Will a European-style abortion law please pro-life voters?

[Aufan59 80]

9 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I'll leave this one recent post on the board since you are being very reasonable in this discussion.

You say that as though the unborn human being climbed in there by him or herself, like a squatter in a California house.

That's not what happened.

Statistically speaking, the mother almost certainly voluntarily engaged in an activity that she was fully aware could result in the creation of another human being.  If we're talking about an exception to that statistical probability, we can treat that differently, but for the vast, vast majority of cases, she's directly responsible for the human being existing in the first place and needing her body to survive (and yes, the father does too, but he has no ability to decide to kill the unborn human, so that's why I'm leaving him out.)

You don't get to create a child and then refuse to feed or clothe it and claim it has no right to "use" your finances.  And that even goes for the father who has no legal choice about whether to kill the child by abortion.  Currently the mother gets to decide, then the father is legally forced to pay for her decision.  Talk about being anti-choice.  But I digress...

You don't get to create a child and then refuse to feed or clothe it on the basis that it has no right to "use" your finances.  So why should you be able to create a child and then claim it has no right to "use" your body?  You created it, now you have an obligation to be responsible for it.  That legal obligation exists after the child is born.  Why shouldn't it exist before the child is born?

I reject the notion that people are entitled to engage in behavior that they know can result in pregnancy and then refuse responsibility for the pregnancy.  I wouldn't care if that didn't result in a dead human being, but it does, every time.

And I can't think of another legal precedent in which someone can cause something to happen and escape responsibility for it unless they were mentally disabled when they caused it (or forced to do so).  You drive drunk knowing that you could kill someone—you didn't intend to, but you knew it was a possibility—you go to prison for vehicular homicide.  You rob a bank and someone has a heart attack and dies, you get charged with felony murder.  You didn't intend for anyone to die, but you set the chain of events into motion, you're responsible.

Why in this case should parents not be held responsible for the chain of events they knowingly set in motion?

A mother can legally give up all obligation to their child through safe haven laws and adoption.  So yes, you can legally create a child and refuse to feed or clothe it. 

Your examples about consequences of your actions are when committing a crime, consensual sex is not a crime.

 

Finally, and the real question that hasn’t been answered, what does the consent of the mother have to do with the rights of the person in the womb?  Why is it an “exception” that we can “treat differently”?  

In my opinion there is no exception, a person conceived of rape has the same rights as a person conceived through consensual sex.   How can a person’s rights be so arbitrary, that they are taken away because of the actions of a third party?  

 

[Aufan59 80]

Any conservatives here willing to take a swing at this?  Do people conceived of rape have fewer rights than those conceived of consensual sex?