Saturday, April 03, 2010

He made a choice. What's the difference?

Pharmacist charged after he allegedly forces girlfriend to miscarry

A pharmacist slipped the mother of his unborn child 3 doses of abortion drugs in different ways and thus succeeded in killing the 13-week baby.

Sayre police on Wednesday charged Orbin Eeli Tercero, 38, with criminal homicide of an unborn child, first-degree murder of an unborn child, aggravated assault of an unborn child, aggravated assault, hindering apprehension or prosecution, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.

Commenter jackiebass wrote:

There is a big difference between someone making a choice and what happened here.

Hello? HE MADE A CHOICE. The choice for a fetus -- his fetus -- to die. That's what an abortion choice is -- a choice for a fetus that you are the parent of to die. Why would anybody who defends abortion have a problem with this? If killing fetuses is an absolute right, then why should only one parent have the option? If, on the other hand, what he did was wrong, why?

If killing fetuses is just disposing of tissue, then the only legitimate beef the woman has is that he disposed of tissue she wanted. No different from walking into a science lab and flushing the contents of a petri dish down the toilet, right?

If, on the other hand, killing fetuses is killing somebody, why should it be an outrage if the father chooses it but a right if the mother chooses it?

More from jackiebass:

He did exactly what the the antiabortion people do. Impose his will and views on others.

No, he did what a prochoice person does and imposed his will on a fetus. Which is what being prochoice is all about -- the absolute right for a parent to impose their will on a fetus.

Yeah, usually y'all are all about the mother making the choice, but as I recall the prochoice movement backed Junior Davis, not Mary Sue Davis, in the frozen embryo case. They backed the parents who wanted the offspring dead. Even when it was the father that wanted them dead over the express wishes of the mother. If Junior Davis had a right to kill embryos he and Mary Sue had conceived together, then why did this guy not have a right to destroy an embryo he and the woman had conceived together?

Back to jackiebass:

These are the same people that don't want government making decisions for them but they want to make decisions for others based on their moral views.

Prolifers are opposed to the government, as well as individuals, deciding to kill helpless human beings. Prochoicers favor individuals, with government sanction, killing those human beings. This guy killed a human being who, thanks to prochoice efforts, is legally killable. It's exactly like what goes on in abortion clinics all the time.

People on both sides have a right to practice their beliefs but not to impose them on others.

Which is the prolife point. Parents do NOT have a right to impose their beliefs on their unborn children. It's the prochoice who assert that parents DO have a right to impose their beliefs on their unborn children. Which this guy did. He imposed his belief on his child, and the child's mother. Why is this something to celebrate if the MOTHER imposes her belief on her unborn child and thus also on the unborn child's father, who gets no say in the matter?

People that support abortion don't force others to have an abortion so why should it work the other way?

People that support abortion force the BABIES to DIE from abortions. That's about as severe a case of imposing your values and choices as it's possible to do.


Joe said...

People who oppose unborn human rights are perennially irrational.

Of course we are trying to impose beliefs. The question is, are those beliefs sound or not? If beliefs are sound, it is permissible to impose them. If I believe murder to be a crime and if that belief is true (it is), then I or anyone else may impose that belief through law.

It is so disingenuous for someone who supports the imposition of beliefs (and laws) in a hundred different areas to argue that we "cannot impose beliefs".

Would "Jackiebass" say that we cannot impose anti-rape beliefs on men? I doubt it.

It is absurd that we have to waste time refuting easily recognized fallacies such as the one offered by "Jackiebass". Unfortunately, the abortionists have always offered up an endless array of fallacies. They always have and always will. It is the nature of their movement and of the "arguments" with which they are forced to deal since their position is fundamentally unsound.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

Does jackiebass realise people are laughing AT him not WITH him?

Tonal Bliss said...

Very intelligent post, Christina. ^_^

Anonymous said...

Um, normally, I would agree with you. But I think the commentator had a point. The pro-choice position is about the choice of the mother. The mother did not have a choice in this case, rather the father imposed his choice on the mother without her consent. That seems to be the arguement at hand here.

Christina Dunigan said...

jackiebass wrote as if there was a difference between "a person making a choice" and this particular person making a choice.

But that's precisely what the man was doing. And if "a person making a choice" is okay, then "making a choice" is okay, right?

OperationCounterstrike said...

GG, one mo' time:

It's only ok to kill another person if that person is located inside your body.

Not if (s)he is located inside someone else's body. Then you need the other person's permission.

Tonal Bliss said...

I can't imagine what it would feel like to be a father who could not prevent the death of his own child. For good men, to be unable to protect your own children, especially from death, must be a horrible feeling.

This is part of the argument that Christina is arguing.

A woman can decide to either kill or keep alive her own child. A man cannot decide either one of these choices.

Those who use the bodily autonomy arguments are just being stupid. It has been proven wrong time after time. I've visited that argument one too many times.

OperationCounterstrike said...

SegaMon, yeah, it's sad when a woman decides she doesn't wanna grow your baby.

Like the song says: Ya can't always get watcha want.

Christina Dunigan said...

Gosh, OC, why doesn't that apply to the woman? How come she's entitled to get what she wants, no matter what the cost to anybody else, be it a father losing his child or a child losing its life?

OperationCounterstrike said...

GG, the woman is entitled to get what she wants because the offending fetus is located inside her body.

Next question?

Christina Dunigan said...

But why should that even matter? If her right to do as she pleases extends to the body of her fetus, then the fetus' right to do as IT pleases should extend likewise to the body of its mother. If we're making a "bodily autonomy" or "bodily integrity " argument, the claim of the fetus trumps the claim of the mother on multiple grounds:

1. Volition. Except in cases of rape, the woman consented to do what put the fetus there in the first place. And in NO case did the fetus of its own volition enter the mother's body. It was forced to be there by others.

2. Time span. The fetus is only making a temporary use of the mother's body. The mother is seeking to deny the fetus permanent use of his own body.

3. Extent of claim. The fetus is only in the mother's body because it is a natural function of her body to create and nurture the fetus. The mother is insisting on an artificial and permanent violation of the natural progress of the maturation of the fetus.

4. Damage to other. The mother is perfectly capable of carrying out most normal activities during pregnancy; she is not, except in rare cases, incapacitated. But she is seeking to totally destroy the fetus.

5. Permanence. Pregnancy is a temporary state. Death is permanent.

So the fetus is, due to somebody else's actions, making natural and temporary use of the woman's body in a way consistent with her body's natural functions. The woman is seeking to inflict permanent and irreversible damage -- death -- to the fetus.

The bodily integrity claims of the fetus are much more reasonable than the bodily integrity claims of the mother.

OperationCounterstrike said...

GG, those objections don't make any difference. If something is inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed. The only exception would be if you give someone WHO IS ALREADY ALIVE permission to enter your body, then you would be obligated to let him leave. There are no other exceptions.

Christina Dunigan said...

The fetus IS alive. Its live began inside the woman's body, due to her own actions which she undertook knowing full well that the creation of a new human being was possible.

Again, the fetus is an innocent party here, who is where other people put him, through no action of his own volition, asking nothing more than to be left alone for a few months. The woman is insisting that he be dismembered simply because she prefers this to having him be alive.

It's a totally unreasonable demand.

OperationCounterstrike said...

The fetus is alive, AFTER conception. Not before. Not when the "invitation" is issued.

If you invite an already-living person into your body, that person GIVES UP something by accepting your invitation. He gives up the rights and privileges he was enjoying by being outside your body. Therefore, you are obligated to return those things to him, by allowing him to leave your body when you tire of him, rather than killing him.

In contrast, the fetus doesn't give anything up by being conceived. Before conception, it had nothing to give up, not even a self. Since you didn't take anything from it, you don't have to return anything to it. Its short life from conception until abortion is just so much gained for it, and does not entitle it to anything more.

Sorry, but just as giving blood does not obligate me to also give the next transfusion the patient may need, just so, giving you a short life inside my body does not obligate me to also give you a longer one.

Kathy said...

What a load of nonsense, OC!

Christina Dunigan said...

OC, the kind of mental and moral contortion required to come up with that puts the Chinese Acrobats to shame.

OperationCounterstrike said...

Seems straightforward to me!

Womb time must be given willingly, or not at all. All of it.

The abortus should be grateful for the short life it had.

"The cut worm forgives the plough"--William Blake