I think this is the very issue in this debate. If we can't distinguish when a fetus becomes a "baby", how can you arbitrarily decide when life begins?

Funny thing is that our justice system, when not deciding on the rights of the mother, establish that a fetus does have rights and should be protected.

If Congress can decide that fetuses can be regarded as life in the fetal protection act, why don't the same protections extend to fetuses when living inside the mother???
Here's a great quote:


So, basically, if I were to injure or kill a fetus inside a woman, I can be charged with homicide... however, if a mother knowingly goes to a clinic to do the same, it's a women's rights issue?... hmmm.....

I do not agree with this law. This is the "special circumstance" that landed Scott Peterson on California's death row. Without the fetus, oops, I meant "unborn child," the most Peterson could have received was life.

This is strange. I don't know if we can prove there is any such thing as an unborn child.

Same way you can Aevans. The fact that your arbitrary definition differs from the pro-choice arbitrary definition does not make it ANY less arbitrary. The difference the US professional medical community as a body seems to agree with the pro-choice view.



Aevans, we have been over this. The is an act of legislation passed by a government intent on chipping away at abortion laws. It is not an act of the Judiciary, it is not a statement about our justice system. It is a political act.


"The administration has an opinion A. The administration passes law B in support of that opinion. "Look, there is law B on the books, meaning the Entire judicial system supports opinion A!!!"

You cannot use that as any kind of moral validation of your personal opinions, it is entirely tautological.

Ok...here's where you lose me. The Fetal Protection act passed in April of 2001. This was FIVE YEARS AGO. It has little or nothing to do with this or the abortion debate.

The law has a pertinent use. Basically, without it (or state laws like it), I could punch an expecting mother in the stomach hard enough to kill the fetus and only be charged with assault on the mother... while foregoing the responsibility of having to be financially responsible for the child for 18 years.

For a mother that wanted to keep the baby... that is the murder of her child. Are you saying that we shouldn't have such laws???

You are correct of course, after all we have a whole new government with a whole new agenda backed by entirely different right wing religious/conservative groups than we did 5 years ago.

Oh, no... wait... we don't. I'm sorry, how exactly did that lose you?



Oh Come ON Aevans: you are turning into Ted. I never said anything even CLOSE to that. I never made any comment at all on the value of the law, or its rightness or wrongness, nor was that what the debate was about at any point during this thread. Please do not ascribe statements to me I never came close to making and then respond to these phantom positions full of rightious indignation.

My point, which you completely ignored and still stands, is that the existence of this law, passed by the same government and political wing of the US that is launching attacks on abortion laws now, cannot be used as justification of your point. It is tautological.

I see that you like the word tautological, but umm... you did also say:


Political act? So you're saying that it had nothing to do with protecting unborn fetuses? All politics isn't it....
Guess no one cares...

I also guess it's ironic that nearly 60% of Congress voted for it? I suppose when you said that one wing of the government was pushing it, the Democrats that voted for the act were mistaken?

Oh... and I guess since this is a federal law, then the states disagree??


Check out this LIST.

It's pretty easy to see that it's not just the Bush administration kooks on this one... it's a pretty widely adopted notion.

Yeah cause I used a whole twice, in referring to the same point.

And as for the rest, if you are going to be deliberatly obstructive, why bother to debate? We are debating your using this fallacious argument to prove a point. The act itself is a political act as in it was passed by politicians, not the judiciary. Why is that so hard to grasp? STOP putting words into my mouth, STOP deliberatly misinterpretaing my comments and then coming at me all indignant about your version of them.




Considering 55% of the congress is one party, what was your point exactly?


Look, this is pointless. Stick to the debate and debate what I say, not your own wild interpretation of what you think it might be cool if I said, or I'm not going to bother. Otherwise this will just degenerate further, AND get further off topic and the thread will be closed.

Why do you feel it is more tragic for a woman or as you personalized it..your wife or daughter to be injured or killed, than it would be for a man..or to again personalize it a husband or son? Why does the woman warrant more protection?
I feel it is a woman’s right as much as a man’s to have self determination. If a female feels her life is best served by serving her country by entering the military then yes that is her right to choose.
And the right for women to be allowed to make such choices hardly came about by convenience, and our desire to celebrate such accomplishments is from pride and gratefulness for our successes within a struggle. Gender inequality in and of itself is a harsh reality.



Yes well we all have seen CSI et al. and all know that they can do the same for paint chips, textile fibers, ink, bullets etc. I think you misunderstand my use of separate and distinct or as you termed it personhood.


I can’t even follow what train of thought, logic or argument led you here, perhaps none exists. I think you are just trying to bully me with this argument.
Who has argued for children being considered property?


Again more bullying, seems your means of debate here is to somehow threaten me with murder and rape as a result of my own argument. Democracies are notorious for recognizing individual rights as well as majority demands. It is a constant balance but it is one of the most important distinctions of a free and democratic nation. Some of us feel that pluralism is one of the most important principles in our society.


You said personhood, not person as in human being. I think you are purposefully altering and playing loose with your words here. Are you claiming you are unaware that the concept and definement of personhood is not in agreement ? And heavily relies often on one’s religion, philosophical, spiritual and personal beliefs?



The state does have “religious exemptions” and I don’t think these exemptions exist as prevalent and widely recognized in regards to any other situation as they do with the parent child relationship. This includes issues like denying children’s rights, health concerns, abuse, neglect and yes wrongful death. In 44 states it is legal to allow a child to die a painful prolonged death from injury or illness, some of us would consider it torture, even when medical treatment is available because of not that child’s right to live or die but the parent’s right to religious practice.



I think it will matter little for me to explain to you where my concerns or emphasis is in my statements (I would have bolded that bit about demanding control) as you feel your argument is best suited when you portray or present my argument as extreme. Even though women desiring and yes needing control over their reproduction beyond insemination has been occurring for thousands of years in every culture in every part of the world, regardless of risk, or local restrictions. Somehow acknowledging this reality and attempting to address it and deal with it is extreme. I don’t think so, I feel the denial of such realities is the extreme position. Also this is a debate about abortion with sex, insemination and pregnancy in that context. Most women who become pregnant and have their babies obvious do so willingly and joyously. But we are not discussing most women, we are discussing the women who seek, desire and need an abortion and I doubt that for them it is a joyous reality or decision.


It was not unqualified; I stated it was presented in the context of a lack of or the removal of individual control or what we like to call choice.



I clearly stated It seems you believe It is obvious that I am not quoting you but assessing your argument. I think you should expect that when you put your opinions and beliefs out in public like you do here that people will interpret them.

Regardless of your extended explnation again and again I find your comments lacking tremendously in concern for and recognition of the realities women face. You do not address rape or sexual abuse and when asked of it shrug it off with a statistic. What about fetal impairment, a woman’s health risks, the lack of socioeconomic equality, a lack of family support, physical and emotional abuse, mental illness, substance abuse, age, incest, lack of sexual education, birth control ineffectiveness, IVF techniques and finally self determination?

The lack of complexity you lend women and their situations and possible personal dilemnas is not only condescending but shallow. You seem far more focused on how the subject effects you personally then what it means and it's relationship to basic rights for women in our society as a whole. And yes the very real and all important balance between women's reproductive rights and children's rights.

Also your kitten example is ridiculous. How many cats are involuntarily neutered? How many animals are systematically euthanized? And since when was abortion illegal for animals? Why you would wish to use our practices and laws regulating animal’s reproductive rights to claim they are greater than our own is a really confusing and dishonest argument to me.

I have been.
How about this link once more. This enumerates the state laws that protect fetuses from harm.

My point, which has really been consistent all throughout this debate, is that the judiciary has created a double standard. Either the American public decides that fetuses have rights or they don't. I don't believe that if I were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, and the fetus were to die, that I should be able to be tried for murder when the very same woman with little impediment could drive to an abortion clinic and do the same. The laws not only at the federal level, but in numerous states say just this.

I simply find it interesting that the law views a fetus in whatever form that it feels is convenient at the time. Fetuses have completely different rights dependant upon whether the harm comes from the mother or an external source, not only at a federal level but in a number of states as well. Point blank. It does relate to the Judiciary in that these convictions have and continue to be upheld. Scott Peterson is a perfect example....

How can you refute this? It's not like the judiciary is throwing out the Fetal Protection Law as unconstitutional... as in the instance of Roe v Wade...

Yes, all of which are LEGESLATION passed by politicians, not ecisions of the Judiciary. I'm sorry, why do I have to keep repeating this?



The law only does this because politicians pass laws attempting to push their positions. The right wing does not get to enact a law that chips away at abortion rights, and turn around as if surprised and say :"See, the justice system has laws that limit abortion rights! We must be right according to the law!"

Can you not see how that is a complete logical fallacy? I'm not even talking about the abortion debate anymore, this type of argument does not pass logic 101. It is pointless.




It has not been challenged to my knowledge, so that is an irrelevant statement. I'm not 'refuting' that the law exists, or that it has some value, though I think it would be much more valuable had it been enacted as women's groups around the US were pressuring to do, a stiffer sentence for attacking a pregnant woman point blank as opposed to trying to end-run around the supreme court by giving a fetus rights. But regardles, the fact that this end-run was sicessful does not now give you the moral authority to say the judiciary supports fetal rights, it does not. Conservatives who control legislatures do.