[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The New California Republic]

Cases of one conjoined twin shooting the other? Really?

Oh I thought we were just talking about separating conjoined twins lmao

I was starting to search Google while thinking "how did I miss this?" lol.

[Page]

I still think those arguing in favor of the pro-choice side have made a dire mistake in ceding that the fetus is a stakeholder/worthy of moral consideration by starting with "the needs/welfare of the woman outweigh the needs/welfare of the fetus" or by employing the violinist allegory or by using words like "justifiable", all of which I believe shouldn't only apply to mid to late second trimester abortions and after.

We should make it clear that early abortions - before the fetus has any kind of subjective experience, before it can feel anything, are not morally acceptable, abortion at this stage is an amoral act. While one may make an argument for why shooting a dangerous animal is morally justifiable, no one would make such an argument about uprooting a plant. Uprooting a plant is an amoral act, there are no stakeholders; the plant doesn't feel anything.

See, the problem is if you're applying the above mentioned arguments to early abortions (which consist of the vast majority of abortions), you've already given ground to the anti-choice side. A first trimester fetus is much closer to a plant than a squirrel in terms of capacity for thought and feelings, but instead you're arguing about when it's alright to shoot a squirrel.

Insist that in the absence of a fetus having any subjective experience whatsoever, termination is amoral - outside of morality like uprooting a plant or getting a haircut or reading a book, it's not a scenario where morals and ethics come into play. That way, the anti-choice opponent has a much longer way to go.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

I still think those arguing in favor of the pro-choice side have made a dire mistake in ceding that the fetus is a stakeholder/worthy of moral consideration by starting with "the needs/welfare of the woman outweigh the needs/welfare of the fetus" or by employing the violinist allegory or by using words like "justifiable", all of which I believe shouldn't only apply to mid to late second trimester abortions and after.

We should make it clear that early abortions - before the fetus has any kind of subjective experience, before it can feel anything, are not morally acceptable, abortion at this stage is an amoral act. While one may make an argument for why shooting a dangerous animal is morally justifiable, no one would make such an argument about uprooting a plant. Uprooting a plant is an amoral act, there are no stakeholders; the plant doesn't feel anything.

See, the problem is if you're applying the above mentioned arguments to early abortions (which consist of the vast majority of abortions), you've already given ground to the anti-choice side. A first trimester fetus is much closer to a plant than a squirrel in terms of capacity for thought and feelings, but instead you're arguing about when it's alright to shoot a squirrel.

Insist that in the absence of a fetus having any subjective experience whatsoever, termination is amoral - outside of morality like uprooting a plant or getting a haircut or reading a book, it's not a scenario where morals and ethics come into play. That way, the anti-choice opponent has a much longer way to go.

It is far from amoral, and there's also the argument regarding the consequences of banning abortion

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I still think those arguing in favor of the pro-choice side have made a dire mistake in ceding that the fetus is a stakeholder/worthy of moral consideration by starting with "the needs/welfare of the woman outweigh the needs/welfare of the fetus" or by employing the violinist allegory or by using words like "justifiable", all of which I believe shouldn't only apply to mid to late second trimester abortions and after.

We should make it clear that early abortions - before the fetus has any kind of subjective experience, before it can feel anything, are not morally acceptable, abortion at this stage is an amoral act. While one may make an argument for why shooting a dangerous animal is morally justifiable, no one would make such an argument about uprooting a plant. Uprooting a plant is an amoral act, there are no stakeholders; the plant doesn't feel anything.

See, the problem is if you're applying the above mentioned arguments to early abortions (which consist of the vast majority of abortions), you've already given ground to the anti-choice side. A first trimester fetus is much closer to a plant than a squirrel in terms of capacity for thought and feelings, but instead you're arguing about when it's alright to shoot a squirrel.

Insist that in the absence of a fetus having any subjective experience whatsoever, termination is amoral - outside of morality like uprooting a plant or getting a haircut or reading a book, it's not a scenario where morals and ethics come into play. That way, the anti-choice opponent has a much longer way to go.

It is far from amoral, and there's also the argument regarding the consequences of banning abortion

At what point does it become a moral issue to kill the thing? Fertilization of the egg? Implantation? First division? Some later stage?

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

It is far from amoral, and there's also the argument regarding the consequences of banning abortion

At what point does it become a moral issue to kill the thing? Fertilization of the egg? Implantation? First division? Some later stage?

Killing any fertilised human is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral dilemma. I don't think many people consider it amoral.

[The New California Republic]

Killing any fertilised human is a moral issue.

We aren't talking about killing the pregnant person here...

[Attempted Socialism]

even if that means a a child is forced to give birth and face permanent health issues as a result?

Reductio ad absurdum

No. It's explicitly what you're arguing for; forcing children in the early teens (Long before their bodies, let alone brains and abilities, are developed enough) to die from childbirth, or women to suffer and/or die from medically preventable ailments (Ectopic implantation as the easiest example). You're all in favour of killing girls and women because you prefer them to die over having the right to decide for themselves what happens in their bodies, especially since in these cases, the foetus will not even be viable. You can't be pro-life, you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women, and just don't have guts to say it out loud. If you think what you're arguing for is absurd, change your opinion, because your failed, immoral, anti-human beliefs have consequences when applied in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ ... tions-rape
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/31/nic ... -and-lives

It isn't, though. If you take an absolutist stance on abortion, that will have real world implications for some number of child rape victims or women with underlying health conditions. You might not want to face those realities, or you might think that's a tradeoff worth making, but it's not absurd to point them out.

Let’s look at statistics, only 6-8% of pregnancies are considered "high risk," this is a small minority of pregnancies, but looking at abortions specifically, 13% of abortions in the survey were done for medical necessity, interestingly enough in that same survey, the majority of respondent’s reason was "Having a baby would dramatically change my life."

You may want to take another pass at this argument, since you're arguing that those 13% deserve to die, and yet dare to claim that pointing it out is reducing your argument to absurdity. No; your belief that enslaving women is good because 13% of women currently having abortions (Again, according to your numbers) will suffer or die -- as, what, a warning to other women?; Biblical punishment?; their lives do not matter anyway?; 13% being acceptable sacrifice compared to the 87% who will be forced to go through with a pregnancy?; some other insane anti-human justification? -- isn't made absurd by us pointing it out. That belief is immoral from the outset. The absurd thing is that anyone holds that belief.

There are actually sacks of potatoes with higher levels of intelligence than some of the arguments presented ITT the past couple of pages, jfc.

I don’t think its lack of intelligence, just misinformation that’s spread and become a staple in media due to the influence of the pro abortion lobby. Many people don’t realize how much lobbying is done by these groups

There's no pro-abortion lobby outside the insane conspiracy theories of the anti-choice crowd.

That doesn’t mean it’s a life that has rights. It a fetus is a human being why doesn’t the census count them?

What kind of argument is this supposed to be?

Did you know about half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for unknown reasons? If life begins at conception wouldn’t that make every woman whose had more than period a serial killer?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate

It's the necessary consequence of foetal personhood. If a sexually active woman has a period, that egg might very likely be fertilised, which gives it personhood, but fail to implant for unknown reasons. This, as San Lumen points out, is estimated to be a high percentage (Though I seem to recall the number around 1/3-1/2). So we're at once into at least homicide for all sexually active women. Now, the pill and other hormonal birth control devices work by refusing implantation, which means all hormonal birth control devices become literal murder (Or, more likely, the outlawing of all hormonal birth control). The consequence of your policy is that sexually active women should be investigated for homicide roughly once a month, and some of the most used forms of birth control would be illegal. Again, we're into some deeply immoral shit.

No its meant the show the absurdity of their argument.

Obviously you believe that's what it's "meant" to do. For people who enjoy rhetoric and logic, that's not what it does. It reeks of immaturity and desperation.

I enjoy rhetoric and logic, and you're absolutely wrong. If an argument really is absurd (As Kexholms is), pointing out that it will have undesired consequences or implications isn't immature or desperate; it's a valid logical statement and often sound rhetoric because it convinces onlookers.

At what point does it become a moral issue to kill the thing? Fertilization of the egg? Implantation? First division? Some later stage?

Killing any fertilised human is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral dilemma. I don't think many people consider it amoral.

Prior to 20 weeks? I do consider it morally neutral. There are good reasons to minimise the number of abortions, but those are medical reasons and for the sake of the woman. The analogy here, to me at least, would be the destruction of some other unfeeling thing in the private possession of a person and with little or no impact on society. What's your argument otherwise?

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

Reductio ad absurdum

No. It's explicitly what you're arguing for; forcing children in the early teens (Long before their bodies, let alone brains and abilities, are developed enough) to die from childbirth, or women to suffer and/or die from medically preventable ailments (Ectopic implantation as the easiest example). You're all in favour of killing girls and women because you prefer them to die over having the right to decide for themselves what happens in their bodies, especially since in these cases, the foetus will not even be viable. You can't be pro-life, you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women, and just don't have guts to say it out loud. If you think what you're arguing for is absurd, change your opinion, because your failed, immoral, anti-human beliefs have consequences when applied in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ ... tions-rape
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/31/nic ... -and-lives

Let’s look at statistics, only 6-8% of pregnancies are considered "high risk," this is a small minority of pregnancies, but looking at abortions specifically, 13% of abortions in the survey were done for medical necessity, interestingly enough in that same survey, the majority of respondent’s reason was "Having a baby would dramatically change my life."

You may want to take another pass at this argument, since you're arguing that those 13% deserve to die, and yet dare to claim that pointing it out is reducing your argument to absurdity. No; your belief that enslaving women is good because 13% of women currently having abortions (Again, according to your numbers) will suffer or die -- as, what, a warning to other women?; Biblical punishment?; their lives do not matter anyway?; 13% being acceptable sacrifice compared to the 87% who will be forced to go through with a pregnancy?; some other insane anti-human justification? -- isn't made absurd by us pointing it out. That belief is immoral from the outset. The absurd thing is that anyone holds that belief.

I don’t think its lack of intelligence, just misinformation that’s spread and become a staple in media due to the influence of the pro abortion lobby. Many people don’t realize how much lobbying is done by these groups

There's no pro-abortion lobby outside the insane conspiracy theories of the anti-choice crowd.

What kind of argument is this supposed to be?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate

It's the necessary consequence of foetal personhood. If a sexually active woman has a period, that egg might very likely be fertilised, which gives it personhood, but fail to implant for unknown reasons. This, as San Lumen points out, is estimated to be a high percentage (Though I seem to recall the number around 1/3-1/2). So we're at once into at least homicide for all sexually active women. Now, the pill and other hormonal birth control devices work by refusing implantation, which means all hormonal birth control devices become literal murder (Or, more likely, the outlawing of all hormonal birth control). The consequence of your policy is that sexually active women should be investigated for homicide roughly once a month, and some of the most used forms of birth control would be illegal. Again, we're into some deeply immoral shit.

Obviously you believe that's what it's "meant" to do. For people who enjoy rhetoric and logic, that's not what it does. It reeks of immaturity and desperation.

I enjoy rhetoric and logic, and you're absolutely wrong. If an argument really is absurd (As Kexholms is), pointing out that it will have undesired consequences or implications isn't immature or desperate; it's a valid logical statement and often sound rhetoric because it convinces onlookers.

Killing any fertilised human is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral dilemma. I don't think many people consider it amoral.

Prior to 20 weeks? I do consider it morally neutral. There are good reasons to minimise the number of abortions, but those are medical reasons and for the sake of the woman. The analogy here, to me at least, would be the destruction of some other unfeeling thing in the private possession of a person and with little or no impact on society. What's your argument otherwise?

There is a pro abortion lobby. Planned parenthood, like other healthcare corporations, spend hundreds of thousands on bribes to politicians to get their interests secured.

I don't dislike planned parenthood because they perform abortions. But I do dislike planned parenthood because it's a for-profit sham that bribes government officials. I dislike all private healthcare corporations that engage in such practises.

[RedSovietComrade]

I must agree i dislike abortion but the women can choose that is all I am going to say

[Garkland]

Abortion should not be allowed expect when the mother's life is in danger . However that being said we need a better healthcare system and welfare system to help support poor young mothers. There needs to be a social net to help these people.

[The New California Republic]

There is a pro abortion lobby. Planned parenthood, like other healthcare corporations, spend hundreds of thousands on bribes to politicians to get their interests secured.

Take it up with your Congressman or Senator, as lobbying is an issue with the American political system in the first instance.

And it should be known that both pro-life and pro-choice groups engage in lobbying, so at least try to dish out the shade in proportionate amounts to both sides if you are going to insist on doing it.

[San Lumen]

Abortion should not be allowed expect when the mother's life is in danger . However that being said we need a better healthcare system and welfare system to help support poor young mothers. There needs to be a social net to help these people.

What gives you the right to make medical decisions for someone else?

[Attempted Socialism]

No. It's explicitly what you're arguing for; forcing children in the early teens (Long before their bodies, let alone brains and abilities, are developed enough) to die from childbirth, or women to suffer and/or die from medically preventable ailments (Ectopic implantation as the easiest example). You're all in favour of killing girls and women because you prefer them to die over having the right to decide for themselves what happens in their bodies, especially since in these cases, the foetus will not even be viable. You can't be pro-life, you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women, and just don't have guts to say it out loud. If you think what you're arguing for is absurd, change your opinion, because your failed, immoral, anti-human beliefs have consequences when applied in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ ... tions-rape
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/31/nic ... -and-lives

You may want to take another pass at this argument, since you're arguing that those 13% deserve to die, and yet dare to claim that pointing it out is reducing your argument to absurdity. No; your belief that enslaving women is good because 13% of women currently having abortions (Again, according to your numbers) will suffer or die -- as, what, a warning to other women?; Biblical punishment?; their lives do not matter anyway?; 13% being acceptable sacrifice compared to the 87% who will be forced to go through with a pregnancy?; some other insane anti-human justification? -- isn't made absurd by us pointing it out. That belief is immoral from the outset. The absurd thing is that anyone holds that belief.

There's no pro-abortion lobby outside the insane conspiracy theories of the anti-choice crowd.

It's the necessary consequence of foetal personhood. If a sexually active woman has a period, that egg might very likely be fertilised, which gives it personhood, but fail to implant for unknown reasons. This, as San Lumen points out, is estimated to be a high percentage (Though I seem to recall the number around 1/3-1/2). So we're at once into at least homicide for all sexually active women. Now, the pill and other hormonal birth control devices work by refusing implantation, which means all hormonal birth control devices become literal murder (Or, more likely, the outlawing of all hormonal birth control). The consequence of your policy is that sexually active women should be investigated for homicide roughly once a month, and some of the most used forms of birth control would be illegal. Again, we're into some deeply immoral shit.


I enjoy rhetoric and logic, and you're absolutely wrong. If an argument really is absurd (As Kexholms is), pointing out that it will have undesired consequences or implications isn't immature or desperate; it's a valid logical statement and often sound rhetoric because it convinces onlookers.


Prior to 20 weeks? I do consider it morally neutral. There are good reasons to minimise the number of abortions, but those are medical reasons and for the sake of the woman. The analogy here, to me at least, would be the destruction of some other unfeeling thing in the private possession of a person and with little or no impact on society. What's your argument otherwise?

There is a pro abortion lobby. Planned parenthood, like other healthcare corporations, spend hundreds of thousands on bribes to politicians to get their interests secured.

I don't dislike planned parenthood because they perform abortions. But I do dislike planned parenthood because it's a for-profit sham that bribes government officials. I dislike all private healthcare corporations that engage in such practises.

That's not a "pro abortion" lobby. I don't really know how to respond to something this ridiculous except to laugh. Though I'm sure you're about to prove me wrong with peer-reviewed articles and reports from unbiased institutions and media.

And, just for the record, I agree with your opposition to private health care. Like insurance, that shit really should be abolished -- preferably by being being taxed into oblivion first, so there's no demand for compensation. But that's not really the topic at hand.

Edit:
And just saw you reported me for this post. Right. That's a way to debate. Suddenly I'm not so concerned over whatever BS you'll manage to find as an attempted counterargument. If I don't respond, it's probably going to be because I blocked you.

[Garkland]

Abortion should not be allowed expect when the mother's life is in danger . However that being said we need a better healthcare system and welfare system to help support poor young mothers. There needs to be a social net to help these people.

What gives you the right to make medical decisions for someone else?

Well I believe from the moment that there is one cell to an entire baby, that thing is living, no doubt about that. It is esstinally Legal murder, justified because of the "choice for women". However, it is not fair to take someone's life, someone's future just because "they don't want the child". Have you ever seen an Abortion yourself? Honestly It's terrible just the description of it let alone the actual sight of it.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

At what point does it become a moral issue to kill the thing? Fertilization of the egg? Implantation? First division? Some later stage?

Killing any fertilised human is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral dilemma. I don't think many people consider it amoral.

Well I consider it amoral. A fertilized egg contains the information to make a person, but the "making" process takes (at least) weeks. Destroying information is not a moral issue to me.

Two cells is barely different to one. So the cells are the same, so actually what. There are several stages of division before the embryo begins to take in nutrients and literally grow: division is not growth.

Now you could make the argument that some information is valuable, but I would counter that no information is valuable until it has been expressed (made into a thing) or received by a person.

However, I suspect you'll avoid defining the value of a fertilized egg by its information content. You will correctly identify that as susceptible to scientific thinking. I expect mystical rubbish about "the soul attaches to the fertilized egg" or some such. So let me say in advance: if it can't be proven or disproven, I won't enter into it.

[San Lumen]

What gives you the right to make medical decisions for someone else?

Well I believe from the moment that there is one cell to an entire baby, that thing is living, no doubt about that. It is esstinally Legal murder, justified because of the "choice for women". However, it is not fair to take someone's life, someone's future just because "they don't want the child". Have you ever seen an Abortion yourself? Honestly It's terrible just the description of it let alone the actual sight of it.

If a fetus is a person why doesn’t the census count them?

A significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for reasons unknown. If life begins with conception Wouldn’t that make any woman whose had more than one period a serial killer?

Does taking birth control make a woman a serial killer?

Should a stillborn be investigated for possible murder?

[Garkland]

Well I believe from the moment that there is one cell to an entire baby, that thing is living, no doubt about that. It is esstinally Legal murder, justified because of the "choice for women". However, it is not fair to take someone's life, someone's future just because "they don't want the child". Have you ever seen an Abortion yourself? Honestly It's terrible just the description of it let alone the actual sight of it.

If a fetus is a person why doesn’t the census count them?

A significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for reasons unknown. If life begins with conception Wouldn’t that make any woman whose had more than one period a serial killer?

Does taking birth control make a woman a serial killer?

Should a stillborn be investigated for possible murder?

Ever heard of the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act?

It basically makes it two counts of murder or assulat instead of 1 when someone kills or harms a pregnant women.


Source from https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/fetal_homicide_laws/:

"Even before President Bush signed into law The Unborn Victims of Violence Act in April of 2004, making it a crime to harm an embryo or fetus at any stage of pregnancy during an assault on a pregnant woman, 31 states already had similar laws on the books. On the federal level, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act states that "Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law... and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." The measure goes on to say that it need not be proven that the assailant had knowledge that the woman was pregnant or had any specific intent to harm her child. If however, "the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall... [be] punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

There it is, embryos and fetuses are referred to by law as "child", and those who intentionally harm them are guilty of "[killing] a human being," UNLESS they are killed during "conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained." Abortionists are, thereby, formally excempted from any prohibition against killing children in the womb."

This is such a crazy double standard on this and there needs to be justice. No one should be exempt.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

What gives you the right to make medical decisions for someone else?

Well I believe from the moment that there is one cell to an entire baby, that thing is living, no doubt about that. It is esstinally Legal murder, justified because of the "choice for women". However, it is not fair to take someone's life, someone's future just because "they don't want the child". Have you ever seen an Abortion yourself? Honestly It's terrible just the description of it let alone the actual sight of it.

Living thing =/= person, or else we all commit murder billions of times a day.
Any reason, or no reason, and if it grosses you out then mind your own business.
Medical procedures are icky, big surprise, and again ... mind your own business.

[The Alma Mater]

What gives you the right to make medical decisions for someone else?

Well I believe from the moment that there is one cell to an entire baby, that thing is living, no doubt about that. It is esstinally Legal murder, justified because of the "choice for women". However, it is not fair to take someone's life, someone's future just because "they don't want the child".

Is it murder if you refuse to give someone a bloodtransfusion, despite knowing they will die ?
Does killing something before it has had any experience harm it ?

[The New California Republic]

This is such a crazy double standard on this and there needs to be justice. No one should be exempt.

No. We aren't going to put women in the position of being charged with murder when they miscarry.

[San Lumen]

If a fetus is a person why doesn’t the census count them?

A significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for reasons unknown. If life begins with conception Wouldn’t that make any woman whose had more than one period a serial killer?

Does taking birth control make a woman a serial killer?

Should a stillborn be investigated for possible murder?

Ever heard of the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act?

It basically makes it two counts of murder or assulat instead of 1 when someone kills or harms a pregnant women.


Source from https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/fetal_homicide_laws/:

"Even before President Bush signed into law The Unborn Victims of Violence Act in April of 2004, making it a crime to harm an embryo or fetus at any stage of pregnancy during an assault on a pregnant woman, 31 states already had similar laws on the books. On the federal level, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act states that "Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law... and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." The measure goes on to say that it need not be proven that the assailant had knowledge that the woman was pregnant or had any specific intent to harm her child. If however, "the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall... [be] punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

There it is, embryos and fetuses are referred to by law as "child", and those who intentionally harm them are guilty of "[killing] a human being," UNLESS they are killed during "conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained." Abortionists are, thereby, formally excempted from any prohibition against killing children in the womb."

This is such a crazy double standard on this and there needs to be justice. No one should be exempt.

Thst bill did make abortion illegal and does not reference it.

Should a stillbirth should be investigated as a Homicide?

If it’s a toxic pregnancy should the mother die for the sake of a fetus?

Is it acceptable to you that a 11 year old girl in Paraguay several years ago was forced to give birth after being raped by a family member as abortion is illegal there? She developed complications from it or is the life of the fetus more important?

[Garkland]

This is such a crazy double standard on this and there needs to be justice. No one should be exempt.

No. We aren't going to put women in the position of being charged with murder when they miscarry.

Who Said I supported charging women? It's nota always their fault. If a women gets raped or her life is in danger, we should do abortions. But other than that, we should help support these women though their pregnancy and helping to assist the Struggling and the unfournate. Now I believe in a afterlife and God, and I don't know about you. But if you believe that god is fine with abortions (or heck if you don't believe in god) then I don't blame you for supporting abortion. Your life, your morals. But if you ask me I'm against in in almost all cases. I'm not gonna try to convince you and you don't try to convince me.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

If a fetus is a person why doesn’t the census count them?

A significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for reasons unknown. If life begins with conception Wouldn’t that make any woman whose had more than one period a serial killer?

Does taking birth control make a woman a serial killer?

Should a stillborn be investigated for possible murder?

Ever heard of the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act?

It basically makes it two counts of murder or assulat instead of 1 when someone kills or harms a pregnant women.

I don't really have a problem with that. If THE WOMAN wants to put the full value of a human life on her foetus, that does not detract in any way from some other woman's right to put zero value on it.

There are some issues with charging someone for a murder, when it's early in pregnancy and they had no way of knowing the life was there. But if they're already guilty of the woman's murder, I guess it's fair to say they were reckless of the possibility of killing a fetus. I'd make it a manslaughter charge, not murder, on that basis.

Source from https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/fetal_homicide_laws/:

"Even before President Bush signed into law The Unborn Victims of Violence Act in April of 2004, making it a crime to harm an embryo or fetus at any stage of pregnancy during an assault on a pregnant woman, 31 states already had similar laws on the books. On the federal level, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act states that "Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law... and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." The measure goes on to say that it need not be proven that the assailant had knowledge that the woman was pregnant or had any specific intent to harm her child. If however, "the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall... [be] punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

There it is, embryos and fetuses are referred to by law as "child", and those who intentionally harm them are guilty of "[killing] a human being," UNLESS they are killed during "conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained." Abortionists are, thereby, formally excempted from any prohibition against killing children in the womb."

This is such a crazy double standard on this and there needs to be justice. No one should be exempt.

Well if you're not satisfied with a law implicitly granting personhood "at any stage of pregnancy" because it doesn't outright violate Roe v. Wade then I'm fine with repealing it.

[San Lumen]

No. We aren't going to put women in the position of being charged with murder when they miscarry.

Who Said I supported charging women? It's nota always their fault. If a women gets raped or her life is in danger, we should do abortions. But other than that, we should help support these women though their pregnancy and helping to assist the Struggling and the unfournate. Now I believe in a afterlife and God, and I don't know about you. But if you believe that god is fine with abortions (or heck if you don't believe in god) then I don't blame you for supporting abortion. Your life, your morals. But if you ask me I'm against in in almost all cases. I'm not gonna try to convince you and you don't try to convince me.

Why should rape be an exemption? Pro lifers often say the child is innocent why should it suffer?

[Esalia]

Well I believe from the moment that there is one cell to an entire baby, that thing is living, no doubt about that. It is esstinally Legal murder, justified because of the "choice for women". However, it is not fair to take someone's life, someone's future just because "they don't want the child". Have you ever seen an Abortion yourself? Honestly It's terrible just the description of it let alone the actual sight of it.

If a fetus is a person why doesn’t the census count them?

A significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for reasons unknown. If life begins with conception Wouldn’t that make any woman whose had more than one period a serial killer?

Does taking birth control make a woman a serial killer?

Should a stillborn be investigated for possible murder?

If the census doesn't count illegal immigrants, do illegal immigrants cease to be people?

Do people who lived before censuses or weren't for whatever reason counted in a census cease to be people?