"a fetus is a part of the mother's body" is NOT an "argument", it is a fact. If you think the fetus isn't part of the woman's body then it should be able to be taken out and grow on it's own. CAN IT?
It is intellectually dishonest to insist that "Pro-Choice" means anything other than "women have a right to CHOOSE gestation or abortion, the right to their own body. NO, not all of them do . Pro-Choice only means ONE thing, what someone who is Pro-Choice thinks beyond that is an INDIVIDUAL's thought NOT what Pro-Choice means or stands for. There is nothing to "ADMIT", some think that way and others don't. Spoken like someone who has never had a miscarriage and knows nothing about it. It is intellectually and scientifically dishonest to say a miscarriage is not uncomfortable and does not harm the woman. WTF does "skedaddle across the issue" mean??
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, if someone kills a fetus without the woman's permission they may be charged with a crime but that doesn't mean the fetus has rights... …....the UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) did NOT and canNOT bestow rights. It gives the fetus PROTECTION NOT rights. NO, rights are not dependent on who kills the fetus......that's just silly and wrong. So? Maybe if the fetus is below 24 weeks there is a lesser charge. You would have to look up how each state handles it. Anyway you look at it, the UVVA does not and CANNOT bestow rights. It can be used to punish those who take away a woman's right to choose...as anyone who takes away a woman's right to choose should be punished. Anyway you look at it, the UVVA does not and CANNOT bestow rights.
You're right. The UVVA just recognizes that the unborn are human beings and charges you appropriately for murder when you kill them.
Feticide laws were pushed by the pro-birthers but they are not a bad idea, although 14 years for the murder of a 30 week fetus in the UK case cited is a little excessive. The woman who intends to carry the fetus to term obviously wants a child, so it is something of great value, and someone who takes that away against her will is committing a crime. The crime is committed whether she lives or dies. Am I being intellectually dishonest?
One man was sentenced to life in the UK for killing a 36 week old "fetus" (recently born). He was killed soon after being sent to prison, so will not end up serving the life sentence. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...er-death-dead-prison-liam-deane-a8055146.html
OH FOR GAWD'S SAKE if it was BORN as YOU say in your post "( recently born)" then it was not a FETUS it was a BORN PERSON...didn't you READ your own post ? There are two words you don't seem to want to understand, BORN and UNBORN. They are two different words because they are two VERY different things..... see, that's why we have different words for different things because everything is not the same..... Do you call your mother , Daddy? When you order pizza, do you call it candy ?? No, you don't because different words have different meanings.
So he did serve a life sentence it was just very short. The man in the other case got 26 years for killing the woman. It seems sentencing is subjective too. Why can't moral judgments be black and white? See, not everyone on the other side of the argument is rude.
You're arguing a child inside the womb doesn't have rights, but then arguing that a baby who's just come out 2 days ago get the same protections as a fully grown adult, and that now age doesn't matter. I find that a little bit ironic.
No matter how YOU find it that wasn't even what I said. I said,""Oh, excuse me for bringing facts to this but sentencing does NOT depend on the age of the victim. " I NEVER used the word "protection". Every murder has a different set of circumstances, they are NOT all judged, nor sentenced, alike .
So presumably you don't believe it should be based on age but the fact they are inside a womb? (I don't mean to put words in your mouth but I'm just having a really hard time understanding what you're saying)
FoxHastings said: ↑ Every murder has a different set of circumstances, they are NOT all judged, nor sentenced, alike . Uh, NO, where did you get that idea from the post you just quoted???????? NO where did I say that....just OMG... Oh, is that why you couldn't answer posts 326, 327, and 333 ...or is it because you just have no facts to answer with? You seem to avoid things....like facts
Are you implying the value of a living thing is subjective? So far we have.... Rights are subjective. Abortion is not cruel. Can we agree all living things have a right not to be abused or killed without sufficient reason and a fetus is a living thing. The sticking point between choicers and pro-birthers is the "sufficient reason" which is subjective. The problem is the pro-birthers ignore the rights of the woman and believe the rights of the fetus supersede the woman's. The value of living things is subjective. A child has more value than a cat. The woman has more value than a fetus.
But how much more? Do the woman's rights to absolute personal reproductive freedom outweigh the rights to her unborn child's life? We're not simply comparing the woman's rights to that of the fetus; we're comparing different type of rights. If we were talking about killing one or the other, it might be a different story, but it's not.
Yes. The fetus has no rights. The woman's right to her own body outweighs anything. No, the fetus has no rights to compare. Not sure what that means...
How much more is the issue. Society has designated choice up to viability and the pro-birthers say the fetal rights outweigh the woman's therefore the woman has less rights than a fetus which should make you reconsider your argument but then you deflect saying they are different type of rights. We deal with comparing different rights all the time. You may have a right of free speech until you yell fire in the theater then the public's right of safe assembly is violated. One right is judged to supersede the other. It is judged a woman's right to host a fetus or not is her choice up to a certain point outweighs the right of the fetus to live by society. The fetus has a right not to be abused or killed without sufficient reason. Who decides the "sufficient reason"? You, society? No, not even society. Abortion rates remain the same even if it is outlawed.
Is that really true? Abortion rates had been on the upswing years before Roe vs Wade and had already been legalized in 7 states.
