It should be Murder?

[Albion]

No, I am referring to ANY AND ALL times in the past. The general public has always supported the right of a woman to make decisions about her reproduction. Laws that may have come and gone restricting this right have been imposed for reasons other than public opinion.

Well, that's just factually incorrect. It has not been the case ANY AND ALL times. But even if it had been so, there were also a number of other policies practiced and believed in by people before they learned the scientific truth about what they were dealing with.

To insist that we ought to continue to make the mistakes of the past, knowing them to be mistakes, is a very strange argument, if there ever was one.

 

[Albion]

And the majority of the public have always said "no", that it is not murder.

You're counting people with bent coat hangers and members of primitive jungle cultures who thought that throwing babies and virgins into volcanoes would appease the gods, I take it.

 

[SteveB28]

Well, that's just factually incorrect. It has not been the case ANY AND ALL times. But even if it had been so, there were also a number of other policies practiced and believed in by people before they learned the scientific truth about what they were dealing with.

Show me the era in which it didn't apply.

To insist that we ought to continue to make the mistakes of the past, knowing them to be mistakes, is a very strange argument, if there ever was one.

This is only a "mistake" in your minority-view mind. Most of us don't agree with you. Even after our knowledge has increased.

 

[SteveB28]

You're counting people with bent coat hangers and members of primitive jungle cultures who thought that throwing babies and virgins into volcanoes would appease the gods, I take it.

I am counting a lot of people. More than half in fact.

Interesting that someone whose view is largely influenced by religious conservatism should try to denigrate "primitive cultures".

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, since we generally want smaller government, but the government could have public service announcements and discourage those things like it how it presently discourages smoking.

cb: Then they aren't concerned about it on the same level as clinical abortions. To be pro-life is to want to take legal action and completely ban abortions (except when only the mother or the baby can survive, though some pro-life people don't even want to allow that)

Since smoking, drinking, and other similar things do not directly kill the unborn child, you cannot charge someone with murder for doing those things. It would be like charging someone with murder just because they did not put their child in their safety seat. One of my sister in laws smoke and drank some while she was pregnant and the child turned out fine. So you cannot punish someone for what MIGHT happen.

 

[Cearbhall]

Since smoking, drinking, and other similar things do not directly kill the unborn child, you cannot charge someone with murder for doing those things.

Arguable. A fetus can easily die if the mother overdoses on drugs or has too much alcohol, not to mention the physical activity that can lead to miscarriage.

And even if it doesn't result in death, aren't you saying that a pregnant woman is just as responsible for the health of the fetus as a mother is for her born child? She would hardly have the legal right to knowingly cause fetal alcohol syndrome then, would she?

A baby born high on cocaine is the same as getting a baby high on cocaine directly, from a physiological standpoint. Should these actions be charged as the same crime?

What if a woman decides to rockclimb during pregnancy, knowing that the exertion could lead to a miscarriage? Is it child endangerment?

What if a woman makes the personal decision to go against the doctor's recommendations in some way? Is that neglecting the health of her child, under your theoretical laws? Let's say she's supposed to be on bed rest and decides to work for a few more days, causing a miscarriage. How would you charge that?

 

[Albion]

This is only a "mistake" in your minority-view mind. Most of us don't agree with you. Even after our knowledge has increased.

Then you have your own opinion about what constitutes murder. The notion that everyone has always agreed with it is absurd and so obviously incorrect, however, that I can hardly imagine that you're arguing that line seriously.

 

[SteveB28]

Then you have your own opinion about what constitutes murder. The notion that everyone has always agreed with it is absurd and so obviously incorrect, however, that I can hardly imagine that you're arguing that line seriously.

I wish some of you would learn to read. I said "most", not "everyone".

 

[Nic Samojluk]

How would such a law be enforced?

The same way this was enforced for two thousand years prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973!

 

[nomadictheist]

Indeed. It seems to me that most pro-life people are only interested in getting rid of clinical abortions, without thinking about back-alley abortions or the other actions that sometimes lead to the termination of a pregnancy. Shouldn't they be just as concerned about drinking alcohol during pregnancy, or partaking in rigorous or risky physical activity?

I fail to see how the fact that some women would go off and do something dangerous because it's illegal for her to do "safely" is justification for legalizing it.

Let's use the same argument for cocaine... Heroin... Ecstasy...

Or maybe AK-47s, Flamethrowers, RPGs...

I doubt that any pro-lifer would advocate drinking or putting your baby's (or your own) health at risk during pregnancy. However, when we "legalize" the intentional ending of a life that's a societal sanction on murder.

I wonder why PETA doesn't take the same tack toward endangered bird fetuses in eggs. What is it, I wonder, that makes a bird fetus more alive and important than a human fetus?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Shouldn't they be just as concerned about drinking alcohol during pregnancy, or partaking in rigorous or risky physical activity?

Most of them are!

 

[SteveB28]

The same way this was enforced for two thousand years prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973!

You are grossly misinformed if you think that abortion has been broadly illegal for the past 2000 years. It has only been within the last 150 years that laws prohibiting it's use have been drawn up......and subsequently overturned in most places.

 

[nomadictheist]

Here's a question for the questioner...

If a fetus isn't a baby, as pro-baby-killers say, then why is it that all 50 states in the U.S. have "fetal homicide" laws with penalties of 10-99 years, each with special exceptions for "legal termination by abortion"?

That's like saying "if you kill your grandmother who's in the nursing home we're charging you with homicide, but if you ask a doctor to do it for you it's not homicide."

 

[Nic Samojluk]

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

Yes, the number of "back-alley" abortions wt the number of legal abortions would decrease significantly. Following the legalization of abortion in the U.S. in 1973, the number of abortions went from 600,000 to twice said number.

 

[SteveB28]

I fail to see how the fact that some women would go off and do something dangerous because it's illegal for her to do "safely" is justification for legalizing it.

It is one of the justifications, not the only one. Have you no sympathy for women in that plight?

Let's use the same argument for cocaine... Heroin... Ecstasy...

Or maybe AK-47s, Flamethrowers, RPGs...

Why would you use that argument for totally unrelated issues?

I doubt that any pro-lifer would advocate drinking or putting your baby's (or your own) health at risk during pregnancy. However, when we "legalize" the intentional ending of a life that's a societal sanction on murder.

No, it isn't. It is only a minority of people like yourself, with a very narrow agenda, that attempt to label it as "murder".

I wonder why PETA doesn't take the same tack toward endangered bird fetuses in eggs. What is it, I wonder, that makes a bird fetus more alive and important than a human fetus?

Do you really wonder that? I don't think you do. I think you are being silly.

 

[nomadictheist]

I see many here who would wish to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, by declaring that it would be an act of murder.

And yet I also see those same people running away from this question:

How would such a law be enforced?

I believe what most pro-life people propose is that we should not offer places for women to go kill their unborn babies legally.

That would be simple to enforce. Just shut down anybody who's offering services to kill unborn babies.

 

[SteveB28]

Here's a question for the questioner...

If a fetus isn't a baby, as pro-baby-killers say, then why is it that all 50 states in the U.S. have "fetal homicide" laws with penalties of 10-99 years, each with special exceptions for "legal termination by abortion"?

That's like saying "if you kill your grandmother who's in the nursing home we're charging you with homicide, but if you ask a doctor to do it for you it's not homicide."

You've answered your own question. It has been deemed as appropriate to grant an exception in the case of abortion.

That was easy, wasn't it?

 

[nomadictheist]

It is one of the justifications, not the only one. Have you no sympathy for women in that plight?



Why would you use that argument for totally unrelated issues?



No, it isn't. It is only a minority of people like yourself, with a very narrow agenda, that attempt to label it as "murder".



Do you really wonder that? I don't think you do. I think you are being silly.

Because it's called "reason." The fact that people will do things illegally is never a reason to make them legal.

 

[nomadictheist]

You've answered your own question. It has been deemed as appropriate to grant an exception in the case of abortion.

That was easy, wasn't it?

No - that's not an answer to the question. That's just saying "because government says it's ok to murder your child as long as you do it through medical procedures."

 

[SteveB28]

Yes, the number of "back-alley" abortions wt the number of legal abortions would decrease significantly. Following the legalization of abortion in the U.S. in 1973, the number of abortions went from 600,000 to twice said number.

If your numbers are correct, then this tells me that there were 600,000 women who would formerly have had to resort to dangerous options who were now able to have safe abortions. This is a good thing.

Additionally, this tells me that an additional 600,000 who were formerly unable to procure the services they needed were now able to. This is also a good thing.

Thank you for the good news.