fett on 23/2/2009 at 00:19
I have a picture of Shug doing that. Would it suffice?
R Soul on 23/2/2009 at 01:02
Quote Posted by fett
I can draw a picture in paintshop and post it here if that would help.
Yes it would help tremendously.
jtr7 on 23/2/2009 at 01:40
How do we reconcile a mother's RIGHT to abort a foetus, with homicide laws against the murder of an unborn child in the instance where (
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/21/boy.homicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) a pregnant woman is murdered along with the unborn? Wanted or unwanted? A pro-choice law versus a pro-life law? I really don't know, but I assume the law is by now clear enough in the distinction, I just haven't heard it, yet. Wouldn't it be too easy to conclude that someone is perpetuating a lie, or that it should be reasonable for a pro-choice person to hear that story and get annoyed that the life of the unborn child was even mentioned? Regarding the law, is this a consistency issue, or is the wording clear but not commonly known?
fett on 23/2/2009 at 02:16
It's a consistency issue. Pro-lifers have been banging on about it for years.
D'Juhn Keep on 23/2/2009 at 02:18
It's quite an interesting question but the example you've given is really bad when you consider she was 8 months pregnant, at which point an abortion would be completely illegal.
If we assume that she was 1 month pregnant it might be better for your scenario. She's allowed to abort the foetus because it's her body and she can do what she wants until it can stay alive on its own. The debate about when that point is keeps changing thanks to medical science improving but let's say for argument's sake it's 24 weeks. I know nothing about the laws on murdering pregnant mothers at different stages of pregnancy but I'd guess it might be the same law at any stage
The main point I guess is that the foetus could have become a baby if not for the intervention of someone who should have had no say over whether it did or not. If you were "pro-life" I'd imagine you'd say that the woman shouldn't have the choice of aborting it anyway because it's a life in its own right and thus shouldn't be killed by anyone really.
You could write forever about the choices and the morality of it but I do think it boils down to whether you think the woman's rights trump that of an unborn child. Which is what I believe. As for consistency, I think it's a greater crime to murder a pregnant woman because it could be a life at some point. It's not great to say "nobody can terminate this life except this person" but in the end some rights trump others.
Scots Taffer on 23/2/2009 at 02:22
Well, past a certain point (which is too far along, in my opinion) the woman can't even legally kill that person so I don't think it's too slippery a definition.
Beleg Cúthalion on 23/2/2009 at 14:12
I'll surely regret posting in the CommChat but... what the hell...
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
You could write forever about the choices and the morality of it but I do think it boils down to whether you think the woman's rights trump that of an unborn child. Which is what I believe.
Unless we're talking about victims of rape or any birth dangers (haven't checked all the previous posts)... that would be a woman's right of avoiding nine months of...well... discomfort and pain plus maybe financial problems in the worst case versus the child's right to live at all. And you think that trumps it? I'm just asking because the way you put it into words reads like one life against another.
Kolya on 23/2/2009 at 16:47
At the stage we're talking about it is part of someone else's body as I pointed out before. It wouldn't exist or survive without that other person. So the idea that it's handled as an independent legal entity whose "right to live" is held over the woman's right to decide about her own body, is just wrong.
Any living person has the right to live, but not necessarily inside someone else. Please say you disagree... I got a surprise for you.
zombe on 23/2/2009 at 17:18
Quote Posted by BEAR
... we'd all be adopting children from orphanages in war-torn countries with fucking aids, ...
... ... ... what? ... oh ... never mind.
