Post Reply
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
Switch to Forum Live View Playing around with the bodily autonomy argument
4 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 9:26AM #51
Halcyon-days
Posts: 290

Mar 5, 2010 -- 1:00PM, Bei1052 wrote:


'I never said I didn't want my baby': Mom won't be prosecuted


A pregnant Burlington woman said this week she was falsely accused by police of trying to kill her fetus after she confided under duress to hospital emergency workers that she wanted to end her pregnancy.

Christine Taylor, 22, a mother of two, says she believes the personal views of medical workers and police played a part in a decision to accuse her last month of attempted feticide after a Jan. 19 incident in which she fell down the stairs at her home.




This just in-- She wasn't prosecuted!


<_<


Shocking, huh?



Yes, but she should never have been at risk for being charged.  If you can be accused of it, there's the potential to be prosecuted for it.



Mar 5, 2010 -- 8:33AM, Halcyon-days wrote:

And I'm not making up  hypotheticals that can't happen.  I have no control over what others  choose to argue with.



They're thought experiments-- Useful  for finding out how strong or weak someone's argument is.




The problem is, morality does not always function the same in extreme situations, which is what these hypotheticals are.


In the interests of fairness, I think men should be given the  option of not financially supporting the baby and in exchange he gives  up all parental rights to the child.  This is a decision that  should preferably be made early so it can factor into the woman's choice  on whether or not to keep the baby but as long as he decides before he  agrees to putting his name down on the birth certificate, he should have  that choice.  He no more consented to fatherhood by having sex than she  consented to motherhood.  Consent to parenthood, and the point where  you really can't change your mind, only comes when you decide that you  are going to raise the baby rather than aborting it or giving it up for  adoption.  But if he wants to have parental rights to the child, he has  to financially support it.



You should call NOW and all  those other groups who generally show up to rail against the man who  goes to court arguing the above.


In the hopes of avoiding derailing this conversation into a  discussion of my lack of vegetarianism, I hope that you will simply  accept my answer and stop asking after this explanation.


I do think that humans and animals have different rights, yes.   Animals have the right to be well-cared for, and, for the most part, not  to be harmed.  The only times I think that an animal should be killed  are when it is necessary for the well-being of people i.e. medical  research, food, clothing (assuming there are no options that don't  require the death of the animal), etc.


I do not think that the unborn necessarily have these rights,  especially in the very early months of pregnancy.  Once it is born, it  has the right to be well-cared for and not harmed.



This  really isn't want I was getting at. I was examining how well you apply  the criteria you set up to determine whether or not something is given  basic rights. Anyway, why shouldn't the unborn have the right to not be  harmed at all times?



Because, the mother has the greater right to not have it occupy her body in the first place.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2010 - 1:20PM #52
Ralph.m
Posts: 159

Mar 6, 2010 -- 9:26AM, Halcyon-days wrote:


Mar 5, 2010 -- 1:00PM, Bei1052 wrote:


'I never said I didn't want my baby': Mom won't be prosecuted


A pregnant Burlington woman said this week she was falsely accused by police of trying to kill her fetus after she confided under duress to hospital emergency workers that she wanted to end her pregnancy.

Christine Taylor, 22, a mother of two, says she believes the personal views of medical workers and police played a part in a decision to accuse her last month of attempted feticide after a Jan. 19 incident in which she fell down the stairs at her home.




This just in-- She wasn't prosecuted!


<_<


Shocking, huh?



Yes, but she should never have been at risk for being charged.  If you can be accused of it, there's the potential to be prosecuted for it.




Personally, whatever the subject area, I find it a waste of time to try to debate someone who keeps moving the goalposts by changing their claims.


I posted that article because the claim was that no one has been charged with feticide for falling down a flight of stairs....and that case is just one example of someone who was charged. Whether or not she was convicted is immaterial, because that charge should not even be on the books in the first place, and as long as it is considered legitimate, the threat of prosecution will always be present. That case shows how much depends on the discretion of police and judges.


All of the women who think that fetal rights amendments are just about the abortion issue need to wake up and realize that every pregnant woman who has an accident, or has engaged in any unhealthy habits during pregnancy, such as smoking, drinking or taking drugs, could be liable for prosecution, if they give birth to a baby with any defects or abnormalities.  And once again, even if the charges are based on false testimony, the threat of prosecution for feticide will always be lurking in the background.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 10:00AM #53
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Mar 6, 2010 -- 1:20PM, Ralph.m wrote:


I posted that article because the claim was that no one has been charged with feticide for falling down a flight of stairs....and that case is just one example of someone who was charged. Whether or not she was convicted is immaterial, because that charge should not even be on the books in the first place, and as long as it is considered legitimate, the threat of prosecution will always be present. That case shows how much depends on the discretion of police and judges.


All of the women who think that fetal rights amendments are just about the abortion issue need to wake up and realize that every pregnant woman who has an accident, or has engaged in any unhealthy habits during pregnancy, such as smoking, drinking or taking drugs, could be liable for prosecution, if they give birth to a baby with any defects or abnormalities.  And once again, even if the charges are based on false testimony, the threat of prosecution for feticide will always be lurking in the background.




With that logic, women could possibly be charged with child abuse of born children based on false testimony. Does that mean we should not have laws against harming or killing children?


Of course not! Same goes for unborn children. All children deserve to be protected by law, both outside and inside their mother's womb.


The PC crowd needs to wake up and realize the value of every human being's life.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2010 - 5:21PM #54
Ralph.m
Posts: 159

Mar 11, 2010 -- 10:00AM, faith713 wrote:


Mar 6, 2010 -- 1:20PM, Ralph.m wrote:


I posted that article because the claim was that no one has been charged with feticide for falling down a flight of stairs....and that case is just one example of someone who was charged. Whether or not she was convicted is immaterial, because that charge should not even be on the books in the first place, and as long as it is considered legitimate, the threat of prosecution will always be present. That case shows how much depends on the discretion of police and judges.


All of the women who think that fetal rights amendments are just about the abortion issue need to wake up and realize that every pregnant woman who has an accident, or has engaged in any unhealthy habits during pregnancy, such as smoking, drinking or taking drugs, could be liable for prosecution, if they give birth to a baby with any defects or abnormalities.  And once again, even if the charges are based on false testimony, the threat of prosecution for feticide will always be lurking in the background.




With that logic, women could possibly be charged with child abuse of born children based on false testimony. Does that mean we should not have laws against harming or killing children?


Of course not! Same goes for unborn children. All children deserve to be protected by law, both outside and inside their mother's womb.


The PC crowd needs to wake up and realize the value of every human being's life.




So, it's okay with you if women are charged with child abuse for smoking or having a drink while pregnant (it's possible that many may not be aware that they are pregnant before quitting harmful habits), and it's also possible for a woman to be charged with child endangerment for refusing to leave an abusive husband or boyfriend who injures them while they are pregnant.   And we still have the possiblity of a criminal investigation for every unfortunate accident like a fall down the stairs. That case mentioned previously from Nicaragua, also shows how being pregnant could endanger a woman who developes cancer or some other life-threatening illness.


I hope most women who support fetal rights are just onside because of the church propaganda they've been exposed to, and will change their minds when they consider what could happen to them during pregnancy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 13, 2010 - 1:38PM #55
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Mar 11, 2010 -- 5:21PM, Ralph.m wrote:


So, it's okay with you if women are charged with child abuse for smoking or having a drink while pregnant (it's possible that many may not be aware that they are pregnant before quitting harmful habits),



Is it OK with you that children are harmed by their parents? Unborn children need to be protected from harm. There are laws to protect born children from second hand smoke as well (House Bill 2385):


 


Dr. Donald Austin, incoming president of the Oregon Public Health Association, argued that children whose lungs are still developing are especially vulnerable to secondhand smoke. Exposure can lead to ear infections, asthma, bronchopneumonia and other illnesses, he said.

Rep. Chuck Riley, D-Hillsboro, said the state has laws requiring children to be strapped into infant car seats and booster seats. "If government has any role it has to be protecting people who can't protect themselves," he said.

"Dr. Donald Austin, incoming president of the Oregon Public Health Association, argued that children whose lungs are still developing are especially vulnerable to secondhand smoke. Exposure can lead to ear infections, asthma, bronchopneumonia and other illnesses, he said.Rep. Chuck Riley, D-Hillsboro, said the state has laws requiring children to be strapped into infant car seats and booster seats. "If government has any role it has to be protecting people who can't protect themselves," he said."


 


 


www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/20...


 


 


 

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook