Pro-choice or pro-life?

[Major Banter]

You've got to remember that this law applies to everyone in the land; and it's not necessarily going to be a convenient "her boyfriend killed her" kinda thing.

If some random nutcase kills a mother, and therefore child, that is completely unwarranted. Admittedly, we could get dredged back into the argument of 'the value of life' but the key point is that an innocent has been killed without the warrant of the mother.

[MayheM]

Though I see your point, it is still considering the unborn child as a life in one case but not the other. It just so happens that one case it is a inconvenient to do so. It seems like a double standard to me that while a mother can choose to terminate a pregnancy and the unborn child is not considered a life while in the case of killing a mother and in the process terminating the pregnancy is considered life. You used the term unwarranted, I would argue that it matters not what the situation be, if it is considered lie in one case, then it should be in the other since the situation of the incident has nothing to do with the outcome. In both cases the child is eliminated. The was the current law is written it is essentially saying that abortion is legalized murder.

[Chopium]

Is 'pulling the plug' on someone too weak to live murder?

[Major Banter]

The key problem with this discussion is that it's very, very easy to get dragged into arguments about "legalised murder" and, as mentioned, the "value of life". Both are buzzwords that hide incredibly complex arguments and so on, making them easier to utilise in an argument such as this.

If we run on life having a value, we go into the debate of when a child has the full functionings of life and whether it has priority over the already functioning.

If we raise the question of 'the legality/standpoint on the child's death' (bearing in mind legal murder is an oxymoron and unapplicable; murder is unlawful killing, end of) we begin to raise the question of when a killing is necessary, and the virulent territory of Eugenics, Euthanasia and, of course, abortion, that's a very, very touchy and highly opinionated subject.

I hate to analyse the actual argument rather than proceeding with it, but I feel, as I have constantly iterated, that it is not my choice - while I would defend my child's rights, I would not defend another unborn child's (unless it was a situation of empathy and compassion). It is the mother's choice and I will not stand in the way of that. With this, I feel the other points become moot and we avoid the minefield of opinion.

[city14]

The key problem with this discussion is that it's very, very easy to get dragged into arguments about "legalised murder" and, as mentioned, the "value of life". Both are buzzwords that hide incredibly complex arguments and so on, making them easier to utilise in an argument such as this.

If we run on life having a value, we go into the debate of when a child has the full functionings of life and whether it has priority over the already functioning.

If we raise the question of 'the legality/standpoint on the child's death' (bearing in mind legal murder is an oxymoron and unapplicable; murder is unlawful killing, end of) we begin to raise the question of when a killing is necessary, and the virulent territory of Eugenics, Euthanasia and, of course, abortion, that's a very, very touchy and highly opinionated subject.

I hate to analyse the actual argument rather than proceeding with it, but I feel, as I have constantly iterated, that it is not my choice - while I would defend my child's rights, I would not defend another unborn child's (unless it was a situation of empathy and compassion). It is the mother's choice and I will not stand in the way of that. With this, I feel the other points become moot and we avoid the minefield of opinion.

That was amazing. I've looked for a way to explain this kind of discussion to people who insist on continuing the argument well after it should have ended, and that was great.

[Terr]

My stance in two sentences: For most of a pregnancy the fetus does not qualify for "personhood". That doesn't mean we can't have harsh laws against it being harmed by someone other than the mother.

According to law if a man kills his pregnant girlfriend he will be charged with two cases of murder, but is a woman goes in the day before that murder takes place and terminates the pregnancy it is legal for her to do so. If nothing else this is contradiction of logic.

... And?

Prisoner A is on death-row and gets a lethal injection. "Not Murder".
Prisoner B sticks a shiv into Prisoner A's gut and kills him the day before. "Murder".