Hat, you may want to tell me who you’re trying to debate against because you quoted me but what you posted didn’t have anything to do with countering what I said. That stated, since you quoted me I’m going to have to assume this was supposed to “Counter” my argument so let me tell you why it doesn't work as a rebuttal.
My argument was that right now, in regards to the topic of this thread and rather Oklahoma’s law should be overturned or not, whether or not YOU PERSONALLY think a fetus is a baby from the moment of conception is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the current standard in this country, that is essentially law, is that a fetus is NOT a alive or “a child” until the 3rd trimester. Regardless of what your beliefs are that’s what the actual legal standard is, and thus laws must go off of what the legal standard is not your personal belief.
Posting me a link showing that thirty-eight states have laws on the books regarding killing the fetus while attacking a pregnant woman in no way, shape, or form changes the fact that under the law it’s still not considered a living “child” yet until the 3rd trimester. Showing that a single state has made abortions illegal earlier means absolutely zero as state legal standards do not overrule federal. Not to mention the quoted law is under a month old so we’ve yet to see how it stands up in appeals for its constitutionality, of which I fear is not likely to fair well.
Fact is, when it comes to the fetus, abortion, and federal legal statutes, it is not able to be claimed to be “alive” until that 3rd trimester and as such making laws based off the notion that it is simply because you “believe” it doesn’t make the laws, well, legal.
I can't even understand the comparison to the gun thingy. The 2 issues, aren't comparable.
Yes, they are. In both cases its someone making a law that is contrary to the stated legal standard in place and arguing that it’s a valid law because it fits your PERSONAL belief.
Someone simply deciding “Nope, the Supreme Court is wrong, the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, it deals with militia’s, so I can ban individuals guns” is absolutely no different than a notion of “Nope, the Supreme Court is wrong, the fetus is definitely a living child prior to the 3rd trimester so I can make laws based on that belief”. You’re ignoring legal standard to make law contrary to what’s allowable under precedent based on nothing but your personal belief and disagreement with the court. That is the exact same thing.
I do know this. As medical technology has gotten better, the ability to take a baby from the womb and keep it alive is getting better at younger and younger ages during pregnancy.
Irrelevant to this case since:
1) In regards to the life of the fetus it has to follow federal statutes rather you like it or not
2) Doesn’t even touch on the fact that it’s the government forcing a private citizen to undergo a medical procedure
With that advancement in medical technology, laws are going to be effected, as they already have. As this medical technology, to save lives, gets even better, babies will be kept alive at even earlier and earlier times during pregnancy until babies aren't even carried within the womb.
And hey, I would absolutely love to get to the point where we could have a relatively safe surgery to remove the fetus and be able to do as you say. Though that would create an entire new host of issues as well with orphaned kids. There’s no perfect solution sadly.
At that point in medical advancement, what will the laws be?
Who knows, but that has absolutely
zero baring on what the laws ARE now.
This is the future of medical technology folks. This is the route it is taking. Laws are going to change with it, and along with that comes a change in mindset on abortion and a whole host of other life issues b/c at that point, abortion becomes null and avoid does it not?
First, thank you for this random tangent. It is obvious you’re running away from my original point because you have no real counter for it so you’re just spouting on about the “future” which really has no baring to what I said.
Second, let me play devil’s advocate for a moment. No, abortion doesn’t become null and void. The other side is always going to be able to argue something. For instance, even if said child is “alive” one could argue that “murder” is allowable in cases of self defense and that having an unwanted entity within one’s body that has adverse health and economic effects on your is a legitimate reason for “self defense” in the termination of it. The one way you could avoid this argument would be if the magical imaginary procedure of the future you speak of is able to extract the fetus with an equal or less amount of danger to the mother as an abortion is. If you can do that, then sure…you could have an argument against it that “the self defense” then would be removal rather than abortion since there’s no safety issue. However if it isn’t safer then again you have an issue where you’re telling her you can defend yourself but in a more dangerous manner, and that’s not going to fly well or stop the fighting.
And, sadly, again, I fear no matter what technology we have there’s never going to be a perfect answer. There’s always going to be children that are unwanted that are conceived and rather their aborted or born to an orphaned life, there’s no real “good” answer sadly.
And at that point what will the pro-death crowds chant be to abort babies then, when mothers don't even carry their young in the womb?
Doesn’t matter, we’re all blowing up and the worlds being destroyed in 2012 or will all be hooked up into machines to act as batteries for Robots.
What? I thought we were talking about Science Fiction from far in the future as if its fact and definitely going to happen.
