Yup. This exact kind of stupidity and incongruity was what I wrote my law review comment on.To put this thread somewhat back on track:Catholic hospital argues a fetus is not a person.
Oh really. Got a citation for me ?Yup. This exact kind of stupidity and incongruity was what I wrote my law review comment on.
You're a real funny guy.Oh really. Got a citation for me ?
Lol. I just wanted to read your comment, that's all. I mean if you don't want to tell me for privacy reasons that's fine.You're a real funny guy.
But the TLDR on FoH history would be that every time a_skeleton_03 and I got into it this was the argument I fell back on that could never be countered. If the FoH political threads are archived here somewhere I'm sure you could find the posts with all the details. Essentially the common law is that someone wasn't a 'person' for the purposes of tort or criminal law until they were born alive. Several states over the course of history have changed this to be more in line with Roe - ie you can sue for a wrongful death of a fetus around the point of viability however some states who are the craziest when it comes to abortion (Kansas I'm looking at you) would criminalize (if allowed) a mother aborting the same fetus that if she were hit by a drunk driver she couldn't recover for the wrongful death of - even say early in the second tri. Its hypocritical, its fucking retarded, and this is why we need a national standardization of the definition of a person at the federal level. There is a MASSIVE amount of clusterfuckery on the concept of fetal personhood.
Georgia actually would be able to make a consistent case for fetal personhood preventing abortion early in the second trimester as their crim and tort laws (last time I checked at least) are based on the concept of 'quickening' which means that the mother can feel the baby - somewhere in there range of 15-18 weeks; whereas Illinois allows for tort recovery from the moment of conception but this runs counter to established abortion laws obviously.
Clus.ter.fuck.
And thats before you start trying to argue which states laws should apply if you have a case where there's diversity between the two parties (ie I live in GA but I'm vacationing in CA and something happens).
I'm saying your logic is flawed. You say potential, but ignore the logical continuation of that. And because of that your moral basis is flawed.I never said potential that they might do good, I said their potential life, the life that was cut short. I never argued that ANYONE should have an abortion. How the fuck do you use what I wrote to say that poor people should have abortions? God damn dude, it seems like people in this thread have a habit of reading one or two lines from a post and filling the rest in to support whatever bullshit they want to say.
Poverty is worse than death? Seriously? How far do you take that logic? Is abortion justifiable to you if the potential kid doesn't have 10k in their 529 at birth? MANY kids die due to being tortured by meth head parents? Where the fuck do you get this shit? It is like you decided that all actions we take should be morally sound, and you support abortion, so you must do mental gymnastics to justify abortion as a moral act. You're taking it beyond just "necessary evil" into full on fucking derpville.I'm saying your logic is flawed. You say potential, but ignore the logical continuation of that. And because of that your moral basis is flawed.
You say, everyone deserves potential life. But end there. you don't consider where that life is being born into. A child born into neglect, abuse, foster care, poverty, crime, drug addiction AT birth, birth defects etc. I would call that child abuse. Or as stated, fate worse then death. Are there outliers? sure.
If we had some system in place where 100% of unwanted, poverty stricken, and ill children, could be placed into foster care, and placed into homes, and given medical care, then great. No abortion. But that is not the case. many of these kids die in their meth head parents homes of abuse.
why are you insisting kids be born into that torture?
If you really considered potential, then you would have to consider what potential really means. And it doesn't end at birth, it means the situations they are born into. And as pointed out, it doesn't support your moral suggestions. If potential is your basis, then you ought to be FOR abortions.
extreme poverty is pretty fucking abusive. A child being born and dieing in extreme poverty is pretty terrible.Poverty is worse than death? Seriously? How far do you take that logic? Is abortion justifiable to you if the potential kid doesn't have 10k in their 529 at birth? MANY kids die due to being tortured by meth head parents? Where the fuck do you get this shit? It is like you decided that all actions we take should be morally sound, and you support abortion, so you must do mental gymnastics to justify abortion as a moral act. You're taking it beyond just "necessary evil" into full on fucking derpville.
Yes everyone deserves life, as much as anyone really "deserves" anything. More to the point, if you take that away from them, no amount of bullshit qualification is going to make that a "moral" action. In most cases anyway. Kids are "born into torture" because they live in poverty or go to foster care? Get a fucking grip.
Use as a legal defense does not equate to acceptance of fact.To put this thread somewhat back on track:Catholic hospital argues a fetus is not a person.
You are so full of shit. Your definition of "torture" is so laughably broad as to include such horrors as RECEIVING GOVERNMENT AID! What the fuck is wrong with you? Did you lose the tv remote and spiral into depression wishing you had been aborted? Are you one of those asperger's dickheads who can't relate to normal humans and their "emo-tions"? Preservation of human life is a made up moral code? Fuck you.extreme poverty is pretty fucking abusive. A child being born and dieing in extreme poverty is pretty terrible.
And forcing parents and children into that, because of your made up moral code insisting on it is insane. And often just fucking cruel.
"Everyone deserves life." define life. is there a standard for quality? who decides that? YOU?
Your justification of potential completely ignores the follow though, or the other half of the coin. You can NOT sit here and say, Potential! that child might go pick flowers, and sing songs, and experience life!, and ignore that child might starve to death in its crib in 3 months from neglect due to the parents being piss poor, or just plain asshats that couldnt remember to wear a condom, and there being poor standards for government aide. was that potential worth it? was it worth torturing that kid post birth, when it could have been aborted in the first tri? do you even care?
Do you not care about the financial drain on unwanted children? do you not care about the shitty lives these kids live?
One of the main efforts to aid in 3rd world countries IS birth control.
Except the goal of the aid is to reduce epic levels of disease, not children. I've cut off people's heads for less dishonesty than this.One of the main efforts to aid in 3rd world countries IS birth control.
After hearing my last two kids' heartbeats at about ten weeks, I'm firmly anti, unless it's rape, incest or there are way too many birth defects. A friend of mine was pregnant, and aborted when the child had birth defects in every major organ, and was severely mentally retarded.This is a topic that I've been thinking about a lot lately and im interested in different perspectives and viewpoints.
My current stance is that abortion is absolutely acceptable in the case of rape or incest. I dont think that too many people will argue against that except the fundamentalist theists. The dangers and consequences of pregnancy should never be forced upon an unwilling participant. After that it gets more gray and complex. I believe that everyone should have the right of life. But when does that life begin? Conception? Birth? The moment a baby can live self sustained outside the womb? The moment the heart starts beating?
Is it something the government should even have a say in? I dont think so. Just because some people have an opinion that life starts at birth or whenever does not mean that it should be legislated.
Anyway, interested in hearing everyones opinion.
No but if your position is a moral one (that you preach and demonize other's decisions for), it certainly makes you a hypocrite and unable to claim moral high ground. Just because you can assert something legally doesn't mean you have to.Use as a legal defense does not equate to acceptance of fact.
You are so off the post it's actually concerning. When was the last time you were tested for psychosis?You are so full of shit. Your definition of "torture" is so laughably broad as to include such horrors as RECEIVING GOVERNMENT AID! What the fuck is wrong with you? Did you lose the tv remote and spiral into depression wishing you had been aborted? Are you one of those asperger's dickheads who can't relate to normal humans and their "emo-tions"? Preservation of human life is a made up moral code? Fuck you.
DNA is molecule. It does not need to survive. You might interpret it as such, but the molecules themselves holds no physiological or psychological requirements towards survival. You're interpreting their existence and purpose. It is easy to interpret otherwise - think of those combinations no longer here - or a retrovirus. DNA just is, and just does - it does not have an agenda.I have to agree with Chaos on their criticism of preservation of life as a made up concept because I think that the need to survive (generally) is part of our DNA no?