~* Abortion debate and poll *~ (suspect, state, support, murder)

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by saganista

Fetal homicide laws are not an expression of any fetal status at all, but rather of a woman's property interest in the fetus. No one can take her fetus from her without her consent, any more than they could legitimatley take her car or her pocketbook without consent. However, she or any of her duly authorized agents may certainly do so.

Then why shouldn't fetal homicide be prosecuted as theft rather than murder?

Using your theory, it would be far more appropriate.

[Colddiamond102]

Pro-choice without children, and will keep it that way.

[justNancy]

I didn't answer the original question in my first post. I am pro-choice and have no children. I have changed my position on abortion, however. I never thought it was ok to have one late in the pregnancy, but I now believe there should be more restrictions and much more education.

My only concern about compromising with pro-lifers, is that they won't give up until there are no abortions. So that's why I'm afraid to give in at all to the anti-choice groups. Many of them won't sit down and have a reasonable dialogue or engage in a civil discussion.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Then why shouldn't fetal homicide be prosecuted as theft rather than murder? Using your theory, it would be far more appropriate.

Maybe because it wouldn't be all that common for someone to sneak up on you and then make off with your fetus while you weren't looking? Is it possible to think that clearly? Statistically, of course, it is the potential actions of the pregnant woman herself that pose the greatest risk and threat to the prospects of a fetus. If such laws were based on any concept of fetal-protection at all, she would be the FIRST person focused upon. Instead, she is the one typically EXCLUDED from any coverage under these laws at all. These laws are all about deliberate or merely reckless acts of OTHERS that disrespect and compromise a woman's established interest and investment in her pregnancy. Get used to it.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by justNancy

My only concern about compromising with pro-lifers, is that they won't give up until there are no abortions.

Exactly why calls to seek common ground are pointless. Right-to-lifers as a group have only one ground -- the one they stand upon with their feet set in cement. Any compromise at all is out of the question. They work from what they believe to be absolute revealed truth, even though there is no such actual revelation that they can point to. When that fact doesn't matter to them, it's no wonder that such things as science, reason, and logic have no effect.

Jesus spoke not a word about abortion. During his ministry, he did find time to talk about lepers and prostitutes, but at no point did it ever dawn on him to say a single thing about the practice (performed at the time in the temple) of seeking to dispose of an unwanted fetus. The matter just didn't come up.

And historically, there was no generalized outcry against abortion in this country until after the Civil War. The nature of that war produced legions of newly-trained surgeons, especially those skilled at amputations. After the war, there was nowhere for this new medical army to turn. Amputations are uncommon in a time of peace. So they turned to addressing the one related demand that is always common -- abortion. Unfortunately, these were the days prior to antiseptic surgery, and just as had been the case during war, huge numbers of patients began dying of infection even though the surgery itself had been a complete success. And these were now young mothers who were dying in droves, leaving large numbers of orphans and totally unprepared widowers behind to care for them. The cry that arose from the church and other socially aware institutions against abortion was a call to protect society from the loss of mothers, not the loss of fetuses.

Unfortunately for the long run, these calls were heard and heeded, and over the next forty years or so, abortion became illegal almost everywhere, that process ironically being completed at just about the same time that antiseptic surgery became the standard practice everywhere which would have solved the problem all by itself. It would be another fifty years before significant numbers of people began to note that hey, these laws made no sense anymore, and better than sixty before a court would finally get them off the books by noting that they trampled upon individual rights that were off-limits to such trampling. Thank you, Justice Blackmun et al, for having been so perceptive as to be able to recognize the obvious when so many others were and still are failing at the task...

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by Langlen

I invite you to point out anywhere in my posting history where I said that a fetus wasn't a life.
If you beleive a fetuse is life then killing it would be murder



Again: That law has very specific qualifications, that abortions do not meet.
Man kills a fetuse conviction of murder. woman kills a fetus it ok because the law says she has a choice to kill it.


Then you murder thousands of beings every day when you shower.

Not sur ehow a shower kills human beings.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by justNancy

I didn't answer the original question in my first post. I am pro-choice and have no children. I have changed my position on abortion, however. I never thought it was ok to have one late in the pregnancy, but I now believe there should be more restrictions and much more education.

My only concern about compromising with pro-lifers, is that they won't give up until there are no abortions. So that's why I'm afraid to give in at all to the anti-choice groups. Many of them won't sit down and have a reasonable dialogue or engage in a civil discussion.

the under lying principle of anti abortion is that we beleive in the sanctity of life, life begins at conception so there is no room for discussion. A pro lifer will not say it ok to kill some and not ok to kill some.

[Langlen]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

Not sur ehow a shower kills human beings.

You said, and I quote,

Originally Posted by wjtwet

It is murder when you deny a being their right to live you have killed them

Nothing about "humans", merely "beings".

Not all killing is murder.

If someone tries to kill you, and you defend yourself against them, it's not considered murder, but self defense. Not applying this to the current situation, but just saying.

[seamusnh]

Originally Posted by Langlen

And I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I see nothing wrong with a woman wanting to rid her body of an unwanted life.

Human life? A human life with different DNA from her own? How is that any different from getting rid of an unwanted life when the baby is 3 days old?

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

Human life? A human life with different DNA from her own? How is that any different from getting rid of an unwanted life when the baby is 3 days old?

The baby does not require 1 specific adult to grow and live at that point.