Discussion in 'Congress' started by Luddly Neddite, Oct 12, 2012.
Yet a doctor who aborted babies was charged with murder.
Right, for the death of the mother, and for the death of 7 babies if the prosecution can establish that it was the killing of live born babies. If he is convicted of murder for any of the babies, then it will be a legal precedent. Until then, as I keep saying over and over and you don't seem to acknowledge, nobody has ever been convicted of murder for an abortion. Illegal, fine. Murder, no. That's all I have said all along.
Really? Has that worked for you a lot?
Either that or you're in prison as we speak.... yearning for freedom......
This guy was convicted of attempted murder over an abortion.
Dominic Holt-Reid sentenced to 13 years for attempting to force his then-girlfriend to get abortion - New York Daily News
The problem with your demand is that those cases would have happened before the internet was invented, and it is difficult to find examples using Google or Bing. I do know that Roe v Wade specifically challenged the law in Texas, which made it illegal for doctors to perform abortions, and that the decision specifically raised the issue that doctors were not charged with premeditated murder under the stature. The justices wanted to know why they were only charged with the lesser offense of felony murder. They also wanted to know why no woman was ever charged with murder.
The simple fact is that abortion used to be prosecuted as murder in the United States. That is historical fact, even if I can't find a specific example.
We do far more splitting hairs than is healthy, Quantum. Abortion carries with it varying degrees of illegality, depending on the state. You find these oddball cases where the envelope is pushed on the issue, and I commend you for that, but then you also make claims that 36 states classify abortion as murder, and that simply is an outright falsehood. Again, we're splitting hairs. Abortion is not given a legal classification of "murder" in an of itself. I'm not lying when I say it. Cases where prosecutors have established it as such typically involve late-term terminations where the laws start to get hazy over whether or not it is even an abortion in the general sense.
I think we can both come to terms on one aspect at least: we both believe that life in the womb deserves some kind of protection under the law. I simply believe that the pro-life movement, as a whole, approaches the issue in a way that is more harmful to the cause of that protection than helpful. The law, as the general understanding of "abortion" is concerned, does not view it as murder in a legal sense. Trying to classify it as murder across the board is not helping. All it does is drive deeper wedges in a country already polarized to the point of near paralysis in almost every sense, both politically and culturally. You may see it as a moral imperative to regard all abortion as murder, I simply see it as destructive.
Very well stated. I agree with JJ on this.
I am extremely sympathetic and admiring of Prolife outreach, and want more prochoice
advocates to work together to stop abortion, but I keep running into this kind of divide
that is killing any chance of full cooperation on prevention and solutions.
You can argue day and night about the "letter of the argument"
because the "spirit of the argument" is already in conflict.
We'd have to first agree on a common APPROACH to the issue,
to avoid such entanglements and conflicts over how this is framed in that context.
If you already clash on how you set up the context, no amount of clarification of terms
is going to fix that. The foundation is already cracked and both people are on opposite sides.
Especially if the point of prolife arguments is to influence prochoice people or others coming from some other viewpoint or direction, you'd have to set up the discussion to begin with on common ground BOTH sides agree to stand on. Otherwise, it is set up to fail from the beginning, and all the words will clash from there on.
Whatever fear is causing that defensiveness, where people won't let go of the stance they are clinging to, get rid of that fear first, and the words and understanding you need will follow from there. The fear of letting that go is getting in the way.
BTW this is a good and helpful part of the process to overcome that fear; it pays off in the longrun to be able to work with others and get to the same points without this kind of obstruction.
So I am very grateful for you for having this discussion and letting all this come forth. If all people confronted their fears and got them out of the way, we'd be making much more progress getting rid of the same problems that cause abuse, crime, murder, abortion, etc.
These all come from broken relations blocked by fear and unforgiven/unresolved conflicts.
So even this process here is part of strengthening positive relations as needed to overcome all other social ills caused by the same things messing up relationships. Thank you very much
People are being denied abortions?
Not sure what context this question came out from.
But my answer is why not charge back the parties who COST the taxpayers' money.
Instead of hiring lawyers to cover up and get people off on technicalities so they are never held responsible, why not create jobs for lawyers, interns and law schools doing the opposite: collecting on behalf of taxpayers.
So by investigating all cases of crime, corruption, waste or govt/corporate malfeasance or conflicts of interest:
* cost of debts/damages/interest to taxpayers can be assessed
* trail or chain of accountability, and who got what at taxpayers expense can be tracked
* payment plans for paying back taxpayers over time can be negotiated as settlements
* even wrongdoers can be held for the cost of legal/prosecution/prison costs instead of
charging taxpayers a second and third time for the same crimes
* and if there is a gap in time between paying taxpayers back, and investing that money into rebuilding jobs, schools and economies/infrastructure, then I would also recommend that a similar system under the Federal Reserve be established for each account, issuing bonds against the debts to taxpayers, and using that capital to finance each project while holding the assets, property or programs developed as 'collateral' against the amoutn of the debt while it is either being paid off by the wrongdoers or it is bought out by shareholders, private citizens who choose to invest in the projects and gain interest while the debt is paid.
So we'd turn the tables on govt, instead of taxpayers footing the bill for crime and corruption, we would get paid back plus interest while wrongdoers are held to pay it back!
Under what Constitutional authority does one do any of what you suggest?
You are combining criminal and civil procedure which are totally different in all phases of the law.
The same one that gives the government the power to make contracts.
Separate names with a comma.