Women are capable of not informing anyone she is pregnant, and even if people start noticing it is not as if they’d inform the proper doctors immediately asking if she already is seeing someone. It’s quite possible for a mother to take dangerous stuff while having a fetus without a doctor noticing it (or even friends/family), so when the baby gets born and it is deformed or harmed in one way or another with the mother being the cause, it is too late to prevent the damage. One can still set the mother straight, though.

> *Originally posted by **[Darkruler2005](/forums/9/topics/309053?page=1#posts-6553573):*** > > Not certain to exist? Is it even a relevant requirement, though? For the judging of the rights of an existing Person against a Person that may never exist. Yeah i find that pretty relevant. > The issue is whether or not the mother is doing it on purpose and/or knows that taking that action will damage the fetus. Ignoring person requirements for now, this would be the equivalent of saying it’s fine to punch an old man in the stomach who’s about to have a critical operation with a low success rate because it’s not certain he’ll be alive in the future (for the record, the fetus _is_ alive, and _does_ exist, it just isn’t a person, like animals). No its like punching yourself in the Uterus. The fetus while inside and connected to the mother is alive and exists sure. But only as a body-part of the Mother, very different from most animals that that are given rights. > And I’m beginning to feel you’re just attacking detailed exceptions and loopholes. If you find one, fine, I’ll adjust my opinion to reflect it in, but I don’t really think it’s going to make a major change in my argument. Not my intention. Though i must admit that i am not at by intellectually best at the moment. Currently studying for my Master Degree next to work. Which loopholes? That if you want to justify taking the rights away from a Mother you have to justify it in general by taking away the comparable rights of everyone else that harms themselves and/or would harm a (equally) potential future person?

Why is it so important for a woman to have the ability to harm or eliminate a life she is carrying? I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus. Let’s be brutally honest here. Self absorption by the youth of today is appalling. This is why our civilization is in so much trouble today. What gives one human being the right to kill another. As far as I know, it is not a right, but a privilege given by a court of men. If we accept the privilege granted to kill the unborn, how long before we are granted the privilege to kill our fellow human beings? If a woman is so naive she can’t understand taking a substance harmful to the fetus, she needs to be made sterile. She doesn’t have enough mental capacity to become a mother. Causing harm to the fetus in this manner demands punishment.

> Why is it so important for a woman to have the ability to harm or eliminate a life she is carrying? Because it’s warranted in some situations? > I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus. I tire of hearing people giving so little regard for the mother. > Self absorption by the youth of today is appalling. This is why our civilization is in so much trouble today. Citation needed. > If a woman is so naive she can’t understand taking a substance harmful to the fetus, she needs to be made sterile. I vote for that people who think other people should be made sterile should be made sterile, if they don’t have a really good argument and supporting evidence.

> *Originally posted by **[TheLoneLucas](/forums/9/topics/309053?page=2#posts-6555106):***I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus. I have never, not once, heard anyone argue that a mother’s decisions are not important, or that she is not important. I have heard, countless times, people argue that the fetus inside the mother is not important, or is not alive, or is not human. People, generally, do NOT argue against the mother. People, generally, DO argue against the fetus. This makes your point not only a straw man, but a hypocritical one.

> *Originally posted by **[MyTie](/forums/9/topics/309053?page=2#posts-6555136):*** > > I have never, not once, heard anyone argue that a mother’s decisions are not important, or that she is not important. Good thing he didn’t say that’s what he said he hears. And,of course, you =/= him.

> *Originally posted by **[MyTie](/forums/9/topics/309053?page=2#posts-6555136):*** > > *Originally posted by **[TheLoneLucas](/forums/9/topics/309053?page=2#posts-6555106):***I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus. > > I have never, not once, heard anyone argue that a mother’s decisions are not important, or that she is not important. I have heard, countless times, people argue that the fetus inside the mother is not important, or is not alive, or is not human. People, generally, do NOT argue against the mother. People, generally, DO argue against the fetus. This makes your point not only a straw man, but a hypocritical one. Yeah right(/sarcasm)… > *Originally posted by **[ColtArmy](/forums/9/topics/309053?page=2#posts-6555084):*** > > Why is it so important for a woman to have the ability to harm or eliminate a life she is carrying? > … > > If a woman is so naive she can’t understand taking a substance harmful to the fetus, she needs to be made sterile. She doesn’t have enough mental capacity to become a mother. Causing harm to the fetus in this manner demands punishment.

> For the judging of the rights of an existing Person against a Person that may never exist. Yeah i find that pretty relevant. But didn’t we post that the fetus should be expected to be carried to term for this to take effect? That doesn’t include accidents, but it does include the mother’s will and the likelihood of miscarriage. > No its like punching yourself in the Uterus. The fetus while inside and connected to the mother is alive and exists sure. But only as a body-part of the Mother, very different from most animals that that are given rights. I agree there is a difference in rights. It’s more of a suggestion towards what should be rights/obligations. In short, it is suggested there should be an obligation for the mother to keep her fetus healthy if she expects and wishes to carry to term (if she wishes to abort, then there is probably little reason to incur sanctions or the like, and if she is likely to miscarry due to other reasons the same counts as well). > Not my intention. Though i must admit that i am not at by intellectually best at the moment. Currently studying for my Master Degree next to work. Understandable. > Which loopholes? You may be attacking possible loopholes which I haven’t accounted for yet. > That if you want to justify taking the rights away from a Mother you have to justify it in general by taking away the comparable rights of everyone else that harms themselves and/or would harm a (equally) potential future person? Only pregnant women and those in frequent contact with them could be included here. It has nothing to do with harming yourself, but with having a future person with defects that wouldn’t be there if you didn’t harm it. This goes back to knowing it’s not really possible to pinpoint what caused these defects, and I understand all of that. It’s merely about when we do know.

I would add on to that argument Dark, that if she does miscarry in the end, all charges would be dropped. Even an induced miscarriage is still her right to take after all. It might encourage mothers-to-be facing criminal charges, to do just that, of course, but arguably better than the alternative. I should note that legislation of this kind, increases the chance that when artificial wombs do come of age, it will be legally advisable to use one rather than your own equipment to carry to term. Insurance premiums will begin to bias that way, and the risk of prosecution for imbibing a substance you did not realise you imbibed, only strengthens the case.

> I would add on to that argument Dark, that if she does miscarry in the end, all charges would be dropped. I guess I agree. After all, there is no future person any more.

> *Originally posted by **[Darkruler2005](/forums/9/topics/309053?page=1#6536519)**:* > I say it is a distinction between the choice to perform permanent damage upon an upcoming child and the removal of the fetus entirely. In other words, we believe beyond reasonable doubt that the child will be born, so it will become a person. That person is inflicted with permanent damage due to the mother’s fault and the mother should be prosecuted accordingly. Of course, it may be argued it is better to prevent further damage if found out early, which I agree with. I suspect, however, that some posters may draw too close of a line to abortion. That’s why I included the fact we believe beyond reasonable doubt the child will be born. > > Babies are obviously human before birth, too. They deserve all human rights.

A fetus is 100% reliant on sustenance from its mother. While a fetus MAY develop into a child around age 4 years or 5 years, a fetus MAY also develop into a sociopath stuck in a permanently infantile psychological stage, a psychopath not only stuck in an infantile stage but insistent on inflicting others with sadistic interpersonal relations. A fetus is not an actual child any more than a seed is a plant. If the mother is Finnish, she is likely white, and therefore the child will suffer if born white. All whites suffer. Many whites not only suffer but then whine about their suffering, failing to attribute it to personal failings of a gentic nature. If the mother is also a drunk, the likelyhood of Fetal Alcohol Syndrom increases. Traditionally and historically, this resulted in the European artistocratic class. Every Non-European civilization recognized the need for sustainable culture given their ecological environments. Every Non-European culture practiced abortion, infanticide, coitus interuptus. Every Non-European culture displayed the ability to PLAN long term for housing, food, and the appropriate addition of new family/tribal members. When "civilization" is trapped in a downward cycle of 1) Environmental Degradation; 2) Overbreeding; 3) Killing Your Neighbor; 4) Taking Their Stuff; 5) Lieing About All of It, genetic selection for hypersexuality/sexual addiction, hyperaggression,. lack of perception and executive functioning unreliant on aggression will occur. The European ruling class adopted stringent laws based on their need to perpetuate eternal warfare. If the mother and the legal system was rational, they would be finding consensus to abort the child based on the genetic defect that is Whiteness, and would return to structuring jobs for White workers to accomodate drunkeness on the job and booze as part of the daily rations. CNS depressants make hyperaggressive sex addicts far more "civilized" compared to other standards. The application of Lithium might also be beneficial.