This is just a ridiculous line of argument. When a woman is assaulted, that IS a crime. And, the loss of a fetus is a major augmentation of the sriousness of the crime. That has ALWAYS been the case in America. And, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the abortion issue.
But what if the "assault" is very light and barely hurts her at all, only targeting the fetus? We all know there's a huge difference between a normal physical assault (i.e. woman just gets punched in the belly, for example) and a woman losing her fetus due assault. But WHY exactly? That seems to be the thing you don't want to focus on. You're just trying to vaguely brush over it. If the fetus is just a clot of inconsequential tissue that will eventually be gone from her body anyway eventually, what's so terrible about it? If you want to be disingenuous about this, maybe let's pull out the numbers. What exactly should be the difference in length of punishment if the fetus dies, and how does your beliefs about what the fetus is, allow you to justify that punishment, and remain logically consistent?
The fetus has whatever value the woman it's in places on it....she may think it's terrible to lose it. She may not think of it as "inconsequential" as you seem to... The attacker took away her CHOICE, a HEINOUS , disgusting thing to do. ....
Your "medical" nonsense is irrelevant. A fetus is a part of a woman. A fetus very clearly does not qualify as a person under our constitution. And, our constitution is about persons and persons who are also citizens. A person can not be forced to donate any part of their body, nor can they face legal ramifiations for not doing so voluntarily.
So, you're saying, if she views it as a baby, it has all the value of a baby; but if she views it as a clump of unwanted tissue, then it only has the value of a clump of tissue. Sorry to say but a woman's imaginative desires don't change what the reality is.
A temporary part of the woman that's going to be gone in a few months, just like hair or toenails. Wouldn't that be sort of analogous to giving a woman a laxative? What's going to come out was going to come out anyway.
Even when that "part of her body" has different DNA, and a separate blood circulatory system? Let's face it, it's not her body. If it's really part of her body, why does the dad have equal custody when it comes out? And are you okay with the idea of a woman forbidding it from leaving her body? (trying to hold it in for years) No, of course not, I presume.
That was already answered, was it not? I'll say it again: Assault is a punsihable offense under law. Loss of a fetus due to an assault is a serious augmentation of the crime of assault. I didn't ignore anything at all. You're trying to make a false equivalency. The fact that woman A may choose abortion doesn't mean that all other women may have their fetuses killed by assault. What kind of criminal ARE you? A woman could value a fetus VERY differently that some other woman or women in general. For some women, a fetus is a constant reminder of a rape or incest, presents a requirement for care that can not be provided, carries a strong risk of personal health, etc., etc. For others, it's the fulfillment of marriage and family. Deciding that one view has control over the other view is just plain stupid.
Hold up a minute... You are introducing the word "should" into your question, making it a question about moral epistemology. That's not what I asked of you in my question, so I'm not going to get into your exercise about how one "should" act. That's an entirely different subject matter. Now, back to my question... Let's start at the bare bones basics. Do you accept the following definitions? 'living': "has a heartbeat". 'human': "of the homo sapien species". Are those definitions of those words acceptable to you?
The 14th Amendment doesn't define the criteria for citzenship, it only extends citizenship to an additional group of people. If you don't meet that criteria, it in no way means you're not a citizen.
Wow - I think you're missing some fundamental issues of biology. There really isn't any other explanation for your post.
And just like nails and hair, it has no rights. This is not really helping your case. Faeces are lives too! Ban pooping!
Are you serious? Maybe you did not understand the question. You're okay with a mentally disturbed woman holding her baby inside her for far longer than the due date? Even if that means harm to the baby?
The point was, if someone else cuts her hair or toenails without her permission, it does violate her but isn't really that bad. If pregnancy is really such a "burden" (like pro-choicers say), maybe she should be thanking the person.
Again, same type of logic as before, when you brought up citzenship and the Constitution. Not all living things having a heartbeat doesn't logically necessarily mean something with a heartbeat could not be a living thing.
Correct, I did answer "yes" to this. No, I'm not. Notice I didn't agree that they "should" be forced to, nor did I agree that they "can [legally]" be forced to... I just agreed that it is possible for someone to force them to. I forcibly grab you and strap you down to a bed and draw blood from you. Done. See above. No, you didn't. Let me ask you if you accept these definitions: 'living': "having a heartbeat". 'human': "of the homo sapien species". Are those definitions acceptable to you?
Why not add that the woman can fly too then and make it an analogy where the woman flies to Pluto, gives birth and travels home to Earth where she becomes a cow and spends the rest of her life producing milk that is used to produce delicious milkshakes. Yummy.
Nope, you're getting completely off track here... 'living': "has a heartbeat" 'human': "of the homo sapien species" Do you accept these definitions of these terms?
