Jump to content

Dumbest Pro-Choice Argument Ever


Dubayoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you have a dumber one than this, let's hear it:

In any case, it's nice to see how the is-ought problem, circular reason, and consequentialism can be demonstrated to be nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoroughly stupid. I'm Pro-Choice and not a fan of abortion. If the fetus can't live outside the womb and without an umbilical cord it's not a person, but a part of a woman's body. It's their choice if they continue to allow the fetus to develop to its human form and fine if they decide to have the tissue removed.

  • Upvote 2

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if someone accidentally causes harm to the fetus and death of the fetus occurs, should it be considered manslaughter in a court of law?

Edited by Edgar Allen Poe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

From what I've read it's the same standard of development used by women's health clinics.

And this answers my question how?

Court cases have gone in favor of manslaughter towards the unborn in almost every case. If it is just tissue, why would this be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

And this answers my question how? You asked the criteria and I offered some. If you don't want to read what I post why are you doing so?

Court cases have gone in favor of manslaughter towards the unborn in almost every case. If it is just tissue, why would this be? Prosecutorial zeal. In every case abortion is legal so lower cases where prosecutors go too far it looks different, but it's not. Prosecutors sometimes abuse laws. In around 2003 a prosecutor in NC or SC tried to use the prohibition on chemical weapons against someone caught cooking meth.

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

So if someone accidentally causes harm to the fetus and death of the fetus occurs, should it be considered manslaughter in a court of law?

No and courts have consistently ruled only intentional harm in cases related to the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 are considered manslaughter.  SO if you fall down a flight of stairs and lose your fetus then it not a crime.  Your husband or boyfriend punches you in the stomach and you lose the fetus then it is a crime.  Automobile accident where the driver of the car was insanely drunk manslaughter (drinking and driving is an intentional act), automobile accident where someone inadvertently runs a red light not manslaughter (to the fetus, it could be involuntary manslaughter for passengers or driver).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Masterbake said:

No and courts have consistently ruled only intentional harm in cases related to the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 are considered manslaughter.  SO if you fall down a flight of stairs and lose your fetus then it not a crime.  Your husband or boyfriend punches you in the stomach and you lose the fetus then it is a crime.  Automobile accident where the driver of the car was insanely drunk manslaughter (drinking and driving is an intentional act), automobile accident where someone inadvertently runs a red light not manslaughter (to the fetus, it could be involuntary manslaughter for passengers or driver).

So basically it is given rights as a human, accidents notwithstanding.

 

And yes, I am ignoring ComradeMilton finally. He never answers posts with actual, direct answers and calls it answering the question. Telling me the answer is the same standards of development in health clinics is not answering the question posed like you did. Respect to you, not that other guy.

Edited by Edgar Allen Poe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

So basically it is given rights as a human, accidents notwithstanding.

 

And yes, I am ignoring ComradeMilton finally. He never answers posts with actual, direct answers and calls it answering the question. Telling me the answer is the same standards of development in health clinics is not answering the question posed like you did. Respect to you, not that other guy.

The issue is still clouded as the law reads differently from state to state.  The Supreme Court has consistently said that before a certain point in gestation that a fetus is indeed just tissue in regards to rights and can be considered tissue even after that point if the life of the host is at risk.  I tend to agree with that legal definition.  A fetus at 1 month for example has less sentience than an ant and is only the size of a grain of rice.  The laws put in place stood scrutiny because it added the enhanced penalties for illegal terminations as assaults on the pregnant woman much like enhancements for killing a peace officer.  They did not technically give rights to the fetus.  A very gray area and an area where I think the courts got it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

So basically it is given rights as a human, accidents notwithstanding. Not at all. It lets the prosecutor pile more onto the charges. Doing so hasn't been settled thus far from the Supreme Court. Abortion remains legal and to be honest will continue even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

And yes, I am ignoring ComradeMilton finally. He never answers posts with actual, direct answers and calls it answering the question. Telling me the answer is the same standards of development in health clinics is not answering the question posed like you did. Respect to you, not that other guy. lol. Good job.

 

2 hours ago, Masterbake said:

The issue is still clouded as the law reads differently from state to state.  The Supreme Court has consistently said that before a certain point in gestation that a fetus is indeed just tissue in regards to rights and can be considered tissue even after that point if the life of the host is at risk.  I tend to agree with that legal definition.  A fetus at 1 month for example has less sentience than an ant and is only the size of a grain of rice.  The laws put in place stood scrutiny because it added the enhanced penalties for illegal terminations as assaults on the pregnant woman much like enhancements for killing a peace officer.  They did not technically give rights to the fetus.  A very gray area and an area where I think the courts got it right. Many, if not most states, will also be able to wreck a defendant under the officer enhancement if their dogs are harmed.

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2017 at 0:07 PM, ComradeMilton said:

Many, if not most states, will also be able to wreck a defendant under the officer enhancement if their dogs are harmed.

This is correct reading of what I was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2017 at 6:38 PM, Masterbake said:

No and courts have consistently ruled only intentional harm in cases related to the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 are considered manslaughter.  SO if you fall down a flight of stairs and lose your fetus then it not a crime.  Your husband or boyfriend punches you in the stomach and you lose the fetus then it is a crime.  Automobile accident where the driver of the car was insanely drunk manslaughter (drinking and driving is an intentional act), automobile accident where someone inadvertently runs a red light not manslaughter (to the fetus, it could be involuntary manslaughter for passengers or driver).

 

Just to correct you on this, even the latter example would result in involuntary manslaughter to the fetus.  The rest you're correct on though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2017 at 5:11 PM, ComradeMilton said:

In around 2003 a prosecutor in NC or SC tried to use the prohibition on chemical weapons against someone caught cooking meth.

In around 2003 a prosecutor in NC or SC tried to use the prohibition on chemical weapons against someone caught cooking meth.

 

I remember someone in a bar telling me that right after I moved to NC and I thought he was just drunk. I guess not lmao

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Prosecutors will !@#$ you over in any possible way to force a plea bargain; there aren't enough courts or judges to actually let everyone get a fair trial so by stacking the charges it makes people think a plea bargain is more acceptable than the trial they're promised. Plus trials take time and aren't always victories which harms the prosecutor's ability to  get promotions by having a better conviction rate.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.