A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[OKTexas]

You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

 

[Mertex]

I would like to know what punishment you are going to deliver to the male that impregnated this woman?

·
·
·​

1. Is the Republican party going to intervene into a doctor patient relationship when a woman, who may already have two kids at home to raise, & tell her husband and her kids that their mother needs to die, and they can raise the baby by themselves? Otherwise she will be charged with murder?

If, instead of a preborn child, it was a toddler that the mother was responsible for having murdered, how would you answer those questions?

We already have laws in place that care of situations such as you mention. Since the toddler is a person, it would be considered murder and it would be the State's responsibility to punish her accordingly.

Do you let her get away with it, because of the impact that bringing her to justice would have on her husband and her other children?

Do you know of any state that considers that? Abortion is not considered murder, so you are confusing two separate things.

And, assuming the husband had no willing or knowing part in his wife's murder of their two-year-old, or perhaps even tried to stop her, what charges do you think should be brought against him?

Most states, in the situation you mention, would look to see if the husband/boyfriend was a willing accomplice to the murder and go from there.

Why are you making senseless comparisons?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you know of any state that considers that? Abortion is not considered murder, so you are confusing two separate things.

Only as a matter of legal aberration, similar to that under which blacks were not considered to have human rights,and it was legal to enslave them.

As a matter of objective fact, abortion is the killing of a human being; and it nearly always happens in the absence of circumstances that, in any other case, would be considered just cause to kill a human being. That it is not considered to be murder is a defect in our society, and a defect in our system of laws and justice. Ethically, morally, it is no different than killing an infant or a toddler.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Those hostile to privacy rights aren’t interested in ‘ending’ abortion, they're interested in increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty, and keeping ‘abortion’ a viable wedge issue conservatives can continue to use as a political weapon and divide Americans for some perceived partisan gain.

 

[Mertex]

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Their is nothing hypothetical about calling an unborn a fetus....it is fact. There is nothing hypothetical about fertilized eggs being sold for consumption. And by what statement do you deduct that I don't know that a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards? Where did I say that wasn't the case? Where was "single cell organism" even mentioned in my post?

And you strayed from the OP's original hypothetical statement...so don't use that as an excuse when your ignorance is pointed out.

 

[Conservative65]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Same as the punishment if said woman hired a hit man to kill someone else?

 

[Conservative65]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Those hostile to privacy rights aren’t interested in ‘ending’ abortion, they're interested in increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty, and keeping ‘abortion’ a viable wedge issue conservatives can continue to use as a political weapon and divide Americans for some perceived partisan gain.

Those that support a woman having a choice aren't about freedom. If they were, when a woman made the choice to have a child she couldn't afford, they wouldn't support the same government they say should stay out of the choice forcing the rest of us to fund it for her.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Same as the punishment if said woman hired a hit man to kill someone else?

Okay. I'm actually surprised at how any conservatives I'm finding that are willing to tell women they are willing to criminalize, and stigmatize them for not behaving in accordance with their moral code.

No law makers seem to be quite so willing. All of their suggested legislation only carries repercussions for the abortion performing doctors.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Same as the punishment if said woman hired a hit man to kill someone else?

Okay. I'm actually surprised at how any conservatives I'm finding that are willing to tell women they are willing to criminalize, and stigmatize them for not behaving in accordance with their moral code.

No law makers seem to be quite so willing. All of their suggested legislation only carries repercussions for the abortion performing doctors.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Both are innocent lives. Both were killed by someone hired to do so.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Those hostile to privacy rights aren’t interested in ‘ending’ abortion, they're interested in increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty, and keeping ‘abortion’ a viable wedge issue conservatives can continue to use as a political weapon and divide Americans for some perceived partisan gain.

Those that support a woman having a choice aren't about freedom. If they were, when a woman made the choice to have a child she couldn't afford, they wouldn't support the same government they say should stay out of the choice forcing the rest of us to fund it for her.

So, you want to force women who clearly cannot afford it to have children. However, when a woman who cannot afford to have children do precisely what you say they should - and would even prefer that they not be given a choice, but to do so - you also do not think the government should be available to help with the cost is that child she clearly couldn't afford? So...how do you see that playing out? Not in your conservative Utopia where nothing bad ever happens, but here in the real world? When you force women who can't afford it to have children, and then offer them no assistance raising those children they couldn't afford, how do you see that playing out?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Those hostile to privacy rights aren’t interested in ‘ending’ abortion, they're interested in increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty, and keeping ‘abortion’ a viable wedge issue conservatives can continue to use as a political weapon and divide Americans for some perceived partisan gain.

Those that support a woman having a choice aren't about freedom. If they were, when a woman made the choice to have a child she couldn't afford, they wouldn't support the same government they say should stay out of the choice forcing the rest of us to fund it for her.

So, you want to force women who clearly cannot afford it to have children. However, when a woman who cannot afford to have children do precisely what you say they should - and would even prefer that they not be given a choice, but to do so - you also do not think the government should be available to help with the cost is that child she clearly couldn't afford? So...how do you see that playing out? Not in your conservative Utopia where nothing bad ever happens, but here in the real world? When you force women who can't afford it to have children, and then offer them no assistance raising those children they couldn't afford, how do you see that playing out?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I want women who made the choice to spread her legs take the responsibility for having done so. That's the real world.

I'm fully aware that bad stuff happens. It's Liberals that don't seem to understand that it's not another person's place to be forced to offset the costs when it does or that an innocent life should be taken because of it.

Currently, no one is forced to have a child. If they have one, it's by CHOICE. Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

 

[Mertex]

I want women who made the choice to spread her legs take the responsibility for having done so. That's the real world.

By the same token, a chicken-shit man who spews his sperm should also take responsibility for having done so, if he causes a pregnancy....and we have a lot of these who spew their sperm and disappear....it goes both ways, bubba.

 

[Czernobog]

Currently, no one is forced to have a child. If they have one, it's by CHOICE. Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself.

We don't?!?! We don't pay the same taxes, used for the same government programs that you do?!?!

I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You talk as if you, personally, are being forced to fund the raising of someone's family, by yourself, with the child support being taken directly out of your paycheck.

My God, you moralists are a melodramatic lot! How about you climb down off of your cross. No one is asking you to pay anything that the rest of us are not paying as well.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Those hostile to privacy rights aren’t interested in ‘ending’ abortion, they're interested in increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty, and keeping ‘abortion’ a viable wedge issue conservatives can continue to use as a political weapon and divide Americans for some perceived partisan gain.

It's ironic that, for the most part, those who think that a woman's right to “privacy” extends to having her own child slaughtered in cold blood, are the same ones who would deny a woman's privacy, as far as her being allowed to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, dressing rooms, and such, without creepy male perverts being allowed to observe her in these places.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Same as the punishment if said woman hired a hit man to kill someone else?

Same thing, really. There is no moral or ethical difference between an abortionist and a paid hit man. For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing.

And there is no moral or ethical difference between one who would hire the services of one, and one who would hire the services of the other,.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Okay. I'm actually surprised at how any conservatives I'm finding that are willing to tell women they are willing to criminalize, and stigmatize them for not behaving in accordance with their moral code.

We're talking about the cold-blooded killing of an innocent human being, here.

Why should anyone who has any willing part in that not be criminalized and stigmatized?

What should be surprising, and shocking, is how many liberals are willing to defend this savage practice, and to take the side of those who would have any part in it. But then, that shouldn't really be surprising, since this is the same side that, as a broader matter of principle, tends to consistently take the side of criminals,m perverts, tyrants, and degenerates, against that of decent, honest, law-abiding Americans.

 

[Mertex]

Do you know of any state that considers that? Abortion is not considered murder, so you are confusing two separate things.

Only as a matter of legal aberration, similar to that under which blacks were not considered to have human rights,and it was legal to enslave them.

A law was passed to supposedly end discrimination yet it continues and the Republican party continues to come up with "creative" laws to insert discrimination back into the US. No law has been passed to end abortions, so in that way, it is not similar to the once held opinion of whites to consider blacks as not having human rights.

As a matter of objective fact, abortion is the killing of a human being; and it nearly always happens in the absence of circumstances that, in any other case, would be considered just cause to kill a human being.

You are using semantics to prove your point, but actually, abortion just ends the process that produces human beings.

So, what do you think should be the fair punishment (if abortion was made illegal) for any woman that chose to have an illegal abortion anyway?

That it is not considered to be murder is a defect in our society, and a defect in our system of laws and justice.

That is your opinion based on your own point of view, which obviously is not the same opinion of the majority of Americans. Each state has passed laws that limit abortion to 20 weeks....at which time it is mostly a clump of cells. Elective abortions after 20 weeks (some states may even have a shorter cut-off) is restricted to life-at-risk mother, or rape/incest....so, even if there was only one of those cases per year, abortion would still need to be lawful.

Ethically, morally, it is no different than killing an infant or a toddler.

That is your own personal opinion and maybe others that think like you, but not necessarily the opinion of the majority of Americans. What is ethically and morally wrong is to allow babies that are already born, children, teens and adults to die due to lack of healthcare, yet Republicans support repealing Obamacare without offering anything in its place and don't seem to have one bit of remorse or conscience about that. They seem to be able to come up with rationalization for that pretty quick, as I'm sure you'll be able to do so.

 

[Mertex]

Currently, no one is forced to have a child. If they have one, it's by CHOICE.

Exactly.....so why are Republican/conservatives trying to change that?

 

[Mertex]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

 

[OKTexas]

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?

Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.

You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.

It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.

First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people.

Roe v Wade was passed by the Supreme Court...so I don't understand what your point is.

All rulings issued by the Supreme Court are final, unless they are overturned by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court: the Laws of the Land


In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy.
Supreme Court legalizes abortion - Jan 22, 1973 - HISTORY.com

Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder.

Murder is a crime and is punishable by law. Abortion is legal, therefore not punishable by law, ergo, not murder.

Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks.

It's not a baby, it is a fetus, until it is born. All of that (except viability) was considered at the time the law was passed. Viability was not that strong at 23 weeks when Roe v Wade was passed as I am sure we have made major medical advances. Most states have laws limiting elective abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken.

Many eggs that are fertilized are sold for consumption. So, while your statement may be partially true, it is not completely true, and if you were to buy eggs directly from a farmer, you most certainly will be eating a fertilized egg.


One question floating among avid egg-eaters is if fertilized eggs are safe for consumption. The answer is yes. It is perfectly okay to eat fertilized eggs. Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, once the fertilized egg is stored inside the fridge, the embryo no longer undergoes any change or development. Rest assured that you can eat your fertilized chicken eggs just fine like the unfertilized ones.
Facts about Fertilized Chicken Eggs : Fertile Chicken Eggs | Chicken Egg Incubators


We sell fertilized chicken eggs,
Fertilized eggs for hatching and eating

And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.

Well, it appears that you don't really know as much as you think you do......would fill volumes....

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Their is nothing hypothetical about calling an unborn a fetus....it is fact. There is nothing hypothetical about fertilized eggs being sold for consumption. And by what statement do you deduct that I don't know that a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards? Where did I say that wasn't the case? Where was "single cell organism" even mentioned in my post?

And you strayed from the OP's original hypothetical statement...so don't use that as an excuse when your ignorance is pointed out.

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child? BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"? People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.