The difference between the death penalty and abortion

cincybearcat

HeidiJam wrote:

I though you ment independent life as in it could survive without its mother.

The weird thing is, a 2 year old isn't going to survive without someone to take care of him/her either, let alone a newborn.

unsung

scb wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

Say your wife is 9 months pregnant you get into an altercation with someone at a concert, the person assults your wife and ends up kiling the fetus. Should the person be charged with assult or murder. This is your wife we are talking about.

I think it's a very complex issue. But ultimately I'd have to say there was no murder. So close... but nope.

So what if the person committing the assault intentionally punched the woman in the stomach to intentionally cause a miscarriage and that was indeed the result?

What if a man was thumping his wife and she miscarries? There isn't a DA that wouldn't jump at the chance to include murder in the charges. The media would be all over it.

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.

SCB, this argument you are having is why I just concede that life starts immediately and go with my earlier point. It is so much easier to concede this point because no one on either side will ever agree completely on when life begins.
When I saw my pregnant girlfriend's sonogram and saw and heard the little heart beat, there was no doubt in my mind that is when life started for my little one. Any baby can be born in the third trimester and live with a little help. That is no different than someone in a coma who needs a little help...So just concede when life begins it doesn't need to change your stance and gives far less ammunition to the other side.

unsung

scb, when does that thing growing inside of the woman actually become a living human in your eyes?

CJMST3K

unsung wrote:

scb, when does that thing growing inside of the woman actually become a living human in your eyes?

scb made it clear. Based on its first breath and seeing light and being able to interact. In that one-second, it becomes a person, and literally not a second earlier.

...that's a completely arbitrary way of determining if it's a "person" if you ask me.

dasvidana

So I'm coming in late to this discussion, but ........
Pro-life laws really try to control reproductive behavior by requiring women who become pregnant to remain pregnant (until something natural happens) by court of law. Some laws may have exclusions like health of the mother, rape/incest, point of viability, etc. But the law dictates the consequences of a woman's behavior, and exclusions to the law judge that behavior. "Well, if you were raped, then you can kill the fetus. But if you just got pregnant from your own irresponsibility, then you can't." If the law was really trying to advocate for the fetus, there would be no exceptions. Does the fetus really care how it got there? No, the law tries to control women, not advocate for the fetus.

I see the abortion issue similar to organ donation. When it comes to organ donation, in no other circumstance can the state require someone to donate a portion of their body to save another individual, even if that individual is their child. Parents aren't required to donate blood, plasma, bone marrow, kidneys, or any other organ to save their children. These things can only be taken from the parent with the parent's consent. But if a parent can't be forced to donate a portion of their body to save their child after birth, why would it be acceptable to force a woman to donate her uterus to save someone who is yet to be born? Conversely, if the law CAN mandate that a woman donates her uterus to save someone else, then, shoudn't we then mandate that the woman must also donate blood, plasma, etc?

If we really want to stop abortions, we should focus on the reasons why women seek abortion. To me, that is a more effective place to start than arguing over what a life is and whose life is worth saving.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

Of course I can't speak for the entire left & wouldn't want to try. But, theoretically, I'd say we should leave it up to the mother bird. I think we need to respect that the eggs aren't ours, just as we need to respect that other people's fetuses & bodies aren't ours.

Let me ask you a question: You're at a fertility clinic with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a fire breaks out. There's a baby there. You can save 100 embryos or 1 baby. Who do you save?

That's a good question. I'd save the baby.

But let's say there are 100 embryos and 150 plants...what do you save?

Depends on whether I (or someone I know) has a particular emotional attachment to one of them (embryos or plants). If they're just random embryos and random plants, I think I'd just get the hell out of there.

_

know1 wrote:

scb wrote:

I'm starting this thread so the death penalty thread doesn't get hijacked talking about abortion.

Two of the primary differences between the death penalty and abortion are:

1. A fetus is not a person.

2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.

The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.

What's scary is both points you mentioned are not based in fact and they are opinion only.

Therefore, people are willing to potentially murder based upon opinion.

Sad.

I will agree that the death penalty and abortion are two completely different things and do not merit comparisons. I find them equally repulsive and pathetic, however.

So you think fertilized egg is an actively thinking, self-aware, person? Really?? You think a "person" can possess conscious self-awareness and will without a brain? Because I'm pretty sure scientific fact tells us they can't.

_

know1 wrote:

The whole pro-choice/anti-abortion, etc., argument is just semantics designed to make people feel better about their own opinions.

The argument...and the ONLY argument is about what defines a person/human/life. This is what needs to be determined.

For example, to the so-called "pro-choice" people, all you have to do is ask what choice does the baby have. As soon as you do, they say they do not believe it is a person yet. See - the issue is not about choice. It's about the definition of a person.

I completely disagree. It's a lot more complicated than you want to make it out to be, and obviously you haven't been listening when people have explained their position to you. If you disagree, fine. But don't misrepresent the position of others.

A fetus is not a person and is not capable of having a conscious will to live or not live. So your question about the fetus's choice is completely irrelevent. You can't fault pro-choice people for your irrelevant, nonsensical question.

The definition of personhood shows us that fetuses are not analagous to people on death row and they are not capable of making a choice. But it's not all about the definition of personhood. It's a LOT more complicated than that. It's amazing to me that you can't understand that.

JonnyPistachio

scb wrote:

know1 wrote:

scb wrote:

I'm starting this thread so the death penalty thread doesn't get hijacked talking about abortion.

Two of the primary differences between the death penalty and abortion are:

1. A fetus is not a person.

2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.

The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.

What's scary is both points you mentioned are not based in fact and they are opinion only.

Therefore, people are willing to potentially murder based upon opinion.

Sad.

I will agree that the death penalty and abortion are two completely different things and do not merit comparisons. I find them equally repulsive and pathetic, however.

So you think fertilized egg is an actively thinking, self-aware, person? Really?? You think a "person" can possess conscious self-awareness and will without a brain? Because I'm pretty sure scientific fact tells us they can't.

I don't think he was saying "actively thinking" and "self aware".
but those are good points. I think this is a tough debate because, like CJMST3K said, everyone has their arbitrary opinions. What I find intersting is that I can't remember anytihng from before I was two years old. Was I self Aware when I was two months old? I don't think so.

Also, there is the argument that a premature baby of just around 3 months can survive outside of the womb. Just because it's not fully developed doesnt mean it is not a person. Shit, I wasnt fully developed until I was bout 23 . So, the non-development of organs (to me) is not a good argument.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

I though you ment independent life as in it could survive without its mother.

The weird thing is, a 2 year old isn't going to survive without someone to take care of him/her either, let alone a newborn.

A 2-year-old can be taken care of by someone else, as can a newborn.

CJMST3K

scb wrote:

So you think fertilized egg is an actively thinking, self-aware, person? Really?? You think a "person" can possess conscious self-awareness and will without a brain? Because I'm pretty sure scientific fact tells us they can't.

Without a brain, I don't believe any pain, self-awareness, etc can exist.... but you consider a fully developed fetus/baby/etc with a fully functioning brain to be a non-person if it hasn't taken a breath nor seen a bright light. Can't a fetus/baby/etc be self-aware simply by the nature of the fetus/baby/etc touching it's own face, hearing sounds, seeing vague light thru skin tissue, and kicking around (other than involuntary electrical spasms) to probe it's environment, etc?

CJMST3K

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

I though you ment independent life as in it could survive without its mother.

The weird thing is, a 2 year old isn't going to survive without someone to take care of him/her either, let alone a newborn.

A 2-year-old can be taken care of by someone else, as can a newborn.

...well following that logic, a fetus can (at some point when medicine is advanced enough) be taken care of by another host mother in a transplant.

_

unsung wrote:

scb wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

Say your wife is 9 months pregnant you get into an altercation with someone at a concert, the person assults your wife and ends up kiling the fetus. Should the person be charged with assult or murder. This is your wife we are talking about.

I think it's a very complex issue. But ultimately I'd have to say there was no murder. So close... but nope.

So what if the person committing the assault intentionally punched the woman in the stomach to intentionally cause a miscarriage and that was indeed the result?

What if a man was thumping his wife and she miscarries? There isn't a DA that wouldn't jump at the chance to include murder in the charges. The media would be all over it.

I'm pretty sure the media don't factor in to this at all. The fact is, there has to be a line drawn somewhere for legal purposes and the law says it's at birth. Would I feel heartbroken if someone killed the almost-person I was planning to have as my child, to which I had grown emotionally attached? Of course. Would I want the guy to be punished? Of course. Still doesn't make it murder.

Dirtie_Frank

SCB,

So with your argument it is the woman's body then there should be no laws regaurding drugs then. It is my body let me do what I please.

JonnyPistachio

CJMST3K wrote:

scb wrote:

So you think fertilized egg is an actively thinking, self-aware, person? Really?? You think a "person" can possess conscious self-awareness and will without a brain? Because I'm pretty sure scientific fact tells us they can't.

Without a brain, I don't believe any pain, self-awareness, etc can exist.... but you consider a fully developed fetus/baby/etc with a fully functioning brain to be a non-person if it hasn't taken a breath nor seen a bright light. Can't a fetus/baby/etc be self-aware simply by the nature of the fetus/baby/etc touching it's own face, hearing sounds, seeing vague light thru skin tissue, and kicking around (other than involuntary electrical spasms) to probe it's environment, etc?

I think this is a great point.
I am proChoice, but I could never abort my own baby (unless dangerous medical conditions). I would have an easier time being that executioner for a death row inmate than aborting my own child. (and i'm against DP).

ajedigecko

i have never interacted with a fetus or conversed with one......yet i am certain they are more "human" and "logical" than joran van der sloot.

on a sidenote....in the book freakonomics, economists have proven that the crime rate declined when abortion was legalized.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.

SCB, this argument you are having is why I just concede that life starts immediately and go with my earlier point. It is so much easier to concede this point because no one on either side will ever agree completely on when life begins.
When I saw my pregnant girlfriend's sonogram and saw and heard the little heart beat, there was no doubt in my mind that is when life started for my little one. Any baby can be born in the third trimester and live with a little help. That is no different than someone in a coma who needs a little help...So just concede when life begins it doesn't need to change your stance and gives far less ammunition to the other side.

I'm not actually arguing about when life begins. Of course an embryo is alive - a sperm and an unfertilized egg are alive. I'm arguing about personhood specifically because this thread was about the difference between abortion and killing a person against his will, and my contention is that with abortion you're not killing a person against his will.

Frankly, though some refuse to believe it, I don't think it's even all about personhood anyway (though I think the characteristics of personhood are important). People can call a fetus a person if they want, but the fact is that - at least for 99.9% of abortions - the fetus is incapable of life outside the "mother' and - for the vast majority of (or all) abortions - there is absolutely no argument that can be made that the fetus is capable of thought or having a conscious will to live. So, regardless of what people want to call it, it simply doesn't possess a conscious will to live, so it's not possible that we are killing it against its will. If it had a will, that will was to live, and we could know that it wanted to live, I would say we'd have to reassess the situation based on the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother - and I still think the mother's rights would prevail. I don't like to frame it in terms of rights, though, because that makes it sound like a battle and like the mother is only thinking of herself, which is generally not true. I think pregnant women make difficult decisions based on what they think is best for their potential child. And even if it were an actual born child the mother has the responsibility to decide whether or not it's best to remove life support - and sometimes it is. It's all very complex and emotional. Unfortunately, most of the people who argue here against abortion don't seem to have any experience or desire to understand the complexity and emotion of it all.

_

CJMST3K wrote:

unsung wrote:

scb, when does that thing growing inside of the woman actually become a living human in your eyes?

scb made it clear. Based on its first breath and seeing light and being able to interact. In that one-second, it becomes a person, and literally not a second earlier.

...that's a completely arbitrary way of determining if it's a "person" if you ask me.

And yet you haven't answered my question about when, and by what less arbitrary standard, you think a fertilized egg becomes a person.

_

dasvidana wrote:

...No, the law tries to control women, not advocate for the fetus.

I see the abortion issue similar to organ donation. When it comes to organ donation, in no other circumstance can the state require someone to donate a portion of their body to save another individual, even if that individual is their child. Parents aren't required to donate blood, plasma, bone marrow, kidneys, or any other organ to save their children. These things can only be taken from the parent with the parent's consent. But if a parent can't be forced to donate a portion of their body to save their child after birth, why would it be acceptable to force a woman to donate her uterus to save someone who is yet to be born? Conversely, if the law CAN mandate that a woman donates her uterus to save someone else, then, shoudn't we then mandate that the woman must also donate blood, plasma, etc?

If we really want to stop abortions, we should focus on the reasons why women seek abortion. To me, that is a more effective place to start than arguing over what a life is and whose life is worth saving.

3 excellent and well-articulated points!