It should be Murder?

[nomadictheist]

Correct. I will simply stay away from such a country. As with Syria at the moment.

So what happens if that becomes law in your country?

 

[nomadictheist]

No. Read again. I'm saying that human laws are formed by humans, not gods.

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.

 

[nomadictheist]

This discussion is about the law. About making abortion a murder charge. Start your own discussion please.

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

Wow, that's eye-opening.

 

[redleghunter]

We could set up a brand new government bureaucracy with a cabinet minister in charge. Clinics scattered around the country, ten thousand should do it, to which women are required to report monthly for pregnancy and drug testing. Yeah, that ought to handle it. For ease of tracking and processing it would help if we chipped all the women.

I would say such is an overreaction. However, with the Affordable Healthcare act most medical records can now be accessed by the federal government.

Take any law and apply your overreaction. What about child abuse cases? Do we have all parents present their children to the authorities to see if they are being abused? No unless a court ordered such from a previous incident. So a lot of kids, a lot fall through the cracks each year because the government cannot go into homes where a crime has not been reported and officially committed. I'm sure you don't advocate getting rid of child abuse cases because they are hard to enforce?

 

[SteveB28]

Sure they do. An embryo, fetus etc. is a human being at conception. Scientific fact.

If we expunged laws that were hard to prosecute the list would be short.

As I said above, you deal with the providers of illegal abortions.

A lot of anti-healthcare zealots did not believe the Affordable Healthcare act would work out. Well it had its bugs and burps at first (some still exist) but each day it improves. Just remember all those people raging to the president it would not work. Well it is working.

We have a hard time keeping people from going around and through our borders. So we should give up patrolling the border and enforcing the law? Of course not.

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?

 

[SteveB28]

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

Wow, that's eye-opening.

Please don't put words in another's mouth. It is a very juvenile way to conduct a debate. If you are unable to make a better effort, I would suggest that you remove yourself from the discussion.

 

[redleghunter]

But, until the woman is examined, it would not be known if she has had an abortion or has miscarried!

IS YOUR BRILLIANT LAW GOING TO DEMAND THAT EVERY WOMAN THAT EXPERIENCES A TERMINATION OF A PREGNANCY WILL HAVE TO UNDERGO SOME FORM OF EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE THAT SHE DIDNT CAUSE THE TERMINATION!?

No and your ridiculous premise does not meet common sense. Not every kid is presented to government for inspection to determine child abuse, yet child abuse is illegal. A lot of kids fall through the cracks each year and continue to be abused and their parents are not reported because they know how to hide it well. So again to we abolish a law that is good for children just because we are not going to get evidence and convictions for all? Of course not.

 

[nomadictheist]

Please don't put words in another's mouth. It is a very juvenile way to conduct a debate. If you are unable to make a better effort, I would suggest that you remove yourself from the discussion.

It's taking human life. Whether we make an exception for it or not, it's still wrong.

I'm not talking about what the human law is. I'm talking about what it should morally be.

This discussion is about the law. About making abortion a murder charge. Start your own discussion please.

Who's putting words in whose mouth? These are the exact quotes. You told me that if i wanted to argue what the law morally should be I should go start my own discussion. That's a statement that in your opinion morality has nothing to do with it.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh, but according to you lot, a murder may have occurred! Police don't require a complaint to investigate a murder, do they?

According to whom? And yes police do need reports to investigate a murder.

You haven't thought this through very well at all, have you? You want to be able to dictate to women what they should and should not do, but haven't spent a moment on pondering the consequences.

No one is dictating to women what they can or cannot do. Just as I can't dictate to you another male to engage in illegal activities. Laws are laws and are broken every day. When there is evidence for law breaking the police investigate and take appropriate action. The police get more calls for domestic violence on a given night than other calls. If there is evidence they investigate, if not, they don't.

Consequences? Sure, yes the consequences are a human being was murdered. You don't agree with me or science on that definition so no law is broken in your eyes. This has nothing to do with law enforcement or litigation or indictment. It has everything to do about who or what is a human being.

 

[redleghunter]

And, for those who may think this is all highly theoretical:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ailed-for-feticide-its-never-happened-before/

30 week old baby was tossed in a dumpster. Wow.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course, punish the poor woman some more with a nice long prison sentence. Sigh, only in America..?

Whereas the child is dead. Thrown in the garbage no less. The article says 30 weeks old (may vary from other reports) and Indiana law has a restriction on abortions after 20 weeks (5 months).

So the argument in using this article as a case in point is to allow abortions in every trimester. Which is what NARAL wants.

 

[redleghunter]

Given the death rate in early pregnancy how would the state track the welfare of the fetuses then given that ?

Given that there are strict anti-corporal punishment laws in many states how would the government know if kids are getting spanked?

 

[redleghunter]

They do whenever medical treatment is required. Under pro-life logic, a woman who goes in because of a miscarriage should be subject to the same interrogation that parents go through in the ER.

The examples given of a first trimester miscarriage would be difficult to explore. That is why the providers would be the focus on any law. Now the ones that would be obvious was like in the WashPo article posted up thread. You have a severed baby from the mother and the body is thrown in the garbage. You can investigate that and they did.

 

[redleghunter]

91% of abortions happen within the first 13 weeks of pregnancies. I doubt that those numbers would change were abortion to be criminalized. That's early enough that unless there is some kind of monitoring the majority of abortions would continue largely undetected. If you consider abortion to be murder and want it legally treated as such I would think that you would want effective enforcement.

If the percentage is accurate then no pro-choice advocate should be fighting states who want to limit abortions to the first trimester. But they do.

 

[redleghunter]

How many more police would it take to enforce stricter gun laws?

Or control the illegal immigration at our borders?

Or the theft of cars in Bronx, NY?

Yep, understand.

 

[redleghunter]

I think the Americans have an expression about 'moving the goalposts'? I would be happy to discuss gun control with you in a discussion about gun control. This discussion is about making abortion a crime of murder. Please stay on track.

Yet your OP is a hypothetical. Abortion is not illegal now, so when asking a question about law enforcement, comparisons must be considered.

The gun control issue brought up by @LivingWordUnity is valid. We make gun laws every year to prevent violent crime and yet we get more gun violence. It's an excellent example. How can more background checks really stop a criminal from breaking the law? It can't. Oh they may catch a few here and there who were sloppy, but someone determined to used a gun illegally will do so. Same with a woman who wants to abort her own child.

 

[redleghunter]

Your problem is that a majority of your population are already 'calling it what it is' - the right of a woman to choose for herself! And they have been doing so ever since your nation was founded, with little change. And that sentiment would seem to serve the "common good of the people" far more adequately than seeking to make criminals out of many women who already may find themselves in less than satisfactory conditions. By world standards, you folk commit a wildly disproportionate number of your citizens to prison. And you want even more to face that fate?

Not really on the founding. That was the 18th century. They had very little knowledge on embryology. But that was then and now we know a human being begins at conception. We have known since the 19th century and that is why abortion laws tightened in the US.

But you digress from your own OP. You asked two direct questions and you are getting answers, but now you are shifting the thread into a 'history of abortion' and giving your personal views on what is right and what is wrong.

That was not the statement of your OP unless you are conceding and starting a different discussion.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

"No alternative? I can easily think of one.

Have the baby."

Yes, or give the baby for adoption. There are infertile couples who go to the other side of the world at great expense for the privilege of adopting an unwanted baby

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Another male with all the answers for women, I see. What a surprise!

Another male with all the answers for women, I see. What a surprise!

If nine male unelected Justices of the Court legalized the murder of, by now, almost 60 million innocent unborn babies, why would you forbid males to try to undo this horrendous genocide?

 

[SteveB28]

No and your ridiculous premise does not meet common sense. Not every kid is presented to government for inspection to determine child abuse, yet child abuse is illegal.

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.

A lot of kids fall through the cracks each year and continue to be abused and their parents are not reported because they know how to hide it well. So again to we abolish a law that is good for children just because we are not going to get evidence and convictions for all? Of course not.

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