We exist, FYI. Some of us are even pro-life.

ND HB 1572 FTW!!!

Tags: 1572, abortion, hb, pro-life

Views: 1307

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I didn't want to make direct comparison to murder (or, in this case, being an accessory to voluntary manslaughter under duress).

It all depends upon the validity of prenatal personhood.
Ok.. so what you are saying is that it's a crime (though legally it isn't) and it falls somewhere between murder or voluntary manslaughter under duress depending on the validity of prenatal personhood.

And how do you define the validity of prenatal personhood?

By it's ability to live outside a womb (at the time of abortion) with/without medical intervention? So Plan B is the lesser charge, and late term abortion is murder?

Or by the socioeconomic status of the would-be-mother (since those with higher incomes will generally be able to fund education, ect ect..) So an unwed, underaged black single parent without a GED is the lesser charge and a white senator's wife is murder?


Oh yeah, also how do you define 'last resort' in saving a mother's life? What are your guidelines?
If she's got a 50-50 chance it's still murder? But the crime becomes less as her statistics for survival go down?
Or is it murder entirely right up until that point that she is going to die at any second and then it's ok? (and is it still murder if she does die because someone waited too long? Even if she was in that tiny slice of minority that still die from complications that all pregnancies risk? Those unforeseen events?)
Or option C: it's not murder, no matter how hard the pro-life nuts want it to be.
So you believe it is moral to trade one life for another?
Huh?
So, if not for fetal deformity, why is an exception for incest so important?
Because there is always the possibility that the two parties involved did not know they were related! Very rare cases here, but they do exist.
But why is incest an excuse?
because it's gross...eww dude
Prenatal personhood is always valid.

And the "what if there's a 50% chance she'll die" is already covered by current laws (reasonable suspicion or whatever).
"prenatal personhood is always valid" ???

why make a statement like that without an argument to support it? without something to back this up, it's just dogma.

fyi: i have heard coherent arguments that define personhood in such a way as to exclude fetuses, newborns, and vegitative adults but to include the most intelligent of non-human animals.

but we can't discuss anything if you don't state your case.
How do you define prenatal personhood? Where is the line drawn? Is, at the moment of conception when there is but a single cell, prenatal personhood established? Does it come with the development of a nervous system? With the development of recognizable features? With the ability to survive (with medical aid) when removed from the womb? With the ability to survive (without medical aid) when removed from the womb? Definitions are needed, as depending on when personhood is applied, I may or may not agree with you.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 1 hour ago. 133 Replies

Blog Posts

I am tired

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 12:09am 2 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service