Questions to Pro-Abortionist

[judejin]

should a pregnant woman on the death row be spared death or should the execution be delayed until the woman delivers the baby?

if your answer is yes, why do you think in this case the fetus should matter in determining the fate of the woman?


full disclosure: my answer is yes. i'm against abortion for the exact same reason that the fetus should always be considered a separate life that should be protected even sometimes against the woman's wish.


if your answer is no, for the reason that the fetus is not yet a life, but simply a body part of the woman, so it shouldn't affect the fate of the woman. then i agree that your pro-abortion views are logically consistent.

but i have a second question for you if you answered no to the first question: if you are pregnant and someone purposely kicked your belly to kill the fetus, what charges are you going to press against the person? murder of the fetus, or killed off a part of your body?

the purposes of my questions are to make sure that your logic in these questions are consistent. a fetus is either a life or a body part. it can't sometimes be a body part that you can dispose of at will when you don't want the baby, sometimes a life that has to be protected at all costs when you want the baby.

logically, A is A and can't be a non-A depending on your wishes.

i started to think about the abortion issue when i met people who called Ron Paul a fascist because he's anti abortion. I really think Ron is the last person on earth who can ever be called a fascist. i believe all of Ron's political views are well thought out and logically consistent. just make sure that your views are logically consistent too.

thank you. don't call me names if you don't agree with my views.

 

[Antischism]

I'm not anti-choice, so I'll answer.

I don't believe in the death penalty, so the hypothetical is already at odds with what I believe. The woman shouldn't be getting the death sentence at all, under any circumstance. Fetus or not, no death penalty.

It's a potential; the woman can choose whether she wants the potential to eventually come into sentience or not. Personhood doesn't begin at conception. Given that, the laws should also reflect it. However, that doesn't stop others from believing it's a viable human life with rights beginning at conception, so you can't theoretically have a split law where one group of people can charge murder for an assault on the fetus while the other can't. It may show that some are logically inconsistent in their views, or it may simply be that women with the full intention of allowing eventual sentience consider it a life.

 

[judejin]

I'm not anti-choice, so I'll answer.

I don't believe in the death penalty, so the hypothetical is already at odds with what I believe. The woman shouldn't be getting the death sentence at all, under any circumstance. Fetus or not, no death penalty.

It's a potential; the woman can choose whether she wants the potential to eventually come into sentience or not. Personhood doesn't begin at conception. Given that, the laws should also reflect it. However, that doesn't stop others from believing it's a viable human life with rights beginning at conception, so you can't theoretically have a split law where one group of people can charge murder for an assault on the fetus while the other can't. It may show that some are logically inconsistent in their views, or it may simply be that women with the full intention of allowing eventual sentience consider it a life.

.

your answer to the first question is perfectly accepted.

as to the second question, you agree that "we can't have a split law where one group of people can charge murder for an assault on the fetus while the other can't." so what can we do to resolve the split? i guess local laws can have differences in specific issues like this.

 

[otherone]

don't call me names if you don't agree with my views.

Somewhat off-topic...how old are you?

 

[Contumacious]

should a pregnant woman on the death row be spared death or should the execution be delayed until the woman delivers the baby?

if your answer is yes, why do you think in this case the fetus should matter in determining the fate of the woman?
.

I am not a pro abortionist but i shall answer the question anyways. I am PRO LIFE..the woman's

I believe that you misunderstood the Libertarian position.

The WOMAN - no the state, not the neighbor, not the tribe , should decide if the fetus will be allowed to progress to next stages until it becomes a human being - a person - at birth.

i do not trust state officials with taking the garbage out let alone with somebody else's life but if she is LEGALLY on death row then the powers-that-be must decide. If she resides in a theocracy like in Texas , I believe that state officials will allow the fetus to progress to personhood.
.

 

[Carlybee]

Do they execute pregnant women? I've never heard of that.

 

[torchbearer]

Do they execute pregnant women? I've never heard of that.

if abortion is murder, what is the punishment for murder in your state?
you can get death here.

 

[Philhelm]

I think that aborted fetuses should be sold at the grocery store in the meat section. The butcher should also be trained in administering abortions, no appointment necessary, so that the meat can be purchased fresh.

Okay, my real answer is no. I don't want to make it illegal due to the complications of getting the government involved, the fact that it will happen anyway, behind the backs of men, and bring increased risks to the women. Having said that, it's a despicable act overall.

 

[I<3Liberty]

should a pregnant woman on the death row be spared death or should the execution be delayed until the woman delivers the baby?

if your answer is yes, why do you think in this case the fetus should matter in determining the fate of the woman?


full disclosure: my answer is yes. i'm against abortion for the exact same reason that the fetus should always be considered a separate life that should be protected even sometimes against the woman's wish.


if your answer is no, for the reason that the fetus is not yet a life, but simply a body part of the woman, so it shouldn't affect the fate of the woman. then i agree that your pro-abortion views are logically consistent.

but i have a second question for you if you answered no to the first question: if you are pregnant and someone purposely kicked your belly to kill the fetus, what charges are you going to press against the person? murder of the fetus, or killed off a part of your body?

the purposes of my questions are to make sure that your logic in these questions are consistent. a fetus is either a life or a body part. it can't sometimes be a body part that you can dispose of at will when you don't want the baby, sometimes a life that has to be protected at all costs when you want the baby.

logically, A is A and can't be a non-A depending on your wishes.

i started to think about the abortion issue when i met people who called Ron Paul a fascist because he's anti abortion. I really think Ron is the last person on earth who can ever be called a fascist. i believe all of Ron's political views are well thought out and logically consistent. just make sure that your views are logically consistent too.

thank you. don't call me names if you don't agree with my views.

The death penalty itself isn't pro-life, so I think it's interesting that you would use it to prove your anti-abortion stance. I'm against the death penalty, so I don't believe this is a question we should ever have to answer.

I agree that the fetus is a separate life, but I also care equally about a woman's choice. I believe science will bridge the gap where we currently cannot.

A fetus can live outside the womb after quickening (which typically happens anywhere from 20-24 weeks.) Ultimately, options like ectogenesis will allow even younger fetuses to survive outside the womb and help premature infants avoid further complications from being born prematurely.

An innovation that will be here much sooner than ectogenesis is 100% effective contraceptives. These will allow women to have a 100% effective reliable choice that does not involve abortion. It's also the most cost effective option. Say an abortion is $3,000, keeping a kid in foster care for 18 years is $170,000 (yes, some are adopted, but currently about 1/5 never find homes by the time they reach 18, so some are kept all 18 years), and Vasalgel is said to cost like $1 for 10 years worth of protection (which can be reversed with a reversal injection.) I'd much rather pay $1 than $3,000 or $170,000. We all would.