Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

State by state chart on abortion limitations if anybody is interested. I had to give it a look out of curiosity. Continue...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fair enough, one point though, the US has safe haven laws, as far as I know in ever state. If someone doesn't want the child they have a right to drop them off at a hospital or fire station with no penalty. I do wonder what happens in these cases where the father wants a relationship and the mother doesn't but *shrug*

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're correct, however:

As to:

You're not alone there.

Wiki link

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I live here and I didn't even know that. Another valid point. This was part of why I had asked for clarity before from Bells, as it makes a very large difference whether all are affected or a portion and what that portion is. If an excuse is used, it must be valid by showing a large majority of cases.
It would be hard to produce statistical figures off the bat as any must be independently verified.

 

Careful now, if you start insinuating that men should have any rights you will be declared a misogynist. [sarcasm]Today's men are just evil dictators to be overthrown and discounted for the sins of their ancestors.[/sarcasm]

 

I'm not sure what you are saying, implying, or suggesting here. But I am guessing that you mean to show that there is a means for the father to claim the child, at least in some states, because the case will go to court to determine child dependency or abandonment, and that the father can answer the complaint and assert his claim to the child if he was unaware that the mother had surrendered at the time. Am I correct?

 

that assumes he knows. I dont know how many times these laws are used but from my understanding of them there is no names, no ID (of the parent OR the child), and no requirement for it to even be the same state. So if one parent comes home from work (or worse, happens to be out of the state or country) to find the child missing from what I understand there is nothing really the state or the parent can do because short of DNA testing all the babies who became wards of the state in that time frame across the whole country potentually how else could they be identified

 

Good point. But I guess the alternative would be that something far worse than parental rights can get violated. Remember the girl who drove her boys into the lake and claimed a black guy carjacked her? I can see where a parent could stage a kidnapping by crossing state lines and not giving their identities, then claiming the child was kidnapped when they get home to the spouse. I guess it is a tragic possibility but at least the kid isn't dead and so long as the child is alive the missing person case may find the child.

It may even provide an alternative for real kidnappers to give up the child without getting caught. They go to some state and pretend it is their child, drop the kid off, and don't look back.

Maybe I am worrying too much. It seems most of the states allow this only for very young infants. Not toddlers or older. Though that wiki did say something about one state not specifying it to be only for babies initially and 35 teenage children were given up.

 

No. I was replying to two separate points raised by Asguard.

• While it's true that all 50 states have some form of Safe Haven law some states have not entirely decriminalized the action. So women still have an incentive not to go that route, most especially teenagers that are very susceptible to parental and peer pressure. Often it is the parents that would have prevented the expectant mother from accessing an abortion facility within the first trimester to start with. Also, as Neverfly pointed out, there are a lot of people who are unaware that this option even exists and therefore do not know to take advantage of it as opposed to abandoning the infant.
  
• Asguard was questioning what happened under Safe Haven laws as to the nonsurrendering parent's rights. This is kind of off topic, but since I had the Wiki open anyway I thought I would let him know that this is a concern already voiced by numerous critics of the Safe Haven laws.

Sorry. I should have been more explicit with my response.

 

For this topic, that's very difficult to do. It's one reason I hate this topic. Each side of the argument cares for the well-being of some "person" and each side accuses the other of not caring about that "person" or even, two in this thread accused others of actually hating some "persons."
It would be a lot easier if we laid eggs or something.

 

Ignoring the question mark, again.
That you keep ignoring that demonstrates that your claims of dishonesty on my part are actually dishonesty on yours- you are clearly and visibly ignoring what I had asked you. Everyone can see the question there and everyone can see that I did not make a claim as to what you said. I had asked you about it and explained the difference if you're excusing behaviors.

Spoiler

Go ahead and say it- it doesn't make it true. Guess I need to grill my dead parents about this dishonesty they passed on to me.

You said:

In other words- excusing the behavior. Now you claim that the majority are mentally ill. Fine. Can you support that claim? Do you have any way of supporting that claim? Do you have any idea or are you just running with an assumption?

You said you don't know anyone that would. Ok, that's fine- I pointed out that not only do these people exist, they make the news and even go beyond what you expressed incredulity at.

Not at all, rather, she may have been not wanting the baby all along. A series of lies and bad choices landed her in the delivery room, rather than the desire to be a mom then a sudden changing of her mind. Lies and bad choices go along with desperation or fearful- a Desperate or fearful person can commit murder and it is not excused simply because we can empathize with why she lied and made bad choices, we still know she was wrong.

Spoiler

Pot, meet kettle. Your claims have no bearing on reality- I've been making points, refutations and rebuttals. Your dishonest tactic of now (as before) claiming it's suddenly magically trolling are absurd- unless you are confessing to trolling yourself considering that you're engaged in the same behavior you accuse me of.

Cut the crap, Bells. Either debate the topic or don't but you can stop with the ad hom attacks, already.

 

On the issue of "personhood"

Can Seagypsies relevant post showing conjoined twins and the ethical problem of person-hood please be addressed?

I'm getting the impression it is being deliberately ignored because it demonstrates just how difficult it is to really resolve the issue. Arbitrary lines won't define reality.

Edit to Add: It's demonstrative because it even challenges SeaGypsies own stance that it's viable for person-hood if it can survive outside of the womb.

By the extreme pro-choice views expressed, that would invalidate those twins as one person and one non person with no legal rights.
This really demonstrates why we are all (Bowser and Randwolf excepted as they've not been emotional in this thread)in the wrong to allow emotions to rule replies.

 

I was just reading the web site for the person-hood initiative site and I found it very disturbing. But for all their faith and claiming that "God will find a way" even in situations of ectopic pregnancy, they still give the implication that a woman MUST be required to give up her life for her unborn child. ok ok, I'll humor them for a moment. They insist that even in the case of imminent threat to the mother's life she still would be guilty of murder if she has an abortion, even in very early term.

Ok fine. Let that be that a fetus is a person from conception. Are they implying that there are no situations where a human being is allowed to take another life? Have they forgotten about self defense, and stand your ground laws? In cases of protecting the life of the mother, where the mother perceives an imminent threat to her life, she like anyone else would have legal ground to take the life of the person who is threatening to kill her. Even if that person threatening her life, is her own child, born or otherwise. So even if they get their way, and legally define a person-hood to be at the moment of conception, being a person does not give one the right to threaten the life of another, and any person who reasonably feels their life is being threatened by another person has the right to take the life of the person posing the threat. Even if that person does not intend to be a threat. For instance a mentally challenged person waiving a loaded gun around thinking it is a toy, points it at someone, that someone has every right to kill that mentally handicapped person because he/she is perceived to be an immediate threat to the lives of others.

They even somehow equated the ectopic pregnancy to the case of conjoined twins. Sure I get it that one conjoined twin would not and should not have the right to kill their parasitic twin, I can agree to that, and I have never seen any cases where an adult set of twins had one suddenly decide that they wanted to be separated so badly that the life of their twin lost importance to them. But at the same time, if the parasitic twin is not endangering the life of the other twin, there can be no claim of self defense. Not the case at all with an ectopic pregnancy.

The LACP initiative just didn't think this one all the way through, maybe they have big heads and little arms.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

However, it is quite clear right from the start of this thread that women are not people. They have been granted, by mistake it seems, some general human rights intended for men. Fortunately, when they become pregnant these general human rights are taken away from them.

It would certainly be better for the courts if these general human rights were taken away from the start. Then all those rape trials could be thrown out. Why not let men make all the decisions about women?

 

Physbang, if you have been following the thread, you've seen how the emotions of the topic can lead to heavy disputes over something about which clear answers are not so easy. Starting out your position with such a statement as "Women are not people" when there are no matter how you slice it, complications due to defining the life/fetus/baby - whatever in the womb, you're setting a precedent for an emotional argument.

Such an extremist viewpoint is unrealistic and not accurate to the topic. No one is saying that women can not make any decisions of their own, there are people saying that making the decision to kill another human being requires more justification than "Because I want to; I declare that I have the right to choose to kill."

By neglecting the part about Killing, you are not properly representing the situation- you may as well have said "right to choose what flavor of ice cream."

Yet, in our society, killing other humans is kind of well... frowned upon. That all of the extremist pro-choicers continuously neglect/disregard/dismiss the "Killing Problem" shows far more political desire than scientific or rational desire. It also reflects badly on the Moderate Pro-Choice crowd as if all people that are pro-choice are totally ok with killing a baby no matter when or what the reason.
Well, some of us aren't ok with killing a baby when there is no immediate danger involved. Once the third trimester hits, the "Right to choose" is gone when it crosses the line into murder. While killing in self defense is justified (Mothers life in danger; baby's deformed, life is in danger), murder (I do not want it; It's not convenient; I've lied and covered my ass and now I'm stuck in this obligation but think I found a way out) is not justified anymore than killing your neighbor for mowing his lawn at 10 pm.

You're trying to actually create a sexist/political argument. Claiming, absurdly, that women have been stripped of all their rights and are not even people if you say they don't have the right to commit murder (Third trimester-mothers health not in danger) is frankly, a dishonest representation of the facts. And no one can dispute that it's dishonest unless they provide evidence showing that women have been stripped of all their political rights and are legally, not people.

Edited to remove what could be an inflammatory comment.

 

No, people are saying that women don't get to have the same rights that men do, viz, to have the right to refuse to have others in their body. Clearly this right doesn't extend to women, or you would not say that women require "more justification".

So, please, continue with your campaign to promote rape.