hannukah harry

i'm a bit torn on whether or not someone who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with 2 counts of murder. on the one hand, if the woman was intending on having the child then the murderer has killed a woman and a potential human. i don't know if that potential and the intent to bring teh child to term should be enough to give the child protection under the law.

i do not believe that the unborn are deserving of legal rights and protections. but when a woman intends on bringing it to term... it is because of her intent i'm still up in the air on the issue. but i do believe that giving the unborn legal status as individuals can and likely will open a pandora's box. we start by adding them as victims of the mothers murder. but what if the woman trips and falls accidently and has a miscarriage? is that manslaughter? what if she does it purposefully? is that murder? if a pregnant woman is in a car and has a car accident and the airbag deploys and causes a miscarriage or developmental problems, is the auto company responsible? can she sue whomever caused the accident? what about if she smokes or drinks while pregnant? should she be charged with a crime? what about if she eats fatty foods or goes some place wehre there's lots of second hand smoke? i realize a lot of that sounds like a "slippery slope" argument. but we've had laws enacted before where there is an intent for their creation but authorities use them for reasons other than the intended reasons.

who does teh killing does matter. murder is, if i'm not mistaken, the unlawful killing of another person. so as it stands, to call abortion murder is, at least by definition, incorrect. it is lawful to perform an abortion. the unborn do not have legal standing as a person, and you can't murder some thing that isn't a person (or do you feel that meat is murder too?).

i never claimed that it isn't life from the moment of conception. it is life. but it's not a person. it is cells containing human dna that will, if nature allows, become a human baby. but until it passes through that birthing canal, it is not a person.

i disagree. the fetus is not its own organism. it is not seperate of the woman. if it were, we could easily remove it from the mother and hook it up to a nutrient tube and it'd go on developing just fine. to claim otherwise is to not understand biology or human development. to consider the fetus as anything but part of her is just inaccurate.



i've been trying, but ever since i did a dine and dash after a bad date with nature, she won't return my calls.

you really think that? do you realize the mortality rate of child birth? even if it's only 2%, would you be willing to risk your body for something you don't want but someone else does? add to that morning sickness, possible high blood pressure and diabetes brought on by bearing the child? the weight gain (which might not come off)? having to buy a whole new wardrobe, the changes in hormones that just make you seem crazy, the back pain, the swollen feet? and then the pain of child birth. i wouldn't go through all of that and child birth if you paid me $100k.


look at my paragraph above. what part of that does a man do? a man supplies 50% of the genetic material. he does not do 50% of the work. that's like saying that because i gave you half of your paint supplies, i did half of the work in creating your painting.


a woman does create a baby on her own. she has to to an outside source in order to get some of the material, but she does all the work in building the baby. your donation of half of the genetic blueprint does not give you 50% of the say in anything when you consder she also gave 50% and does all the work. there is no gross inequity. the only problem i see with the whole debate is that some people men feel that they have a right to treat women as property.

if it's in her body, it gives her control over it. because it is HER body.


it may be a double standard, but tough shit. that's life. we are not equal. biology dictates that we will never be equal. to try to make men and women equal legally in things that are not equal biologically is wrong. it does nothing more than turn women into incubators.

again, this isn't an equal situation. to try to force the same stipulations on both sexes goes against our basic biology. i believe that before you fuck someone, both the man and the woman should know what the other would want to do if a pregnancy occurs. if you don't want a baby, use protection, multiple layers if possible. but if you think that 2 minutes of fun should give you control over a womans body for the next 9 months just because she has some genetic material of yours in her, is wrong.



i think arbitrarily claiming that abortions are mainly a matter of convinience is the quick and easy way out. i'm sure there are women out there who have had abortions and don't think anything of it. but i'd bet for most women and girls who have one, it's not an easy decision. i'd bet most put a lot of thought into whether it is the right thing for them right now. there's a book i saw on amazon a couple years ago, i don't remember the name or the author (if i have time, i'll look for it and update if i find it)... anyways, the author talked with numerous women who had abortions about why they did it, what went through their decision making process, etc. i highly doubt for most women it's a "oh, if i'm pregnant i can't drink for 9 months, lets get an abortion" scenario.



eh. in the end there are two solutions. have the baby or don't. if you have the baby, then you also have the option of giving it up for adoption. what's the best one? i couldn't tell you. that's up to the person who has to make the decison to decide.

on a semi-aside, i don't really think adoption is all that great of an option. until we've got more people wanting to adopt than there are kids going into the system, it's not the best option. every kid should be given a chance to succeed, and (correct me if i'm wrong) most kids older than 4 or 5 don't have much of a chance of adoption. if the kid is black, he's got much less of chance of adoption (i heard a while back that canadians were adopting more of our black babies than americans, or at least enough that congress was talking about making a law to stop our kids from being adopted out of country). i'd actually love it if someone started a thread on adoption, we seem to talk about abortion a lot and never have a real discussion about adoption.


nope, i wouldn't have chosen to be aborted. but i doubt that a fetus who was aborted would care, one way or the other. neither would a fetus that is miscarried (aka natural abortion). and i could find lots of people who do not have the desire to be live but do. ask dr. kevorkian, he could point you to a few. or find a suicidal person. nor does everyone have the right to live. or else we would not have capital punishment.

just because you think women do it because it "inconveniences" them doesn't mean that's why they do it.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer