It should be Murder?

[Xalith]

Again, you are wildly off topic. Take your opinions elsewhere, unless you are prepared to address the issues in this discussion.

Sorry, I'm perfectly on topic. Can't call something a crime that doesn't exist, right?

 

[Xalith]

We are discussing abortions and miscarriages. They do not involve children. Learn some basic biology please.

Ahh, now we're back to the ole "it ain't a child until it is born" shtick again. *rolls eyes*

 

[ewq1938]

We are discussing abortions and miscarriages. They do not involve children. Learn some basic biology please.

You learn some. We are talking about human lives here or did you think a woman is pregnant with a plant or maybe a rock or something?

 

[SteveB28]

It boils down to "Prevention is better than Curing". Instead of debating whether or not abortion should be a crime, or murder, why not debate how we can get rid of the majority of all abortions to begin with? lol.

(Almost) No abortions = no need to call it a crime = ???? = Profit.

There will still be abortion. You will not remove it entirely by criminalising it. History has shown us this. You still have to answer the question:

If you are going to make it a crime, how do you administer it? How do you 'weed out the guilty' (no matter how small that number becomes) from the enormous number who simply miscarry each year?

 

[SteveB28]

You learn some. We are talking about human lives here or did you think a woman is pregnant with a plant or maybe a rock or something?

She is not pregnant with a child. A child is what is produced AFTER the pregnancy.

 

[SteveB28]

Ahh, now we're back to the ole "it ain't a child until it is born" shtick again. *rolls eyes*

Correct. And that is the position that the majority of your population has always taken. Not to mention your courts. It is only a fringe minority such as yourselves who would wish to impose your own narrow interpretations.

 

[Xalith]

She is not pregnant with a child. A child is what is produced AFTER the pregnancy.

Funny, it is rather common in society to hear the phrase "She is with child" during the pregnancy.

Or "Hi, how's the baby doing?" to a pregnant woman.

"Hi, how's your son/daughter?" if it is known by ultrasound which they're going to have.

If it isn't a child, or a baby, or what-not until it is born, then what's with all the "Baby on Board" shirts for pregnant women?

How many pregnant women complain about their baby kicking in the womb? I've never heard a woman say "oh man, my fetus is kicking again"...

 

[ewq1938]

She is not pregnant with a child. A child is what is produced AFTER the pregnancy.

You are obviously incorrect. A woman is impregnated and a child begins to grow in various stages. It is a human being from the start to the end of the pregnancy and killing that child because you don't want it to live and be responsible for it is irresponsible and monstrous.

 

[Xalith]

Not to mention your courts.

The "Courts" as you put it don't even know common sense half of the time. What about that time where a judge allowed a 1 million dollar+ lawsuit for a worker who accidentally dropped a turkey on someone's foot?

There's no way the medical bills came to a million dollars. But yet the court allowed it.

Do you think I'm gonna trust what a court says, as far as biology goes when they don't even have a grasp of common sense?

 

[Xalith]

You are obviously incorrect. A woman is impregnated and a child begins to grow in various stages. It is a human being from the start to the end of the pregnancy and killing that child because you don't want it to live and be responsible for it is irresponsible and monstrous.

The deer hunting laws where I live have been arranged so that one would not shoot a doe that is pregnant, or a doe that has recently given birth. That's why deer season is at a particular time in the year.

We don't even shoot animals when they are pregnant, killing off the defenseless unborn animals, but yet some people condone the killing of a defenseless human being while it is still in the womb?

Wow. Not even hunters stoop that low.

 

[Xalith]

Oh, and what about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#cite_note-1

What was that, about law saying they ain't kids until they're born?

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

Oh the irony!

In a discussion wherein people are calling for women to be charged and possibly executed for murder because they wish to control their own reproduction, and you bay for kindness?!

How was my statement ironic , your being a jerk , and I'm just calling ya out for it , trying to get you to be a bit nicer

 

[blackribbon]

Why would they? Murder requires intent or extremely recklessness. I'm sure a doctor's report would easily show what is what. I imagine you'd want to go to a doctor if you had a miscarriage.

I understand his point, he's trying to say it would be hard to know what is murder and what is not in the case of pregnancies.

It would not be hard at all, it would in fact be much easier than almost all murder cases.

Medical abortions are done by oral medications....I am not sure how you would prove whether or not it was a intentional abortion versus an accidental or spontaneous abortion since the medications have other uses.

And honestly, I suspect that some doctors would just find diagnoses that would justify the need for a female procedure that would end in abortion so they could perform an abortion.

What if a spontaneous abortion was related to an unhealthy lifestyle? Would we charge her...especially if this was the lifestyle they were living before she got pregnant (and do we really want to have the government regulate how we live our personal lives?)

And how are we going to prove a woman was even pregnant? Most abortions are done before there is any outward evidence of pregnancy. Are we going to start mandating random urine pregnancy tests just to spot check society?

I don't like abortions. I believe that we will be held accountable one day. That said, I don't want them made illegal and taken out of the medical arenas where at least the mother's health is being cared for (abortions aren't as "nothing" as the pro-abortion people would like you to believe). And honestly, nobody goes for an abortion without thinking they really don't have any other options for whatever reason they think this. We are not very accepting or loving to unmarried pregnant women...especially in the Christian churches.

 

[blackribbon]

How about we just charge the men too for getting them pregnant?

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

Medical abortions are done by oral medications....I am not sure how you would prove whether or not it was a intentional abortion versus an accidental or spontaneous abortion since the medications have other uses.

And honestly, I suspect that some doctors would just find diagnoses that would justify the need for a female procedure that would end in abortion so they could perform an abortion.

What if a spontaneous abortion was related to an unhealthy lifestyle? Would we charge her...especially if this was the lifestyle they were living before she got pregnant (and do we really want to have the government regulate how we live our personal lives?)

And how are we going to prove a woman was even pregnant? Most abortions are done before there is any outward evidence of pregnancy. Are we going to start mandating random urine pregnancy tests just to spot check society?

I don't like abortions. I believe that we will be held accountable one day. That said, I don't want them made illegal and taken out of the medical arenas where at least the mother's health is being cared for (abortions aren't as "nothing" as the pro-abortion people would like you to believe). And honestly, nobody goes for an abortion without thinking they really don't have any other options for whatever reason they think this. We are not very accepting or loving to unmarried pregnant women...especially in the Christian churches.

All kinds of murders are hidden from the law in the United States, we only catch what we can prove.

Doesn't mean we don't have laws against murder though. We do not catch most murders.
Sure, we won't catch moost abortions and may not be able to prove a lot, but we will catch and prosecute some.

 

[SteveB28]

All kinds of murders are hidden from the law in the United States, we only catch what we can prove.

Doesn't mean we don't have laws against murder though. We do not catch most murders.
Sure, we won't catch moost abortions and may not be able to prove a lot, but we will catch and prosecute some.

Yes, just as long as you have someone to hate and throw scorn upon, correct?

And all those women who will have to undergo police interviews to satisfy that their miscarriage was 'genuine'? Too bad for them right? As long as you can have your day throwing mud.

 

[blackribbon]

All kinds of murders are hidden from the law in the United States, we only catch what we can prove.

Doesn't mean we don't have laws against murder though. We do not catch most murders.
Sure, we won't catch moost abortions and may not be able to prove a lot, but we will catch and prosecute some.

I don't know to what purpose...and if we do, then I suggest that the father automatically be charged with accessory to murder at the same time and his involvement be investigated too. If he rejected her and knew of the pregnancy then yes, he did contribute to the death.

I don't know that I agree that we don't catch most murders...but with most murders we are aware a murder took place. Not so simple with abortion.

 

[ewq1938]

How about we just charge the men too for getting them pregnant?

If they consent to murder, then yes. But if two people have sex and the female is pregnant, then BOTH are responsible as PARENTS to CARE for the life of the child they started.

 

[ViaCrucis]

America did used to be a pro-life nation

Could you please explain how the more widespread use of the death penalty constitutes "pro-life"?

This is a problem I see in the modern usage of the term "pro-life", it doesn't actually mean what it says, what people really mean is "anti-abortion" which is a very different thing from being pro-life.

If one were pro-life they would be against things like capital punishment, they would be in favor of universal healthcare, social welfare programs, and funding health clinics like Planned Parenthood. A pro-life person would be in favor of helping women who are pregnant address the full complexity of pregnancy and when and where the pregnancy becomes a serious risk to the health and life of the woman accept abortion might be necessary (even if not favorable).

Because being pro-life means standing in favor of life. Or at least it should if it's going to mean anything relevant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[blackribbon]

If they consent to murder, then yes. But if two people have sex and the female is pregnant, then BOTH are responsible as PARENTS to CARE for the life of the child they started.

If he knew about the pregnancy and rejected the mother & pregnancy, then he should be responsible too.