It should be Murder?

[ScottA]

Actually, that's exactly what it means! What is 'right' are those things about which a society has come to a consensus over.

You are confusing the will of the people with what is right. By doing so, you make the same mistake as them.

 

[blackribbon]

Could you please explain how the more widespread use of the death penalty constitutes "pro-life"?

This is a problem I see in the modern usage of the term "pro-life", it doesn't actually mean what it says, what people really mean is "anti-abortion" which is a very different thing from being pro-life.

If one were pro-life they would be against things like capital punishment, they would be in favor of universal healthcare, social welfare programs, and funding health clinics like Planned Parenthood. A pro-life person would be in favor of helping women who are pregnant address the full complexity of pregnancy and when and where the pregnancy becomes a serious risk to the health and life of the woman accept abortion might be necessary (even if not favorable).

Because being pro-life means standing in favor of life. Or at least it should if it's going to mean anything relevant.

-CryptoLutheran

In what ways does Planned Parenthood help a pregnant woman beyond helping her stop being pregnant? They don't offer prenatal care. And Pro-life doesn't mean that the government should fund social programs...it means we should be supporting health and welfare programs.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In what ways does Planned Parenthood help a pregnant woman beyond helping her stop being pregnant?

Sex education, prenatal care, STD screening, pap smears, birth control, etc.

They don't offer prenatal care.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/prenatal-care

And Pro-life doesn't mean that the government should fund social programs...it means we should be supporting health and welfare programs.

So don't have publicly supported social programs but support social programs. Because, you know, that makes sense?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SteveB28]

Oh, and what about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act


What was that, about law saying they ain't kids until they're born?

Ahem.........

"The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

Good grief. It's like explaining something to a boulder.

 

[SteveB28]

You are confusing the will of the people with what is right. By doing so, you make the same mistake as them.

And you make that pronouncement? How grand of you!

At any given time, the will of the people IS what is 'right'. History shows us this time and time again.

Live on in your fantasy.

 

[ICX]

It may be harsh, but any woman caught trying or getting an abortion should be executed, god willing. That is the only way to stop this trend of child murdering, and the abortion records should be made public, and the people who have gotten abortions should be punished to scare others from getting them.

 

[SteveB28]

It may be harsh, but any woman caught trying or getting an abortion should be executed, god willing. That is the only way to stop this trend of child murdering, and the abortion records should be made public, and the people who have gotten abortions should be punished to scare others from getting them.

Perhaps a bundle of dry kindling at the base of a stake, do you think?

Or do you favour sending in the strangler?

 

[ICX]

Perhaps a bundle of dry kindling at the base of a stake, do you think?

Or do you favour sending in the strangler?

No of course not, just lethal injections.

 

[SteveB28]

No of course not, just lethal injections.

Oh, you are too kind!

Now, answer this. Will you call for women who have an IUD fitted to be executed for attempted murder?

 

[ICX]

Oh, you are too kind!

Now, answer this. Will you call for women who have an IUD fitted to be executed for attempted murder?

I don't really see how executing people is kind. I don't think women that own an IUD should be executed, (in a perfect world they would obviously be banned) but she should still be punished.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It may be harsh, but any woman caught trying or getting an abortion should be executed, god willing. That is the only way to stop this trend of child murdering, and the abortion records should be made public, and the people who have gotten abortions should be punished to scare others from getting them.

That's not harsh. That's evil.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SteveB28]

I don't really see how executing people is kind. I don't think women that own an IUD should be executed, (in a perfect world they would obviously be banned) but she should still be punished.

I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you stand for.

A few comments earlier you said that a woman who procures, or tries to procure, an abortion should be executed. Wearing an IUD does exactly that. It ensures that any fertilised egg will not survive.

Now you say she shouldn't be executed.

You have no idea. You just want someone to hate.

Mr Hitchens had it right on the money - 'Religion poisons everything'.

 

[ximmix]

It boils down to "Prevention is better than Curing". Instead of debating whether or not abortion should be a crime, or murder, why not debate how we can get rid of the majority of all abortions to begin with? lol.

(Almost) No abortions = no need to call it a crime = ???? = Profit.

So how do you propose to prevent this?

 

[ximmix]

and it would be on the state to prove and frankly a jury to decide. Sometimes juries will not convict even if someone IS guilty if they feel that law is unjust. For matter sometimes judges will refuse to sentence ( rarer).

Do you think every terminated pregnancy, natural or not, should be a court case..?

 

[AntoineL]

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
Isaiah 5:20

 

[grasping the after wind]

To stay pregnant after becoming pregnant unintentionally.

To stay pregnant? One can terminate a pregnancy but I do not think there is a way to become unpregnant. Becoming pregnant unintentionally? I would assume there are only two ways for that to happen, being raped and Immaculate Conception, however, in the only case of the latter where anyone has taken the claim seriously, the woman in question was reported to have given her consent in advance.

You earlier mentioned the risks of something rare (about 3 % of the deaths of women, at an age when women tend to remain alive, happening because of complications of pregnancy) and asked why women would allow themselves to be forced to accept that small amount of risk. I wonder if that 3% is made that large by the inclusion of maternal fatalities due to botched abortions or if those are not included in the 3% figure? The risk of pregnancy most often comes from consensual sexual relations ( which is the vast majority of cases in which women become pregnant). Consensual sex is a case where no woman can claim she somehow got pregnant in a manner that unbeknownst to her might result in a pregnancy. It is not the norm that a women would suddenly discover that sex is the cause of pregnancy and that was something she never knew. She rather decided the risk was worth the reward and lost the bet. Much like the woman that remains married to her spouse when homicide (20-24 8.1 % 25-34 4.9%)is a much larger threat than complications from pregnancy to women 20-34 the risk of being killed by one's spouse( this based upon the conventional wisdom that the majority of homicides are committed by spouses) would then be greater than the risk of dying from complications from pregnancy. Now if we are to continue using the hypothetical of the OP that we are considering a case where abortion is murder( Something I am not claiming myself only playing along with the OPs hypothetical here) then if a woman is justified in murdering a fetus to avoid the small risk of complications due to pregnancy causing her own death then that same woman would be justified in murdering her spouse to avoid the small but slightly greater risk of his murdering her. Again this is a hypothetical situation proposed by the OP and not anything I would propose is the case in reality but given the basic assumptions that have been laid out by the OP in the thread and by your table of death figures and your scenario of a slightly dangerous pregnancy I cannot logically come to a different conclusion.

 

[blackribbon]

Sex education, prenatal care, STD screening, pap smears, birth control, etc.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/prenatal-care



So don't have publicly supported social programs but support social programs. Because, you know, that makes sense?

-CryptoLutheran

You consider an information page on "What to expect" to actually be "Prenatal care?" They don't offer prenatal care. They refer you to someonewhere else.

All the other services are offered through the areas government health services (std testing & treatment) so there is nothing special about Planned Parenthood ... except they do abortions. These numbers aren't really accurate but the other side's numbers are also skewed in the other direction so the real numbers are still a mystery.

I don't think that government services are the most efficient in spending financial resources. So yes, I support that the services are available and maybe even accept government insurance (such as Medicare & Medicaid) but no, I don't think that the government should be responsible for all the health services in our country. How hard is that to understand? Most hospitals are not government run but are non-profits so it can and does work. If you have any doubts, look at the recent history for the VA hospital/health care system...and that is probably the "model" government system.

 

[juvenissun]

I see many here who would wish to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, by declaring that it would be an act of murder.

And yet I also see those same people running away from this question:

How would such a law be enforced?

Ban the abortion clinics. Let formal hospitals take care of the rest.

 

[ximmix]

Ban the abortion clinics. Let formal hospitals take care of the rest.

Here it's a part of our health system...

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well at least it's an honest response. Now go look up how many pregnancies naturally terminate and tell us how practical it would be to launch a murder investigation for every one of them?

Please refrain from treating me like a high school student I will "look up" whatever I deem is necessary to look up and the information you demanded is not necessary. As for the scenario you are painting, that's rather over the top isn't it? I don't expect the government should launch an investigation without probable cause. As with income taxes, where the government depends upon companies to donate their services as tax collectors, I would expect that the government would use private medical practitioners as free sources of information and require doctors to report any cases of spontaneous abortions that they suspected were instead premeditated murder. Unless such a report was made the presumption of innocence would , unlike with the IRS , apply. Remember the OP has made it a given that this hypothetical situation involves abortion being murder. That being the case, it would be treated as any other murder. The government does not conduct surveillance of every citizen 24/7 to assure itself that no one is committing murder on the sly. It does not keep constant tabs on spouse because a percentage of spouses murders their spouse why would they do so for pregnant women? Just so you could pretend that they would have to and therefore would be unable to prosecute the law?Since there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence, I see no reason why pregnancy would change the way murder investigations were conducted. Unless some probable cause to suspect a women of murder rather than spontaneous abortion were to come to light there would not be anything more needed than the initial doctor's report of a spontaneous abortion. Additionally, if the government were for some reason to decide to go overboard to the ridiculous degree you propose, could they not move the resources used on the war on drugs to homicide investigation or go further into debt ? Surely murder is a much more serious offense than possession and stopping murder is much more important than things like bailing out large corporations,giving tax breaks to crony capitalists or perhaps even slightly more important than providing Obamaphones?