• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Death Penalty for Abortion

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by OGM, Sep 1, 2015.

  1. CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

    CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN Charlee. 8 /18 / 2017

    +1,159
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    US-Others
    Only 2 people I know were forced into abortion. One was a 15 year old teenager. Because the parents didn't want people to find out the child was a product of her step father. The other one, a boyfriend took her to the abortion clinic and scared her into it. I never knew anyone, that was forced into abortion provider. Most people I know, that had abortions choose too.
     
  2. GrowingSmaller

    GrowingSmaller Can we come up for some real air (truth) now?

    +252
    Humanist
    Private
    Abortion is cheap and cheerful. Dont believe it.
     
  3. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    For maybe the first 12-weeks at the outside, there is little evidence of another life inside the pregnant female. The fundamental human right to lie and continue to claim absolute autonomy of the vagina usually remains. The earliest claim of virginity is generally accepted like it was for mother Mary.

    The test given for detecting life is almost universally accepted as checking for a heartbeat. SCOTUS used viability to address when this second heartbeat could continue outside the female. This is currently accepted as after 24-weeks.

    When "life" begins is the $64,000 question. Some contend this is at conception. In 1973, SCOTUS rejected both this contention and use of after live birth.

    I will assert that over the last twenty years since Casey, more statistical data has been recorded and a great deal of citizen and legislative consideration has been invested in answering "when life begins".

    The test given for detecting life has almost always been universally accepted as checking for a heartbeat. Science has determined conclusively the normally developing person being gestated inside a female possesses a heartbeat at 12-weeks.

    The "right to privacy" is GONE when the heartbeat of the new person can be heard! The "right to privacy" is not able to prevent the right to life from becoming controlling when the time-honored test for detecting life factually discovers a life to protect.

    The right to autonomy does not survive the detection of another life.

    Arkansas' Act 301 will be affirmed as constitutional early in 2016.
     
  4. GrimKingGrim

    GrimKingGrim The Thin Dead Line of sanity

    +176
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    In fact, it was rampant in the Medieval days. And from there it didn't get better really. Jonathan Swift made a very modest proposal about baby populations (hehehe)

    So yea it wouldn't be safer at all for sure
     
  5. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    Artificial medicated abortion of gestation for 12-weeks is the future allowed limitation of the right to choose as supported by Roe.
     
  6. Dave-W

    Dave-W Our six grandchildren Supporter

    +5,328
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    So was killing the king. Or anyone else for that matter.
     
  7. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +436
    Atheist
    Married
    Whether or not a fetus is alive or when it becomes "alive" during pregnancy is irrelevant. For the sake of argument I could even grant that life begins at conception and that unborn life has the exact same right to life as any and every other person.... and that still would not be reason to make abortion illegal. Any persons right to life ends where it infringes on the rights of life and/or bodily autonomy of another person.
     
  8. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    Nope. Infringing on the right to life of another requires an intentional choice aspect that does not develop for years. The right to simply exist undisturbed wholly trumps the right to self-defense without a conscious intentional action to defend against.

    Females surrender absolute bodily autonomy when accepting live sperm cells. This waiver of privacy spreads from the male depositing the sperm to the entire public as the gestation progresses.

    After 12-weeks gestation, the new life within a female can be detected by the listening public. The public then has the natural duty to protect this new life until a natural death. The death penalty is as morally repugnant as artificial abortion of gestation because there is no deterrent effect.
     
  9. Paulos23

    Paulos23 part of the Rebel Alliance

    +669
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    So it is OK that I can just take your liver if I need it to live? That is what this boils down too, not having autonomy over your body because someone else needs it.
     
  10. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    Nope, Perhaps you did not quite understand the "intentional" part. I will try to make the necessary intention aspect clearer.

    Live unborn humans normally have their own livers and do not need the liver of the host female to do anything besides keep the host female healthy. Live unborn humans do not consume anything like alcohol.

    You misunderstand autonomy or assert non-congruent arguments as similar and true. Is this to mislead weaker minds the public is perhaps filled with? SCOTUS does not have a Justice with a weak enough mind for any to risk presenting such a bogus claim.

    Whatever harm the live unborn human does to the host female is done involuntarily and with no intention to harm because the host female chose to risk becoming a host. This does not "boil down" neatly into a sound bite. The live unborn human begins life as a "parasite" inside a host female who forced the live unborn human to live within.
     
  11. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    Jesus does NOT support the death penalty or artificial interruption of gestation. As Jesus climbed Calvary, the fact that women would be considered blessed in the future if they were barren implies the benefit of abortion as a fundamental human right today till 12-weeks.

    When America rebelled against England, there was no legal history of decisions and zero natively trained lawyers and especially no Constitutional lawyers because of no Constitution yet existing. Starting a new country motivated life-long terms for judges. England and all of Europe developed a more honorable legal system because judges were not politically chosen and did not rule for life.
    EU can't possibly respect SCOTUS today with 5 almost eighty-plus-year-old geezers and few native U.S. citizens still do either. No highly-intelligent American can believe SCOTUS is honorable and still be intelligent. America has a bad system of law which was required at one time but has been unjust since the late 18th century. The broken American legal system could once have been corrected but America is no longer a democracy and the ruling corporate Oligarchy will allow citizens to feel "the people" are still in control.
    The death penalty and artificial interruption of gestation will soon end.
     
  12. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +3,019
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    What is immoral is violating someone's unalienable rights to bodily autonomy.
    No human, born or not, has the right to claim the use of the body or any part of the body of another human against that person's will, no matter the consequences.

    A woman's uterus is not public property.

    End of story.
     
  13. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +3,019
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Somehow you find it moral to violate someone's right to bodily autonomy.

    If you need my kidney and I refuse to hand it over... then I did not "kill you".
    Again, body parts are not public property.
     
  14. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +3,019
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    That is extremely false.
     
  15. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +3,019
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    I don't know of any instances of woman wanting to get an abortion after actually choosing the be pregnant unless there are medical reasons.

    Women who get an abortion (not for medical reasons) are women who are pregnant against their will. And who thus did not choose to become pregnant.


    Also, I'ld like you to clarify something...
    Does that mean that you are okay with rape victims getting an abortion?
    Certainly you can at least agree that rape victims at no point chose to even only "expose" themselves to a risque of getting pregnant, right? ...Right?

    Because if you feel like they can't have an abortion either.... then clearly this "choice" isn't your actual argument and just a smokescreen.

    Sorry if I misrepresent you if that is the case though.
    But in other threads here, people have been using this "choice" argument as well and when rape was brought up.... well.... their responses weren't very nice.
     
  16. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    No person would ever be required to remain pregnant against their will after Arkansas Act 301 is copied nationwide.

    I am as OK with anyone getting an abortion as I am with the death penalty. These are both morally repugnant. No human should cause the end of another life.

    I am the amici who attempted to intervene as a party and appeal the Eighth Circuit panel's recent allowance of the Eastern District Court of Arkansas invalidating AR Act 301 and ignoring public duty to protect the right to life beginning with a heartbeat.

    Then you are only partly wrong... Ha. Those who allowed life terms in 1787 did not do this to minimize popular sentiments pressuring judges or to prevent mob rule. They did this because there were few imported law schools and lawyers. The pool of legally trained people was absolutely empty and took almost a century to fill. Not electing judges directly was enough separation in the EU and had been decided by experimentation rather than revolt.

    The outlook is bleak unless one knows how close the U.S. is to a peaceful collapse. The corporate oligarchy control will collapse and be overtaken by the government developing in the EU without a shot needing to be fired.
     
  17. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    I have never graduated from a law school or university and will never. I do not consider any U.S. law school or university honorable enough to associate with me. I have a wholly unique damaged but highly advanced human mind. I have studied at many "schools".

    The bar exam and the LSAT are humorous, frivolous attempts to prohibit less adequate minds from paid practice of law. The U.S. legal system is broken and can't be repaired without recognition of the fundamental human right to protect the complete self missing from the "Bill of Rights". America allows for self-defense to an extent but does not allow self-defense of personal reputation, honor, or dignity.

    Liberty v Dignity(website discussion by Andreas Kluth)
    Liberty v Dignity(Paper by Yale prof James Q. Whitman Esq.)

    American culture wholly ignores protection of honor while our dishonorable common law system requires usage of "Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren" when addressing a judge. Asked by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren to explain why I called his reasoning incompetent in a filing; I described Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren as perhaps suffering from an early onset of senility and not just an obvious addiction to anonymous access to pornography. Jimm is no longer an active judge and announced retirement 59 days later.

    Why does EU generally accept colour and honour versus U.S. color and honor? The bare fact explaining this and the Liberty v Dignity split in culture is because of an intentional misspelling made on May 31, 1790 before ratification of the "Bill of Rights". Both writers above recognize this cultural split and when in history this occurred but do not see the reason. The clear rational is obvious to me and will be now to all readers of this part of this thread and both authors above.

    I am the ONLY USMC corporal (E4) with a good conduct medal and Top Secret security clearance discharged as a conscientious objector to war. Benjamin Huntington was the first conscientious objector in the United States and signed the declaration of independence. This lawyer/legislator/judge felt the American Revolution was caused by failure to litigate honorably.

    Benjamin Huntington and Noah Webster wrote the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 and intentionally took the United States backward eighty years in IP law by copying the 1710 Statute of Anne rite almost verbatim to monopolize the printing rite or ritual for printing elementary school textbooks and prevent wealthy colonists from simply reprinting imported English school books. Noah Webster was the noted lexicographer who created the first authoritative American English dictionary in 1828. Noah Webster challenged the orthography of Samuel Johnson who wrote the 1755 dictionary used for the 1787 Constitution and hoped to make the American word for tongue become [sic] "tung".

    Noah Webster's "tung" did not get accepted but copy[rite] came to be accepted as the Americanism [sic]"copyright" or U.S. ritual for controlling printing without addressing the human right to control the impact original communications had on dignity or honor. This was first protected in England with the 1734 Engravers Act and 1766 Hogarth's Act and already WIDELY recognized in England before the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

    This personal human right (still missing in America) was the first human "property" right exceeding the life of the artist by allowing the surviving spouse to control the reuse of original artwork or control original communications. See copy-right joined first by Sir William Blackstone and used as copyright in Vol. 2 "Rights of Things" in chapter 26 on page 406. This was done in around 1766 in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. with footnotes "l" and "m". This book series is still studied in ALL law schools on Earth and yet is not recognized as coining a word for the human right protected first in Europe but never protected in America except with the slander, defamation, libel, and various privacy torts indirectly.

    This long treatise is relative to ONE coming petition for certiorari for Arkansas' Act 301 that will be filed and will probably be ignored to protect the status quo.

    1) The recent Affordable Care Act ruling would have been easy to resolve if the President could assert protecting dignity of the legal intention sought and then passed. Congress would have been sanctioned for intentional use of the ambiguous term "individual State" for establishment of insurance exchanges. The federal government of the US is an "individual State". California is an "individual State" roughly the size of the "individual State" of Italy.

    2) The recent gay marriage ruling would have been less contentious if the dignity of the self was protected. Homosexuals could and should cite the dignity pf the self being improved with marriage since monogamy is implied by marriage furthering dignity. I might be gay but I do not sleep around.

    3) The egregious recent en banc Ninth Circuit Doe v Google Inc copy[rite] mistake would not have been made if the original speaker's dignity to control communications would have been protected. The performer will not seek certiorari because Google Inc is respecting the speakers dignity despite the Ninth Circuit Doe v Google Inc copy[rite] mistake.

    4) Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447)
    would have resulted in the FCC being ordered to treat the web as a common carrier of communications and GOOG and MSFT both being ordered to comply completely with U.S. law(s) if human dignity was protected in America. The FCC professed to intend to treat the web as a common carrier of communications and GOOG and MSFT mostly volunteered to obey U.S. law(s) although MSFT did and GOOG almost did but refuse complete compliance like Goliath. A citizen's dignity is not protected by U.S. communications law(s) but judicial dignity apparently is protected. GOOG could not develop in Europe where dignity (or right to be forgotten) is protected.

    5) The AR Act 301 12-week limitation on abortion of gestation allows protection of the dignity of a human heartbeat (protection of life) yet allows the female to protect the dignity of the self for any rational whatsoever before 12-weeks. AR Act 301 punishes ONLY doctors who do not recognize the dignity of the human heartbeat by loss of medical license. The female is not punished and there are exceptions for the health of the mother and for rape or incest. These last two exceptions address only the "choice" aspect for pregnancy but are illogical and will be removed after public funding of abortion of gestation is no longer an issue because the human right to protect personal dignity will be controlling for 12-weeks.

    The dignity of a human life should be protected from the time a heartbeat can be heard till this heartbeat stops naturally. Abortion of an unborn heartbeat violates the dignity of human life exactly like a death penalty violates the dignity of human life.

    This is archived at www.CurtisNeeley.com/Abortion/thread-links.html too.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2015
  18. TheoNewstoss

    TheoNewstoss Well-Known Member

    501
    +486
    Christian
    Private
    For the sake of intellectual consistency, I would support such a measure.
     
  19. TheoNewstoss

    TheoNewstoss Well-Known Member

    501
    +486
    Christian
    Private
    He said "murder," not "kill."
     
  20. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley copy[rite] misspelled in US

    114
    +12
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Others
    No human should kill or murder another human because only God or "nature" should cause another human to die.
     
Loading...