It should be Murder?

[SteveB28]

America did used to be a pro-life nation

Oh really? When?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

 

[SteveB28]

wrong it would be the job of the prosecutor to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a suspect who is presumed innocent until that time

But, before the prosecutor even enters the scene, there has to be a police investigation to determine whether or not there has been potential for a crime!

You are simply not serious, are you? You are just throwing up whatever weakened excuse for a justification comes to mind. You should realise that this is a really strong symptom of a failed argument!

 

[ScottA]

Yes, in fact the number of "back-alley" procedures will rise enormously if such a cruel and ridiculous law were to be introduced.

By the same token...all laws for the common good of the people, should be done away with, that the minorities' interests should rule over the general population, rather than the other way around. Smart.

As for the OP question: The important thing is to call it what it is. It would appear that we are not that civilized as a people. Sad. Appropriating a method of enforcement comes later.

 

[SteveB28]

i dont know the statistics of where they occur

The first three words here. That is the backbone of your argument, I'm afraid.

 

[jenny1972]

Oh really? When?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

America existed before abortion was legalized . Just because theft occurs despite being illegal isnt a good reason for legalizing theft it would just occur more often if it was made legal people have no deterrent yes it does still happen , people still choose to break the law . If nothing was illegal we wouldnt have to bother prosecuting and jailing anyone and it would all be a lot cheaper but there would be a lot more violence in our society . But violent crime against others doesnt disappear completely despite laws against it i think we need to get to the source of why people commit violent acts such as abortion .

 

[SteveB28]

By the same token...all laws for the common good of the people, should be done away with, that the minorities' interests should rule over the general population, rather than the other way around. Smart.

As for the OP question: The important thing is to call it what it is. It would appear that we are not that civilized as a people. Sad. Appropriating a method of enforcement comes later.

Your problem is that a majority of your population are already 'calling it what it is' - the right of a woman to choose for herself! And they have been doing so ever since your nation was founded, with little change. And that sentiment would seem to serve the "common good of the people" far more adequately than seeking to make criminals out of many women who already may find themselves in less than satisfactory conditions. By world standards, you folk commit a wildly disproportionate number of your citizens to prison. And you want even more to face that fate?

 

[ScottA]

Your problem is that a majority of your population are already 'calling it what it is' - the right of a woman to choose for herself! And they have been doing so ever since your nation was founded, with little change. And that sentiment would seem to serve the "common good of the people" far more adequately than seeking to make criminals out of many women who already may find themselves in less than satisfactory conditions. By world standards, you folk commit a wildly disproportionate number of your citizens to prison. And you want even more to face that fate?

It has to start (as I said) with calling it what it is. It is NOT a "woman's right" any more than murder is a right. In countries where murder is a right, it would stand to reason that killing anything might be a right...but that is not civilized. They fall short in one way, we fall short in another. But without starting a list on every country, and telling each other how we all should live...we might do better to look in the mirror.

 

[SteveB28]

America existed before abortion was legalized .

Wrong again - you're very good at this aren't you? Abortion was not made illegal by the state until the late 19th Century. You may be unaware, but the United States of America had existed for some time before that!

Furthermore, you might be interested to know that in the 'good old days' of the 1890's, about 2 million abortions were performed annually in the USA - getting up towards double what are performed currently!

see Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).

Just because theft occurs despite being illegal isnt a good reason for legalizing theft it would just occur more often if it was made legal people have no deterrent yes it does still happen , people still choose to break the law . If nothing was illegal we wouldnt have to bother prosecuting and jailing anyone and it would all be a lot cheaper but there would be a lot more violence in our society . But violent crime against others doesnt disappear completely despite laws against it i think we need to get to the source of why people commit violent acts such as abortion .

What??

 

[jenny1972]

Oh, this is almost becoming painful.

They "had to go underground" because it was illegal to procure an abortion by any other means!

Are you actually stopping to read what is written!?

well obviously if something is illegal and you want to do it you have to go underground and do it illegally . just like if you want to do drugs you have to go underground but its not necessary its something the person wants to do .

 

[jenny1972]

But there is an investigation carried out when a baby or child dies, is there not? Under your ridiculous proposal, every loss of pregnancy that is known about would have to be investigated, for fear that a 'murder' had occurred.

And I note that you have swerved well away from my question about IUD's. Why would that be?

i dont really have an opinion on IUD's i believe in contraception and consider that contraception

 

[SteveB28]

It has to start (as I said) with calling it what it is. It is NOT a "woman's right" any more than murder is a right. In countries where murder is a right, it would stand to reason that killing anything might be a right...but that is not civilized. They fall short in one way, we fall short in another. But without starting a list on every country, and telling each other how we all should live...we might do better to look in the mirror.

You need to look around friend. It is indeed a right for women in your country to choose whether and when they will reproduce! You clearly are offended by them enjoying that right, but enjoy it they do. Along with a continued and continuing support of the bulk of your nation and your courts.

 

[SteveB28]

well obviously if something is illegal and you want to do it you have to go underground and do it illegally . just like if you want to do drugs you have to go underground but its not necessary its something the person wants to do .

Well done! You understand what 'had' and 'have' mean. I have achieved something - it is a worthwhile day!

 

[SteveB28]

i dont really have an opinion on IUD's i believe in contraception and consider that contraception

Oh no you don't! You are not slipping away so easily.

You have stated beforehand that 'life begins at conception', or similar nonsense. You have subsequently stated that any deliberate act to destroy that 'life' should be framed as a murder.

Very well. A mechanical IUD acts by preventing that 'life' from existing - it causes it to perish. Under your warped philosophy, that would be a case of murder.

Now, I ask again: would a woman who has an IUD fitted, given that she does so in order to destroy any fertilised eggs which may form in her, be guilty of attempted murder under your plan, in the same way that I would be guilty of attempted murder if I placed a deadly poison in your drink?

 

[jenny1972]

Wrong again - you're very good at this aren't you? Abortion was not made illegal by the state until the late 19th Century. You may be unaware, but the United States of America had existed for some time before that!

Furthermore, you might be interested to know that in the 'good old days' of the 1890's, about 2 million abortions were performed annually in the USA - getting up towards double what are performed currently!

see Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right, rev. ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).



What??

But, before the prosecutor even enters the scene, there has to be a police investigation to determine whether or not there has been potential for a crime!

You are simply not serious, are you? You are just throwing up whatever weakened excuse for a justification comes to mind. You should realise that this is a really strong symptom of a failed argument!

if the police think an investigation is necessary there should be an investigation if they believe its a miscarriage and there is no need for an investigation there wouldnt be one , police investigate possible crimes thats what they are paid to do .

 

[jenny1972]

Well done! You understand what 'had' and 'have' mean. I have achieved something - it is a worthwhile day!

do you understand the difference between wanting to do something and it being a necessity ?

 

[SteveB28]

if the police think an investigation is necessary there should be an investigation if they believe its a miscarriage and there is no need for an investigation there wouldnt be one , police investigate possible crimes thats what they are paid to do .

And there's the point - how do you know that "an investigation is necessary" until you investigate?! Your silly plan would mean that every time a termination of a pregnancy becomes known, it would have to be investigated to ensure that a 'murder' had not taken place!

You would be placing thousands and thousands of women, already suffering the emotional pain of having lost a pregnancy, in the mortifying position of having to be questioned by the police as to how she came to be no longer pregnant.

You are happy with that situation I presume?

 

[jenny1972]

Oh no you don't! You are not slipping away so easily.

You have stated beforehand that 'life begins at conception', or similar nonsense. You have subsequently stated that any deliberate act to destroy that 'life' should be framed as a murder.

Very well. A mechanical IUD acts by preventing that 'life' from existing - it causes it to perish. Under your warped philosophy, that would be a case of murder.

Now, I ask again: would a woman who has an IUD fitted, given that she does so in order to destroy any fertilised eggs which may form in her, be guilty of attempted murder under your plan, in the same way that I would be guilty of attempted murder if I placed a deadly poison in your drink?

ok then i guess IUD's should be illegal as well and should be considered early abortion and not contraception i was on the fence about it

 

[ScottA]

You need to look around friend. It is indeed a right for women in your country to choose whether and when they will reproduce! You clearly are offended by them enjoying that right, but enjoy it they do. Along with a continued and continuing support of the bulk of your nation and your courts.

It is not what is legal or commonly accepted that makes something a right. Because something is right in our own eyes does not make it right. Our Constitution says as much, but we do not even honor our own history, or our own advancements and contributions to the civilized world. There is more to looking around than looking around. We must also learn from history, which, apparently, we have not.

 

[jenny1972]

And there's the point - how do you know that "an investigation is necessary" until you investigate?! Your silly plan would mean that every time a termination of a pregnancy becomes known, it would have to be investigated to ensure that a 'murder' had not taken place!

You would be placing thousands and thousands of women, already suffering the emotional pain of having lost a pregnancy, in the mortifying position of having to be questioned by the police as to how she came to be no longer pregnant.

You are happy with that situation I presume?

ok then let it be investigated to see if a formal investigation is necessary whats your objection ?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Oh dear..

Have you forgotten? Under such a law, there would be no doctors performing abortions, because you've made it illegal!

Trust me, I well remember the era in which women largely had to go 'underground' to procure a termination, usually at the hands of unskilled people. It wasn't pretty. Such a stupid, stupid proposition would send us back to those days.

I guarantee you there WOULD be many doctors engaged in abortions because the prices would take off and that would be a buying point. My mother was also alive during that time and she said and historical studies have confirmed it, that the number of so-called back alley abortions were very small contrary to what modern liberals try to maintain. But if it was outlawed in the future it would take awhile before the numbers dropped a great deal. But given modern technology and hygienic practices there still would be very few deaths of mothers. Also, we could do a much better job of tracking criminal abortions nowadays. BTW, how do you know there is nothing wrong with abortion?