American Vet

So how do we "compromise" on k*****g an unborn child via a******n?

Bassman65

If Roe vs Wade-is over turned Adoption laws need to be reformed. It is easier to adopt children from overseas than from within the USA!!

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

You want to get down to nits?

If you don't know what constitutes human life, I suggest you take Biology 101.

There are only three undeniable, irrefutable points in human development; fertilization, implantation and birth.

How justice proceeds in feticide, a******n and other such cases has been a thorny issue throughout history. Much often centers around autopsy results.

Punishment for performing a******ns has ranged from a fine to incarceration.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

You missed the point. If a******n is feticide then a miscarriage caused intentionally or by negligence is also feticide and should be treated as such. A******n and a miscarriage are the same thing. Miscarriage is simply a "spontaneous a******n". Can't have it both ways. It either is or it isn't loss of a human life in both situations. Should a woman be charged with homicide in either or both situations? As I stated, there is no easy compromise. Compromise, by it's very nature, leaves both sides partially unsatisfied.

No one has answered the question, "should a******n' be allowed to save the mothers life?" If the answer is Yes then the value of the fetuses' life has already been reduced to a unequal human life with less rights. If the answer is Yes, then, a******n is already okay in certain circumstances and now we are only arguing on the circumstances and not the moral issue of a******n itself.

American Vet

Easy question to answer: Allowed - Yes. It's called 'self-defense'. It is permissible to k**l another person to defend your own.

American Vet

"a miscarriage caused intentionally" is an a******n.

"by negligence" Certainly a very gray area. First is the issue of proving negligence. If it is proven beyond a doubt, then it becomes a legal issue; albeit a very thorny one.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

So a woman electing to have an a******n should be prosecuted for murder. A women or some other person causes a miscarriage through possible negligence should at least be investigated and possibly charged and maybe found guilty. Is that your stance?



If the woman may be unable to survive a pregnancy, is the fetus responsible for that? How is that self defense when the fetus has done nothing on it's own to cause the problem? Should the fetus, a human life by your definition, pay the price for the woman's failure to avoid getting pregnant?

Either way, by your statement, a******ns are in fact acceptable in certain circumstances, so, a******n itself is not the issue. Only the circumstances under which it is allowable.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

I missed the point? Do you even know what the point is? First of all, what is commonly called a miscarriage, medically is called an a******n. A******ns are divided into two categories, spontaneous and induced.

For spontaneous a******ns there is no effort on the part of anyone to end the pregnancy; for induced a******ns, there is. Perhaps you can’t understand that but I think the vast majority of people can. Certainly, the law can and has. And yes, women have been charged for endangering the well being of fetuses, such a s when they drink or abuse drugs.

If the woman’s life is in danger, there has always been an allowance for termination. The Catholic Church has taught that the baby’s life takes precedence. I hesitantly agree.

American Vet

"If the woman may be unable to survive a pregnancy, is the fetus responsible for that?"
Does it matter who is "responsible"?
If continuing with the pregnancy would cause the mother's death, even those most strongly against a******n accept that this is a case where a******n is ethically acceptable.

"Should the fetus, a human life by your definition, pay the price for the woman's failure to avoid getting pregnant?"
Invalid argument: A woman doesn't know that there is a medical condition that would threaten her life.
Two possible parts to this:
1. The woman knows she has a medical condition a where pregnancy might threaten her life and she gets pregnant anyway and is willing to run the risk. This person would hardly want an a******n.
2. The woman doesn't know, becomes pregnant and finds her life is in danger - back to self defense.


"Either way, by your statement, a******ns are in fact acceptable in certain circumstances, so, a******n itself is not the issue. Only the circumstances under which it is allowable."
Correct - as I pointed out, it can be self defense.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

So we are back to a compromise such as Roe vs Wade. A point when a fetuses' rights are balanced against a woman's rights. A difficult line to draw when looked at from both sides. Drawn too early and the women becomes just a vessel with limited or no rights for herself. Drawn too late and the viable fetus becomes just a lump of tissue.

American Vet

YOU are back to squeaking about 'compromise'. That is incorrect. Acting in self defense is not a compromise.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

From a pro life perspective claiming self defense to justify taking an innocent fetuses' life seems to be a contradiction to the pro life idea of protecting a zygote or fetus as a human being with a right to life.

American Vet

Yet you are ignoring the innocent mother's right to life.

Does 'pro-life' mean one give up their right to defend themselves?

I was unable to find any ethical group/etc. that says a mother cannot get an a******n if their life is threatened.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

A******n is usually allowed, at this point in time, if a mother's life is threatened. But, from the pro life perspective, there is a contradiction in that stance.

No. I am saying that pro life ignores that women's rights in all but extreme cases. From the pro life point of view the fetuses' rights trump the women's right except when they don't. Seems like a contradiction to me. If a fetus, by pro life definition, is a human being with all the rights therein, then, from a pro life perspective, ending it's life, intentionally or unintentionally, for any reason what so ever, is akin to homicide. And, from a pro life point of view, the woman should logically be charged and prosecuted. Some conservative states have done exactly that. Any other argument necessarily removes the idea of personhood from the fetus. Again, you can't have it both ways. Either a fetus is a human being and has personhood with all the protections or it doesn't.

Whether it can be argued as "self defense" or negligence would be for a prosecutor, court or jury to decide on each individual case. At best the argument of a******n as self defense is really an argument for "preemptive self defense" as no immediate threat, in most cases, even exists. If the fetus, as the pro life argument goes, has personhood, then, shouldn't it also have representation in the decision making.

American Vet

So basically you are saying that a woman who gets an elective a******n should be prosecuted (to be consistent with the contention that the unborn child is treated equally)? And, by extension, the person doing the a******n should also be charged?

I want to make certain that Understand your position correctly.