Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

[Logician Man]

You're ignoring the health risks of having an abortion. That's no walk in the park either.

Once again, a woman can control her body parts. BUT an abortion is about killing an innocent human life, and removing it from their body.

Well, Brother Fease, let me ask you this question. Other than voicing your opinions about abortion and the unborn in a message board, what else have you personally done, are currently doing, and will do in the future for the unborn ? Are you one of those pro-lifers who only 'talks the talk', or do you actually have any skin in the game yourself and 'walk the walk' ?

 

[year2late]

You're ignoring the health risks of having an abortion. That's no walk in the park either.

Once again, a woman can control her body parts. BUT an abortion is about killing an innocent human life, and removing it from their body.

I am ignoring nothing.

The risk of an early abortion is miniscule in comparison to pregnancy to term. If you do not know the risks of pregnancy are up to and including organ failure and death - you have blinders.

 

[Logician Man]

In this conversation, no weight is given to the human being inside of another human being. None at all, and on top of that is treated like a cancer cell.

On that note, let's compare personal testimonies. You answer my questions posed to you in post # 476, and then I will present my personal testimony. Are you ready to accept this challenge ? ( I ask because this conversation isn't over yet )

 

[maquiscat]

For starters, Pro-Lifers are not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own body parts or that the government should be forcing women to have their body parts removed. The argument here is whether or not, you should be allowed to destroy another human life. A fetus shouldn't be confused with a heart, liver, and so forth. It's another human life inhabiting another person's body.

Pro lifers are arguing that the woman MUST use her body parts whether she wants to or not. And in the case of some of the new laws being attempt to pass, whether it risks her health or not, such as the 11 year old rape victim. You are correct in that it's a life, inhabiting another's body, without the other's continuing consent.

There's a famous saying, it's not freedom, when you compromise other people's freedoms. In the case of pregnancies, we have two lives here. Unless we're talking about self-defense reasons -- the mother's health/life or the child's life --, there's no reason at all for abortions. I simply cannot accept the concept of abortion for inconvenience factors. Personal responsibility needs to be taken into consideration.

Correct. It is the woman's freedom being compromised. Personal responsibility? Since I don't recall seeing your stance of abortion by a rape victim, what is it? What personal responsibility does such a person need to take? And no, I am not trying to equate all abortions to such circumstances. Just looking for your overall position.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

The Supreme Court is wrong.

A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.

That is still drawing on the woman's bodily resources. If I don't have the right to draw on your bodily resources to keep me alive, how does the ZEF have that right?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Do you support legalization of all drugs?

For the record, I do. I also support laws that punish people for behavior under the influence that risk life and safety of those other than themselves.

And for the record, I have no issue at all with anybody using their bodily functions and do not support the government inferring with someone's body. But when you support killing another human life, I do have major issues. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

So if you were to wake up with me somehow medically tied to your body, without permission, you are saying that you should be legally required to not separate me from you, if doing so would kill me?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

The fetus is not a member of the woman's body. Check the DNA.

Exactly right. It is a foreign entity that used her body for life support, whether she consents or not. Her freedom to choose whether or not her body is used for life support is what is at stake.

What is the difference between requiring that a person must use certain body parts to maintain another's life, and a person must give up certain body parts, that won't end their own lives, to maintain another's life?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

You're ignoring the health risks of having an abortion. That's no walk in the park either.

Once again, a woman can control her body parts. BUT an abortion is about killing an innocent human life, and removing it from their body.

That is because we have no procedures currently that can remove a ZEF alive, and the place it where it can finish gestating. Additionally, once we get such a procedure, it needs to be as traumatic or less than the abortion. Because quite honestly, the woman's right is to be able to not be pregnant. If we have the artificial womb technology we need, then the procedure won't be an automatic death.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Sex is optional. You want to have sex, go for it, but there are consequences for that action. Both good and bad.

Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.

Giving birth to a child is risky, but so is having an abortion. That is putting your body at risk as well and potential future children.

Statistically speaking, 98% of all abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the health or the life of the mother at stake. It's about being unready to raise a child.

Let me repeat: We're not talking about people who are experiencing medical complications and continuing the pregnancy will result in serious damage to the woman's body or her life.

I am not saying pregnancy is easy, but one must look at the other side of the equation: the life of the child. This is something pro-choice America doesn't care about.

From post 434, just to get us 'jump started.' Seems to cover things pretty well:

Been camping for a week or so, but here are some answers to your inaccurate assumptions. Or at least, food for your thoughts.

Not sure how out of touch with the human race you have to be to believe that people will start choosing to have less sex...one of the most enjoyable, satisfying, and bonding activities on the planet.*

*All thru history...and prehistory...people have had sex when it meant a high risk of death, disease, and social consequences for both men and women. STDs, death during childbirth, being disowned, publicly flogged or otherwise punished, exiled, no chance at decent jobs, etc etc etc...alot of those affected men too.

People are never going to stop enjoying sex and today, with safer, legal options to choose for accidental pregnancies, it's ludicrous to believe they will.


Actually, 68 percent of women of childbearing years in the US use artificial birth control consistently.

Another 22 percent:

-- Cannot become become pregnant due to a medical condition or procedure. (infertile or have been diagnosed as such)
-- Or are currently pregnant and thus are not currently using birth control

That leaves 10 percent who do not use artificial birth control for whatever reason (some may be using the so called rhythm method. Or similar natural methods)


And now for the math:

--80-90% of American couples use birth control/have sex responsibly

--non-surgical birth control is only ~98% effective

--millions of Americans have sex millions and millions of times every day

--this means that there will still be 10s of thousands of accidental pregnancies every day.​

Yes, that's right. 10's of thousands every day after women/couples having sex responsibly.

As for women being responsible when they choose abortion? Of course it can be a very responsible decision:

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and may abuse or neglect.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home.​

You are correct...it's not rocket science. People are not going to stop enjoying sex, doing it responsibly, OR making the most responsible decisions that are in the best interests of their lives, their responsibilities to their families (current dependents of all sorts), or their commitments and obligations to their employers, communities, society, etc.

Do you believe that women/couples are going to decide to have less responsible sex? Do you believe that having responsible sex is 'irresponsible?'​

Born and unborn cannot be treated equally. Not ethically but esp. not legally.

Why should the unborn be given rights that supersede those of women? A life is more than just breathing...why do you believe the unborn is more deserving of obtaining their future, self-determination, etc, than women?

 

[Lursa]

You're ignoring the health risks of having an abortion. That's no walk in the park either.

Once again, a woman can control her body parts. BUT an abortion is about killing an innocent human life, and removing it from their body.

But abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy/childbirth. Do you believe that the govt has the right to use force of law to demand that women take that extra risk against their will? When there is obviously, a safer option?

14x safer

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

Abortion safer than giving birth: study - Reuters

 

[Lursa]

In this conversation, no weight is given to the human being inside of another human being. None at all, and on top of that is treated like a cancer cell.

???

That 'weight' is up to every single pregnant woman. There is no 'collective' weight given at all. That's what 'pro-choice' means. Each woman decides individually.

And obviously, that 'weight' is generally in favor of the unborn, as most women choose to have a baby and the abortion rate is going down every year.

 

[code1211]

Post number?

Here it is again:

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

 

[minnie616]

Here it is again:

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

The pregnant woman has a league excuse or authority to have a legal abortion before viability.

 

[maquiscat]

The pregnant woman has a league excuse or authority to have a legal abortion before viability.

You realize he's agreeing with you? He specifically states, "Thus, abortion is not murder under the law."

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[minnie616]

Here it is again:

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

I bolded a very important part of a sentence from the legal dictionary which you seemed to overlook.

Abortion before liability is legal within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The UVVA and state feticide laws passed under Roe vs Wade because it explicitly identified "abortion' is an activity that can't be prosecuted when the abortion is obtained with the consent of the pregnant woman or individual authorized to act on her behalf.
~~~~


There is no charge during a legal abortion if the woman or her legal representive consented to the abortion because elective abortion is legal under both feticide laws and the UVVA.

All state feticide laws have a clause specifing that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.

 

[code1211]

The pregnant woman has a league excuse or authority to have a legal abortion before viability.

Again, I am not addressing the legality of abortion. That has been adjudicated.

That horse has been beaten to death. Apparently, beating dead horses is as appropriate as killing unborn babies.

As long as the unborn is not a person, and in American Law it is not, much in the same way that a slave in the Old South was not a person, then murder is not a concept that can be applied in the act of abortion.

There also seems to be an assumed absence of malice on the part of the person performing the taking of the life and the person authorizing it.

 

[code1211]

I bolted a very important part of a sentence from the legal dictionary which you seemed to overlook.

Abortion before liability is legal within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The UVVA and state feticide laws passed under Roe vs Wade because it explicitly identified "abortion' is an activity that can't be prosecuted when the abortion is obtained with the consent of the pregnant woman or individual authorized to act on her behalf.
~~~~


There is no charge during a legal abortion if the woman or her legal representive consented to the abortion because elective abortion is legal under both feticide laws and the UVVA.

All state feticide laws have a clause specifing that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.

Again, the legality of aborting an unborn baby and the morality of it are two entirely separate and unconnected things.

Before it was illegal to own a slave, it was perfectly legal to kill your slave if that was your desire.

I'm not sure if there were or were not laws regulating cruelty to any form of live stock at the time in the Old South.

 

[minnie616]

You do not understand bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

Do you support legalization of all drugs?

And for the record, I have no issue at all with anybody using their bodily functions and do not support the government inferring with someone's body. But when you support killing another human life, I do have major issues. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

What does legalization of all drugs have to with Bodily autonomy?

I do not support the killing of human life.

I support the individual pregnant woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and Religious Liberty.

It is her legal choice to decide whether she wishes to continue her pregnancy or to have an abortion within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

 

[minnie616]

....

Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.


.....

Adoption is not alternative to abortion.
Adoption agency’s will not even talk to pregnant woman about possible adoption until she in the last trimester.

By then an elective abortion is no longer an option.

By the way only about 1 percent of U.S. give their newborns up for adoption and that includes those who are born with special needs.

 

[minnie616]

...

Statistically speaking, 98% of all abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the health or the life of the mother at stake. ....

Statistically speaking in 2004 :

13 percent Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

12 percent Physical problem with my health

Page 4 table 2

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

 

[prometeus]

Here it is again

I did not ask for the definition, I made no comment on it, I asked you for the post number.

 

[minnie616]

Again, the legality of aborting an unborn baby and the morality of it are two entirely separate and unconnected things.

Before it was illegal to own a slave, it was perfectly legal to kill your slave if that was your desire.

I'm not sure if there were or were not laws regulating cruelty to any form of live stock at the time in the Old South.

I think you have been told that in spite of the U.S. Constitution blacks and women were denied rights in the early colonial days.

The Supreme Count determined that women and Blacks/slaves were persons with rights but decided the unborn were not persons and had no rights separate from the pregnant woman.

The US census counts women and blacks as persons.
The US census has never counted the unborn as a person.

As for morals an abortion can be a very moral decision.

From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

RCRC is unique in the reproductive health, rights and justice movements, because it draws on the moral power of diverse religious communities.

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

 

[Lursa]

Again, the legality of aborting an unborn baby and the morality of it are two entirely separate and unconnected things.

Before it was illegal to own a slave, it was perfectly legal to kill your slave if that was your desire.

I'm not sure if there were or were not laws regulating cruelty to any form of live stock at the time in the Old South.

The other side of that coin is the morality of the govt forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

In one case, women, there is suffering, enslavement, loss of liberty and pain. For the unborn? From no awareness to no awareness. No pain, no suffering.

Again...pro-life by no means holds any moral High Ground here.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The Supreme Court is wrong.

A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.

It is INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO a woman's body. So it could be said to be part of her body.

 

[Lursa]

It is INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO a woman's body. So it could be said to be part of her body.

And the physiological functions of the unborn are completely intertwined with the woman's. The woman can survive if they are separated, but before 24 weeks generally, the unborn cannot.