No abortion for rape victims

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Luddly Neddite, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    I suggest you take a little time to read my signature before you apologize to the guy that has spread that message in every single post he has made on this board.
     
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    He couldn't have been indicted if it the abortions he preformed were not murder under the law, could he?
     
  3. sfcalifornia
    Offline

    sfcalifornia Silver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,276
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +496
    Oh please!

    Anyone is "free" to commit murder as long as they don't personally object to it on a moral basis.

    Now that is absurd.
     
  4. Jimmy_Jam
    Offline

    Jimmy_Jam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Thanks Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +136
    You really are missing the point. The establishment of murder is dependent on the live birth status of the babies he allegedly killed. It is something that has yet to be determined. If the prosecution is unable to establish that the babies were live born and then terminated, then he can only be convicted of murder of the mother. If they have a strong case for this, then I hope they gain the conviction. If they don't then they really should go after him for whatever penalty they can make stick that involved late-term abortions.

    This is the problem I have with the approach that the pro-life movement uses. Unborn babies deserve some kind of protection. Going back and forth over whether or not it is murder is about as effective as animal right advocates trying to establish eating meat as murder. Despite what your personal or moral feelings might be on the matter, the only people that suffer are that woman and those poor babies. The fact that that was able to happen in the first place is the real travesty, and is a much bigger failure than whether or not abortion gets classified as murder.
     
  5. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Everyone is free to commit murder, the trick is not whinging about paying the price if you get caught. Stand up, explain why you did it, and let the jury figure out if you were right.
     
  6. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Again with the lies, or are you just stupid? Murder extends to unborn children in 36 states, including California.
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    Maybe the issue then is not paying into an unmanaged system of wasteful bureaucracy,
    but to localize the programs where there is accountability of who is paying for
    what services being received. And where costs are excessive due to waste or abuse, then the abusers are held accountable, not charging more to law abiding productive citizens!

    The Bible calls for us to respect civil institutions and authority. If you look up Public Law
    96-303, The Code of Ethics for Govt Service would negate any waste of public resources
    instead of solving the social problems that are creating the waste and drain on resources.
    ethics-commission.net

     
  8. Jimmy_Jam
    Offline

    Jimmy_Jam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Thanks Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +136
    Sigh*

    I prefer "liar liar pants on fire."

    I am not arguing the loss of life or that a baby is killed. I agree with you. However, in none of those states is abortion "murder." There is a distinct difference legally between "murder," and other forms of killing, such as negligent manslaughter. Abortion is not murder in ANY of the 50 states since Roe v. Wade. This is not a lie. This is verifiable fact. Why do you insist on calling me a liar when all you have to do is read what I post. Murder has a distinct legal meaning and definition, whether the majority of Americans consider it murder or not.

    Again, I will make myself perfectly clear, the unborn deserve to be protected under the law. In some states they have some protections. As long as the pro-life movement continues to label it a murder, they will continue to lose the battle. I am not inventing or lying when I say that the law has always recognized a life at live birth. I would like to see this change, but the hysterical crying of "murder" is not going to get it done.

    So, again, you're missing the point. If you want to say that abortion is killing, well, I would have to agree with you. If you want to say that it is murder, then I will continue to ask, at what point. It was never classified as murder, even before Roe v. Wade.

    But that's okay. Call me a liar again. You're the one saying that abortion is considered murder in 36 states. But I'm not calling you a liar, just mistaken.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    I believe there should be stronger consequences for rape.
    I would go so far as to promote signed agreements per state or district,
    where citizens agree to forfeit citizenship if they commit premeditated
    crimes using weapons involving rape, robbery or murder. And whoever
    cannot sign or abide by that agreement can't live there but agrees to work with
    correctional programs if they have some criminal condition they cannot control.
    Currently we do not teach people the laws we expect to be followed in order to have
    citizenship, and you wonder why people have no clue about running up the costs
    if there were no rules set out by written agreement up front in order to live here.
    There should be a signed agreement that people will pay restitution themselves,
    so there is an understanding of how much this really costs instead of taking it for granted as paid by the state!

    I believe there should be restitution to rape victims paid by
    money or labor directly by the rapists. We would turn the economy around
    on its head if there were restitution for all the rape, crime and trafficking victims
    invested in building service centers and jobs in schools and health care,
    along the border to restore communities currently overrun by violent crimes with no accountability for the cost to victims and society.

    If we enforced a higher standard on accountability and costs for crime and corruption,
    we could balance state budgets with pay back and even loans against
    debts and damages, worked off over time by the wrongdoers actually responsible
    instead of charging the costs to taxpayers!
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  10. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    I agree that "insisting on treating or labeling abortion as murder" is not necessary,
    loses the audience, and tends to defeats arguments before any points can be made after that. It is generally unproductive, and there are better ways to frame things where problems can be addressed and resolved instead of killing the conversation over this point.

    I cannot stress enough what a difference it makes in reaching an agreement
    if people agree to stick to common terms and points first. The same resolutions and points
    can be better reached more effectively over time, using common framework in order to
    avoiding getting caught up in side conflicts that detract from resolving problems
    that would have made a bigger difference in the overall process and goals.

    I hope you don't give up, but continue to work on addressing what are really the issues common to both, and not lose connection over terms that aren't.

    For example, if you bring up "suffering" that may be a common issue that all sides seek to prevent, instead of limiting this to murder. Preventing "suffering" would equally apply to preventing abuse of sex or abuse of relations that precede pregnancy and abortion, so it would cover more of the causes that need to be prevented as well. Maybe that is more productive to address, and the same solutions would apply to preventing abortion.
     

Share This Page