Welcome to Gaia! ::

Otherwise known as defense of infancy, is a criminal defense that states that a person under the ACR(6-10, depending on the state) cannot be held accountable for committing a crime. Basically, they cannot be convicted for anything.

Now, this brings me to a question: can someone under the ACR be subject to self-defense? This is something I haven't been able to find specific information on. And although it is difficult to find a situation where a child could be in a position where someone over the ACR would be subject to self-defense, it is possible. For instance, a property owner has every right to shoot an intruder, and it's considered self-defense. However, if the intruder happens to be someone who's obviously under the ACR, I doubt if he can shoot the child without facing trial. Again, I haven't been able to find specific information. And well, to keep this short, you can see how this relates to abortion.

Now for my next issue. As I've said before, in the event that the unborn are given personhood the only way to keep abortion legal is to illegalize being an unwanted fetus(or embryo). Now I'm doubting that would happen. Simply put, illegalizing something that nobody can possibly be convicted of doesn't really make sense to me. Especially when it wouldn't be a good deterrence anyways. And at that point, the only reason why it would be illegalize is just to give women the choice to abort.

You're thoughts pl/pc d?

It isn't about making the unborn stages of human development illegal. It isn't about unborn humans not having consciousness.

It is about women retaining control over their bodies even while pregnant. No born human has the right to use another's body against their will. Making abortion illegal gives unborn humans this right.

It isn't about it being a crime. It is about needing permission from the owner of the body to use that body. Without that permission, immediate removal is necessary.

I am rather of the opinion that unborn humans will gain the legal status of person at about the same time it is possible to remove them immediately at any stage without harming them. Which will, of course, end the entire debate for almost everyone.

And many choicers DO claim that the fetus is breaking a law or commiting a crime by existing. You don't have to look too far. I'll givey ou a hint, there's one on this subforum...

And no human should have the right to force death on someone just for their own sake.
A fetus isn't a born human and it can't help it that it uses the womans body temperarly, it didn't even ask to exist. So why would it need permission to exist or not when it had no choice or say in the matter at all?

How is immediate removal necessary or justified?

We may not agree on everything but one thing we do agree on is that fetus is not a criminal, how can it be when it's not even born yet?

Do people seriously think a fetus is a criminal? If they do, I really like to know how an unborn child can be a criminal.

Technically, it's her right of privacy that allows her to abort. You should study Roe vs Wade, you can find some interesting tidbits. Anyways, abortion isn't just removal, the fetus will probably die from it. Rights exist until it can harm someone innocent, then they are suspended for the time.

That's true. But, from my persepective, since no born person has the right to use the body of another person against their will, no unborn person (if unborn humans were given the legal status of personhood - thus I will say "unborn person" as this theoretically has already happened for the hypothesis of this thread) would gain that right either.
Well no, non-pregnant women would have the right to deny use of their body to anyone, which would be lost when they get pregnant, if abortion was illegal.
In my opinion, this would be more a case similar to not donating life saving organs or marrow, that of just killing someone because one feels like it.

The unborn person would need the use of the uterus, and the use of the woman's nutrients. The woman doesn't wish to be pregnant or to give those things to the unborn person. The only way to stop this is to remove the unborn person, which results in their death if viability hasn't yet been reached.
Good point.
Well, yes. But most pregnant women choose to keep their pregnancies. However, for women who don't want to remain pregnant, telling them that pregnancy usually doesn't have many complications isn't really the best of ideas. *wink*
Who knows, though. Things are changing very quickly on all sorts of fronts (both medical and legal) and it is hard to tell what will be brought about first: ways to keep unborn humans alive outside of the womb (at least briefly) or the status of legal person for unborn humans.

That is true, Roe v. Wade was eventually decided on the Right to Privacy. But the majority of Pro-Choicers (that I know of, at least) believe that it falls more correctly under the Right to Bodily Integrity.
I don't know about that. There are plenty of rights that lead to harming people that didn't do anything wrong. If someone runs out directly in front of my car, and it is shown that I had no time to stop, even though that person might be hurt or killed, I would still not be punished. I can choose not to donate blood, even though someone out there might die because of a lack of my blood type. Corporations have the right to pay their employees the minimum wage, even though some families would suffer because they can't afford their basic necessities. Heck, if we look into mental harm, churches have the right to deny membership to anyone, and the right to not marry couples - that could be considered harm.

There are plenty of actions that lead to the harming of innocents that aren't illegal.

@ divineseraph :: No need to apologize. biggrin But yes, the argument does appear pretty often. I've heard it too many times to count in the abortion debate threads in the ED.

@ Conren :: I haven't been able to find a source that has the full case of Roe vs Wade. Do you know where I can find it? I really would love to study it.
Anyway: That isn't necessarily true. Many rights we have, we can use even if it harms someone else. But I'm familiar with your point.
But if a fetus is considered a person, can its actions [inhabiting and using the mother's body against her wishes] be considered crimes? Of course it can't be charged with them, but would they still be crimes?
(Oh jeez, here comes the whole debate from the other thread again. Haha, sweatdrop .)

@ Tiger of the Fire :: I think that'll be a huge part of it, but another part will definitely end up involving bodily functions. Since the fetus has as little say in its development as the woman does in how her reproductive organs function at the time, can any crimes it could potentially commit be considered crimes?