Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 411
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
(IFF) life begins at conception (THEN) abortion = murder

(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter

(IFF) miscarriage = manslaughter (THEN) personal privacy = impossible

(IFF) life begins at conception (THEN) every conception (copulation) must be registered with the state (life-certificates must replace birth-certificates)

And if you think "no way, that'll never happen", think again.

It's already happening.

Police in Pleasant Grove, Alabama, charged Marshae Jones, 27, with manslaughter after she had a miscarriage from a gunshot wound [INFLICTED BY AN ASSAILANT] in the abdomen.

An Alabama woman who reportedly suffered a miscarriage after being shot in the abdomen has been charged with manslaughter in the death of [HER OWN] fetus.

Marshae Jones, 27, of Birmingham, was indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury on Wednesday and was ordered jailed on $50,000 bond. She was accused of starting a Dec. 4 fight with another woman who fired the shot, AL.com reported. [LINK]

Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
#2
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I challenge your first axiom. (And by doing this, I undermine your entire argument.)

I propose the counterfactual, life begins at conception, but abortion isn't necessarily murder.

In the circumstances where abortion is exercised to merely expel the fetus from its mother's womb, and not do it bodily harm, I argue that the resulting expiration of the fetus is not murder. My reasoning is best conveyed through this analogy: if someone were to enter my home (their being invited notwithstanding) and I chose to expel them, would their capacity to survive outside my home be my responsibility? If my intent is simply to sustain my right over home, this someone's survival notwithstanding, then does this expulsion comprise of malice aforethought? It doesn't. It's the fetus's physiology that disallows it from surviving outside its mother's womb, not necessarily the expulsion.

Just an aside, the political impetus for "pro-life" is in my judgement more consistent than that of "pro-choice." Their position is that the parent has a responsibility to the child and therefore is obligated to sustain them until these children can sustain themselves. In essence, those who are pro-life are just arguing that zygotes/embryos/fetuses should be included in the scope of legislation that obligates parents to their children. And they would have a point given that conception is when "life" begins since the zygote has a human genome. Pro-choice proponents can play lexical semantic games all they want, but if we were to operate on their method of argument by arbitrarily selecting when that life should begin, then there's nothing indefensible about one's arguing that life begins at 18.

It should be noted that I do believe a woman has a right to exercise an expulsion of content (e.g. fetus) in her womb (e.g. abortion) but the inconsistency is resolved by removing the obligation parents have in sustaining their children, their age notwithstanding. If her "privacy" is paramount, then this right should always be extended, not argued one way (abortion) and argued another (child support and family law.)
#3
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Then your argument is that abortion should be considered justified in the same way and is therefore not murder in which case miscarriage is not manslaughter in which case there has been a miscarriage of justice in Alabama?

Topic's author
#4
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
...then there's nothing indefensible about one's arguing that life begins at 18.
It's not arbitrary.

CITIZENSHIP and its associated human rights and legal protections begin at BIRTH.

This event is commonly commemorated with a state-issued-official-magical-piece-of-paper we often refer to as a, "birth certificate".
#5
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Then your argument is that abortion should be considered justified in the same way
Not all methods of abortion are justified. For example, using the same analogy, would you consider my puncturing the aforestated person's head, killing him/her, before I expelled them from my home, murder?

miscarriage is not manslaughter
Yes.

which case there has been a miscarriage of justice in Alabama?
Understand their reasoning. Had she not been pregnant, but instead was taking care of a five year-old toddler, would her starting the fight that would eventually conclude in the murder of her child not make her somewhat culpable under current legislation? What if she were fighting with a one year-old infant in her arms?

[Note: I don't agree with any State measure, but it's not inconsistent. There's a bit of hypocrisy in the camp of those who support a woman's right to choose.]

#6
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not arbitrary.

CITIZENSHIP and its associated human rights and legal protections begin at BIRTH.

This event is commonly commemorated with a state-issued-official-magical-piece-of-paper we often refer to as a, "birth certificate".
  • Conception
  • Birth
  • 18 years of age
What's not arbitrary about selecting one of these stages of human development and ascribing a "certificate" associated with human rights and legal protections for no irreducible reason other than the stage itself?

Topic's author
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
  • Conception
  • Birth
  • 18 years of age
What's not arbitrary about selecting one of these stages of human development and ascribing a "certificate" associated with human rights and legal protections for no irreducible reason other than the stage itself?
Birth is when you enter the public space.  This is in no way "arbitrary".

Before birth you are part of your mother and not a separate entity entitled to the rights and protections associated with CITIZENS.
#8
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
In your example how do you separate a woman who got into a fight from one who was defending her family and should she then still be prosecuted for manslaughter?

Is it in fact ever alright to press charges on an unarmed person who has been assaulted with a deadly weapon for being assaulted with a deadly weapon?

If you flip a man off on the highway and he shoots you and incidentally your passenger killing them but leaving you alive are you guilty of manslaughter? You did instigate gun violence did you not?

If not please explain how the two situations differ in any discernible legal sense.

Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Understand their reasoning.
This ought to be good.

Had she not been pregnant, but instead was taking care of a five year-old toddler, would her starting the fight that would eventually conclude in the murder of her child not make her somewhat culpable under current legislation?
Absolutely not.

The person firing the gun should be charged with manslaughter.

The mother may be charged with "reckless endangerment of a child" or somesuch, but NOT manslaughter.

What if she were fighting with a one year-old infant in her arms?
Absolutely not.

The person firing the gun should be charged with manslaughter.

The mother may be charged with "reckless endangerment of a child" or somesuch, but NOT manslaughter.
Topic's author
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If you flip a man off on the highway and he shoots you and incidentally your passenger killing them but leaving you alive are you guilty of manslaughter? You did instigate gun violence did you not?
Well stated.
#11
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:

Birth is when you enter the public space.
How is that?

Before birth you are part of your mother and not a separate entity entitled to the rights and protections associated with CITIZENS.
How is a fetus any less separate than a birthed infant? You may be able to argue that birth children are not dependent on a single individual, but they are still dependent, the obligation to which is enforceable by State force. One resolution would be to not obligate any individual to the sustenance of the infant even if that means the infant's death, but that's a slippery slope those who assume the pro-choice argument do not find easy to argue.

And if this separation you speak of is physical, then would I still be considered as part of the public space every time I penetrate a woman? Can I rebuff a rape charge, for example, if I were to argue that during said rape, my victim and I weren't physically separate? Does a pregnant woman lose her rights because, as you argued, she's no longer a "separate entity"?

@secularmerlin:

In your example how do you separate a woman who got into a fight from one who was defending her family and should she then still be prosecuted for manslaughter?
The premise of the charge is that she initiated the conflict, right? It's hard to propose an affirmative defense under those circumstances.

Is it in fact ever alright to press charges on an unarmed person who has been assaulted with a deadly weapon for being assaulted with a deadly weapon?
Depends. What if that unarmed person initiated the conflict? Isn't the aggressor at fault?

If you flip a man off on the highway and he shoots you and incidentally your passenger killing them but leaving you alive are you guilty of manslaughter?
No.

If not please explain how the two situations differ in any discernible legal sense.
That depends. Who threw the first punch, so to speak?
#12
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Absolutely not.

The person firing the gun should be charged with manslaughter.

The mother may be charged with "reckless endangerment of a child" or somesuch, but NOT manslaughter.


I suspect that the person firing the gun wasn't charged with manslaughter for two reasons:

1. She didn't know that the other woman was pregnant (which speaks to her intent.)
2. She was not the instigator.

And the mother can be charged with felony child endangerment, which is quite similar to manslaughter as far as sentencing; you're not really arguing that she shouldn't be held culpable.
#13
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
The premise of the charge is that she initiated the conflict, right? It's hard to propose an affirmative defense under those circumstances.
This implies a presumption of guilt. Legally we should begin with a presumption of innocence. It is therefore up to the accusing party to differentiate between being an instigator and an act of self defense or even that the two cannot in fact both be the case.
Depends. What if that unarmed person initiated the conflict? Isn't the aggressor at fault?
Again you are assuming guilt when legally the reverse should be the case. Please present your preferred metric for separating aggressors from non aggressors if in fact either party was non aggressive (as a side note shooting someone seems very aggressive and inciting).
If you flip a man off on the highway and he shoots you and incidentally your passenger killing them but leaving you alive are you guilty of manslaughter?
No.

If not please explain how the two situations differ in any discernible legal sense.
That depends. Who threw the first punch, so to speak?
You did so to speak you flipped him off. If this does not make you guilty of manslaughter please explain the difference between the two examples. Where exactly is the line? At what point does your aggressive behavior make someone shooting you while unarmed (and possibly pregnant) your fault and therefore criminal?
#14
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
She didn't know that the other woman was pregnant (which speaks to her intent.)
This is actually what differentiates manslaughter from first or second degree murder. Please explain how shooting a person you did not know was present killing them is not manslaughter. (Unless you would like to admit that there is something different about a person as compared with a fetus)

#15
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
This implies a presumption of guilt. Legally we should begin with a presumption of innocence. It is therefore up to the accusing party to differentiate between being an instigator and an act of self defense or even that the two cannot in fact both be the case.
And isn't that what the charge and indictment does? Has she been convicted, yet?

Again you are assuming guilt when legally the reverse should be the case. Please present your preferred metric for separating aggressors from non aggressors if in fact either party was non aggressive (as a side note shooting someone seems very aggressive and inciting).
Of course, I'm assuming guilt because my argument is inductive. If the unarmed person was the aggressor, then she would be guilty/culpable. Of course, it's the burden of the accuser to substantiate the premise, "she was the aggressor." And my description of an aggressor would be one who initiates physical harm.

You did so to speak you flipped him off.
I was actually referring to the women. When you asked your question before, I replied, "No," because flipping someone off is not an act of aggression.
#16
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Please explain how shooting a person you did not know was present killing them is not manslaughter.
That's a good point. But again, my points were made in conjunction. And perhaps this may illustrate the point: what if a pregnant woman chases you with a chainsaw, and you happen to find your legally owned 9 mil glock 19, if you were to shoot her, fatally wounding her, and thus concluding in the death of her unborn child, are you responsible for the fetus's death? Should you then be charged with manslaughter?

#17
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
And isn't that what the charge and indictment does? Has she been convicted, yet?
I think it is better to view this as a worse case scenario hypothetical if we are to get to the bottom of what we believe and why.

Is that something you are interested in?
an aggressor would be one who initiates physical harm.
What degree of physical harm? Because I'm sure you will agree that this 
if a pregnant woman chases you with a chainsaw,
Is not what happened. So again where exactly is the line. A slap? Two slaps? A punch? Disregarding queensberry rules and hitting below the belt? At what point exactly does it become an unarmed pregnant woman's fault someone shot her?
Topic's author
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If you flip a man off on the highway and he shoots you and incidentally your passenger killing them but leaving you alive are you guilty of manslaughter?
No.
You've just answered your own question.

Even if someone punches you in the face, you're not allowed to shoot them.
#19
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I think it is better to view this as a worse case scenario hypothetical if we are to get to the bottom of what we believe and why.
Is that something you are interested in?
It's not about interest. My particular focus is on consistency; if one is going to argue that this mother bears no culpability, if she's proven to be the aggressor in this conflict, then by that reasoning, one should at the very least endorse the removal of child endangerment/welfare laws.

What degree of physical harm? Because I'm sure you will agree that this
There are no degrees. Physical harm is physical harm.

Is not what happened. So again where exactly is the line. A slap? Two slaps? A punch? Disregarding queensberry rules and hitting below the belt? At what point exactly does it become an unarmed pregnant woman's fault someone shot her?
There are no lines. Once a person initiates aggression, the target of that aggression has the onus to put an end to that aggression by any means.
#20
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Even if someone punches you in the face, you're not allowed to shoot them.
No. As I've already stated, "flipping someone off" is not an act of aggression.
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Even if someone punches you in the face, you're not allowed to shoot them.
No. As I've already stated, "flipping someone off" is not an act of aggression.
Yes it most certainly is.
#22
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes it most certainly is.
Are we going to argue over lexical semantics, now, and elide the description I gave earlier?

#23
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Just so that there are no misconceptions about my argument, here it is:

Should one argue that an abortion is an extension of a woman's right to her  privacy and person, then by that same reasoning, a parent's obligation to the sustenance of his or her children should be argued capable of being "aborted" as well regardless of the children's age.

Those who assume the "pro-life" argument are more consistent; they are not arguing for special privileges (then again, what is a legal entitlement if not a privilege?) They merely argue that zygotes/embryos/fetuses be included in the scope of "protections" afforded to children under 18 years of age. And regardless of its name ("life, personhood, etc.") human development begins at conception. 

And despite my personal objection, which has no relevance to the exercise of a woman's right over her body, I in fact endorse the "pro-choice" position. The difference is, I extend the reasoning of a woman's right to privacy to its logical conclusion which is to completely remove any legal obligation a parent has to his or her child. And for those who claim that they're pro-choice while simultaneously sustaining that her privacy be null and void after the child is birthed, I have news for you: you're not pro-choice; you're pro-abortion.
#24
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter

Youve lost all credit
#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
So your argument is that if an unarmed pregnant woman slaps you you should be aloud to shoot her and it is her own fault? If not then I again ask exactly where the line is.
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
you're not pro-choice; you're pro-abortion.
I have not endorsed one camp over another. I do think that someone with no uterus should have minimal input about the discussion at best but we are not actually discussing my opinions about abortion but your opinions on what does and does not constitute manslaughter. Apparently sometimes you are guilty of manslaughter when someone shoots you unless I have misunderstood your argument. 

#27
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
So your argument is that if an unarmed pregnant woman slaps you you should be aloud to shoot her and it is her own fault?
No. That's not defense; that's retaliation. And once again, there are no lines. Once a person initiates aggression, then the target bears the imperative to end the aggression. So to use your example, if an unarmed pregnant woman continued to slap me (on-going aggression) and shooting her is the only effective means to end her assault, then yes, the conclusion to our conflict would be her liability since she was the one who initiated.

I have not endorsed one camp over another.
And for those who claim that they're pro-choice while simultaneously sustaining that her privacy be null and void after the child is birthed, I have news for you: you're not pro-choice; you're pro-abortion.

I do think that someone with no uterus should have minimal input about the discussion
There's nothing that can stop those with no uterus from having that discussion.

we are not actually discussing my opinions about abortion but your opinions on what does and does not constitute manslaughter.
No, we're discussing what the Alabama legislature constitutes as manslaughter. I just understand their reasoning. If they're able to substantiate that unarmed pregnant woman was the aggressor, then they can conclude that the conflict which resulted in her fetus's death was her fault. My point is that this isn't inconsistent with how legal/criminal liability is currently levied.

Topic's author
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Just so that there are no misconceptions about my argument, here it is:

Should one argue that an abortion is an extension of a woman's right to her  privacy and person, then by that same reasoning, a parent's obligation to the sustenance of his or her children should be argued capable of being [ABANDONED AT A MEDICAL FACILITY] as well regardless of the children's age.
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter
Youve lost all credit
Do you know what a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT is?
Topic's author
#30
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Once a person initiates aggression, then the target bears the imperative to end the aggression. So to use your example, if an unarmed pregnant woman continued to slap me (on-going aggression) and shooting her is the only effective means to end her assault, then yes, the conclusion to our conflict would be her liability since she was the one who initiated.
What moral theory do you subscribe to?