Woman charged with killing fetus

[Legion]

its not murder as long as its not human. Just remember that. As long as you can arbitrarily define the fetus as inhuman its a perfectly acceptable behavior to kill it. Who cares really? It doesn't hurt anyone.

So lets go ahead and suck its brains out with a hose and crush its skull. Then we can toss it in a biohazard container and send it off to a chemical disposal unit.

 

[Florin]

2 pregnant ladies, one is a complete pro-lifer, the other a complete pro-choice person(who believes that a baby has no rights until after birth).
I drop kick them both, killing their babies. Is it murder for one but not the other??? Seems like they are either both murder or not.

later,
epic

It's debatable whether it is the mother's decision to make - personally I think it is until sometime before the child would be able to survive on its own outside of the mother - but it's certainly not *yours*.

 

[Legion]

2 pregnant ladies, one is a complete pro-lifer, the other a complete pro-choice person(who believes that a baby has no rights until after birth).
I drop kick them both, killing their babies. Is it murder for one but not the other??? Seems like they are either both murder or not.

later,
epic

It's debatable whether it is the mother's decision to make - personally I think it is until sometime before the child would be able to survive on its own outside of the mother - but it's certainly not *yours*.

i doubt an infants chances of survival outside the womb without some external care...

 

[oi]

oi, i take it your not a lawyer. Reason i say so is because there are famous what if's that are debated while you learn the law. Such as if I shot my gun at a window (from an apartment building) and kills a man who is trying to commit suicide while jumping from a higher window. How about if i go into a room see a bed with a dead man, but i dont know the man is dead, I shoot to kill them. Did i commit murder(or attempt), which was my intent? These what if's have been debated for decades. My what if's follow the same way. What a person thinks is not enough to determine whether or not someone is alive or not. The point is: its either always illegal or always murder. There isnt a "but she was on her way to an abortion", so its not murder.

Nope, I'm not a lawyer, and that exactly has what to do with me having an opinion on the matter? Is it worth less because I'm not a lawyer? If there isn't a "but she was on her way to an abortion, so its not murder", then why have they, according to you, discussed this for decades? Why are we discussing it now? This is just a BS argument heh, it's like me saying "Sorry, you haven't studied enough political science to form a valid opinion, you lose.", in an argument regarding politics.

Ok, gone for shizzlevizzle this time, have free stuff to claim.

 

[epicstruggle]

oi, i take it your not a lawyer. Reason i say so is because there are famous what if's that are debated while you learn the law. Such as if I shot my gun at a window (from an apartment building) and kills a man who is trying to commit suicide while jumping from a higher window. How about if i go into a room see a bed with a dead man, but i dont know the man is dead, I shoot to kill them. Did i commit murder(or attempt), which was my intent? These what if's have been debated for decades. My what if's follow the same way. What a person thinks is not enough to determine whether or not someone is alive or not. The point is: its either always illegal or always murder. There isnt a "but she was on her way to an abortion", so its not murder.

Nope, I'm not a lawyer, and that exactly has what to do with me having an opinion on the matter? Is it worth less because I'm not a lawyer? If there isn't a "but she was on her way to an abortion, so its not murder", then why have they, according to you, discussed this for decades? Why are we discussing it now? This is just a BS argument heh, it's like me saying "Sorry, you haven't studied enough political science to form a valid opinion, you lose.", in an argument regarding politics.

Ok, gone for shizzlevizzle this time, have free stuff to claim.

I was trying to comment on your claim that i have comprehension problems. Since youve already made up your mind on this issue(murder or not) then its pointless to debate with you.

later,
epic

 

[Florin]

i doubt an infants chances of survival outside the womb without some external care...

Certainly, but anyone could provide that care. A fetus on the other hand cannot survive unless it is part of the mother. I feel there's a difference, others may not. I do think we can agree however that epic killing someone else's unborn child is a different situation from the mother doing it, regardless of whether one considers one or the other acceptable.

 

[Legion]

Certainly, but anyone could provide that care. A fetus on the other hand cannot survive unless it is part of the mother.

And an infant can not survive without care either. What really is the point?

I feel there's a difference, others may not. I do think we can agree however that epic killing someone else's unborn child is a different situation from the mother doing it, regardless of whether one considers one or the other acceptable.

Why? I do not agree. Both would be murder.

 

[nelg]

If I was the doctor I would have sedated her then performed the C-section.
Afterwards I would have performed a lobotomy to remove the part of her brain that makes her selfish.

If the mother didn't want the child in the first place, then why should it be murder? The kid is going to die anyway. It's up to the mother to decide if it would be murder or not.

Which is why I mentioned earlier that she most certainly had the intent to have these children. Therefore she should have a legal and moral obligation to do the minimum necessary to help ensure their survival.

 

[Florin]

Certainly, but anyone could provide that care. A fetus on the other hand cannot survive unless it is part of the mother.

And an infant can not survive without care either. What really is the point?

In one case the mother is the only one that can give life to the child, in the other case anyone can. It's fine that you don't care about the difference. But there is one.

I feel there's a difference, others may not. I do think we can agree however that epic killing someone else's unborn child is a different situation from the mother doing it, regardless of whether one considers one or the other acceptable.

Why? I do not agree. Both would be murder.

I wouldn't agree, but that's not the point. The point is that epic deciding for someone else whether their child dies or not is a different situation. The difference that exists may not matter to you. But it is there and I consider it significant.

 

[kyleb]

as for the whole "drop kicking" argument, it is clearly an unauthorized termination of pregnancy. now i know there isn't a law against that, but i think there should be.

 

[oi]

I was trying to comment on your claim that i have comprehension problems.

It was just in response to your "insult that wasn't really an insult", so I'm sorry but you wasted some typing there.

Since youve already made up your mind on this issue(murder or not) then its pointless to debate with you.

So you actually expected to change someone's opinion here? I mean I've not posted here for very long, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone change their opinion on this forum. And as if you hadn't already made up your mind about the subject lol.

I gave up trying to convince people on forums a long time ago, I just post for my own enjoyment. And in this particular case I made up an opinion in about 30 secs then posted. As I said in my first post, this is pretty much a non-existant debate for me and doesn't really interest me at all.

edit: Not to mention the joy of seeing people like Joe Defuria throw around their massive skills at insulting people.

 

[V3]

Joe, when you say how old you are, what point do you count from?

Don't these depend on culture ? I heard Chinese in old times actually count the age from the moment of conception. That is you're one year old when you're born into the world.

 

[zidane1strife]

Mass sterilization from birth through the use of gm. Once artificial conception and development becomes far safer, better, and ubiquitous... it should be used, the rights to give life just as those to give death must not be in the hands of the individual.

So that society can give only the best to those who're to come into this world... no more carelessness, no more irresponsibility, no more physical, sexual, psychological abuse, etc. The rights of those who arrive in this world must be raised, right now it's not technologically possible, but one day it will be...

Certainly, but anyone could provide that care. A fetus on the other hand cannot survive unless it is part of the mother. I feel there's a difference, others may not.

If this universe is part of a higher intelligence's mind, or simulation, is it not murder if everyone in it is killed by it?

 

[I.S.T.]

Mass sterilization from birth through the use of gm. Once artificial conception and development becomes far safer, better, and ubiquitous... it should be used, the rights to give life just as those to give death must not be in the hands of the individual.

So that society can give only the best to those who're to come into this world... no more carelessness, no more irresponsibility, no more physical, sexual, psychological abuse, etc. The rights of those who arrive in this world must be raised, right now it's not technologically possible, but one day it will be...

Certainly, but anyone could provide that care. A fetus on the other hand cannot survive unless it is part of the mother. I feel there's a difference, others may not.

If this universe is part of a higher intelligence's mind, or simulation, is it not murder if everyone in it is killed by it?

I have been reading forums for two and a half years. Never in that space of time have I heard something so stupid. Wow. So, we ignore the right of somebody to have a child on their own. Wow.

 

[zidane1strife]

So, we ignore the right of somebody to have a child on their own. Wow.

Huh? So you're saying everyone should have this right? That it shouldn't be better regulated? That this privilege of yours is worth all the pain, suffering and death of countless innocents? That the consequences brought upon society of improperly raising a child are worth it? That the harm to such individuals that can arise is worth it?

Are not the human rights of a child equal to those of an adult? Should their lives, and their mental health, fall on a whim, on pure chance?

We can put an end to virtually all, reckless, irresponsible behavior from parents... to virtually all, physical, sexual, psychological abuse... but just because it's natural we should not interfere? It is stupid to interfere with it? Medical progress, and logic itself would most certainly beg to differ...

and in the end that is what I've brought, a logical conclusion to a logical quandary, no overpopulation problems, no enviromental problems for the child, etc.

The influence of the genes and of the enviroment, has been said to be quite great, we will be able to control both one day... to dismiss one or the other, just because "nature" said so... is quite an oversight IMHO...

 

[I.S.T.]

One of the great things about human beings is that we're all different. You go into genetic manipulation SOLELY FOR THE PERPOUS OF MAKING CHILDERN and soon everybody will be uniform. Also, you seem to be forgetting about good parents. You're painting all parents with a pretty damn big brush. Not all parents are evil, abusive fucks. Which you seem to be implying.

 

[arjan de lumens]

As for late term abortion vs partial birth abortion, partial birth abortion is just the name given to the procedure to perform the abortion, not necessarily when it's done. The procedue is rather grotesque. It requires the doctor reaching into the womb, pulling the baby out by the feet until the base of the neck is exposed, opening up a cut, inserting a hose, and sucking out the brain tissue, killing the fetus.

The ban was on the procedure, not when it was done.

Ugh that turned my stomach just describing it... :?

Disgusting procedure alright. So I decided to do a little research on it to find out what the hell motivated anybody to come up with such a procedure (basically typing it into google and see what happens). Apparently, the procedure is very rarely used as a traditional abortion procedure. Rather, it is used in cases of severe hydrocephalus (that birth defect where the head fillls up with up to several liters of water) to extract the fetus without endangering the mother. In these cases, attempting natural birth will kill both mother and child. It is not the only possible procedure in this case, but the other procedure, hysterotomy, will leave weaknesses in the uterus, making future pregnancies deathly dangeous to the mother. The hysterotomy has a chance of recovering a live child, but with the degree of hydrocephalus we are talking about here, that child will live for a very short time (hours, or even just minutes) and never reach consciousness.

It appears to be an issue where people frequently have very strong opinions without having done any research into the matter.

Also, it appears that a procedure of drilling a hole in a being-born child's head to remove brain mass, so that it would fit the birth canal, was a common procedure in Europe a few hundred years ago, when women were smaller and had a narrower pelvis than today's women and frequently got babies getting stuck during birth. This invariably killed the baby, but was in many places the only known procedure available to save the mother's life

 

[zidane1strife]

One of the great things about human beings is that we're all different. You go into genetic manipulation SOLELY FOR THE PERPOUS OF MAKING CHILDERN and soon everybody will be uniform. Also, you seem to be forgetting about good parents. You're painting all parents with a pretty damn big brush. Not all parents are evil, abusive fucks. Which you seem to be implying.

Oh, I'm not implying anything here, you see good parents will be able to have children, even under better regulations... In fact they'd encouraged to, and could very well receive benefits from doing so.

Right now, in modern countries humans do not seek to have dozens of children, they only seek a couple of children, but obviously they still want to carry on with their sexual lives. What happens then? Lots of complications, and often the use of drugs, surgeries, etc. All to continue with a normal human activity. Even teenagers exploring their own sexuality can get the surprise pregnancy.

So we see, sexuality with the purpose of reproduction is only carried out a small % of the time. We find that if we can allow humans to conceive only when they wish to do so, it might very well be for the benefit of both child and parent.

In addition to this, we see all the problems that can arise with conception, and with raising a child. The consequences of these acts, affect society immensely. Is that privilege worth the chance that some will grow mentally perturbed, and will kill or rape a couple of society's members? Is it really worth it, all these exposures to drugs, to alcohol, to physical, and mental abuse, to these hostile enviroments? Why do I ask ye this? Cause that is the cost of thy privilege, that is the cost of allowing reproduction to run rampant without regulation...

As for the gm, uniqueness is good... but mental instabilities, immune and/or metabolic disorders, deformities, etc should not be kept in the gene pool. Furthermore should safe and effective means to increase a child's mental and physical capabilities become available, should we ban this? Should only a few benefit from this? Or should we embrace it, and know that we cannot let the members of our society be divided by orders upon orders of magnitude of difference in terms of mental capabilities. What will be of those at the lower end of that bracket, at the wrong end of the stick, should we not do this?

ed

 

[I.S.T.]

One of the great things about human beings is that we're all different. You go into genetic manipulation SOLELY FOR THE PERPOUS OF MAKING CHILDERN and soon everybody will be uniform. Also, you seem to be forgetting about good parents. You're painting all parents with a pretty damn big brush. Not all parents are evil, abusive fucks. Which you seem to be implying.

Oh, I'm not implying anything here, you see good parents will be able to have children, even under better regulations... In fact they'd encouraged to, and could very well receive benefits from doing so.

Right now, in modern countries humans do not seek to have dozens of children, they only seek a couple of children, but obviously they still want to carry on with their sexual lives. What happens then? Lots of complications, and often the use of drugs, surgeries, etc. All to continue with a normal human activity. Even teenagers exploring their own sexuality can get the surprise pregnancy.

So we see, sexuality with the purpose of reproduction is only carried out a small % of the time. We find that if we can allow humans to conceive only when they wish to do so, it might very well be for the benefit of both child and parent.

In addition to this, we see all the problems that can arise with conception, and with raising a child. The consequences of these acts, affect society immensely. Is that privilege worth the chance that some will grow mentally perturbed, and will kill or rape a couple of society's members? Is it really worth it, all these exposures to drugs, to alcohol, to physical, and mental abuse, to these hostile enviroments? Why do I ask ye this? Cause that is the cost of thy privilege, that is the cost of allowing reproduction to run rampant without regulation...

As for the gm, uniqueness is good... but mental instabilities, immune and/or metabolic disorders, deformities, etc should not be kept in the gene pool. Furthermore should safe and effective means to increase a child's mental and physical capabilities become available, should we ban this? Should only a few benefit from this? Or should we embrace it, and know that we cannot let the members of our society be divided by orders upon orders of magnitude of difference in terms of mental capabilities. What will be of those at the lower end of that bracket, at the wrong end of the stick, should we not do this?

ed

I have heard and seen so many people say they're trying to have kids it's not funny. Also, the GM wouldn't stop with just taking out the bad things. They'd make everybody uniform. Evolution/God/who/whatever you believe in didn't intend on us manipulating ourselfs. We're born via the method we're born for a reason. It works. Otherwise, we'd be born a different way. Sure, there are defects. I have a few myself. But they make me unique. I wouldn't get rid of them completely, just minimize the effects they have on me.

 

[John Reynolds]

Huh? So you're saying everyone should have this right? That it shouldn't be better regulated? That this privilege of yours is worth all the pain, suffering and death of countless innocents? That the consequences brought upon society of improperly raising a child are worth it? That the harm to such individuals that can arise is worth it?

And exactly what governing body do you envision overseeing who receives a right to reproduce certificate and who doesn't? Who oversees, 24/7, the environment and care of the baby for its first 16-18 years? Who determines what is the "proper" way to raise a child?

I come from an abusive childhood, something I rarely talk about and certainly won't go into details about here. Yet had your Utopian vision existed 40 years ago my father would never have been allowed to reproduce and I wouldn't have been born. Some might think, "hey, that's not such a bad idea," but I'd like to believe my family and friends feel otherwise. Good people can come from less-than-ideal backgrounds, and vice versa.