Abortion should be illegal, except for cases where it is a threat to the mother's life.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 148
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Right and wrong are concepts relative to conceptual Law.

The Law is usually based upon conceptual ideology.

A zygote/foetus is either a blob of organic goo, or a human being, depending upon the definition of a conceptual ideology.

There will always be two or more alternative and valid definitions.

Therefore, nothing can unequivocally be defined as either right or wrong.
 

An enemy is either as valid as a developing child, or not as the case may be.

As the person with the guns and the flag should know.


Let they who are absolute Pro-Lifers cast the first stone.

Whoops, a hypothetical stone of course.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,986
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well for starters, all abortion cases would have to go to court. Just the same as if a cop shoots someone. It may be justified, but we need to make sure it was. Abortion would be classified as murder, so it would be the same as first degree murder. 

Both the mother and the doctor should be prosecuted. 
The mother and the doctor, but not the father?  Why not?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,986
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I've already answered these questions in another post do you know why they're coming back up here again cause you started like six topics that involve fucking abortion, your goddamn obsessed with it. Get the fuck over it, we get it, you really hate women have freedom.
His other obsession is the LGBTQ community, and he hates women, gotta be a real interesting relationship with his mother.

99.9% of 15/16 year old boys are obsessed with girls and/or sports, this one is a mysogynist obsessed with the LGBTQ community.   The gender dysphoria is strong with this one. 

Judging by the flamboyant drama queen nature of all his posts, I figure he's maybe two episodes of "Will and Grace" away from finding himself and spending the rest of his life  as a Drag Queen.  
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.
Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.
Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
The mother and the doctor, but not the father?  Why not?
Well it depends with the father.

If it is a rape, then definitely 100% the father should be castrated or killed.
But if it was concentull sex, then the woman is risking having a baby, by letting the man impregnate her. 
Not his fault, if she let him do that act. 

It's double standards though. Should the dad have a say in abortion?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 
Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
By the way, you didn’t reply to my second part:
You would be focused on preventing these circumstances in the first place if you were genuine. 
Maybe focusing on better healthcare and/or looking at expenses of raising children. 
Don’t you want a healthy nuclear family?

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 
No I'm not. 

The line is drawn when the baby becomes a serious threat to the mothers life. Then that should be the moment where the mother decides what to do. 

You would be focused on preventing these circumstances in the first place if you were genuine. 
Maybe focusing on better healthcare and/or looking at expenses of raising children. 
Don’t you want a healthy nuclear family?
Expense's of raising kids will stay the same. It has always been expensive to raise kids all throughout history. 
I am genuine, because I do believe in pro-choice. I believe the woman has the choice to have sex or not have sex. That is where the choice part comes in. 
If a someone makes a stupid decision, then they are subject to consequences correct?
So, same goes for women who decide to have sex if they are too young, not ready enough for commitment, and or don't want kids. 

But once you make that choice, then you have to live with the consequences. And even then, there is a way out of it, without murdering the child. You could give it up for adoption, and make a family who doesn't have the ability to have children (who want children) happy. 
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Abortion is perfectly fine (and necessary) up to the point of fetal viability. After that, hands off. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
Finally a real answer for a cutoff point. Thank you for providing one. 

So if fetal viability should be the cutoff point, then I ask you this:
Your saying that fetal viability is when the baby is able to technically "survive" outside the womb. But if it isn't viable then it's ok to kill it.
So if someone is in a coma, and is not viable without machines working on them, is it ok for me to come up to them with a knife and kill them?

TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

@TWS1405_2
Finally a real answer for a cutoff point. Thank you for providing one. 

So if fetal viability should be the cutoff point, then I ask you this:
Your saying that fetal viability is when the baby is able to technically "survive" outside the womb. But if it isn't viable then it's ok to kill it.
So if someone is in a coma, and is not viable without machines working on them, is it ok for me to come up to them with a knife and kill them?

First, you are welcome. Though it is not the first time I have given this to you (or others) in this forum (not the “debate” section @Double_R).

Second, yes, outside the womb “without further gestational development” to ensure all organs are functioning in concert so the fetus survives outside the womb.

Third, I do not use the term “kill,” as it is an emotively driven term. Terminate is the more medically and legally accurate term when it comes to abortion.

Lastly, you cannot compare a pregnancy to an already born person in a coma. It is a false equivalency fallacy. The person in the coma, once they were birthed, were bestowed ALL the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law. So in a coma, they are protected. A pregnancy is not, regardless of stage of development. Well, it was, actually, when Roe v Wade was in effect. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
Third, I do not use the term “kill,” as it is an emotively driven term. Terminate is the more medically and legally accurate term when it comes to abortion.
But it is still the same word. Just because you wrap it in a bow, doesn't make it any different. 

Lastly, you cannot compare a pregnancy to an already born person in a coma. It is a false equivalency fallacy. The person in the coma, once they were birthed, were bestowed ALL the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law.
I'm not talking about legal standards. I'm talking about moral standards. Would it be morally ok to kill/terminate that person in a coma?
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
TWS1405_2
Third, I do not use the term “kill,” as it is an emotively driven term. Terminate is the more medically and legally accurate term when it comes to abortion.
But it is still the same word. Just because you wrap it in a bow, doesn't make it any different. 
Ah but it does. Connotation and context matters when using words that have very different meanings when used under certain circumstances. 


Lastly, you cannot compare a pregnancy to an already born person in a coma. It is a false equivalency fallacy. The person in the coma, once they were birthed, were bestowed ALL the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law.
I'm not talking about legal standards. I'm talking about moral standards. Would it be morally ok to kill/terminate that person in a coma?

Laws are premised on morality. They are not mutually exclusive. Once the person is given all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law…morality is a given under those protections. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
Ah but it does. Connotation and context matters when using words that have very different meanings when used under certain circumstances. 
It does make it psychologically different, and that's my point. Using the word terminate instead of kill, is just putting a bowtie on the fact that you are killing something/someone. 
I could go to war and say I terminated 50 soldiers, or I could say I killed 50 soldiers. Same word. Just sounds different. So, you might not want to use the word kill, but it means the same thing. I respect your decision, but I will stick to the word kill. Yes, it sounds different, but it means the same thing. 

Laws are premised on morality. They are not mutually exclusive. Once the person is given all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law…morality is a given under those protections. 
Not all laws are based on morality. Morality is something that is not man made. It's something that we can't put a pin in, because we still don't quite understand what gave us morality. Thats why there are philosophers and other people like that who are still trying to make sense of all the aspects of morality. So, to put morality in a box of just the law is not right. There are definitely laws out there that are morally wrong. 

So, tell me:
Would it be morally ok to kill/terminate that person in a coma?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.
Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.
Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 
Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 
No I'm not. 

The line is drawn when the baby becomes a serious threat to the mothers life. Then that should be the moment where the mother decides what to do. 
You ignored the context of our conversation. Please stop being disingenuous. 


You would be focused on preventing these circumstances in the first place if you were genuine. 
Maybe focusing on better healthcare and/or looking at expenses of raising children. 
Don’t you want a healthy nuclear family?
Expense's of raising kids will stay the same.
It has always been expensive to raise kids all throughout history. 
Regardless how expensive it gets? 

I am genuine, because I do believe in pro-choice. I believe the woman has the choice to have sex or not have sex. That is where the choice part comes in. 
If a someone makes a stupid decision, then they are subject to consequences correct?
So you want to ban contraception? That’s what it sounds like. Do you have any studies backing up that sexless marriages are more healthy? 

So, same goes for women who decide to have sex if they are too young, not ready enough for commitment, and or don't want kids. 
The new generation of adults are having less sex anyway. You should be happy statistically speaking. 

But once you make that choice, then you have to live with the consequences. And even then, there is a way out of it, without murdering the child. You could give it up for adoption, and make a family who doesn't have the ability to have children (who want children) happy. 

Adoption should be the absolute last resort if you’re opposed/unable to terminate the pregnancy and can’t afford raising the child.
People who are willing to adopt are few and far between in the virtue signalling pro-adoption crowd. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.
Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.
Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 
Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 
No I'm not. 

The line is drawn when the baby becomes a serious threat to the mothers life. Then that should be the moment where the mother decides what to do. 
You ignored the context of our conversation. Please stop being disingenuous. 
....no context was ignored. Also, how am I being disingenuous?

Regardless how expensive it gets? 
Again, having kids is expensive. That should be motivation for women to stop being reckless with their body's. Again: Bad action = Bad consequences. Being stupid with your body, leads to you having to raise expensive kids. 

So you want to ban contraception? That’s what it sounds like. 
Contraception is a good useful tool in order to have sex without backlash, but condoms can break, and birth control can fail.  Having sex is like driving a car.

When you are driving, you are taking a risk, in the case that you might crash. Sure, it's not likely, but you are still consenting to that risk.
Same with sex.
When you have sex, you are taking a risk, in the case that you might get pregnant. Sure, it's not likely if your using contraception, but you are still consenting to that risk. 

Do you have any studies backing up that sexless marriages are more healthy? 
Now you're ignoring the context. Never brought this up as a point. 

The new generation of adults are having less sex anyway. You should be happy statistically speaking.
......have you heard of hookup culture?

Sure, go up to four old ladies, and not the other 30,000 people who have adopted more than one kid. 


Adoption should be the absolute last resort if you’re opposed/unable to terminate the pregnancy and can’t afford raising the child.
Adoption is keeping a child alive. Abortion is not keeping a child alive. Which is better?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Making abortion illegal and unsafe is a threat to the mothers life regardless.
Be honest, you don’t care about women and young girls.
Look at the title.

It should be illegal, except for cases where it is a risk to the mother's health. 
Aren’t you going by a case by case basis? If not, where’s the line? 
No I'm not. 

The line is drawn when the baby becomes a serious threat to the mothers life. Then that should be the moment where the mother decides what to do. 
You ignored the context of our conversation. Please stop being disingenuous. 
....no context was ignored. Also, how am I being disingenuous?
You are going by a case by case basis of whether the fetus is a threat to the mothers life, correct?

Again, having kids is expensive. That should be motivation for women to stop being reckless with their body's. Again: Bad action = Bad consequences. Being stupid with your body, leads to you having to raise expensive kids. 
Would you vote for a government that forces her to go through with the pregnancy? Or would you just use words? Do you think women should be allowed to vote? I want to see where this ends up. Because corporate/government coercion is bad, don’t you agree?

Contraception is a good useful tool in order to have sex without backlash, but condoms can break, and birth control can fail.  Having sex is like driving a car. 

When you are driving, you are taking a risk, in the case that you might crash. Sure, it's not likely, but you are still consenting to that risk. 
Same with sex. 
When you have sex, you are taking a risk, in the case that you might get pregnant. Sure, it's not likely if you’re using contraception, but you are still consenting to that risk. 
But you’re alright with coercing/forcing her to go through with pregnancy if she’s rapped? Where is the consent of the mother in that regard? Your ethics isn’t quite lining up. You will probably say something along the lines of ‘the fetus doesn’t consent to being aborted.’ I’ll give you the answer now to save some time.. it’s because the fetus can’t consent, it’s not cognitively developed enough, if it’s even developed a brain at all. I think we can agree that abortions in early trimester are better than late trimester abortions, even if you think they’re both wrong.

Do you have any studies backing up that sexless marriages are more healthy? 
Now you're ignoring the context. Never brought this up as a point. 
Well you made it blatantly clear that recreational sex is reckless. I wouldn’t put it passed you. 

The new generation of adults are having less sex anyway. You should be happy statistically speaking.
......have you heard of hookup culture?
Yeah, It’s increasingly becoming less common believe it or not.

Sure, go up to four old ladies, and not the other 30,000 people who have adopted more than one kid. 
Those four old ladies had some long lives to choose adoption.
It seems they preferred having their own biological kids than adopting. Probably partly due to cost, go figure.. if I steelman.

Adoption is keeping a child alive. Abortion is not keeping a child alive. Which is better?
Ignoring all external and scientific factors, i’d say keeping the child alive. 

Now i’ll ask you a hypothetical:

Are you alright with an authoritarian regime coming to power if it means more children are born?

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
You are going by a case by case basis of whether the fetus is a threat to the mothers life, correct?
No, I stated that I am not, then answered your question: If not, where’s the line? 

Would you vote for a government that forces her to go through with the pregnancy? Or would you just use words? Do you think women should be allowed to vote? I want to see where this ends up. Because corporate/government coercion is bad, don’t you agree?
If you get pregnant, then obviously people are going to try to get rid of the baby in secret. I would vote for the ban on abortion. That is the only thing I would vote on. 

Do you think women should be allowed to vote? I want to see where this ends up. Because corporate/government coercion is bad, don’t you agree?
Off topic. Yes, women should and are allowed to vote. 

But you’re alright with coercing/forcing her to go through with pregnancy if she’s rapped? Where is the consent of the mother in that regard? Your ethics isn’t quite lining up. You will probably say something along the lines of ‘the fetus doesn’t consent to being aborted.’ I’ll give you the answer now to save some time.. it’s because the fetus can’t consent, it’s not cognitively developed enough, if it’s even developed a brain at all. I think we can agree that abortions in early trimester are better than late trimester abortions, even if you think they’re both wrong.
I can talk about rape, if you can agree that all of the other abortions are bad. Otherwise, you are just using it as a tactic to justify all abortions. You can't justify all abortions with rape cases. So, would you agree that other than rape cases, abortions are bad?

Well you made it blatantly clear that recreational sex is reckless. I wouldn’t put it passed you. 
It is. 

Yeah, It’s increasingly becoming less common believe it or not.
Nope. Actually increasing. 

Are you alright with an authoritarian regime coming to power if it means more children are born?
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In what world would someone have to make this decision?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Adoption is keeping a child alive. Abortion is not keeping a child alive. Which is better?
Ignoring all external and scientific factors, i’d say keeping the child alive. 

Now i’ll ask you a hypothetical:

Are you alright with an authoritarian regime coming to power if it means more children are born?
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In what world would someone have to make this decision?
In your world. You’re willing to use the government to force women to carry to term, not acknowledging incentives. 
you look past the carrot in favour of the stick. This also has broader implications of your world view if you don’t just hate the female sex.

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
In your world. You’re willing to use the government to force women to carry to term, not acknowledging incentives. 
The government would not be forcing women to carry to term.
You are acting like the government is raping these women, in mass numbers and then making them give birth. 
Again, the government would be using government force to stop abortions from happening. It is up to the woman to get pregnant or not. That is her decision. Decisions have consequences whether you like it or not. No one is forcing them to have sex and get pregnant. 

Now I will argue rape cases as well, if you're willing to agree that all the other abortions are wrong. 

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The government would not be forcing women to carry to term. 
What part of illegality don’t you understand? It means little if it isn’t enforced.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
What part of illegality don’t you understand? It means little if it isn’t enforced.
Saying the government would be "forcing women to carry term" is the same as saying:

The government is forcing people who drink while driving, to get pulled over and arrested.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you do admit the government will be forcing women to carry to term. Why are you having a hard time admitting that?
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
So you do admit the government will be forcing women to carry to term. Why are you having a hard time admitting that?
I mean, yes. If a woman makes the decision to have sex, and they get pregnant, then the government will force them to carry to term.
Just the same as if someone gets drunk and decides to drive, and gets caught, the government will force them to be pulled over and arrested. 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now, can you actually equate abortion and drunk driving, why are they fundamentally similar? Also you said you were okay with the morning after pill, correct?

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well for starters, all abortion cases would have to go to court. Just the same as if a cop shoots someone. It may be justified, but we need to make sure it was. Abortion would be classified as murder, so it would be the same as first degree murder. 

Both the mother and the doctor should be prosecuted. 
If it was an abortion derived from a pregnancy made from consensual sex, the penalty for first degree murder is life in jail or the death penalty.  It’s a nonstarter to put 1/6 females to death for abortion.

If you know 60 women (you probably know more), then 10 of them would be put to death. Abortion should be tried as 5th degree murder, so the penalty can be light but proportional.

If a woman gets an abortion, she and the man who impregnated her should both be subject to wage garnishments of $1.3 a day for 10 years.  90% of that revenue goes to sponsor a starving American kid, getting that kid out of poverty.  The remaining 10% pays for the abortion and taxes associated with the abortion.

If you take a life from abortion, you should be legally required to save a life by some other method.  But under no pretext should abortion merit the death penalty!
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That should be motivation for women to stop being reckless with their body's.
I have no issue with telling women (and men) that they shouldn’t have vaginal sex unless they want a kid.  But I also think if you tell women to not have sex and you have sex with women, it’s hypocritical.  So I hope your a virgin because if not, women have sex because of YOU.

I am a virgin and proud of it.  I encourage people to wait until they want a kid to have sex, and I try and not watch porn.  But when 97% of America has recreational sex, pro lifers need to come to terms with that.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Now, can you actually equate abortion and drunk driving, why are they fundamentally similar? Also you said you were okay with the morning after pill, correct?
Yes you can. Both are taking a risk, and both have a consequence.

Not the morning after pill. Because that would be after conception's. I would be ok with the night before pill. 

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If it was an abortion derived from a pregnancy made from consensual sex, the penalty for first degree murder is life in jail or the death penalty.  It’s a nonstarter to put 1/6 females to death for abortion.
Not all murder cases go strait to the death penalty. And some have varied sentences, but taking into consideration it was the murder of a baby I would say it would most likely be death or life in prison. 

But I will admit, I have been thinking about it, and I've come to the conclusion of the mother being prosecuted on manslaughter charges, rather than murder, because they didn't actually kill the child. But then again, they did pay for the crime to be done. It would have to be either manslaughter or murder, one of the two.

If you know 60 women (you probably know more), then 10 of them would be put to death. Abortion should be tried as 5th degree murder, so the penalty can be light but proportional.
 No, it would have to be first degree, because it was a premeditated murder. The mother planned it in advance. Also would be infanticide.

I have no issue with telling women (and men) that they shouldn’t have vaginal sex unless they want a kid.  But I also think if you tell women to not have sex and you have sex with women, it’s hypocritical.  So I hope your a virgin because if not, women have sex because of YOU.
Again, not telling women not to have sex, I am just saying be smart about it and not be reckless with it. 

I am a virgin and proud of it.  I encourage people to wait until they want a kid to have sex, and I try and not watch porn.  But when 97% of America has recreational sex, pro lifers need to come to terms with that.
Having sex for pleasure is not something I disagree with. I am just saying that you need to be prepared of what might happen. It is your choice to have sex. Therefore the consequences follow.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,096
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not all murder cases go strait to the death penalty. And some have varied sentences, but taking into consideration it was the murder of a baby I would say it would most likely be death or life in prison. 
I oppose life in jail for ANY crime because I don’t want tax dollars feeding murderers and rapists.

I've come to the conclusion of the mother being prosecuted on manslaughter charges, rather than murder, because they didn't actually kill the child. But then again, they did pay for the crime to be done. It would have to be either manslaughter or murder, one of the two.
Charging for manslaughter doesn’t make sense; if abortion was banned, abortionists wouldn’t perform abortions which means the female is going to have to perform her own abortion.

No, it would have to be first degree, because it was a premeditated murder. The mother planned it in advance. Also would be infanticide.
All abortions are premeditated.  1 in 6 women have gotten a premeditated abortion.  If you know 60 women, 10 of them about got a premeditated abortion.  But I don’t support making the penalty for abortion life in jail or the death penalty because it’s not pragmatic.

Again, not telling women not to have sex, I am just saying be smart about it and not be reckless with it.
It is possible (and happens a lot) where you follow every rule for consensual sex and still end up pregnant.  Birth control reduces abortions; it doesn’t eliminate them.  YOU shouldn’t be having recreational sex.