Abortion as Murder.

[Dr Grump]

already did----take any living being out of it's environment and it will die. Using that as some kind of "proof" for abortion is absurd.

Is that all you an come up with? pppffffttt. I used it to illustrate how absurd HER argument was, not to reinforce mine...

So the best you can do to counter the point is to ignore it...

got it!

If you're gonna be in the peanut gallery, at least read posts for comprehension and context before opening your trap...

 

[BenNatuf]

The adulteress, who according to the Law...was suppose to be killed for her sins, was FORGIVEN by Christ, before she was told to repent and sin no more....I repeat...she was forgiven BEFORE she was asked to repent....had you ever noticed that when reading this passage? Gosh, I love Christ! If all of us could only be more Christ like....

no one is calling evil good, at least not me, if that is what you are implying?

God formed Adam as well....but the Bible still says Adam did not have LIFE, until a breath was taken.

there is no arguing that a human's life begins at conception or pregnancy... according to all science...there is no question that this is a new baby to be, being formed, in its mother's womb imho...they just do not legally achieve person hood, with rights, until they are born according to our laws.

Truth is truth, yes it is....and what these women have done, is killed their unborn child....not murder....but carry on and say or act the way you do or want to....

I spoke out to you, as you say you are speaking out to those women who are aborting by calling them murderers and giving them no compassion....

btw what is the difference between you and those people who were getting ready to cast the first stone....? Are you sinless?

I sure am glad you are not God or Christ!

Now let me go count my blessings and give thanks to the Lord on that!

No I am not sinless, I call a spade a spade I do not white wash anything, Jeffery Dalmer dismembered human beings, he murdered them. The abortion doctor is paid by the mother to do the same thing. I am not PC, I wonder do you think there is any such thing as sin sin you do not have to say a sin is a sin or call it by another name?She was already sorry for her sins, Jesus did not say she did not have any sins. Which is what you seem to be doing, at a babies expense and womens expense.

nope, I am not...you can call abortion a sin, and to me, it is a sin, and a sad one at that....

but YOU throwing the murderer word around so freely is quite disturbing....do you do this so you can entice some loony toon to commit murder themselves by shooting the doctors or girls in the abortion clinics on the basis that they are justly killing/murdering... murderers?

The subject of the thread is about defining the killing of a viable fetus as murder due to their status under Roe and Casey. A discussion that has come about due to botched abortions that have resulted in murders that no-one in their right mind will attempt to define as anything but murder. And here's the rub, these fetus' were viable IN THE WOMB just a few short moments before they were murdered out of the womb. Had the procedures not been botched they would have been no less viable, and the law according to roe should protect them. Thats what Roe determined the state can do. Thats what the thread is about... so yeah, a woman who aborts a viable fetus as determined under roe and casey could be called (and charged) as a muderer.

The politicizing a tragedy thread is -------> that way. Not saying that to be flippant, but thats kind of the logic isn't it? People are not driven to murder by the rhetoric of others, they are driven to murder for whatever reasons they use to justify it in their own mind.

 

[Dr Grump]

No I am not sinless, I call a spade a spade I do not white wash anything, Jeffery Dalmer dismembered human beings, he murdered them. The abortion doctor is paid by the mother to do the same thing. I am not PC, I wonder do you think there is any such thing as sin sin you do not have to say a sin is a sin or call it by another name?She was already sorry for her sins, Jesus did not say she did not have any sins. Which is what you seem to be doing, at a babies expense and womens expense.

nope, I am not...you can call abortion a sin, and to me, it is a sin, and a sad one at that....

but YOU throwing the murderer word around so freely is quite disturbing....do you do this so you can entice some loony toon to commit murder themselves by shooting the doctors or girls in the abortion clinics on the basis that they are justly killing/murdering... murderers?

The subject of the thread is about defining the killing of a viable fetus as murder due to their status under Roe and Casey. A discussion that has come about due to botched abortions that have resulted in murders that no-one in their right mind will attempt to define as anything but murder. And here's the rub, these fetus' were viable IN THE WOMB just a few short moments before they were murdered out of the womb. Had the procedures not been botched they would have been no less viable, and the law according to roe should protect them. Thats what Roe determined the state can do. Thats what the thread is about... so yeah, a woman who aborts a viable fetus as determined under roe and casey could be called (and charged) as a muderer.

The politicizing a tragedy thread is -------> that way. Not saying that to be flippant, but thats kind of the logic isn't it? People are not driven to murder by the rhetoric of others, they are driven to murder for whatever reasons they use to justify it in their own mind.

What do you mean by 'botched abortion' as opposed to an 'abortion'...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sell it to the legislatures, Ben. Nobody here is buying your crap. The mother decides when it is the matter of her life or health, not you and not Joe the Rabbit.

 

[BenNatuf]

Human tissue which contains DNA is not a human being, a human person with consciousness or sentience.

The morning after pill is not murder.

Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree. Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation. persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can. Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person. That however is neither here nor there in the topic of this thread which has more to do with the states interest in preserving the lives of "viable" fetus' and why they don't do so with the same laws they do for any other class of person.

 

[Dr Grump]

Human tissue which contains DNA is not a human being, a human person with consciousness or sentience.

The morning after pill is not murder.

Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree. Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation. persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can. Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person. That however is neither here nor there in the topic of this thread which has more to do with the states interest in preserving the lives of "viable" fetus' and why they don't do so with the same laws they do for any other class of person.

Um, because Roe vs Wade outstrips any state law. That is the way your country works...

 

[BenNatuf]

I guess it depends on if you think a certan emotional state is a requirement for the act to be defined as murder. Personally, I don't. The only two pre-requisites I think there are are pre-meditation and the actual taking of the innocent human life. Abortion certainly meets the first pre-requisite. The second one is harder. When can a baby be defined as a human life? The point is, whenever that may be biologically, killing it after that point pre-meditatedally, is murder.

once again, "murder" is a specifically defined legal term. there are legitimate reasons to "kill" and we do so all the time... for food, for clothing, in self-defense, in defense of others and in defense of property. the same concept applies to saving a woman's life in the event she endures a pregnancy. if we can get that as an understanding, then we can move on.

i agree with you (bookmark this post, it may be a while before you see those words from me again ) in that life does exist on a continuum from zygote through birth. that part of the basis for Roe v Wade which has so far been ignored throughout this thread (although i may have missed it) is that the Court did a balancing test. It inquired, and rightfully so, as to when the government had the right to intervene in contravention of the wishes of the individual. It held that at a certain point in the pregnancy, the obligation of government to protect prospective life outweighed the woman's right to govern her own body. That is the ONLY holding of Roe v Wade. Everything else is dicta... a purely intellectual discussion to guide future generations, but not bind them. So, given that life exists on a contunuum, it appears to me that nothing has occurred to vitiate the Court's holding.

Life exists in many forms... human beings, not so much... just as an egg, even if it is fertilized, is not a chicken.

*edit* a murder conviction requires a finding of mens rea. even the original languate of the bible does not say "thou shalt not kill". it says "thou shalt not murder".

Which is why, when I actually understood Roe a little more and when my opinions of the issue became more....moderated, shall we say, it turned out I actually agree with that aspect of Roe.

I know on these boards I am probably considered a member of the right, but I am not a member of the fanatical religous, no abortions EVER, right. I may find it immoral, but the biological facts are there are stages in a pregnancy where you're not killng what can biologically defined as a human being.

That is absolutely false. From the moment of conception it is biologically a human being.

It's a collection of cells.

so are you.

As irresponsible as one may consider it to terminate the pregnancy, there is no legal standing that I can see to punish a woman for an early term abortion.

And legally you are correct. Vibility is a fickle standard that changes with medical science (which seems a rather arbitrary thing to bas law on, but its what we got).

I am interested than in punishing them for late term abortions, but only in cases where the abortion is being considered out of convenience.

Unless the mother life is at risk and its a matter of self defence, they are all out of convenience.

My curiosity is that if Roe essentially says abortions are legal prior to the fetus being viable, what legal action is taken against those that have one after viability.

none. prosecutors won't touch it, to radio active. They should, and they could, but they don't

I can't believe it doesn't happen, but I can't say that I recall ever hearing of a woman being legally punished for it. Have you?

no, its never happenned, the states are derilict in there responsibility to provide all persons with due process and equal protection. And sadly, will remain so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, ben, your reasoning is false.

 

[BenNatuf]

Which is why, when I actually understood Roe a little more and when my opinions of the issue became more....moderated, shall we say, it turned out I actually agree with that aspect of Roe.

I know on these boards I am probably considered a member of the right, but I am not a member of the fanatical religous, no abortions EVER, right. I may find it immoral, but the biological facts are there are stages in a pregnancy where you're not killng what can biologically defined as a human being. It's a collection of cells. As irresponsible as one may consider it to terminate the pregnancy, there is no legal standing that I can see to punish a woman for an early term abortion.

I am interested than in punishing them for late term abortions, but only in cases where the abortion is being considered out of convenience. My curiosity is that if Roe essentially says abortions are legal prior to the fetus being viable, what legal action is taken against those that have one after viability. I can't believe it doesn't happen, but I can't say that I recall ever hearing of a woman being legally punished for it. Have you?

see, i have no problem with someone who doesn't believe in abortions... for themselves. I believe everyone has to live with whatever decisions they make either way.

people who decide to bash their kids in the head with a hammer have to live with that to... from inside a prison.

my problem is with people who, for whatever reason, want to impose their own moral judgments on others.

thats what every law does

as i said to one of the other posters on this thread, i've never met anyone i thought was better able to make moral choices for me.... than me. i'm pretty sure that everyone else feels the same.

until your moral decisions allow you to bring harm to others... then itsd not so much you.

as for late term abortion, the numbers on that are miniscule and my feeling is that it's a decision a woman makes with her doctor

and hiring a hit man to kill her husband is a choice between her and her hitman. So what?

and politicians in washington shouldn't interfere in that relationship.

yes, they should, but even more so, the states should.

though, i can't truly imagine how anyone could either perform or have that procedure "just because".

happens every day

 

[BenNatuf]

Roe v. Wade held that you can't restrict a woman's right to an abortion prior to viability. Which means you can't make laws restricting abortion during the first trimester. HOWEVER, Roe v. Wade didn't not protect a woman's right to an abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. That is why many states have outlawed late term abortions and those state laws have passed the constitutionalituy test!

Abortionist to the extremes say any time before the child walks you can abort and Pro-lifers to the extremes say protect every egg and sperm!

Less people to the extremes. Pro-abortion moderates, protect the first trimester only (with exceptions in the 2nd for woman's life in dangers, birth defects, rape or incest and VERY few exceptions if any in the 3rd), Pro-lifers moderates say no abortion unless mother's life in danger, rape or incest!

There is a difference of levels of people who are pro-abortion and pro-life!

you mean pro choice and anti-choice. language is important.

i agree in part. but the "viability" argument was only a part of the decision and was badly written... horribly written actually.

the balancing test is far more important.

and the fact that there is a contiuum of belief on the issue, is settled by the determination of roe as a balancing of issues. and no one should be making those moral judgments for anyone else... much less the government.

The ONLY part of roe that has any applicability in the law is the "viability" argument. The rest of it is meaningless tripe.

 

[Dr Grump]

BenNatuf

Your whole argument is based on treating an abortion like a murder (hiring a hitman, or hitting a child with a hammer). There is a reason the courts, and politicians, and most normal folk treat abortion as a separate entity than religious whackjobs do. They realise that it isn't like hitting your kid with a hammer or hiring a hitman, because it isn't. Any other asinine argument doesn't warrant discussion until your realise the difference between the two. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but a foetus at 2-3 months old is not a viable human - no matter how much you wish it so..

 

[BenNatuf]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

I dont care what you think.

So? Do you always make completely useless and irrelevant posts that say nothing for no reason?

 

[BenNatuf]

Unwanted pregnancies. A zygote is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. A fetus doesn't even have sentience that is measurable until the 22nd week of pregnancy. Pregnancy is not even considered to have started until the zygote attaches to the uterine wall.

Let me ask you a question. Does the topic of abortion bring up hate in your heart?

Do you hate people who have different spiritual views about when human life begins?

No I hate abortion and all acts of murder.You see I do not hate you because I disagree with you, that is something I do not understand, I do hate evil debase acts, of all kinds there is a difference in hating a horrible injustice and hating the perpetrator of it.

You hate. Period. I can relate. I hate intolerance. Bottom line. I hate.
Some people think hate is righteous. I don't.

You don't even know my views about abortion. I'm Buddhist. That means no killing. Period.

Is this posting your idea of being tollerant of someone elses views?

 

[BenNatuf]

You hate 'evil acts'. You consider abortion an 'evil act'. I hate intolerance. We both hate something.

Hate is the problem.

The solution to the hate problem? For me, it's to not be intolerant. For you, it's to not have an abortion.

Tolerance is not to tolerate someone else infringement on the life of another.

Tolerance is not hating intolerance.

One could view the pregnant woman's life as being infringed upon by fanatics who want to force her to host a fetus in her body against her will.

Here is where you and I can possibly find common ground. You're a catholic. Abortion is a sin to you. I'm a Buddhist. Abortion is killling, and killing is a grave non-virtue. I would never advise anyone to have an abortion if asked my opinion. You're likely the same.

The difference between us is that I've lived to see abortion criminalized and I remember it's ugliness.

The only ugliness in abortion being illegal is the ugliness perptrator by those who break the law. If the idea behind your post here is that we should not have laws people would break... well, sorry, can't go with that.

 

[BenNatuf]

Tolerance is not hating intolerance.

One could view the pregnant woman's life as being infringed upon by having to host a fetus against her will.

Did the baby just jump on in there by him or herself? BTW my husband was a "product" of rape, so according to alot of people he should have received the death penalty for the actions of his father.

Why are you getting angry with me? I wouldn't have an abortion and I wouldn't counsel anyone to have an abortion. I happen to think babies that are the product of rape are spiritually special beings.

Abortion does not meet the definition of murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Abortion is legalized termination of human tissue that has the potential to grow into a human being.

What anti-choice fanatics are about is demonizing people who don't favor re-criminalizing abortion. Am I evil because I don't favor re-criminalizing abortion?

Do you really envision a future with Magdalene style prisons tieing women down for 9 months to make them give birth, imprisoning them for life or killing them outright for terminating their pregnancies? Brr creepy.

do we tie people down to keep them from robbing?

Legal or illegal, women will choose abortions. The question is whether we kill the women for choosing abortion or not.

so is there a question as to whether we should punish a person who decides to commit and armed robbery? Ya know, they're gonna happen whether there against the law or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

armed robbery is armed robbery, abortion is abortion, one is a crime and one is not.

false analogy, ben

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Abortion of a viable fetus is a crime, it's murder. it's just not enforced. The fact that its not enforced does not make it any less a crime

Really? What's the practical difference then? If jay-walking is technically a crime, but in a small podunk town it is perfectly acceptable and everyone knows it is never enforced, is it still a crime? If your answer is yes because there is still technically a law for it, then I must ask what you think laws actually are.
Law | Define Law at Dictionary.com

So again I ask: what's the difference between a law which is never enforced, and a law which doesn't exist? Let's call this what it is: you're using this as an excuse because you don't have any other reasoning to stand on. If new policy was passed that definitively stated that abortion was not considered murder, you'd just be complaining about something else, when the practical applications and outcomes have not actually changed.

Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree. Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation. persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can. Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person.

That's actually not true at all. If an embryo implants, and it is removed soon thereafter, it can still be held in status. As I stated earlier, people who don't really understand the biology always tend to draw these arbitrary lines in the sand, when no such differentiation exists.

That is absolutely false. From the moment of conception it is biologically a human being.

And what comprises "human being?"

Before you responded to someone by saying they were a clump of cells just as embryos are. So are dogs. What you missed was that the person was insinuating there was no higher order to that clump of cells, where there are in humans.

 

[BenNatuf]

"Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth."

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

did you write that on wiki yourself?

 

[BenNatuf]

now a zygote or foetus is an infant?

It is not a puppy.

It's not an infant either....

neither is a toddler

 

[BenNatuf]

You approve? YOU APPROVE?! Who the FUCK do you think you are, superciliously doling out approval to people, as though they're making life decisions in the desperate hope that you'll pat them on the head? .

Oh god, the irony of this post is..is...is...unbelievable....Just when the Cesspit can't get any more arrogant/ignorant <insert derogatory adjective here>, she posts the above drivel....

Given the nature of your postings in this thread i'd be a little careful throwing around the "irony" word as some sort of insult.