If abortion is murder...

[Ravi]

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?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

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

 

[AllieBaba]

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?

Because ROE V. WADE made it legal, nitwit. Hence our repeated attempts to have it overturned.

Hello? Hello? Is anyone home?

 

[Ravi]

Thank you both for your responses, though you didn't answer my question.

 

[Diuretic]

Because ROE V. WADE made it legal, nitwit. Hence our repeated attempts to have it overturned.

Hello? Hello? Is anyone home?

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.

 

[Care4all]

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

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

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

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[Care4all]

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....

 

[Ravi]

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 Stacey 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....

What does that entail, adding something to the legal definition of murder?

 

[Care4all]

What does that entail, adding something to the legal definition of murder?

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....

 

[Ravi]

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....

Okay, thanks. I wish ReillyT still posted here.

 

[Mr. President]

We have a double standard in America if a woman has an abortion it is legal if a man kills a pregnant woman it is double homicide. So the question i have is; how can it be ok for one person to decide that a life is not worth living but not ok for another person to make that same decision regarding that same individual. We've already decided that abortion is murder.

 

[AllieBaba]

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

Actually, I believe that when Jesus refers to "innocents" he include the unborn in that classification.

 

[Ravi]

We have a double standard in America if a woman has an abortion it is legal if a man kills a pregnant woman it is double homicide. So the question i have is; how can it be ok for one person to decide that a life is not worth living but not ok for another person to make that same decision regarding that same individual. We've already decided that abortion is murder.

Start your own thread. You can hang out here if you make an effort to answer my question.

 

[AllieBaba]

I find it interesting that the original law making abortion illegal provided the exception that abortion was legal if necessary for the health of the mother.

Kinda funny that all the pro-abortionists out there keep carping that if we don't have legalized abortion, mothers will die en masse when they're forced to carry those life-sucking fetuses to term, regardless of their medical situation:

"Texas first enacted a criminal abortion statute in 1854. Texas Laws 1854, c. 49, § 1, set forth in 3 H. Gammel, Laws of Texas 1502 (1898). This was soon modified into language that has remained substantially unchanged to the present time. See Texas Penal Code of 1857, c. 7, Arts. 531-536; G. Paschal, Laws of Texas, Arts. 2192-2197 (1866); Texas Rev. Stat., c. 8, Arts. 536-541 (1879); Texas Rev. Crim. Stat., Arts. 1071-1076 (1911). The final article in each of these compilations provided the same exception, as does the present Article 1196, for an abortion by "medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."
ROE v. WADE

 

[AllieBaba]

Start your own thread. You can hang out here if you make an effort to answer my question.

Oh, Ravi. You like to pretend you have power, but really, you don't.

 

[Care4all]

Actually, I believe that when Jesus refers to "innocents" he include the unborn in that classification.

He doesn't say such Allie and Christ was not one to really mince his words?

Abortion was very uncommon during Christ's era because society deemed those with MORE children as being a good thing and most families needed as many workers they could get to work their own farms or businesses...the more children the merrier for the most part....he would have no reason to be speaking to the crowd regarding aborted fetuses....?

So I do not se how Christ was talking about the unborn as innocense, he was speaking of the Children born, who had not yet been corrupted by society imho....by adulthood, they no longer had this innocense...right?

care

 

[Ravi]

Oh, Ravi. You like to pretend you have power, but really, you don't.

What does that have to do with the subject of the thread?

I'd really like someone to answer the question instead of trying to derail the thread with their political agenda.

 

[Care4all]

I find it interesting that the original law making abortion illegal provided the exception that abortion was legal if necessary for the health of the mother.

Kinda funny that all the pro-abortionists out there keep carping that if we don't have legalized abortion, mothers will die en masse when they're forced to carry those life-sucking fetuses to term, regardless of their medical situation:

"Texas first enacted a criminal abortion statute in 1854. Texas Laws 1854, c. 49, § 1, set forth in 3 H. Gammel, Laws of Texas 1502 (1898). This was soon modified into language that has remained substantially unchanged to the present time. See Texas Penal Code of 1857, c. 7, Arts. 531-536; G. Paschal, Laws of Texas, Arts. 2192-2197 (1866); Texas Rev. Stat., c. 8, Arts. 536-541 (1879); Texas Rev. Crim. Stat., Arts. 1071-1076 (1911). The final article in each of these compilations provided the same exception, as does the present Article 1196, for an abortion by "medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."
ROE v. WADE

thousands of women died because of back alley abortions (unsanitary conditions), not because of the health risks to the mother for birthing, though many mother's that gave birth have died over the years in child birth, especially back in the 1800's and early 1900's before antibiotics were readily available to fight any infection is my understanding....?

Care

 

[Mr. President]

And if you read my post you would see that we have already classified abortion as murder but only when committed by someone who is not the mother. Its legal to kill your child if you're the mother but if you are anybody else it's murder.