What should abortion laws be?

[JD_2B]

Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"

I just do not understand for the life of me, where the logic comes from with people saying that women should be allowed to abort if their life depends on it, (which is a choice, and not the kind of thing that hospitals tend to do without consent), women should not be punished or treated as petri dishes to investigate stillbirths, but women who end a pregnancy by choice should suddenly be sterilized, all because of when the abortion occurred, considering the fact that nobody who holds this stance can pinpoint a certain specific time of gestation as to when this type of punishment should be utilized..

There simply is no guarantee that any pregnancy is going to make it to become a full term live birth, so I truly do not get why anyone would give entitlements (rights) to a fetus at any stage.

 

[Bern80]

Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"

That is an interesting punishment. I think life in prison is a little strong. You would almost have to create a law dealing with illegal abortions.

I don't know about the time frame either. I think the best you can do is draw a line at the latest point we know we're not dealing with a person. As JD has found though, there are all kinds of problems when it comes to what constitutes a person. It is difficult to define specifically the traits that need to be in place for one to determine that aborting with those traits in place should be illegal. Person may be the best, but even that's not very good, because one definition of the word clearly supports JDs argument (the legal term) in other defintions a fetus in the womb is also cleary a person. But the question is what makes one definition more valid than the other?

 

[Bern80]

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"

I just do not understand for the life of me, where the logic comes from with people saying that women should be allowed to abort if their life depends on it, (which is a choice, and not the kind of thing that hospitals tend to do without consent), women should not be punished or treated as petri dishes to investigate stillbirths, but women who end a pregnancy by choice should suddenly be sterilized, all because of when the abortion occurred, considering the fact that nobody who holds this stance can pinpoint a certain specific time of gestation as to when this type of punishment should be utilized..

There simply is no guarantee that any pregnancy is going to make it to become a full term live birth, so I truly do not get why anyone would give entitlements (rights) to a fetus at any stage.

That argument doesnt work either as the same argument would apply to born people too. Just as there is no gauruntee that a child will survive the 9 months of pregnancy there is no gauruntee it will live to see 10, 25, 50 or 100 years of age, thus according to you they should have not protection from someone else who feels burdened by them.

What is so hard to understand about simply making the best choice possible for all parties involved?

 

[Ipsl]

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"

I just do not understand for the life of me, where the logic comes from with people saying that women should be allowed to abort if their life depends on it, (which is a choice, and not the kind of thing that hospitals tend to do without consent), women should not be punished or treated as petri dishes to investigate stillbirths, but women who end a pregnancy by choice should suddenly be sterilized, all because of when the abortion occurred, considering the fact that nobody who holds this stance can pinpoint a certain specific time of gestation as to when this type of punishment should be utilized..

There simply is no guarantee that any pregnancy is going to make it to become a full term live birth, so I truly do not get why anyone would give entitlements (rights) to a fetus at any stage.

I believe that a late term abortion, outside of medical justification, is irresponsible. The woman has had many months to determine if she wants the kid. I think she should be startled because she clearly isn't responsible. Also laws are ment more as a deterrent than a punishment.

 

[Ipsl]

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"

That is an interesting punishment. I think life in prison is a little strong. You would almost have to create a law dealing with illegal abortions.

I don't know about the time frame either. I think the best you can do is draw a line at the latest point we know we're not dealing with a person. As JD has found though, there are all kinds of problems when it comes to what constitutes a person. It is difficult to define specifically the traits that need to be in place for one to determine that aborting with those traits in place should be illegal. Person may be the best, but even that's not very good, because one definition of the word clearly supports JDs argument (the legal term) in other defintions a fetus in the womb is also cleary a person. But the question is what makes one definition more valid than the other?

I'm personally opposed to jail time for non-violent offenders. (For the most part) So I don;t think jail time would be just.

 

[AllieBaba]

How is murder non-violent?

??????

 

[Ipsl]

How is murder non-violent?

??????

I don't look at it is as murder.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Besides morality has nothing to do with laws.

Ignoring the fact that the above comment is simply wrong,

why are you arguing the morality of the matter in a thread about law, if the two are unrelated?

 

[Ipsl]

Besides morality has nothing to do with laws.

Ignoring the fact that the above comment is simply wrong,

why are you arguing the morality of the matter in a thread about law, if the two are unrelated?

Laws have to do with public opinion. I'm not arguing about morality.

Good Morning.

 

[AllieBaba]

If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Besides morality has nothing to do with laws.

Ignoring the fact that the above comment is simply wrong,

why are you arguing the morality of the matter in a thread about law, if the two are unrelated?

I'm not arguing about morality.

Good Morning.

. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion.

Laws have to do with public opinion.

Laws are a class of enforceable ethics.

Ethics are heavily influences by the morality of the persons who constitute the collective.

Ergo, law is ultimately based, in part, on common or shared morality

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.

It could be manslaughter.

 

[Bern80]

If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.

Not exactley true. There's manslaughter. You can be charged with a crime just for being negligent. Vehicular homicide for example. Murder specifically requires intent.

 

[Ipsl]

If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.

Thats a very flawed statement. Things are illegal because society deems it so. Besides, theft is a crime and defiantly isn't murder.

 

[Ipsl]

Ignoring the fact that the above comment is simply wrong,

why are you arguing the morality of the matter in a thread about law, if the two are unrelated?

I'm not arguing about morality.

Good Morning.

. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion.

Laws have to do with public opinion.

Laws are a class of enforceable ethics.

Ethics are heavily influences by the morality of the persons who constitute the collective.

Ergo, law is ultimately based, in part, on common or shared morality

The point is though you can't say something should be legal or illegal solely based on morality since that has and will change.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Parasite - an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

That sounds like a fetus to me.

Really? What harm does a fetus "usually" bring to his mother?

And my second question: Even if a fetus can be considered a parasite, so what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is where the fundamental difference is. I don't look at early abortions as killing. Right and wrong are only dictated by the populous of that particular society. Prohibition used to be considered right until the population changed their view.

The fact that abortions are killing is not a matter of opinion any more than the facts of what a fetus is are. When are you people going to get over thinking that biological/scientific fact is up for a vote?

Feel free to make the argument that killing unborn babies is moral, if you think you can manage it. But don't waste our time with a puerile attempt to assert that abortion isn't killing.

I don't think they are babies if they are unable to exist without the direct heklp from the mothers body. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion. Besides morality has nothing to do with laws. You want to base an argument on morals or ethics there is a different area for that.

Any other assumptions you'd like to make and continue to insult me?

I haven't insulted you . . . yet. If I decide to, trust me, you'll know, especially if you're really that thin-skinned. You might want to either toughen up or take yourself out of the political chats and go find a nice knitting group.

I have already said that what you think or what your opinion is of what a fetus is is irrelevant, since it's not up for debate. Continuing to assert your opinion as though it's a concrete base for anything just means that you aren't reading or paying attention to the posts you're putatively responding to. Trust me when I tell you that just pushing the reply button and spewing your talking points as though you're lecturing instead of conversing is one of the fastest ways to convince me that you're a troll deserving of no more from me than to mock you and laugh at you derisively. If you want polite conversation, you will observe the first rule thereof, which is "Converse with the person, not at her."

As to your erroneous belief that a fetus is not a baby while he cannot live without the mother's body, may I ask you where you found a definition of the word "baby" which included that particular criterion? Or is this just your own attempt to impose your personal opinions onto science?

I am appalled that you think the law has nothing to do with morality. Do you honestly think that we just make up laws willy-nilly, with no regard for what is right and wrong in the eyes of society? Just what do you think the purpose of the law IS, absent any moral considerations?

And excuse me, but this IS the area for arguments based on morals and ethics, because the topic of this thread is not "What are the laws NOW?" It is "What should the laws be?" And despite what you think, most people do not suggest laws divorced from any consideration of right and wrong, morality and ethics. I can't even imagine how one could make an argument for something to be the law without saying, in effect, ". . . because it's the right thing to do."

 

[Cecilie1200]

To a certain degree yes. If you'd like to word it in order to degenerate the conversation that's fine. So you don't have a counter point?

I think just restating your position serves as a counterpoint. Why is it that people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation always think it's someone ELSE who should die?

So you do a agree that overpopulation is a problem. Thats good to know.

I'm sorry, but where did I say that I thought your silly presumption was correct? I just asked why you people always think it's a good idea for OTHER people to die to save the planet, rather than manning up and killing yourselves. It's like you don't really believe in the importance of the cause, or something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again your dramatics and false assumptions only show your inability to have mature debate.

But to respond to your retort, you do the same thing as well every time you do or do not donate to certain charities. In fact, you've already stated that its OK to kill at certain times.

You're comparing not being able to donate to every charity on earth to homicide?

You support who is and who isn't worth of life in the same fashion that you describe.

No, he's just choosing who he does and does not feel able to help. No one person has the capacity to care about and assist every cause on the entire planet.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...

Sperm is human... sperm is not dead... Sperm is a person. Fucking idiot. Try Try again...

Try some gingko biloba for your memory, so that we don't have to recite every single freaking point in every single freaking post, okay? By this point, the fact that a fetus is an organism as well as alive, where a sperm cell is not an organism in addition to being alive should not require constant repetition to be understood.

Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.

Are you planning to utterly miss the point in every single post you make? I'd like to know now, so that I can just ignore you as utterly unworthy of discussion.

I didn't say that I WAS repeating myself. In fact, what I said was that I did not intend to repeat myself in detail in every post, and that she should try to remember what was said previously, instead of trying to stall the conversation out by being obtuse.

I don't need repetition to make my correct. Being correct will do that.