- 12 May 2022 22:22
#15226984
When a pregnant woman dies in a homicide, everyone agrees that the perpetrator should get EXTRA punishment due to causing the death of the fetus. Even Pro-Choicers do not seem to object against this.
But the question is WHY, WHY exactly should the perpetrator get extra punishment for killing the fetus? After all, we are told that the fetus "isn't really a person", "doesn't really have any rights of its own".
If we're punishing someone for killing a fetus it means that a creature, a human being, was killed, that this creature's rights were violated by its unjust death, and therefore justice demands that the perpetrator who caused that pay a price.
This is something Abortion supporters don't want to admit at any price.
To get around this, they try to shift all the focus onto the woman; how her rights were violated when the fetus was killed, how her body was affected by the loss of the fetus.
But it doesn't take too much thought to recognize how borderline absurd this logic is. If we're going to be honest with ourselves.
How is the woman's body really affected? Is it affected all that much? This is a biological condition that's going to be over for the woman anyway. A couple months from now, whether she lost her baby or not, the physical condition of her body is going to be exactly the same. (An analogy might be like if I clipped off your toenails without your permission, or cut off the ponytail you were growing in your hair. There is really no permanent physical effect on your body.
And besides, the argument that women want to be pregnant but they have been deprived of that is absurd. It totally contradicts the other common Pro-Choice argument that the condition of pregnancy is such a terrible condition, that women should have the right to free themselves from it. If pregnancy is such a bad thing, then depriving a woman of continued pregnancy is almost doing her a favor, in some sense (when it comes to purely the physical condition of her body).
Then the other ridiculous argument that some Pro-Choicers try to parade out is that the woman "owns" the fetus. This argument is ultimately absurd too, for a number of reasons.
First, it is a temporary ownership. Once that baby comes out, she will no longer "own" it (not in the sense that Pro-Choicers want to try to argue here); the woman has not been deprived of anything long-term. The effect on her alleged "bodily rights" or "property rights" is temporary.
Some Pro-Choicers will even try to make the argument that she continues to "own" the baby even after it comes out of her. This is another absurd and not very well thought-out argument.
Just as one example, what about the rights of the father?? This is pretty much like a parallel of the institution of Slavery, where one human being exercises "property rights" over another. Is this really the sort of argument Pro-Choicers want to insist on making?? We all agree a baby which has exited the woman has certain inherent rights, including the right not to be abused. How can this be if the woman "owns" it?
Isn't it a little bit of a stretch to try to argue that the woman's property rights have been infringed upon if something happens to the baby, and yet the woman doesn't have the right to inflict this bad thing onto the baby herself? It seems this really does not have to do with property rights.
And then to top it all off, these days the government seems to be involving itself in all sorts of decisions that used to be the parents. This impetus comes from the same political camp that the majority of Abortion Pro-Choicers side with. So there is a certainly a lot of hypocrisy trying to claim the woman "owns" her baby, when your political side does not support parents being able to make various other decisions concerning that baby. The argument here could go on and on, but I think this is going off on a long tangent, so it would be better to get back to the main argument.
The main question is how is the woman's body actually physically affected? That fetus is going to eventually come out of her one way or another, whether in miscarriage or birth. It might simply be a matter of timing.
I think anyone who is being honest can recognize that the woman's physical body is not really being affected that much in this situation.
Pro-Choicers will try to argue until their throats are hoarse that it does deeply affect her body, but let's be sensible and reasonable about this situation. Her body is not really the actual issue here. It's the baby, the tragic loss of her baby.
And to admit that, is to admit that is a baby. That it is a tragedy when the unborn baby is killed even when the woman does not want it.
The next argument Pro-Choicers will try to parade out is another ridiculous one, that it only matters what SHE thinks. That the fetus only has the value that the woman asigns to it. This argument is absurd, and I really think Pro-Choicers know they are making a huge stretch here. The fetus doesn't just have more innate value just because YOU think it does. This is almost like trying to assign God-like powers over morality to the pregnant mother. This whole argument is very wishful thinking on the part of many women. Morality and ethics simply doesn't work that way. It's not even logical.
Going back to the original scenario, sometimes the pregnant mother does not actually die. Consider other situations where someone causes the pregnant woman to lose her fetus, even though otherwise very little physical harm is suffered by her. It might be a drunk driver causing a car accident and the pregnant woman to suffer a miscarriage from the impact. Or it might be the woman's boyfriend slipping her an abortion pill because he doesn't want to be a father.
In all of these different possible scenarios, Pro-Choicers will argue that the woman's body is affected in some way. This may be technically true, but is really mostly besides the point. The question is proportionality. Is the perpetrator actually being punished considering only the physical impact to the woman's body, and completely ignoring the impact to the fetus? Of course not. Anyone who's being honest with themselves knows that.
Will a man who gut punches a pregnant woman be punished just the same as if he gut punched a woman who was NOT pregnant?
Do you want to punish a perpetrator in a specific situation and then pretend like you would have given the perpetrator the same exact punishment in a different situation, where no fetus was involved?
I think many Pro-Choicers are simply being intellectually dishonest, with themselves and others, if they don't want to recognize this for what it is.
Of course the perpetrator will be punished more, much more, if a fetus is involved. Even Pro-Choicers know this, and totally approve of it.
So I think this category of argument is a red herring, and a totally dishonest one, mostly. It might only explain 10% of the punishment the perpetrator gets.
So what is left, after we subtract all these attempts at distracting diversionary arguments? People are punished for the killing of a fetus. This is something nearly all Abortion supporters totally approve of. (Even if they don't want to make it into a specific law, they would want the judge to use his discretionary power to impose the extra punishment) We all know that a murder has taken place, and most of the reason for that punishment does not have to do with the woman. Even though the Pro-Choice side believes the rights of the woman override the rights of the fetus, and therefore do not consider it a murder if the woman is giving her consent to the killing.
related stories:
Australia's largest state passes law to recognise life of unborn baby
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=181854
Norwegian man sentenced to 6 years for giving girlfriend abortion pill laced smoothie
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... riage.html
But the question is WHY, WHY exactly should the perpetrator get extra punishment for killing the fetus? After all, we are told that the fetus "isn't really a person", "doesn't really have any rights of its own".
If we're punishing someone for killing a fetus it means that a creature, a human being, was killed, that this creature's rights were violated by its unjust death, and therefore justice demands that the perpetrator who caused that pay a price.
This is something Abortion supporters don't want to admit at any price.
To get around this, they try to shift all the focus onto the woman; how her rights were violated when the fetus was killed, how her body was affected by the loss of the fetus.
But it doesn't take too much thought to recognize how borderline absurd this logic is. If we're going to be honest with ourselves.
How is the woman's body really affected? Is it affected all that much? This is a biological condition that's going to be over for the woman anyway. A couple months from now, whether she lost her baby or not, the physical condition of her body is going to be exactly the same. (An analogy might be like if I clipped off your toenails without your permission, or cut off the ponytail you were growing in your hair. There is really no permanent physical effect on your body.
And besides, the argument that women want to be pregnant but they have been deprived of that is absurd. It totally contradicts the other common Pro-Choice argument that the condition of pregnancy is such a terrible condition, that women should have the right to free themselves from it. If pregnancy is such a bad thing, then depriving a woman of continued pregnancy is almost doing her a favor, in some sense (when it comes to purely the physical condition of her body).
Then the other ridiculous argument that some Pro-Choicers try to parade out is that the woman "owns" the fetus. This argument is ultimately absurd too, for a number of reasons.
First, it is a temporary ownership. Once that baby comes out, she will no longer "own" it (not in the sense that Pro-Choicers want to try to argue here); the woman has not been deprived of anything long-term. The effect on her alleged "bodily rights" or "property rights" is temporary.
Some Pro-Choicers will even try to make the argument that she continues to "own" the baby even after it comes out of her. This is another absurd and not very well thought-out argument.
Just as one example, what about the rights of the father?? This is pretty much like a parallel of the institution of Slavery, where one human being exercises "property rights" over another. Is this really the sort of argument Pro-Choicers want to insist on making?? We all agree a baby which has exited the woman has certain inherent rights, including the right not to be abused. How can this be if the woman "owns" it?
Isn't it a little bit of a stretch to try to argue that the woman's property rights have been infringed upon if something happens to the baby, and yet the woman doesn't have the right to inflict this bad thing onto the baby herself? It seems this really does not have to do with property rights.
And then to top it all off, these days the government seems to be involving itself in all sorts of decisions that used to be the parents. This impetus comes from the same political camp that the majority of Abortion Pro-Choicers side with. So there is a certainly a lot of hypocrisy trying to claim the woman "owns" her baby, when your political side does not support parents being able to make various other decisions concerning that baby. The argument here could go on and on, but I think this is going off on a long tangent, so it would be better to get back to the main argument.
The main question is how is the woman's body actually physically affected? That fetus is going to eventually come out of her one way or another, whether in miscarriage or birth. It might simply be a matter of timing.
I think anyone who is being honest can recognize that the woman's physical body is not really being affected that much in this situation.
Pro-Choicers will try to argue until their throats are hoarse that it does deeply affect her body, but let's be sensible and reasonable about this situation. Her body is not really the actual issue here. It's the baby, the tragic loss of her baby.
And to admit that, is to admit that is a baby. That it is a tragedy when the unborn baby is killed even when the woman does not want it.
The next argument Pro-Choicers will try to parade out is another ridiculous one, that it only matters what SHE thinks. That the fetus only has the value that the woman asigns to it. This argument is absurd, and I really think Pro-Choicers know they are making a huge stretch here. The fetus doesn't just have more innate value just because YOU think it does. This is almost like trying to assign God-like powers over morality to the pregnant mother. This whole argument is very wishful thinking on the part of many women. Morality and ethics simply doesn't work that way. It's not even logical.
Going back to the original scenario, sometimes the pregnant mother does not actually die. Consider other situations where someone causes the pregnant woman to lose her fetus, even though otherwise very little physical harm is suffered by her. It might be a drunk driver causing a car accident and the pregnant woman to suffer a miscarriage from the impact. Or it might be the woman's boyfriend slipping her an abortion pill because he doesn't want to be a father.
In all of these different possible scenarios, Pro-Choicers will argue that the woman's body is affected in some way. This may be technically true, but is really mostly besides the point. The question is proportionality. Is the perpetrator actually being punished considering only the physical impact to the woman's body, and completely ignoring the impact to the fetus? Of course not. Anyone who's being honest with themselves knows that.
Will a man who gut punches a pregnant woman be punished just the same as if he gut punched a woman who was NOT pregnant?
Do you want to punish a perpetrator in a specific situation and then pretend like you would have given the perpetrator the same exact punishment in a different situation, where no fetus was involved?
I think many Pro-Choicers are simply being intellectually dishonest, with themselves and others, if they don't want to recognize this for what it is.
Of course the perpetrator will be punished more, much more, if a fetus is involved. Even Pro-Choicers know this, and totally approve of it.
So I think this category of argument is a red herring, and a totally dishonest one, mostly. It might only explain 10% of the punishment the perpetrator gets.
So what is left, after we subtract all these attempts at distracting diversionary arguments? People are punished for the killing of a fetus. This is something nearly all Abortion supporters totally approve of. (Even if they don't want to make it into a specific law, they would want the judge to use his discretionary power to impose the extra punishment) We all know that a murder has taken place, and most of the reason for that punishment does not have to do with the woman. Even though the Pro-Choice side believes the rights of the woman override the rights of the fetus, and therefore do not consider it a murder if the woman is giving her consent to the killing.
related stories:
Australia's largest state passes law to recognise life of unborn baby
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=181854
Norwegian man sentenced to 6 years for giving girlfriend abortion pill laced smoothie
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... riage.html
- By ingliz
- By Potemkin