Abortion or Murder???

[Seahawks]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313882,00.html

[tvashtarkatena]

[sirwoofalot]

Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists.

But off hand it looks like murder.

If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child.

But that reasoning opens up another can of worms.

Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles

 

[Gary_Yngve]

Our abstinence education failed them!

[tvashtarkatena]

Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists.

But off hand it looks like murder.

If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child.

But that reasoning opens up another can of worms.

Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles

 

A woman's fundamental right to an abortion, as decided by Roe v. Wade, requires no consent from her husband or partner.

 

This is not an abortion case, because the state did not attempt to violate this right.

 

Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. A woman's right to privacy, implicit in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment, the court argued, must be weighed against these two state interests. It finally settled on a compromise solution:

 

States cannot restrict abortions in the 1st trimester.

States may, with compelling reason, place some restrictions on abortions in the 2nd trimester.

States may prohibit abortions in the 3rd trimester.

 

In this case, the man commited a form of assault against both the woman and her unborn child, risking or destroying their health. Since the Supreme Court upheld the State's legitimate interest in protecting these two things, and since the state did not attempt to restrict the woman's fundamental right to an abortion, it seems like a cut and dry case whereby the state's prohibition against fetal suicide was violated, with no legal ramifications for Roe v. Wade.

[Gary_Yngve]

Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles

 

Until a man can carry a fetus, there's no need for symmetry in the laws.

[tvashtarkatena]

Does the state have a compelling interest in restricting a man's right to give birth to an ass baby?

[sampdx]

Amen, brutha.

[ClimbingPanther]

fetal suicide...

.

.

.

proof you're born emo

[tvashtarkatena]

Now THAT was funny.

[TREETOAD]

By the looks of the guy I would consider it a mercy killing

[kevbone]

Seahawks.....you pulled that from "foxnews". Nuff said.

[Seahawks]

Seahawks.....you pulled that from "foxnews". Nuff said.

 

Got give you liberal freaks something to read, sitting around circle jerking.

[kevbone]

The point being Foxnews is not credible. They are the joke of the media industry. Well….these days most of the media is a joke…..but foxnews…..come on dude.

[Seahawks]

The point being Foxnews is not credible. They are the joke of the media industry. Well….these days most of the media is a joke…..but foxnews…..come on dude.

 

And the liberal boys are??? Come on (dude), wake up yourself.

[Crux]

In the backwash of Fennario

The black and bloody mire

The Dire Wolf collects his due

while the boys sing round the fire

 

Don't murder me

I beg of you don't murder me

Please

don't murder me

 

 

[archenemy]

Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists.

But off hand it looks like murder.

If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child.

But that reasoning opens up another can of worms.

Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles

It's not like she did not give consent, she didn't even know.

[archenemy]

And the difference in roles is that it is the woman who has to carry and birth the child.

[selkirk]

And the difference in roles is that it is the woman who has to carry and birth the child.

 

at quite a large personal risk (life, long term and shot term physical well being, emotional, financial, etc.)

 

When guys stand to lose as much as women do, due to their wives/gf getting pregant than they might deserve say.

[ClimbingPanther]

In the backwash of Fennario

 

I must leave you for a season

Go out logging that hardwood timber

Hardwood timber that grows so low

In the forest of Fennario

 

Tell me what you need to live, love

Do you ask that you might own

Keep my blue-eyed hound to guard you

I will make my way alone

 

I will not return in winter

If I be not back by fall

Seek me when this small sunflower

Stands above the garden wall

 

Fare you well and I would not weep

Bid you tend your prayers to keep

Hill by dale now I must go

To the forest of Fennario

 

Nine-month blew with sleeted rain

And still he came not back again

Summoned she the hound to go

To seek him in Fennario

 

He came back the fated day

To find his lady gone away

Made haste to follow in her track

Where she could go but not turn back

 

The blue-eyed hound at her side did bay

While fast her breath did fade away

She cried out: "Turn, my love, and go

I would not you see me so"

 

Fare you well and I would not weep

Bid you tend your prayers to keep

Hill by dale now I must go

To the forest of Fennario

 

I shall not turn, I shall not yield

Oh, selfsame serpent sting my heel

That bleeds my lady's blood away

Beside the blue-eyed hound to lay

Angels sing their souls to sleep

Four winds grace their breath to keep

Up above yon garden wall

Stands the sunflower, straight and tall

 

Fare you well and I would not weep

Bid you tend your prayers to keep

Hill by dale now I must go

To the forest of Fennario

[sirwoofalot]

Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists.

But off hand it looks like murder.

If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child.

But that reasoning opens up another can of worms.

Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles

 

 

... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. ....

 

How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood.

 

[ericb]

Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists.

But off hand it looks like murder.

If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child.

But that reasoning opens up another can of worms.

Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles

 

 

... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. ....

 

How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood.

 

Last I checked, it was not OK to kill a 3-day old infant, even with its mother's permission

[sirwoofalot]

This is adressing the unborn....

[ericb]

This is adressing the unborn....

 

Yep, and the legal position is that whether it is abortion or murder in the case cited seems to depend on whether the mother was in agreement - seems a bit inconsistent.

[tvashtarkatena]

Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists.

But off hand it looks like murder.

If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child.

But that reasoning opens up another can of worms.

Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles

 

 

... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. ....

 

How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood.

 

The 14th amendment specifies those born or naturalized; not the unborn. The supreme court weighed this very clear wording, a women's right to privacy as implied by the due process and equal protection clause of that same amendment, and the legitimate interest of States to protect the unborn and came up with what it considered a balanced compromise. In so doing it considered historical precedence, both legal and otherwise.

 

A contradiction is unidimensional. Balancing two or more competing interests, as in this decision, is not.

 

Essentially, the abortion issue is a balancing act between the rights of the mother and the unborn. As long as there are those two competing interests involved, it's never going to be a simple issue.

 

Some things to consider:

 

Make abortions illegal across the board, and the State forces women to bear unwanted children. This constitutes a pretty grave and invasive harm for an unwilling individual to bear for simply engaging in a legal act; sex. Public safety and well being is also at issue. Such a prohibition would also constitute a self defeating direction for an overpopulated and increasingly resource starved society to take.