It should be Murder?

[redleghunter]

How fortunate that we do not rely solely upon narrow scientific descriptions to frame our attitudes and our laws towards murder.

Science is science but I'm glad you no longer deny the scientific facts.

Our laws have legalized the killing of another human being without trial or even basic tribunal. Even Gitmo detainees have more rights.

 

[Cearbhall]

Our laws have legalized the killing of another human being without trial or even basic tribunal.

It's no different than if someone dies because the kidney match decided not to donate. And sometimes, abortion is done as a mercy.

I see no one responded to any of my posts pointing out the factually incorrect statements that have been made in this thread about the history of abortion, upon which many of the stated pro-life arguments seem to rely.

 

[redleghunter]

I meant in regards to the law. A woman choosing for herself that she won't drink or smoke during pregnancy is a pro-choice action. The pro-life position would be to treat it as child abuse, or murder if it results in miscarriage.

It's wonderful that you offer to help them, by the way.

What a country, in which people actually still want this in the 21st century. Thank goodness it will never happen. Women would never go in for medical care after miscarriages.

That is why every pro life candidate states that the providers are the target for criminal prosecution.

If a woman has a miscarriage there is no mischief. If there is mischief an outside illegal provider is usually involved. We have laws against infanticide yet some women deliver at home, kill the kid and gets rid of the body. That should not prevent us from having anti infanticide laws.

Unfortunately miscarriages happen and people mourn over the loss.

 

[Belk]

Not a valid argument

Oh the Ipsie dixit game! I love this game! Try this one. Name any instance in which a second parties right to life trumps bodily integrity.

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

Cool! Let us know when you get the SCOTUS to agree.

 

[Belk]

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

So you claim. Over and over. Yet for some reason no one has presented the peer reviewed science to a court to have Roe V Wade overturned. It is almost as if your misrepresentation of science does not hold up in a court of law.

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.

Nope, still not the definition no matter how much you attempt to supplant the outcome with the actual meaning.

 

[Cearbhall]

Not a valid argument.

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

So is a person who needs a kidney. The comparison is quite obviously being made between the fetus and an organ recipient, not between the fetus and the organ. You have not addressed his argument, much less invalidated it.

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

Just for clarification, are you using "human being" to mean "legal person" or "homo sapiens?"

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Until about the middle of the 19th century abortion was illegal after movement of the developing human life. Called the quickening. Before that point aborting was considered a misdemeanor offense.

In the 19th century abortion laws tightened to conception as medical science advanced. So all those state laws in the late 19th century were due to better scientific information. They called it the spark of life happens at fertilization.

Frankly nothing scientifically has changed in concept since then except the technology reaffirms a distinct human being begins at conception. We know now it is fact.

For Christians? There is really no excuse to support abortion other than the life of the mother.

All the early church writings forbid abortion with the earliest document the Didache.

Going back more to the Hebrew scriptures we get a good look at the mind of God on human development. For God it is a will and He provides that spark of life and it is at conception.

And of course Jesus said that one must be like a child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Termination of a child before birth rubs raw against this.

So for Christians the answer is simple. What is conceived in the womb is a work of God and if we lift our hands to strike innocent life we will have the same measured out to us in Judgment. God is Graceful and Merciful and will always offer both before lowering the boom.

 

[Cearbhall]

Until about the middle of the 19th century abortion was illegal after movement of the developing human life. Called the quickening. Before that point aborting was considered a misdemeanor offense.

In the 19th century abortion laws tightened to conception as medical science advanced. So all those state laws in the late 19th century were due to better scientific information.

Still an incomplete picture. This is just U.S. history. A speck on the radar. I spoke of all of human history. I'm still wondering what the significance of "two thousand years" was, though that wasn't one of your posts.

I would strongly disagree about the role of science in abortion bans. It had much more to do with Victorian-era moral panic. The Comstock Law is a prime example.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

From our founding abortion was illegal as far as medical science could determine. Which was quickening. Before that a woman held her breath hoping for a healthy pregnancy as the mortality rate was high in older times.

I'm sure the upper class with their loose morals and prostitutes sought abortions, but most families wanted and needed the kids to harvest and plow fields. The more kids the more hands you had to make a living and survive another winter. Hardy folk.

Plus it was easy to feed a family of 10-20 kids back then. My mom grew up on a farm in Ireland and they could get a winter out of a few sheep a couple of hogs and chickens.

Oh and loads of potatoes!

 

[redleghunter]

Still an incomplete picture. This is just U.S. history. A speck on the radar. I spoke of all of human history. I'm still wondering what the significance of "two thousand years" was, though that wasn't one of your posts.

I would strongly disagree about the role of science in abortion bans. It had much more to do with Victorian-era moral panic. The Comstock Law is a prime example.

Don't want to speak for the poster but he probably meant Church history. And in many cases the Church shaped moral civil laws in Europe.

Now outside of the places where the church provided moral laws, pagans were still practicing all sorts of heinous things like sacrificing their children to appease the gods, infanticide for babies who were even slightly deformed.

Christianity was an odd fellow when it came to the infirm, sickly and mentally challenged. By the words of Christ in Matthew 25 those in need and disabled were the least of His brethren. Meaning those who needed the most help. By helping we are doing it as if these people were Christ.

So Christians were different from their pagan neighbors in understanding the sanctity of life.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

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

Well actually Paul quite nicely puts it that when a woman and man join in marriage they are one flesh. His body belongs to her and her body belongs to him.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

You pointed out some very valid bad situations women were forced into.

Situations where women were exploited and that's sin.

I'm sure you won't like me saying it again but an abortion in even such horrible situations compounds the tragedy of the suffering as another life is involved.

Christians look at the fallen world we share with non Christians and weep as Jesus wept overlooking Jerusalem before His betrayal.

That's why you will see us in the middle of the pain and suffering doing our best to emulate our Master.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh the Ipsie dixit game! I love this game! Try this one. Name any instance in which a second parties right to life trumps bodily integrity.



Cool! Let us know when you get the SCOTUS to agree.

A woman is designed to accept the forming child in her womb.

They usually get big around the stomach area when getting close to term. I'm sure you've seen pictures.

 

[redleghunter]

So you claim. Over and over. Yet for some reason no one has presented the peer reviewed science to a court to have Roe V Wade overturned. It is almost as if your misrepresentation of science does not hold up in a court of law.



Nope, still not the definition no matter how much you attempt to supplant the outcome with the actual meaning.

Overturning Roe involves more than presenting scientific evidence. It requires we get non ideologues sitting in those 9 chairs.

Roe v. Wade had everything to do with ideology and little to do with factual scientific evidence.

 

[redleghunter]

So is a person who needs a kidney. The comparison is quite obviously being made between the fetus and an organ recipient, not between the fetus and the organ. You have not addressed his argument, much less invalidated it.

Just for clarification, are you using "human being" to mean "legal person" or "homo sapiens?"

I'm using human being as defined by science.


I believe the legal person argument runs into difficulties as it usually indicates someone who can discharge property. A corporation can be a legal person but a 5 yr old cannot.

Same goes for constitutional person.

I would consider philosophically a human being at conception is a moral person.

 

[SteveB28]

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.

Rubbish.

A woman falls pregnant. Usual behaviour is to tell family, friends, work colleagues. She loses the pregnancy. Tells all those people she has unfortunately suffered a miscarriage.

Under your warped proposed law, a 'human being' has died suddenly. Your bizarre law would require that the death be investigated. The woman becomes a suspect.

I would see these events as being likely to being very common.

And cruel.

 

[SteveB28]

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.
.

Good grief.

What do you think happened in the past? That illegal abortion providers operated freely?

They were arrested and prosecuted! And yet, women continued to procure abortions in their millions. Why do you think it would be any different if we returned to that draconian era?

You simply refuse to face reality.

 

[SteveB28]

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

No. You are the second person today, eager to put words into the mouth of another. Further sure sign of a lost argument.

 

[redleghunter]

Rubbish.

A woman falls pregnant. Usual behaviour is to tell family, friends, work colleagues. She loses the pregnancy. Tells all those people she has unfortunately suffered a miscarriage.

Under your warped proposed law, a 'human being' has died suddenly. Your bizarre law would require that the death be investigated. The woman becomes a suspect.

I would see these events as being likely to being very common.

And cruel.

No I did not say that. I said you go after the illegal providers.

In your case above there would be no investigation because their was not an intentional abortion.

The law is all about evidence and intent.



I don't know what country you live in but that's how it works here.

 

[redleghunter]

Good grief.

What do you think happened in the past? That illegal abortion providers operated freely?

They were arrested and prosecuted! And yet, women continued to procure abortions in their millions. Why do you think it would be any different if we returned to that draconian era?

You simply refuse to face reality.

Actually the reality is another human life is at stake. I know you don't believe that or you do and rationalize it's still ok to knowingly kill another life.