The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

It is to protect people that accidentally end pregnancies in auto accidents and such.

An accident isn’t murder.

Murder is the intentional taking of life not the accidental taking of life.

I didn't write the law, man. I am just trying to explain it to someone who oddly thinks some kind of double standard is going on.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

But he should be charged with something just as bad.

Nope, he did not murder anyone. He should be charged with poisoning the woman, and thats it. What he did was wrong, but it does not even come close to being a murderer.

His intent was to kill the fetus. If she wanted this baby, he took that chance from her. Just because he did it while the fetus was in the womb, does not mean he did not kill the fetus. It is murder if the baby was wanted.

I see the point, and it is a bit of a slippery slope. But, I also see some hypocrisy here...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Let's say I'm a woman in love with a man. I accidentally get pregnant. He wants me to have an abortion, but I refuse, because I'm against it. I choose, instead, to go through with the pregnancy and have the child. Knowing that this child will become a reality in a matter of months, I start thinking of names, tell my friends, buy some baby needs, etc. I am a woman who has her "child" growing within her. I PLAN on having a child. It's real. It's happening. I want it. This fetus has a future as my baby.

The man comes along and murders my "child". The child that I planned for. The child I had agreed to carry and give birth to. The child that had a future. That baby was murdered.

On the other hand, let's say I discover I'm pregnant and I DON'T want a child. I CHOOSE NOT to go through with the pregnancy. Instead, I choose to have an abortion. I don't make plans or think of names or buy anything, because the fetus doesn't have a future and isn't going to become a baby.

That's the difference. A woman who is pregnant with a WANTED child and one who is pregnant with an unwanted child.

I appreciate your thoughtful response and your attempt to rationalize this situation but I must disagree (I'm sure that is no surprise since we never agree).

Your desire (as a man or woman) for a child has absolutely no bearing AT ALL on whether or not that fetus is a life. NONE!

This is the fundamental argument – when does a fetus become life. Everyone has a different opinion but I’ve never heard something so arrogant as to say that it’s only a life if I WANT A BABY.

Sorry! That’s ridiculous IMO!

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by seabag
Ummmm….she was given an abortion pill. That’s the same pill a doctor would prescribe. There would have been no difference as far as procedure.

Except there is a slight difference in me murdering you, and you committing suicide.

If that was true, assisted suicide would be perfectly legal.

?
If we both assume that there is a difference in me murdering you and you committing suicide, how does that make you, in the same breath, say that it is then completely fine for me to murder you [regardless of what you think about it]?
Not to mention the legal issues around investigating a possible murder where the murderer says that the victim wanted it, so the case is closed.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

I didn't write the law, man. I am just trying to explain it to someone who oddly thinks some kind of double standard is going on.

You can’t defend your position and you want to just say “that’s the law”?

Don’t do me any favors!

Did this man commit murder?

If it was the woman’s choice and she took the same drug would that be murder?

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by seabag
Ummmm….she was given an abortion pill. That’s the same pill a doctor would prescribe. There would have been no difference as far as procedure.

Except there is a slight difference in me murdering you, and you committing suicide.

Did this man commit murder in your opinion?

If she was expecting a child, then yes, obviously.

Does a woman commit murder when she chooses to have an abortion?

No, because it is ultimately her choice whether or not to have children.

There should be no difference. Either it’s murder or its not.

But there should, and is.
Why are you so bothered about this?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
There is not conflict.

If the pregnancy is wanted and ended without permission it can be tried as murder.
If the pregnancy is unwanted and ended with permission it isn't a crime.

No conflict, hey?

So what happens when a husband okay's an abortion on his medically non-responsive wife (use a car accident if you require examples), and his wife is furious after recovery? The husbands choice would have been legal in one second, and illegal in the next...Same would be applied to a mother, father...any guardian really.

It is fairly easy to find conflict between existing laws for almost every law on the books. Nature of the beast I am afraid.

There is no easy solution, but the politico's insistence on politicizing, as opposed to discussing, does make it a significantly larger challenge.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
How is this hypocrisy? A man tricked a woman into a chemical abortion...

No offense, but you're really mixing things together here.

No, I get his point. If the fetus is not a human, then the man should not be charged with murder: maiming, assault, poisoning, etc, but not murder.

If the fetus is human, the man should be cahrged with murder, but then so should a woman who chooses to end that life at that same state.

As it stands, the law is inconsistent.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Your explanation is lacking. It reinforces the double standard as a right, but does not dismiss the double standard itself.

Actually, you kind of point out a multitude of other double standards that surround this issue as well.

Originally posted by seabag
This is the fundamental argument – when does a fetus become life.

Here's a thought experiment for you:
We are already able to switch defect body-parts to those of other people, animals or completely mechanical.
We are also doing great advancements in connecting computers straight to our brains.
Imagine a number of years in the future when we're able to start to replace parts of the brain with electronics.
We're slowly doing this more and more.

At which point do you cease to be a human-being, and when do you become a computer?

Originally posted by Nevertheless

If we both assume that there is a difference in me murdering you and you committing suicide, how does that make you, in the same breath, say that it is then completely fine for me to murder you [regardless of what you think about it]?
Not to mention the legal issues around investigating a possible murder where the murderer says that the victim wanted it, so the case is closed.

You claimed that suicide is legal and murder is not. That is false. And will continue to be false until the federal laws are changed.

The only difference, as far as the law is concerned, is that in one you have a perpetrator to charge, and in the other you do not. Which is evidenced by the fact that it is illegal to assist another person in suicide.

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
Your desire (as a man or woman) for a child has absolutely no bearing AT ALL on whether or not that fetus is a life.

I didn't say that it's not a life. I agree with you there. A fetus is a life. Anyone who says it's not is just trying to rationalize it, IMO.

Choosing to have an abortion is taking the life of a fetus.
Taking the life of someone else's fetus (who plans to have the child) without their consent is murder of that child.

That's just the way I see it. You don't have to agree. At least we agree that it's a life, either way.

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
There is not conflict.

If the pregnancy is wanted and ended without permission it can be tried as murder.
If the pregnancy is unwanted and ended with permission it isn't a crime.

No conflict, hey?

So what happens when a husband okay's an abortion on his medically non-responsive wife (use a car accident if you require examples), and his wife is furious after recovery? The husbands choice would have been legal in one second, and illegal in the next...Same would be applied to a mother, father...any guardian really.

It is fairly easy to find conflict between existing laws for almost every law on the books. Nature of the beast I am afraid.

There is no easy solution, but the politico's insistence on politicizing, as opposed to discussing, does make it a significantly larger challenge.

The husband's decision is legal, and there is legal precedent for it. There is nothing complicated about it.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I didn't write the law, man. I am just trying to explain it to someone who oddly thinks some kind of double standard is going on.

You can’t defend your position and you want to just say “that’s the law”?

Don’t do me any favors!

Did this man commit murder?

If it was the woman’s choice and she took the same drug would that be murder?

The man legally committed murder.
The woman would not have.

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by seabag
Ummmm….she was given an abortion pill. That’s the same pill a doctor would prescribe. There would have been no difference as far as procedure.

Except there is a slight difference in me murdering you, and you committing suicide.

Did this man commit murder in your opinion?

If she was expecting a child, then yes, obviously.

Does a woman commit murder when she chooses to have an abortion?

No, because it is ultimately her choice whether or not to have children.

There should be no difference. Either it’s murder or its not.

But there should, and is.
Why are you so bothered about this?

But that is not logical. If it is murder for one, should it not be murder in the other case? In no other situation is murder of anyone other than a fetus is permitted if it is the mother doing it. What does the choice or relationship of the perpetrator have to do whether someone is tried for murder or not?

Either we are dealing with a mass of tissue, in which case nobody should be tried for murder or we are dealing with a person in which said person deserves the rights of every other person.

reply to post by peck420

Originally posted by peck420
The only difference, as far as the law is concerned, is that in one you have a perpetrator to charge, and in the other you do not.

Suicide is not illegal.

Under modern U.S. law, suicide is no longer a crime. Some states, however, classify attempted suicide as a criminal act, but prosecutions are rare, especially when the offender is terminally ill. Instead, some jurisdictions
require a person who attempts suicide to undergo temporary hospitalization and psychological observation. A person who causes the death of an innocent bystander or would-be rescuer while in the process of attempting suicide may be guilty of murder or Manslaughter.

If they renamed the law to 'aborting without permission' would it be any better? No, the OP would still be upset. OP is debating moral philosophy and dressing it up as a legal bureaucracy issue which just obfuscates the discussion .
The poor person may be impacted by this like the loss of a life and will face guilt and depression. I have a friend going through this issue just now, and it's pretty horrible. It's a lot more complex issue than this thread gives it credit for. A lot of persons who become criminals come from broken homes and single parent house holds ... It's a pattern amongst serial killers for example. The damage making or not making such a decision is hard to know.

The question isn't if abortions should be allowed, but when and who makes that decision? There are obvious times like when a pregnancy threatens a person's life, but the rest is infinitely more complex and needs to be treated with that respect.

Originally posted by seabag
This is the fundamental argument – when does a fetus become life. Everyone has a different opinion but I’ve never heard something so arrogant as to say that it’s only a life if I WANT A BABY.

Personally, I think that if the pregnancy is terminated, and the resulting tissue can live on it's own, it is a life. Not a moment before. In which case, I agree that this shouldn't be murder. However, I don't agree with your insistence that this is a double standard, as it isn't.

It is unfair, perhaps, but only in the sense that it shouldn't be called a murder if they both aren't considered murder. This isn't a double standard or a hypocrisy. This is a provision that protects WOMEN from OTHERS that would want to subvert abortion laws to allow THEM to take her CHOICE away.

Should doctors that remove and kill tumors with chemotherapy be considered murderers?

A lump of cells that form tumors can be considered a living organism.

reply to post by muse7


And what about my choice to donate a kidney as opposed to someone taking that kidney from my body? VERY different.

It's all about autonomy. I can do it to myself, but you can't do it to me without my permission.