Mom Charged with Assault on Her UNBORN Baby: Will Pro-Choice Advocates be Outraged?

In Tennessee last week, a 26-year-old was charged for assaulting her unborn child. See the full story here:

Under the state’s new law if a baby is harmed or found addicted to drugs due to the mother’s drug use during pregnancy, the mother can be charged for assault on the fetus. In this case the mother used methamphetamines 3-4 days before giving birth.

One sees an obvious curiosity—if it’s true what pro-choicers contend for, that a fetus’ right to life isn’t protected until it is born, then why should this 26-year-old meth user be charged for assault?

This case is a perfect example of using what can be called, “The Common Sense Test.” It’s common sense that pregnant women shouldn’t willfully subject a fetus to harm. In fact 35 states recognize a fetus as a homicide victim, but oddly they don’t apply the same logic to abortions. That means if a pregnant woman and her doctor are both in their cars on the way to his abortion clinic and the doctor runs a red light, T-bones the car belonging to the pregnant woman killing the fetus… the doctor can be charged for fetal homicide. If he kills the fetus in his clinic…the doctor can not be charged for homicide because the law says that he hasn’t done anything wrong. This violates the common sense test.

Mallory-loyola

If Pro-choice advocates are going to stay consistent in their beliefs they should be outraged by the charge of the Tennessee woman. The problem is now, are they going to support pregnant women who want to do drugs? There is no way out of this dilemma for pro-choicers without violating common sense and the moral code that is within every human being.

If it is wrong and illegal to subject a fetus to drugs, or to kill a fetus in a car accident, then it is absolutely wrong to willfully kill a fetus on an operating table.

 

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
38 replies
  1. Stephen B says:

    “One sees an obvious curiosity—if it’s true what pro-choicers contend for, that a fetus’ right to life isn’t protected until it is born…”

    I don’t know many pro-choicers who argue for the right to abort after 22 weeks or so. This woman was taking meth far beyond that, so I don’t see this as an ‘obvious curiosity’.

    Interestingly, last year a Catholic hospital had to issue an apology after it (successfully) defended itself against a wrongful death lawsuit involving unborn twins in Colorado by arguing that fetuses don’t count as people.

    Reply
      • Stephen says:

        Perhaps, Gil, but I don’t know any pro-choicers who support abortion after 22 weeks or so. If the fetus is endangering the life of the mother, or it’s going to die anyway, then it’s obviously a different matter, but that doesn’t apply to the Mom being charged above, so the point stands.

        “The problem is now, are they going to support pregnant women who want to do drugs?”

        Speaking for myself, I am very much against moms smoking through pregnancy, as when the child is born he or she may well suffer health consequences caused by that smoking. I don’t see any inconsistency here with my pro-choice position. If a fetus is aborted then there’s never a child to suffer those health consequences.

        Reply
          • Stephen B says:

            Using that logic you could say the ultimate harm would be not conceiving the child in the first place, as then it would never exist at all. I take it you don’t think deliberately childless couples or celibate people should be charged with denying countless children their existence.

            I object to harming a child IN ADVANCE. It’s the child who I see as suffering. I don’t see killing a pre-20 week semester fetus as equivalent to killing a child. As in our previous discussion, I understand that you disagree with me on this fairly fundamental issue. And I’m not trying to change your mind on this issue – I’m just explaining why I disagree that there’s a contradiction in this view and, say, believing mums should smoke while pregnant.

          • Stephen B says:

            Thanks Gil, but that link isn’t helpful – it says nothing about the circumstances in which the senators are in favour of permitting late-term abortion. If it’s in circumstances where the child is going to die anyway and/or the mother’s life is in danger, then again I see no conflict between this position and prosecuting a mother who endangers a nine-month old fetus through drug-taking.

            But the link sheds no light either way. It’s heavy on outrage and light on facts.

          • Stephen B says:

            Gil, having read up on this it seems my initial suspicions were correct. A nay on this bill could mean even if the birth was going to kill both baby AND mother, such that abortion was the only way to save the mother’s life, doctors would simply have to let her die.

            From what I’ve just read, some claim that allowances would still be made for such situations, but others are also disputing that. Either way, your link went into none of these details, and it obviously isn’t as cut and dried as it would need to be to support your argument.

            I don’t even see this as a pro-choice vs pro-life issue, as the bill could force a situation where death is more likely.

            As a side note, the link you provided was particularly partisan in that it doesn’t mention in its text that, according to its cut/pasted graphic, a few GOP senators voted for the bill too, and despite the claim that every Democrat voted for it, I can see at least one D (Reid) in the Nay camp and another who abstained. This is just a side-note, though – it’s possible I’m simply not reading that table correctly.

          • Toby says:

            Reid often has to vote nay for procedural reasons. Something to do with being able to bring it up for a vote again or something.

  2. Luke says:

    I’m going to go for brevity so that the author doesn’t make fun of me again. 🙂

    I. A lot of people are against this law. I feel safe saying that the medical community is almost unanimously against it. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, March of Dimes, and many more such associations are against this (I’ll post a link in another comment). The reason is that they believe that this law, when looked at with common sense, makes things worse for babies. Let’s just take that as an assumption for now, sir. Accepting that assumption, do you reject this law?

    II. If I am reading it correctly. The author seems to be saying that if one believes it is okay to kill someone or something, then that person then has no grounds to object to assaulting or otherwise mistreating that someone or something. Do I have that right? If so, it seems that the author believes that prohibitions on any kind of torture of death-row inmates (after a last appeal, at least) is just fine, for example. As another example, I live in part of the country where hunting is quite popular. We have no problem with someone going out and shooting a deer (within certain public safety limits and regulations). That said, we would be horrified if that hunter, instead of shooting a dear, decided to just slowly torture it. Or even just cut off a leg, then cauterized the wound, and released the animal. Is the author arguing that we just all lack common sense and we should celebrate the deer torturer as we do the hunter?

    III. The author said: “if it’s true what pro-choicers contend for, that a fetus’ right to life isn’t protected until it is born…” This is at the very best poorly written and sloppy. A minority of the pro-choice movement would agree with this statement, and in reality probably a pretty small one (a minority of those who support very late-term abortions, support them even when there is no medical reason whatsoever; most of these cases involve fetuses with developmental problems). We can look to polling to look at the general trends in views. Many companies ask about people’s views on abortion by trimester. For example, a USA Today/Gallup pol from December 2012 found that 61% believed abortion should be legal in the first trimester, then number goes down by more than half, to 27% for second trimester pregnancies, and down to 14% for the third. Other polls may find slightly different numbers, but the pattern is there in each one. It’s really hard to say that “pro-choicers” believe this statement, when some 56% of them think abortions in the second trimester should be generally illegal and 77% believe the same for the third trimester! “These people believe X, even though some 77% of them disagree with X” is not exactly a sensible thing to say, yet it is what the author tells us. A quick look at the author’s link to back this up shows us that few of the clinics mention anything about abortions in the third trimester (i.e. specifically cut off how far into a pregnancy they will abort), and those that do say nothing about doing it for any reason whatsoever (which would be required for the author’s statement about deserving no protection to be true).

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
  3. Gil Gatch says:

    “If I am reading it correctly. The author seems to be saying that if one believes it is okay to kill someone or something, then that person then has no grounds to object to assaulting or otherwise mistreating that someone or something. Do I have that right?”

    Luke. No one believes that it is ok to kill someone unless they are a murderer. That’s the point of the article.

    As in the example I wrote in the article above, if a person can be charged for killing a fetus in a car accident or charged for assaulting a fetus with drugs in the womb, how can assaulting a fetus with drugs or surgical tools in a operating room be different? It’s not different. Abortion is as wrong as the other forms of murder or assault and for the same reason–that it is harmful or detrimental to a human being.

    Reply
  4. Luke says:

    The charge has long been made against the pro-life community, or Republican politicians specifically, that they only care about the fetus until it’s born. An argument can certainly be made about this, which some will find persuasive and others won’t. Regarding the border crisis that has been in the news, one could say “how can you say you care about protecting life, as you advocate that children who have managed to escape horrific levels of gang violence be sent right back into that violence, knowing some of them will surely die?”

    I’m pro-life, and it’s certainly a question I have. I remember reading Matthew: when I was hungry, you gave me food. When I was thirsty, you have me drink. When I was naked, you clothed me. When I escaped terrible violence, you sent me right back to it. Or maybe that’s not quite right… I realize I’m in a big minority here (on both sides of the political isle), but this all strikes me as utterly insane.

    I know that this is off topic. I suppose I’m just venting a bit. But I wonder what kind of America we want our great grandchildren to read about. The one that took in children who were in danger, or the one that rejected them? I know which one I’d be more proud of. Who among us is still not sickened by the way we turned our back on so many Jewish refugees in the 20th century? Why do we want to do that again?

    /offtopic

    Luke

    Reply
    • Louie says:

      Luke:
      I agree it is all a tredgedy; but, where is the line drawn? Do we take all African, Asian, and so on’s children also? At some point, our entire nation is weakened, right? At some point, we will no longer be able to care for our own. Another bible verse says that “he who does not provide for his family is worse in the eyes of God than a non-believer” (1 Timothy 5:8). Are we empowering people to abandon their children? If we are empowering people to abandon their childred, then we are guiltier of the greater trechory. This is a vicious circle. In the end, I think you help people, but you do not lift them of the burden completely, or you end up with users/abusers of the system. Look at the USA and the people using/abusing the unemployment system if you need an example.

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        Louie,

        I think some of the concerns you raise may have some legitimacy, but let’s look at them and your questions.

        Louie asked: “where is the line drawn?”

        If it must be drawn somewhere, I think we need a good reason to draw it in a certain place. It seems to me poor decision making to say “look, we’ll have to draw a line somewhere, so we might as well do it here.” In other words, I’m not worried about where it will eventually be drawn; I’m worried about whether it should be drawn here and now. Does that make sense?

        Louie said: At some point, we will no longer be able to care for our own.

        Perhaps. but perhaps not. Many economists who have looked at the issue believe that totally open borders would actually grow the economy for everyone and make everyone better off. So I don’t think we can just assume this will somehow be bad for us. (This takes a very low view, I think, of people who are a reflection of G-d. People have positive value and we should not just think and assume they will drain resources like parasites.)

        (Also, I’m not a big proponent of dividing G-d’s people into us and them. All of our brothers and sisters are “our own”. It’s silly to me, personally, to look at someone born 5 miles from me as “my own” and someone born 25 miles away as “theirs. Does that make sense?)

        Again, the economic argument is as good as the theological one here though. There’s just no good reason to expect this, and certainly not over the current refugees from violence.

        Louie wrote: “Another bible verse says that “he who does not provide for his family is worse in the eyes of G-d than a non-believer” (1 Timothy 5:8).

        It actually says something like “especially” for those in his household. Failing to take care of those non in our household is also a topic of this verse. Matthew 25 just mentions taking care of others, like so many other verses.

        But even if we count this as valid concern, which I’m willing to do. We are not at that point right now. Maybe we will be there tomorrow, but as a famous man once said: “Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Today has enough trouble of its own.”

        Shouldn’t we worry about today’s trouble and responding properly to that? We’ll worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

        Louie asked: “Are we empowering people to abandon their children?”

        I think this is a valid concern, but it’s not as if these kids are just coming here because our summer camps are better. There parents are, for the most part, doing their best to get them away from the unquestionably terrible and murderous violence that is facing them. What would you do in these circumstances? What if it were your children and they could leave, but you couldn’t?

        It may be abandonment, but that may not be the best word for it. Does a father who puts his children on the life boat of a sinking ship, but stays behind as there is no room for him abandon his children, or does he give them a chance?

        (Also, I believe that most of these children are placed with family in the US. I think the fact that they have family here singles them out as targets back in places like Honduras. I’ve heard personal stories of this, but I don’t know aggregated statistics, but I believe this is the case. So this is usually sending them off to live with their aunt, more than putting them on a train with no plan.)

        I’ll stop there, but will be glad to answer any other questions.

        (PS, perhaps in the spirit of full disclosure, I should say that I am myself a political refugee in the United States. It’s hard to imagine this doesn’t fill me with some bias.)

        Thanks,

        Luke

        Reply
      • Louie says:

        Luke:
        I’ll keep my response short. I would take care of my own kids, or die trying. As for helping them, I would help them, but not by taking them. This is the KJV verse “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Those children were given to them by God, and they need to take care of them. Help them take care of them, and ween them until they are self sufficient. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and he is fed forever. I don’t know where the line is either, but there is a line somewhere.

        Reply
        • Luke says:

          Louie,

          The verse is as I said, it says ‘specially’ or especially those of your own house. It does not say “forget everyone but those in your house”. (I’m not saying this was your view, I’m just trying to be clear.) Again, there are many, many, many, many verses that talk about what we should give, and to not hoard riches for ourselves.

          You said: ” Those children were given to them by God, and they need to take care of them. “

          Many of these children are having their lives threatened and the violence is very real. The statistics are quite horrific. If you felt that your child would likely die and you had a chance to send them someplace safe, wouldn’t doing that BE taking care of them?

          “I’m going to keep you here where the bullets are flying” doesn’t seem like a good option either, does it?

          Louie said: “Those children were given to them by God, and they need to take care of them.”

          I dunno; I mean we tend to like adoption, don’t we? I’d rather be an abandoned kid rather than a dead one (and as I said, most of them do go to family).

          Louie said: ” Help them take care of them, and ween them until they are self sufficient. “

          This isn’t so much a question of resources as violence, though the former is certainly part of it. Still, it’s hard to ween them from the violence by sending them back to it, don’t you think?

          Louie said: “I don’t know where the line is either, but there is a line somewhere.”

          I’m sure you agree that this isn’t a strong argument for “the line should be here”.

          I’ll give you the last word if you wish to say anything, though will be glad to answer any questions.

          I will say one more thing about the ‘abandoning parents’ argument. I find the line “these kids have terrible parents who abandoned them; let’s send the kids back to their terrible parents” lacking in coherence. I’m not saying this is what you’ve said, but I’ve heard and seen many say much the same thing over the last week.

          Thanks for the conversation,

          Luke

          Reply
        • Louie says:

          Luke:
          Hoard riches? You mean like the 16T debt in riches? I’m not going to bother responding to all your points. I believe in taking responsibility for all you do, instead of burdening society with them. You seem more interested in providing people “outs” than for people taking responsibility. You are correct about the verse though, and the verse is for the PARENTS. Take care of your children, or you are worse than a non believer. Its EASY to make excuses, its hard to do whats right. God gave them these kids to provide for, and to educate, and it is THEIR responsibility to make sure God gets them back. So stop making it easy for them to side step this obligation they have to God, or it becomes your sin that is greater than theirs. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, because I am unwilling to budge on this topic. Catch you later.

          Reply
          • Luke says:

            Louie,

            I am happy to agree to disagree. You did ask two questions, so I’ll answer those in order to be respectful of you and your time.

            Louie asked:Hoard riches?

            Yes, this is one thing the Bible warns about quite a bit (though not always using those exact words. Jesus was pretty clear. Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

            There is a tremendous wealth in this country.

            Louie asked:You mean like the 16T debt in riches?

            I actually wasn’t referring to anything in particular, but simply stating what the Bible said. So the proper question, would be ‘does the Bible mean like…’) But since you asked me: no, this is not what I mean at all. (I’m not sure why debt would be considered riches, honestly.) There is tremendous wealth in our country. This 16T debt figure, which you’ve cited, is rather a funny way of putting it — and technically incorrect. There is a difference between having debt and being in debt. I can have a debt of $1,000,000 on my $2,000,000 house, and not be in debt, for example. (My house is much nicer than this of course, because while I know what Jesus said, I am way, way too big of a coward to actually do it. #sinner as the kids would say.)

            I hope that helps.

            Thanks,

            Luke

  5. Luke says:

    The author said: “No one believes that it is ok to kill someone unless they are a murderer.”

    Of course may people do!

    Maybe you don’t believe that, but to apply it to everyone around you? I’ll just say that’s very Pollyannaish, but also that I think that’s wonderful.

    Look, I’m glad you’re a pacifist, anti death-penalty, and all of that. I even find your rejection of self -defense admirable (and so Sermon on the Mount!). The world needs people like you. But the reason we need people like you, is that most people disagree.

    Still, it’s always nice to chat with people who think Harry S. Truman was a mass-murdered. I’m glad to have made your acquaintance. I bet you are great fun at afternoon tea. 🙂

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
    • Gil Gatch says:

      Luke. You’re just playing word games now. If someone kills another person in self-defense, in capital punishment, or in the theater of war, that’s the taking of a life in a totally different context than when we go inside a womb of a pregnant woman.

      You are making the point more obvious…the one thing that the fetus does NOT have that all the others DO have is a choice in the matter of their life or death. Someone killed in a self-defense response had a choice to burglarize or attack another to put themselves in harm’s way. Someone executed in capital punishment had a choice to commit the crime worthy of the verdict. Someone killed in war had a choice to enroll in the armed forces.

      A fetus has no choice when we kill her. She has no vote in making the law that protects those who kill her, and she has no opportunity to make her case that she wants to live. That, Luke, is tragic, evil, wicked, and wrong. I’m sure you are just a little bit thankful that you have the opportunity to share your opinions on this blog. Millions upon millions of others will never have that same opportunity… and we somehow find the audacity to argue and petition to allow the killing of millions more. It’s unbelievable.

      Reply
  6. Luke says:

    The author said: “Luke. You’re just playing word games now.

    No, I just took you at your word. I’m sorry you wrote something other than what you meant.

    The author said: “You are making the point more obvious…the one thing that the fetus does not have that all the others DO have is a choice in the matter of their life or death… Someone killed in war had a choice to enroll in the armed forces.

    You may say I am playing word games again, but this is plainly ridiculous. I mentioned Harry S. Truman… do you really believed that all the people that died in Hiroshima were in the armed forced? Look, the United States famously decided against dropping leaflets warning civilians of what was coming. (The vast majority of historians believe this was for 2 reasons, they were worried it may not work, and wanted to maximize the psychological damage.)

    Do you honestly believe that the 28 children killed in Gaza by the current war there had a choice (UN provided casualty figures)? Honestly?

    The author said: “A fetus has no choice when we kill her. She has no vote in making the law that protects those who kill her, and she has no opportunity to make her case that she wants to live. That, Luke, is tragic, evil, wicked, and wrong.”</b?

    Sir, what in the world have I said that makes you believe that I think anything but this? (Seriously!)

    Let me ask you:

    1. Do you think it is okay to hunt and kill deer?
    2. Do you think it’s okay to maim and torture them?

    1. Do you think it’s okay to execute death row inmates?
    2. Do you think it’s okay to maim and torture them?

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
  7. Luke says:

    (To clarify, the concern was that the atomic bomb would not detonate, not that the leaflets would have no effect. Sorry for the severe lack of clarity.)

    Reply
  8. Gil Gatch says:

    Luke. I wrote what a meant in the context of our conversation. You are hijacking terms and also showing us a perfect example Red Herring distractions. If the future if I post an article about Just War Theory and the ethics involved, this conversation will be appropriate. Otherwise it’s a false analogy to compare casualties of war to aborted babies.

    The correct analogy is in my initial post which I will refer to again to steer us back on topic. If a doctor can be convicted of infant homicide when he causes a car accident that kills a fetus, then the doctor should convicted of the same crime when he purposefully kills the fetus in an operating room. That’s all. It’s as simple as that.

    Reply
    • Luke says:

      Gil,

      The author said: ” You are hijacking terms and also showing us a perfect example Red Herring distractions.”

      Sir, since you’ve been unwilling to simply answer the few questions I have asked, I will simply give you the last word. Yes, I’d love to know where you stand on deer torture, but if you don’t want to tell me, I’m happy to let this secret die with you.

      I’m sorry if you feel it’s a red herring. If you DO think that it’s sometimes okay to kill someone, even when they have no choice, then DON’T say that it’s ONLY okay to kill someone if they had a choice. I don’t understand why I’m being accused of things, when you are the ones who writes things you don’t mean. That’s life I guess.

      The author said: “If a doctor can be convicted of infant homicide when he causes a car accident that kills a fetus, then the doctor should convicted of the same crime when he purposefully kills the fetus in an operating room. That’s all. It’s as simple as that.”

      Are you saying the dr. as driver intended to cause the accident and kill the fetus? Surely he did intend to kill it in the operating room. I see one as negligent, the other as purposeful. Do you agree? Why should this be the same crime?

      Look sir, I absolutely agree with you on the substance. I question what good it does and why you seek to lash out at me when I am on your side. Notice, you have not once told me WHY I am wrong. You’ve simply accused me of playing word games and presenting red herrings, but you’ve ignored my questions and said not a word about why and how I am wrong. The only reason I made a comment was to try to help you and help myself form a stronger argument, one that is convincing and not easily refuted. What good is your strategy of ignoring my questions and going after me in the long run? Do your arguments get better? No! You seem to think that because I agree with you, I should love your weak arguments as much as your strong ones. That sort of thinking does nothing but put us in the fast lane to eipstemic closure and many years of lost arguments because we didn’t care enough to refine them properly.

      Thanks,

      Luke

      Reply
  9. Jon says:

    Gil said: “If Pro-choice advocates are going to stay consistent in their beliefs they should be outraged by the charge of the Tennessee woman.”
    I don’t think you understand main stream pro-choice position. Like Stephen pointed out most pro-choicers support abortion right up to about 22 weeks, but not after that.

    Gil regarding “The Common Sense Test” and the doctor runs a red light killing the fetus;
    You need to add women’s rights to the equation and suddenly you pass the “The Common Sense Test”

    Reply
    • Gil Gatch says:

      Jon the fact that “most pro-choicers” don’t support abortion after 22 weeks doesn’t change the illogical reasoning for abortions they support before 22 weeks. As if something magical happens at the closing seconds of the 21st week… 5, 4, 3, 2, 1… NOW the fetus is a human, or an individual, or a life worth protecting all of a sudden. If an abortion had happened just a few seconds earlier then would it be ok? Then would it be different? No. Your comment is a very common one used by the majority of pro-choicers, but it elucidates the contradictory nature of their (your) reasoning.

      An abortion that takes place seconds after 22 weeks is no different that abortion seconds before, weeks before, or months before 22 weeks. It’s no different seconds after conception. That’s the position of most pro-choicers is inconsistent. The only consistent position would be to advocate abortions at all times before birth.

      Reply
      • Stephen B says:

        “As if something magical happens at the closing seconds of the 21st week.”

        It’s generally the pro-lifers who believe there’s a ‘magical’ moment where it’s not life one moment and us life the next, so it’s curious that you’d hold this idea up to ridicule.

        I’ve pointed out before other examples where a sharp point is drawn legally between one state and another. In most states you can’t buy liquor before 21 and can after. No-one pretends something magical happens on the 21st birthday – that they’re not responsible before and are seconds later.

        I see the passage from adolescence into adulthood as a continuum. That we legally draw a line somewhere doesn’t invalidate this notion. The existence of dusk doesn’t mean there’s no difference between night and day, as the old saying goes.

        There’s a huge difference between an 8-week old fetus and a 39-week old fetus. Now, you’ve made it clear that the two still share all the important similarities such that they’re both equally human and deserving of being brought to term. So there’s a crucial difference of opinion there between you and the average pro-choicer.

        But that’s where the difference lies. Your argument above appears to ignore that difference. I’m not saying you have to accept that pro-choice position as being true; I’m saying that that position explains what you see as an inconsistency.

        Similarly, pro-choicers often fail to realise that virtually all pro-life positions they find appalling also stem logically from that same crucial difference of view.

        Reply
      • Jon says:

        Gil, what happens around 22-24 weeks is that fetus can survive outside the womb. At that point it does not necessary need to rely on mother. So before 22 weeks woman has the right to share/not share here nutrition/body. Just like if you get kidnapped and connected to an unconscious person with heart failure to keep him alive. To me nobody else has right to use your body against your will to keep a third party alive. So an abortion that takes place after 22 weeks is different that abortion before 22 weeks.

        Can you please explain what rights women should have if any? What about ectopic pregnancies or cases of rape of 10 year olds where full term pregnancy will likely kill the mother. What is your view of those cases?

        Reply
  10. Luke says:

    Yesterday the author wrote: “if it’s true what pro-choicers contend for, that a fetus’ right to life isn’t protected until it is born”

    Today the author wrote: “Jon the FACT that “most pro-choicers” don’t support abortion after 22 weeks doesn’t change the illogical reasoning for abortions they support before 22 weeks.” (emphasis added)

    Reply
    • Gil Gatch says:

      Luke.

      Do pro-choicers support abortions after 22 weeks? YES.

      Do pro-choicers support abortions before (and only before) 22 weeks? YES.

      Does that distinction make a difference? NO.

      Reply
      • Stephen B says:

        “Does that distinction make a difference? NO.”

        It’s an important distinction in that it invalidates your argument that there should be no difference for a pro-choicer between aborting a fetus and damaging a fetus through drug use. There IS a distinction for a pro-choicer if he/she doesn’t support abortion after 22 weeks.

        Then your argument becomes about saying life doesn’t arrive on a continuum (as many pro-choicers believe it does), rather than saying there’s an inconsistency between accepting abortion at 22 weeks and prosecuting a mom for taking drugs when the fetus is 39 weeks or so old.

        Reply
  11. Luke says:

    Just to point out, the “FACT” that the author mentions above is technically correct, but it would be more correct to say that “most pro-choice advocates don’t support abortion after about the 14th week (first trimester)” which is something I provided citation for above. Yes, obviously this means they also would not support it being generally legal after 22 weeks, since majority support ends at the first trimester.

    /wordgamesorsomething

    Reply
  12. Luke says:

    The author said: ““Does that distinction make a difference? NO.”

    Stephen said: “It’s an important distinction in that it invalidates your argument that there should be no difference for a pro-choicer between aborting a fetus and damaging a fetus through drug use. There IS a distinction for a pro-choicer if he/she doesn’t support abortion after 22 weeks.”

    Exactly. This invalidates much of the argument!

    I would say that while there may may still be a distinction for those who believe abortion is okay after 22. But I can offer that if anyone is actually interested.

    I should point out again, that the majority of pro-choice advocates, according to polling data, do not support generally legal abortion after the 12th or 14th week (after the first trimester).

    I’d like to say to the author though: It does not do much good for you to simply say this distinction makes no difference!

    Sure, there may be some out there who say, “well, if Mr. Gil says so, it must be true!” but most people won’t. What you should really say is: “The distinction makes no difference BECAUSE” followed by some logically valid reasons.

    (You should do this because people, especially those who disagree with you, tend to not simply trust the word of those who have not yet earned their trust. The truth is, because they disagree, they will often find ways to dismiss even the good arguments, but unlike simply telling them “it is so!” offering good arguments at least gives you a chance!)

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
  13. toby says:

    I think fetal homicide laws and a law that allows this woman to be charged with assault are ridiculous. As a part of my job I run drug testing on loads of people including prenatal women and sometimes see that these women have been taking drugs (most often pot which is pretty much innocuous) but sometimes other nasty things like meth and opiates. We know that drugs can be harmful to the development of a baby, but we also know that addiction is a rough disease to overcome. I’m on the side of eliminating the drug war and treating addiction as a public health issue rather than a penal one. I’m not for legalizing the really nasty drugs like meth or heroin, but I also don’t think people should face jail time for curiosity/experimentation or full-on addictive problems. So as a pro-choice medical professional I look at this slightly differently.

    I’m all for a woman having the option of late term abortions in cases of severe fetal abnormality such as trisomy 18. And any case in which a woman would have to go through birth to deliver a dead baby. Any time a woman might die in birth. You know . . . I pretty much don’t care what the reason is because it’s not something that will effect me. That’s something that’ll derail this conversation, but it’s true. It effects me as much as gay marriage . . . which is nothing times ten. Abort away. that’s a decision between a woman and her doctor and her conscience. Its as simple as that. If you don’t want to have an abortion, then don’t. But don’t stop someone else because they don’t believe in your brand of supernatural strangeness. I’m really surprised that we haven’t heard of a lawsuit against pro-lifers regarding patient confidentiality. It’s a woman’s decision to do as she sees fit and that should be private.

    This is all very funny coming from people who’s god once told people to dash the babies of their enemies on rocks and rip them from the bellies of pregnant women. God, the ultimate abortionist. Think of all those fertilized eggs that never implant and pass right on through. Oh, but that’s okay, because he did it.

    These laws are ludicrous, but what do you expect from the state that brought you Dollywood? And such great musical acts as Toby Keith and Billy Ray Cyrus.

    Reply
    • Terry L says:

      These laws are ludicrous, but what do you expect from the state that brought you Dollywood? And such great musical acts as Toby Keith and Billy Ray Cyrus.

      Ok… as a life-long Tennesseean, I have to object here! Dollywood actually has some good rollercoasters!

      As for Billy Ray and Miley, well, that’s just evidence that Tennessee is part of a fallen world! 😀

      Reply
  14. Robert says:

    Atheist women use birth control and are selective about who they sleep with. Atheists are not getting abortions. Christian women are getting abortions. The abortion rate in the Bible Belt is twice the national average. So the hypocrisy of the anti-choice group is off the charts and gone into orbit. A Christian woman once told me that, “It’s okay for me to get an abortion but these other women aren’t as smart as me.” THAT is the attitude we’re dealing with here.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *