It should be Murder?

[Cearbhall]

How did people handle such cases for two thousand years before the genocide of the unborn was legalized?:

Why are there so many people who think that abortion became legal for the first time in 1973? Seriously? I don't mean to single you out, but just a general message: We're on the Internet. There's no excuse.

Most of the humans over the past few hundreds of thousands of years (where did "two thousand" come from?) didn't have the luxury of spare time and resources to fret over fetuses. That is the new concept. Not abortion. Still today, there are some societies that practice infanticide because they have to prioritize the laborers' lives when times get tough.

 

[redleghunter]

Except that every answer you give goes back to what the law says. There's no other reason behind it except the example that it's somehow better to make something legal so that people don't have to suffer the consequences of breaking the law... a total absurdity.

Needs saying again...

 

[Nic Samojluk]

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 .

Yes, following the legalization of abortion the number of abortions increased significantly.

 

[Cearbhall]

America existed before abortion was legalized .

Before, during, and after, actually. Abortion was legal in the U.S. when it came into existence...what point are you trying to make here?

 

[redleghunter]

So you're saying the law should have no moral standard?

Wow, that's eye-opening.

Morals vary from subjective person to subjective person with relativism.

Now some subjectively say "the majority rules" do so only when their subjective view is in the majority; but rail when they are a minority view saying it isn't fair.

Welcome to the world of moral relativism.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

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!

I suggest you read the "Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist" where he tells how the number of illegal abortions were inflated in order to convince the public that the killing of unborn children should be legalized.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/confessions-of-an-ex-abortionist.html

 

[Cearbhall]

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 .

You're right, it's not a good enough reason on its own. That's why I would only use that argument with a pro-life person, in the hopes that it would sway them. And it does work for some of them.

Their "own" reproductive systems? The Bible tells us that we do not own our bodies. They belong to the one who designed and created them.

Good thing I don't live in a theocracy, then. Not relevant to me or my rights. My body is my own.

 

[redleghunter]

As I said earlier in this discussion, it isn't simply a matter of the law being difficult to prosecute. It is much more a question in this respect of how are you going to investigate whether a 'crime' has been committed or not?

You blithe answer of 'just shut down the abortion providers and the problem is solved' doesn't address the problem of how an investigation would be carried out and the implications of that investigative procedure.

Any woman whose pregnancy terminated would be under suspicion of having caused it herself. Are you going to subject the thousands of women who have natural miscarriages every year to the ignominy of a criminal investigation?

Is it ignoble to investigate parents who have never laid a hand on their children. Of course.

Investigations start with eyewitness testimony. In the Army it is still against UCMJ to commit adultery.

Now how can the Army "be there" in the act of adultery? They are not but in some room somewhere on some fort that law is broken often I don't doubt. Why do they have that law? For good order and discipline.

In a number of cases eyewitnesses come forward (usually one of the offenders) and the incident investigated and prosecuted.

Having this law on the books causes serious stress on those involved but does the Army say "hey this causes such hardship on the adulterous couple we really need to get rid of the law."

No they don't because they know there is or are victims to the act of adultery. As with abortion there is a victim a distinct human being clinging to life and reliant on the mother.

 

[Cearbhall]

I suggest you read the "Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist" where he tells how the number of illegal abortions were inflated in order to convince the public that the killing of unborn children should be legalized.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/confessions-of-an-ex-abortionist.html

Er, he said the 1890s. Hardly the era of second-wave feminism. That was the era when groups were fighting to criminalize abortion because it was still legal in many states. Therefore, they would not have been seeking to inflate the numbers of back-alley abortions.

The big font is just annoying, by the way.

 

[redleghunter]

The ones suspected of child abuse are, as this is a responsible means of carrying out the law. If the inane proposal of making abortion a crime of murder were installed, then the responsible means of carrying out that law would surely be to examine all cases of suspected termination.

With the cruel result of any woman who had suffered a miscarriage being a potential murder suspect, until her name could be cleared.



Amazing, isn't it, how often a sentence beginning with "so" contains irrelevant nonsense?

You are in error blurring the lines. If a woman has an involuntary miscarriage no one usually knows about it. If she aborts there is an abortionist involved.

That is why the focus of law enforcement is on the providers.

 

[redleghunter]

No. Decisions about what is and is not 'murder' are determined by our laws. That you disagree with the current legal standpoint on this issue changes naught.

Abortion is legal. It is not murder.

In your OP the scenario is that abortion is illegal.

 

[redleghunter]

Quick, let's change the subject!

Sure sign of a failing argument.

A comparison of difficult to prosecute laws.

Your assertions screamed for a comparison.

 

[redleghunter]

Your 'stop the providers' mentality continues to avoid reality. As we have seen in the past, women will continue to procure abortions, whether or not they are illegal!

And they will mostly not be as glaringly obvious as the example given above. How do you suggest the vast bulk of terminated pregnancies be investigated, in order to determine the 'genuine' from the bogus?

There will be illegal providers if so many women as you say seek abortions. Arrest and shut down illegal providers and see how willing people are to have abortions.

How do you investigate? I answered such already. As you do any crime which has evidence. No evidence no investigation. That's how it works in our country.

 

[redleghunter]

Which is why we have forced organ donations. you know, with life trumping liberty every time.

Not a valid argument.

The life in the mother's womb is a distinct human being.

 

[redleghunter]

Absolute juvenile rubbish! Do you really think that all those millions of women in the past made conscious decisions to become pregnant, knowing that they would be facing the prospect of a back-yard abortionist, one often equipped with nothing more sophisticated than a bent coat hanger!?

The misogyny knows no bounds does it?

Other than rape those consenting women with a more than willing male engaged in relations which produce offspring. I am thinking they had a sex ed class or two.

Responsibility starts with the actors in an action. The baby is an innocent result and should not pay for the actions of the parents.

Act responsibly and no back alley. If pregnant the man and woman take responsibility for their actions and have the kid.

It's not hard to figure out.

Abortion is a very bad choice. There is more than one human being involved.

 

[Cearbhall]

You are in error blurring the lines. If a woman has an involuntary miscarriage no one usually knows about it. If she aborts there is an abortionist involved.

That is why the focus of law enforcement is on the providers.

There are abortion methods that don't require outside help. Though I appreciate that you would rather focus the blame on the provider rather than the woman in crisis in a society where abortion is illegal.

 

[redleghunter]

The killing of a foetus, yes. Which we, as communities and as legal bodies, have determined NOT to be murder.

But you do agree we are dealing with killing what science determines is a human being?

 

[Cearbhall]

Other than rape those consenting women with a more than willing male engaged in relations which produce offspring. I am thinking they had a sex ed class or two.

Oy vey, no. We're talking about all of human history. Or we could even just limit it to 19th century, if you want. For women, sex wasn't divided into clear-cut rape and freely-consenting sex. Reality was: get hitched to whoever will have you, even if he's the town drunkard, or join the nunnery. Sometimes without the latter option being offered at all. Or, you could run away and become a prostitute, which I hope you'll agree isn't exactly a freely-chosen option in such a situation. Options #1 and #3 more often than not led to sexual encounters and pregnancies that they would not have chosen otherwise.

And no, the average 1890s women did not get "a sex ed class or two." Some girls in the U.S. now don't even get that. Try having zero knowledge of sexuality and then being brutally violated by your semi-arranged husband on your wedding night. And then bearing his kids for the next 20 years without any say in the matter.

 

[redleghunter]

Hmmm... it appears that is not the definition of abortion, no.




I appears abortion is the expulsion of a fetus. That, unfortunately, ends in it's death.

And the fetus by determination of embyologists is at conception a distinct human being.

So applying your definition abortion is the termination and expelling of a human being.

More precisely abortion kills a distinct human being in the womb.

 

[Cearbhall]

Absolute juvenile rubbish! Do you really think that all those millions of women in the past made conscious decisions to become pregnant, knowing that they would be facing the prospect of a back-yard abortionist, one often equipped with nothing more sophisticated than a bent coat hanger!?

The misogyny knows no bounds does it?

I applaud you. Seriously. Most people, it seems, never bother to consider this issue so complexly. They seriously think that pre-1960s was a joyful time of nuclear families, moral victories, and free prosperity for all, without domestic violence, marital rape, or anything else that would complicate their rosy view.