Alabama judge allows lawsuit that names aborted fetus as co-plaintiff.

That statutory rapist is lucky this is in Alabama, where they hate abortion more than they hate statutory rape, apparently.

By allowing him to put an unborn child as a co-defendant means the court just allowed him full guardianship of a fetus. Process that. Go ahead.

This a good way to mistrial the case.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Halfswede

It is killing a life. All science agrees that "it" is alive. There is no viewpoint discrepancy on that. The viewpoint is whether you are ok with killing that life and what kind of life you categorize it.

As "it" cannot survive on its own i suppose you could say it was a 'parasite.'

As an example, think of a kangaroo. The "fetus" takes an interesting course of action and leaves the womb to be raised in an exterior environment. The "fetus" (clearly alive - if you argue otherwise you are just an idiot) , is 2 grams for grey kangaroo. 2 grams.

Lol!!! You're comparing a woman to a kangaroo, I dont think many women

would like that comparison...... I believe they refer to it as a joey and not

a fetus anyway and if a fetus was able to do that it would already be a

viable being, the same as any 24 week gestation baby.

No, I am simply using science instead of feelings. Science says that a kangaroo embryo (literally they use the term "embryo") is developmentally equivalent to a 7 week old human embryo when it makes it's move. Science says 7 weeks. You, apparently based on feelings (anti-science) say 24 weeks. That level of development is clearly alive in that we get to see it's activity outside the womb climb into the pouch and continue embryonic >> fetal development.

So, Science says they are developmentally "equivalent" (they literally use the term "developmentally equivalent") . Do you dispute the kangaroo embryo is a "life"? If not, then we have used science, not feelings, to establish that both are "alive" at that point. This isn't about feelings or liking a comparison. It is science.

So given some scientific equivalency, are you willing to go along with a science-based approach and establish a line in the sand? Lets say that science just doesn't know, and double it. Are you comfortable with 14 weeks being called a life?

The point is, legally I don't care, but stop talking about viewpoints and feelings and just admit that scientifically you are OK with killing that life at XX weeks or XX months.

All I hear on the opposing side is that they don't "believe" it is a life. That sounds like faith-based nonsense. Science says it is a life. Just own it. Stop being cowards and own it. I don't care about legal consequences. If you are OK with kiliing it, own it and stop covering it up with feelings-based definitions that science disagrees with.

To make my point, if science came out tomorrow with undeniable proof that a fetus can think at 14 weeks, would you sign up for a 14 week ban? My gut tells me you still wouldn't.

a reply to: Malak777

This thread has been very interesting - everyone's replies.

Just wanted to pop in and say that I agree with your thoughts Malak777. You are right on the money about your theory. Not to sidetrack this thread, but our modern young women are so interested in careers, and money, not wanting to be committed to any one man, and thinking of having kids when they are older only to find that their bodies have passed the fertile span... we are in trouble.

I'm not coming from a racist or anti-Muslim viewpoint. This was pointed out about twenty years ago - I can't remember where/when I saw it, but now it's happening. People are no longer united as a country in terms of how to protect our countries/ourselves/the future of our children.

And, if my children are unable to spend time with me and I have to go into one of these "homes" when I am aged, then I will simply choose nature's way of dealing with the infirm/elderly - walk into the forest and nature will finish me off. I am okay with that.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Bone75
Is there some secret state of limbo between alive and dead that I'm unaware of?

A fetus/embryo is only a *potiential* life

Again, you're trying to frame an indisputable fact as a matter of opinion.

A human's life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the moment of death.

Dispute that fact without conflating life with sentience.

originally posted by: Halfswede

For example, if the father demands an abortion, so that his life isn't "ruined" and the mother refuses, she should have to sign a waiver of all child support from the father, correct? i.e. you can't just take away the choice to prevent 'ruining' someones life without their consent.

I congratulate you on your optimism.......

But it is my experience that no woman aborts if she has the support of

the potential father.

And signing a waiver is a joke as in most circumstances the 'man' is long

gone when it comes to financial support.

originally posted by: Halfswede

No, I am simply using science instead of feelings. Science says that a kangaroo embryo (literally they use the term "embryo") is developmentally equivalent to a 7 week old human embryo when it makes it's move. Science says 7 weeks. You, apparently based on feelings (anti-science) say 24 weeks. That level of development is clearly alive in that we get to see it's activity outside the womb climb into the pouch and continue embryonic >> fetal development.

So, Science says they are developmentally "equivalent" (they literally use the term "developmentally equivalent") . Do you dispute the kangaroo embryo is a "life"? If not, then we have used science, not feelings, to establish that both are "alive" at that point. This isn't about feelings or liking a comparison. It is science.
So given some scientific equivalency, are you willing to go along with a science-based approach and establish a line in the sand? Lets say that science just doesn't know, and double it. Are you comfortable with 14 weeks being called a life?
The point is, legally I don't care, but stop talking about viewpoints and feelings and just admit that scientifically you are OK with killing that life at XX weeks or XX months.
All I hear on the opposing side is that they don't "believe" it is a life. That sounds like faith-based nonsense. Science says it is a life. Just own it. Stop being cowards and own it. I don't care about legal consequences. If you are OK with kiliing it, own it and stop covering it up with feelings-based definitions that science disagrees with.
To make my point, if science came out tomorrow with undeniable proof that a fetus can think at 14 weeks, would you sign up for a 14 week ban? My gut tells me you still wouldn't.

You can talk science as much as you like ...........BUT

till science comes up with a woman with a pouch you cant make

comparisons between a fetus and a joey.

Or indeed a woman and a kangaroo!!!!!

originally posted by: Bone75

Again, you're trying to frame an indisputable fact as a matter of opinion.

A human's life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the moment of death.

Dispute that fact without conflating life with sentience.

IF a fetus 'could' survive it could go on "life support" like other people who

are 'alive' but not living, because they are being kept alive by science and

machines.

But even science and machines cannot keep a fetus alive or living.....only

the mother/host can do that, if the mother dies before the six month

gestation period the fetus/embryo/baby has no chance of life or living.

a reply to: Halfswede


well, these laws like alabama has seems to be putting that conceived, whatever you chose to call it, on legal equal footing as the person it is dwelling within, so regardless of weather you wish to call it life, potential life, whatever...
when do you reckon should the interest of the host outweigh those of the whatever you wish to call it that is dwelling and growing within her? like I pointed out, we as a society seem to not have much problem bombing entire villages out of existence, their children included to protect our economic interests..
so, it seems that maybe, just maybe, the host's economic interests should carry a tad bit of weight also?
the cops kill people quite frequently claiming that the person did something that made their fear for their life, well, women can also fear for their lives sometimes when pregnant.
and, people will sometimes kill a person that they believe are a danger to their families, and there are times when continue a pregnancy can be seen as presenting dangers to family members.

should the interest of the unborn outweigh the interests of all these?
especially considering that it seems more than acceptable to end life when the life isn't of the unborn nature?

a reply to: dawnstar

In one of the first few posts I stated that I don't think this lawsuit is the way to go. I have been consistent throughout. I don't care about the legal issue. The law has said abortion is legal. The law in some places says that prostitution is legal, or the age of consent is 14 or it's ok to bang your sister as long as you don't have kids.

Just don't sugar-coat it and claim it isn't a life. Own it. Admit that you (the proverbial you) are OK with killing the life in circumstances that are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, simply to avoid the responsibilities of raising and caring for a child.

I just want to hear a pro-choicer say, " I am OK with killing that life as long as it is before XX weeks/months etc." Own it, and I can respect your stance.

Again, if science determines with irrefutable proof that the fetus can think at say 14 weeks, would you support a ban at 14 weeks? If it takes even a second to consider, you should really question yourself as to why.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Halfswede

No, I am simply using science instead of feelings. Science says that a kangaroo embryo (literally they use the term "embryo") is developmentally equivalent to a 7 week old human embryo when it makes it's move. Science says 7 weeks. You, apparently based on feelings (anti-science) say 24 weeks. That level of development is clearly alive in that we get to see it's activity outside the womb climb into the pouch and continue embryonic >> fetal development.

So, Science says they are developmentally "equivalent" (they literally use the term "developmentally equivalent") . Do you dispute the kangaroo embryo is a "life"? If not, then we have used science, not feelings, to establish that both are "alive" at that point. This isn't about feelings or liking a comparison. It is science.
So given some scientific equivalency, are you willing to go along with a science-based approach and establish a line in the sand? Lets say that science just doesn't know, and double it. Are you comfortable with 14 weeks being called a life?
The point is, legally I don't care, but stop talking about viewpoints and feelings and just admit that scientifically you are OK with killing that life at XX weeks or XX months.
All I hear on the opposing side is that they don't "believe" it is a life. That sounds like faith-based nonsense. Science says it is a life. Just own it. Stop being cowards and own it. I don't care about legal consequences. If you are OK with kiliing it, own it and stop covering it up with feelings-based definitions that science disagrees with.
To make my point, if science came out tomorrow with undeniable proof that a fetus can think at 14 weeks, would you sign up for a 14 week ban? My gut tells me you still wouldn't.

You can talk science as much as you like ...........BUT

till science comes up with a woman with a pouch you cant make comparisons between a fetus and a joey.

Or indeed a woman and a kangaroo!!!!!

So scientists (a lot of them) can make the exact comparison using direct language like "developmentally equivalent to a 7 week old human embryo" but I can't because...you don't like it? You have brought nothing to the table but feelings...again.

a reply to: dawnstar

ya know, in one of the carolinas, there are more women who had the unfortunate experience of miscarrying sitting in jails from their fetal protection laws there are men...

I consider an attempt at abortion a sign of mental distress. That is not the same as mental illness, mind you. No person in such a state should be incarcerated for being in that state of mind, certainly not for anything more than their own protection. They should be helped to overcome their distress.

which is why most of the pro-choice groups were against them from the start.. they knew they'd be used more against women than men!!

"They knew" is not a very convincing argument to me. How did "they know"? What evidence did they use?

Who the hell is "they" for that matter?

funny, though, I have never heard of any man dying from childbirth related complication!!!

This is the problem with having a conversation about this issue. I also have never heard of a woman dying form prostate cancer. So?

We do not have control over biological realities. We have to get past that truth, or we will continue to have cases like this one and an ongoing battle over who gets what rights why.

I'm sorry you are female. Actually, no, I mis-stated that. I'm sorry that you're sorry you are female.

and to say that both had full knowledge of the possibilities when they had sex, really doesn't say much since you could use that same argument against abortion in any circumstance!! what, the women has a tubal pregnancy, gee, that's just too bad, but she knew that was a possibility when she has the sex!!

That is an attempt to equate a normal biological function to an abnormal medical emergency. I reject that argument out of hand.

ya know, there is a state law on the books that makes most third trimester abortions illegal...

If you want to argue that we need changes in the abortion laws, I will agree. I have already stated that in a medical emergency, treatment should be the sole pervue of the doctor in charge with full consideration given to any wishes of the patient that can be obtained. That includes an abortion decision. If an abortion law interferes with that, it should be changed.

However, there is the opposing perspective that some will go so far to kill the child as to actually risk their own lives by creating a medical emergency. That possibility needs to be addressed as well.

if a man feels that it's within his rights to decide weather a women should take on the risk of death, then he shouldn't have a problem to take on a little bit of risk himself!! after all, if he is wrong in his decision, she loses her life, and I am not saying he should face murder charges with a death penalty attached to it am I???

I never claimed you supported capital punishment; again, extremes are not conducive to agreement.

What you have done in that position is equate sexual relations with assault on the part of the male only. That is a position I cannot and will not accept. Women initiate sexual relations as much as men do, which means your position puts women on a legal platform that reduces males to essentially slaves of women.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

You cannot compromise on the act.

You can compromise on the legality of it, but the act defines itself.

Allow me to clarify as well...

It is not reasonable to take a "no compromise" position on something with as many variables as the abortion debate. It would be very easy for me to take such a position, but my intelligence tells me that my perception of the various variables involved is likely atypical for others. Just like someone who decries an intentional homicide may not consider the realities of someone being attacked in their home or having to make that decision to sign a DNR directive for a loved one, it is not reasonable to decry every case where an abortion is performed.

I do not want to outlaw abortion; allow me to make that perfectly clear. All I want is a little common sense on the subject.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Duderino

That statutory rapist is lucky this is in Alabama

He is not a "statutory rapist." He has not committed statutory rape on anyone that we are aware of.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Bone75

A human's life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the moment of death.

Actually, that is only half right. Life does not begin. At no point in the reproductive process is anything involved not alive. Sperm are alive; ova are alive; the zygote is alive; the fetus is alive; the embryo is alive; the baby is alive.

I think the term "develops into a separate individual" is more apt. That happens at fertilization.

You're going to have to go much farther back in time to find where life begins.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Halfswede

okay, here is your answer...
I am okay with terminating an abortion, if you want to define that as killing a living being go for it...
if the pregnancy is posing a more than acceptable risk to the life or health of the mother...
if, continuing the pregnancy requires more than acceptable restrictions to her activities...
if continuing her pregnancy will result in depriving the family of her wages that they are depending on to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
if she has a health condition that requires her to take medication in order to function and the medication is known to cause severe birth defects in the fetus.
if testing shows that there is severe birth defects in the fetus that greatly reduces the chances of the pregnancy producing a viable fetus.
I am sure that there are other ifs that I could think of, but I think you should get my drift here.
basically if continuing the pregnancy will result in great loss or physical, mental pain or death, or is pretty much a worthless venture because of fetal defects... yes, it should be allowed at any stage of the pregnancy... but, if it is past the point of fetal viability and doesn't pose more risk to the mother than an abortion, then either a c-section, or early natural birth should be attempted first, unless the fetus isn't viable anyways.

I'll leave it up to yous to figure out how laws could be written to cover all that, and what to do about all those "abortions for convenience", rapes, ect. or at what stage is it murder and on and on.
My position is really pretty clear, don't expect women to sacrifice more to bring in kids than you guys are willing to sacrifice to keep them alive when they are born!! and considering just how many are even willing to give up being able able to buy guns without the hassle of a background check to keep our kids alive in schools, well..
I really don't think you have much of a standing in saying much of anything about it!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

A woman dies in a car accident, so does her 7 month old fetus.

How long did the fetus live?

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're right. One way or another, this should eventually lead to clarity. Whoever prevails, the case will undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court. And since I can't imagine the court, even with a conservative leaning, overturning Roe v. Wade, the end result should be a decision that delineates whether the unborn have any rights, and if they do, when those rights begin.

What I would like to see is for this to open up a discussion of why a woman can choose to abort whether the man wants her to or not BUT a man is obligated to pay child support even if he absolutely did not want the child. Women have a get-out-of-jail-free card. Men don't. If one sex has an option, both should, but absolutely no one is open to that discussion as it is.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am so sorry that you do not know the difference between a miscarriage and an attempted self abortion!!
a miscarriage is where you lose your balance as you are walking down the stairs and manage to fall down them and end up losing the baby. or where you take a medication that was legally prescribed to you by a licensed doctor for a real health problem and the da wished to claim that you lost the baby because of that medicine. it's where you are driving a car and get into an accident and end up losing the baby...
AND IN EACH OF THESE CASES, THE WOMEN WAS JAILED!!!

What you have done in that position is equate sexual relations with assault on the part of the male only. That is a position I cannot and will not accept. Women initiate sexual relations as much as men do, which means your position puts women on a legal platform that reduces males to essentially slaves of women.

no, as far as I am concerned any rapist that manages to cause their victim to become pregnant and she dies from the pregnancy should be charges with homicide...
we are talking about men who think they should have the deciding voice in weather or not a women is able to have an abortion.. or at least I am. he is forcing her to take a risk that she seems not to want to take... why shouldn't he be held at least partially responsible if that risk turns out to be a reality

a reply to: dawnstar

Thanks. Starred. At least we can agree you are being honest about it. Very, very few in my experience do.

I answered it in a roundabout way in my reply to TheRedneck, but I'll go on record here:

Absolutely.

I'm pro-choice up to a point, and while I don't think men — since they're not the ones who have to take the very real physical risks of carrying a baby to term and giving birth — should be able to decide whether to abort or not, I absolutely think they SHOULD have the option of NOT being responsible for a child they didn't want. It's absolutely wrong and sexist that they don't.

But as I said in my other post, NO one wants to have that discussion. Not the pro-life crowd, not the pro-choice crowd. They have different reasons, but neither wants to talk about it. Maybe this case will open up that discussion.