No abortion for rape victims

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Again with the lies, or are you just stupid? Murder extends to unborn children in 36 states, including California.

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.

Yet a doctor who aborted babies was charged with murder.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Again with the lies, or are you just stupid? Murder extends to unborn children in 36 states, including California.

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.

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.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

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.

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.

Really? Has that worked for you a lot?

Either that or you're in prison as we speak.... yearning for freedom......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

People are being denied abortions?

Who knew?

 

[emilynghiem]

Somebody has to get punished in order to balance the budget? Who would you prefer to punish?

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!

 

[Gadawg73]

Somebody has to get punished in order to balance the budget? Who would you prefer to punish?

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Somebody has to get punished in order to balance the budget? Who would you prefer to punish?

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.

 

[Noomi]

Again with the lies, or are you just stupid? Murder extends to unborn children in 36 states, including California.

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.

Yet a doctor who aborted babies was charged with murder.

Was that the doctor who delivered those babies ALIVE and then killed them? If so, those babies didn't die from abortion, did they?

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, they were babies that were aborted...but survived..and were killed.

As many do. Talk to abortion workers.

 

[4Horsemen]

I think it's in very POOR TASTE for Planned Parenthood to be behind the scenes promoting abortions for rape victims, when the number of slutbags with no responsibility vs. rape victims is most likley 10:1, in favor of the slutbags.

It's really sad PP has to support this kind of underhanded tactics to validate abortion.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.

Yet a doctor who aborted babies was charged with murder.

Was that the doctor who delivered those babies ALIVE and then killed them? If so, those babies didn't die from abortion, did they?

Well, that was the point I was trying to make. I'm glad somebody picked up on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet a doctor who aborted babies was charged with murder.

Was that the doctor who delivered those babies ALIVE and then killed them? If so, those babies didn't die from abortion, did they?

He killed them as part of an abortion. If you don't believe me, just ask Obama, he voted against making the practice illegal.

Twice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet a doctor who aborted babies was charged with murder.

Was that the doctor who delivered those babies ALIVE and then killed them? If so, those babies didn't die from abortion, did they?

Well, that was the point I was trying to make. I'm glad somebody picked up on it.

The point is the pro abortion crowd, like Obama, think killing babies who are born after an abortion should be legal.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Was that the doctor who delivered those babies ALIVE and then killed them? If so, those babies didn't die from abortion, did they?

Well, that was the point I was trying to make. I'm glad somebody picked up on it.

The point is the pro abortion crowd, like Obama, think killing babies who are born after an abortion should be legal.

HEY QUANTUM! Good to see you. I missed you.