Unborn children and murder.

Originally posted by mateulose
Basicly, none of this makes sense, the law needs to be universal for all to understand it, either a foetus is an American citazen with U.S citazen rights, or it's simply not a citazen. This 7-8 weeks empryo thing is rediculous, first of ...[text shortened]... the law is to maintain order, and this is very, well, DISORDERLY.

Exactly MUL. If you start reasoning from one or more disorderly premisses, you shouldn't be surprised if you end up with disorderly conclusions. Something is wrong here. Guess what ?

Originally posted by mateulose
Basicly, none of this makes sense, the law needs to be universal for all to understand it, either a foetus is an American citazen with U.S citazen rights, or it's simply not a citazen. This 7-8 weeks empryo thing is rediculous, first of ...[text shortened]... the law is to maintain order, and this is very, well, DISORDERLY.

Right, you've made what I regard as the cardinal sin of all argumentative techniques. You've claimed that just because deciding on a particular cut-off is abitrary and difficult, that the line should never have been drawn at all. You are correct in saying that it would be much neater, simpler, yes more orderly, to decide that either a foetus was a fully-fledged human life, or that it was not. Unfortunately, however, your neatness would bring you a decision that was one of two inhumane extremes, where abortion was either totally illegal, or entirely unregulated and allowed at any age. Because real life situations, and particularly subtle ethical judgements, are never neat, and are frequently disorderly. Far better to bite the bullet, draw your abitrary line and at least have a stab at a workable solution.

In practice, of course, most countries where abortion is legal have not one arbitrary line, but several, based on whether or not abortion is for medical need.

Edit: Just to clarify, since the discussion wasn't about abortion as such, that one of those cut-offs will be at the point where a foetus is taken to be a fully-fledged human life. Once that happens, the unborn baby can presumably expect the same legal protection as any other person.

Rich.

Originally posted by richhoey
Right, you've made what I regard as the cardinal sin of all argumentative techniques. You've claimed that just because deciding on a particular cut-off is abitrary and difficult, that the line should never have been drawn at all. You are correct in saying that it would be much neater, simpler, yes more orderly, to decide that either a foetus was a fully-f ...[text shortened]... s, the unborn baby can presumably expect the same legal protection as any other person.

Rich.

Well I certainly see your point Rich, and it's a good one. But still we're talking about the difference between murder and "no criminal charges" here. At least that's the point I think legislators eventually have to deal with.

If this were something like a police officer deciding whether or not to give someone a speeding ticket because they were driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit versus 10 miles over, than I certainly don't mind the grey area there. No law, or it's enforcement, can be perfect all of the time.

But still, murder? Or no charge? A human life? Or an embryo with no claim to life? Whether the legislators and judges like it or not, eventually the issue has to be settled. I know it's tough. I just stated that no law can be perfect and yet I'm asking for just that here.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Omnislash: "I have little doubt that attempts will be made to tie them together ... "

These issues ARE tied together, whether we like it or not.


Omnislash: "It is my hope that they will not prevail in these attempts."

Who are "they" ? The exstremists on both sides ?

To clarify:

In them being tied together, I am specifically refering to the legal systems ability to charge a person for the murder of an unborn child by murdering the mother setting a precedent in regards to abortion. They are completely different circumstances, and should be treated as such. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I am very much "pro-life" and as such I can understand your point if it is in regards the moral difference between the two, but I disagree with the "pro-life" using this to interject their own political agenda. As I said, it is different circumstances and while people like me and you might view them as being morally equal events, they are still different circumstances and to ignore that is simply unfair to the opposition.

As far as "they", I am referring to the extreme "pro-life" who would utilize this to further their political/moral agenda without giving fair regard to the differences in circumstance. Again, I do not view a moral difference between the two, but I do not ignore the fact that they are under completely different circumstances and with totally different motivations. The key difference here is the intent to murder and how the parties involved define murder. Motive and circumstance are big considerations in our legal system, and to ignore them is to ignore due process. Regardless of my personal views, I believe in a fair process for all parties involved.

I hope this clarifies for you. If I can clarify more, you would like more details of my opinions, or would like to know my personal experiences/feelings/rational behind any of this feel free to ask. This is a subject that I believe is very important to our society and as such I am happy to discuss it in a productive manner. It has been said by some historians that civilizations can be judged at a glance by how they treat their dead. It is my contention that the same holds true for how we treat our unborn.

Best Regards,
Omnislash

Originally posted by Omnislash
To clarify:

In them being tied together, I am specifically refering to the legal systems ability to charge a person for the murder of an unborn child by murdering the mother setting a precedent in regards to abortion. They are completely different circumstances, and should be treated as such. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I am very much "pro-life ...[text shortened]... same holds true for how we treat our unborn.

Best Regards,
Omnislash

In my opinion this touches on the issue of the activist-judges.

Maybe the liberals are afraid they are going to get a taste of their own medicine.