Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison
70 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45913467]see but the flaw in this is that a fetus isn't a human being or a child[/QUOTE]
Care to prove that with some irrefutable evidence?
[QUOTE=AwpersAreBad;45913496]Care to prove that with some irrefutable evidence?[/QUOTE]
Can you prove it is with some irrefutable evidence?
We don't treat them as human beings. The census doesn't count them, there's no funeral when someone has a miscarriage, we say 'we have 2 kids and one on the way' and not 'we have 3 children', when you see a pregnant woman you do not think "I am looking at two people", we don't count age by when you were conceived, you have no memories from before birth, it doesn't display sentience of any kind as far as I'm aware around the time when people would most likely get rid of it, or it does but it's so late in the pregnancy that people would pretty universally agree is far too late for it to be correct to abort. And why draw the line at when it becomes a fetus and not some earlier stage?
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45913575]Can you prove it is with some irrefutable evidence?
We don't treat them as human beings. The census doesn't count them, there's no funeral when someone has a miscarriage, we say 'we have 2 kids and one on the way' and not 'we have 3 children', when you see a pregnant woman you do not think "I am looking at two people", we don't count age by when you were conceived, you have no memories from before birth, it doesn't display sentience of any kind as far as I'm aware around the time when people would most likely get rid of it, or it does but it's so late in the pregnancy that people would pretty universally agree is far too late for it to be correct to abort. And why draw the line at when it becomes a fetus and not some earlier stage?[/QUOTE]
So if I "accidentally" trip a woman and she falls down the stairs and loses her baby, I don't get charged with manslaughter for killing the baby?
Yeah, try and say that in court and see where that gets you. If it's illegal to kill a fetus that somebody wants (something you do causes the woman to miscarry), then it should be illegal to kill a fetus that nobody wants. Right? Or are you just a giant hypocrite?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913611]So if I "accidentally" trip a woman and she falls down the stairs and loses her baby, I don't get charged with manslaughter for killing the baby?
Yeah, try and say that in court and see where that gets you. If it's illegal to kill a fetus that somebody wants (something you do causes the woman to miscarry), then it should be illegal to kill a fetus that nobody wants. Right? Or are you just a giant hypocrite?[/QUOTE]
In some states you're charged with murder, and in other states you're charged with another crime against the fetus, in others it depends on the age of the fetus and in some it's just plain considered assault. Personally I figure it should be a crime, but not considered murder, and legal when everyone involved consents and it is done by a professional. Anyway, I tried counting and the number I got of states that consider it directly murder somehow came up to 21 using a map, 35 in the same article and 25 for pre-natal development. Weird, but whatever. Federal and state courts, mind you, have ruled that even if it is considered homicide by some laws, it does not apply to legally induced abortions.
Awful lot of people with strong opinions about things that are none of their business.
Perhaps we need some sort of rigid, dogmatic law-like system that could lay a foundation of fundamental truisms (defined by us of course, cause those dumb fuckers can't seem to get it right.).
Then we could assemble a team of enforcers to go around and make sure folks are abiding by those truisms, whether the government does anything about it or not. (It's the only way to be sure, you see.)
We could make videos of the enforcers doing their toil as an example to others that might step out of line. Their faces would have to be covered though, to protect their families from possible revenge action on the part of the heathens.
We can do this folks... Are ya hyped!!
/ugly sarcasm (this topic is fucked all over)
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45913654]In some states you're charged with murder, and in other states you're charged with another crime against the fetus, in others it depends on the age of the fetus and in some it's just plain considered assault. Personally I figure it should be a crime, but not considered murder, and legal when everyone involved consents and it is done by a professional. Anyway, I tried counting and the number I got of states that consider it directly murder somehow came up to 21 using a map, 35 in the same article and 25 for pre-natal development. Weird, but whatever. Federal and state courts, mind you, have ruled that even if it is considered homicide by some laws, it does not apply to legally induced abortions.[/QUOTE]
That's hypocritical. If you can get charged for it if it's not an "abortion", then you should get charged the with the same crime for an abortion. Either it is a person or it's not.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913699]That's hypocritical. If you can get charged for it if it's not an "abortion", then you should get charged the with the same crime for an abortion. Either it is a person or it's not.[/QUOTE]
Um, no? I really don't understand what you mean by it being hypocritical.
Anyway I just found out that in England, Northern Ireland, and Hong Kong, injuring a heavily pregnant woman in a way that causes her fetus to die, killing a baby during childbirth, or performing a late-term abortion is dubbed Child Destruction, is illegal, but not considered homicide. I'm pretty cool with that.
But hey, if that woman trips herself truly on accident and thus it dies, shouldn't she be charged with manslaughter? If not, that is most definitely hypocritical.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45913721]Um, no? I really don't understand what you mean by it being hypocritical.
Anyway I just found out that in England, Northern Ireland, and Hong Kong, injuring a heavily pregnant woman in a way that causes her fetus to die, killing a fetus during childbirth, or performing a late-term abortion is dubbed Child Destruction, but not considered homicide.
But hey, if that woman trips herself truly on accident and thus it dies, shouldn't she be charged with manslaughter?[/QUOTE]
In both instances, you have the same outcome: a fetus gets killed. Therefore, the law should handle it the same way. Either the fetus is considered a person and they are both punishable by law, or the fetus isn't and neither is punishable by law. The humanity of the fetus doesn't magically change because the parents want the child. That's not a criteria for life and should never be a criteria for consideration as human life.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913749]In both instances, you have the same outcome: a fetus gets killed. Therefore, the law should handle it the same way. Either the fetus is considered a person and they are both punishable by law, or the fetus isn't and neither is punishable by law. The humanity of the fetus doesn't magically change because the parents want the child. That's not a criteria for life and should never be a criteria for consideration as human life.[/QUOTE]
So basically what you're saying is that, say, in self defense, you kill a person, or a soldier kills a person, it should be treated the same as murder because the end result is that a person was killed and therefore the law should handle it the same way?
And, yeah, I would agree it's hypocritical that some states consider it homicide but at the same time we're not going to dub an abortion killing. This is why it should [I]not[/I] be considered homicide but documented as another crime. Again, why don't we charge a woman who accidentally trips and causes her to lose her developing fetus with manslaughter?
[QUOTE=AwpersAreBad;45913436]"Boo-hoo I didn't want this kid feel bad for me" Hey you know what? I lived a shitty life with one alcoholic parent and another heroin addict. I'm fucking glad I got the chance to make the best of it. You're literally arguing for suicide "Well his/her life is probably going to be shit so lets just kill it"
I'm firm in the belief that you reap what you sow so I don't feel bad about them because there's fucking shitloads of ways to avoid getting pregnant and 9/10 it would have been avoided if you had not been a dolt. And I don't think its fair someone can deny a kid chance at life because you're selfish and want an easy way out.[/QUOTE]
The fetus has no form of consciousness, and isn't sentient until birth, there is nothing to fucking murder here
There is such a thing as condoms breaking, and the pill not working you dolt
I'm going to assume you'll pull out the "It's murder" bullshit card when someone is going to have an abortion because they were raped. I can't wait for you to tell a victim "Boo-hoo I didn't want this kid feel bad for me"
And thanks for telling me your anecdotal "I didn't suffer from my shitty parents, so fuck you" argument like everyone in this goddamn world lives out your past situation with your family
You're a real piece of work
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913749]In both instances, you have the same outcome: a fetus gets killed. Therefore, the law should handle it the same way. Either the fetus is considered a person and they are both punishable by law, or the fetus isn't and neither is punishable by law. The humanity of the fetus doesn't magically change because the parents want the child. That's not a criteria for life and should never be a criteria for consideration as human life.[/QUOTE]
consider the fetus property and the problem is solved
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913749]In both instances, you have the same outcome: a fetus gets killed. Therefore, the law should handle it the same way. Either the fetus is considered a person and they are both punishable by law, or the fetus isn't and neither is punishable by law. The humanity of the fetus doesn't magically change because the parents want the child. That's not a criteria for life and should never be a criteria for consideration as human life.[/QUOTE]
By your logic all charges involving someones death should be the same, that there should be no difference between manslaughter and murder because intent does not matter at all, just the end result. Intent makes a very huge difference in law.
No woman should be forced to have a parasite inside of her for nine months that lives off of her blood, bone and organs, only to after that either ship it away on a dice roll or fail to give it the life she knew she could never offer. You're so stuck on that undeveloped, unwanted, uncaring thing that you forget about the independant, conscious woman with a conscience and dreams about her future. Who is the one suffering? Who is the one we should primarily look after?
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45913765]So basically what you're saying is that, say, in self defense, you kill a person, or a soldier kills a person, it should be treated the same as murder because the end result is that a person was killed and therefore the law should handle it the same way?
And, yeah, I would agree it's hypocritical that some states consider it homicide but at the same time we're not going to dub an abortion killing. This is why it should [I]not[/I] be considered homicide but documented as another crime. Again, why don't we charge a woman who accidentally trips and causes her to lose her developing fetus with manslaughter?[/QUOTE]
Those aren't even comparable. In a self defense situation, you are in fear for your own life. And if you aren't, you do get charged with murder. So if it won't kill the woman to have the baby, why isn't she charged with murder as well????
But why should we dub it a crime? What's the difference between the fetus of someone who gets an abortion and the fetus of someone who wants their child? Nothing. So why is it wrong in one instance and not in the other?
But I suppose you could charge them with misdemeanor destruction of property and give the person who causes someone else to have a miscarriage a ticket and a fine.......
ninja'd....
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913810]Those aren't even comparable. In a self defense situation, you are in fear for your own life. And if you aren't, you do get charged with murder. So if it won't kill the woman to have the baby, why isn't she charged with murder as well????
But why should we dub it a crime? What's the difference between the fetus of someone who gets an abortion and the fetus of someone who wants their child? Nothing. So why is it wrong in one instance and not in the other?
But I suppose you could charge them with misdemeanor destruction of property and give the person who causes someone else to have a miscarriage a ticket and a fine.......
ninja'd....[/QUOTE]
Who cares, same result, dead dude. Why does intent matter there and not matter when it's a fetus being killed?
Also the difference between the fetus of someone who gets an abortion and the fetus of someone who wants their child is, of course, nothing. The things surrounding it, however, are different. If a woman wanted her fetus and it is killed (for no good reason, e.g. the woman's life is being threatened by the fetus) then it is wrong because she wanted it. If she didn't and it was done via medical procedure then there is nothing wrong because nobody wanted it.
To compare, look at the dollar. What is the inherent difference in a dollar in the US and a dollar in Canada that make them differently valuable. Nothing of any significance, but it's the things that surround them that determine their importance.
And for the millionth time, [b]if we went by your rules should we charge a woman who trips and kills their fetus with manslaughter?[/b]
[QUOTE=Mitchel.;45907761]Isn't killing someone a criminal stuff?
Abortion is killing a child inside of woman afterall.[/QUOTE]
And not killing the fetus is killing everything that woman ever hoped and dreamed for, if she is not ready.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;45913867]Who cares, same result, dead dude. Why does intent matter there and not matter when it's a fetus being killed?
Also the difference between the fetus of someone who gets an abortion and the fetus of someone who wants their child is, of course, nothing. The things surrounding it, however, are different. If a woman wanted her fetus and it is killed (for no good reason, e.g. the woman's life is being threatened by the fetus) then it is wrong because she wanted it. If she didn't and it was done via medical procedure then there is nothing wrong because nobody wanted it.
To compare, look at the dollar. What is the inherent difference in a dollar in the US and a dollar in Canada that make them differently valuable. Nothing of any significance, but it's the things that surround them that determine their importance.[/QUOTE]
You can't use that comparison. It's not the same thing.
If I run over an animal on the road, do I get charged with the same crime as if I hit a child? No, because an animal isn't a HUMAN BEING. You're trying to say that the same thing can both be a human and not be a human at the same time, which is false. It either is or it isn't. If it's not a human then yes, you can treat the situations differently. If it is a human, however, then no, you must treat both situations the same. By your logic, I could kill an orphan and not get charged with anything because you're saying that the parents wanting the child is a qualification for them being considered a human, which is wrong.
And to answer your question, if the fetus is considered a human, then yes. If it isn't, then no.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913944]You can't use that comparison. It's not the same thing.
If I run over an animal on the road, do I get charged with the same crime as if I hit a child? No, because an animal isn't a HUMAN BEING. You're trying to say that the same thing can both be a human and not be a human at the same time, which is false. It either is or it isn't. If it's not a human then yes, you can treat the situations differently. If it is a human, however, then no, you must treat both situations the same. By your logic, I could kill an orphan and not get charged with anything because you're saying that the parents wanting the child is a qualification for them being considered a human, which is wrong.
And to answer your question, if the fetus is considered a human, then yes. If it isn't, then no.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not? My stance is that fetuses are not human beings, however intentionally destroying a fetus in any other way that isn't with the mother's consent and done via a professional should be illegal.
And no, it shouldn't be homocide, and no, it shouldn't be property destruction. We can make new laws. Why can't we just make new laws that apply to fetuses and are specifically tailor made for them, rather than trying to classify fetuses under laws that they don't fit in to? Malicious Fetus Destruction, Unprofessional Abortion, so on.
also considering that you DO consider a fetus a human then that means you think women who accidentally kill their fetuses should be charged and put in to prison for several years and holy shit that is horrible
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45913944]treat the situations differently. If it is a human, however, then no, you must treat both situations the same. By your logic, I could kill an orphan and not get charged with anything because you're saying that the parents wanting the child is a qualification for them being considered a human, which is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Good job completely missing the point.
It's about the worth of a fetus, not a born child.
I never said that fetuses are humans. I just said that you can't treat them like humans in once circumstance, then not treat them like humans when it's beneficial to you. They either have all the qualifications to be humans or they don't. It's not something YOU PERSONALLY can decide. It either is or it isn't.
Since you say that they aren't, that means they are nothing more than either property or a pet. So the charges should be along those lines for someone who is responsible for it's termination without the owner's consent.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45914007]I never said that fetuses are humans. I just said that you can't treat them like humans in once circumstance, then not treat them like humans when it's beneficial to you. They either have all the qualifications to be humans or they don't. It's not something YOU PERSONALLY can decide. It either is or it isn't.
Since you say that they aren't, that means they are nothing more than either property or a pet. So the charges should be along those lines for someone who is responsible for it's termination without the owner's consent.[/QUOTE]
Um, no it doesn't mean that they're nothing more than either property or a pet. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus. It is it's own thing. It can have it's own classification and defined importance. It's not 'property', a pet, it's not a plant, it's not whatever, it is a fetus. There's nothing forcing it to be considered by lines of property or a pet.
if birth control for whatever reason failed i dont see why the fuck people are making a huge deal about the carrier of the baby not wanting to give birth. the fetus has no fucking idea at all what is going on, its not like its thinking "wow what a bitch, aborting me and refusing me a life?????".
and if this kid grew up without a father figure then whats even the point, it would have been even more fucked
[QUOTE=AwpersAreBad;45913262]The parasitic twin has no hope of a normal life. If you don't want a kid just put the damn thing up for adoption instead of being a heartless twat with no self-responsibility[/QUOTE]
If you don't want a child then letting it be born without the intention of being its parent is the epitome of being a "heartless twat with no self-responsibility"
[QUOTE=Dissolution;45908032]A fetus is about as human as a parasitic twin growing off of some guy's chest
Removing that isn't murder to anyone so why is abortion considered murder to so many
is it because its anti christian and babies are cute :33?[/QUOTE]
Except for one thing: a fetus is genetically, and completely, human. Simply because the child lacks development does [I]not[/I] classify them as an object alien to the human body. If you can't afford to have a child, either don't have sex or do it safely. Cheaper than an abortion.
lol the comments in this thread. This is not even about abortion. It's about a mother administering a very dangerous drug in her daughter without the help of a physician. Death rates of house-held abortions are very high.
Well-deserved prison time.
Abortions should be free and available to whoever wants one. We simply don't need more people, and if you're wanting to not have a child that's your choice. In nature you'll have animals abandoning nests, killing their young when they can't support them, and some animals can self abort their pregnancies when their situation changes and that's not some horrible action, it's simply natural. We're no different than any other animal when it comes down to it. We have too many people anyways, so why is anyone complaining? It's not like they are state mandatory abortions, it's just the freedom to choose.
Also as far as safety, there are many reliable prescriptions that are available that can successfully abort pregnancy with a very low risk of danger to the mother. RU-486/Cytotec is basically the standard concoction they give you at a clinic and can run upwards of $1,000, when they can be got illegally for as little as $10. A lot of people can't afford a $1,000 abortion, and those same people often can't afford to have a child. It'd be so much cheaper for the government to give out the drugs for free to whoever wanted them than to pay welfare for low income multiple children households.
Basically if you know anything about biology or anthropology you'd know that abortions, or infanticide, have always been common place. To come in after millions of years, and suddenly say that it's inherently wrong is just ridiculous. Let people live how they want.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;45915837]Abortions should be free and available to whoever wants one. We simply don't need more people, and if you're wanting to not have a child that's your choice. In nature you'll have animals abandoning nests, killing their young when they can't support them, and some animals can self abort their pregnancies when their situation changes and that's not some horrible action, it's simply natural. We're no different than any other animal when it comes down to it. We have too many people anyways, so why is anyone complaining? It's not like they are state mandatory abortions, it's just the freedom to choose.[/QUOTE]
I'm pro choice but "animals do it so it must be OK" is the worst fucking argument I've ever heard in my life
That's worse than "Marijuana can't be bad for you because it's natural"
wow jailed for an abortion wtf usa
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;45915903]I'm pro choice but "animals do it so it must be OK" is the worst fucking argument I've ever heard in my life
That's worse than "Marijuana can't be bad for you because it's natural"[/QUOTE]
Often the argument is that abortion is not natural, and what is natural? The natural order of things, and if you look across all different forms of life you will see that infanticide and abortion are common among different species and human cultures through the history of mankind. It isn't an unnatural action. That's all I was saying. It's not like I'm saying that all things that other animals do would be acceptable for people to do.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;45915903]I'm pro choice but "animals do it so it must be OK" is the worst fucking argument I've ever heard in my life
That's worse than "Marijuana can't be bad for you because it's natural"[/QUOTE]
Don't forget, dogs eat shit, so that must be ok as well :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.