On abortion

[imanihonjin]

I'm still confused as to what assets have to do with anything, but you used the word vagabond, in some attempt to imply that he was somehow worth less than the unborn fetus. It's an interesting legal standard, I guess.

Just like you deliberately used the word "child". Do you know any children in utero? Do they like to play games? Do they like to watch TV? I wonder if they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

Yeah because a 1 week old baby loves to do all of those things. Are you implying that your standard of whether someone should be afforded rights is based on whether or not they like to play games, watch TV, or understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb. If that isn't what you were implying then what exactly were you saying?

[imanihonjin]

For what it's worth, I've seen my fair share of third trimester deaths come my way by autopsy. Some of them due to infections, and some of them with no identifiable cause. But some of them could conceivably be chalked up to maternal neglect; i.e. smoking and drugs. If imanihonjin and others really want to take the rights of a third trimester fetus to the conclusion they seem to be leading to, some of these women should be prosecuted for neglect or homicide.

Some states and federal government have already held that it is murder if a baby in utero is killed by another in the commission of a number of specified crimes. So what is the difference?

[Pelado]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's...manservant

[All-American]

Same gender marriage brings people happiness just as opposite gender marriage does. If you oppose or help prevent people from marrying who they love, you're in direct violation of the most important Christian commandment.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me?

[All-American]

Legally, no. Morally, perhaps. Different question.

And goodness, I don't know how many ways to explain this to you, so I'll just try this: There is no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero".
It matters on all kinds of levels, including the legal one, but also some very important physiologic ones.
Thank goodness attorneys aren't in charge of medicine. Yet.

I might have been more sympathetic to that argument before seeing my daughter's ultrasounds.

[beefytee]

If imanihonjin and others really want to take the rights of a third trimester fetus to the conclusion they seem to be leading to, some of these women should be prosecuted for neglect or homicide.

As I understand it, you can be convicted of a double homicide if you kill a woman carrying an unborn child multi-cell organism. So it wouldn't be a stretch.

[ERCougar]

There's an interesting thought. Forget trimesters: babies have a right to live as soon as they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

So you think a mother has no more responsibility to a fetus in her womb than she does to a starving man on the street. What else can I say? I just don't agree with that.

Legally, no. Morally, perhaps. Different question.

And goodness, I don't know how many ways to explain this to you, so I'll just try this: There is no such thing as a child/baby/infant/person "in utero".
It matters on all kinds of levels, including the legal one, but also some very important physiologic ones.
Thank goodness attorneys aren't in charge of medicine. Yet.

[All-American]

I'm still confused as to what assets have to do with anything, but you used the word vagabond, in some attempt to imply that he was somehow worth less than the unborn fetus. It's an interesting legal standard, I guess.

Just like you deliberately used the word "child". Do you know any children in utero? Do they like to play games? Do they like to watch TV? I wonder if they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

There's an interesting thought. Forget trimesters: babies have a right to live as soon as they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

So you think a mother has no more responsibility to a fetus in her womb than she does to a starving man on the street. What else can I say? I just don't agree with that.

[ERCougar]

I wonder what exactly it reveals about me that I assume a man starving on the streets doesn't have much by way of assets. I stand duly rebuked; from now on, I will assume that people starve on the streets only because of legal restrictions on withdrawing from their Roth IRAs.



But a parent owes no more responsibility to their child in utero than to the starving man on the street (who, for all I know, is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company who misplaced his debit card).

I'm still confused as to what assets have to do with anything, but you used the word vagabond, in some attempt to imply that he was somehow worth less than the unborn fetus. It's an interesting legal standard, I guess.

Just like you deliberately used the word "child". Do you know any children in utero? Do they like to play games? Do they like to watch TV? I wonder if they get the humor of Phineas and Ferb.

[Northwestcoug]

For what it's worth, I've seen my fair share of third trimester deaths come my way by autopsy. Some of them due to infections, and some of them with no identifiable cause. But some of them could conceivably be chalked up to maternal neglect; i.e. smoking and drugs. If imanihonjin and others really want to take the rights of a third trimester fetus to the conclusion they seem to be leading to, some of these women should be prosecuted for neglect or homicide.

[All-American]

I never said anything about him being a vagabond, although that's perhaps a telling assumption on your part. Why are you devaluing his life so much?

I wonder what exactly it reveals about me that I assume a man starving on the streets doesn't have much by way of assets. I stand duly rebuked; from now on, I will assume that people starve on the streets only because of legal restrictions on withdrawing from their Roth IRAs.

And yes, there is a well-established and agreed upon parental responsibility towards a child. Of course, you know this.

But a parent owes no more responsibility to their child in utero than to the starving man on the street (who, for all I know, is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company who misplaced his debit card).

[imanihonjin]

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...59-On-abortion

Despite what you believe, the only answer you have really given to my question is simply that a child shouldn't be afforded rights until it is born. I see your point of view, but sorry, it doesn't really offer the meaningful distinction that you think it does. There is no meaningful difference between withholding support and nutrition to a baby at 40 weeks of a pregnancy and withholding that same nutrition and support 1 minute after the baby is born.

[ERCougar]

I think the point being, why is withholding support by a mother after birth different than before?

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...59-On-abortion

[ERCougar]

Only the parts that interested me. In other words, not really.

So let me try to catch up. We agree that if you don't feed a starving man, it's not a big deal as far as the law is concerned, but if you let your child starve, it's a form of homicide. The only difference, of course, being that a parent owes some measure of responsibility to their child.

And the split, it appears, is that you think a parent owes no more responsibility to a child in the womb than to a vagabond on the street.

That about right?

I never said anything about him being a vagabond, although that's perhaps a telling assumption on your part. Why are you devaluing his life so much?
And yes, there is a well-established and agreed upon parental responsibility towards a child. Of course, you know this.

[SCcoug]

Not a bad point.

Let's link this with the old notion that LDS have a strong obligation to have lots of children in order to provide bodies for these unborn spirit-people, as well as LDS claims to exclusive access to saving ordinances, and we can pretty much justify supporting, nay encouraging abortion among non-LDS people so that more of the spirits in Earth's on-deck circle can become LDS humans.

Only if you forget about proxy ordinances.