Abortion or Murder???

[lI1|1!]

every is a blessing

[sirwoofalot]

sorry, I don't get it. you can not say the unborn are have no rights but at the same time have rights.

they can not be considered living and not living at the same time.

 

consider this. there are very long waiting list of many loving coupels who want to adopt but can not becasue there are a shortage of children.

 

Back to the original question, is it Abortion or Murder. I guess yes, it was murder. and I am willing to say in the first degree. the father thoughtfully carried out a plan to kill the unborn child.

 

However, I still can not follow the leap from a person's right to privicy to the decliration that an unborn child is not alive...

 

[tvashtarkatena]

sorry, I don't get it. you can not say the unborn are have no rights but at the same time have rights.

they can not be considered living and not living at the same time.

 

consider this. there are very long waiting list of many loving coupels who want to adopt but can not becasue there are a shortage of children.

 

Back to the original question, is it Abortion or Murder. I guess yes, it was murder. and I am willing to say in the first degree. the father thoughtfully carried out a plan to kill the unborn child.

 

However, I still can not follow the leap from a person's right to privicy to the decliration that an unborn child is not alive...

 

The court did not decide that an unborn child is not alive. It searched the constitution for any principles or language that would grant the unborn full rights of personhood but came up empty handed.

 

Read my original posting. The court's Roe v. Wade decision did grant considerable rights to the unborn. States may restrict abortions in the second trimester and ban them in the third. The court decided on 'viability', or survivability outside the womb, as the criteria for determining when the rights of the unborn outweigh the rights of the mother. Remember the mother? There's a whole extra human being involved here who also has rights of self determination. A being becomes a separate person when it can physically live unattached from another. Seems reasonable to me. I don't know how the court deals with Siamese twins, however.

 

A first trimester fetus is not viable outside the womb. Under the constitution or otherwise, it cannot be considered a separate 'person'. There simply is no physical reality to that concept. Like it or not, it is inextricably tied with a pre-existing 'person' that already enjoys all the rights and protections granted by the constitution and other laws.

 

Adoption is one thing, but it does not lessen the harm that carrying an unwanted child imposes on a woman. Childbirth is extremely dangerous; the risk and mortality rate for women remains substantial. It also constitutes an extreme financial and physical hardship. Opponents of abortion seem willing to let the State impose these harms, under threat of imprisonment, with impunity on women without considering their pre-existing personhood and all the rights of self determination that comes with it.

 

To me, it's a purely religious thing. Certain religions claim that the second a sperm punches through an egg, that's a whole person, not the potential to become a person, whose rights somehow immediately upon conception trump those of the potential mother. The root of this belief, in my opinion, lies in a puritanical belief in the immorality of sex. Forcing women to have unwanted children is a State imposed punishment for getting knocked up accidentally, for 'being irresponsible'; a concept which people with certain religious beliefs seem to revel in.

 

Fortunately, we have a separation of church and state, which prevents those holding these religious beliefs from imposing them, by force, on the rest of us.

 

My view is that, if you don't believe in legalized abortion, by all means, don't have one. Your choice. Allowing the State to force women to have unwanted children and imprisoning them if they don't comply, to me, not only seems draconian and medieval; it also constitutes a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state for which I give thanks every damn day.

Edited December 1, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[joblo7]

that is an assault on the mother! if you kill something before its born its not a human, its inhuman to do so however.

 

we would have execute a lot of people if the death penalty was instituted for abortion.

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, that's true. Certain members of the religious right who are pushing to grant full 'personhood' to the unborn would be happy to see women tried and executed for having early term abortions, including taking the morning after pill. Murder laws would have to be enforced across the board in this manner under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

 

Think about it, ladies. Anyone down for that?

[Seahawks]

Just becuase abortion is legal doesn't make it right.

 

 

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

 

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

 

Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty

 

[tvashtarkatena]

"I had an abortion but I was only following orders."

Edited December 2, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

Actually, that's true. Certain members of the religious right who are pushing to grant full 'personhood' to the unborn would be happy to see women tried and executed for having early term abortions, including taking the morning after pill. Murder laws would have to be enforced across the board in this manner under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

 

Think about it, ladies. Anyone down for that?

 

WTF? Do you really expect anyone to believe your shit? What a moron.

[archenemy]

It is quite believable. Hell, some people aren't even waiting, they just go out and shoot doctors who perform abortions.

[tvashtarkatena]

FW's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause:

 

"I only got half the jail time cuz I only murdered a kid."

 

Now get back to sugar pushin, you little outta shape bitch.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[archenemy]

I am not little.

[tvashtarkatena]

Jeez-us, go get some sleep, why doncha?

 

I was talking to my little boy bitch groupie. He's been pouting from lack of titty slapping.

[sirwoofalot]

Now back to the question at hand, is it abortion or murder?

 

We are a nation of laws, and like it or not our current law allows for legal abortion.

 

This guy did commit a murder because the mother wanted to keep her child.

 

I see impassioned pleas from both sides. From the religious right who declare the sanctity of life starting at inception to the agnostic left who chose to believe as T has so clearly outlined. Life starts when the fetus can survive out side of the womb, pregnancies are inherently risky, and no one wants a child that a woman may choose to abort provided the child can not live outside of the womb.

 

I guess my point is this, let’s for forget this entire diatribe and go skiing!

 

[mattp]

I always wonder what somebody is thinking when they take the time to post to a thread like this one: why don't you guys discontinue the discussion and it is not based on any stated concern for any affect that discussion may have on somebody else.

 

It would be one thing if he was suggesting that this discussion was somhow harmful, but he's not. Is Woofalot worried about Tvash' use of his precious time? is Woofy trying to tell us how superior he is? What?

 

Why not simply ignore a discussion if you disapprove of the time spent on that topic? Nobody's forcing you to either read or respond to it.

[tvashtarkatena]

...and such posters always seem to feel the need to deliver a synopsis of the discussion that misses the target by a wide margin.

[archenemy]

Too true. But I don't think Woof was trying to be dismissive though. Often people use something lighthearted to end a difficult point of view that they just stated. It is obvious the Woof thought this through, and this is a tough topic for anyone to deal with. I'd just let that last comment slide...

But, you are right that discussion is good.

[mattp]

Good catch, Archy. Woofy probably did not intend his post the way I read it. Discussions like this one are a good distraction on rainy days and more than anything else he's probably just hoping the rain will turn back to snow.

[tvashtarkatena]

He might try to take a few mistatements out of his summaries in the future, or just omit the summaries period. They don't add constructively to the discussion.

 

For example, neither I nor the Supreme Court ever argued when "life begins". Rather, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that it was not the right body to determine when life begins. For my part, I simply recounted that decision. This is central to this discussion, because it's one of the most misquoted viewpoints by the abortion foes, who have their pet slogan "Life begins at conception". Yes, we all know a fetus is alive, but the question at hand for those balancing the rights of the mother with those of the unborn is "when does PERSONHOOD" begin? This is a oversimplying propoganda technique that the Christian Right LOVES to use. It frosts my ass when people who should know better parrot it and thus, unwittingly or otherwise, promulgate it.

 

Far from deciding when life begins, the Supreme Court chose to use viability outside the womb as a means to define 'personhood' in a legal sense so that it could attempt to balance the rights of the mother with those of the unborn. I mentioned that this seemed like a reasonable (if unavoidably imperfect) compromise to me.

 

Get it right, lads, get it right.

Edited December 3, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

FW's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause:

 

"I only got half the jail time cuz I only murdered a kid."

 

Now get back to sugar pushin, you little outta shape bitch.

 

 

If I ever DO show up at Tiger it'll be to administer the bitch-slappin' you so deserve. Too bad your momma didn't believe in abortion. BTW; do those things jiggle on the way down?

...And why did Allison/Mary Lou remove her "I spent Thanksgiving with Tvashtarketena" post? Afraid your (ex?)wife would see it and start posting nasties about you again?

[tvashtarkatena]

FW's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause:

 

"I only got half the jail time cuz I only murdered a kid."

 

Now get back to sugar pushin, you little outta shape bitch.

 

 

If I ever DO show up at Tiger it'll be to administer the bitch-slappin' you so deserve.

 

You might just tie me to the top...if your riding on my back, weakling. If you're nice enough to me, though, I might just pass you on my way down without butt fucking you, but it's gonna be hard, because you and I both know you're my sweet little monkey bitch.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[sirwoofalot]

Everything says is correct and true. I did misrepresent T.

 

Sorry.

 

[Fairweather]

You might just tie me to the top...if your riding on my back, weakling. If you're nice enough to me, though, I might just pass you on my way down without butt fucking you, but it's gonna be hard, because you and I both know you're my sweet little monkey bitch.

 

 

It's you're. Step up to your intellect. Actually...never mind. You're already there.

 

Butt fuck ME? Your (ex)wife says I probably wouldn't even feel it.

 

How was Turkey Day with MaryLou? And why all the secrecy?

 

 

Edited December 4, 2007 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

What's the matter, Tvash? You NEVER let anyone have the last word! I can't help but think you would rather just let this thread die. Maybe something to do with Marylou comin' over for Thanksgiving dinner? Yer inability to spell gooood? BTW - do you live in that green-friendly condo you're always bragging about, or the 1911 house? Are you a liar, or one of those speculating house flippers your always bitchin' about?

[Dechristo]

He might try to take a few mistatements out of his summaries in the future, or just omit the summaries period. They don't add constructively to the discussion.

 

For example, neither I nor the Supreme Court ever argued when "life begins". Rather, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that it was not the right body to determine when life begins. For my part, I simply recounted that decision. This is central to this discussion, because it's one of the most misquoted viewpoints by the abortion foes, who have their pet slogan "Life begins at conception". Yes, we all know a fetus is alive, but the question at hand for those balancing the rights of the mother with those of the unborn is "when does PERSONHOOD" begin? This is a oversimplying propoganda technique that the Christian Right LOVES to use. It frosts my ass when people who should know better parrot it and thus, unwittingly or otherwise, promulgate it.

 

Far from deciding when life begins, the Supreme Court chose to use viability outside the womb as a means to define 'personhood' in a legal sense so that it could attempt to balance the rights of the mother with those of the unborn. I mentioned that this seemed like a reasonable (if unavoidably imperfect) compromise to me.

 

Get it right, lads, get it right.

 

The existence of "personhood" was but one of the issues discussed by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. More central in its discussions and ultimate determination was the issue of "potential life".

 

 

From the majority opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun:

"In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman . . . and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

 

In all of the opinions written by the Justices, the issue of "potential life" is that most argued.

 

"Get it right", indeed.

[mythosgrl]

Childbirth is extremely dangerous; the risk and mortality rate for women remains substantial.

 

 

Actually, the risk of death is 4 times higher with abortions than childbirth. Abortions also make 2-5% of women sterile, and at least 1/3 of women who have had abortions have severe psychological issues that require extensive counseling.

 

http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html