnancy breaking child endangerment laws, if we treat fetuses exactly like children.
The only sane way to deal with this is to accept that some laws rendering fetal death illegal make sense, but some don't.
Laws are supposed to make sense...not dribble into madness based on bizarre semantics arguments.
There are Federal child endangerment laws. There are also state laws. Here's an example from Texas:
Texas: Under Texas law, child endangerment is defined as an act that exposes a child under 15 to risk of bodily harm, death or physical or mental impairment. The act can be reckless or intentional, or an act of omission. This state can find spanking a child and leaving marks is child endangerment with a fine of $20,000 and two years in jail. The crime also is often charged as a felony and can result in two to 20 years in prison. https://www.federalcharges.com/child-endangerment-laws/
So...if I'm in Texas and fetuses/embryos are children, and legally treated in that exact way...given the high chance of miscarriages, I suggest nobody get pregnant. Otherwise you're, so far as I can tell, engaging in child endangerment, through putting your child into a situation when they're under 15 that poses a risk of bodily harm, death, or physical or mental impairment...in this case via the risk of miscarriage.
I don't know why that would not apply to fetuses/embryos, unless it's widely agreed by our legal experts that fetuses are not treated by the law the same way as born human beings are in all circumstances.
So...again...I want to get my son Billy a 30 foot long Burmese python. He's currently age 6. If you get to get pregnant, I should be able to buy Billy his python. He's been really looking forward to it. So am I, because if get the python, I won't need to hire a babysitter. It's current owner, my drug dealer named Thug, says it's a trained python that's been trained to be great with children. I figure that means I can just let the python do the babysitting.
Last edited by Certantide; 06-05-2022 at 12:44 PM..
I understand both arguments of pro life and pro choice.
But the fact remains, the mother will always have the final say on whether she wants a baby. You can’t force someone to have a baby they don’t want.
Taxes will either be paid to raise the baby via welfare or taxes will paid to abort the baby via PP, and only one of those is cheaper than the other.
It IS for convenience, 98.3% of the time. Only 1.7% of abortions are performed due to physical health/life risk to the mother, health problem with the baby, rape, and incest, combined.
98.3% of the 900,000 abortions each year are performed solely for convenience. That's 885,000 unnecessary human deaths per year.
Like I said... The FACT is that 95% of unintended pregnancies are due to women VOLUNTARILY participating in unprotected sex. I've posted a link to the data many times. Unprotected sex = likely pregnancy. They're actually CHOOSING pregnancy for themselves, via their own actions.
Killing another human because a woman then later decides that the inevitable consequent pregnancy and raising a child would be an inconvenience to her is ethically and morally abhorrent.
No. You are the one who is assigning the word "convenience" to abortions. That is not the word used in the survey you keep quoting. You cannot change the meaning of the survey questions after the fact.
How a woman conducts her sex or reproductive life is not the business of legislators to worry about. They are driven by the desire to control and limit reproductive choices of women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
Women can and do control their reproduction. Women like men can and do have unprotected sex that results in pregnancy. Women can and do get abortions for unwanted pregnancy. Call it irresponsible call it a convenience abortion, as of now she can abort without a care to what anyone thinks besides herself. As it should be.
Exactly. Women control their bodies in consultation with their health care providers. As it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why can some members of society kill a child in utero for their own convenience while others who do the exact same thing get sent to prison for committing homicide?
This has been explained to you countless times. Yet you still can't see beyond the black and white of your own illogical arguments. *shrug*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Certantide
and miscarriages would be manslaughter.
Oh, that attempt is coming. Just watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That's why various forms of birth control are easily accessible and either free (for the no/low-income) or inexpensive. There are over 4,000 federal taxpayer-funded Title X Family Planning Clinics located throughout the US for exactly this purpose. HHS maintains a list.
Indeed. And at least half of them are not accessible to the general public. So there goes your "easily accessible" argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty
so is sperm
Yeah, but sperm belong to men. Men don't need to be controlled, amirite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
No. You are the one who is assigning the word "convenience" to abortions. That is not the word used in the survey you keep quoting. You cannot change the meaning of the survey questions after the fact.
Quelle surprise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
