CDZ Pregnant lady murdered!

[ChrisL]

The murderer was charged and convicted of double homicide. One for the Mother and one for the "medical waste" in her womb......Would the verdict be different if she was murdered on her way to an abortion clinic?

Discuss......

If to the mother she lost a child, then it should be treated the same as a murder.

========================================================
My question Zander At what point is the prolife movement going to "man up"
and start targeting men equally as women for responsibility about sex and pregnancy to avoid abortion.
At least half of the responsibility belongs with the men, if not more in the case of rape, incest or other forced impregnation.

Don't you think we might actually get somewhere if
we quit targeting just the women "after pregnancy has occurred"
and start looking at prevention as the responsibility of BOTH sex partners.

You have it backwards! At what point are we going to start targeting the women equally as men for responsibility about sex and pregnancy to avoid abortion. As things stand now, the man must assume responsibility for the pregnancy and the resulting child from the point of the sexual act. He has no vote concerning aborting the newly created life. The woman, on the other hand may decide to abort whether the man wants the child or not. It is quite ironic when the subject of abortion rights are discussed that most pro-choice people say that the man needs to keep his pants on if he does not want to be responsible for a child, yet they never apply this same standard to the woman.

That being said, I agree, both the man and woman should take responsibility for preventing the pregnancy if no child is wanted at the time.

That is because of nature. Not everything in life is "fair." The point is that she is the one who would be taking ALL the risks with her health. The man has none of that. When the day comes that the baby can be transferred out of the woman and placed in the man, then you have an argument.

Kaitlin Jenner is working on it.

That's Caitlyn with a "c." Lol. Not really considering he still has a penis and balls.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a typical example of confusing criminal law with civil law, where a second charge of murder is not to acknowledge an embryo/fetus as a 'person,' or an entity with 'rights.'

Indeed, such laws have clear provisions stating that the measure in no way applies to a woman who has an abortion, the doctor who performed the abortion, or the staff of the treatment facility.

A woman's right to privacy is protected not only from the state (civil law), but from private persons as well (criminal law).

In this case the alleged murderer terminated the woman's pregnancy against her will, where he had neither the right nor authority to do so, just as the state has neither the right nor authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will; the crime is therefore committed against the woman, not the embryo/fetus.

Consequently, the notion that abortion is 'murder' or that the lawful, appropriate use of tissue samples from an abortion is 'illegal,' is unfounded and devoid of merit.



.

 

[emilynghiem]

So it is a different crime to kill a pregnant woman who wants the child than to kill one who doesn't want one?

How do you even get to a concept of double murder if you deny recognition of the child's life?

Dear jwoodie
it is possible for a woman to be physically pregnant
but for the soul or spirit NOT to be in the body.

The point at which the soul is living in the body
is FAITH based, is reported different for different cases,
and not necessarily proven by science.

The most we can go by is what the mother, father, family etc.
feels, so if they feel they are losing a loved one and to count
the unborn child as a person, I believe that should be respected.

If someone wants to argue that there is no spirit of a person
in the fetus yet, I cannot argue with that either. It is not the govt's
position to decide that.

What I believe will happen is the people can form a consensus
and agree how to deal with these cases, and then laws can be
based on that CONSENSUS.

But just like the gay marriage laws, people like Obama had the
FREE CHOICE to change his mind and decide to support it.
Everyone should have FREE CHOICE when it comes to spiritual issues.

It is possible for the Prolife to argue they can impose their beliefs
through law, now that the Gay Marriage crowd has violated separation
of church and state by imposing their beliefs through govt by court ruling.

I don't agree with that, but now that even the Liberals have set
this precedent that it's okay to establish beliefs as long as the majority
in Courts or Congress vote "democratically"
it is possible to argue consensus is not necessary for govt to establish spiritual faith-based beliefs.

I personally hold this inconsistent with Constitutional ethics
and will still enforce the standard of Consensus on Law
when it comes to anything FAITH based that isn't proven scientifically.

With the case of unborn babies, if people cannot agree "after the fact"
then I would suggest agreeing on laws on prevention BEFORE that point.

Such as agreeing that ANY act of sex resulting in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted
children, unwanted abortion, by EITHER partner constitutes a form of
relationship abuse, or sexual abuse, or some lesser degree of rape
and any complaints would subject both partners to counseling to resolve the
report of abuse. Health and safety ordinances based on prevention could be
AGREED upon on a community-based level, such as some Universities already
practice with consent forms or other means of policing against rape or sexual abuse.

The level that prevention would need to be addressed
is not currently within govt jurisdiction; and that is why
people keep pushing laws AFTER the fact, to get govt involved.

These issues are personal -- on the level of spiritual, health, medical and relationship decisions.

That is why they don't belong in govt hands to decide.

These issues require education, counseling, and conflict resolution on multiple levels
to resolve all the questions and issues that arise.

In order to protect all lives, interests and beliefs equally
that is where I still would enforce Consensus as the standard for making decisions.

if couples cannot form an agreement, my opinion is that
you shouldn't be having sex. Because if pregnancy occurs,
and the couple doesn't agree how to handle things, then this
cause further problems that to me constitute relationship abuse
because the couple did not stay within the agreed terms of the relationship.

How can govt be expected to police relationship abuse?
Only people can police themselves, and make sure they
don't abuse sex, relations, or each other.

And that is how unwanted pregnancy and abortion can be prevented.

By addressing relationship abuse and sex abuse so the problems don't arise in the first place.

That's the point at which the disagreements over abortion and "unborn persons"
can be prevented all together -- by preventing abortion, preventing unwanted pregnancy,
preventing unwanted sex, preventing murder and abuse of people, including pregnant women
and unborn babies.

And then we won't have to argue "after the fact."

 

[emilynghiem]

This is a typical example of confusing criminal law with civil law, where a second charge of murder is not to acknowledge an embryo/fetus as a 'person,' or an entity with 'rights.'

Indeed, such laws have clear provisions stating that the measure in no way applies to a woman who has an abortion, the doctor who performed the abortion, or the staff of the treatment facility.

A woman's right to privacy is protected not only from the state (civil law), but from private persons as well (criminal law).

In this case the alleged murderer terminated the woman's pregnancy against her will, where he had neither the right nor authority to do so, just as the state has neither the right nor authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will; the crime is therefore committed against the woman, not the embryo/fetus.

Consequently, the notion that abortion is 'murder' or that the lawful, appropriate use of tissue samples from an abortion is 'illegal,' is unfounded and devoid of merit.

.

If abortion is coerced and the woman is silenced it could still be murder IN SPIRIT.
But is not recognized legally or by society.

Just like some cases of rape, especially marital rape, are considered consensual and NOT rape,
but to the woman in the situation, it is the same as a rape, regardless of the legal status of the two people.

While slavery was endorsed by govt and courts, enforcing property laws and the rights of
slave owners to own people as property and to have such stolen property returned,
this was NOT considered a human rights violation.

But it was the whole time, legal or not, as long as it was INVOLUNTARY.

C_Clayton_Jones I agree with you where you point out the
deciding factor is if the woman consents. That consent instead of coercion
is what makes the difference between
* consensual sex vs. rape
* borrowing or lending money vs. stealing
* volunteering to work for free for charity vs. involuntary servitude

CONSENT is the key that makes something lawful or in violation of human rights and freedom.

That is why I harp on you when you seem to forget this,
and endorse Court rulings or Congressional votes on issues of BELIEFS
that become unconstitutional if they don't have the CONSENT of the people affected by these laws.

It's easy when you AGREE with the BELIEFS being mandated
such as gay marriage or right to health care mandated through federal govt.

But what about when states votes to BAN gay marriage and that precluded people's beliefs?

It's easy to protest not wanting public resources to support religious crosses, Bibles, Nativity Scenes,
or other faith-based institutions not all people agree with or believe in.

But when it comes to gay marriage or govt health care not all people believe in,
or believe is Constitutional for federal govt to mandate,
suddenly it is easy for Liberals who normally lobby for "separation of church and state"
to make an exception since these beliefs are actually seen as good.

How is that any less discrimination
than someone agreeing with traditional marriage seen as good,
but protesting and excluding gay marriage?

If you are going to allow govt to "take sides" and endorse the BELIEFS YOU support
over others, how can we complain when govt is abused to endorse beliefs we
disagree with, like bans on gay marriage? How can we argue to keep those
beliefs out of govt if we, ourselves, allow govt to endorse, mandate or implement OUR beliefs.

How is that not discrimination, based on our beliefs?

So how is that different from the people wanting govt to recognize their beliefs on traditional marriage
but not the beliefs of others?

Do you see how CONSENSUS on law would treat all beliefs equally?
Either AGREE on the laws and how to accommodate all beliefs,
or get that issue such as marriage OUT of govt and keep it separate.

Given that the Party system is national, covers all states and districts, and has organized billions in funding
for issues that their membership base agrees with, this system CAN be used
to organize benefits and marriages so that these don't necessitate going through govt.

The parties CAN separate, so if people cannot agree nationally or statewide on
beliefs about marriage, that is another way I suggest to address and solve the problems
of conflicting beliefs instead of abusing govt to force anyone to change their views or do something
against their beliefs.

At least by separating by Party, we could accommodate all beliefs and interests
and respect CONSENT of the people affected by these policies.

 

[emilynghiem]

Of course, all a guy has to do is drag his ready-to-birth woman into a planned parenthood clinic, and they will help him restrain and abort her....

The prolife activists have pushed for laws against coercion.
Some of these were contested as politically motivated.
The key is writing them by consensus of prochoice and prolife interests,
so that they truly protect the women, and don't overreach in ineffective ways that cause the bill to be defeated.

The prolife activists I know respond to cases of people forced against their will, and either seek to intervene and prevent this in advance, or help women to sue afterwards if they suffered damages.

Again, the best check against abuses of women would be
for prochoice and prolife watchdog groups to collaborate, share sources and resources,
and make sure there are no abuses on either side.

Working together on prevention of "relationship abuse"
would also SCREEN out abusive partners LONG before it ever got to
the point of an unwanted pregnancy, much less forcing and restraining someone in a coerced abortion.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm still wondering where and when any women have been forced to have an abortion. As far as I always knew, abortion was an ELECTIVE procedure, or one you have when you have a "problem" with the pregnancy.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm still wondering where and when any women have been forced to have an abortion. As far as I always knew, abortion was an ELECTIVE procedure, or one you have when you have a "problem" with the pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood certainly "counsels" women to have abortions by painting horrible pictures of what their lives will be like if they don't have one. Your boyfriend will dump you and get someone else. You will look awful. If you have an abortion you can go dancing days later and no belly. The younger the girl, the easier it is to convince her to elect an abortion.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm still wondering where and when any women have been forced to have an abortion. As far as I always knew, abortion was an ELECTIVE procedure, or one you have when you have a "problem" with the pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood certainly "counsels" women to have abortions by painting horrible pictures of what their lives will be like if they don't have one. Your boyfriend will dump you and get someone else. You will look awful. If you have an abortion you can go dancing days later and no belly. The younger the girl, the easier it is to convince her to elect an abortion.

I'm skeptical. If a woman is determined to keep her child, why would she have gone to an abortion clinic to begin with?

 

[victoriamendoza]

this is just sad.

 

[Adam G. Cook]

I think it very inhuman to kill a women that is pregnant. Also why would any one would do this to a person. Finally the person that killed the pregnant women should spend all their life in prison.

 

[S.J.]

Is the fetus a person or not??? Make up your mind.