Insidious contradictions

[peace4ever]

If the FOCA bill is passed, then any woman, young girl, or any age will be able to have an abortion up until the 9th month of pregnancy. Yet if a woman kills her baby the minute it comes of her womb, she is reviled by society, called a monster, put behind bars and in some cases, qualifies for the death penalty! Shouts of "What kind of woman would kill her child?" are heard across the world.

So what's the difference in the baby one month or one minute before it's born than after it's born? Nothing. Not one thing. It was as much a live human being in the womb as it was the minute it was born. This betrays the insidious contradiction in society as much as charging a person with a double homicide if he kills a pregnant woman.

Millions of people alive today were born prematurely including some people on this forum. So not only is this contradiction insidious, it's inexcusable. Do pro-abortionists care? Not in the least because they've lost their conscience. As long as a woman has the option to get rid of her unborn baby, then nothing else matters to pro-choicers.

Furthermore, if FOCA passes, then young teen-agers can have abortions without the consent of their parents. That means they can sneak around to kill their babies yet society still blames the parents for the actions of a child under 18. This is another insidious contradiction which also promotes lying to one's parents and doing things behind their backs.

And all for what? The "right" to commit murder. It's scary to think what our future descendants will value in the world since they're taught that some people are fit to live and others are not.

 

[Ave Maria]

If the FOCA bill is passed, then any woman, young girl, or any age will be able to have an abortion up until the 9th month of pregnancy. Yet if a woman kills her baby the minute it comes of her womb, she is reviled by society, called a monster, put behind bars and in some cases, qualifies for the death penalty! Shouts of "What kind of woman would kill her child?" are heard across the world.

So what's the difference in the baby one month or one minute before it's born than after it's born? Nothing. Not one thing. It was as much a live human being in the womb as it was the minute it was born. This betrays the insidious contradiction in society as much as charging a person with a double homicide if he kills a pregnant woman.

Millions of people alive today were born prematurely including some people on this forum. So not only is this contradiction insidious, it's inexcusable. Do pro-abortionists care? Not in the least because they've lost their conscience. As long as a woman has the option to get rid of her unborn baby, then nothing else matters to pro-choicers.

Furthermore, if FOCA passes, then young teen-agers can have abortions without the consent of their parents. That means they can sneak around to kill their babies yet society still blames the parents for the actions of a child under 18. This is another insidious contradiction which also promotes lying to one's parents and doing things behind their backs.

And all for what? The "right" to commit murder. It's scary to think what our future descendants will value in the world since they're taught that some people are fit to live and others are not.

It's disgusting isn't it? I know some people who are pro-choice who are opposed to late term abortion. I know some who would never get an abortion themselves and even some who consider abortion to be immoral but yet advocate for it to remain legal. Now if that isn't a contradiction, I don't know what is!

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

You realize that FOCA is still far from being passed, right?

I know some who would never get an abortion themselves and even some
who consider abortion to be immoral but yet advocate for it to remain legal. Now if that isn't a contradiction, I don't know what is!

They wouldn't choose to have an abortion themselves, but they don't believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others, so they believe it should be legal. How is that a contradiction? It just seems to me that these people know enough about history to realize that making abortion illegal will not stop it, but will only drive it underground and make it dangerous. Abortions were very common in the decades before it was legal. The only difference is that women who were not rich enough to find a doctor or travel to Europe for the procedure had to risk a dangerous back alley abortion. I've heard plenty of stories from doctors in the 50s and 60s of women coming into hospitals with raging infections, many of them died. As someone who hopes to be a nurse, I pray that I never, ever see that in my hospital. You can deny it all you want, but things like that can and will happen again if abortion is made illegal. Thankfully, I don't see that happening in the near future.

.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html

 

[IronManMatt]

They wouldn't choose to have an abortion themselves, but they don't believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others, so they believe it should be legal.

Its not an issue of rights is an issue of ability. No one has the ability to impose their beliefs on another. However, people (in the US at least) have the right and ability to impose restrictions on what other people do based upon their beliefs (i.e. voting).

It just seems to me that these people know enough about history to realize that making abortion illegal will not stop it, but will only drive it underground and make it dangerous. Abortions were very common in the decades before it was legal. The only difference is that women who were not rich enough to find a doctor or travel to Europe for the procedure had to risk a dangerous back alley abortion. I've heard plenty of stories from doctors in the 50s and 60s of women coming into hospitals with raging infections, many of them died. As someone who hopes to be a nurse, I pray that I never, ever see that in my hospital. You can deny it all you want, but things like that can and will happen again if abortion is made illegal. Thankfully, I don't see that happening in the near future.

No law completely stops any action, and everything action that there is a law against gets pushed underground. Does that mean we should have no laws? People will always steal from each other but I guarantee that fewer people steal because there are laws against it.

No woman will have to risk a dangerous back alley abortion, she can just give birth to the child. No one wants to see women coming into the hospital with raging infections. But what are we more concerned about, a child who was murdered or a woman who was hurt in the process of murdering a child. Should we make murder of adults legal to prevent a murderer from accidentally cutting themselves while stabbing someone in a dark alley (if this type of murder was legal the killer could have stabbed in the daylight and hence would lessen the chance of him hurting himself while stabbing his victim to death).

 

[Trashionista]

It's not as if women who get abortions aren't judged in similar ways to women who dump the newborn or kill the baby shortly thereafter, so I do not understand this...

If the FOCA bill is passed, then any woman, young girl, or any age will be able to have an abortion up until the 9th month of pregnancy. Yet if a woman kills her baby the minute it comes of her womb, she is reviled by society, called a monster, put behind bars and in some cases, qualifies for the death penalty! Shouts of "What kind of woman would kill her child?" are heard across the world.

 

[K9_Trainer]

To add to the irony, if a pregnant woman is shot and killed or stabbed to death, her murderer is charged with two accounts of murder.

 

[lux et lex]

To add to the irony, if a pregnant woman is shot and killed or stabbed to death, her murderer is charged with two accounts of murder.

This has happened once. (Scott Peterson trial). It was highly publicized which makes it seem like the norm, but it is NOT.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

But what are we more concerned about, a child who was murdered or a woman who was hurt in the process of murdering a child.

Not everyone believes that abortion is murder, and it is not defined as such by US law. Since I do not believe that it is murder, I would be concerned for the health of my patient, the woman.

Its not an issue of rights is an issue of ability. No one has the ability to impose their beliefs on another. However, people (in the US at least) have the right and ability to impose restrictions on what other people do based upon their beliefs (i.e. voting).

Yes, and last year people in South Dakota and Colorado defeated bills that would have banned abortion. Apparently, they didn't want to implement the proposed restrictions.

 

[IronManMatt]

Not everyone believes that abortion is murder, and it is not defined as such by US law. Since I do not believe that it is murder, I would be concerned for the health of my patient, the woman.

In Idaho it is consider murder to kill a fetus, unless of course the mother decides to kill it, how messed up is that.

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 40
HOMICIDE​

18-4001.Murder defined. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus, with malice aforethought or the intentional application of torture to a human being, which results in the death of a human being. Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme and prolonged pain with the intent to cause suffering. It shall also be torture to inflict on a human being extreme and prolonged acts of brutality irrespective of proof of intent to cause suffering. The death of a human being caused by such torture is murder irrespective of proof of specific intent to kill; torture causing death shall be deemed the equivalent of intent to kill.

 

[Trashionista]

In Idaho it is consider murder to kill a fetus, unless of course the mother decides to kill it, how messed up is that.

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 40
HOMICIDE​

18-4001.Murder defined. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus, with malice aforethought or the intentional application of torture to a human being, which results in the death of a human being. Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme and prolonged pain with the intent to cause suffering. It shall also be torture to inflict on a human being extreme and prolonged acts of brutality irrespective of proof of intent to cause suffering. The death of a human being caused by such torture is murder irrespective of proof of specific intent to kill; torture causing death shall be deemed the equivalent of intent to kill.

You're confusing murder and abortion, there. The motivations for murder of another human being are generally not the same as the motivations for getting an abortion.

Furthermore, it is not up to the Average Joe to interpret laws as they see fit. That is in the hands of lawmakers and those who practise law; unless you yourself do, your interpretation of abortion as murder based on a isolated law, isn't valid.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

You're confusing murder and abortion, there. The motivations for murder of another human being are generally not the same as the motivations for getting an abortion

Exactly.

IronManMatt,
Notice that it says "murder is the UNLAWFUL killing". Abortion is legal. Therefore, it's still not defined as murder by the law.

 

[IronManMatt]

I don't know what the last two posters were reading but it was not my post. I never said that abortion is against Idaho Law. I just repeated what the law says. In Idaho the killing of a fetus is considered murder unless it is the mother who makes the decision to kill the fetus.

Therefore if I kill a woman's fetus without her permission I could be found guilty of murder. I find it odd that the law allows the mother to have a fetus killed but if anyone else decides to kill it then it is murder.

 

[Trashionista]

Therefore if I kill a woman's fetus without her permission I could be found guilty of murder. I find it odd that the law allows the mother to have a fetus killed but if anyone else decides to kill it then it is murder.

Because a woman generally consents to an abortion. I've never [apart from that cannibals in chat forums case in Germany] heard of anyone - regardless of whether being pregnant or not - consent to being murdered.

 

[Ave Maria]

This has happened once. (Scott Peterson trial). It was highly publicized which makes it seem like the norm, but it is NOT.

Yes, and that never should have happened in my opinion. What is your opinion concerning the Scott Peterson trial lux et lex?

 

[lux et lex]

Yes, and that never should have happened in my opinion. What is your opinion concerning the Scott Peterson trial lux et lex?

I think it was the wrong decision to make, unless there was some way of proving the fetus had been delivered before it expired. If I remember the facts of the case correctly the medical examiner said the fetus had not yet taken a breath, so that's pretty good evidence to me that it had not been delivered first.

 

[Ave Maria]

I think it was the wrong decision to make, unless there was some way of proving the fetus had been delivered before it expired. If I remember the facts of the case correctly the medical examiner said the fetus had not yet taken a breath, so that's pretty good evidence to me that it had not been delivered first.

I strongly agree with you lux et lex. It was the wrong decision to make and if the fetus had not yet taken a breath then it almost definitely had not been born yet.

 

[Phaedros]

It seems to me that there are many people proclaiming themselves to be Christians on this forum who don't know a thing about what that means concerning morality. They seem to want to argue from a moral relativistic standpoint all the while denouncing God as the moral lawgiver. What does it mean for God to be the moral lawgiver? Well it includes one of the arguments for the existence of God. That being that there are objective moral laws and that requires a lawgiver. This means that, since God is unchanging (immutable), then the divine law, as Aquinas called it, never changes. The human law is only a pale shadow of the divine law as it tries to imitate the Divine Law in human society. This also means that there is a definitive position that Christians must take on the issue of abortion. In order to find out what that position is we have to look to scripture, our conscience, and to what the Church fathers and the Church says. With all of those taken into account it is clear that abortion by choice for no other reason than that the mother and father were irresponsible or do not want to take on the responsibility is immoral. The debate should not be about whether it should be illegal or not it should be about what our attitudes should be towards. Should we look at it as always an option or should it only come up as an option when there are medical complications, etc.? I believe the latter.

 

[Trashionista]

It seems to me that there are many people proclaiming themselves to be Christians on this forum who don't know a thing about what that means concerning morality. They seem to want to argue from a moral relativistic standpoint all the while denouncing God as the moral lawgiver. What does it mean for God to be the moral lawgiver? Well it includes one of the arguments for the existence of God. That being that there are objective moral laws and that requires a lawgiver. This means that, since God is unchanging (immutable), then the divine law, as Aquinas called it, never changes. The human law is only a pale shadow of the divine law as it tries to imitate the Divine Law in human society. This also means that there is a definitive position that Christians must take on the issue of abortion. In order to find out what that position is we have to look to scripture, our conscience, and to what the Church fathers and the Church says.

What relevance does this have to the topic at hand? You're not saying anything new, people on here love to use/say 'Well, you're not in Communion with the LORD!' to people who are pro-choice.

I will give you credit for using big words, though.

 

[Phaedros]

Well I suppose if one does not read the words that are written one cannot understand them. The relevance is simple, there is a position that Christians MUST take on this issue. What that position is, well that's pretty clear.

 

[Archivist]

I don't know what the last two posters were reading but it was not my post. I never said that abortion is against Idaho Law. I just repeated what the law says. In Idaho the killing of a fetus is considered murder unless it is the mother who makes the decision to kill the fetus.

Therefore if I kill a woman's fetus without her permission I could be found guilty of murder. I find it odd that the law allows the mother to have a fetus killed but if anyone else decides to kill it then it is murder.

Please re-read your post. The law specifically states that "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus, with malice aforethought or the intentional application of torture."

Abortions isn't unlawful. That is the distinction between a woman chosing to have an abortion and the actions by a third party.