Not spin. Science. Way to completely avoid the issue, though...
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Is abortion ok
- Thread starter kcbird
- Start date
Not sure you're disagreeing with me here... You gave several good examples of exactly my point. What is legal isn't necessarily right, moral, or good.
If a woman wants to inject heroin into her veins, her body her choice?
If a woman wants to rent her body out in 30 min increments, her body her choice?
If a woman wants to be vaccinated, her body, her choice?
You can't be a lefty w/o being a hypocrite.
So killing the unborn to avoid the consequences of being a filthy road whore is acceptable?
Murderers are given the death penalty because they committed a crime so abhorrent their lives are forfeit. Does theatening to make someone who randomly sleeps around rise to that occasion?
What's funny in that list is if you go down it, "conservatives" and "liberals" flip flop on yes / no
Neither side actually totally is good with your body, your choice, both want you to have a "choice" but mostly when that "choice" is to do what that side thinks is right.
Everything the left offers is based on avoiding personal responsibility and/or getting free stuff.
That they'd kill their own children is testament to their depravity.
Liberal used to mean total freedom, but they've subverted that word to mean avoiding personal responsibility and/or getting free stuff just like the subverted the word gay.
My stance has been clearly stated prior.
I'm just having fun pointing out how everybody kind of has their own skeletons in the closet...
Folks are happy or accept killing of previously born innocent people all the time on the flimsiest of excuses.
For me, it's quite simple.
I don't think abortion is right or good or moral in most circumstances.
Legal is another matter, there are many things in this country that are currently legal that I do not think are right, or good or moral.
In the case of actual rape, or actual child abuse or where the life or health of the mother is at risk, then I believe abortion something that should be left up to the woman and her chosen doctors to make an informed choice based on their own faith and what they think is the correct path, without any undue interference, threats or pressure from others. Their decision would be between them and Heavenly Father and that's part of the gift of Agency.
The amount of abortions that actually fall under those guidelines are vanishingly small.
Statistically a non-event, and if that's all it was, I don't think most folks would realistically be concerned about it.
I don't think abortion should be allowed as essentially after the fact birth control.
But like many other evils, abortion has been going on for thousands of years and won't end anytime soon.
However we don't and won't anytime soon live in a perfectly just society with perfectly just good people who love Heavenly Father devotedly and love everyone else as themselves, so there will always be wrong actions and their consequences and the fallout from them.
Probably a better solution is to make available effective and cheap (or free) contraceptives and birth control for both women and men who don't chose to obey the Law of Chastity and don't want to have to deal with the consequences of violating the Law of Chastity.
Nope. Let’s not forget who and why Planned Parenthood was started in the first place. It’s murder. Period. Nobody gets to make the decision to take the life that’s not their own. Just because they can’t speak out for themselves in their defense doesn’t change that. By today’s standards, Jesus Christ wouldn’t have been aborted. Who’s to say how that child will turn out. For all we know that baby could grow up to be any number of things. With or without being a consequence of rape or any number of disabilities. Look at Helen Keller, Beethoven, etc. the list goes on Maybe a scientist that finds the cure for cancer. nobody here is God and nobody here can speculate as to what that child may or may not be able to accomplish with his / her life. People are born into luxury everyday and piss it all away and people are born into horrible circumstances everyday and rise from the ashes to succeed in life.
65,000,000 lives in my he US since R vs W…. Who knows what they may have become..
And sharing child custody with a convicted sex offender rapist, none the less the man that raped you is absolutely absurd.
Fact is, “what’s best for the baby” is a cop out. It’s about “what’s best for me”..plain and simple..
And PP is a money making racket in the business of peddling baby parts and grabbing governmen (taxpayer) money.
And yes, I have 2 teenage daughters. That has no bearing on my stance.
65,000,000 lives in my he US since R vs W…. Who knows what they may have become..
And sharing child custody with a convicted sex offender rapist, none the less the man that raped you is absolutely absurd.
Fact is, “what’s best for the baby” is a cop out. It’s about “what’s best for me”..plain and simple..
And PP is a money making racket in the business of peddling baby parts and grabbing governmen (taxpayer) money.
And yes, I have 2 teenage daughters. That has no bearing on my stance.
Last edited:
You are talking about a very very very small percentage of all abortions here. The fact of the matter is that most babies are being murdered because two people were hot and bothered one night and now they dont want to take responsibility for the consequences of their bad decisions. Please dont try to argue a point by bringing up a very very small portion of all abortions. You are talking about the exception, not the norm.
They hang everything on that because they can’t justify the rest. It’s all they have…
I was agreeing with you. What is sometimes legal isn’t morally right.
You're providing a muddled example of activities that are both legal and illegal depending on locale.
Heroin has been decriminalized in Oregon, prostitution is legal in Nevada.
ETA: By some religious standards vaccination is not her choice.
In some places yes.
Not everywhere.
You're providing excellent examples of how legality is separate from morality.
Last edited:
Interesting point of view from someone who is arguing against a freedom that existed for our first ~150 years as a nation and only became illegal because organized doctors (the bud of big pharma) were losing money to midwives ... absolutely nothing to do with morality and 100% a big government money/power grab.
More correctly PP was part of the whole Eugenics movement that was hugely popular among the WASP type "elites" in both England, Europe and America at the time.
If you read the actual writings of the founder, well she wanted to get rid of "poor white trash" and "those n word types."
If you actually take a look at the demographics, she was wildy successful.
If it wasn't for PP and the push for abortion and "family planning" centers in "low income" areas, then "african americans" would be currently what the mexicans are fast becoming, a major part of the population.
The point is not all killing is murder.
And, based on statements you've made, we seem to be in agreement that it's only murder if the law defines it as murder.
Or, the Bible does, as referenced in certain translations of the 10 Commandments. If you accept what "King James" (and Cecil B DeMille) said, the 6th Commandment reads, "Thou shall not Kill." At least that's what it says in my printing of "King James." However, some scholars (especially Hebrew scholars) will argue that the original Hebrew term used in the scrolls translates not to "Kill" but to "Murder." In fact, in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, when the commandments are recited by the Priest, the 6th always reads, "Thou shalt do no murder."
I'm gathering that both the "Biblical" and "Legal" definition of Murder is all abut "premediated intent" to commit Homicide where it is not "sanctioned" by the State (i.e. Capital Punishment, legalized "Euthanasia") or an act of "Self Defense," or a result of War actions taken against a recognized enemy, or (in the case of abortion), saving the life of the mother.
In the strictly legal sense there are multiple degrees of murder and not all are premeditated. AFAIK, there are no "degrees" of "sin" where the 10 commandments are concerned. The use of deadly force on a thief/trespasser at night armed or unarmed is sanctioned in some states.
Combat ("war actions") is one of those situations where intentionally killing someone you've never met and has done nothing to you personally at the bidding of your overlords is sanctioned. But as you point out this is sanctioned by state ... defined as "legal" by man.
I've seen the argument that "thou shalt not kill" is supposed to be "thou shalt not murder" and it makes more sense to rationalize it this way.
IIRC things that are punishable by death in the bible include witchcraft, striking your parents, adultery, male on male sex and a few other things. There are reasons a society should not base its laws solely on religious texts.
Murder in the strictly legal sense requires that act be carried out on a "person". I'm not sure we've yet reached the point where we have legally defined a zygote, embryo or fetus as a "person".
If we do attain a level of enlightenment where we legally define a zygote, embryo or fetus as a person then, given the number of clever ways there are to artificially induce a miscarriage, are we obligated to investigate every miscarriage as a potential murder?
That's a very slippery slope. Before every genocide, the targeted group is legally dehumanized.
You mean like how anyone not totally off the charts left wing is being called a "nazi"...
Oh yes the next slaughter and genocide is well into the propaganda preparation stage.
Murder is the killing of an innocent.
Don't care what Gov. calls it, or others.
R
Don't care what Gov. calls it, or others.
R
My former state has an interesting "legal" definition of it. The generic crime is called "Homicide." In fact, it has its own Chapter in the Title 2C of "New Jersey Statutes, Annotated." Title 2C = The "NJ Code of Criminal Justice" similar to the UCMJ.
Homicide is Chapter 11. And there are three degrees of Homicide, which correlate to the sentencing guidelines for the given crime. Real Quick: in the PRNJ, "Crime = Felony" and where you see the word "Crime" referred to in a Statute, you read that as a Felony. There are, generally, 4 degrees of crimes in the PRNJ. A "Crime of the 4th degree" is your basic 12 - 18 month in a State facility (as opposed to a County Jail). A "Crime of the 3rd degree" is 3-5 years. A "Crime of the 2nd Degree" is 5 - 10 years, and a "Crime of the 1st Degree" is 10-20. Except for "Murder," which has its own guidelines of "30 years to Life without parole." So, in the statutes, you'll see things like "A person who does this behavior is guilty of a 'Crime of the X degree' and subject to the appropriate sentencing guidelines. Or, "This offense is a crime of the X degree" etc. etc.
The three degrees of Homicide are as follows:
1) "Criminally Negligent Homicide" (including Vehicular Homicide, careless homicide, etc etc.), Crime of the 3rd degree.
2) "Manslaughter" (usually direct killing without premeditated intent - like a fight getting out of control), Crime of the 2nd degree.
3) "Murder" (involving premeditated intent) - Crime of the 1st degree.
Agreed. To quote the line from the TV Show, The West Wing, "It's Just plain wrong by any modern Standard."
As stated previously, the question becomes, "At what point in the gestation period does the zygote/embryo/fetus deserve legal protection (meaning its wilful premature termination becomes a crime)? I know various state laws differ on that. I have always held it to mean "The point at which the fetus becomes viable, ex utero."
Last edited:
Ethinics have always been apart of what makes America what it is. The refuse to call American Citizens “Minorities”. Minorities nothing more than a term used to create division amongst its citizens based on race. Only minorities in my book are the non-citizens and that’s devoid of ethnic back ground.
Regardless. Babies are babies and they’re innocent. Regardless of their ethnic / economic background
It should never be acceptable to kill a baby. But dont try to paint a picture of what it really isnt. Almost all these babies are getting murdered because people dont want to be responsible for their actions.
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well."
- Psalm 139:13-14
Huh...I always thought the goal was to protect the most vulnerable among us. I'm a little unclear how murdering a child in the womb squares with that. Your choice I suppose. But choose wisely. Those unborn children are armed with a weapon well beyond our capacity to match.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well."
- Psalm 139:13-14
Huh...I always thought the goal was to protect the most vulnerable among us. I'm a little unclear how murdering a child in the womb squares with that. Your choice I suppose. But choose wisely. Those unborn children are armed with a weapon well beyond our capacity to match.
Yep. Whoever casts a stumbling block before the little ones, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and cast into the sea.
I couldn't imagine standing before God on judgement day and having an infant pointing at me.
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Job 31:15
“Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”
And now that we've established what God thinks, let's be clear on the Constitution.
What the Dobbs decision did was turn that decision back over to the states. So if you live in a state like say, New York, you can murder your baby right up until birth. Ah, you're skeptical. I understand. But let's see what New York did. They first moved abortion out of the criminal code and into the health code. More on that in a moment. Then they set the "no excuse" abortion code to six months. Go ahead and take a look at a six month pregnant woman and tell me you're totes okay with that. Now after six months what they did was add some language which isn't defined in the health code. Weird huh? Because it makes an exception for the health and welfare of the mother. Which basically means she could at nine months say, "meh, I'm not feeling this", have an abortion and it would be legal. Remember earlier I said they moved it into the health code? Well, guess what, there is no penalty for an abortion after "six months" and since the terms aren't defined any lawyer could make that exception into whatever they want. Double weird, isn't it? By the way, ask NY for the details on abortions after six months. I'll be right here waiting, forever.
The good news is that for states where cro-magnon Neanderthal heathens live who love their children (/sarc), they can set reasonable circumstances, times and penalties where an abortion can occur (or not at all) because a majority of the voters agree with that. See- democracy!
What the Dobbs decision did was turn that decision back over to the states. So if you live in a state like say, New York, you can murder your baby right up until birth. Ah, you're skeptical. I understand. But let's see what New York did. They first moved abortion out of the criminal code and into the health code. More on that in a moment. Then they set the "no excuse" abortion code to six months. Go ahead and take a look at a six month pregnant woman and tell me you're totes okay with that. Now after six months what they did was add some language which isn't defined in the health code. Weird huh? Because it makes an exception for the health and welfare of the mother. Which basically means she could at nine months say, "meh, I'm not feeling this", have an abortion and it would be legal. Remember earlier I said they moved it into the health code? Well, guess what, there is no penalty for an abortion after "six months" and since the terms aren't defined any lawyer could make that exception into whatever they want. Double weird, isn't it? By the way, ask NY for the details on abortions after six months. I'll be right here waiting, forever.
The good news is that for states where cro-magnon Neanderthal heathens live who love their children (/sarc), they can set reasonable circumstances, times and penalties where an abortion can occur (or not at all) because a majority of the voters agree with that. See- democracy!
Individual states trying to decide who does/doesn't count as a person didn't work out so well in the mid 1800s.
I actually think that's a fair point, but probably disconnected from abortion as an issue. Clearly, abortion isn't guaranteed in the Federal Constitution. Ergo, Roe was a terrible decision. Really an abomination of law. So let's say, as a constitutional issue- exactly who is entitled to those protections? That I believe is the essence of your point.
Last edited:
I agree with that, but giving the rights back to the states as has been a huge win for pro-lifers (babies) and a step in the right direction for many states.
Let's read Section 1 of the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Let's take a look at the word "born" in the first sentence. The baby-killers might say, "aha! Gotcha! A baby in the womb isn't a citizen until they are "born."
On that I would, begrudgingly agree. We have to follow the text of the Constitution.
However, take a minute to read through the 2nd sentence carefully.
Note the two distinctions between "citizen" and "person." Once the baby is born, it is indeed a citizen. As such, any privileges or immunities bestowed upon "citizens" cannot be abridged by any state. That includes babies.
Now let's focus on the word "person." The writers of the 14th Amendment were not stupid. As citizens we enjoy special privileges and immunities that other people don't have. The right to vote is one of them.
Not all "persons" are "citizens" but all "citizens" are "persons."
The writers of the constitution wanted to protect people within our borders from an abusive government. They had just witnessed a civil war. One of the contested issues was slavery; which the 13th amendment abolished.
By stating that a person born in this country and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen, the writers were taking special care to recognize the freed slaves as citizens. As an aside note; that first sentence didn't give pregnant women license to plant anchor babies on US soil. That's what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was for. The wife of a foreign diplomat in the US could not give birth to a baby and expect it to be a US citizen.
Look again at that second sentence. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
We are told by the libtards and tyrants that want to force the covid shot on us to follow the science. That's another debate. Nevertheless, I am willing to "follow the science."
Since I am not a scientist, biologist or physician I will turn to a trusted an respected source to tell me whether or not a fetus is, indeed, a human being, a person not yet born.
From the American College of Pediatricians:
"The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins."
The article does recognize that there is debate among embryologists concerning when human life begins during the fertilization process. However, the College of Pediatricians sum up their professional beliefs with this bold statement:
"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created."
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins
Gentlemen, I submit to you that based on foregoing article and other bodies of scientific evidence that the tiny one cell being in the mother's womb is a "person" and deserves all the protections guaranteed under the Constitution. That includes the protection and guarantee of life!
I actually agree the 14th amendment argument carries some validity. But it's contextually a difficult argument to make given the origin and purpose of that amendment- although nonetheless not impossible to envision. To wit, I don't think the Framers ever envisioned having to define a "person" and frankly the 14th in many ways is redundant and unnecessary. It's actually rather insidious we had to be clear who a "person" was, but to your point having done that- who is a person? Were they really just talking about African Americans?
Ultimately, I do believe the logical first step was to eliminate Roe/abortion as a constitutional right, which it resoundingly and clearly is not, then fall back on to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It's a start.
Precisely. Wheter it's the unborn, slaves, native Americans, or any other "ethnic cleansing", the argument is that group doesn't really count as people.
Then comes the special names to dehumanize them and assuage any guilt over mistreating or killing them. They're not people they're just (fill in the derogatory blank).
When was the last time anyone saw a female friend for the first time in a while, she's obviously expecting, and said OMG, when is your fetus due? Have any female family or friends throw or attend a fetus shower? Ever tried to find a Hallmark fetus shower card at the local Walgreens?
It's a baby if wanted and fetus if not.
This is of course an extremely valid point, while also being darkly hilarious at the same time.
That's interesting. The same people that hate guns take the same line of thinking with the 2nd Amendment.
The Anti-Federalists also felt that the Bill of Rights was redundant and unnecessary.
They didn't have sonogram machines back then either. They didn't have electron microscopes then either. Yet they still believed that an unborn baby was a person.
Go back a read the article from the American College of Pediatrics. From the article:
"Finally, it was with the advent of the cell theory developed by Schleiden and Schwann in 1839 that it was recognized that the embryo develops from the single-celled zygote.1 Directly based upon this observation and the knowledge that the single-celled zygote was alive and an independent being, in 1859 the American Medical Association published a statement strongly opposing abortion, particularly commenting on the independence of the zygote during the time between its formation and its implantation."
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins
The AMA made that statement nine years before the 14th Amendment was ratified. It must have had an effect because there were about 40 laws prohibiting abortion between 1860 and 1880. Then by 1910 it was illegal in every state in the union, with some exceptions.
So I must respectfully disagree with your premise. To say that the writers of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution didn't have babies in mind is too much conjecture.
To be clear, I am personally against abortion and therefore argumentatively somewhat playing the devils advocate. That said, I don't believe the Framers felt they had to define a "person" as that was somewhat self evident. Specifically, abortion wasn't the prolific practice it is today and the advancement of contemporary society and today's social mores has complicated that situation. It's more likely the Framers didn't contemplate a situation whereby we would need to consider the application of rights to children in the womb. I believe that covers the "why" it wasn't explicated (and falls into a 9th/10th amendment issue). Nonetheless in terms of the constitution and law in today's world, it has been obscured, often in cruel and insidious ways to achieve an ideological objective.
As a practical matter many of the current legal challenges are actually looking to diminish any process that tries to settle on when "viability" occurs (look at Ohio where the constitutional provision essentially strips any rights from a child in the womb). That's of course because it (viability) to your earlier point, gets closer to defining who a "person" is and what constitutional protections they are afforded.
Okay, I follow you now, especially with the framers definition of a person as self-evident.
You are correct, the baby killers are trying to redefine the meaning of a "person" based on viability.
By trying to say that if a baby cannot live outside the womb after a certain time then it's not "viable." Therefore it's not a person.
In any discussion, it's important to define the terms.
The orginal Hippocratic Oath forbade doctors to give a woman a pessary for abortion.
This was in 275A.D.
This was in 275A.D.
But they shoot themselves in the foot with that argument. 66% of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs. These programs fund folks who are ostensibly adults who can't survive w/o feeding off of others.
Taxpayers have been required to use their bodies to support others for decades.
An interesting thing about those going on about can't live outside the womb at xxx is two things.
That number often changes as medical science advances or infants that beat the odds.
Also I'll bet a lot of those same claimants if we stripped them naked and tossed them into the wilderness alone wouldn't survive either.
Does that mean since they can't survive without a huge support system that they are not people?
Now if life that would have continued on had it's developement not been violently stopped is not life, then they won't mind us going and smashing up a bunch of bald eagle eggs would they?
Ben Shapiro said it better than I could: Anything other than conception can be applied to other groups of people.
If I go to the nearest trauma hospital and see a patient undergoing open heart surgery, on bypass, with no heartbeat, can I kill them?
A person in a coma, with no sentience, can I kill them?
A CIPA patient, who is unable to feel pain, can I kill them?
A fallacy, but let’s not get distracted. You avoided giving an answer. You gave legality as the ultimate standard, not me…
Exodus gave clear instructions on the protocol for buying and releasing slaves but whatev.
I gave legality (codified law) as the only earthly standard that matters when it comes to men judging and punishing other men(women, children,whatev).
Just looking for clarification. Either every "life" matters or it doesn't and if even one doesn't matter then it's significant, as is the reason why.
Similar threads
