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

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's sad that in 2019, people are still advocating for the death of an individual for the sole crime of existing.

The flaw in your statement is the word "individual".

Is it really an individual if it cant survive without the mother?

A two year old cannot survive on it's own either.

I'm not in favor of abortion. If a woman aborted my offspring, it would probably have a devestating effect on me emotionally, but at the same time I'm not god, and i also don't think i have the right to tell a woman she has no choice in the matter.

Isn't that like saying, "I'm against raping a child, but I'm not going to stop others from raping children."?

A two year old can't survive alone, but can survive without its mother. BIG difference than a fetus 5 weeks after conception dont you think?

As to the rape comparison, no, i don't think it's the same. I do understand why many ppl do though.

As a side note. I have never really debated this issue before (and I've been around a while), mostly because there is not really a middle ground where beliefs can be changed, or compromise can be achieved.

a reply to: Mach2

No, there is no debate.

You either think of the individual as such or you don't.

You can't compromise on what some (me, for instance) consider murder.

It's like stabbing someone with a 10" knife. A compromise would be stabbing them with a 5" knife.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You can't compromise on what some (me, for instance) consider murder.

It's like stabbing someone with a 10" knife. A compromise would be stabbing them with a 5" knife.

I disagree. Compromise is possible, even on murder.

If someone comes to my home with apparent intention to harm me or my family, they will likely wake up dead, by a direct application of deadly force from me. Technically, that is murder: the intentional taking of another life. Yet, I do not consider it wrong, nor is it illegal.

When my mother died recently, I (along with my sister) made the decision at one point to sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) directive. When she finally died, no attempt was made to save her. Technology existed which could have kept her alive (albeit likely in a vegetative state). From a technical perspective, I made a decision that knowingly and directly led to her death, which is also murder. I do not consider it such, nor do I consider it in any way morally wrong.

That's two compromises on the actions technically describable as murder. I support both compromises.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Excellent post.

I can't quibble much with your definitions. Seems like a good baseline for conversation.

Sentience is an important line for me.

The reality is, though, there is no way to determine when that occurs. An arbitrary number of weeks is not a perfect, or even good rule.

There are zero circumstances, where late term abortion is acceptable IMO.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Technically, that is murder: the intentional taking of another life.

Technically, it's justifiable homicide, not murder.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Mach2

No, there is no debate.

You either think of the individual as such or you don't.

You can't compromise on what some (me, for instance) consider murder.

It's like stabbing someone with a 10" knife. A compromise would be stabbing them with a 5" knife.

Fair enough.

This is a very emotional issue. More so if you have personally been impacted by it. I respect your opinion.

a reply to: TheRedneck

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...
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!!

The situation is this: two people, a man and a woman, mutually agreed to engage in mutually pleasurable activities which had the distinct, known possibility of creating a child and the resulting life complications that are integral with such. While it is true that the woman bears the physical effects of the pregnancy for the first nine months, it is also true that both have an emotional and biological interest in any child produced. It is also true that mortality rates are quite higher among poor, uneducated women than among more affluent women, which I see as an indictment of a poorly-controlled health care system. The attempt in the above quote does nothing to counter maternity mortality, nor to establish a basis of equality between the partners; it instead uses pure emotion to attempt to push a political narrative that flies in the face of logical, reasoned discussion.

funny, though, I have never heard of any man dying from childbirth related complication!!!
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!!
ya know, there is a state law on the books that makes most third trimester abortions illegal, danger to the mother's life is one of the few, if not the only exception.. but... in order to her to be able to obtain one, she first needs two doctors stating that her life is at risk, and then, even when it's certified that it is, the women or doctor would have to get the permission of the father of the child before she could get one. this law at the present time cannot be enforced because of a supreme court decision that says that the father's consent can't be required. but, well lawmakers in time past felt that it was wise to give men more power than they did the women over weather she should live or die!
so, weather you like it or not, weather you feel I am pulling on people's emotions or whatever..
I stand by what I say.
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???

a reply to: Halfswede

Humans have evolved to understand they can manipulate and fully (nearly) understand the natural universe around them. We are completely conscious to our surroundings and how to make it work in our favor.
Including selective breeding, which includes option of abortion. If it doesnt benefit the females survival should she be forced to carry until full term just because of a social standpoint?

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: dawnstar
with the dead fetus ( just might be the wrong term to use since the abortion was done in the sixth week of pregnancy!)

What else could it be?

You are alive until you are dead... period.

I'm certainly not pro abortion

Why not?

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's sad that in 2019, people are still advocating for the death of an individual for the sole crime of existing.

The flaw in your statement is the word "individual".

Is it really an individual if it cant survive without the mother?

I'm not in favor of abortion. If a woman aborted my offspring, it would probably have a devestating effect on me emotionally, but at the same time I'm not god, and i also don't think i have the right to tell a woman she has no choice in the matter.

I have to point out the part about surviving without the mother. Is a person still considered an individual if they require artificial respiration? I believe so.

a reply to: Mach2

Thank you.

I can't quibble much with your definitions. Seems like a good baseline for conversation.

Good! As long as we agree on terms, we should be good to go.

Sentience is an important line for me.

The reality is, though, there is no way to determine when that occurs. An arbitrary number of weeks is not a perfect, or even good rule.

That's why I included in the definition of 'sentience' the observable phenomenon of reacting to pain and threats. There is a point (I do not know the number of weeks definitions; it has been many years since my wife and I were able to have a baby) at which a child in the womb will literally try to retreat from an intrusion during an abortion. There is also a point at which it will contract as if in pain when an abortion attempt is made. These are observable phenomena and, while not an absolute indication of self-awareness, certainly indicates the possibility of such IMO.

Like you, I believe sentience is the key issue, along with viability. I'll add, in light of DBCowboy's definition above, that I do agree there is a huge difference when it comes to viability between a child which is totally dependent on an umbilical (blood-blood transfer) connection and one which can survive with only external treatment (as in a premature child or a 2-year-old). The former I do not consider viable; the latter I do.

For any policy to be equitable, however, there must be some quantifiable and exact limitations. Every child is likely different in its exact development, but we do not have the luxury of establishing a unique policy for every possible circumstance. At some point we have to rely on the intuitive instincts of the mother; she is the only one who can reasonably make that final decision.

There are zero circumstances, where late term abortion is acceptable IMO.

I also have a huge problem with late-term abortions, especially partial-birth abortions. Those, IMO, should be only available when the mother's life is in immediate danger. All medical occurrences come with some measure of risk; even breathing has risk, as one can easily breath in a virus that could lead to death. In a medical setting, these possibilities are amplified. We do not have the power to completely counter that reality, and so that final decision when things go wrong in a hospital should be the sole pervue of the doctors in charge, cognizant of any wishes made by the patient.

But that is a very rare occurrence.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Bone75

Technically, it's justifiable homicide, not murder.

Fair enough... I was conflating "murder" and "homicide." Legally, you are correct.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: dawnstar
with the dead fetus ( just might be the wrong term to use since the abortion was done in the sixth week of pregnancy!)

What else could it be?

You are alive until you are dead... period.

I'm certainly not pro abortion

Why not?

Because it is a sad thing for me.

I'm not pro war either, but i am aware of the harsh reality of the world. I'm not pro murder either, but I'm not going to lose sleep over what happens in Chicago over the weekend.

Not sure what the point of the question was.

originally posted by: willzilla

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's sad that in 2019, people are still advocating for the death of an individual for the sole crime of existing.

The flaw in your statement is the word "individual".

Is it really an individual if it cant survive without the mother?

I'm not in favor of abortion. If a woman aborted my offspring, it would probably have a devestating effect on me emotionally, but at the same time I'm not god, and i also don't think i have the right to tell a woman she has no choice in the matter.

I have to point out the part about surviving without the mother. Is a person still considered an individual if they require artificial respiration? I believe so.

You will have to be more specific with the question.

DNRs are signed everyday.
There are ppl in vegetative states.
Ppl are taken off life support, etc.

Circumstances matter to me.

a reply to: Malak777
so, of course, the answer to this problem is bring back the old testament ways, force those women to marry and have lots of kids, force those men to marry, if they can't find a suitable mate, find one for them!!
we need to have the biggest tribe!!!

england's royalty can afford to have as many kids as they desire!! heck, they can pop them out year after year for all I care..
my kids weren't lucky enough to be born in an affluent family and I am so sorry that I taught them to be honest and hard working men... should have brought them up to be greedy white collar traitorous criminals who were willing to wheel and deal with the ruthless dictators of the world against their own native countries own interests! but, alas, my kids are just your average working class drones who, contrary to what the danged president and his buddies proclaimed, are ending up having to pay even more in taxes so those rich white collar criminals can continue committing tax fraud and take advantage of their oh so many tax breaks!
but here is the facts as far as who you are talking to...
first... I have born and raised THREE SONS!!!
second... I am 60++ years old, unable to bear children at this point and quite frankly expect to be dead before you vision of horror becomes reality, if it even does.
third, I often find myself diverting my resources to my grown sons to help them out as it is.. I can't afford to help out their kids also!!!
four... and final... my kids are adults and I may give them advice but they are adults and very capable of making their own decisions in life!!
so get a danged gripe!!! you want the women to have more kids, here's an idea, make it more advantageous for them to have kids.

originally posted by: Halfswede
Totally anti-abortion here and I get the issue of the father. I am not sure this lawsuit is the right approach. However, as long as you are willing to say that the father should have zero parental legal say in whether his child should live, you must agree as a pro-"choice", the choice part should apply to all parties.

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 mean, he just might not be ready to provide a proper life for that child and the choice to kill and avoid responsibility should at least be offered in a monetary sense to the father, right?

Ummm...seeing as the pro abortion crowd haven’t seen fit to discuss your post...I thought I would submit it for the record once again...





YouSir

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

Until it can exist out side of the carrier/mother/host it is totally dependant

and unviable as a living being.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't discount immenent danger to the mother, but as you say, those instances are rare today, with the current state of medical care in first world countries.

The point you bring up about the recoiling of a fetus, and the ability to feel pain is where many ppl i know differentiate between a medical procedure, and murder.

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.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Allow me to clarify.

You cannot compromise on the act.

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