Abortion and the Death Penalty

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by rshubert

But it could help save the life of many innocent HUMAN BEINGS who currently never get a chance at a life, due to a selfish, immoral act by another human being.

Well, that would cover the fetus involved in a rape, but would you make that person carry the baby?

I am sorry, but you who argue that abortion is murder of a fetus, then say it is ok to murder a fetus of a rape victim are hypocrites and your argument is bogus. Either you believe in something or you don't, get off the fence.

[Torque]

well, considering the percentages, the irony is some of you zealouts at christmas dinner probably are asking a slut of a lazy cow to pass the gravy.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin


Prosecutors have sent murderers to prison with two counts of murder when they killed a pregnant woman.  Apparently your position is not on firm legal foundation either.

Actually I beleive it is on two counts

1- Example. If I decide to cut down the tree that is in my front yard and on my property That wouold be my desision and choice I am completely within my rights to do so.
But. If you were to come over and without my consent cut my tree down then I can have you arrested.

there is a bit of a difference between My doing somethign to my property  and someone doing something to it without my consent. then my property has been violated and my choice removed from me.

2- Constitutionally under Natural rights.
It cannot be argued that your Body is not your own property. that is among the very basic of natural rights.

Therefore anything that is a part of or inside your body is also your property Including a fetus until the point where it is no longer in your body, they it would automatically have natural rights of its own. But. Untill that point is it inside of and a part of that womans body and she has sole rights over it and the choices that come with it.

Now again, should someone come along and kill that fetus then that womans natural rights have been violated because that choice over what happens to her body and what lies within has been removed from her without her consent.

Now am I personally in favor of such a late term abortion? Myself personally no.
But it is also not my body, and as such I have no rights natural or otherwise over it.

It is irrelevent if I am ok with it or not even if I were the father. My rights over it do not begin untill the fetus has left the womb at which point the fetus has its own natural rights as would I as the father.
but untill that point. Whether I like it or not The fetus is the sole property of the woman

[lasersailor184]

No drediock.  Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.  

Human Being is the key phrase there.





If you give a killer 2 counts of murder for murdering a pregnant lady, you are acknowledging that the baby is a HUMAN BEING.  IT IS LIFE.


Now, all those people who are for abortion (not for choice) acknowledge that it's ok to abort a baby because it is not alive.  It is not a human being.



Now which is it?  If the baby is not a human being, then how can we still charge killers with 2 counts of murder?

[fartwinkle]

Just use birth control and do her in da butt!
Abortion is just a fancy word for baby killing simple as that.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually I beleive it is on two counts

1- Example. If I decide to cut down the tree that is in my front yard and on my property That would be my decision and choice I am completely within my rights to do so.
But. If you were to come over and without my consent cut my tree down then I can have you arrested.

there is a bit of a difference between My doing something to my property  and someone doing something to it without my consent. then my property has been violated and my choice removed from me.

If you gave consent I could legally kill you? (Trees and people are handled differently under our present law.)

2- Constitutionally under Natural rights.
It cannot be argued that your Body is not your own property. that is among the very basic of natural rights.

The question comes up when we try to define when life begins.  Pro life: conception  Pro-Choice; what is it... the end of second trimester? Viability? Natural Birth?  

Natural Birth?... this allows abortions anytime before birth begins.  Or is it when the cord is cut...  some of the scenarios in this alternative are rather hideous.

End of second trimester? rather arbitrary...  Guilt or innocence based on the clock striking a certain hour?

Viability?  Depends on location.  Within the neo-natal unit at John-Hopkins, viability occurs at a much earlier stage than on a sheep ranch in Wyoming.  A Baltimore mother could therefore be held responsible for the death of a child where the lady 75 miles outside Cheyenne would not.

Now am I personally in favor of such a late term abortion? Myself personally no.

So you are in favor of some sort of violation of a woman's rights to her own body within certain parameters.

But it is also not my body, and as such I have no rights natural or otherwise over it.

But are not sure what to do (or whether to do) anything about it.

It is irrelevant if I am ok with it or not even if I were the father. My rights over it do not begin until the fetus has left the womb at which point the fetus has its own natural rights, as would I as the father.
but until that point. Whether I like it or not The fetus is the sole property of the woman

People are not property.  A father has the responsibility for the child but has no rights toward decisions made about that child?  That seems a rather harsh view of men's rights.  

I have wrestled with the question and have not come up with a completely self satisfactory conclusion.  I am in favor of a lady being able to terminate a pregnancy when she first finds out very early in the pregnancy.  Some lady gets rufed at a party and she takes a drug store test...  "Oh ****!"

No problem here with her being able to make the choice to end it.  A week to go before birth? I have philosophical problems.  I believe that late in the term it would be horrific.  Where to draw the line?  

Those who believe life begins at conception have a much firmer foundation on which to stand than I.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

If you gave consent I could legally kill you? (Trees and people are handled differently under our present law.)

I was using trees as an example of property.
You are your own property. Your body belongs to you and nobody else

 

So you are in favor of some sort of violation of a woman's rights to her own body within certain parameters.

No I am not. I said I wasnt in favor of it. Meaning it isnt what I would favor her doing. Not that I was for being able to stop her from doing it. Thats not my choice to make. Nor is it my right to make that choice  for her

 

But are not sure what to do (or whether to do) anything about it.

Again Thats not my choice to make. Nor is it my right to make that choice  for her




People are not property.  A father has the responsibility for the child but has no rights toward decisions made about that child?  That seems a rather harsh view of men's rights.

People are their own property. My body is my property.I have sole rights over it.
  Men have no rights over an unborn child. I will agree with you on that.
Anmd they are forced to support a child they may not have wanted and in some cases havent even fathered. I dont like it or agree with it but that is the way it is.

I have wrestled with the question and have not come up with a completely self satisfactory conclusion.  I am in favor of a lady being able to terminate a pregnancy when she first finds out very early in the pregnancy.  Some lady gets rufed at a party and she takes a drug store test...  "Oh ****!"

No problem here with her being able to make the choice to end it.  A week to go before birth? I have philosophical problems.  I believe that late in the term it would be horrific.  Where to draw the line?

See on a personal basis I agree with all of this. But that is me personally and what  I may feel personally  might not jive with what another may feel about it.
And I still do not think I or anyone be able to impose my/their feelings on the matter on anyone else as being absolute.

Choice at least gives you that right to choose for yourself.
the right to make that decision for yourself one way or the other based on your own feelings and values and not those imposed on you by another who may feel entirely different.

What if it were another way where abortion was mandatory?
Wouldnt you at least want to be able to make that choice for yourself?

I could even go on to say that one can be against abortion personally yet also pro choice.


Those who believe life begins at conception have a much firmer foundation on which to stand than I.

I still think this is a matter of opinion.
As I have stated before
At conception I beleivethere is a potential for life...yadda yadda yadda

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I was using trees as an example of property.
You are your own property. Your body belongs to you and nobody else

You do not have the right to conspire with me to end your life.  If you say it's okay, I agree to do it, we write a contract saying you give me permission, and then I attempt to carry out your wishes, I would be guilty of attempted murder and we would both be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.  (except in an extraordinary case in my sate if the Supreme Court agrees)  If I were sucessful at least you would be off the hook legally.

I think if we made the same agreement to cut down a tree in your yard, we would not be in nearly the same trouble.

So it seems we are not our own property, free to do with our bodies what we please.

[Yeager]

Abortion, imo, should be legal.  But I do not see in any way where the Constitution guarantees it.  Can someone go to the text of the constitution and show me where it says that killing an unborn child is allowable.

Thanks in advance.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Yeager
Abortion, imo, should be legal.  But I do not see in any way where the Constitution guarantees it.  Can someone go to the text of the constitution and show me where it says that killing an unborn child is allowable.

Thanks in advance.

9th ammendment pretty much covers all "Natural rights" not specifically covered in the previous 8.
The decision as to what goes on with your body would be considered a natural right

[lasersailor184]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I seriously hope you are not a loose constructionist.



Especially since you are losing this fight.

[texace]

What fight? Ain't no "correct" party in this argument...

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I seriously hope you are not a loose constructionist.



Especially since you are losing this fight.

Loosing this fight?
LMAO not even close

You read what it says. Now try researching it to see what it means and what types of cases have been argued under it.

"''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. "

"In recent times, however, it has been argued that the Ninth Amendment, particularly when read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment, emphasizes that the Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights from the government to the people, but rather a mere enumeration of some of the most important powers not granted by the people to the government. The Ninth Amendment, it is argued, recognizes that such natural rights are retained by the people and cannot be abridged by the government."

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by texace
What fight? Ain't no "correct" party in this argument...

I agree.
But even if it were a fight.
I still dont see myself as even close to being on the loosing end of it.

[lazs2]

Oh I get it sandie.... you have no personal views on the subject... whatever is legal is fine with you?

first you don't trust government and now you trust em completely to make moral decisions about life and death for you?  

Ok... let's take it from your new viewpoint.   If it's legal it's fine with you...  if the government decieded that all abortions were murder then that defenition would be fine with you?  or not?   who can tell.  you villify the govenment when you want to hide from your morals and you praise it when it sheilds you from making a moral stance.

The law is made... or at least influenced by the people.   you want the law to influence you.

six... let's say that there was a "morning after pill"  and, let's further say that abortion was free and legal up till the 3rd or 4th month... now... if a woman carried a baby past that no matter what the reason..  tough... she isn't allowed to murder it... she can walk out of the hospital and leave it tho.  

Let's also be fair and if that one in a billion thing happens that the mothers life is in danger from her child... let's say the law allows for the murder of the child to save the mother..

Now those are abortion laws I could live with.

And... if they were in... sandie would have no opinion on them.  

lazs