Abortion providers as Nuremburg Defendants

[strollingbones]

For what?

The #1 job of a woman is to have children. Everything else is secondary

so women who are barren dont count?

i think its a total apples and oranges debate...abortion providers...wouldnt that reach to the top...abortion is a big business

 

[eots]

Oh, you are talking about the kids breeders have brainwashed into thinking that having children is what makes them human so they want them by age 10?

no the ones that are raised to think that baby's will ruin there life if they have them before 30 ..but all forms of deviant sex and promiscuity are ok and abortion is always an option

 

[Cecilie1200]

If abortion becomes illegal, will ex-providers be like Nuremburg Defendants?

Years ago I went to a “pro life” meeting. I don’t recall the official name of the organization. By the way, I think that abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances. I was a visitor. I like to try to really understand the view points of other people.

I talked one-on-one with one of the gust speakers – to try to understand his perspective of the issue of Abortion. I asked him what he wanted to see in America. He advocated outlawing abortion and prosecuting those who had provided for abortions even when it was legal for providers to have done so. I asked him how he reasoned that doing so was just. I asked him about the phrase “ex post facto”. He explained that he knew the legal principal and then asked me if I knew about the “Nuremburg trials”. He said that Nazis were punished after the war for executing Jews, a practice that was legal and the Nazis were following orders.

He explained that some things are so evil and heinous to human psyche that the world, so to speak, is justified in punishing those who commit such atrocities even though it was legal to commit such wrongs when they were done.

Any comments?

No one has any intention of holding Nuremburg trials for abortion providers, and if you really want to "try to understand other viewpoints", you might try some people who aren't the equivalent of the fat lady in hair rollers and a muu-muu that the news reporters always find to interview right after the tornado hits.

If Roe v. Wade were to be struck down tomorrow, the law in this country would simply revert to what it was before, ie. some states would only allow it in hard cases", some would be more permissive. Prosecutions of abortion providers would probably be more or less the same as they were then.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Doesn't god judge everyone? If I was god, I would be very disappointed with those who invoked my name in defense of their very selfish and perverted will to turn women into breeding stock.

First of all, it was God Himself who made women the bearers of children. Secondly, as a woman, it is YOUR attitude on this that I find offensive, not that of pro-lifers. Breeding stock? How DARE you take such an insulting, demeaning, dismissive tone toward the beauty and magic of giving birth?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If abortion is made illegal, then would miscarriages prompt a police investigation?

Ahh, the usual "brilliance" I expect from you. Funny, I hadn't realized the law allowed people to drop out of school in the third grade.

I think that's about it for you on my screen. Dismissed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not in the legal sense. Can you give me an example of a mother or abortion provider being found guilty of murder?

Many people have the conviction that between conception and birth there exists a third stage of life. But few would equate aborting it with the illegal killing of a living, breathing human being.

Most people think that they are responsible for their own choices in whether to bear a fetus to term, but they recognize they have no business deciding for another person and that they do not have any right to claim representation of a mother or the cells multiplying within her. This is why abortion has always been part of our way of life, since the very beginning when the uses of certain herbs was discovered.

I want to know where you're getting this "few would equate . . ." and "most people think . . ." from.

Abortion has NOT always been "part of our way of life", unless you happen to consider people doing something illegal and shocking to be "part of our way of life". Just because people do something doesn't make that thing accepted or approved of.

Oh, and that cute little attempt to sound dispassionate and scientific with the "cells multiplying within her" just makes you sound REALLY archaic and out-of-touch with modern medical and biological sciences. Kudos.

Do you consider a fetus that causes the death or injury to a woman carrying it or anyone who prevents her from aborting it to be a criminal?

Oh, goodie. Another "brilliant" legal mind. Where's the malicious intent, or ANY intent, on the part of the baby, Clarence Darrow?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is actually none.
Scott Peterson was not an abortion provider. Was he specifically charged with murder of an unborn person? I believe he was held responsible with doing something against the will of the mother-to-be. Please give me an example of an abortion provider or pregnant woman found guilty of murder.

Is your point supposed to be that abortion providers were never prosecuted before abortion became legal, that the legality of abortion negates it being murder, or that murder was not the specific charge before abortion was legalized?

If that were so, in the history of man and in current times, abortion would be illegal.

In the history of man, it was illegal. In current times, it isn't legal because the majority of people decided they wanted it. You know perfectly well that abortion's legality was forced on everyone in this country by judicial fiat, not by the democratic process.

How about manslaughter, then? And how do you know what a fetus' intents are? Are you a mind reader? Do you claim to be the spokesperson of beings that do not speak?

I like how on the one hand, you can claim - erroneously - that a fetus is "just cells", and thus not warranting any concern or rights, and then turn around and claim that it is, in fact, an intelligent being capable of forming malicious intent. I just got whiplash from watching your two-faced, hypocritical switch.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So is the death penalty ... hmm ... we should make that illegal to! Prosecute anyone that has been involved in the death penalty! Judges, lawyers, cops, all of them!

I stand in speechless awe at the utter moral vacuum you live in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

at least Anguille holds a higher opinion of fetus' than I do, to me they are a cancer until they are 18 years old.

Some even longer. How old are you, again?

Dismissed.

 

[Anguille]

First of all, it was God Himself who made women the bearers of children. Secondly, as a woman, it is YOUR attitude on this that I find offensive, not that of pro-lifers. Breeding stock? How DARE you take such an insulting, demeaning, dismissive tone toward the beauty and magic of giving birth?

I am a pro lifer, wench. Pro choice means pro life.

I am not the one who takes a dismissive tone towards childbirth, though I would hardly call it magic. It's a natural phenomenon. The dismissive types are the ones like Sunni who see women as such and would restrict them like cattle on pens by laws and social conventions.

 

[Anguille]

I want to know where you're getting this "few would equate . . ." and "most people think . . ." from.

Abortion has NOT always been "part of our way of life", unless you happen to consider people doing something illegal and shocking to be "part of our way of life". Just because people do something doesn't make that thing accepted or approved of.

Oh, and that cute little attempt to sound dispassionate and scientific with the "cells multiplying within her" just makes you sound REALLY archaic and out-of-touch with modern medical and biological sciences. Kudos.



Oh, goodie. Another "brilliant" legal mind. Where's the malicious intent, or ANY intent, on the part of the baby, Clarence Darrow?

BTW, I thought I chased you off the board last week? Are you back to tell us more horror stories of your home life?

 

[mattskramer]

Wow! I was just wanting your thoughts on if those who had provided abortions should be prosecuted for their once legal activities if/after abortion become illegal – like the Nuremburg people. I never thought that my simple post would have resulted in such a long thread!

 

[YWN666]

BTW, I thought I chased you off the board last week? Are you back to tell us more horror stories of your home life?

She was off shedding her skin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am a pro lifer, wench. Pro choice means pro life.

No, it doesn't. And playing lame word games only works with other people as vocabulary-challenged as you are.

If you want to sit around, deluding yourself about the sort of person you really are and what you really represent, go ahead. I'm not your therapist, so I don't care. Don't expect me to aid and abet you or cheer you on, though.

I am not the one who takes a dismissive tone towards childbirth, though I would hardly call it magic.

You just DID take a dismissive tone toward birth. "Breeding stock"? YOUR phrase, not mine, and not anyone else's here. YOU are the one who reduced pregnancy and childbirth to the status of farm animals, not I, so don't try to take the high ground with ME.

And of course you wouldn't call it magical. YOU call it a bunch of meaningless cells to be removed like a polyp of some sort. I'm guessing you're also a man.

It's a natural phenomenon.

What does that have to do with anything? You think because you can observe something and interfere with it, and then blow it off as "Just a natural phenomenon", that makes it somehow less wonderful and magical and miraculous? The human body, for all that we've been observing it, treating it, and each of us living inside of one for millennia, is still very much a mystery to us, and infinitely more complex than we even fully understand. The scientific gurus ignoramuses like you like to put your faith in are always confidently asserting that they "know" this or that for a fact about the human body, and at least half the time, what they're asserting is that they've discovered that their LAST assertion was dead wrong, and NOW they've got the right one. And for all our blase, knowledgeable air concerning how the body works, we can't make one. Oh, we talk about "making a baby", but we aren't really. I can't create an ovum, and my husband can't create a sperm. And while we can put the two in more or less the same vicinity, neither of us can make them decide to join together and become a separate entity. I can't make that entity grow and develop and differentiate and become steadily larger and more complex until it is ready to live in the outside world. He is making himself, and all I am doing - all I CAN do - is provide him a safe place in which to bring about that creation. And no matter what doctors and scientists tell you, they have no more idea than anyone else about how the human body builds itself than anyone else does. They can tell you the process it goes through, and the ways it can be stopped or interfered with, but they don't know how it knows to do it, or what powers it. And they can't do it themselves.

There is nothing more miraculous and magical than nature at work.

The dismissive types are the ones like Sunni who see women as such and would restrict them like cattle on pens by laws and social conventions.

Nice try, asshat, but that little diversionary tactic won't work with me any more than "Yes, but Bush did this! Bush is evil!" does to try to take the focus off some politician stepping on his johnson. YOU were dismissive, derogatory, and misogynistic. What Sunni or anyone else is or isn't is irrelevant to the fact that YOU are still an offensive cad, and does not excuse you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

BTW, I thought I chased you off the board last week? Are you back to tell us more horror stories of your home life?

Well, now I know you're not only an imbecile, you're also delusional. You "chased" no one anywhere. If you didn't see me for a few days, that would have been because, unlike you, I have a life and actual friends and can't sit here all day every day.

I am not surprised that someone who hates women, families, and childbirth as much as you appear to considers my home life to be "horrific". Ohmigod! All that long marriage, loving children and grandchildren stuff!

Some day, I really need to find a smiley that spits contemptuously on people like you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow! I was just wanting your thoughts on if those who had provided abortions should be prosecuted for their once legal activities if/after abortion become illegal – like the Nuremburg people. I never thought that my simple post would have resulted in such a long thread!

There are several problems with Nuremberg as an analogy for abortionists. The first is, of course, that they would have to be prosecuted under US law, and US law does not allow for retroactive prosecution. That is, you cannot be prosecuted for an act that was legal when you committed it.

The second is that gentleman's assertion that the Holocaust was legal at the time. I don't believe it entirely was. Certain aspects that were carried out in public view, such as seizing the property of Jews, forcing them to wear the Star of David, and rounding them up and carting them off were carried out under at least technically legal aspects, although I doubt they would have stood up to legal scrutiny, had anyone been inclined to seriously apply any, but much of what went on in the camps was never really legalized at all, ie. the German government didn't pass laws making it okay to conduct gross medical experiments on people, or shoot and gas them in job lots, or turn their skins into lampshades, etc. That's one of the reasons that the horrors of the camp were such a genuine shock to much of the German public at large.

Third, the Nuremberg trials - at least the first ones - were held by an international military tribunal for war crimes. Abortion isn't a war crime, nor is it against any international law. You might consider it a crime against humanity, but I doubt the international community is going to want to indict people for an action they themselves actively participate in.

 

[YWN666]

Ahh, the usual "brilliance" I expect from you. Funny, I hadn't realized the law allowed people to drop out of school in the third grade.

I think that's about it for you on my screen. Dismissed.

Funny that you didn't address my comment. I wonder why that is.

When the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
- Socrates