If abortion is murder...

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by Ravi, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,431
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,879
    If abortion is murder, why do we need laws against it? After all, we don't have specific laws for pushing people off a cliff, we have laws making murder itself illegal.

    Instead of the right wing trying to outlaw abortion, or having laws against late term abortion, why not just pass constitutional amendments declaring abortion murder?
     
  2. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,824
    Thanks Received:
    4,502
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,111
    Let me preface this by stating unequivocally that I am not anti abortion per say. First trimester abortions or the morning after pill are less disturbing to me personally than late term abortion. I think there should be some common sense applied to the issue. With the availability of free birth control, a woman should be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy tests can tell a woman she is pregnant in as little as 2 or 3 weeks after conception. Surely a woman could decide within 90 days whether or not she wants a child.

    The fact that less than 9% of abortions are second trimester and that less than 1% are third trimester tells me that most women can decide in less than 90 days so what is the big deal about banning second and third trimester abortions? Of course it goes without saying that the exception to any ban of abortion is to save the life of the mother.

    Now let me ask you:

    Do you agree that in late term abortion that the fetus may emerge from the womb alive?

    If the act of the "legal" late term abortion did not kill the fetus, then a separate act is necessary to kill the newly emerged fully formed child is it not? That act can be neglect where the doctor just leaves the baby to die of what amounts to exposure and hypothermia. Or that act may be the active suffocation of the newly born child.

    If a woman gave birth outside of a hospital prematurely and left the child to die of exposure or suffocated it, she would be charged with a crime, but the doctor who does the same is protected. Can you tell me why this is so. I can't see it as anything else but a double standard in the name of women's rights.

    Here are the methods of post first trimester abortions. Please read them and tell me if they should be legal?

    http://http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late1.htm
     
  3. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    Because ROE V. WADE made it legal, nitwit. Hence our repeated attempts to have it overturned.

    Hello? Hello? Is anyone home?
     
  4. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,431
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,879
    Thank you both for your responses, though you didn't answer my question.
     
  5. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Roe v Wade didn't do that. It merely struck down an unconstitutional law.

    That must be why you failed to get it overturned. You didn't understand it.

    Courts are strict about these things.
     
  6. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,800
    Thanks Received:
    6,627
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,118
    it is not murder, even if religious, the Bible does not give the same weight on an unborn child being killed with a born human being killed....

    it was not murder for the hundreds of years abortion was permitted by Common Law up untill the point of quickening....quickening is when the Baby to be starts moving inside the mother's womb... this was probably taken by them as the point the Baby to be, became sentient...Mary and her cousin Elizabeth visited eachother while John the Baptist, was in Elizabeth's womb, he jumped and kicked in her womb, ( he leaped with joy) when she came in the presense of Mary with Jesus in the womb... both of these women had passed the point of quickening.

    The Bible, gave an example of a woman pregnant, who was hit by two men fighting, which made her miscarry her baby....the husband of this woman according to Jewish Law, could go to the court and demand resitution for the death of his unborn child caused by the man fighting who hit his pregnant wife...this SHOWS that the unborn child WAS worth something for this man to be able to get restitution for his child to be, being killed.

    But then the passage goes on to say that if something further harms his wife, from the actions of these men hitting her, then the Law used for her harm, should be an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth....a LIFE for a LIFE.

    To me, this clearly defines the Baby to be as a human or with worth, BUT NOT THE SAME WORTH as a human being that has been BORN, or taken it's first breath....but NOTE, there was punishment towards the man that made the woman miscarry, he was not BLAMELESS for the loss of the unborn child.

    It would have been the same punishment for the man that harmed the pregnant woman's child, as it is for woman if she was harmed, if both born and unborn human life were EQUAL....

    here is the passage from Exodus 21

    Thus, in my humble opinion it was not murder, and can't be murder, because the child had not been born yet or was not at the stage that it could survive outside of the mother's womb, obviously because it did not survive outside of the mother's womb...she miscarried it.

    Granted there was no medical science back then that showed the baby with separate DNA....but it was still thought of as a separate human being because there was punishment and restitution due for the miscarriage caused....

    and granted, back then most babies brought to term and delivered alive, died within the first few months if not right after childbirth...and many women also died during their childbirthing....because medicine was not nearly as good as it is now....

    I guess, this is why this subject is so disconcerting to me...

    the right believes an unborn human, unsurviveable outside the mother's womb human being, as EQUAL to that of a born human being...and I disagree.

    The left believes an unborn human in the mother's womb has NO WORTH until it is born...just a clump of cells that means nothing and is not human at all.....and I disagree with this as well....

    care
     
  7. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,431
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,879
    Thank you, Care. While I agree with a lot of what you said, and probably for different reasons, you also didn't answer my question. I was going to save that discussion for another thread.
     
  8. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,800
    Thanks Received:
    6,627
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,118
    a constitutional amendment wouldn't be needed in my opinion, it would just need to be added to the definitions of Murder, either premeditated, or second or third degree murder....this would have to be State level imo.

    But point noted, that this HAS NOT BEEN DONE, by anyone on the right, in any state...with the exception of states that have added the 'peterson' law where it would be considered a double homicide if a pregnant woman like Lacy peterson is killed by someone else....and all of these laws specifically state that a woman having an abortion is not affected by these laws and she is NOT committing murder....
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2008
  9. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,431
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,879
    What does that entail, adding something to the legal definition of murder?
     
  10. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,800
    Thanks Received:
    6,627
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,118
    I certainly am not some legal scholar by any means of the imagination, but it would seem like this is all that would need to be done...

    THEN AGAIN, it could take a definition of when human life begins or when the child to be, becomes a person....though this was not needed for the Lacy, (not stacy to correct my post above) Peterson law that came out....
     

Share This Page