NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that those people who are in favour of abortion are normally against the death penalty, and those who are opposed to abortion are normally for the death penalty?

I find it depends on the person you're talking too. I know a pro-lifer who is against any form of 'murder' that isn't a natural death.

Here we go again!

Quick answer:

Group A beliefs that an unborn child, up to a certain point in it's development, is not yet a person, while a 40-year old who commits a crime still is.
Group B believes that an unborn child, regardless of it's age, is by definition innocent, while a 40-year old criminal is not.

Here we go again!

Quick answer:

Group A beliefs that an unborn child, up to a certain point in it's development, is not yet a person, while a 40-year old who commits a crime still is.
Group B believes that an unborn child, regardless of it's age, is by definition innocent, while a 40-year old criminal is not.


"Here we go again!"

Ah, so you must be very versed in your answer!

Why is it that those people who are in favour of abortion are normally against the death penalty, and those who are opposed to abortion are normally for the death penalty?
Normally runs along party lines. Also, many Pro-deathers would rather killl a baby than kill a convicted felon.

Here we go again!

Quick answer:

Group A beliefs that an unborn child, up to a certain point in it's development, is not yet a person, while a 40-year old who commits a crime still is.
Group B believes that an unborn child, regardless of it's age, is by definition innocent, while a 40-year old criminal is not.
Not every 40 year old criminal should be executed. Only those that commit the worst types of crimes.

Not every 40 year old criminal should be executed. Only those that commit the worst types of crimes.
The death penalty would work better as a deterrent if the less severe crimes were capitol crimes such as grand theft, pedophilia, and rape.

Why is it that those people who are in favour of abortion are normally against the death penalty, and those who are opposed to abortion are normally for the death penalty?

I started a thread about this on the Old Forums - I agree, it's kinda contradictory. I am against the Death Penalty, and even though I dont agree w/abortion myself, in order to strike a compromise between conservatives and liberals, I have come to the conclusion that (unless the child has some disease which threatens the mother herself) abortion should not happen anytime in the 3rd trimester. I mean, they've already had half a year to do something, however IMO now the fetus is too big to just be aborted

"Here we go again!"

Ah, so you must be very versed in your answer!

No, but I must be very versed in my knowledge of the fact that this exact same thread has already popped up numerous times before.

Not every 40 year old criminal should be executed. Only those that commit the worst types of crimes.

Oh I'm sorry, I should have realised some people would take everything in my post literally.

Well anti abortionists believe that a baby deserves a life, while someone convicted of murdering several people does not, for he had the chance at life and stuck his finger up at it.

I'm in favour of capital punishment (hanging) for pre-meditated murder where it is prooved beyond all doubt, violent rape (not date rape) and probably others I just can't think of them.

I'm also in favour of abortion but I think it shouldn't be used after about 12 weeks. There is a large demand for babies to be adopted, so unless it has got any serious disabilities, puts its mothers life at risk or is a rape-pregnancy then no abortions after 12 weeks.

----"Normally runs along party lines. Also, many Pro-deathers would rather killl a baby than kill a convicted felon"

I completely agree, its mostly got to do with politics more than anything else.
When I look at every issue (since everything is politicized now days) I think alot of the oppisite points of views are only thier out of retribution from losing a certain other political gammut at some time. We are a vindictive type of people it seems, that just wants to cause the most misery as possible for the oppisite end of the political spectrum, truly sad and its not slowing down anytime soon. That is why you see so many republicans and democrats that will automatically find out what the oppisite side is in cahoots with and just take the oppisite without finding out anything about the actual issue. Which is ideally what both political party's would like to see, a bunch of auto-pilot voters for thier side.

I'm in favour of capital punishment (hanging) for pre-meditated murder where it is prooved beyond all doubt, violent rape (not date rape) and probably others I just can't think of them.

I have to ask....how is date rape not violent? Rape is rape. People who rape someone they don't know will often say they thought the victim was making eyes at them or flirting with them. What do you see as being the difference here?



On the issue at hand, I think that abortion and capital punishment are both necessary evils that should only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Abortion should only be used in rape cases, very young mothers, and pregnancies that will cause medical problems. Capital punishment should only be used in extreme crimes like 1st degree murder and only in cases where the evidence is very conclusive. For instance, DNA evidence, but not circumstantial evidence should be able to get someone the death penalty.

Group A believes that a woman has the right to determine what to do with her own damn body, and a criminal who has broken the law does not deserve death but aid to try to fix what was wrong with them (ironically virtually all violent criminals actually have either a mental or even genetic (XYY chromosome) disorder.

Group B believes that the government has the right to tell people what to do with their bodies, and it has the right to kill people, too.

Amazing how those Republicans want the take away the government's power, isn't it?

Well anti abortionists believe that a baby deserves a life, while someone convicted of murdering several people does not, for he had the chance at life and stuck his finger up at it.

And also that abortion is mudering a baby which has done no wrong whilst that serial murderer has commited the most grave of crimes and should face the most serious of punishments - which is the death penalty.

I like both.

Normally runs along party lines. Also, many Pro-deathers would rather killl a baby than kill a convicted felon.
...uh..er, no, I'm not going to comment.

"Group A believes that a woman has the right to determine what to do with her own damn body, and a criminal who has broken the law does not deserve death but aid to try to fix what was wrong with them (ironically virtually all violent criminals actually have either a mental or even genetic (XYY chromosome) disorder. Group B believes that the government has the right to tell people what to do with their bodies, and it has the right to kill people, too. Amazing how those Republicans want the take away the government's power, isn't it?"

I think you are close to accurate with democrats , but an obvious bias shows that you have against republicans. I personally think they do no doubt want to control other peoples bodies, which I disagree with them on playing God with other peoples free will in any form. The murderer that chooses to steal the free will of another human in the eyes of them is no more than an eye for an eye, you reap what you sow. You steal a life, someone will steal yours in return.

I only agree with capital punishment (as someone else stated) is if there is without a doubt with dna or confessions and witnesses, or if it was done during the act of the crime that you are witnessing, say you see someone shoot your old elderly neighbor, then have at it with that persons life at the most painfull and merciless way known to man.

When half of america believes one way and the other another then it obviously is a freedom, maybe not a freedom I like but it is a freedom, since both sides always try to paint the others side's freedoms as not so. Just like the bush admin trying to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage was shown as a idiocy by the states because they know that the states can decide on this matter for themselves, as I wish the abortion deal and any other split freedoms we have out there, including how capital punishment is handled. If both sides would just push for states rights, instead of just Constitutional minded canidates then we would have a truly diverse nation of 50 flavors. Now I'll take a scoop of all 50 over any one person's minded beliefs.

I have to ask....how is date rape not violent? Rape is rape. People who rape someone they don't know will often say they thought the victim was making eyes at them or flirting with them. What do you see as being the difference here?

I am right when thinking 'date-rape' is having sex with a woman who 'consents' while under the influence of drink or drugs, hence is not in a state of mind to consent, therefore it is rape? Does it have to be the 'rapist' that gives drugs/plies with drink, or is having sex with any 'consenting' drunk/drugged woman technically date-rape?

It is VERY different for a woman walking down a dark alleyway to be grabbed and raped, and by very different I mean worse.

I think it is a womans right to choose if she wants to have an abortion and I support killing all our murders and rapists(and child molesters).

I am right when thinking 'date-rape' is having sex with a woman who 'consents' while under the influence of drink or drugs, hence is not in a state of mind to consent, therefore it is rape? Does it have to be the 'rapist' that gives drugs/plies with drink, or is having sex with any 'consenting' drunk/drugged woman technically date-rape?

It is VERY different for a woman walking down a dark alleyway to be grabbed and raped, and by very different I mean worse.
You're about to get majorly flamed.

Why is it that those people who are in favour of abortion are normally against the death penalty, and those who are opposed to abortion are normally for the death penalty?

Because only some people have morals.

Because only some people have morals.
Wrong. All people have morals, even if they're really low. Only some people, however, have morals that you agree with.

I am right when thinking 'date-rape' is having sex with a woman who 'consents' while under the influence of drink or drugs, hence is not in a state of mind to consent, therefore it is rape? Does it have to be the 'rapist' that gives drugs/plies with drink, or is having sex with any 'consenting' drunk/drugged woman technically date-rape?

It is VERY different for a woman walking down a dark alleyway to be grabbed and raped, and by very different I mean worse.

No, date rape is when someone is out on a date, they do not consent, and are raped anyways. The rapist usually claims that he was "expecting" sex and since it was a date and paid for dinner or something, he should get it.

The instance you are describing generally falls under sexual assault laws, unless the rapist purposely drugs the victim - in which case it is still rape. In some states it may be considered "date rape," but the majority of date rape cases do not involve consent.

I like both.

What a stupid comment....how can you 'like' the murder of babies?

No, date rape is when someone is out on a date, they do not consent, and are raped anyways. The rapist usually claims that he was "expecting" sex and since it was a date and paid for dinner or something, he should get it.

The instance you are describing generally falls under sexual assault laws, unless the rapist purposely drugs the victim - in which case it is still rape. In some states it may be considered "date rape," but the majority of date rape cases do not involve consent.

No. Date rape is when the "victim" is under the influence of some kind of substance and is supposedly not able to consent.

What a stupid comment....how can you 'like' the murder of babies?
How can you 'like' the murder of adults?

I am right when thinking 'date-rape' is having sex with a woman who 'consents' while under the influence of drink or drugs, hence is not in a state of mind to consent, therefore it is rape? Does it have to be the 'rapist' that gives drugs/plies with drink, or is having sex with any 'consenting' drunk/drugged woman technically date-rape?

It is VERY different for a woman walking down a dark alleyway to be grabbed and raped, and by very different I mean worse.
date rape refers to when the victim is raped by somebody they voluntarily went on a date with. this can be their boyfriend or it can be a first-date or somebody they meet at a party. the victim agreed to the "date," in whatever form, but this does not mean s/he necessarily agreed to have sex, so when the date decides to force intercourse against the victim's will it is rape.

drugs do NOT necessarily have to be involved, though they often are. whether or not the victim consumed drugs or alcohol by choice does not have any bearing on the outcome (that being under the influence renders one unable to give consent). to have sex with somebody without their consent is rape, it's just that simple; whether or not you think they originally "came on" to you doesn't excuse it at all.

Wrong. All people have morals, even if they're really low. Only some people, however, have morals that you agree with.

Okay then - only some people have good morals.

What a stupid comment....how can you 'like' the murder of babies?
what do babies have to do with any of this? nobody is talking about murdering babies, they are talking about abortion and capital punishment.

I think you are close to accurate with democrats , but an obvious bias shows that you have against republicans. I personally think they do no doubt want to control other peoples bodies, which I disagree with them on playing God with other peoples free will in any form. The murderer that chooses to steal the free will of another human in the eyes of them is no more than an eye for an eye, you reap what you sow. You steal a life, someone will steal yours in return.

I only agree with capital punishment (as someone else stated) is if there is without a doubt with dna or confessions and witnesses, or if it was done during the act of the crime that you are witnessing, say you see someone shoot your old elderly neighbor, then have at it with that persons life at the most painfull and merciless way known to man.

When half of america believes one way and the other another then it obviously is a freedom, maybe not a freedom I like but it is a freedom, since both sides always try to paint the others side's freedoms as not so. Just like the bush admin trying to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage was shown as a idiocy by the states because they know that the states can decide on this matter for themselves, as I wish the abortion deal and any other split freedoms we have out there, including how capital punishment is handled. If both sides would just push for states rights, instead of just Constitutional minded canidates then we would have a truly diverse nation of 50 flavors. Now I'll take a scoop of all 50 over any one person's minded beliefs.

I personally agree that capital punishment should be used. I just liked the phrasing of the second "group." However I do not believe that capital punishment should be based on the "eye for an eye" approach; people who are executed should die because they are a threat to society, for whatever they have done. Not because they killed, raped, robbed, whatever, but because they represent a menace to everyone, through their crimes. At the same time, I believe that the government has no right whatsoever to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her collection of nondifferentiated cells. I also believe that once you draw the line that those undifferentiated cells are not a person, the right to choose what to do with them while they are in the mother's body, no matter how advanced they become, remains hers. I don't think the rights of control should "pass" from the mother to the fetus at XXX given point determined by science.

And in case you did not know, the decision on whether to use the death penalty is determined on a state-by-state basis. That is why in some federal crimes states lobby to have the case heard in their state in order to have the death penalty assigned/made impossible to assign.

I am right when thinking 'date-rape' is having sex with a woman who 'consents' while under the influence of drink or drugs, hence is not in a state of mind to consent, therefore it is rape? Does it have to be the 'rapist' that gives drugs/plies with drink, or is having sex with any 'consenting' drunk/drugged woman technically date-rape?

It is VERY different for a woman walking down a dark alleyway to be grabbed and raped, and by very different I mean worse.

Am I the only one who thinks this is sort of sick? Do you have no idea of the psychological consequences of rape, regardless if it was a "nice and friendly, drugged" rape versus a "violent beating" rape? Date rape is not even a specific crime; just rape under a certain set of circumstances. Attempting to draw degrees between them I do not think serves any point.

Okay then - only some people have good morals.

As defined by you :rolleyes:

Okay then - only some people have good morals.
Good based on your definition of good, which is most definitely not the only and not necessarily the best definition.

what do babies have to do with any of this? nobody is talking about murdering babies, they are talking about abortion and capital punishment.

Well, to me (as you damn well know) abortion is the murder of a baby/babies.

drugs do NOT necessarily have to be involved, though they often are. whether or not the victim consumed drugs or alcohol by choice does not have any bearing on the outcome (that being under the influence renders one unable to give consent). to have sex with somebody without their consent is rape, it's just that simple; whether or not you think they originally "came on" to you doesn't excuse it at all.

And what if you're unaware that they are under the influence of intoxicating substances?

Am I the only one who thinks this is sort of sick? Do you have no idea of the psychological consequences of rape, regardless if it was a "nice and friendly, drugged" rape versus a "violent beating" rape? Date rape is not even a specific crime; just rape under a certain set of circumstances. Attempting to draw degrees between them I do not think serves any point.
Getting shot would suck, eh?
But getting drunk and accidentily shooting yourself (I live in Arkansas and it has happened) (not to me, it was in the paper) would suck too, eh?

What a stupid comment....how can you 'like' the murder of babies?

Its not murder, they are not actually alive so therefore they do not deserve the rights of a live person.

And what if you're unaware that they are under the influence of intoxicating substances?
in the eyes of the law that doesn't matter at all. if they were unable to consent and you had sex then you committed rape.

keep in mind, however, that it's pretty hard to miss when another person is intoxicated...if you can't pick up on the difference between a sober person and an intoxicated person then you probably shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

drugs do NOT necessarily have to be involved, though they often are. whether or not the victim consumed drugs or alcohol by choice does not have any bearing on the outcome (that being under the influence renders one unable to give consent). to have sex with somebody without their consent is rape, it's just that simple; whether or not you think they originally "came on" to you doesn't excuse it at all.

This definition runs into a bit of a grey area though, which is why I usually don't bring it up. The vast majority of (reported) date rapes are clear-cut, as in the victim definitely did not consent or the victim was very drunk/drugged to the point of not being able to give consent while the rapist was sober. If the rapist is sober and able to make clear decisions, while the victim is clearly not, then a rape has been committed.

However, what if both are drunk/drugged? At this point, neither can legally give consent, although both might decide to have sex. When they wake up in the morning, who was raped? The person who decides they regret it? Both of them? Shall we prosecute both people for raping the other?

Its not murder, they are not actually alive so therefore they do not deserve the rights of a live person.

Well, this is where we differ.

You guys do know that you don't actually have to be on a date to commit date rape, right?

Well, to me (as you damn well know) abortion is the murder of a baby/babies.

Since you consider a fetus to be a full child, would you prosecute a mother who had a miscarriage for neglect?

You guys do know that you don't actually have to be on a date to commit date rape, right?
the "date" term is used in a general sense, as i covered before; it can mean an actual date, but can also refer to when the victim has a friend over and the friend decides to make things physical against the victim's will. it can refer to meeting somebody at a party, going upstairs with them, and then wanting to stop but not being allowed to. it can refer to a familiar person like a friend, former lover, or current partner forcing intercourse.

"date" is a loose term in this case, and i think that's part of the problem.

This definition runs into a bit of a grey area though, which is why I usually don't bring it up. The vast majority of (reported) date rapes are clear-cut, as in the victim definitely did not consent or the victim was very drunk/drugged to the point of not being able to give consent while the rapist was sober. If the rapist is sober and able to make clear decisions, while the victim is clearly not, then a rape has been committed.
Where is your definition for whether the victim is clearly or not clearly drunk? Also, the actually date rape drug (if I'm not confused) just makes you more open and social which means you're more willing to (at the time) have sex, even if you wouldn't have had you not taken the drug. The problem with this is, it is rape for the person who had sex with the drugged person regardless of any circumstances. The only thing that has to be proved is that the two had sex and the victim had some sort of drug in their system. It doesn't matter if the two people didn't know each other and the victim was drunk when the "rapist" got there (so the rapist wouldn't really know for sure if the victim was drunk or not). It doesn't even matter really if the victim gave themself the date rape drug. Just so long (according to law) as the two had sex and the victim was influenced, it is rape--essentially no questions asked. This, (I wish we could all agree, but common sense does not enshroud us all) is pure BS.

No, but I must be very versed in my knowledge of the fact that this exact same thread has already popped up numerous times before.


You must be an old hand then, for me it's a first. It still seems to be causing people to express their views considering it's 'popped-up numerous times before'. This sort of thing happens regularly in the British Parliament, that is discussing things which have 'popped-up numerous times before'.

Since you consider a fetus to be a full child, would you prosecute a mother who had a miscarriage for neglect?
a fetus is a child in the same way that a child is an adult; if we give a fetus the status of a child because it may become one then we should let children vote, drink, drive, and consent to sex. if we refer to a fetus as an "unborn baby" then we should also refer to all living humans as "undead corpses" and grant them legal rights accordingly.

the "date" term is used in a general sense, as i covered before; it can mean an actual date, but can also refer to when the victim has a friend over and the friend decides to make things physical against the victim's will. it can refer to meeting somebody at a party, going upstairs with them, and then wanting to stop but not being allowed to. it can refer to a familiar person like a friend, former lover, or current partner forcing intercourse.

"date" is a loose term in this case, and i think that's part of the problem.
No. When it's date rape, the victim doesn't want to stop or ask to stop. That's flat out rape. If it is date rape, the victim (for some reason) is not in the right mind to know for his or herself whether or not he/she wants to have sex with the other person, like if they're drugged or drunk.

Since you consider a fetus to be a full child, would you prosecute a mother who had a miscarriage for neglect?

No. Of course not. Miscarriage is a natural thing and she hasn't deliberately set out to kill the baby.

I am against the Death Penalty, and even though I dont agree w/abortion myself, in order to strike a compromise between conservatives and liberals, I have come to the conclusion that (unless the child has some disease which threatens the mother herself) abortion should not happen anytime in the 3rd trimester. I mean, they've already had half a year to do something, however IMO now the fetus is too big to just be abortedI have to agree with Superpower here. I think an unborn foetus is still a life that people are destroying with an abortion, although if it has a disease that threatens the mother too then it doesn't seem right to let the foetus continue to grow killing the mother in the process

Where is your definition for whether the victim is clearly or not clearly drunk? Also, the actually date rape drug (if I'm not confused) just makes you more open and social which means you're more willing to (at the time) have sex, even if you wouldn't have had you not taken the drug. The problem with this is, it is rape for the person who had sex with the drugged person regardless of any circumstances. The only thing that has to be proved is that the two had sex and the victim had some sort of drug in their system. It doesn't matter if the two people didn't know each other and the victim was drunk when the "rapist" got there (so the rapist wouldn't really know for sure if the victim was drunk or not). It doesn't even matter really if the victim gave themself the date rape drug. Just so long (according to law) as the two had sex and the victim was influenced, it is rape--essentially no questions asked. This, (I wish we could all agree, but common sense does not enshroud us all) is pure BS.

Actually, date rape drugs usually make you so inebriated that you don't remember what happened the next morning. Now, I don't know how many drunk people you've seen, but they are quite easy to distinguish from sober people. As I said, if a sober person has sex with someone who is obviously not sober (especially if this someone doesn't know the sober person), I can see that being classified as rape. If a person willfully gives a victim rufies or alcohol with the intention of getting them in bed, that is rape.

However, (as I also said), I think it is BS to prosecute anyone in the case that both people are under the influence of alcohol/drugs and neither protested during the act. At that point, it is technically a case of both of them raping the other according to the law you referred to.

No. Of course not. Miscarriage is a natural thing and she hasn't deliberately set out to kill the baby.
Then it is manslaughter? That isn't intentional either.

No. Of course not. Miscarriage is a natural thing and she hasn't deliberately set out to kill the baby.

But if a mother leaves her (born) child in a hot car and runs inside to the store, and the child dies of heat stroke, we call that neglect and prosecute her. She didn't deliberately set out to kill the baby, but she did. Do you think we should not prosecute her either? Or are you already making a clear distinction between the rights of a fetus and the rights of a baby?

No. When it's date rape, the victim doesn't want to stop or ask to stop. That's flat out rape. If it is date rape, the victim (for some reason) is not in the right mind to know for his or herself whether or not he/she wants to have sex with the other person, like if they're drugged or drunk.

Date rape refers to any rape perpetrated by someone the victim knows. The point at which drugged or drunk comes into it is a sub-set of date rape, but is not all-encompassing. The majority of prosecuted date rapes are those in which the victim clearly wanted to stop. People then love to say that they "deserved it" since they were out on a date and "led the rapist on."

No. When it's date rape, the victim doesn't want to stop or ask to stop. That's flat out rape. If it is date rape, the victim (for some reason) is not in the right mind to know for his or herself whether or not he/she wants to have sex with the other person, like if they're drugged or drunk.
i'm sorry, but you are incorrect. i have personal experience with this area of the law, since i spent some time interning at the county attourney's office and helped to process cases of both rape and date rape. your definition is not the one used by courts of law.

I am for abortion, It's pretty easy for people to get drunk and have it off, what do you expect will happen if the father and mother are 16 or something, they won't be prepared for parenting and the baby will have a pretty bad start to a unknown life. Also, I am against the death penalty, as violence begets more violence (look at Iraq, no offence, but the US and the Brits screwed up there) and I agree that Rape should be met with a severe punishment, I find it has many complications.

What would the mother do, should she actually want to keep the baby, despite how it came about, what will she tell it when it grows up, "Oh, your father raped me and then got sent to the electric chair, great, isnt it?"

Violence doesn't solve anything.

My 2p (I'm English, no 2 cents for me :P)

----"I personally agree that capital punishment should be used. I just liked the phrasing of the second "group." However I do not believe that capital punishment should be based on the "eye for an eye" approach; people who are executed should die because they are a threat to society, for whatever they have done. Not because they killed, raped, robbed, whatever, but because they represent a menace to everyone, through their crimes. At the same time, I believe that the government has no right whatsoever to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her collection of nondifferentiated cells. I also believe that once you draw the line that those undifferentiated cells are not a person, the right to choose what to do with them while they are in the mother's body, no matter how advanced they become, remains hers. I don't think the rights of control should "pass" from the mother to the fetus at XXX given point determined by science. And in case you did not know, the decision on whether to use the death penalty is determined on a state-by-state basis. That is why in some federal crimes states lobby to have the case heard in their state in order to have the death penalty assigned/made impossible to assign. "

I think were on the same wave on capital punishment, I was just saying an eye for an eye when the person that took the first eye are obviously a threat to society by raping, murdering,molestating someone else. Under our current system of laws I don't know anyone that defiently murdered, raped or molested someone that doesn't deserve what they got do you? The only thing I have to disagree with you on is that you state that they have to be a menace to everyone, I see it as just being a menace to anyone (under legallity). But I also agree that a large determining factor has to be if they are a threat to society or 'anyone' in it if they are to be spared the death penalty. I also agree that the federal crimes that are being tried for death penalty cases need to not allow the prejudice of the states opinion in these serious matters since it was not a state statute they are being tried on but a federal one.

a fetus is a child in the same way that a child is an adult; if we give a fetus the status of a child because it may become one then we should let children vote, drink, drive, and consent to sex. if we refer to a fetus as an "unborn baby" then we should also refer to all living humans as "undead corpses" and grant them legal rights accordingly.

That was pretty much the point I was trying to get at. If you give an unborn fetus all the rights of a born child, you run into all sorts of problems.

That was pretty much the point I was trying to get at. If you give an unborn fetus all the rights of a born child, you run into all sorts of problems.
quite. potentiality does not equal actuality. if we rule that it does, then i insist my Ph.D be awarded to me this minute, so i don't have to go through 6 years of study just to confirm what potentially will happen.

Normally runs along party lines. Also, many Pro-deathers would rather killl a baby than kill a convicted felon.

And many Pro-deathers would rather kill a convicted felon than a feotus.

. . .

(ironically virtually all violent criminals actually have either a mental or even genetic (XYY chromosome) disorder.

. . .



Cite justification for this statement, please?

(XXY) chromosomes (that's just one extra X chromosome, btw) isn't a 'disorder'. It's a women that happens to have an extra chromosome. Now, having extra chromosomes is a disorder, but not in the case of the sex chromosomes (X and Y). A disorder caused by extra chromosomes would be something like Down Syndrome (trisomy 21, or an extra chromosome 21).

I also find it amusing that you seem to imply that most criminals are women (as people with an extra X chromosome are considered by law - although technically they could easily be considered a gender seperate from male or female, just like people with an extra Y chromosome).

Here's something else interesting: everyone starts out female. The instructions on the Y (male) chromosome don't kick in until after the foetus becomes recognisable - that's why men have nipples even though they don't have breasts (and don't lactate). It's not totally relevent, but it's pretty amusing if you ask me (no wonder some guys are so insecure about their sexualities :D).

I'm pro abortion an anti death sentence. I find that most prolifers are actually totally unaware of the science involved in human procreation, and that's why they think human foetus's deserve all the rights of an adult (even though BORN CHILDREN don't, until they reach a certain age). I see prolifers using blatant proaganda (photos of late term foetus's being toted as early term ones, and photos being blown up to a huge size to hide the fact they are actually absolutely tiny, for example). I don't believe foetus's deserve rights over the mother because of a few reasons.
A major one is that the foetus actually has to TRICK the mothers body into not automatically aborting it. The mother sees the foetus as a parasite, and so the foetus evades the mother's immune system using hormones. If the mother then chooses *not* to keep the foetus and abort, all she is doing is completing what her body attempts.

I'm anti death penalty for the simple reason that it kills innocent people as well as guilty ones. If there was a way for it to be 100%, never any chance of any sort of a mistake, I would be pro death penalty for people who commit crimes that harm society.

Most crimes harm society.

Well, I consider most crimes to be harming individuals first, and only on a large scale affecting society. Things like rape and murder affect society even in small amounts by causing fear and unease. I guess I wasn't very clear there, sorry :p.

(XXY) chromosomes (that's just one extra X chromosome, btw) isn't a 'disorder'. It's a women that happens to have an extra chromosome. Now, having extra chromosomes is a disorder, but not in the case of the sex chromosomes (X and Y). A disorder caused by extra chromosomes would be something like Down Syndrome (trisomy 21, or an extra chromosome 21).

Actually, anyone with a Y chromosome is seen as being male. However, from my understanding of XXY people, sex traits of both genders show up. This is still an extra chromosome, and is thus a disorder.

I also find it amusing that you seem to imply that most criminals are women (as people with an extra X chromosome are considered by law - although technically they could easily be considered a gender seperate from male or female, just like people with an extra Y chromosome).

You didn't actually read what was written. The post you replied to was speaking of people with XYY chromosomes. These men are often more aggressive and violent than their XY counterparts. And there was a study some 10 years ago that showed that a large percentage of men in prison actually were XYY.

I also find it amusing that you seem to imply that most criminals are women (as people with an extra X chromosome are considered by law - although technically they could easily be considered a gender seperate from male or female, just like people with an extra Y chromosome).

The extra X Chromosome doesn't make you legally female. Generally you are legally whatever the doctor says you are when you're born, since that's what gets put on the birth certificate.

They put every one in one of the two buckets when they're born, and sometimes they're wrong.

Legally I couldn't marry a man if I wanted to in most states right now. My birth certificate says "son", but I'm genetically XX.

The extra X Chromosome doesn't make you legally female. Generally you are legally whatever the doctor says you are when you're born, since that's what gets put on the birth certificate.

They put every one in one of the two buckets when they're born, and sometimes they're wrong.

Legally I couldn't marry a man if I wanted to in most states right now. My birth certificate says "son", but I'm genetically XX.

Feel free to tell me to shove off, but I'm curious. Was it an enlarged clitoris? Or some other issue that led the doctor to label you as male? I thought they did DNA tests now if there was a question as to gender?

Then it is manslaughter? That isn't intentional either.

No, it is natural. Manslaughter is acidentally killing someone, whereas miscarriage is an act of nature.

But if a mother leaves her (born) child in a hot car and runs inside to the store, and the child dies of heat stroke, we call that neglect and prosecute her. She didn't deliberately set out to kill the baby, but she did. Do you think we should not prosecute her either? Or are you already making a clear distinction between the rights of a fetus and the rights of a baby?

I don't see how you can compare a miscarriage to deliberately leaving a baby in a hot car.

Your example was, to me, clearly an act of neglect for which she should be punished. Miscarriage is not an act of neglect but rather an act of nature.

Personally I am against abortion and against the death penalty on principle.

First off I'm very religious so those that will hold that against me stop reading.

To me abortion is a form of murder. Mostly because even if you don't consider the fetus a human being, what's it going to become? A dog? A chair? No it's going to become a human being and stopping the natural progression of things is wrong. The only time abortion would even be conceivable is to save a woman's life, and even then the abortion shouldn't be the purpose of the treatment, but a consequence of it. However I don't think that it's the governments job to tell someone what they can and can't do. They should set up a guideline, though and make sure all information is presented. (Like provide information from a pro-life source and a pro-choice source when a woman goes to get an abortion.) Since people's morals vary I won't tell them what to do, what one does to themselves or others will be judged in time.

To me the death penalty is also a form of murder and should never be used, except in extreme circumstances, like repeat child molesters, rapists and serial murderers, and even then only if the crimes were especially vicious and malicious.

As to the rights of a fetus, they should have a right to life since they are living organisms. They have brain waves, heartbeat, and advanced cell structure. As stated earlier even the mother's body considers them a foreign organism. In effect they are a separate parasitic entity. [I know some will say that they don't start with these things and that saying their a parasite is like saying tapeworms have rights, but then again I believe that human beings gain souls at the moment of conception and are therefore human at that time.] I have tried my best to give my reasons without throwing religion in the mix, since many people (including myself) hate people falling back on the religion issue to denounce abortion.

To me abortion is a form of murder. Mostly because even if you don't consider the fetus a human being, what's it going to become? A dog? A chair? No it's going to become a human being and stopping the natural progression of things is wrong.
right, so all living humans should be legally and morally identified as dead, because that is what we are going to become. we are all corpses, and should be treated as such, since that is where the natural progression of our lives will take us. also, we should never do anything to interfere with death or dying (like medicine or surgeries, for example) because it is wrong to interfere with the natural course of our biology.

right, so all living humans should be legally and morally identified as dead, because that is what we are going to become.


I don't plan on dying, my soul will live forever. ;)

However that's a religious belief and should be kept out of this discussion. My reply though is that since a fetus isn't a human and your a human does that mean you were never a fetus?


we should never do anything to interfere with death or dying (like medicine or surgeries, for example) because it is wrong to interfere with the natural course of our biology.


In the natural order I meant to end something before it's supposed to happen. If your supposed to take medicine than by all means take it. (Just to answer the next question, I never believe anyone is meant to be murdered.)

However that's a religious belief and should be kept out of this discussion. My reply though is that since a fetus isn't a human and your a human does that mean you were never a fetus?

no. what are you talking about? potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. at one point i was a single-celled paracite in my mother's body; that is no longer the case. at one point in the future i will be dead, but that doesn't mean that when i die i will never have been alive. i was once a fetus, i am now a human being. why does that confuse you?


In the natural order I meant to end something before it's supposed to happen. If your supposed to take medicine than by all means take it. (Just to answer the next question, I never believe anyone is meant to be murdered.)
so if you are supposed to have a kidney transplant to save your life then by all means have it. if you are supposed to have a kidney removed to save another's life then by all means have it. likewise, if you are supposed to have an abortion then by all means have it. if you support medical intervention in preventing the natural act of dying then you obviously don't support simply letting nature take its course, so why try to use that as a platform to deny abortion?

I don't see how you can compare a miscarriage to deliberately leaving a baby in a hot car.

Because, if the fetus has the full rights of a born child, this is what you end up with. If I am pregnant (whether I know it or not) and I go lift a heavy piece of equipment, ride a horse, go for a run, etc. - these things can cause a miscarriage. If that happens, then I, as a mother, have not done everything in my power to keep my "child" alive. This is clearly neglect. If this is not an act of neglect (much like leaving a kid in a car - you're not trying to kill the kid), then the fetus is obviously not a full life - and it is you who have made that distinction.

Your example was, to me, clearly an act of neglect for which she should be punished. Miscarriage is not an act of neglect but rather an act of nature.

Exactly my point - you have already made a clear distinction between a mother's responsibility to a fetus and a mother's responsibility to a born child. Now that you have admitted a distinction, tell me why your particular religion beliefs decide exactly where to draw the line on that disctinction.

Normally runs along party lines. Also, many Pro-deathers would rather killl a baby than kill a convicted felon.
i'd kill some one convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt myself

Well anti abortionists believe that a baby deserves a life, while someone convicted of murdering several people does not, for he had the chance at life and stuck his finger up at it.
While in theory this sounds great, the truth is that our system is flawed, and we regularly send innocent men to be killed. Now even if God didn't mean criminals when he said thou shalt not kill, I am pretty sure he would be ticked off about killing innocent people.

The abortion thing is another topic, and yes, I believe government should stay out of it. I just don't have the energy to go into the argument yet again!

Well... I'm also pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Before a certain stage in a pregnancy, I don't see how you could possibly describe the foetus as being 'human'. If you've ever studied (even minimally) biology, you'll know that in the early stages of pregnancy, the human foetus is much the same as the the developing embyro of.. say... a dog. Or a pig. Or a fish. Or a lizard. They are quite indistinguishable from each other. As Bottle said, potentiality and actuality are NOT the same thing. Whether or not it will eventually, given the right circumstances, become human does not mean it is human.

I've seen planks of wood that have eventually been shaped and combined with other planks to form houses. Does that mean all planks are houses? No. Of course not.

As for why I'm anti-death penalty... well, basically, it's not a punishment. Not really. I believe people should be punished for their crimes, not given an easy way out like death. Isn't having to spend the rest of their lives rotting away in prison more of a punishment then letting them simply slip into oblivion?

Well... I'm also pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Before a certain stage in a pregnancy, I don't see how you could possibly describe the foetus as being 'human'. If you've ever studied (even minimally) biology, you'll know that in the early stages of pregnancy, the human foetus is much the same as the the developing embyro of.. say... a dog. Or a pig. Or a fish. Or a lizard. They are quite indistinguishable from each other. As Bottle said, potentiality and actuality are NOT the same thing. Whether or not it will eventually, given the right circumstances, become human does not mean it is human.

I've seen planks of wood that have eventually been shaped and combined with other planks to form houses. Does that mean all planks are houses? No. Of course not.

As for why I'm anti-death penalty... well, basically, it's not a punishment. Not really. I believe people should be punished for their crimes, not given an easy way out like death. Isn't having to spend the rest of their lives rotting away in prison more of a punishment then letting them simply slip into oblivion?

yeah prison is horrible, what with the television and guaranteed food and shelter and break time.

you want to punish some criminals? make them join the army or soemthing

Not me! Kill 'em both ways!

yeah prison is horrible, what with the television and guaranteed food and shelter and break time.

you want to punish some criminals? make them join the army or soemthing

And a fine batallion that will be. I'd defnitely feel comfortable knowing that a convicted rapist is watching my back.

And a fine batallion that will be. I'd defnitely feel comfortable knowing that a convicted rapist is watching my back.
yeah, i've gotta agree with you on that. i'm all for forced-labor or something, but the army? no way. we've got enough bloodthirsty lunatics in the armed forces to begin with, let's not add convicted criminals to the mix.

I think it's ridiculous contradiction to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion, and vice-versa. I'm anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. I despise anti-abortion right-wing conservatives. They only value life when its in the womb, but don't even think about supporting that baby after its born. As soon as it enters the world they don't care if the baby and its mother die in the street.

I really don't understand how it is "liberal" to be pro-abortion. Yes, it would be nice if the woman could have her right to choose, but isn't the baby's right to life more important?

I think it's ridiculous contradiction to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion, and vice-versa. I'm anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. I despise anti-abortion right-wing conservatives. They only value life when its in the womb, but don't even think about supporting that baby after its born. As soon as it enters the world they don't care if the baby and its mother die in the street.

I really don't understand how it is "liberal" to be pro-abortion. Yes, it would be nice if the woman could have her right to choose, but isn't the baby's right to life more important?

I'll tell you what, find me one person who is "pro-abortion." The term suggets that someone wants to abort all pregnancies - I don't think you'll find anyone like that.

Now, as for the fetus' life being more important - you have to understand that, scientifically, there is no reason to say that a fetus (before a certain point) is anything more than a ball of dividing cells inside the mother's womb. They do not meet the requirements of "life." Religiously, there are plenty of reasons to think the fetus is a human life, but you can't force your religion on others. So, a rational being (regardless of what their religion says) will eventually come to the pro-choice stance (regardless of how they actually view abortion.)

I'll tell you what, find me one person who is "pro-abortion." The term suggets that someone wants to abort all pregnancies - I don't think you'll find anyone like that.

i'm pro-abortion, though i don't want ALL women to abort. i think at least half of the pregnancies that occur in the world today should be ended before the fetus reaches term, and i support encouraging women to have abortions if they have any doubt at all of their ability to care for the child they would create.

but i am a rare breed, you're right. that's why it bugs me when people refer to pro-choice people as pro-abortion...if they want to yell at somebody who is pro-abortion they should yell at me, not at one of the chaps who thinks abortion is horrible but necessary.

Yes, it would be nice if the woman could have her right to choose, but isn't the baby's right to life more important?
nope. one human's right to be alive does not supercede another human's right to choose what happens to their body.

example: a patient requires a bone-marrow transplant, or they will die. this patient has a very unique genetic makeup (perhaps due to mixed-race parents), and therefore finding a donor is virtually impossible. finally, after much searching, the doctors find out that a nurse in the hospital has the exact same ethnic background as the patient, and would be an ideal donor. this nurse is the ONLY available donor, and without their donation the patient WILL die.

guess what? if the nurse doesn't want to donate they CANNOT be compelled to do so. even if that action will lead to the death of the patient. no human being can be forced to donate any part of their body against their wishes, period.

It is worth pointing out that there are only four things that separate "fetus" from "Baby". Location, stage of mental development, size and dependency.

1. First there is location, in this case inside the uterus or not. The difference separating these two are about six inches of birth canal.

2. Second is stage of mental development. This justification for abortion has its own problems. Is a three year old, being less mentally developed, qualify a less human than a six year old?

3. the third is size, this is almost a laughable argument, I'm six feet two inches in height does that make more of a person than my sister who is almost five inches shorter than me?

4. The last is dependency, perhaps the most compelling argument until you consider that a child is dependant on adults for even there most basic needs until there some where around ten years old. I have yet to find some one who would argue the right of a parent to "abort" there six year old.

Here we go again!

Quick answer:

Group A beliefs that an unborn child, up to a certain point in it's development, is not yet a person, while a 40-year old who commits a crime still is.
Group B believes that an unborn child, regardless of it's age, is by definition innocent, while a 40-year old criminal is not.
I guess that would make me a B. I do believe, however, that High Fulfillment brings up an interesting point.

*runs forefinger and thumb on chin in deep thought*

example: a patient requires a bone-marrow transplant, or they will die. this patient has a very unique genetic makeup (perhaps due to mixed-race parents), and therefore finding a donor is virtually impossible. finally, after much searching, the doctors find out that a nurse in the hospital has the exact same ethnic background as the patient, and would be an ideal donor. this nurse is the ONLY available donor, and without their donation the patient WILL die.

That may be true but her not wanting to give up the bone marrow is not moraly right. Find me a nurse that would deny someone there life, isnt that y they become a nurse, to help people in any way they can.

Now, as for the fetus' life being more important - you have to understand that, scientifically, there is no reason to say that a fetus (before a certain point) is anything more than a ball of dividing cells inside the mother's womb. They do not meet the requirements of "life." Religiously, there are plenty of reasons to think the fetus is a human life, but you can't force your religion on others. So, a rational being (regardless of what their religion says) will eventually come to the pro-choice stance (regardless of how they actually view abortion.)

A biologist would be out of a job if he or she didn’t classify a fetus as life. You pointed out that it is a group of cells, so what idiot told you cells don’t qualify as life?

You may have been suggesting a fetus isn’t a human life. Science wont help you there either, a fetus has a complete and functioning set of human genes and has its own unique set of human DNA. If that doesn’t make it human than none of us are.

i agree with The Former West, we are all a bunch a cells.

That may be true but her not wanting to give up the bone marrow is not moraly right. Find me a nurse that would deny someone there life, isnt that y they become a nurse, to help people in any way they can.
that is your opinion. the fact remains that our law recognize the right of that nurse to deny donating his bone marrow. whether or not it is immoral in your opinion has nothing to do with our system of law.

A biologist would be out of a job if he or she didn’t classify a fetus as life. You pointed out that it is a group of cells, so what idiot told you cells don’t qualify as life?

correct, a fetus IS alive, and any scientist will know and acknowledge that fact.



You may have been suggesting a fetus isn’t a human life. Science wont help you there either, a fetus has a complete and functioning set of human genes and has its own unique set of human DNA. If that doesn’t make it human than none of us are.
incorrect. while it is true that science cannot define what it means to be human (that is a philosophical issue), your claim that possetion of human DNA defines human life is not rational.

for example, that means that each organ in my body--indeed, each cell--is a human being. each has a complete and functioning set of human genes, after all. to say that having unique human genes is the definition of human personhood is likewise foolish, since that means that two identical twins are actually one person, since they have the same DNA.

it is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive, and that a fetus is human tissue. whether or not a fetus is a human person is something that science cannot answer for us, because science cannot define human personhood.

that is your opinion. the fact remains that our law recognize the right of that nurse to deny donating his bone marrow. whether or not it is immoral in your opinion has nothing to do with our system of law.

I know i was giving my opionin.

what are your thoughts that if a man kills a pregnant woman than he is convicted for two murders but if the woman aborts the baby then nothing happens.

I know i was giving my opionin.

what are your thoughts that if a man kills a pregnant woman than he is convicted for two murders but if the woman aborts the baby then nothing happens.
i do not believe a man should be convicted for two homicides if he kills a pregnant woman. i believe laws that support such an idea were primarily backed by anti-abortion lobbiests, in an attempt to build foundation for anti-abortion legislation. i strongly oppose any such laws, or any other laws that recognize a fetus as equal in status to a human person.

i'd kill some one convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt myself

Great! You've solved all the problems with the death penalty. Now all we need to do is create a legal definition for "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

i do not believe a man should be convicted for two homicides if he kills a pregnant woman. i believe laws that support such an idea were primarily backed by anti-abortion lobbiests, in an attempt to build foundation for anti-abortion legislation. i strongly oppose any such laws, or any other laws that recognize a fetus as equal in status to a human person.

Well haven't the pro-rights people always said "it's her body so it's her choice"? If a criminal takes that choice away from her how would you suggest punishing him?

Well haven't the pro-rights people always said "it's her body so it's her choice"? If a criminal takes that choice away from her how would you suggest punishing him?
the same way i would punish him for taking away her rights to a healthy liver, if he beat her hard enough to damage her liver. the same way i would punish him for taking away her right to choose whether to be bleeding on the pavement or not. the same way i would punish him for taking away her choice to have all her teeth in her mouth.

The death penalty would work better as a deterrent if the less severe crimes were capitol crimes such as grand theft, pedophilia, and rape.

rape isn't a severe crime?

also, an abortionist would be the doctor preforming the abortion. pro-choice is the term for someone who supports a woman's right to choose what goes on in her body.

the same way i would punish him for taking away her rights to a healthy liver, if he beat her hard enough to damage her liver. the same way i would punish him for taking away her right to choose whether to be bleeding on the pavement or not. the same way i would punish him for taking away her choice to have all her teeth in her mouth.

So if she believes that the life in her womb is a human person, we must deny that and insist that it is no more significant than one of her kidneys because to do otherwise might be used by some to try to deminish her right to choose an abortion?

Would you say the same if the baby was three days from being born?

you want to punish some criminals? make them join the army or soemthing

yes, let's give them guns... that's a brilliant idea.

rape isn't a severe crime?

. . .



Rape is as severe as murder? Anyway what the poster is saying is that rapists should be treated the way we treat murderers, so what's your beef?

That may be true but her not wanting to give up the bone marrow is not moraly right. Find me a nurse that would deny someone there life, isnt that y they become a nurse, to help people in any way they can.

how is it not morally right? it's her tissue (marrow is tissue, right?) and if she doesn't want to go through the pain of extraction (i've heard it's quite painful) and give it to a stranger, then she doesn't have to. i mean, if a patient needed a kidney, you wouldn't consider if amoral of her to keep both of hers rather than save the patient, would you?

Rape is as severe as murder? Anyway what the poster is saying is that rapists should be treated the way we treat murderers, so what's your beef?

i'd say that rape is comparable to murder in terms of severity.

though i'm not in favour of executing either group. the justice system isn't perfect and all too often, the wrong person is convicted in a crime. if this is discovered after a person is lethally injected, then well, you just participated in the death of an innocent person.
not to mention the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" issue. how does wasting another life make the situation any better?

how is it not morally right? it's her tissue (marrow is tissue, right?) and if she doesn't want to go through the pain of extraction (i've heard it's quite painful) and give it to a stranger, then she doesn't have to. i mean, if a patient needed a kidney, you wouldn't consider if amoral of her to keep both of hers rather than save the patient, would you?
I'd consider it amoral. Letting someone die so you can save yourself pain?

So if she believes that the life in her womb is a human person, we must deny that and insist that it is no more significant than one of her kidneys because to do otherwise might be used by some to try to deminish her right to choose an abortion?

Would you say the same if the baby was three days from being born?
her belief in the status of her fetus's personhood is not relavent to its legal status. if i firmly believe that my liver is a seperate human being it still will not be recognized as such by the law, and i would be silly to try to force such an issue.

the significance of a fetus to the mother is also not at issue here; i never said that her kidneys should be more or less significant to her than her fetus, you set up that straw man all by yourself.

and are you claiming that a woman who believes that a fetus is equal to a full human person should be granted more legal protection than a woman who feels a fetus is not legally equal to a human person? because that's what it sounds like; if we prosecute an attacker differently depending on whether the woman was pro-choice or pro-life then that smacks of serious moral hypocricy.

as for your question about how i would feel if the fetus were three days from due, that's a bit of a sticky question. given our current legal set up, i would not support treating that case any differently; the three-days-til-due should be the same as a three-months-from-due, in the eyes of the law. however, personally i would be willing to have laws define viability of the fetus as a cut off for certain legal rights, viability being determined by medical professionals of course. thus, if a fetus were viable it could be ruled to have legal claim for prosecution in these cases.

of course, personally i feel that the right to abortion has nothing to do with whether a fetus is a human person or not, so the whole issue is irrelevant to me.

i'd say that rape is comparable to murder in terms of severity.

though i'm not in favour of executing either group. the justice system isn't perfect and all too often, the wrong person is convicted in a crime. if this is discovered after a person is lethally injected, then well, you just participated in the death of an innocent person.
not to mention the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" issue. how does wasting another life make the situation any better?

That first point is why I recommend a "20 years PLUS death" captital punishment If they're innocent they have 20 years to appeal all they want without worrying about having to keep getting stays of execution, while if they're guilty they have 20 years to look forward to it.

As to the second point, when people rape children and murder people in cold blood and murder people while commiting violent crimes, I for one do not consider ending their lives to be a waste of any sort. It's been said before and I will say it again: got cancer? kill it!

That first point is why I recommend a "20 years PLUS death" captital punishment If they're innocent they have 20 years to appeal all they want without worrying about having to keep getting stays of execution, while if they're guilty they have 20 years to look forward to it.

that's actually not a bad idea. it's like life without the possibility of parole, only more so...

Because, if the fetus has the full rights of a born child, this is what you end up with. If I am pregnant (whether I know it or not) and I go lift a heavy piece of equipment, ride a horse, go for a run, etc. - these things can cause a miscarriage. If that happens, then I, as a mother, have not done everything in my power to keep my "child" alive. This is clearly neglect. If this is not an act of neglect (much like leaving a kid in a car - you're not trying to kill the kid), then the fetus is obviously not a full life - and it is you who have made that distinction.


hmm... remind me to start a carreer in furniture moving should i ever become unwantedly pregnant. it would be easier than going to a clinic and shit.

I'd consider it amoral. Letting someone die so you can save yourself pain?

so if she didn't want to give up her kidney, then she's also amoral?

and i'm not sure what all is involved in bone marrow transplants, but if it's like donating blood, then chances are she'll need recovery time afterwards and hell, in the states, don't you guys get paid for donating blood? what if it's not going to be healthy for her to donate her marrow? what then? is she amoral for considering her health above someone else's health?

so if she didn't want to give up her kidney, then she's also amoral?

and i'm not sure what all is involved in bone marrow transplants, but if it's like donating blood, then chances are she'll need recovery time afterwards and hell, in the states, don't you guys get paid for donating blood? what if it's not going to be healthy for her to donate her marrow? what then? is she amoral for considering her health above someone else's health?
just FYI: donating blood marrow is much more complicated (and painful) than giving blood. it's pretty much on par with an organ transplant, and there are the usual risks of infection or immune problems that go along with it. a bone marrow transplant is a serious medical procedure, whereas donating blood can be done in your local high school or shopping mall.

Now, as for the fetus' life being more important - you have to understand that, scientifically, there is no reason to say that a fetus (before a certain point) is anything more than a ball of dividing cells inside the mother's womb. They do not meet the requirements of "life." Religiously, there are plenty of reasons to think the fetus is a human life, but you can't force your religion on others. So, a rational being (regardless of what their religion says) will eventually come to the pro-choice stance (regardless of how they actually view abortion.)
Yeah, I don't have a problem with aborting in the first few days or something, but when the foetus has a heartbeat, it is alive and shouldn't be aborted. I also think that abortion is justified if the mother's life is in danger.

My reasons are not religious; I'm an atheist. My stance is more humanist, based on value for human life.

guess what? if the nurse doesn't want to donate they CANNOT be compelled to do so. even if that action will lead to the death of the patient. no human being can be forced to donate any part of their body against their wishes, period.
Maybe not by current law, but welcome to my system. I call it "mandatory compassion." In my opinion, the right to life supersedes other rights.

As to the second point, when people rape children and murder people in cold blood and murder people while commiting violent crimes, I for one do not consider ending their lives to be a waste of any sort. It's been said before and I will say it again: got cancer? kill it!

but what of rehabilitation? what about giving someone a chance to make things right?

and aside from that, even prisoners could be put to work in jails, thus contributing to society even though they aren't allowed the privilidge of being a part of it.

I'd consider it amoral. Letting someone die so you can save yourself pain?
and i would consider it amoral to force another person to give up their body (or any part thereof) to prolong my life.

A biologist would be out of a job if he or she didn’t classify a fetus as life. You pointed out that it is a group of cells, so what idiot told you cells don’t qualify as life?

My arm is a group of cells. It is not a separate life. Sorry, I left out the word separate.

And by the way, for all intensive purposes, I am a biologist.

You may have been suggesting a fetus isn’t a human life. Science wont help you there either, a fetus has a complete and functioning set of human genes and has its own unique set of human DNA. If that doesn’t make it human than none of us are.

No, what I meant was that it does not qualify as a separate life. According to science, an organism must meet certain requirements in order to qualify as an organism. Up until a certain point in development, the fetus meets only one. Therefore it is not a separate life, it is a group of dividing cells attached to the mother - and is no more an organism than a cancerous mass is (according to science.)

Now, I personally place the beginnings of the fetus being considered a separate life at the point when it can sense and respond to its environment - ie. development of a functioning nervous system. At that point, the choice of "whatever the mother wants to do" ceases to exist - I believe (and law pretty much backs me up), that there must a compelling medical reason at that point.

just FYI: donating blood marrow is much more complicated (and painful) than giving blood. it's pretty much on par with an organ transplant, and there are the usual risks of infection or immune problems that go along with it. a bone marrow transplant is a serious medical procedure, whereas donating blood can be done in your local high school or shopping mall.

well, there you go. it could be a risky procedure and why the hell would someone have to be forced to undergo a risky procedure for someone they don't know. it's one thing if you feel you have to for a friend or family member and you're willing to take the risks...

i figured it would be more severe, and i've donated blood before and the nurses were all freaking out when after sitting up for a bit, i lay down, not to sleep, but out of diziness... one nurse ran over to fan me even though i felt fine, just not ready to sit up.

her belief in the status of her fetus's personhood is not relavent to its legal status. if i firmly believe that my liver is a seperate human being it still will not be recognized as such by the law, and i would be silly to try to force such an issue.

the significance of a fetus to the mother is also not at issue here; i never said that her kidneys should be more or less significant to her than her fetus, you set up that straw man all by yourself.

No, I had your help. It was you, wasn't it, that said her fetus should be no more important in the eyes of the law than her other organs?

and are you claiming that a woman who believes that a fetus is equal to a full human person should be granted more legal protection than a woman who feels a fetus is not legally equal to a human person? because that's what it sounds like; if we prosecute an attacker differently depending on whether the woman was pro-choice or pro-life then that smacks of serious moral hypocricy.

No I am for prosecuting the attacker the same way regardless of what the woman believes. The only thing I would do differently is give the woman, if she survives, the right not to press charges, or not to press homicide charges over her fetus. This is an option that victims of most crimes (other than murder and in some places family violence) already have, and allows for their personal beliefs to come into play when prosecuting those who commit crimes against them.

as for your question about how i would feel if the fetus were three days from due, that's a bit of a sticky question. given our current legal set up, i would not support treating that case any differently;

In our current legal system third trimester abortion is illegal unless the mother's life is at stake.

the three-days-til-due should be the same as a three-months-from-due, in the eyes of the law. however, personally i would be willing to have laws define viability of the fetus as a cut off for certain legal rights, viability being determined by medical professionals of course. thus, if a fetus were viable it could be ruled to have legal claim for prosecution in these cases.

of course, personally i feel that the right to abortion has nothing to do with whether a fetus is a human person or not, so the whole issue is irrelevant to me.

I agree, it has nothing to do with it, although I do feel that it should have to do with viability, in terms of near-birth abortion. Otherwise I believe a woman has a right to an abortion, and at the same time someone who kills her fetus should be prosecuted for homicide, since she did not choose to abort.

Kind of like the difference between murder and assisted suicide. I believe in the right to doctor-assisted suicide, but when the "patient" is not willing, it's just plain murder.

when the foetus has a heartbeat, it is alive and shouldn't be aborted.
having a heartbeat is not used as the definition for if a human person is alive. many human people with heartbeats are ruled dead, though their heart is beating and could continue to beat for some time. brain death has been used as the standard for "life" versus "death" for quite some time now.

I also think that abortion is justified if the mother's life is in danger.

so you believe it is right to murder one person to save another? how do you decide which life is more important? what if they could save the fetus but the mother would die if they did so? if the fetus is a living person then how can you condone murder just to save another human?

if Joe needs a new liver to survive, and the only possible donor is Jane, do you support murdering Jane to take her liver to give to Joe? if not, then how can you support killing what you claim is a human life in order to save another human life? or do you, in fact, differentiate between the value of the mother's life and the value of the fetus'?


Maybe not by current law, but welcome to my system. I call it "mandatory compassion." In my opinion, the right to life supersedes other rights.
compassion is deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it; you cannot force people to feel compassion, therefore your concept is impossible.

According to science, an organism must meet certain requirements in order to qualify as an organism. Up until a certain point in development, the fetus meets only one.

out of curiosity, what are the requirements for something to be an organism, and which one does the fetus meet?

so if she didn't want to give up her kidney, then she's also amoral?

and i'm not sure what all is involved in bone marrow transplants, but if it's like donating blood, then chances are she'll need recovery time afterwards and hell, in the states, don't you guys get paid for donating blood? what if it's not going to be healthy for her to donate her marrow? what then? is she amoral for considering her health above someone else's health?
No, it isn't amoral to save yourself. Just like a lot of people who oppose abortion, myself included, would allow the mother to get an abortion if her life was in danger. Tragic? Yes.

No, I had your help. It was you, wasn't it, that said her fetus should be no more important in the eyes of the law than her other organs?


well, there are a lot of organs that people can't live (or at least live well) without... she coudl live without a fetus in her womb though.

No, I had your help. It was you, wasn't it, that said her fetus should be no more important in the eyes of the law than her other organs?


yes, i said the LAW should not give the fetus any special status. i said nothing about the woman's personal feelings on the subject, or whether she "should" or "shouldn't" feel a certain way about her fetus.


No I am for prosecuting the attacker the same way regardless of what the woman believes. The only thing I would do differently is give the woman, if she survives, the right not to press charges, or not to press homicide charges over her fetus. This is an option that victims of most crimes (other than murder and in some places family violence) already have, and allows for their personal beliefs to come into play when prosecuting those who commit crimes against them.

we do not allow a victim to press charges for murder if an attacker knocks out one of their teeth, even if that victim firmly believes that tooth was a seperate human person.

In our current legal system third trimester abortion is illegal unless the mother's life is at stake.

yes, and i believe that is wrong. there are many current laws that i disagree with.


I agree, it has nothing to do with it, although I do feel that it should have to do with viability, in terms of near-birth abortion. Otherwise I believe a woman has a right to an abortion, and at the same time someone who kills her fetus should be prosecuted for homicide, since she did not choose to abort.

obviously i disagree.

Kind of like the difference between murder and assisted suicide. I believe in the right to doctor-assisted suicide, but when the "patient" is not willing, it's just plain murder.
though i agree with you on the suicide issue, i don't agree on the parallel you draw.

No, it isn't amoral to save yourself. Just like a lot of people who oppose abortion, myself included, would allow the mother to get an abortion if her life was in danger. Tragic? Yes.

as bottle mentioned, there are a lot of risks that go along with bone marrow donation. she even put it on par with organ donation. should someone really be considered amoral for not wanting to put their life in serious danger for the sake of a stranger?

and also, it is possible to live with one kidney.

as bottle mentioned, there are a lot of risks that go along with bone marrow donation. she even put it on par with organ donation. should someone really be considered amoral for not wanting to put their life in serious danger for the sake of a stranger?

and also, it is possible to live with one kidney.
It depends on how serious the danger really is. If there was a significant risk of death, I don't think it would be considered amoral. If it was something more routine with less of a risk, yes, I think it would be amoral.

but what of rehabilitation? what about giving someone a chance to make things right?

Rehabilitation is nice, but it is not a criminal's right. As for "make things right"... How? Un-rape a child? Raise a murdered man from the dead?

and aside from that, even prisoners could be put to work in jails, thus contributing to society even though they aren't allowed the privilidge of being a part of it.

So... we MAKE them get jobs when there are law-abiding people out of work? Sure they can do prison jobs, laundry and the traditional license plates, but we've got plenty of people to do that in our prisons without taking them off of death row.

out of curiosity, what are the requirements for something to be an organism, and which one does the fetus meet?

Well, in all honesty, no one meets all the requirements to be an organism until puberty (since one of them is the ability to reproduce), but lets just say we skip that one.

The rest are (if I remember correctly, since I don't have my old book in front of me):

- The ability to take in and use nutrients. (The fetus has this one [to a point] from conception on, since every cell can take in and use nutrients - It does not, however, have this ability independent of the mother - thus, the parasite comment you hear so often)

- The ability to get rid of waste (The fetus sort of has this one - However, technically the mother gets rid of the waste until the fetus is born and the fetus does not get rid of waste separately until birth - again, like a parasite)

One could argue that the fetus has the first two down once the blood stream is completed - at this point it is effectively taking nutrients and getting rid of waste through it's connection to the mother's bloodstream.

- The ability to sense and respond to the environment. This is the one that I, personally (it's not like science has really agreed on it completely), place as the cutoff at which the mother's choice is absolute. Once the fetus has a developed nervous system, it can move on its own, respond to stimuli, and can most likely feel pain. I also believe that there could be a non-invasive way to test this, since right now all we have is an arbitrary cutoff line at 2nd trimester. We won't even destroy animals needlessly if they can feel it (well, legally anyways).

Crap, well - I want to say there's a fifth requirement, but I don't remember what it is right now.

It depends on how serious the danger really is. If there was a significant risk of death, I don't think it would be considered amoral. If it was something more routine with less of a risk, yes, I think it would be amoral.

That's just it though - you believe it would be amoral. The person doing it may think that putting their own life at risk (and there are risks associated with even the most routine of medical procedures) to save someone they don't even know to be amoral.

Are you going to force your particular religious/moral beliefs on someone? Orthodox Muslims believe it is immoral for a woman to show any more skin than is absolutely necessary in public. Does that mean that all of us should be forced to cover ourselves completely?

[ stuff ]



An unborn child is not in any meaningful way comparible to a tooth, and causing a miscarriage is in no way morally equivalent to knocking out a tooth.

No. Date rape is when the "victim" is under the influence of some kind of substance and is supposedly not able to consent.

wtf? no it's not. idiot.

and it's disgusting that you put quotes around the word victim.

if someone does not consent to sex and a person has sex with them, they are raped. ragardless of what they consumed beforehand, whether they were physically able to fight them off, their gender, their attire, their previous sex life et c.

An unborn child is not in any meaningful way comparible to a tooth, and causing a miscarriage is in no way morally equivalent to knocking out a tooth.
just because you say something doesn't make it true. i would agree that the tooth isn't a good example, since it is primarily dead tissue, but i believe that causing a person to lose their liver is morally equivalent to causing a person to lose their fetus. if you disagree that's fine, but don't try to make moral absolute statements...that will just cause the debate to stagnate and become pointless.

That's just it though - you believe it would be amoral. The person doing it may think that putting their own life at risk (and there are risks associated with even the most routine of medical procedures) to save someone they don't even know to be amoral.

Are you going to force your particular religious/moral beliefs on someone? Orthodox Muslims believe it is immoral for a woman to show any more skin than is absolutely necessary in public. Does that mean that all of us should be forced to cover ourselves completely?
Who decides which right (The right to do what you want with your body vs the right of someone else to live) supercedes the other? Simple answer, the majority does, and yes I am going to try to force my moral beliefs on you.

It depends on how serious the danger really is. If there was a significant risk of death, I don't think it would be considered amoral. If it was something more routine with less of a risk, yes, I think it would be amoral.

why?

if you pass a starving homeless man on the street without giving him food or money, is that amoral?

so are you ganna be the one to walk in the room and tell that man that sorry we cant save your life becasue the one person who can save you dosent feel that the risk is worth saving your life.

just because you say something doesn't make it true. i would agree that the tooth isn't a good example, since it is primarily dead tissue, but i believe that causing a person to lose their liver is morally equivalent to causing a person to lose their fetus. if you disagree that's fine, but don't try to make moral absolute statements...that will just cause the debate to stagnate and become pointless.

OK then just let me ask you this: what organs in a human body have the potential to become whole humans?

(leave out cloning and such.)

why?

if you pass a starving homeless man on the street without giving him food or money, is that amoral?
Yeah. I don't see how letting someone die is moral.

so are you ganna be the one to walk in the room and tell that man that sorry we cant save your life becasue the one person who can save you dosent feel that the risk is worth saving your life.
i would have no problem walking into a room to tell a dying person there was no willing donor. i would have no problem looking somebody in the eye and saying, "we can't save you because nobody with the necessary biological makeup is willing to donate the organ you need."

why?

if you pass a starving homeless man on the street without giving him food or money, is that amoral?

Yes.

Look the word up.

Yes.

Look the word up.
i was just going to say that, dammit. :)

i was just going to say that, dammit. :)
:cool:

i would have no problem walking into a room to tell a dying person there was no willing donor. i would have no problem looking somebody in the eye and saying, "we can't save you because nobody with the necessary biological makeup is willing to donate the organ you need."

would you say "ok, no problem" if you were in need of the bone marrow.

would you say "ok, no problem" if you were in need of the bone marrow.
yes. if there were no willing donor i would rather die than have an unwilling party forced to donate.

Rehabilitation is nice, but it is not a criminal's right. As for "make things right"... How? Un-rape a child? Raise a murdered man from the dead?

so a person makes one mistake (albeit a large one) and they don't have any chance to try to make things better?
there are criminals who go speak to people about what they did and try to teach others that violence is not the answer. they work to prevent others from making the same mistakes that they did.
if a jailed pedophile were to undergo experiemental treatments, perhaps a way could be found to help those who would potentially rape other children so that they wouldn't do so... thus saving other children from going through the same thing.
say you have someone who would be on death row with some kind of genetic disease, if they were allowed to live, they could go through experimental treatments as well as they may be more willing to take such risks to make ammends for their prior bad acts.

So... we MAKE them get jobs when there are law-abiding people out of work? Sure they can do prison jobs, laundry and the traditional license plates, but we've got plenty of people to do that in our prisons without taking them off of death row.

we could make them get jobs like growing their own food and making their own uniforms so that the taxpayers don't have to support them as much. and rather than being given money, they could be given things like television or better food.
also, a system of transporting food stuffs from one prison to another could be started giving more civillians jobs. as there wouldn't be enough room to grow a wide variety of foods in a prison yard and you know, not all foods will grow everywhere.

would you say "ok, no problem" if you were in need of the bone marrow.

I would probably say "well go find a compatible doner, tie him down and take what I need by force!" But that would be immoral.

I would probably say "well go find a compatible doner, tie him down and take what I need by force!" But that would be immoral.
lol, also a very legitmate view. if, instead, it was my little brother who needed the transplant i would take your position...i don't care how immoral it is, i would do absolutely anything for my brother, even if it went against everything i believed in. i realize that is wrong, and irrational, and immoral, but i would still try to do it. i can be noble and die for my principles, but i can't be noble at all when it comes to my brother. man i hate that little kid, he is nothing but trouble.

Yeah. I don't see how letting someone die is moral.

so are you going to go make a lot of food and go to the downtown area of a city and hand it out to every panhandler you see?

or are you going to sit on your ass and argue about how terrible it is to think that one shouldn't be forced to give some of their tissue to another person if they don't want to?

so are you ganna be the one to walk in the room and tell that man that sorry we cant save your life becasue the one person who can save you dosent feel that the risk is worth saving your life.

i would probably offer compensation to said person. they might be more willing to take the risks if they were getting something back, and really, compared to life, what the hell is money?

Ok my post addresses several issues so here it goes.

yeah prison is horrible, what with the television and guaranteed food and shelter and break time.

you want to punish some criminals? make them join the army or soemthing

Making them join the army is stupid. I support Manditory Solitary Confinment: basically, you get put in an isolation cell for 30 years. Even for murder, because the person will most likely either go insane or kill themselves before that time is up. If you don't know what an isolation cell is, go to this page:
http://www.woggledog.com/pictures/digital/normal/DSC00517.JPG
That's what it should look like, only with a toilet and sink.

i do not believe a man should be convicted for two homicides if he kills a pregnant woman. i believe laws that support such an idea were primarily backed by anti-abortion lobbiests, in an attempt to build foundation for anti-abortion legislation. i strongly oppose any such laws, or any other laws that recognize a fetus as equal in status to a human person.

Well haven't the pro-rights people always said "it's her body so it's her choice"? If a criminal takes that choice away from her how would you suggest punishing him?

Because he took that choice away from her. However, to simplify the issue, a new felony should be created called "Homicide resulting in death". It can actually be used for several things: basically it says that if you kill someone and killing them results in someone else's death (either suicide or in this case the death of the fetus), you should be punished. However, it should only be like 5 years or less: not too big.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with aborting in the first few days or something, but when the foetus has a heartbeat, it is alive and shouldn't be aborted. I also think that abortion is justified if the mother's life is in danger.

...

Maybe not by current law, but welcome to my system. I call it "mandatory compassion." In my opinion, the right to life supersedes other rights.

The heartbeat begins at around 2 months. Even then, though, it's taking everything it needs from the mother.

Oh, and I'd risk my life to assassinate you if you ever came into a position where you could implement that. Or, failing that, I'd kill myself. The state should not have to right to force me to do something, whether or not another life is at stake. That actually sounds like fascism.

There. That's my imput. I will not respond again (unless it's something major) so there's no point in wasting hours of your time writing long rebuttals that can be disproven with the statements I've already described.

I'm an athiest who is pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

Imamitenise = Aisetaselanau in forums.

so are you going to go make a lot of food and go to the downtown area of a city and hand it out to every panhandler you see?

or are you going to sit on your ass and argue about how terrible it is to think that one shouldn't be forced to give some of their tissue to another person if they don't want to?
ding ding, we have a winner!!!

according to the previously posted logic, by not selling your computer to get money to pay for food for a starving child, you are allowing that child to die. by sitting here instead of being out working to earn money to feed the starving you are allowing them to die.

so are you going to go make a lot of food and go to the downtown area of a city and hand it out to every panhandler you see?

or are you going to sit on your ass and argue about how terrible it is to think that one shouldn't be forced to give some of their tissue to another person if they don't want to?
As far as I can tell, Philadelphia, and the national and state government, via my taxes, is keeping the homeless alive. Thats what programs like welfare and homeless shelters are there for. I also participate, mainly with my local church, in things to help the homeless and donate money to such programs as well every Sunday when the opportunity presents itself. No, I'm not Mother Teresa and I probably never will be, on the flip side If I do find a homeless person who is obviously in desperate need I'm not going to let him freeze there, just like if I witnessed a car accident I'm not going to sit back and do nothing.

Yes.

Look the word up.

which word? amoral?

ding ding, we have a winner!!!

according to the previously posted logic, by not selling your computer to get money to pay for food for a starving child, you are allowing that child to die. by sitting here instead of being out working to earn money to feed the starving you are allowing them to die.
We are.

As far as I can tell, Philadelphia, and the national and state government, via my taxes, is keeping the homeless alive. Thats what programs like welfare and homeless shelters are there for. I also participate, mainly with my local church, in things to help the homeless and donate money to such programs as well every Sunday when the opportunity presents itself. No, I'm not Mother Teresa and I probably never will be, on the flip side If I do find a homeless person who is obviously in desperate need I'm not going to let him freeze there, just like if I witnessed a car accident I'm not going to sit back and do nothing.
so saving a life or preventing a death only matters if you physically see the person? if you don't see them in front of you then it is moral to let them die?

As far as I can tell, Philadelphia, and the national and state government, via my taxes, is keeping the homeless alive. Thats what programs like welfare and homeless shelters are there for.

but are there still people who are without shelter and food? i'm sure there are. i'm sure there are people who dive in dumpsters for food despite such programs. what are you doing to help them?

No, I'm not Mother Teresa and I probably never will be, on the flip side If I do find a homeless person who is obviously in desperate need I'm not going to let him freeze there, just like if I witnessed a car accident I'm not going to sit back and do nothing.

so if someone is on the street in the cold, you should be forced to let them live in your house until spring?
or should it be your choice?

which word? amoral?
Actually yeah that brings up a good point, people including myself were using amoral and immoral interchangeably when in fact they're two distinct words.

We are.
okay, so according to your beliefs you are a hypocrite. since i don't believe as you do, i have no problem, but you are a hypocrite for expecting laws to be passed that would directly conflict with your own actions...you are in violation of your own moral code.

so saving a life or preventing a death only matters if you physically see the person? if you don't see them in front of you then it is moral to let them die?
No, it dosen't matter when you only see the person and it isn't moral if you don't see them to let them die.

but are there still people who are without shelter and food? i'm sure there are. i'm sure there are people who dive in dumpsters for food despite such programs. what are you doing to help them?
Nothing right now. The city should use my money to find these people.

so if someone is on the street in the cold, you should be forced to let them live in your house until spring?
or should it be your choice?
Are they going to die because of the cold?

okay, so according to your beliefs you are a hypocrite. since i don't believe as you do, i have no problem, but you are a hypocrite for expecting laws to be passed that would directly conflict with your own actions...you are in violation of your own moral code.
What laws would I want to be passed that would directly conflict with my own actions?

Actually yeah that brings up a good point, people including myself were using amoral and immoral interchangeably when in fact they're two distinct words.

oops.

Nothing right now. The city should use my money to find these people.
ahh, so somebody else is morally required to help these people, not you. how nice.

ahh, so somebody else is morally required to help these people, not you. how nice.
I am morally - and legally - required to help these people. Is it not my money that is going to pay for these programs, though? A government elected by the majority of the people has decided to implement these programs and help out those in need.

No, it dosen't matter when you only see the person and it isn't moral if you don't see them to let them die.

what if you're unaware of every person who is in need of food or shelter? how are you supposed to help them then?

Nothing right now. The city should use my money to find these people.

what if they're mentally imbalanced and are afraid the government is going to do something to them so they refuse government assistance. should you be morally obliged to look after them?
also, what if they're running away from an abusive home, or an abusive foster home and they don't want the government to put them back into a system of home that they don't trust?
not to mention that the city only has so much money.
i know that in toronto, there are more homeless peopel than there are shelters.

Are they going to die because of the cold?

for the sake of argument, let's say they are.

What laws would I want to be passed that would directly conflict with my own actions?
you have said:

"yes I am going to try to force my moral beliefs on you."

"I'd consider it amoral. Letting someone die so you can save yourself pain?"

so if you will force your moral beliefs on people then you will force people to experience whatever pain is necessary to save someone's life. yet, you personally will not suffer such pain to save other lives...indeed, far from enduring the pain of an organ donation, you will not endure the inconvenience of giving up your NationStates time to volunteer, even if it will save lives.

I am morally - and legally - required to help these people. Is it not my money that is going to pay for these programs, though? A government elected by the majority of the people has decided to implement these programs and help out those in need.
so you will only do so much. you will give your money, but not your time or your effort. yet you insist a person should donate pieces of their own BODY to save a life...interesting "logic" you have there.

what if you're unaware of every person who is in need of food or shelter? how are you supposed to help them then?
You're not supposed to because you can't help them, you don't even know they exist (you're unaware of them).

what if they're mentally imbalanced and are afraid the government is going to do something to them so they refuse government assistance. should you be morally obliged to look after them?
also, what if they're running away from an abusive home, or an abusive foster home and they don't want the government to put them back into a system of home that they don't trust?
not to mention that the city only has so much money.
i know that in toronto, there are more homeless peopel than there are shelters.
If someone is willingly chosing to commit suicide or inflict this on themselves, I don't have a very big problem with it, as its themselves negating their own rights rather than someone else. If someone didn't want a bone marrow transplant, I wouldn't want someone to be forced to give it to them, anyway.

Then in Toronto, either the city of the national government should fund the programs more to create more shelters.

for the sake of argument, let's say they are.
Then yes. Then I'd drop them off somewhere to be taken care of by someone with proper credentials.

so a person makes one mistake (albeit a large one) and they don't have any chance to try to make things better?
there are criminals who go speak to people about what they did and try to teach others that violence is not the answer. they work to prevent others from making the same mistakes that they did.
if a jailed pedophile were to undergo experiemental treatments, perhaps a way could be found to help those who would potentially rape other children so that they wouldn't do so... thus saving other children from going through the same thing.
say you have someone who would be on death row with some kind of genetic disease, if they were allowed to live, they could go through experimental treatments as well as they may be more willing to take such risks to make ammends for their prior bad acts.

We do not (knowingly, legally) execute people for mistakes. If I mistake the rat poison for the sugar, that's a mistake. If I break into a house, kidnap a child, rape her and then murder her, that is not a mistake, it is a choice. As Prince* would say, "a bad choice".

Treating criminal intent as a disease is just as inappropriate. If someone is insane then their psychological incapacity to refrain from making evil choices is already taken into account in our legal system. Cure pedophelia? Fine... cure anger and greed and all sorts of other crime-motivating psychic states while you're at it.

Once you've got a cure we can tear down our prisons and replace them with mental hospitals, replace "parole" with "remission", and cure the disease of crime for good. But you know what? Until you come up with a cure, it's not gonna happen, and rightly so.

we could make them get jobs like growing their own food and making their own uniforms so that the taxpayers don't have to support them as much. and rather than being given money, they could be given things like television or better food.

We do that already. Self-sustaining prisons have been tried, as have privilages in return constructive participation.

also, a system of transporting food stuffs from one prison to another could be started giving more civillians jobs. as there wouldn't be enough room to grow a wide variety of foods in a prison yard and you know, not all foods will grow everywhere.

Nothing wrong with that... yeah let's take child-murderers off of death row and give them farms.

WHY??? So we can avoid the false dilema of being as bad as they are if we kill them like they deserve?

And how about desserts? I have yet to hear one person who opposed the execution of the most barbaric and evil criminals in our society tell me that they don't deserve it. It all pretty much either comes down to one of two things: 1) the system doesn't work well enough (I agree); or 2) we don't want to be killers ourselves.

The first like I said I agree with, which is why I support a moratorium on executions unless the case is totally air-tight, D.N.A., sustained confessions and everything. The second is nothing but sheer moral cowardice, and rather than the blood of murderers those who want to keep them alive have the blood of their victims on their hands, if only the victims they take of fellow criminals shanked on the inside. And if they don't, if they leave their fellow inmates alone, so? They gave up their rights to live when they murdered in cold blood, so why should they have even an opportunity to take the life of a pot dealer or car thief, just so you can sleep better knowing your taxes didn't help kill the killer first?

Or you could keep them in boxes the rest of their lives with no human contact. I would support this. But I think most of them would rather just be killed. If not at first... eventually...



*"Lexx", not "Purple Rain".

so you will only do so much. you will give your money, but not your time or your effort. yet you insist a person should donate pieces of their own BODY to save a life...interesting "logic" you have there.
Thats because I don't need to donate my time or effort to do such things. If the city is doing the job fine, which as far as I can tell it is, then doing additional things would be nice but not necessary. On the other hand, donating an organ would be necessary to save someone's life.

Thats because I don't need to donate my time or effort to do such things. If the city is doing the job fine, which as far as I can tell it is, then doing additional things would be nice but not necessary. On the other hand, donating an organ would be necessary to save someone's life.
are there still people dying? are there still people's lives at risk? then you are still not doing a good enough job, by your standard.

or, by this new reasoning of yours, the donor shouldn't be required to donate because they are paying tax dollars that help support programs that look for organ donors; they don't need to give their own organs, because the government is supposed to be using their money to find willing donors.

. . .

Because he took that choice away from her. However, to simplify the issue, a new felony should be created called "Homicide resulting in death". It can actually be used for several things: basically it says that if you kill someone and killing them results in someone else's death (either suicide or in this case the death of the fetus), you should be punished. However, it should only be like 5 years or less: not too big.

. . .



Call it "assault resulting in miscarriage" and make it applicable whether the mother lives or not, and you have my support.

which word? amoral?

Yes.

Helping is moral.

Hurting is immoral.

Doing nothing is amoral.

(Assumes you're not helping or hurting people who commit evil deeds.)

are there still people dying? are there still people's lives at risk? then you are still not doing a good enough job, by your standard.
You're right, I'm not. Does that mean society shouldn't try at all? What's the point of this. If I'm a chain smoker that tells people that smoking is bad, yes I'm a hypocrite, but it dosen't make the message any less wrong.

or, by this new reasoning of yours, the donor shouldn't be required to donate because they are paying tax dollars that help support programs that look for organ donors; they don't need to give their own organs, because the government is supposed to be using their money to find willing donors.
In the case of person in need of an organ, obviously the program is not working and the program needs to be increased and in the interim period organ donation should be compulsory when needed.

Donating a kidney: moral.

Not donating a kidney: amoral.

Stabbing a guy in the kidney: immoral.

You're right, I'm not. Does that mean society shouldn't try at all? What's the point of this. If I'm a chain smoker that tells people that smoking is bad, yes I'm a hypocrite, but it dosen't make the message any less wrong.

In the case of person in need of an organ, obviously the program is not working and the program needs to be increased and in the interim period organ donation should be compulsory when needed.
in the case of homeless people dying of exposure and starvation, obviously the program is not working. so what are you going to do in the mean time? if, in the case of the organ donor, you would require them to donate since the program had failed, then you (likewise) are obligated to give up your time and money to save the lives of the homeless people who are dying every day. alternatively, if you are not obligated to give up your time and money to help the homeless right now then the potential donor cannot be required to donate. pick one.

you being a hypocrite doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of your message, but it does mean that nobody should listen to you or take you seriously.

in the case of homeless people dying of exposure and starvation, obviously the program is not working. so what are you going to do in the mean time? if, in the case of the organ donor, you would require them to donate since the program had failed, then you (likewise) are obligated to give up your time and money to save the lives of the homeless people who are dying every day. alternatively, if you are not obligated to give up your time and money to help the homeless right now then the potential donor cannot be required to donate. pick one.
Thats the thing, as far as I can tell there *are* no homeless people dying because of exposure and starvation, and as I said earlier if someone is unaware of it is not their obligation to do things about something they don't know exists. I regularly read the newspapers and go around parts of the city, I don't think I'm trying to be ignorant of the problem.

you being a hypocrite doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of your message, but it does mean that nobody should listen to you or take you seriously.
Do you know what a tu quoque fallacy is?

[b]And how about desserts? I have yet to hear one person who opposed the execution of the most barbaric and evil criminals in our society tell me that they don't deserve it.

I'll say it, than. People do not deserve to be killed. I find it ridiculous to say that a person has done an evil thing in killing someone, and therefore killing him is justified. If what he did is evil, in killing another human being, killing him is evil as well. Should precautions be taken to prevent the individual in question from killing again? Yes, but killing a human being for any reason, except for self defence, is completely inexcusable. A Murderer should not be set free because he maintains that his victim deserved death, and there shouldn't be an excuse for the state to be in the business of murder either.

Thats the thing, as far as I can tell there *are* no homeless people dying because of exposure and starvation, and as I said earlier if someone is unaware of it is not their obligation to do things about something they don't know exists. I regularly read the newspapers and go around parts of the city, I don't think I'm trying to be ignorant of the problem.



you know about it now. there ARE homeless people dying of starvation and exposure right now, and if you willfully ignore the information confirming that then i don't see what moral ground you think you are on.


Do you know what a tu quoque fallacy is?
yes, which is why i specifically said that you being a hypocrite doesn't impact the rightness or wrongness of your message...read my posts more carefully.

Donating a kidney: moral.

Not donating a kidney: amoral.

Stabbing a guy in the kidney: immoral.

Main Entry: amor·al
Pronunciation: (")A-'mor-&l, (")a-, -'mär-
Function: adjective
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>


Your example isn't necessarily true. Failing to donate a kidney could be considered by some to be immoral, if it caused a death through inaction. Blinking, on the other hand, IS amoral because it has nothing to do with being moral or immoral. It's simply an action that is neither right nor wrong.

Main Entry: amor·al
Pronunciation: (")A-'mor-&l, (")a-, -'mär-
Function: adjective
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>


Your example isn't necessarily true. Failing to donate a kidney could be considered by some to be immoral, if it caused a death through inaction. Blinking, on the other hand, IS amoral because it has nothing to do with being moral or immoral. It's simply an action that is neither right nor wrong.

amoral - a·mor·al - adj.
1) Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2) Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

Blinking could be considered to be immoral. Butterfly effect and all... ;)

you know about it now. there ARE homeless people dying of starvation and exposure right now, and if you willfully ignore the information confirming that then i don't see what moral ground you think you are on.
Really? I haven't seen any. I along with everyone else should be forced to help them, then.


yes, which is why i specifically said that you being a hypocrite doesn't impact the rightness or wrongness of your message...read my posts more carefully.
It essentially means the same thing. Saying people shouldn't take a hypocrite seriously and they should ignore their arguements is jut about as bad as saying they're arguements are bad because they're a hypocrite. As you said it has nothing to do with the truth or validity of the arguements, so the arguements should be treated that way.

In the case of person in need of an organ, obviously the program is not working and the program needs to be increased and in the interim period organ donation should be compulsory when needed.

What if my religion says that organ donation is immoral? Or, as in the case of Jehovah's witnesses, that getting a blood transfusion is immoral. Without months and months of future planning, you can't take an organ out of someone without giving them a blood transfusion. Are you going to force that Jehovah's witness to believe that they are going to hell so that someone else can get an organ?

And as for "the program is not working," there will never be enough organs for all the people who need them, even if donation were compulsory. That's why we need to be looking into other alternatives to organ transplant.

Besides, where do you stop forcing people to do things? Can we now force people to stop drinking, stop having sex, stop dealing with animals, stop eating anything fatty, and start exercising an hour each day just so that their organs can be used if someone *might* need them one day?

You simply can't force one person to give up their organ (and possibly their life) for another person. You can argue all you want that they should, and I agree that it would be a good thing (even though you're risking your life) to give up a kidney or a piece of liver or bone marrow for someone else, even if you didn't know them. However, you cannot force something like that on someone.

It essentially means the same thing. Saying people shouldn't take a hypocrite seriously and they should ignore their arguements is jut about as bad as saying they're arguements are bad because they're a hypocrite. As you said it has nothing to do with the truth or validity of the arguements, so the arguements should be treated that way.

The problem is that you are trying to convince someone that your arguments are true. Whether they are or not, obviously some people don't think they are correct. If you are a hypocrite, your arguments in everything look suspect. I mean, if you had just seen someone murder your friend, would you believe him when he said "Come a little closer, I won't hurt you."?

The problem is that you are trying to convince someone that your arguments are true. Whether they are or not, obviously some people don't think they are correct. If you are a hypocrite, your arguments in everything look suspect. I mean, if you had just seen someone murder your friend, would you believe him when he said "Come a little closer, I won't hurt you."?
bingo. if a non-hypocrite wishes to make K's case for him i am prepared to listen.

What if my religion says that organ donation is immoral? Or, as in the case of Jehovah's witnesses, that getting a blood transfusion is immoral. Without months and months of future planning, you can't take an organ out of someone without giving them a blood transfusion. Are you going to force that Jehovah's witness to believe that they are going to hell so that someone else can get an organ?

What if your religion requires you to smoke marijuana every thursday at 11? It dosen't matter. Freedom of religion dosen't trump some things.

And as for "the program is not working," there will never be enough organs for all the people who need them, even if donation were compulsory. That's why we need to be looking into other alternatives to organ transplant.
Which means we shouldn't try to get as many as we can now? The point of this is...

Besides, where do you stop forcing people to do things? Can we now force people to stop drinking, stop having sex, stop dealing with animals, stop eating anything fatty, and start exercising an hour each day just so that their organs can be used if someone *might* need them one day?
There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere. Enough people already, I think, would be naturally sufficient in addition to those organs which could be gained via dead bodies.

You simply can't force one person to give up their organ (and possibly their life) for another person. You can argue all you want that they should, and I agree that it would be a good thing (even though you're risking your life) to give up a kidney or a piece of liver or bone marrow for someone else, even if you didn't know them. However, you cannot force something like that on someone.
Sure we can, if the majority of people want it.

bingo. if a non-hypocrite wishes to make K's case for him i am prepared to listen.
Thats just willful ignorance. The fact of the matter is not listening to someone's arguments because they are a hypocrite (in your mind) is a bit circular, too. Why won't you listen to their arguements? Because they're a hypocrite. Why are they a hypocrite? Because of their arguements.

I'll say it, than. People do not deserve to be killed. I find it ridiculous to say that a person has done an evil thing in killing someone, and therefore killing him is justified. If what he did is evil, in killing another human being, killing him is evil as well. Should precautions be taken to prevent the individual in question from killing again? Yes, but killing a human being for any reason, except for self defence, is completely inexcusable. A Murderer should not be set free because he maintains that his victim deserved death, and there shouldn't be an excuse for the state to be in the business of murder either.

Let me put it this way: some people don't deserve to remain alive. If we choose to let them live then we are giving them more than they deserve.

Is there an inherent right to life just from being born? Yes, and some even say from being conceived. However if you take away a right from someone else, you do not deserve to enjoy that right for yourself.

And don't try to say that the executions of murderers are the same as those murders themselves. If you want to call them murders, fine... they are certainly homicides... but there is no moral equivalency between painlessly injecting a guy who has raped and murdered a child and what he himself has done. You're free to believe that all lives are sacred, but I myself must insist that some lives are profane.

Thats just willful ignorance. The fact of the matter is not listening to someone's arguments because they are a hypocrite (in your mind) is a bit circular, too. Why won't you listen to their arguements? Because they're a hypocrite. Why are they a hypocrite? Because of their arguements.
in my mind? you being a hypocrite is objectively verifiable. you say one thing and admit to doing another. by your own free admission you are a hypocrite.

besides which, i have already shown why your position is invalid via your own hypocricy; if one believed in your position they would have to engage in the range of behaviors i have describe or be also a hypocrite (and therefore not living according to the principles you describe), yet you freely acknowledge that even you, who support these ideas, don't do that. talk about circular, you've practically written a book on that here.

because you are a hypocrite, you bore me and i don't wish to debate with you. i would continue to do so, against my personal feelings, except that i have already sufficiently deconstructed your theories anyway. thus, there is no point in continuing.

have a nice day!

What if your religion requires you to smoke marijuana every thursday at 11? It dosen't matter. Freedom of religion dosen't trump some things.

True, it doesn't trump anything you do that willfully harms another. Inaction is not willfully harming another. Although you and I may see it as immoral, it is not something we can morally force on someone else - especially if doing so seems like death to them. If you force a Jehovah's Witness to have a blood transfusion - as far as they are concerned, you just denied them eternal life (which btw, would be a whole lot worse than them denying someone a few more years of life on this Earth, as far as they were concerned).

Which means we shouldn't try to get as many as we can now? The point of this is...

THe government shouldn't waste money trying to force people who don't want to into donating their organs and should instead fund research into other options.

There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere. Enough people already, I think, would be naturally sufficient in addition to those organs which could be gained via dead bodies.

You think wrong. If every human being in this country right now were to sign up to donate organs, only a small percentage would even be eligible (and there are only a few organs you can donate without dying in the first place). An obese person cannot donate most organs. A person who has done much drinking in their life cannot donate most organs. And then there's the simple fact that you actually have to be a match for the person you're donating to.

Sure we can, if the majority of people want it.

Oh dear, the tyrrany of the majority. If the majority of the people in this country wanted to start beheading all the people who aren't organ donors, would that be ok too?

I also believe that any and all cops and D.A.s and such who cheat to convict someone should get the same punishement that the accused would have gotten. Deny a guy a fair trial and send him to death row? Go to death row yourself.

. . .

because you are a hypocrite, you bore me and i don't wish to debate with you. i would continue to do so, against my personal feelings, except that i have already sufficiently deconstructed your theories anyway. thus, there is no point in continuing.

have a nice day!

Am I also a hypocrite? I lobbed you a nice easy one a while back but I have yet to hear back. ;)

@ Bottle : :rolleyes: C'ya!

True, it doesn't trump anything you do that willfully harms another. Inaction is not willfully harming another. Although you and I may see it as immoral, it is not something we can morally force on someone else - especially if doing so seems like death to them. If you force a Jehovah's Witness to have a blood transfusion - as far as they are concerned, you just denied them eternal life (which btw, would be a whole lot worse than them denying someone a few more years of life on this Earth, as far as they were concerned).

But I wouldn't force someone to accept a blood transfusion or a organ transplant. Does a JW believe that if blood leaves their body but nothing new comes in, they still go to hell?

THe government shouldn't waste money trying to force people who don't want to into donating their organs and should instead fund research into other options.
I believe they should do both.

You think wrong. If every human being in this country right now were to sign up to donate organs, only a small percentage would even be eligible (and there are only a few organs you can donate without dying in the first place). An obese person cannot donate most organs. A person who has done much drinking in their life cannot donate most organs. And then there's the simple fact that you actually have to be a match for the person you're donating to.
Indeed, the MHC can provide a bunch of problems, among other things that can cause a transplant to have complications. Your right that we should try to fund research into other options ASAP to find alternatives.

Oh dear, the tyrrany of the majority. If the majority of the people in this country wanted to start beheading all the people who aren't organ donors, would that be ok too?
It wouldn't make it right, in my eyes anyway, but there would be nothing that I could do about it besides moving out of the country.

. . .

Oh dear, the tyrrany of the majority. If the majority of the people in this country wanted to start beheading all the people who aren't organ donors, would that be ok too?

It certainly would be highly efficient. ;)

@ Bottle : :rolleyes: C'ya!


But I wouldn't force someone to accept a blood transfusion or a organ transplant. Does a JW believe that if blood leaves their body but nothing new comes in, they still go to hell?

. . .



You snipped the quote. If you had read further you would have read that preparing the doner requires months of infusions.

Besides, denying someone else Heaven is not a good thing to do, is it? And lastly, J.W.s don't believe in Hell.

You snipped the quote. If you had read further you would have read that preparing the doner requires months of infusions.

Besides, denying someone else Heaven is not a good thing to do, is it? And lastly, J.W.s don't believe in Hell.
I didn't cut out that part of the quote, I missed it (its a few posts back in one of my quotes). If preparing a donor takes an months, it would suggest that this conondrum would happen extremely rarely if ever, given that it isn't immediate (as a blood transfer would be) there would be some time, if even only a small amount, to find another donor who isn't in such circumstances. Denying someone their Heaven is not a good thing to do, but again we're not allowing people to break the law simply because their religion says so right now (for the most part), and I'd imagine this would simply keep in line with past legal precedents.

I didn't cut out that part of the quote, I missed it (its a few posts back in one of my quotes). If preparing a donor takes an months, it would suggest that this conondrum would happen extremely rarely if ever, given that it isn't immediate (as a blood transfer would be) there would be some time, if even only a small amount, to find another donor who isn't in such circumstances. Denying someone their Heaven is not a good thing to do, but again we're not allowing people to break the law simply because their religion says so right now (for the most part), and I'd imagine this would simply keep in line with past legal precedents.

Yeah, facism will have its way.

Am I also a hypocrite? I lobbed you a nice easy one a while back but I have yet to hear back. ;)
which one? i honestly must have just missed it.

which one? i honestly must have just missed it.

Post #132 ... unless I missed the answer.

I didn't cut out that part of the quote, I missed it (its a few posts back in one of my quotes). If preparing a donor takes an months, it would suggest that this conondrum would happen extremely rarely if ever, given that it isn't immediate (as a blood transfer would be) there would be some time, if even only a small amount, to find another donor who isn't in such circumstances. Denying someone their Heaven is not a good thing to do, but again we're not allowing people to break the law simply because their religion says so right now (for the most part), and I'd imagine this would simply keep in line with past legal precedents.

No, no - you both misunderstood me. Normal donation could take place immediately. If I decided to give you my kidney right now, that would be fine, because I'm perfectly ok with getting blood from a blood bank. So while I'm lying on the table bleeding when they're removing my kidney, they could give me someone else's blood and as long as the surgery didn't kill me, I'd wake up later with one less kidney and a hell of a lot of pain.

A JW, however, cannot receive a blood transfusion. Period. Their right to this has been Constitutionally upheld. They *can* have surgeries, but only if they bank their own blood for a while, take medicine to increase their hemoglobin, and the doctors use a special device called a cell saver that attempts to put as much of your own blood back into you as possible. Even then, it is much more dangerous than a normal surgery.

Now, as for finding "another donor not in such circumstances," I don't think you understand organ donation very well. Usually, only one donor that is truly a match can be found, and that's if you're damn lucky. If you find one, and they happen to be someone who can't undergo surgery for some reason, the chances of finding another possible donor are astronomically high.

Here's another issue, by donating an organ (while living), you are most likely increasing the number of people who need organs. If I give my kidney or a piece of my liver (which are pretty much the only organs I could donate right now), there is a much higher chance that my other kidney will get overworked and eventually give out (leaving me needing one) or that my liver may fail. So all you would've done by forcing organ donation is make more people who need organs.

As for "keeping in line with legal precendents," there has never been a law that forces you to give up your body parts to someone else, so there really are none.

I really don't understand how it is "liberal" to be pro-abortion. Yes, it would be nice if the woman could have her right to choose, but isn't the baby's right to life more important?

No, they are not even legaly citizens untill they born. Given that they don't have the right to anything.

OK then just let me ask you this: what organs in a human body have the potential to become whole humans?

(leave out cloning and such.)

I think the reason Bottle didn't answer this was that it has been answered many, many, many times before.

Potentiality does not equal actuality. Something that has the potential to become something does not equal that thing.

So until the fetus becomes a separate life from the mother (and I know Bottle and I may place that cutoff at different times, but the idea is still the same), it is pretty much the same thing as an organ. In fact, it's really closer to a cancerous mass, since it provides nothing for the mother. [Please don't take that as meaning I think all fetuses are like cancer - I'm just making comparisons here].

so are you ganna be the one to walk in the room and tell that man that sorry we cant save your life becasue the one person who can save you dosent feel that the risk is worth saving your life.

Why not? Someone has do it.

correct, a fetus IS alive, and any scientist will know and acknowledge that fact.


incorrect. while it is true that science cannot define what it means to be human (that is a philosophical issue), your claim that possetion of human DNA defines human life is not rational.

for example, that means that each organ in my body--indeed, each cell--is a human being. each has a complete and functioning set of human genes, after all. to say that having unique human genes is the definition of human personhood is likewise foolish, since that means that two identical twins are actually one person, since they have the same DNA.

it is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive, and that a fetus is human tissue. whether or not a fetus is a human person is something that science cannot answer for us, because science cannot define human personhood.

Science can define what it is to be human. By your logic science couldn’t define a dog as a dog or a elephant from a elephant.

My arm is a group of cells. It is not a separate life. Sorry, I left out the word separate.

And by the way, for all intensive purposes, I am a biologist.



No, what I meant was that it does not qualify as a separate life. According to science, an organism must meet certain requirements in order to qualify as an organism. Up until a certain point in development, the fetus meets only one. Therefore it is not a separate life, it is a group of dividing cells attached to the mother - and is no more an organism than a cancerous mass is (according to science.)

Now, I personally place the beginnings of the fetus being considered a separate life at the point when it can sense and respond to its environment - ie. development of a functioning nervous system. At that point, the choice of "whatever the mother wants to do" ceases to exist - I believe (and law pretty much backs me up), that there must a compelling medical reason at that point.
What kind of statement is "for all intents and purposes I am a biologist" supposed to mean, are you educated and employed as a biologist or not? That doesn’t really mater because you could be a bad one and we would never know. As far as sensing and reacting to its environment, have you ever prodded a single cell organism under a microscope? That alone makes me suspect your credentials if not your intelligence.

As for "keeping in line with legal precendents," there has never been a law that forces you to give up your body parts to someone else, so there really are none.
I was talking about groups that claim to have a religious right but the courts say that despite what their religion preaches, it isn't happening. If the JW's have had court cases specifically for them and their right has been upheld, however, then no organ donation wouldn't be required because thats simply what the law says. What I don't think you understand is that under the current situation, organ donation is voluntary, so of course the amount of possible donors would be much more limited than if it was cumpulsory, so it would be much easier to find a match amount everyone hypothetically rather than the situation at the present time.

person a believes that government should have less control over people (the power to tell a woman what to do with her body and the power to take a life) person b believes that government should have that control.

Well, I'm pro-choice, and pro-death penalty...so I don't fit the conundrum! HA!

What kind of statement is "for all intents and purposes I am a biologist" supposed to mean, are you educated and employed as a biologist or not?

I am educated as a biomedical engineer and am still continuing my graduate education in bioengineering. So, no, my job title is not "biologist," but I have studied and am currently researching aspects of biology.

That doesn’t really mater because you could be a bad one and we would never know.

Well, if my GPA means anything, then no, I am not. But you can believe whatever you want.

As far as sensing and reacting to its environment, have you ever prodded a single cell organism under a microscope? That alone makes me suspect your credentials if not your intelligence.

This cannot be used as a way to detect a separate life. Every single one of my cells will respond by being prodded, but it will not respond as a separate organism. A single-celled organism meets all of the requirements to be defined as an organism without having to have other cells. However, a multicellular organism responds as an organism, not as single cells. If someone pokes me in the side, it is not the cells in my side that ultimately make me react. The nerves there pass a signal to my CNS that then tells my muscles to react to being poked and I move away.

The cells in my arteries will respond when you prod them, does that make them a distinct and human separate life from the rest of my body? If all it takes is for single cells to be able to react to being prodded, there are millions of human beings inside me and I kill lots of them every day when I scratch at an itch.

The point was that a fetus does not sense and react to its environment as an organism until it has a nervous system. If you can't understand the distinction, then I "question your intelligence."

I was talking about groups that claim to have a religious right but the courts say that despite what their religion preaches, it isn't happening. If the JW's have had court cases specifically for them and their right has been upheld, however, then no organ donation wouldn't be required because thats simply what the law says.

If it was compulsory, it would apply to them unless you made a special exception. I was simply pointing out that, when the treatment is necessary for a JW, and they say no, it has been upheld that they're allowed to say that. I was simply using an example to show that, for some, organ donation itself may be deemed immoral. If we made an exception for JWs, we would have to make an exception for anyone with a religious objection - and anyone who didn't want to do it would claim a religious object - and, in the end, you'd still just get the people who want to be organ donors in the first place.

What I don't think you understand is that under the current situation, organ donation is voluntary, so of course the amount of possible donors would be much more limited than if it was cumpulsory, so it would be much easier to find a match amount everyone hypothetically rather than the situation at the present time.

Of course I understand that the organ donation is voluntary, as it should be. However, since your best chance at a match is a family member, you aren't raising the chances all that much by making organ donation compulsory - very rarely will a family member deny you that. However, considering the obesity rates in this country, mandatory organ donation wouldn't really make all that big a difference, since a large percentage of people wouldn't be eligible anyways.

Either way, there is nothing moral about forcing one person to possibly give up their life for another. If you were talking only about having mandatory organ donation at death, I would be more likely to agree with you. But, even then, the organs belong to the person dying and if they don't say you can have them, you can't really force that on them. My boyfriend is not an organ donor, and his is a position I don't understand, but I'm not about to force him to do it.

There's only one country in the "Western" world which still has the death penalty. The same country where (usually) religious nuts are at their most ardent in harassing those who help women to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies. I doubt that's a coincidence.

There are plenty of cases where people have gone to jail for many years before managing to prove their innocence. No amount of "20 years plus death" putting off will stop the death penalty being wrong, because one day you'll execute someone only to have new evidence come out twenty years and a day after their conviction. No amount of justification in killing the guilty (which doesn't exist IMO, but that's not the point) can justify the possibility of the state taking a single innocent life. Crimes which are serious enough to be "capital" should be punished by imprisonment until innocence is proven - which, in most cases, will mean life.

I think the reason Bottle didn't answer this was that it has been answered many, many, many times before.

Potentiality does not equal actuality. Something that has the potential to become something does not equal that thing.

So until the fetus becomes a separate life from the mother (and I know Bottle and I may place that cutoff at different times, but the idea is still the same), it is pretty much the same thing as an organ. In fact, it's really closer to a cancerous mass, since it provides nothing for the mother. [Please don't take that as meaning I think all fetuses are like cancer - I'm just making comparisons here].

Bottle was saying that the law should treat a violent assailent who causes his victim to lose her fetus in the same way it treats an assailent who causes his victim to lose a tooth or a kidney. I asked what other parts of a human body can become fully human beings.

You haven't answered either.

Bottle was saying that the law should treat a violent assailent who causes his victim to lose her fetus in the same way it treats an assailent who causes his victim to lose a tooth or a kidney. I asked what other parts of a human body can become fully human beings.

You haven't answered either.

That's because, as I said, the question is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not to mention that you already know the answer.

You are obviously trying to suggest that potentiality somehow makes a fetus more important than a kidney and from previous posts, it appears that Bottle does not agree.

Personally, I think that the fact that a mother is looking forward to having a baby increases the offense and she should be entitled to a "pain and suffering" judgement in a civil case. However, the law does not view a fetus as a full human being (and if it did we would run into a myriad of problems not worth going into here), so it cannot view it as a full human being in this context either.

Science can define what it is to be human. By your logic science couldn’t define a dog as a dog or a elephant from a elephant.
science can define human biology, human tissue, human DNA, etc. but human personhood is a philosophical matter, and is very different from elephanthood or doghood because it is a matter of humanity defining consciousness and the limitations of its own species; for elephants, elephanthood is likewise a philosophical matter.


Bottle was saying that the law should treat a violent assailent who causes his victim to lose her fetus in the same way it treats an assailent who causes his victim to lose a tooth or a kidney. I asked what other parts of a human body can become fully human beings.


also, again,whether or not the fetus COULD become a human doesn't have any impact on what it IS. thus your question is irrelevant to the point i was making, because the fetus, like the organs IS NOT CURRENTLY a human person, and therefore does not deserve rights equal to those of a human person.

a human child is more likely to develop into an adult human than, say, a human foot is, but that doesn't mean that we grant the child the same rights as an adult because it is more likely to become one than some other things are.

a human child is more likely to develop into an adult human than, say, a human foot is, but that doesn't mean that we grant the child the same rights as an adult because it is more likely to become one than some other things are.

EDIT: you mean you think you should kill your nine yr old child because the novelty wore off? and buddy, i know for a FACT that the only rights children dont have is the right to bear arms and the minimum wage act, and they cant drink or smoke, but thats about it

You mean to tell us that, say you/your fetus did not deserve to live if your mother happened to be going thru tough times and couldnt support you? Thats like saying "i cant afford to bring up someone, so lets murder an innocent child! it solves everything!" Thats what adoptions are for.

Even for rape babies, its not the babies fault! Kill the rapist, not the baby. The baby did not commit a crime, do why should he/she die? Abortion just does not make sense to me. You are treating a human being like a soulless mass of cells. They are living things with seperate experiences and lives right after it is conceived. Babies have awareness in the womb, and it has been proven. Ever heard a pregnant woman say "hey, it kicked me!"? I'm sorry, but a cancerous mass cannot kick, and babies do give something to the mothers. They give 18 years of an unforgettable experience in bringing up, from an 8 pound baby, a functioning member of society, just likeyou and me. We ALL came from said "cancerous masses" and i think you should treat your former, younger self that was the beginning of your very existance, with a bit more respect

EDIT: you mean you think you should kill your nine yr old child because the novelty wore off? and buddy, i know for a FACT that the only rights children dont have is the right to bear arms and the minimum wage act, and they cant drink or smoke, but thats about it

You mean to tell us that, say you/your fetus did not deserve to live if your mother happened to be going thru tough times and couldnt support you? Thats like saying "i cant afford to bring up someone, so lets murder an innocent child! it solves everything!" Thats what adoptions are for.

Even for rape babies, its not the babies fault! Kill the rapist, not the baby. The baby did not commit a crime, do why should he/she die? Abortion just does not make sense to me. You are treating a human being like a soulless mass of cells. They are living things with seperate experiences and lives right after it is conceived. Babies have awareness in the womb, and it has been proven. Ever heard a pregnant woman say "hey, it kicked me!"? I'm sorry, but a cancerous mass cannot kick, and babies do give something to the mothers. They give 18 years of an unforgettable experience in bringing up, from an 8 pound baby, a functioning member of society, just likeyou and me. We ALL came from said "cancerous masses" and i think you should treat your former, younger self that was the beginning of your very existance, with a bit more respect
what on earth are you babbling about?

children lack the right to:
bear arms
drink, smoke, watch certain movies, purchase pornography, etc etc
free speech
freedom of assembly
own property or money
hold a job
have sex

and that's just the short list. human children are not recognized as adults in the eyes of the law, no matter how likely it is they will become adults if natural is allowed to take its course.

the rest of your ramble is boring, emotive, and has been addressed several times already. please try again, once you have calmed down.

EDIT: you mean you think you should kill your nine yr old child because the novelty wore off? and buddy, i know for a FACT that the only rights children dont have is the right to bear arms and the minimum wage act, and they cant drink or smoke, but thats about it

They also can't sue, can't make medical decsions for themselves, can't drive, can't decide not to go to school, can't decide where to live, can't sign contracts, etc., etc., etc. If you really see that as a FACT, then I question your authority on anything. As for a 9 year old, it is scientifically and quite obviously a separate human being - stop trying to set up a slippery slope fallacy here.

You mean to tell us that, say you/your fetus did not deserve to live if your mother happened to be going thru tough times and couldnt support you? Thats like saying "i cant afford to bring up someone, so lets murder an innocent child! it solves everything!" Thats what adoptions are for.

The body decides that all the time. Do you know how many pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. However, if my mother had decided that she did not want me before the end of the first trimester, then that would've been her right.

Even for rape babies, its not the babies fault! Kill the rapist, not the baby. The baby did not commit a crime, do why should he/she die?

The "baby" is not yet a baby.

Abortion just does not make sense to me. You are treating a human being like a soulless mass of cells.

The soul is a religious concept and not a scientific one. Therefore you and I can't force our religious beliefs concerning a soul on a mother who does not believe it has one.

They are living things with seperate experiences and lives right after it is conceived.

Really? So we should sue every woman that every has a miscarriage for neglect and put her in jail?

Babies have awareness in the womb, and it has been proven. Ever heard a pregnant woman say "hey, it kicked me!"? I'm sorry, but a cancerous mass cannot kick,

All of that occurs after the nervous system is developed and therefore after elective abortions are legal.

and babies do give something to the mothers. They give 18 years of an unforgettable experience in bringing up, from an 8 pound baby, a functioning member of society, just likeyou and me.

Yes, babies give something to the mother. But as something attached to the body, fetuses do nothing to aid the survival of the mother. That was the only point that was made.

We ALL came from said "cancerous masses" and i think you should treat your former, younger self that was the beginning of your very existance, with a bit more respect

I'm not sure how to take this, but I must admit it kind of makes me laugh. Should I treat my skin cells with more respect too? They are part of me, but I don't really worry about flaking them off when I scratch at an itch.

Besides, you really shouldn't get so militant - it does nothing to spur debate. I have stated more than once that while I am pro-choice, I am personally anti-abortion. The points that I make are simply to demonstrate that the only reason to ban abortion is religious. I may think it's a bad thing, but I am not going to force my personal religious beliefs on you or anyone else. The minute you can scientifically prove the existence of a soul, and that the fetus has one from conception, you can ban abortion. You can also start putting mothers to death for murder every time their body spontaneously aborts due to some factor that made her body inhospitable at the time.

. . .

to directly answer you, other cells in the human body could ALL become another human, if given propper stimulation and environment; taking the DNA from any cell in any organ in your body and giving it the impetus of a propperly implanted ovum would result in development of a fetus. the fact that these tissues lack the necessary environment and cue signals from the ovum and the woman's body is not their fault. if you remove a fetus/zygote from those conditions it is no more likely to develop into an individual human than your spleen is.

also, again,whether or not the fetus COULD become a human doesn't have any impact on what it IS. thus your question is irrelevant to the point i was making, because the fetus, like the organs IS NOT CURRENTLY a human person, and therefore does not deserve rights equal to those of a human person.

a human child is more likely to develop into an adult human than, say, a human foot is, but that doesn't mean that we grant the child the same rights as an adult because it is more likely to become one than some other things are.

If you'd read my original post you would have seen that I asked you to discount cloning and the like. So, would you not agree that a fetus is the only thing in a human body that can become a human?

What a fetus IS is a unique collection of cells, unique in that only a fetus can grow into a human being, science fiction and potential future science notwithstanding. Hell, even if a foot could be used today to clone a human it is certainly in no way the equivalent of a fetus, and nothing else in the human body is either.

True we don't give a child the same rights as an adult, but the homicide of a child is treated in the same way as the homicide of an adult. Under the law as you would have it we should call it homicide if it happens a minute after birth but treat it the same as any other assault causing bodily injury if it happens a minute before. I am sorry, but that is rediculous. Not only does a tooth or a foot or a spleen require nonexistant and, when/if it does ever exist, extremely expensive and unnatural technology, but a) it will probably be illegal if it can ever be done, and b) it will only reproduce a duplicate of the person it came from.

So if the woman carrying my child is attacked and loses an eye, she has been seriously injured of course and she has also lost some of the billions of cells from which, if and when the technology ever exists, a genetic duplicate of herself could be created, at great expense and probably illegally. If she loses the fetus instead she has lost a life (deny that?) that she has been, by her own choice, carrying in her body with the intention of seeing born to become the unique human being that only it has the potential to become.

But I expect, not knowing your own beliefs but extrapolating from the views that you side with, that you look at the last paragraph and you foresee the prosecution of abortionists and their patients for murder. If so how would you greet the idea of a new charge along the lines of "assault causing miscarriage"? Or is your conviction that a fetus is no more important than any other organ/ism in the body absolute?

Abortions are legal now, and nothing that anybody can say, do, or blow up will change that. Also, so is the Death Penalty. Do any of you have any idea how much it costs to feed an inmate, clothe him, and give him basic cable and HBO? No, and we should cut costs by killing them.
"A woman's body is her on damn business" --Jay (from Jay and silent bob)
"Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty, and mine is puttin' in an express lane." --Ron White

. . .

Do any of you have any idea how much it costs to . . .give him basic cable and HBO?

. . .



Since all they get is one T.V. in the common room, I would say, around here, about $50 per month divided by the number of inmates, all for the greatest opiate of the masses ever divised plus what they would argue is their right to keep up with the news.

If you'd read my original post you would have seen that I asked you to discount cloning and the like. So, would you not agree that a fetus is the only thing in a human body that can become a human?


sure

What a fetus IS is a unique collection of cells, unique in that only a fetus can grow into a human being, science fiction and potential future science notwithstanding. Hell, even if a foot could be used today to clone a human it is certainly in no way the equivalent of a fetus, and nothing else in the human body is either.


sure, a fetus has biological characteristics that other human tissues lack. the same is true of the liver, the spleen, the toe, etc. we don't rule them human just because they have unique characteristics.


True we don't give a child the same rights as an adult, but the homicide of a child is treated in the same way as the homicide of an adult. Under the law as you would have it we should call it homicide if it happens a minute after birth but treat it the same as any other assault causing bodily injury if it happens a minute before. I am sorry, but that is rediculous. Not only does a tooth or a foot or a spleen require nonexistant and, when/if it does ever exist, extremely expensive and unnatural technology, but a) it will probably be illegal if it can ever be done, and b) it will only reproduce a duplicate of the person it came from.

actually, the homicide of a child is NOT treated the same in the legal system. civil damages are wildly different, for one thing. but setting that aside, my point was that legal status is currently determined by actuality not potentiality. a child has different legal rights than both a fetus and an adult, because it is neither a fetus nor an adult.

also, to correct your misconception, cloning would NEVER produce a duplicate of the original person...that is science fiction. a clone would be the same as an identical twin, a completely distinct and different person who happens to have the same DNA. in no way is it possible to clone personhood; only tissues could be cloned.

So if the woman carrying my child is attacked and loses an eye, she has been seriously injured of course and she has also lost some of the billions of cells from which, if and when the technology ever exists, a genetic duplicate of herself could be created, at great expense and probably illegally. If she loses the fetus instead she has lost a life (deny that?) that she has been, by her own choice, carrying in her body with the intention of seeing born to become the unique human being that only it has the potential to become.

again, she could never create a duplicate of herself, no matter what the technology. cloning doesn't do that, and if it did the individual created would be its own person as much as "test-tube" babies are today. it would not be hers, or in any way belong to her, any more than one identical twin belongs to the other.

if she loses a fetus she has lost living tissue, yes. her intentions for that tissue are not relavent to its current status. potentiality is not actuality, how many times do i need to say this? she can sue for additional damages for mental anguish if she likes, and if a jury awards them then good for her. but just because she intended to have a baby doesn't mean that her fetus is already a baby.

what if i am carrying a fetus (god forbid) and i am attacked and miscarry...should my attacker be prosecuted less harshly than the one that attacked your woman simply because she believed her fetus was a baby and i don't believe mine was one? is a fetus to be granted legal status based on its mother's opinion of it or attachment to it? what if the woman didn't know she was pregnant until after the miscarriage? should her attacker face less prison time because she had not become attached to her fetus yet?

i don't think the mother's feelings toward a fetus or a child should be used to determine its legal status in any way.

But I expect, not knowing your own beliefs but extrapolating from the views that you side with, that you look at the last paragraph and you foresee the prosecution of abortionists and their patients for murder. If so how would you greet the idea of a new charge along the lines of "assault causing miscarriage"? Or is your conviction that a fetus is no more important than any other organ/ism in the body absolute?
i would be open to the idea of using fetal viability as a standard for determining certain rights for the tissues; if medical professionals rule that a fetus has an acceptable chance of being able to survive independent from its mother, then i would support granting it a legal status less than that of a human person but greater than that of an organ. provided, of course, the sentence for ending the life of a viable fetus is significantly less than that for ending a human person's life.

EDIT:

You mean to tell us that, say you/your fetus did not deserve to live if your mother happened to be going thru tough times and couldnt support you? Thats like saying "i cant afford to bring up someone, so lets murder an innocent child! it solves everything!" Thats what adoptions are for.

Even for rape babies, its not the babies fault! Kill the rapist, not the baby. The baby did not commit a crime, do why should he/she die? Abortion just does not make sense to me. You are treating a human being like a soulless mass of cells.

You mean to tell me that a helpless five-year-old child who needs your blood doesn't deserve to live because you don't want to be legally required to donate every eight weeks? That's like saying, "I don't like needlesticks or having to give up an hour of time, so let me murder an innocent child!"
It isn't the child's fault they need the use of your body to live - the child didn't commit a crime. Why should she/he die because of your selfish wish to keep your blood and your organs for yourself?
But, oh, yes, your body is your own, and you have full rights over it. You have the right to say yes or no to another person's use of your body, and to change your mind based on the merest whim, even if you kill the other person by so doing. Because you are a human being.
You are horrified by those who treat a two-celled blastula with no brain function or ability to survive independently like a "soulless mass of cells" (by not giving it special rights over another's body, rights no other human possesses), but you're perfectly willing to treat an adult, independent, sentient woman as a soulless incubating machine, without the right to say yes or no to the use of her most intimate body parts, regardless of her situation or of the consequences she might suffer.

sure


sure, a fetus has biological characteristics that other human tissues lack. the same is true of the liver, the spleen, the toe, etc. we don't rule them human just because they have unique characteristics.

One of the characteristics that a fetus uniquelly has is the ability to grow into a human.

actually, the homicide of a child is NOT treated the same in the legal system. civil damages are wildly different, for one thing. but setting that aside, my point was that legal status is currently determined by actuality not potentiality. a child has different legal rights than both a fetus and an adult, because it is neither a fetus nor an adult.

Civil damages are a matter for the jury to decide. I am talking about homicide charges, which are a matter of criminal law. As far as I know the charges and penalties are potentially the same under the law for the homicide of a child or an adult. "Potentially" because the premeditated murder of a child, for example, is treated more severely. But in the letter of the law, is there any difference in what can be charged and what can be sentenced?

also, to correct your misconception, cloning would NEVER produce a duplicate of the original person...that is science fiction. a clone would be the same as an identical twin, a completely distinct and different person who happens to have the same DNA. in no way is it possible to clone personhood; only tissues could be cloned.

again, she could never create a duplicate of herself, no matter what the technology. cloning doesn't do that, and if it did the individual created would be its own person as much as "test-tube" babies are today. it would not be hers, or in any way belong to her, any more than one identical twin belongs to the other.

It was no misconception unless you mean that I was of the misconception that you would not need to read the word "genetic" in front of the word "duplicate" in order to understand me or to act like you did.

if she loses a fetus she has lost living tissue, yes. her intentions for that tissue are not relavent to its current status. potentiality is not actuality, how many times do i need to say this?

33 more should do.

she can sue for additional damages for mental anguish if she likes, and if a jury awards them then good for her. but just because she intended to have a baby doesn't mean that her fetus is already a baby.

It was becoming a baby, which was its sole purpose, unlike any other organ/ism in her body.

what if i am carrying a fetus (god forbid) and i am attacked and miscarry...should my attacker be prosecuted less harshly than the one that attacked your woman simply because she believed her fetus was a baby and i don't believe mine was one? is a fetus to be granted legal status based on its mother's opinion of it or attachment to it? what if the woman didn't know she was pregnant until after the miscarriage? should her attacker face less prison time because she had not become attached to her fetus yet?

i don't think the mother's feelings toward a fetus or a child should be used to determine its legal status in any way.

No, the two situations should be treated exactly the same, which would include, in my proposition, the right of both mothers to decline to press charges.

i would be open to the idea of using fetal viability as a standard for determining certain rights for the tissues; if medical professionals rule that a fetus has an acceptable chance of being able to survive independent from its mother, then i would support granting it a legal status less than that of a human person but greater than that of an organ. provided, of course, the sentence for ending the life of a viable fetus is significantly less than that for ending a human person's life.

You're thinking in terms of rights of the fetus, and thus admitting the question to which the pro-life side will attach themselves. A fetus os not a person and nothing I have said suggests that it is. What it is is a unique organ/ism of the human female body that is becomming a person, and has the unique power to do so, with its mother's help. I am not talking about making any law that would ascribe any rights to a fetus.

A fetus has no rights. A mother carrying a fetus has rights. She has the right to abort it and she has the right to carry it to term. Any criminal act that takes away her right to her child by killing her fetus against her will is an afront on her rights that is far greater than the loss of any other non-vital organ. ANY criminal denial of her right to CHOOSE should be treated as a seperate crime in and of itself in addition to whatever acts, kidnapping to prevent abortion or physical assault to induce it or whatever, went along with the crime.



OK if you deliberately punched a known pregnent woman in the stomach until she miscarried, on that charge alone I would say that you shouldn't do more than 20 years.

A fetus has no rights. A mother carrying a fetus has rights. She has the right to abort it and she has the right to carry it to term. Any criminal act that takes away her right to her child by killing her fetus against her will is an afront on her rights that is far greater than the loss of any other non-vital organ. ANY criminal denial of her right to CHOOSE should be treated as a seperate crime in and of itself in addition to whatever acts, kidnapping to prevent abortion or physical assault to induce it or whatever, went along with the crime.

I'd agree to that, as long as the offence was not considered homicide and it was tried in a civil court, where the mother would decide whether or not to sue. There is legal precedent for loss of certain properties being considered worse than others due to emotional attachment. This could be an extension for which the mother could sue for "pain and suffering" associated with losing the fetus.

It would lead to some pretty hairy cases though. Imagine the defendent bringing up witnesses that would testify that the mother was actually upset about her pregnancy and thinking about terminating it. Whether true or not, it would just put her through more hell. And regardless of how dirty a tactic it is, it would be valid defense.

You're thinking in terms of rights of the fetus, and thus admitting the question to which the pro-life side will attach themselves. A fetus os not a person and nothing I have said suggests that it is. What it is is a unique organ/ism of the human female body that is becomming a person, and has the unique power to do so, with its mother's help. I am not talking about making any law that would ascribe any rights to a fetus.

i never said the fetus was a person, in fact i specifically stated that it should not have rights equal to that of a person in any way but COULD, possibly, be granted rights that reflect its special status as "a unique organ of the human female body."


A fetus has no rights. A mother carrying a fetus has rights. She has the right to abort it and she has the right to carry it to term. Any criminal act that takes away her right to her child by killing her fetus against her will is an afront on her rights that is far greater than the loss of any other non-vital organ. ANY criminal denial of her right to CHOOSE should be treated as a seperate crime in and of itself in addition to whatever acts, kidnapping to prevent abortion or physical assault to induce it or whatever, went along with the crime.


if a woman is punched so hard she loses her kidney we don't prosecute the attacker for that crime in particular; it's still assault, though it may be recognized as more severe based on injuries incurred. her right to choose to have her liver in her body isn't grounds for special prosecution, and if you want to elevate a fetus to a status other than that of an organ then i don't see why you are trying to make this distinction.


OK if you deliberately punched a known pregnent woman in the stomach until she miscarried, on that charge alone I would say that you shouldn't do more than 20 years.
i would say never more than 10 years.

I'd agree to that, as long as the offence was not considered homicide and it was tried in a civil court, where the mother would decide whether or not to sue. There is legal precedent for loss of certain properties being considered worse than others due to emotional attachment. This could be an extension for which the mother could sue for "pain and suffering" associated with losing the fetus.

It would lead to some pretty hairy cases though. Imagine the defendent bringing up witnesses that would testify that the mother was actually upset about her pregnancy and thinking about terminating it. Whether true or not, it would just put her through more hell. And regardless of how dirty a tactic it is, it would be valid defense.

That's only a problem because you would relegate such a situation to civil court and require a showing of emotional attachment.

(BTW, I am also in favour of a charge greater than "destruction of property" for the deliberate killing of a pet. Why? Emotional attachment, and in fact such an act should be a crime in and of itself, above D. of P., because while a pet has no rights and is not human, it is alive. As is a fetus. But as it is in most if not all U.S. states a pet is considered merely an object even in civil court.)

Consider the idea of making depriving a mother of her right to choose regarding her pregnency a crime in and of itself, and compare it to, say, car theft. Even if you hate your car and witnesses have heard you say "I wish somebody would steal this thing" and even if you left the keys in it and unlocked and running, if I steal it, none of the provides me with any realistic defense.

Also consider this: Is the kind of person that would physically assault a woman that he knows to be pregnent, whether he intends a miscarriage or not, the kind of person, commiting the kind of act, that we should merely deal with on a civil damages level? I don't think so. Those who do think so obviously don't understand what a precious thing a baby, even an expected baby, is, and they do not respect motherhood. They probably don't like apple pie and baseball either. ;)

Under your plan, someone causes a pregnent woman to miscarry and, if he has money, she gets money. Under my plan someone causes a pregnent woman to miscarry and he goes to prison ... on top of however many years he gets for the predicate crime of assault, dropping L.S.D. in her drink, attempted or successful murder of her herself, etc. Personally, I think that is the way to go.

(B.T.W., tripping on an ergot based hallucinogen (L.S.D. 25) or something similar (like L.S.D. 23) is an effective way to induce miscarriage. I imagine it's probably a very traumatic one too.)

For the Record:

1) I believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry her pregnency to term. That was supposed to be what "pro-choice" was all about. However since the proposals to specifically criminalize the death of a fetus came about, the so-called "pro-choice" side has circled the wagons against this, seeing it (and in its current form as a form of homicide, rightly so) as a law that could be used to prosecute abortionists and their patients.

This is why my proposal does nothing to define a fetus as a human and nothing to give it rights. It would be a criminal statute designed to punish those who deny a woman her right to choose. It would not only cover miscarriage-by-assault but also kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment intended to prevent a woman from aborting. It would thus protect ALL aspects of a woman's right to choose.

2) I believe in the death penalty. The killing of a murderer, certainly of the worst of premeditated murders, such as terrorists and sexual predators who murder their victims, is in no way comparable to murder itself. I am sorry, but no matter how much anyone insists on the sanctity of all human life, I can find no sanctity in such people. Sparing them what they have earned only comes from a fear of being like them, a fear which is misguided.

However obviously the system is broken. When a D.A. refuses to endorse a D.N.A. test for a person convicted of murder, to be paid for by the Innocence Project, on the sole reason that it is in the public interest to view the state as infallible, there is obviously something wrong, not to mention dirty cops and D.A.s who cheat the system to begin with, by withholding or planting evidence, etc. This is why my idea of "20 years plus life" should be implimented right away, as well as a moritorium on executions on all cases where D.N.A. testing was not done, and matching punishments for police, D.A.s, etc. who commit such a vile and unforgiveable crime as to pervert justice.

(BTW, I am also in favour of a charge greater than "destruction of property" for the deliberate killing of a pet. Why? Emotional attachment, and in fact such an act should be a crime in and of itself, above D. of P., because while a pet has no rights and is not human, it is alive. As is a fetus. But as it is in most if not all U.S. states a pet is considered merely an object even in civil court.)

There is precedence for "pain and suffering" settlements due to the loss of a pet. Some courts have held that pets are more than just normal property because people view them as part of the family. I believe it would be easier to extend this precedent further than to try and enact a new law. ::shrug:: But I could be wrong.

Consider the idea of making depriving a mother of her right to choose regarding her pregnency a crime in and of itself, and compare it to, say, car theft. Even if you hate your car and witnesses have heard you say "I wish somebody would steal this thing" and even if you left the keys in it and unlocked and running, if I steal it, none of the provides me with any realistic defense.

I'm dead tired, so this doesn't mean anything =) But I really can't think of anything to counter that with. It actually sounds like a good idea to me. ;-)

Also consider this: Is the kind of person that would physically assault a woman that he knows to be pregnent, whether he intends a miscarriage or not, the kind of person, commiting the kind of act, that we should merely deal with on a civil damages level? I don't think so. Those who do think so obviously don't understand what a precious thing a baby, even an expected baby, is, and they do not respect motherhood. They probably don't like apple pie and baseball either. ;)

No, but I don't want a person who assaults a woman and doesn't know she's pregnant or assaults a man to be dealt with on a purely civil level. But I'm looking for something that fits into legal precedent here, and as a criminal offence, you would have to show intent. If the assailant didn't even know the woman was pregnant, there is no intent. Now what recourse does she have?

I suppose you could have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree "taking away a woman's right to choose," but it would get pretty hairy.

. . .

I suppose you could have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree "taking away a woman's right to choose," but it would get pretty hairy.

Works for me.

Works for me.

What about the issue that by having this law, you are effectively making women more important than men? Any woman walking down the street might be pregnant and if she provokes someone enough that they get physically violent (not that this is an excuse, but you know what I mean), they might cause her to miscarry. Meanwhile, a man might do the same thing but get no special consideration. Are women inherently more precious than men?

Abortion doesn't make sense to me, even in times of rape. It never seemed like a logical way out. The grey area is too big to risk it. Are you killing a person or not? You never know.