Not trying to be controversial .... just a question

[Home'scool]

Let me start by saying I hope smarter minds than mine are figuring out this issue because there are just so many angles and situations.

And I don't mean to stir up any controversy here. I am not one way or another on this issue because I find I keep coming up with arguments on both sides.

My family was discussing the issue of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. 

I asked this question to the pro-choice people in the room but could not receive a good answer.

"When someone like Scott Peterson kills his wife while she is pregnant, he is charge with two counts of murder, one for the mother and one for the unborn child. But why is it is not considered a crime

when a mother chooses to abort the baby?"

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Home'scool

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Home'scool said:

Let me start by saying I hope smarter minds than mine are figuring out this issue because there are just so many angles and situations.

And I don't mean to stir up any controversy here. I am not one way or another on this issue because I find I keep coming up with arguments on both sides.

My family was discussing the issue of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. 

I asked this question to the pro-life people in the room but could not receive a good answer.

"When someone like Scott Peterson kills his wife while she is pregnant, he is charge with two counts of murder, one for the mother and one for the unborn child. But why is it is not considered murder when a mother chooses to abort the baby?"

 

First this isn’t true in every state, but in those it is… Because the baby is wanted. Roe didn’t declare there wasn’t life, it only declared there wasn’t a legal need to sustain a life before viability. 
 

It’s similar to how you’re not forced to donate a kidney or blood to someone who needs them. 

[AmandaVT]

Not sure about all cases, but I think Laci Peterson was something like 8 months pregnant. So the baby was almost to term. Very different than a 6 week old embryo. 

[AmandaVT]

Sorry for the second post - here's a link to laws by state: https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

It also got me wondering if some of the laws are in place to protect a pregnant woman from domestic violence because she was pregnant? Like if the man didn't want the baby and decided to murder mom? 

[SKL]

Slightly off topic, but I kinda wish we wouldn't use the word "murder" relating to abortion, because it is so charged; it implies evil intent.  (Which, in the case of SP, evil intent was the accusation.)

I'm pro-life and I pray nobody would ever advocate for my grandkids to be aborted, regardless of the laws.  But when someone referred to it as "murder" the other day, I just couldn't relate to that.  I think it's an act of desperation that shouldn't have to be considered.

That said, I heard that some states are considering it manslaughter when abortion doctors break the law.  IMO it's a crime by the person who performs the abortion.  It is not the only procedure that states make illegal under certain circumstances.  AFAIK they don't arrest the patient in such cases.

[AmandaVT]

 

I agree @SKL- I do not think abortion should be referred to as murder. Some of the laws do a decent job of outlining what constitutes fetal murder. 

 

[Home'scool]

I changed the word "murder" to "crime" because of the example it is used with

[happi duck]

Ending a pregnancy isn't someone else's choice to make?

Edited July 6, 2022 by happi duck

[Innisfree]

Looking just at Virginia’s code quoted above, what leaps out at me is the word “maliciously.” I don’t see abortions as malicious. The mother may be faced with medical necessity, or financial or situational necessity, but she isn’t acting maliciously toward the fetus. She’s just saying that she can’t use her body to carry that fetus, just as someone might say “I’m sorry, but I can’t donate my kidney.” 

[easypeasy]

26 minutes ago, happi duck said:

Ending a pregnancy isn't someone else's choice to make?

This is EXACTLY how I've always looked at it. It's the woman's body, her choice whether or not to use her body to nurture and grow that life - not someone else's choice to end that potential life.

[easypeasy]

1 minute ago, Innisfree said:

Looking just at Virginia’s code quoted above, what leaps out at me is the word “maliciously.” I don’t see abortions as malicious. The mother may be faced with medical necessity, or financial or situational necessity, but she isn’t acting maliciously toward the fetus. She’s just saying that she can’t use her body to carry that fetus, just as someone might say “I’m sorry, but I can’t donate my kidney.” 

👍

[J-rap]

I agree with @happi duck that ending a pregnancy isn't someone else's choice.  That certainly makes a difference.  Also, from what I understand, it's currently only state laws that can actually hand down a charge of murder for an unborn victim, and only some states do that.  

Interesting question though!  

Keep in mind that language used can can be a reflection of political opinion.  (I'm not referring to yours, but just in general.)

 

[Scarlett]

The two sides will never agree.  
 

People who view the pregnancy as life from conception vs people who compare that life to a kidney…..they will never agree.  
 

If it is life then abortion is taking that life.  If it is not life then no problem……the woman can stop it from becoming a life if she chooses. Of course a kidney is neither….it is not a life nor a potential life.  
 

It will be very interesting to see how this continues to cause social and political upheaval. Both sides are angry and passionate.  

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, J-rap said:

 Also, from what I understand, it's currently only state laws that can actually hand down a charge of murder for an unborn victim, and only some states do that.  

One of the issues I’ve had in the past with many pro choice lobbying organizations (NARAL, PP) is that they have lobbied against legislation that allows charges for someone killing someone else’s unborn child in the course of a crime. That honestly enrages me and I see that as not pro-woman at all. Most pregnant women love and want the baby they are carrying and to reduce it to an “oh well” if someone kills that child because they were worried about the downstream political effect of protecting women in this way is the same to me as gun owners who won’t allow even the most sensible gun legislation for fear of it eroding their own personal rights to have whatever guns they want whenever they want them. 

[PronghornD]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

The two sides will never agree.  
 

People who view the pregnancy as life from conception vs people who compare that life to a kidney…..they will never agree.  
 

If it is life then abortion is taking that life.  If it is not life then no problem……the woman can stop it from becoming a life if she chooses. Of course a kidney is neither….it is not a life nor a potential life.  
 

It will be very interesting to see how this continues to cause social and political upheaval. Both sides are angry and passionate.  

It is not comparing a fetal life to a kidney. It is comparing the fetus to a person with fatal kidney disease.

[J-rap]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

One of the issues I’ve had in the past with many pro choice lobbying organizations (NARAL, PP) is that they have lobbied against legislation that allows charges for someone killing someone else’s unborn child in the course of a crime. That honestly enrages me and I see that as not pro-woman at all. Most pregnant women love and want the baby they are carrying and to reduce it to an “oh well” if someone kills that child because they were worried about the downstream political effect of protecting women in this way is the same to me as gun owners who won’t allow even the most sensible gun legislation for fear of it eroding their own personal rights to have whatever guns they want whenever they want them. 

This is interesting, because it's an issue I've never really thought too much about -- but it's obviously an important issue.  Yes, I agree with you that most women want that child, so I see your point.  I'd guess that pro-choice organizations are just trying to be consistent in order to more easily pass laws that would allow abortion.  For me it boils down to another person forcing the decision through violence or deceptiveness. 

[MEmama]

22 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

The two sides will never agree.  
 

People who view the pregnancy as life from conception vs people who compare that life to a kidney…..they will never agree.  
 

If it is life then abortion is taking that life.  If it is not life then no problem……the woman can stop it from becoming a life if she chooses. Of course a kidney is neither….it is not a life nor a potential life.  
 

It will be very interesting to see how this continues to cause social and political upheaval. Both sides are angry and passionate.  

Although if All Life Matters, then extra kidneys certainly are potential life, aren’t they? The potential to save a person, just as a clump of cells might potentially create a person? I’d think “pro life” folks would maintain that position, anyway, if there was any consistency. As for forced kidney donation from live people, I don’t see that as any different as forcing someone to give birth. Both are gross overreach of bodily autonomy. 
 

Honest question—why are “pro life” folks angry? They just won a 50 year fight? 

[Innisfree]

20 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

life from conception

I actually have no problem viewing the fetus as alive: it consumes nutrients, it grows, it’s obviously alive. But— so is a seedling lettuce, or a chick in an egg. 

The real division seems to me to be between people who say that it’s alive, and has human DNA, ergo it’s a human being deserving the same level of protection as a newborn baby, on the one hand; and people who say that embryonic human life is fundamentally different  from fully developed human life.

I’ve kept chickens, and eaten plenty of fertilized eggs. There’s a real, significant difference between a fertilized egg that has just been laid, and one that’s ready to hatch. The two aren’t equal. I see the same difference in human embryos and babies at nine months. They aren’t the same: they don’t have the same awareness, or the same abilities to be protected by people other than their mothers, and I think those differences matter.

Judging that embryonic life can overrule the needs of the mother doesn’t seem to me to recognize reality.

I do think there’s room for a lot of thought about how the embryo/fetus changes over nine months. I actually think Roe got things substantially correct because it did recognize that change, while still recognizing the mother’s valid needs and autonomy.

[MercyA]

5 hours ago, Home'scool said:

"When someone like Scott Peterson kills his wife while she is pregnant, he is charge with two counts of murder, one for the mother and one for the unborn child. But why is it is not considered a crime when a mother chooses to abort the baby?"

Because some people think the youngest human beings should only have their lives legally protected if they are wanted*. I would hate that to be the standard for already born humans. 

*Or healthy, or non-burdensome, or not conceived through a crime.

Edited July 6, 2022 by MercyA

[J-rap]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

Because some people think the youngest human beings should only have their lives legally protected if they are wanted. I would hate that to be the standard for already born humans. 

Mercy, I don't know how that would ever be a standard for already-born humans...  🤔

[MercyA]

3 minutes ago, J-rap said:

Mercy, I don't know how that would ever be a standard for already-born humans...  🤔

There have been many already born human beings throughout history whose lives were not legally protected by the state. If someone else decided they were not wanted for whatever reason, they could absolutely be killed with no legal repercussions. So, yes, it has happened. 😞 

Edited July 6, 2022 by MercyA

[Innisfree]

Just now, MercyA said:

There have been many already born human beings throughout history whose lives where not legally protected by the state. If someone else decided they were not wanted for whatever reason, they could absolutely be killed with no legal repercussions. So, yes, it has happened. 😞 

The trouble is that by saying embryos must be fully protected, one simultaneously says women cannot be fully protected. One can’t give full protection and respect and weight to both, simultaneously. It just can’t happen.

Bad laws have been made and enforced throughout history, yes. We have to use our best judgment. 

Judgement requires recognizing reality, and shades of gray. They do exist, and they are important.

[1234]

Abortions aren’t happening solely because a baby is unwanted. It’s ridiculous to act like that’s the only reason. Anyone who says the recent 10 year old who needed to travel to a different state had an abortion simply because her baby was unwanted has serious issues with reality.

[MercyA]

Just now, Innisfree said:

The trouble is that by saying embryos must be fully protected, one simultaneously says women cannot be fully protected. One can’t give full protection and respect and weight to both, simultaneously. It just can’t happen.

Bad laws have been made and enforced throughout history, yes. We have to use our best judgment. 

Judgement requires recognizing reality, and shades of gray. They do exist, and they are important.

Yes, we have to be very careful not to repeat mistakes made in the past and be on the wrong side of history.

I agree that we must use our best judgment.

I have consistently maintained here that if the woman's life is at risk, doctors should do what is necessary to save her. Sometimes only one life can be saved, and that is far better than none.

[MercyA]

6 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

Abortions aren’t happening solely because a baby is unwanted. It’s ridiculous to act like that’s the only reason. Anyone who says the recent 10 year old who needed to travel to a different state had an abortion simply because her baby was unwanted has serious issues with reality.

I didn't mean to imply that was the only reason for abortion. Of course it is not. I was responding to the question about why some states' laws protect *wanted* unborn humans but not *unwanted* ones.

Human beings are also aborted, at times, because they are burdensome in some way, or because they are disabled, or (rarely) because they put a mother's life at risk or are conceived by criminal and violent behavior. 

[Corraleno]

Why does an embryo have more "right to life" than a living person who needs an organ or bone marrow transplant?

If the state can force a woman, against her will, to donate the use of her body for 9 months in order to preserve the life of a fetus, then why shouldn't the state also have the right to force people, against their will, to donate organs or bone marrow or even blood  to preserve the life of someone who needs it?

If the only reason a woman should be permitted to refuse to donate her body is because doing so would kill her, then why isn't that standard applied to organ/marrow/blood donation?

[Scarlett]

35 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Although if All Life Matters, then extra kidneys certainly are potential life, aren’t they? The potential to save a person, just as a clump of cells might potentially create a person? I’d think “pro life” folks would maintain that position, anyway, if there was any consistency. As for forced kidney donation from live people, I don’t see that as any different as forcing someone to give birth. Both are gross overreach of bodily autonomy. 
 

Honest question—why are “pro life” folks angry? They just won a 50 year fight? 

I do not agree with that at all.  No life saving measure can be compared to a baby.  Not taking life saving measures is far different than deliberately ending a life.  
 

Maybe a “pro-life” person will answer your question. Maybe they aren’t angry. But it seems like everyone is angry to me. 

[J-rap]

15 minutes ago, MercyA said:

There have been many already born human beings throughout history whose lives were not legally protected by the state. If someone else decided they were not wanted for whatever reason, they could absolutely be killed with no legal repercussions. So, yes, it has happened. 😞 

Well yes, certainly there have been times throughout the history of the world and even our country.  But your saying "Because some people think the youngest human beings should only have their lives legally protected if they are wanted" kind of opens up a different discussion.  First, at what point is an egg and a sperm a human being?  You are saying one thing, others say another.   Secondly, assuming you're referring to abortions, I can tell you that the women I know who have terminated a pregnancy did not do it because they're unwanted.  That's kind of a strong accusation. 

 

[Scarlett]

32 minutes ago, Innisfree said:

I actually have no problem viewing the fetus as alive: it consumes nutrients, it grows, it’s obviously alive. But— so is a seedling lettuce, or a chick in an egg. 

The real division seems to me to be between people who say that it’s alive, and has human DNA, ergo it’s a human being deserving the same level of protection as a newborn baby, on the one hand; and people who say that embryonic human life is fundamentally different  from fully developed human life.

I’ve kept chickens, and eaten plenty of fertilized eggs. There’s a real, significant difference between a fertilized egg that has just been laid, and one that’s ready to hatch. The two aren’t equal. I see the same difference in human embryos and babies at nine months. They aren’t the same: they don’t have the same awareness, or the same abilities to be protected by people other than their mothers, and I think those differences matter.

Judging that embryonic life can overrule the needs of the mother doesn’t seem to me to recognize reality.

I do think there’s room for a lot of thought about how the embryo/fetus changes over nine months. I actually think Roe got things substantially correct because it did recognize that change, while still recognizing the mother’s valid needs and autonomy.

I see the mother as the foremost protector of an unborn baby, but certainly should not be the only protector.  
 

I realize there are a lot of tragic circumstances and situations that may end up badly for mother and or baby.  But viewing an unborn child as a liability instead of a miracle makes it easy to think abortion is a reasonable choice. 

[Scarlett]

24 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Why does an embryo have more "right to life" than a living person who needs an organ or bone marrow transplant?

If the state can force a woman, against her will, to donate the use of her body for 9 months in order to preserve the life of a fetus, then why shouldn't the state also have the right to force people, against their will, to donate organs or bone marrow or even blood  to preserve the life of someone who needs it?

If the only reason a woman should be permitted to refuse to donate her body is because doing so would kill her, then why isn't that standard applied to organ/marrow/blood donation?

Some believe——An embryo is already a life and the mother is uniquely qualified to have care and concern for that life. She isn’t just some stranger or extended family. She is half of that child’s dna. 

Obviously, many disagree.  

[Arcadia]

What I find depressing is that when a nuchal test or triple marker scan is positive, abortion is immediately given as an option both here in California and where I am from. My late cousin has down syndrome and there are of course financial issues and social stigma to consider.  I had a positive triple test for DS16 and abortion was offered before amniocentesis. It would have been a 2nd trimester abortion for those who opt for abortion after amniocentesis.

ETA: an English tutor of mine ended up with a ruptured womb and kidney damage from a legal abortion at a research hospital. She nearly died. She was in her mid 20s then. Its such a gray issue.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Arcadia

[Sneezyone]

55 minutes ago, MercyA said:

There have been many already born human beings throughout history whose lives were not legally protected by the state. If someone else decided they were not wanted for whatever reason, they could absolutely be killed with no legal repercussions. So, yes, it has happened. 😞 

They’re still not. You’d think starting there would be the goal for those who are pro life. It’s not.

[Sneezyone]

33 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I see the mother as the foremost protector of an unborn baby, but certainly should not be the only protector.  
 

I realize there are a lot of tragic circumstances and situations that may end up badly for mother and or baby.  But viewing an unborn child as a liability instead of a miracle makes it easy to think abortion is a reasonable choice. 

A child in utero *is* a liability for a 10yo girl. It’s not a miracle. It’s a known biological outcome of sexual abuse/rape of a fertile woman/girl. It’s a tragedy. For everyone.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

The insistence that a fertilized egg is just like a born human, and therefore deserving of all the same rights, ignores the fact that an embryo cannot become a born human unless another person sacrifices the use of their body — and often their health, and sometimes their life — in order to make that happen. That is why an embryo is far more analogous to someone who needs a transplant: they both rely on the use of another person's body for survival. And in no other circumstance do we require a human being to sacrifice the use of their own body, against their will, to preserve another person's life.

Bone marrow donation is far less invasive, less time consuming, less risky than pregnancy — and the whole process is free for the donor. Why don't pro-lifers want laws requiring everyone to register with a bone marrow donation site, and provide a donation if the database finds a match? Why is the life of a 2 year old with leukemia worth less than an embryo?

[AmandaVT]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

They’re still not. You’d think starting there would be the goal for those who are pro life. It’s not.

I've been thinking - in the states that have decided life begins at conception, is the mother able to claim that child on her taxes while still pregnant? Is she guaranteed child support if not married to the father? I feel like these decisions should also have legal ramifications beyond not having the option to get a safe abortion (because now safe abortions will be for rich people in those states, but they will still happen). I feel like it has to be all or nothing - if life begins at conception, so do rights. 

Vermont is a pro-choice state but we also have good health coverage for all pregnant women and children from the time they are born until 19. So when a woman decides to keep a pregnancy, there is support. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

I've been thinking - in the states that have decided life begins at conception, is the mother able to claim that child on her taxes while still pregnant? Is she guaranteed child support if not married to the father? I feel like these decisions should also have legal ramifications beyond not having the option to get a safe abortion (because now safe abortions will be for rich people in those states, but they will still happen). I feel like it has to be all or nothing - if life begins at conception, so do rights. 

Vermont is a pro-choice state but we also have good health coverage for all pregnant women and children from the time they are born until 19. So when a woman decides to keep a pregnancy, there is support. 

No. Taxes require an SSN which is only issued to living, breathing human citizens. Child support (more accurately termed maternal maintenance) can be mandated during gestation in cases where paternity is established (typically through marriage which we know isn’t an accurate tell).

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

13 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Some believe——An embryo is already a life and the mother is uniquely qualified to have care and concern for that life. She isn’t just some stranger or extended family. She is half of that child’s dna. 

Obviously, many disagree.  

So should parents/children/siblings be required by the state to donate organs if a family member needs it? Even if making that donation would have significant economic and health costs to them? If not, why not? If the reason why a woman or child should be forced to donate the use of their body, even against their will, for 9 months, on the grounds that mother and embryo share DNA, then why shouldn't the state force other people to make bodily sacrifices for those who share their DNA?

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No. Taxes require an SSN which is only issued to living, breathing human citizens.

It's like there's an actual difference between an embryo and a living person... 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Corraleno

[Farrar]

I feel like this is a basic misunderstanding between pro-life and pro-choice folks.

Most (though not all) of the pro-choice folks I know have zero moral issue with early abortion before the fetus is viable. Zero. It's only contextually sad if someone is sad about it as a necessity - such as a woman who would like to have a baby but has discovered her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's not tragic, it's not sad, it's not anything to work to lower. 

Most (and maybe even all) of the pro-life folks I know see abortion as murder. End stop. If they compromise about it, it's only because the pregnancy has become a medical issue where only the life of the mother can be saved.

The pro-life folks see the pro-choice folks as hypocritical by nature because they support murder. How can you get around that? The pro-choice folks see the pro-life folks as hypocritical because statistically and anecdotally many also get abortions, many make exceptions when they know the circumstances, and many don't support anything that would help babies and mothers after babies are born, which doesn't seem very pro-"life" in other contexts.

Most of the arguments I see both sides making fall on deaf ears because they don't address the core difference of view on this.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

I've been thinking - in the states that have decided life begins at conception, is the mother able to claim that child on her taxes while still pregnant? Is she guaranteed child support if not married to the father? I feel like these decisions should also have legal ramifications beyond not having the option to get a safe abortion (because now safe abortions will be for rich people in those states, but they will still happen). I feel like it has to be all or nothing - if life begins at conception, so do rights. 

Vermont is a pro-choice state but we also have good health coverage for all pregnant women and children from the time they are born until 19. So when a woman decides to keep a pregnancy, there is support. 

That support is limited by income, finite in time, and inadequate even in the best of states.

[Dmmetler]

49 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I didn't mean to imply that was the only reason for abortion. Of course it is not. I was responding to the question about why some states' laws protect *wanted* unborn humans but not *unwanted* ones.

Human beings are also aborted, at times, because they are burdensome in some way, or because they are disabled, or (rarely) because they put a mother's life at risk or are conceived by criminal and violent behavior. 

I would argue that the pendulum is swinging the other way-that the unborn human's life is being prioritized over the life and health of the born human carrying said unborn human. Which is why we're seeing cases where doctors cannot or will not treat ectopic pregnancies or pregnancy complications that are KNOWN to have no good outcomes and progress to being complete emergencies until they have reached that complete emergency stage, because they fear legal repercussions, no exceptions, even if the pregnancy was non-consensual or is in a person too young to either consent or carry to term without substantial risk to them, etc. 

 

If there were robust life and health of the mother exclusions, including mental health AND substantial protections against abuse for the mother and child (because a LOT of abortions, statistically, happen in abusive relationships, either because the father insists or because the mother doesn't feel safe bringing a child into that relationship) AND substantial financial protections and support, such that the mother would be able to safely get the prenatal care and delivery care needed, have time to recover, and have child care support for said child, I'd be a lot less opposed to states being able to choose to restrict abortion.  It still wouldn't be what I feel is right, because pregnancy has SUCH a big physical toll on the mother, but at least then it wouldn't be a case where it seems like making abortion illegal has the primary purpose of punishing a woman for daring to get pregnant. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I feel like this is a basic misunderstanding between pro-life and pro-choice folks.

Most (though not all) of the pro-choice folks I know have zero moral issue with early abortion before the fetus is viable. Zero. It's only contextually sad if someone is sad about it as a necessity - such as a woman who would like to have a baby but has discovered her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's not tragic, it's not sad, it's not anything to work to lower. 

Most (and maybe even all) of the pro-life folks I know see abortion as murder. End stop. If they compromise about it, it's only because the pregnancy has become a medical issue where only the life of the mother can be saved.

The pro-life folks see the pro-choice folks as hypocritical by nature because they support murder. How can you get around that? The pro-choice folks see the pro-life folks as hypocritical because statistically and anecdotally many also get abortions, many make exceptions when they know the circumstances, and many don't support anything that would help babies and mothers after babies are born, which doesn't seem very pro-"life" in other contexts.

Most of the arguments I see both sides making fall on deaf ears because they don't address the core difference of view on this.

The thing is most pro-lifers aren’t vegans. They don’t equate the embryonic stage of any other sentient being with human life. They differentiate. They distinguish. When convenient.

[Farrar]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

The thing is most pro-lifers aren’t vegans. They don’t equate the embryonic stage of any other sentient being with human life. They differentiate. They distinguish. When convenient.

I personally see a lot of hypocrisy on the part of the majority of pro-life folks - I mean, when it comes down to it, many do think exceptions should be made for circumstances like rape or incest. But if that's really a human life, that makes no sense. Plus the hypocrisy of not caring for human lives once they're born. Plus the thing I said about how a lot of them make a lot of exceptions if it's them or someone they have a personal connection with. Or the way that many don't believe in demonizing a woman who has an abortion legally. I mean, if you knew someone who was a baby murdered and baby murder was legal, can you imagine having them around for tea and acting like it was just a touchy subject you wouldn't talk about with them instead of like, an absolute moral horror? Plus the thing being pointed out here about how you can't give a fetus a SSN or claim them on your taxes. But I don't buy this one. I mean, newborn babies or some people with cognitive damage also have the intelligence of animals and not average humans and I don't believe once a baby is born that the baby should have less right to life than anyone else.

[Sneezyone]

I would add that the ever so ‘rare’ criminal conception raised its head, publicly, within 7 days of these trigger laws going into effect. That doesn’t strike me as rare. At all.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I personally see a lot of hypocrisy on the part of the majority of pro-life folks - I mean, when it comes down to it, many do think exceptions should be made for circumstances like rape or incest. But if that's really a human life, that makes no sense. Plus the hypocrisy of not caring for human lives once they're born. Plus the thing I said about how a lot of them make a lot of exceptions if it's them or someone they have a personal connection with. Or the way that many don't believe in demonizing a woman who has an abortion legally. I mean, if you knew someone who was a baby murdered and baby murder was legal, can you imagine having them around for tea and acting like it was just a touchy subject you wouldn't talk about with them instead of like, an absolute moral horror? Plus the thing being pointed out here about how you can't give a fetus a SSN or claim them on your taxes. But I don't buy this one. I mean, newborn babies or some people with cognitive damage also have the intelligence of animals and not average humans and I don't believe once a baby is born that the baby should have less right to life than anyone else.

Of course they do. Still, people with disabilities have shortened life spans and reduced access to robust healthcare (COVID bore this out) too. There are much bigger issues with LIVING, BREATHING humans that could realistically/logically consume the time/energy of pro-life individuals than what happens in a 10yo’s uterus. What so many seem to want is birth without any social responsibility/obligation. We literally saw that view championed on the other thread. I find that to be the ultimate hypocrisy.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[AmandaVT]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That support is limited by income, finite in time, and inadequate even in the best of states.

Dr. Dynasaur is thankfully, quite good here. The most recent stats I saw have 60% of VT kids using it as their insurance. I have lots of friends that have had it while pregnant and for their children. It has better coverage than BCBS or Cigna (the two main insurance companies) offer. I feel very lucky to live in a state that offers it. Also, no one screams and bullies you when you walk into planned parenthoods here. 

[Farrar]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Of course they do. Still, people with disabilities have shortened life spans and reduced access to robust healthcare (COVID hire this out) too. There are much bigger issues with LIVING, BREATHING humans that could realistically/logically consume the time/energy of pro-life individuals than what happens in a 10yo’s uterus.

I don't disagree personally at all.

But I also totally understand why this argument makes zero dent in the minds of most pro-life folks. If someone accepts the premise that a fetus is a person with the rights of a person, then you're arguing that people prioritize some people over others. People who have more legal supports in place no less. It just makes you look heartless.

I'm with you that not doing anything for the people who are here is what's heartless. But I don't accept the idea that a fetus is a person. I think it's nonsense scientifically and morally and every other way.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

Dr. Dynasaur is thankfully, quite good here. The most recent stats I saw have 60% of VT kids using it as their insurance. I have lots of friends that have had it while pregnant and for their children. It has better coverage than BCBS or Cigna (the two main insurance companies) offer. I feel very lucky to live in a state that offers it. Also, no one screams and bullies you when you walk into planned parenthoods here. 

That’s basic healthcare, not LIFE expenses.

[AmandaVT]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That’s basic healthcare, not LIFE expenses.

100% - sorry, I thought you were replying to my healthcare post before. And agreed - if people are going to be forced to carry a baby to term, they need more support than just healthcare. But in so many states, they don't even get that.

[ChickaDeeDeeDee]

4 hours ago, Home'scool said:

"When someone like Scott Peterson kills his wife while she is pregnant, he is charge with two counts of murder, one for the mother and one for the unborn child. But why is it is not considered a crime

when a mother chooses to abort the baby?"

 

How the crime is charged will depend on state law.  If you take a look at this summary of state laws you'll see that some states consider that harm to a fetus is really harm to a pregnant woman, and others consider that the fetus is a life of it's own.   Here you can see some summaries of state laws that have fetal homicide law and states that have penalty enhancements for crimes against pregnant women (but don't consider the fetus a separate life).  This is from the National Conference of State Legislatures.   

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

So,  whether a crime is 1 or 2 counts or just carries an increased penalty depends on the state.  The summary at the top of the page provides insight into the views that underpin the different types of laws (and relate to the overall abortion debate).  

What is interesting is that some states recognize the separate personhood of a fetus for criminal penalty purposes but explicitly carve out when the mother consents to abortion.   Which is exactly the type of case that I think your question is about.   My best guess is that there isn't something logically or philosophically consistent about it and that those types of laws are a compromise. 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by ChickaDeeDeeDee