The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

reply to post by CranialSponge

Imagine someone charging you with attempted murder of yourself because you're poisoning your body from eating a Big Mac and super-sized fries ??

But I am not talking about the woman. I am talking about the death of the baby within the woman.

If she eats something unhealthy with the intention of killing the baby and the baby dies, that is murder because it is causing the death of another being, but that is legal because it is HER body, and I understanding. She can choose to carry it or not.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that it is still "murder" since it involves the intentional killing of the baby.

Why should this man have to have 'murder' on his record for doing an action that is not considered murder?

If the killing of an unborn baby is not murder then he should be charged under something else for his aggression and control against the woman.

EDIT:

You seem to be talking about Law and Legality ("legal right")

I'm talking about ACTIONS.

If murder is the taking of a life,
why is the baby when kill by it's mother not considered a "living thing" (not murder)
but when it is killed by another it is considered a "living thing" (murder)

Either a baby is a living thing or not... that doesn't change whether it is being killed by the person who owns the body or another... biology doesn't work that way...

reply to post by seabag


Seabag, I'm more or less a lurker around here.

But sometimes I feel compelled enough to log-in and say something, or star a post.

Thank you for being one of the only people who is sensible about the matter and recognizes the hypocrisy within the issue.

I applaud you, keep up the good work. Also, I miss your old avatar.

reply to post by introV


Thanks for the kind words! I'm not the only person (even within this thread) who gets it. Many people get it. It's just a very divisive subject and many chose not to touch it. I knew I was going to take a beating when I posted it but some things need to be said, ya know??

...and I fly many avatars. I've got to keep it fresh!

Did the baby have a choice? _javascript:icon('') Murder is murder in any form, weather it is in or outside the womb. Just my opinion.

Actually, good point. It shouldn't be murder under current understandings of personhood.

But definitely a whole host of other crimes were committed, grievous bodily harm, Aggravated assault, etc.

It's not murder, charging him with murder is outrageous. He should be charged for tricking his girlfriend into taking an abortion pill against her will, but I'm more outraged that some idiot would try to charge him with murder for such an act. A human fetus is not a human being, sorry.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


As much as I would like to disagree, I am compelled to agree.

A fetus has no record of birth nor a name at that, I do not see it as murder if the subject never had an identity to defend.

I agree the act is barbaric at most, but it is something young women have the freedom to endure. Preventing someone from carrying out a freedom in my eyes is considered blasphemy. We are, after all, just people on this huge rock.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It's murder of the unborn regardless of whether the man or woman wanted it or not. The woman's choice makes very little difference. That is the whole hypocrisy of the pro choice crowd.
Sorry if the truth hurts.

It is ending the life of something organic, yes. There is no hypocrisy, it's just a fact.
Since that organic life is a part of some other organic life that feeds it, we just happen to think that it's up to the bigger organism to decide. Whatever guilty conscience is involved falls upon that person and has to live it for the rest of her life. This is how it is.

Also, we are no different from any other organic life that lives and dies around us, and that we grow and kill in our every day life, I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

Originally posted by seabag

Which is it?? Is it a life or not? Should this man be charged with murder?? You can’t have it both ways! What say you?

edit on 17-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Because without the pregnant women's consent. That is a huge distinction.

And I will refran from writing what I'm thinking.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Because without the pregnant women's consent. That is a huge distinction.

So murder is now based on how the mother feels about it? That is a huge contradiction. Foetal homicide laws usualy apply only after several months into pregnancy when the foetus is developed and abortion is already illegal, and they apply to everyone equally, even the mother. That is consistent. Murder should not be based on feelings. The distinction is there, but it warrants some lesser charge of poisoning the mother or destruction of property. It is not murder to kill an undifferentiated mass of cells.

keep in mind the end result is a dead fetus, no matter who did it or how it was done

If you believe the man committed murder
then planned abortion is also murder
the hypocrisy is blatant here because the end result is the same
the only way to negate the hypocrisy is to say
that planned abortion is also murder
only, it is a legally allowed murder
in other words, abortion is murder, just not a criminal murder

If you believe this man should not be charged for murder
because a fetus is not a human life (and you probably are pro-choice)
then you clearly see the hypocrisy and double standard applied to the trial of this man

therefore you either think there is hypocrisy and double standard in this case or you think
that abortion is murder with legal immunity
there is clearly only two choices

reply to post by Nevertheless

Also, we are no different from any other organic life that lives and dies around us

Are you really one of those people who decry the killing of plants by evil human parasites but says that unborn babies are just organic matter?
Give me a FREAKING break. Yes I typed in caps. Occasionally someone makes me that mad.

Maybe you also disagreed with the jury which found that Gosnell creep guilty of murdering three babies born alive during abortions?

At what point do we say it's not ok to take a scissors and snap a living, breathing baby's neck?
The baby was alive before and after the abortion.
Aside from all that, the intent is a major key here, not choice so much.

And it is only pro-choice for women. The guy has to live with whatever decision the women makes. So, he didn't have a choice and made a drastic choice which is illegal because of his faking a prescription and substituting another chemical for it. He also stole the prescription pad of his father who was the doctor to get it in the first place, Both of which are felonies in Florida.

But, he felt he had no choice in the matter as she was taking it full term as she said. You know how women sometimes kill their babies from post-postpartum depression? For the guy, it is a pre-baby panic attack or some other undiagnosed state of mind. It will be interesting to see what the jury says about it. It could be quite an explosive Jury room in mixed company.

Do they find him guilty of murder, or the other crimes. Some women have got off when killing their babies due to mental psychosis, can a guy have a mental psychosis and get away with...abortion?

I know I will probably be attacked for this post, so be it. I just had to throw in my 2 cents....

reply to post by quietlearner


I think you have stated it pretty accurately. You can't have it both ways.

reply to post by seabag


This doesn't make any sense. He can't be charged with murder in the eyes of Democrats if the fetus isn't considered human. And since the nation currently allows abortions under U.S. law, I don't see how it can charge the guy with murder.

Unless... is the fetus a human only when it benefits the Democrats for it to be that way?

Like the poster above said, it is fairly obvious that you can't have it both ways. One way or the other.

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.

That's true... but it can't technically be murder unless the laws weren't consistent, since the justification for abortion doesn't consider it killing a human. It could be another charge, though.

reply to post by seabag


They can charge him with murder because his girlfriend had every intention of continuing her pregnancy. He ended said pregnancy under false pretenses and against her wishes.

reply to post by butcherguy


The word "CHOICE" is the key here. She wasn't given a CHOICE.

Now if the man had been carrying the embryo/fetus, then taking that pill would have been his choice. He however was not, obviously.

Originally posted by butcherguy
If he committed murder, then women who choose to abort are committing murder.

Would it be assault if you CHOSE to have your appendix removed?
Would it be assault if someone knocked you out, and removed your appendix, without you being able to protest?

THAT is the difference here.

Legal semantics is one aspect of this, with the case worded a certain way to more likely secure a conviction, but the fact that the law recognizes the womb and foetus as being a part of the womans body is another important aspect.
There is also the aspect of PLANNED completion of the pregnancy. If she had already made the conscious decision to have the child, then that is murder.

Aside from this argument over semantics, the OP misses one important thing - not everyone can be a hypocrite within a movement simply because one case seems to reverse their opinion.

The OP is clearly biased on this issue, and I don't think anything is going to change their opinion. They have not added this thread to ATS for a real debate on this, they will not be changing their opinion on this issue, they have added it to preach their view at others.
This is a soapbox thread, and I think every logical response and point of view has been presented already. It's not going to lead anywhere other than into a ranting 40 page thread about Christian fanaticism and Women's rights - doing nothing but creating negativity and taking up space.

I hope a mod arrives shortly to close it.

I think this thread actually presents an important inconsistency with how we perceive abortion
A very smart move by the OP
It has obviously struck a tender nerve
OP's title is indeed misleading
but his/her main idea should be discussed
I don't see why mods should close this thread
it seems some people just don't want this topic to be discussed at all