CDZ Will any USMB abortion proponents admit that an abortion kills a child?

[Moonglow]

The fetal homicide laws include murder in the list of charges that a person can face - for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

You say "it goes back to rights."

Please explain / expound on that.

My humble opinion: Fetal homicide laws should not apply to a mother who aborts, but they should apply to third parties who kill a fetus while they are violating the rights of the mother.

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

The difference is third party involvement and that third party intentionally violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

Big difference. Huge.

When the "third party" is charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb. . . How is that a crime against the mother?

The murder charge for killing the child in the womb does not mean the woman's rights were violated. It means the CHILDS rights were violated.

An unborn human has no rights..

 

[Coyote]

The best way to end abortion is to make it unnecessary.

Is it your opinion then, that all abortions are necessary?

It's not up to me to make that decision for another person. That's why I prefer doing everything we can to reduce the need for it.

You said the best way to "end abortion" is to make it unnecessary.

That implies that you think all abortions are necessary.

Otherwise, you have to admit that making them un-necessary will still not end them all.

Only in your opinion.

Whether or not an abortion is "necessary" is not determined by me. Or you. Or anyone else but the pregnant woman.

I am using YOUR words, not mine.

You said that you could "end abortion by making it unnecessary."

Remember?

So, I ask YOU again....

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

And I"m going to say AGAIN - that I do not determine whether an abortion is necessary.

If we end all abortions by making them unnecessary, then it's by convincing each woman that her particular case is not necessary and by ending unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Chuz Life]

The fetal homicide laws include murder in the list of charges that a person can face - for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

You say "it goes back to rights."

Please explain / expound on that.

My humble opinion: Fetal homicide laws should not apply to a mother who aborts, but they should apply to third parties who kill a fetus while they are violating the rights of the mother.

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

The difference is third party involvement and that third party intentionally violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

Big difference. Huge.

When the "third party" is charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb. . . How is that a crime against the mother?

The murder charge for killing the child in the womb does not mean the woman's rights were violated. It means the CHILDS rights were violated.

Exactly! But by definition and by necessity in the event, a pregnant female is involved.

The difference is HER decision. Her 51% say in the relationship with her unborn child gives her the right to decide.

Some asshole deciding to assault her is an apples to oranges comparison. The pregnant female, the unborn child and the asshole who assaults them all have 100% equal protection under the law until a jury determines otherwise. If a jury decides that the asshole violated the rights of either or both, appropriate punishment needs to be delivered by the state.

As I said, this is my opinion of how our criminal justice should work - there is no right or wrong answer here, only differing political opinions.

Surely you are aware that there are limits to when a woman can and can not get an abortion.

So, your claim that she has 2% more rights than the child she is carrying has. . . is not indefinite.

Do you support term limits on abortion?

If you do, then what is your justification for telling a woman she can NOT abort anymore after a certain point?

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it your opinion then, that all abortions are necessary?

It's not up to me to make that decision for another person. That's why I prefer doing everything we can to reduce the need for it.

You said the best way to "end abortion" is to make it unnecessary.

That implies that you think all abortions are necessary.

Otherwise, you have to admit that making them un-necessary will still not end them all.

Only in your opinion.

Whether or not an abortion is "necessary" is not determined by me. Or you. Or anyone else but the pregnant woman.

I am using YOUR words, not mine.

You said that you could "end abortion by making it unnecessary."

Remember?

So, I ask YOU again....

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

And I"m going to say AGAIN - that I do not determine whether an abortion is necessary.

If we end all abortions by making them unnecessary, then it's by convincing each woman that her particular case is not necessary and by ending unwanted pregnancies.

Do you believe all abortions are necessary?

Yes or no?

Either you do or you don't.

 

[AVG-JOE]

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

In the opinion of the pregnant woman agonizing over the decision?

I would certainly hope so. Sadness if anyone considering that option didn't take the choice seriously.​

 

[AVG-JOE]

My humble opinion: Fetal homicide laws should not apply to a mother who aborts, but they should apply to third parties who kill a fetus while they are violating the rights of the mother.

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

The difference is third party involvement and that third party intentionally violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

Big difference. Huge.

When the "third party" is charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb. . . How is that a crime against the mother?

The murder charge for killing the child in the womb does not mean the woman's rights were violated. It means the CHILDS rights were violated.

Exactly! But by definition and by necessity in the event, a pregnant female is involved.

The difference is HER decision. Her 51% say in the relationship with her unborn child gives her the right to decide.

Some asshole deciding to assault her is an apples to oranges comparison. The pregnant female, the unborn child and the asshole who assaults them all have 100% equal protection under the law until a jury determines otherwise. If a jury decides that the asshole violated the rights of either or both, appropriate punishment needs to be delivered by the state.

As I said, this is my opinion of how our criminal justice should work - there is no right or wrong answer here, only differing political opinions.

Surely you are aware that there are limits to when a woman can and can not get an abortion.

So, your claim that she has 2% more rights than the child she is carrying has. . . is not indefinite.

Do you support term limits on abortion?

If you do, then what is your justification for telling a woman she can NOT abort anymore after a certain point?

I support education and health-care policies that would reduce the demand for abortion, but I think it should remain legal and safe and between a woman, her family and her doctor.

Prohibition does not work. If there is a demand and the technology exists, a market will be made.

 

[Chuz Life]

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

In the opinion of the pregnant woman agonizing over the decision?

I would certainly hope so. Sadness if anyone considering that option didn't take the choice seriously.​

Both your answers to such a simple question tells me that you are both oblivious to the numbers of women who later regret their abortions and would tell you themselves that their abortions were NOT necessary.

 

[Chuz Life]

That is your opinion, I get that.

I'm still trying to get a little more information than only that.

Like you just said, you think a person who (even accidentally) kills a child in the womb during a criminal act should be charged with murder. However, if the woman DELIBERATELY pays Planned Parenthood to kill it herself.... there should be no charges against her at all.

Do you at least see the conflicts of legal interests in that?

Do you think anyone convicted under a fetal homicide law is not going to be quick to point that double standard out to a judge to at least TRY to get their conviction overturned?

The difference is third party involvement and that third party intentionally violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

Big difference. Huge.

When the "third party" is charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb. . . How is that a crime against the mother?

The murder charge for killing the child in the womb does not mean the woman's rights were violated. It means the CHILDS rights were violated.

Exactly! But by definition and by necessity in the event, a pregnant female is involved.

The difference is HER decision. Her 51% say in the relationship with her unborn child gives her the right to decide.

Some asshole deciding to assault her is an apples to oranges comparison. The pregnant female, the unborn child and the asshole who assaults them all have 100% equal protection under the law until a jury determines otherwise. If a jury decides that the asshole violated the rights of either or both, appropriate punishment needs to be delivered by the state.

As I said, this is my opinion of how our criminal justice should work - there is no right or wrong answer here, only differing political opinions.

Surely you are aware that there are limits to when a woman can and can not get an abortion.

So, your claim that she has 2% more rights than the child she is carrying has. . . is not indefinite.

Do you support term limits on abortion?

If you do, then what is your justification for telling a woman she can NOT abort anymore after a certain point?

I support education and health-care policies that would reduce the demand for abortion, but I think it should remain legal and safe and between a woman, her family and her doctor.

Prohibition does not work. If there is a demand and the technology exists, a market will be made.

Same for child pornography on the internet.

Right?

 

[AVG-JOE]

No. Because the children involved in pornography have rights that are being violated by the event.

Apples and oranges in a bowl of opinions.

Fortunately, a vast majority of Americans agree with me that favoring the rights of the children over the rights of the pornographers and their market is the right thing to do.

In the absence of a "higher authority" with punitive powers, society is responsible.

 

[AVG-JOE]

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

In the opinion of the pregnant woman agonizing over the decision?

I would certainly hope so. Sadness if anyone considering that option didn't take the choice seriously.​

Both your answers to such a simple question tells me that you are both oblivious to the numbers of women who later regret their abortions and would tell you themselves that their abortions were NOT necessary.

Let the he or the she who has never fucked up and has no regrets cast the first stone then.

Educate a reduction in demand and you educate a reduction in regrets. Then the only abortions being performed will be safe, legal and necessary - problem solved without resorting to prohibition.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Stimulating conversation, Bro'... but I've got a house to paint tomorrow.

​

 

[Chuz Life]

No. Because the children involved in pornography have rights that are being violated by the event.

Apples and oranges in a bowl of opinions.

Ummm.

You said yourself that children in the womb have at least 49% rights equal to the mother's rights. . . remember?

Fortunately, a vast majority of Americans agree with me that favoring the rights of the children over the rights of the pornographers and their market is the right thing to do.

In the absence of a "higher authority" with punitive powers, society is responsible.

Why do you believe the bans justified and effective when it comes to child pornography (despite the technology and all) but the same kinds of bans would not be effective when it comes to abortions?

 

[Chuz Life]

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

In the opinion of the pregnant woman agonizing over the decision?

I would certainly hope so. Sadness if anyone considering that option didn't take the choice seriously.​

Both your answers to such a simple question tells me that you are both oblivious to the numbers of women who later regret their abortions and would tell you themselves that their abortions were NOT necessary.

Let the he or the she who has never fucked up and has no regrets cast the first stone then.

Educate a reduction in demand and you educate a reduction in regrets. Then the only abortions being performed will be safe, legal and necessary - problem solved without resorting to prohibition.

You will never "educate" away the tendency for people like me to defend the rights of the children who are being aborted against the mindset of people like you - people who think it is okay to deny to them the equal protections of our laws.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fortunately, a vast majority of Americans agree with me that favoring the rights of the children over the rights of the pornographers and their market is the right thing to do.

In the absence of a "higher authority" with punitive powers, society is responsible.

Why do you believe the bans justified and effective when it comes to child pornography (despite the technology and all) but the same kinds of bans would not be effective when it comes to abortions?

Because, like the current trade in illegal pornography involving children, an illegal trade in abortions would be the most notable result of a ban.

The only way to keep abortion safe for the women who feel that they need one is to keep it legal and regulated.

The only way to stop abortions from happening is to reduce unwanted pregnancies by educating the populace about sex while making all of the tools and technologies developed for contraception and family planning available to ALL persons who are making the very personal decision in the privacy of their own mind and body to become sexually active.

 

[AVG-JOE]

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

In the opinion of the pregnant woman agonizing over the decision?

I would certainly hope so. Sadness if anyone considering that option didn't take the choice seriously.​

Both your answers to such a simple question tells me that you are both oblivious to the numbers of women who later regret their abortions and would tell you themselves that their abortions were NOT necessary.

Let the he or the she who has never fucked up and has no regrets cast the first stone then.

Educate a reduction in demand and you educate a reduction in regrets. Then the only abortions being performed will be safe, legal and necessary - problem solved without resorting to prohibition.

You will never "educate" away the tendency for people like me to defend the rights of the children who are being aborted against the mindset of people like you - people who think it is okay to deny to them the equal protections of our laws.

Educating you is not the point and unnecessary. You already understand the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and you are entitled to your opinions.

The point is to educate the teens and pre-teens who are out there experimenting with sex and creating the demand for abortion.

 

[2aguy]

As to the favorite cases that the pro death advocates push to justify their killing of babies......I was flipping through the cable channels and found a show called "Long Lost Family" a show were the hosts find the families of children given up for adoption....and children from the families who gave them up.......on the show I watched, a woman found her birth mother....and found out that she was conceived when her mother was raped by her uncle.....and as an adult, she found her mother, and they reunited........but if the pro death group had their way, that would never have happened because the baby, the woman, would have been killed....

And another one....a woman who was allowed to be born because at the time of her birth, abortion was illegal in Michigan......another rape .......the favorite tool of the pro death, camp....

Rebecca Kiessling discovers she was conceived by RAPE after tracking birth mother | Daily Mail Online

A woman who discovered she was conceived by rape has been adopted by her birth mother more than 40 years after she was given away.

Rebecca Kiessling always knew she wasn't brought up by her biological parents, but it was not until she searched for her birth mother that she found out why.

The 45-year-old, from Michigan, US, waited until she was 18 to track down Joann, who revealed she had considered aborting her daughter – and later told her that her biological father was a rapist.

Joann, now 77, had been attacked while she was on her way to a shop at night, and dragged to a nearby field.

Rebecca said: 'Mum told me she thought he was going to kill her. He had a knife. She was lucky to be alive.'

The attacker was never caught but Joann discovered she was pregnant with his baby.

Rebecca explained: 'Abortion was illegal in Michigan. Mum admitted if it had been legal at the time she would have had an abortion.

'That really upset me. She even went to two backstreet abortion clinics but in the end was too fearful for her life when she saw the conditions there.

--------

She said: 'I was scared she wouldn't want to meet me but she was thrilled to hear from me.'

But she said: 'When I first met her, it felt natural to call Joann 'Mum' and she has said she sees me as a blessing.

'I'm so happy something so good came from something so awful.'

Joann was thrilled to hear from her biological daughter. And when Rebecca married husband Robert Kiessling in 1998, Joann was the mother of the bride.

Rebecca said: 'I didn't know if I would ever see her let alone have her at my wedding. It was an amazing day.'

Rebecca revealed that she even told her own children what had happened.

She said: 'I'd always felt compelled to adopt children so we did that before we had our own.

 

[2aguy]

Oh look....another case that the pro death side of the abortion argument would use rape as a justification to kill the baby...the other innocent party in the attack......

Miss USA 2014's Miss Pennsylvania Valerie Gatto 'conceived when mother was raped' | Daily Mail Online

The woman representing Pennsylvania in the Miss USA 2014 pageant has opened up about how she was conceived when her mother was raped at knifepoint.

Valerie Gatto, 24, revealed to Today.com that a man dressed in black attacked her mother when she was just 19, forcing himself upon her behind a building until a passing car spooked him, and she managed to run away.

Rather than let the tragic story define her, Valerie has decided to use it as a platform to help educate women about sexual assault. 'I believe God put me here for a reason,' she said. 'To give [people] hope that everything is possible and you can't let your circumstances define your life.'


----

Finally, when she was ten, her mother told her the truth. She revealed that she didn't tell her family she was pregnant, and had every intention of putting Valerie up for adoption until the night that she was born.

'I believe God put me here for a reason, to give people hope that everything is possible'

'Valerie's mom told her family about her adoption plans; but Valerie's great-grandmother said - God doesn't give you more than you can handle,' reads the beauty queen's biography.

'Her mother listened and decided to raise Valerie with the help of God and her family.'

Valerie told Today: 'Being a child of a rape, not knowing who my father is, not knowing if he's ever been found, most people would think it's such a negative situation.'


A baby, even one created during a violent criminal act, is still an innocent human being....and to allow that human being to be murdered, simply because it would be harder to allow the baby to live is a crime........

On the contrary, 'I grew up with my mom and my grandparents. They never looked at it as something negative,' she explained.

'I have a loving, supportive family who told me I could be the president of the United States.'

Valerie, who graduated from the University of Pittsburgh, says her family's strong Christian faith was also a major factor in her positive outlook on life.


When you can surrender your baby to adoption and even to the local fire station...there is no reason to kill the baby if giving birth will not lead to the death of the mother....and that is just about the only reason for an abortion...and in that case, you are really engaging in Triage, not murder.......

 

[Coyote]

It's not up to me to make that decision for another person. That's why I prefer doing everything we can to reduce the need for it.

You said the best way to "end abortion" is to make it unnecessary.

That implies that you think all abortions are necessary.

Otherwise, you have to admit that making them un-necessary will still not end them all.

Only in your opinion.

Whether or not an abortion is "necessary" is not determined by me. Or you. Or anyone else but the pregnant woman.

I am using YOUR words, not mine.

You said that you could "end abortion by making it unnecessary."

Remember?

So, I ask YOU again....

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

And I"m going to say AGAIN - that I do not determine whether an abortion is necessary.

If we end all abortions by making them unnecessary, then it's by convincing each woman that her particular case is not necessary and by ending unwanted pregnancies.

Do you believe all abortions are necessary?

Yes or no?

Either you do or you don't.

Not everything can be boiled down to a simple yes or no especially the abortion debate.

Are all abortions necessary? To get an answer to that you need to ask each woman who had one. I can not and will not answer for them.

What may be necessary to one may not be to another.

 

[Coyote]

":Are all abortions necessary?"

Or not?

In the opinion of the pregnant woman agonizing over the decision?

I would certainly hope so. Sadness if anyone considering that option didn't take the choice seriously.​

Both your answers to such a simple question tells me that you are both oblivious to the numbers of women who later regret their abortions and would tell you themselves that their abortions were NOT necessary.

That was their choice at the time. Unless there was coercion which I oppose.

 

[Coyote]

As to the favorite cases that the pro death advocates push to justify their killing of babies......I was flipping through the cable channels and found a show called "Long Lost Family" a show were the hosts find the families of children given up for adoption....and children from the families who gave them up.......on the show I watched, a woman found her birth mother....and found out that she was conceived when her mother was raped by her uncle.....and as an adult, she found her mother, and they reunited........but if the pro death group had their way, that would never have happened because the baby, the woman, would have been killed....

And another one....a woman who was allowed to be born because at the time of her birth, abortion was illegal in Michigan......another rape .......the favorite tool of the pro death, camp....

Rebecca Kiessling discovers she was conceived by RAPE after tracking birth mother | Daily Mail Online

A woman who discovered she was conceived by rape has been adopted by her birth mother more than 40 years after she was given away.

Rebecca Kiessling always knew she wasn't brought up by her biological parents, but it was not until she searched for her birth mother that she found out why.

The 45-year-old, from Michigan, US, waited until she was 18 to track down Joann, who revealed she had considered aborting her daughter – and later told her that her biological father was a rapist.

Joann, now 77, had been attacked while she was on her way to a shop at night, and dragged to a nearby field.

Rebecca said: 'Mum told me she thought he was going to kill her. He had a knife. She was lucky to be alive.'

The attacker was never caught but Joann discovered she was pregnant with his baby.

Rebecca explained: 'Abortion was illegal in Michigan. Mum admitted if it had been legal at the time she would have had an abortion.

'That really upset me. She even went to two backstreet abortion clinics but in the end was too fearful for her life when she saw the conditions there.

--------

She said: 'I was scared she wouldn't want to meet me but she was thrilled to hear from me.'

But she said: 'When I first met her, it felt natural to call Joann 'Mum' and she has said she sees me as a blessing.

'I'm so happy something so good came from something so awful.'

Joann was thrilled to hear from her biological daughter. And when Rebecca married husband Robert Kiessling in 1998, Joann was the mother of the bride.

Rebecca said: 'I didn't know if I would ever see her let alone have her at my wedding. It was an amazing day.'

Rebecca revealed that she even told her own children what had happened.

She said: 'I'd always felt compelled to adopt children so we did that before we had our own.

Pro death advocates, that would include those who support the death penalty if you are going to insist on perjoratives. Your personal testimonials exclude the many women who died from illegal abortions.