• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

Your argument fails when you realize except in very rare cases the woman wasn't forced to get pregnant. There are consequences to personal actions/choices.

In most cases of slavery these days, the victim was not physically forced either.
 
The real complicator in this matter, from my perspective, is that the man ended this pregnancy in the same manner that the woman could have ended the pregnancy herself, had she choosen to do so. It calls into question why a woman could "murder" and creates two classes of people. I don't know the medical complications that can possibly occur if such a drug is administered even if the woman knows. I guess it's possible that any drug could be deadly. In that regard, I think a charge of attempted murder or attempted manslaughter may have been more appropriate if there is medical research that would support the pill could be harmful in some circumstances.

Yes, and it's intended to create that complication. It's a way of forcing the appeals to emotion into the legal code.

I do know a bit about those drugs, and I think it is entirely possible they could charge the man with something like attempted murder.

You don't just give someone an abortive pill. Before that, the woman must take a progesterone blocker that helps the process go more smoothly. She must also take antibiotics.

In the absence of those two things, the abortion is far more traumatic. Risk of hemorrhage is high, and risk of infection is higher as well. Also she wasn't assessed for possible medical complications, obviously.

On top of that, you could add yet another bodily harm charge, because she wasn't tested for conflicting blood types. This means that, if this embryo had a conflicting blood type she was exposed to and she gets pregnant in the future, she could lose the pregnancy.

That is not a safe abortion by medical standards, and it could have potentially killed her or permanently damaged her reproductive function.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they do, actually. As long as they're religious. This has been a big point of friction over the years with Christian Scientists who believe prayer will heal their sick children. They wind up dying of simple, treatable illnesses like ear infections. And the doctors can't report if they never see the children, obviously.

Yes, there is a voluntary reporting system if you intend to deny your child medical care, but obviously no one actually uses that.

Perhaps America is different from my experience here - we've had children removed from parental control for not providing the necessities of life.

Our Child and Family Services Act gives the relevant Minister the authority: (e) a child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering, and the child's parent or guardian does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or is unable to consent to, the treatment;

I'm surprised the US would not similarly protect its children.
 
Your argument fails when you realize except in very rare cases the woman wasn't forced to get pregnant. There are consequences to personal actions/choices.

Meh. Forced to stay pregnant is the same thing. There are consequences to personal decisions, but that doesn't mean we get to dictate what those consequences are in contradiction to the human rights and natural prerogatives of the people who've made them.
 
Just because it's natural doesn't mean that it's morally good.

Uh-huh? Are you... o_O Are you seriously going to state that pregnancy is somehow morally evil?

What else do you call an organism that survives solely through the forcible extraction of nutrients from another organism's metabolic processes? It's an absolutely appropriate comparison that you are only dismissing because you are trying to justify an irrational and inhumane moral stance that denies human rights to half of humanity.

Well, seeing as the two organisms involved in the situation are both the same species, the older one should call the other one "son" or "daughter" in this case, not "parasite."

They're not property because they cannot be bought and sold. They can be killed because they are not members of society, but they cannot legally or morally be exploited.

They can't be bought or sold only as a technicality - a human baby has its human rights protected, a human fetus does not. As soon as a human in the fetal stage of life leaves its mother, no matter how far along its embryological development, the kid is no longer a fetus but a baby. It's like lava vs. magma - if it ain't below the surface of the earth, it ain't magma.

Nevertheless, a fetus IS regarded as subhuman property under the terms of our current legal status quo; property to be disposed of at the whim of its owner.
 
It's not even close to being self-evident.

The constitution only protects the rights of "persons". Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born. Therefore, until it is born, a child can not be protected by the law because the constitution does not grant the govt the power to protect the unborn

You know, you just may be right about that "person" stuff...or maybe not. And perhaps it is just because I am blind, or blinded by my own ideology, but maybe you could help me find exactly where, as you put it, and I cut and paste your quote here, "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." So please point out that language, or similar, in our US Constitution... as truly, I have searched myself, read, used my search function... cannot locate that exact, or even a semblance, of that language in the document itself.

And so you are either right ...or you are wrong as to whether the Constitution grants the government "the power to protect the unborn". If the Constitution does not grant the power... expressly, i.e. enumerated and or imply the granting of such power, but also does not disallow that power, then those powers may be left up to the States and all those beyond to the People themselves under Amendments 9 & 10 of our Bill of Rights, does it not?

So, lets see what just what it is you can locate on the former... and then we maybe we might discuss the latter as well. Oh, and not to worry, I have not forgotten the self evident stuff, either.

Thanks in advance for the assistance, sincerely, as I am a seeker of truth, so want to be as often as possible in possession of the applicable facts. Also, in the absence of a reply, I will assume you cannot locate those necessary passages either.
 
Perhaps America is different from my experience here - we've had children removed from parental control for not providing the necessities of life.

Our Child and Family Services Act gives the relevant Minister the authority: (e) a child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering, and the child's parent or guardian does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or is unable to consent to, the treatment;

I'm surprised the US would not similarly protect its children.

For the most part, the law does protect children from their idiot parents. However, there are exceptions for religious beliefs
 
Uh-huh? Are you... o_O Are you seriously going to state that pregnancy is somehow morally evil?

No. I'm stating now that pregnancy, like most things, is morally conditional upon the circumstances. The pregnancy of a woman with a stable family who wishes to grow that family, and is having a hale and healthy child to do so, is an unquestionably good thing. Other pregnancies may be less so. The pregnancy of a woman being forced to gestate a child she does not want is unquestionably bad.

Well, seeing as the two organisms involved in the situation are both the same species, the older one should call the other one "son" or "daughter" in this case, not "parasite."

It doesn't become a "son" or a "daughter" until it becomes someone's son or daughter, and it doesn't do that until it is named such by a family that wants one.

They can't be bought or sold only as a technicality - a human baby has its human rights protected, a human fetus does not. As soon as a human in the fetal stage of life leaves its mother, no matter how far along its embryological development, the kid is no longer a fetus but a baby.

That's hardly a technicality. That is a qualitative differences in the circumstances of the child's existence. A child out of the womb can have rights, and have those rights protected, without infringing upon the rights of a free citizen.

Nevertheless, a fetus IS regarded as subhuman property under the terms of our current legal status quo; property to be disposed of at the whim of its owner.

No. It cannot be bought or sold. It can only be nurtured into a named infant or destroyed. There are no other options. It is not a person under the law, but neither is it property.
 
You know, you just may be right about that "person" stuff...or maybe not. And perhaps it is just because I am blind, or blinded by my own ideology, but maybe you could help me find exactly where, as you put it, and I cut and paste your quote here, "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." So please point out that language, or similar, in our US Constitution... as truly, I have searched myself, read, used my search function... cannot locate that exact, or even a semblance, of that language in the document itself.

Count the number of times the word "born" appears in the Constitution compared to the number of times "conceived"-- in reference to the conception of a child-- appears. While I disagree with this on a moral-- and ideological-- level, citizenship and human rights are attached to the human being only upon its birth.

And so you are either right ...or you are wrong as to whether the Constitution grants the government "the power to protect the unborn". If the Constitution does not grant the power... expressly, i.e. enumerated and or imply the granting of such power, but also does not disallow that power, then those powers may be left up to the States and all those beyond to the People themselves under Amendments 9 & 10 of our Bill of Rights, does it not?

The problem is that the power to "protect the unborn" violates the 13th Amendment, because the unborn only exist through the labor of their biological mothers.
 
You know, you just may be right about that "person" stuff...or maybe not. And perhaps it is just because I am blind, or blinded by my own ideology, but maybe you could help me find exactly where, as you put it, and I cut and paste your quote here, "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." So please point out that language, or similar, in our US Constitution... as truly, I have searched myself, read, used my search function... cannot locate that exact, or even a semblance, of that language in the document itself.

And so you are either right ...or you are wrong as to whether the Constitution grants the government "the power to protect the unborn". If the Constitution does not grant the power... expressly, i.e. enumerated and or imply the granting of such power, but also does not disallow that power, then those powers may be left up to the States and all those beyond to the People themselves under Amendments 9 & 10 of our Bill of Rights, does it not?

So, lets see what just what it is you can locate on the former... and then we maybe we might discuss the latter as well. Oh, and not to worry, I have not forgotten the self evident stuff, either.

Thanks in advance for the assistance, sincerely, as I am a seeker of truth, so want to be as often as possible in possession of the applicable facts. Also, in the absence of a reply, I will assume you cannot locate those necessary passages either.

It's in Roe v Wade.

Google Scholar

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;[53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.[54]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
 
The only time that you would grant an organism the right to parasitize a human being with legal protection is in the case of the fetus. It is justifiable because an unwanted pregnancy is an infringement of the pregnant woman's rights that she should-- and does-- have every right to end at her discretion.

Might you elucidate on this justification you assert, and where, exactly, it comes from? How it came to be that this lesser right of "choice" could somehow supersede another's right to life? I am curious as just what verbal gymnastics will ensue.

Our Declaration of Independence speaks of such "Despotism" or this power of one, this tyranny of such a minority, and yes it is similar to slavery in that child in the womb, just like the slave, has no choice, that benevolent one... or malevolent one, the dictator has made this choice for them... and for everyone else involved. How is that right or fair? Co-creators do have rights.

If not, that is most certainly a tyranny of the minority.
 
Might you elucidate on this justification you assert, and where, exactly, it comes from? How it came to be that this lesser right of "choice" could somehow supersede another's right to life? I am curious as just what verbal gymnastics will ensue.

The only gymnastics involved in this issue are the ones used by the abortion banners. The right of free people to make the important decisions in their life free from govt control is the foundation of liberty. Allow the govt to make your decisions (ie choices) for you, and that is tyranny. The govts role in such matters is mainly limited to preventing people from infringing on the rights of other persons.

Since the unborn are not persons, the unborn have no rights to protect and the govt has no power to protect rights that do not exist.

The bottom line is the twists, turns, and spins that the right has to go through in order to rationalize how their belief in a govt of power limited by the constitution can be squared with their desire to have the govt assume a power that was not granted to it by the constitution, and how their belief in liberty and freedom is consistent with the disdain they show for freedom when they trivialize people's right to self-determination (ie "choice") are the real "verbal gymnastics"

Our Declaration of Independence speaks of such "Despotism" or this power of one, this tyranny of such a minority, and yes it is similar to slavery in that child in the womb, just like the slave, has no choice, that benevolent one... or malevolent one, the dictator has made this choice for them... and for everyone else involved. How is that right or fair? Co-creators do have rights.

If not, that is most certainly a tyranny of the minority.

And here is a fine example of the verbal gymnastics that you spoke of. You argue as if the fetus has rights and is being exploited in a manner similar to the way slaves are. The truth is, the mother's decision to abort has nothing to do with any form of exploitation of the fetus. The mother is also placed at risk when she consents to a medical procedure. Misrepresenting this situation in order to equate it with slavery is intellectually dishonest. It fails the "sniff test"
 
Might you elucidate on this justification you assert, and where, exactly, it comes from? How it came to be that this lesser right of "choice" could somehow supersede another's right to life? I am curious as just what verbal gymnastics will ensue.

It isn't a lesser "right of choice". It is the right to self-defense, to defend against a human being that is by force and without consent depriving the biological mother of the use of her own body. I would also disagree that the fetus should have any such rights in the first place-- but even if it did, the woman's right to her bodily integrity and sovereignty is part and parcel of her right to life and her liberty. By conservative theories of natural rights, a person cannot have any "right" that requires that another person be forced to provide it, and that is exactly what the "right to life" for a fetus entails; a fetus survives entirely and exclusively by the labor and resources of the biological mother, and thus to grant it the right to life is to say that the biological mother must be forced into servitude to provide it.
 
You
're analogy is nonsense. Parents do not have the right to refuse medical care to a child who is not dying or who is not, in effect, brain dead and beyond recovery.

Parents have a legal responsibility to provide care to their children at the risk of having them removed from the parents' care. If a child required a heart operation, if a parent denied that care the child would be taken from the parent and given the necessary care.

Pulling the plug is still ending a human life and in the case of newborns and miscarriages, the parents have a choice of trying to save and revive preemies. Parents make resuscitate decisions all the time.

Is that slavery?

I am attacking the comparison your making.
 
Well, I am nothing if not
consistent. I'm actually glad I'm pretty predictable in this respect.

Creating an inconsistent set of codes that can't stand together was always the point. And they're using this woman -- essentially saying it's ok if she gets no justice -- as a vehicle to help get them another mile down the road of forcing these codes into conflict.

A lot of anti-choice people keep trying to tell me they consider the woman an equal or better to a ZEF, but things like this are the reason I don't believe them.

Exactly my feelings too. I am sure all pro choice would agree
 
Your argument fails when you realize
except in very rare cases the woman wasn't forced to get pregnant. There are consequences to personal actions/choices.

People used to argue that slavery was justified because the African people were inadequate warriors or because other Africans sold them to the west. They deserved to be captured and enslaved through actions of their own.
 
That is
not true. A parent can refuse to give consent to any procedure, even if that means the child will die, if the procedure is "invasive" or "intrusive"

Exactly. Happens all the time.when Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for their children.
 
Count the number of times the word "born" appears in the Constitution compared to the number of times "conceived"-- in reference to the conception of a child-- appears. While I disagree with this on a moral-- and ideological-- level, citizenship and human rights are attached to the human being only upon its birth.

Fact of the matter is the number of times it occurs does not anywhere near approximate the proper specificity as to meaning nor significance that you are imputing to these occurences, that you seem to be asserting, which I will quote again because sangha said, and you are defending this line of thought, that "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." Our Constitution does not say that, you can extrapolate about that all day and night, you just might, being mighty fragile as the Constitution says nothing of the sort to that effect, and certainly does not confirm that at all …anywhere... Number of times mentioned does add, but not much, not in a way that gives any true credence, gives no specific bearing to how important or not creation or our conception may, or may not, be.

However, just for fun, lets go down this little jog...

Would you consider the Declaration of Independence a founding document in our common history of the United States?

Even if you do not, I would, and I think most of us Americans would. Additionally, just coincidentally, fortuitously, I would assert the D.O.I. IS the document at the very CONCEPTION of these great states unified against a common foe and declaring itself not only alive, even though not yet recognized, not yet quite birthed shall we say, yet quickly growing, developing. Our brains, our heart, our muscle, sinew, souls and the spirit to survive developing as rapidly as we plausibly could… with the mother country attempting to snuff out our very existence. This Revolutionary War the labor which which we toiled to achieve that victory, for all intents and purposes the culmination of which was the recognized birth of our nation, totally set aside, bands broken, umbilical snipped, on our own.

With that creating, the Declaration started the joining of all these different parts, beginning to work as one, not yet free from the mother country... but desiring our life, our independence.

By maybe an even greater quirk of circumstance, or maybe not as those founding fathers thought of just about everything, but by happenstance here in this, the conceiving document, the D.O.I. mentions all men [ meaning of course all mankind] are, guess what… created, notice the “created” not that pesky word “born” being referenced here, undeniably importantly, that all men are created equal. We know Jefferson did not just bandy words, especially not with oversight in draft from the likes of Franklin and Adams, no slouches themselves in skills of word-crafting, Jefferson was very economical and efficient with his verbiage.



The problem is that the power to "protect the unborn" violates the 13th Amendment, because the unborn only exist through the labor of their biological mothers.


Well, I would have to say the 13th does not obviate the more primary right, the right to life of an innocent. While we can argue it for months no doubt, I will say this succinctly. Except in 1% of the cases that actually end up in pregnancy, these the cases of rape and incest, in all the rest of the 99% the females have knowingly and willingly agreed [ past tense] to engage in a potential of creating another human that has now, in actuality, in fact, occurred. Now the time for choice, except in that 1%, has come and gone. Now the right of life trumps, if it did not already, the lesser “right” of choice, which in any case already terminated.

Sorry. Actually, not really sorry at all. Too many lost lives forever on that side of the divide for this side to ever be sorry for fighting to protect the most innocent, the most helpless and the totally voiceless.

Its not slavery if one willingly volunteers, binds by contract sealed with performance, cannot back out once the contract is a done deal, separate DNA being proof positive of agreement in 99% of the cases, better than signatures and within nano-breadth as good as fingerprints between the two parties involved.
 
Fact of the matter is the number of times it occurs does not anywhere near approximate the proper specificity as to meaning nor significance that you are imputing to these occurences, that you seem to be asserting, which I will quote again because sangha said, and you are defending this line of thought, that "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." Our Constitution does not say that, you can extrapolate about that all day and night, you just might, being mighty fragile as the Constitution says nothing of the sort to that effect, and certainly does not confirm that at all …anywhere... Number of times mentioned does add, but not much, not in a way that gives any true credence, gives no specific bearing to how important or not creation or our conception may, or may not, be.

You are making a straw man argument here. No one has claimed that the constitution says that the word person, as used in the constitution, does not include the unborn. What was actually said, and what you have offered nothing to refute, is that under the constitution the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn

However, just for fun, lets go down this little jog...

Would you consider the Declaration of Independence a founding document in our common history of the United States?

Even if you do not, I would, and I think most of us Americans would. Additionally, just coincidentally, fortuitously, I would assert the D.O.I. IS the document at the very CONCEPTION of these great states unified against a common foe and declaring itself not only alive, even though not yet recognized, not yet quite birthed shall we say, yet quickly growing, developing. Our brains, our heart, our muscle, sinew, souls and the spirit to survive developing as rapidly as we plausibly could… with the mother country attempting to snuff out our very existence. This Revolutionary War the labor which which we toiled to achieve that victory, for all intents and purposes the culmination of which was the recognized birth of our nation, totally set aside, bands broken, umbilical snipped, on our own.

With that creating, the Declaration started the joining of all these different parts, beginning to work as one, not yet free from the mother country... but desiring our life, our independence.

By maybe an even greater quirk of circumstance, or maybe not as those founding fathers thought of just about everything, but by happenstance here in this, the conceiving document, the D.O.I. mentions all men [ meaning of course all mankind] are, guess what… created, notice the “created” not that pesky word “born” being referenced here, undeniably importantly, that all men are created equal. We know Jefferson did not just bandy words, especially not with oversight in draft from the likes of Franklin and Adams, no slouches themselves in skills of word-crafting, Jefferson was very economical and efficient with his verbiage.

The DOI is not a legal document and there's no evidence to suggest that they considered "creation" to be synonymous with "conception"


Well, I would have to say the 13th does not obviate the more primary right, the right to life of an innocent. While we can argue it for months no doubt, I will say this succinctly. Except in 1% of the cases that actually end up in pregnancy, these the cases of rape and incest, in all the rest of the 99% the females have knowingly and willingly agreed [ past tense] to engage in a potential of creating another human that has now, in actuality, in fact, occurred. Now the time for choice, except in that 1%, has come and gone. Now the right of life trumps, if it did not already, the lesser “right” of choice, which in any case already terminated.

Sorry. Actually, not really sorry at all. Too many lost lives forever on that side of the divide for this side to ever be sorry for fighting to protect the most innocent, the most helpless and the totally voiceless.

Its not slavery if one willingly volunteers, binds by contract sealed with performance, cannot back out once the contract is a done deal, separate DNA being proof positive of agreement in 99% of the cases, better than signatures and within nano-breadth as good as fingerprints between the two parties involved.

For one thing, the ZEF has no right to life. Also, it is a demonstration of verbal gymnastics you deplore to claim that when a woman has sex, she is consenting to birth a baby if she gets pregnant. In addition, at the moment of conception, the ZEF does not have "separate DNA"
 
Its not slavery if one willingly volunteers, binds by contract sealed with performance, cannot back out once the contract is a done deal, separate DNA being proof positive of agreement in 99% of the cases, better than signatures and within nano-breadth as good as fingerprints between the two parties involved.

No. This argument is a fat stupid sack of fail. Contracts do not work that way. You cannot make contracts work that way. Contracts are by their very nature explicit and deliberate and mutual. You cannot accidentally enter into a contract and you cannot enter into a contract without knowing the terms. A contract involves very specifically agreeing, with full informed consent, that you are going to do a specific thing in exchange for specific remuneration. You are trying to argue that the woman is entering into a contract with a being before it exists, without its consent, which is not now and not ever expected to provide compensation, on the basis of performing an act with a third party that does not in every case or even the majority of cases result in that being existing. There is no possible way under any system of contract law as it is understood by any civilization, regardless of its laws concerning abortion, that having sex can be construed as agreeing to any kind of contract with the unborn child to provide gestation.
 
Does man have a right to procreate? Or to put it another way... If a man has a right to procreate then why can't a man force his seed upon a woman? Even when married a man does not have a right to tell his wife to stop taking contraceptives.

Then you agree with the OP, that the man had a right to end the pregnancy.
 
TBH, I found that post to be pretty confusing. Still not sure what you were getting at

.........

Does man have a right to procreate?

I asked a sarcastic rhetorical question.

Or to put it another way... If a man has a right to procreate then why can't a man force his seed upon a woman?

I provided an actual question for the poster to answer.

Even when married a man does not have a right to tell his wife to stop taking contraceptives.

I gave an example of why a man does not have a right to procreate.
 
Back
Top Bottom