If Roe vs. Wade......

[Lursa]

Involuntary manslaughter, if it can be proven that fetus was developing naturally, without unpredictable and unreasonable harm to the mother at the time it was aborted. It would be involuntary manslaughter that does not, carry with it, the punishment of a jail sentence, but only a fine. I would want it on her record, however.

If the fetus wasn't developing naturally and/or, it is shown that it would likely cause significant injury/death to the mother(and I'm talking real serious injury here, not just because of "normal distress from pregnancy"), then of course, no punishment would be needed.

Well it's not 'involuntary' so I cant see using that at all but let's go with manslaughter. (unless you'd like to support 'involuntary further?)

Do we have other criminal penalties that are a few thousand $$ for taking a human life? (I'm not talking about civil law suits)

Is this a serious crime where a life was intentionally taken or not? If so, why just a few thousand $$ fine?

and yes...I am trying to explore how people value the unborn. Most pro-life people claim it's 100% equal with born people. If so...is a few thousand $$ the appropriate penalty for intentionally killing it? It's not for similarly killing born people.

 

[SmartCat]

Were overturned, and abortion became illegal, with the possible exceptions of rape, incest, or threat of bodily harm to the mother...What do you think would be a fair and just sentence for anyone who provided an abortion or received an abortion ?

No one would be punished. What they did was legal at the time.

I doubt Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned. I doubt many Republican politicians want it to be overturned. The Roe decision was good for the Republican Party. It inspired the religious right to come into existence. The religious right has been a mass movement that encourages Evangelical Christians to vote Republican. Before Roe many of them voted Democrat. Many did not vote at all.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Well it's not 'involuntary' so I cant see using that at all but let's go with manslaughter. (unless you'd like to support 'involuntary further?)

I would judge it as involuntary because, due to much shill arguing on the left, i am satisfied in believing that the woman getting the abortion does not necessarily know that the fetus is actually a life. Though I do say it's willfully ignorant of her, I still do not believe that society, despite the increase in regulations, has progressed to the point that life-hood of the fetus is mainstream. Therefore, if she may know that killing the unborn is illegal, she may not be able to comprehend that is indeed a life. You can thank the diligence of the pro-choice for that classification. Once society has universally determined for itself that it is indeed a life, then i would call it manslaughter, and by that point abortions would be rare anyway.

Do we have other criminal penalties that are a few thousand $$ for taking a human life? (I'm not talking about civil law suits)

In some states, if you kill a woman who is pregnant, and the fetus also dies, it's classified as a double homocide. However, I've seen it where, for the dead fetus, he's not punished nearly as much as for the killing the woman. He goes to jail regardless at that point, but it's not entirely unprecedented that the taking of life only come with a fine.

Is this a serious crime where a life was intentionally taken or not? If so, why just a few thousand $$ fine?

Again, because it's not often accepted that the idea of universal life applies to the fetus, most women who get abortions legitmately do not believe that the fetus is a human life. Do I think it's ridiculous of them? Of course. But do I accept the fact that they legitimately do not think it is? yes. Therefore, it's not intentional. She doesn't know that it's a life. If she knew, and she would know if she lives in a generation that is in universal agreement that it is indeed a life, then I would agree that it would be normal manslaughter.

and yes...I am trying to explore how people value the unborn. Most pro-life people claim it's 100% equal with born people. If so...is a few thousand $$ the appropriate penalty for intentionally killing it? It's not for similarly killing born people.

Most pro-life people don't actually claim that. If a woman is about to die in pregnancy, and the only way to save her is to kill the baby inside of her, then we prioritize the mother, as she is already born and independent. I've never seen a pro-lifer argue against this. I've seen pro-lifers argue about a pregnancy caused by rape, sure, and that has its own merits on both sides of that issue i think. But for now the, status quo is far beyond that. Whether or not rape is worth aborting a baby over is a discussion for another time.

 

[Lursa]

I would judge it as involuntary because, due to much shill arguing on the left, i am satisfied in believing that the woman getting the abortion does not necessarily know that the fetus is actually a life. Though I do say it's willfully ignorant of her, I still do not believe that society, despite the increase in regulations, has progressed to the point that life-hood of the fetus is mainstream. Therefore, if she may know that killing the unborn is illegal, she may not be able to comprehend that is indeed a life. You can thank the diligence of the pro-choice for that classification. Once society has universally determined for itself that it is indeed a life, then i would call it manslaughter, and by that point abortions would be rare anyway.

Wait...what?

Do you really believe that women dont know that the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus inside her is 'a life?' A live developing human? Wilfully or otherwise?

And I'm not even sure you do. :roll: Based on what I bolded, in blue. 4th grade science proves the unborn is alive. A life. And anyone in society that denies that a) failed many many years of science classes or b) is delusional or c) has a very very low IQ (I forget the politically correct term for mentally retarded). So society...the vast majority, yes even women!...know that if a woman is pregnant, there's a live human developing in there.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Wait...what?

Do you really believe that women dont know that the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus inside her is 'a life?' A live developing human? Wilfully or otherwise?

Yes. The pro-choice crowd on twitter has proven this. Amazing, isn't it?

And I'm not even sure you do. :roll: Based on what I bolded, in blue. 4th grade science proves the unborn is alive. A life. And anyone in society that denies that a) failed many many years of science classes or b) is delusional or c) has a very very low IQ (I forget the politically correct term for mentally retarded). So society...the vast majority, yes even women!...know that if a woman is pregnant, there's a live human developing in there.

I'm glad you picked up on the condescension. Indeed, enough talking with pro-choicers has illustrated their inability to grasp such a simple concept. The fetus is a life worth protecting, and I believe that they are sincere in their belief when they insist that it isn't.

 

[Lursa]

Yes. The pro-choice crowd on twitter has proven this. Amazing, isn't it?

Proof please? In context.

I'm glad you picked up on the condescension. Indeed, enough talking with pro-choicers has illustrated their inability to grasp such a simple concept. The fetus is a life worth protecting, and I believe that they are sincere in their belief when they insist that it isn't.

See the bold? Who says?

And what pro-choice people say it's not? Find one quote or opinion where a pro-choice supporter 'sincerely' demonstrates, as long as it's not at the expense of the woman's life and liberty (The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges), that the unborn life isnt worth protecting?

For myself, I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. And that's why pro-choice supporters leave that "subjective judgement" up to each individual woman.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Proof please? In context.

This:

See the bold? Who says?

And what pro-choice people say it's not? Find one quote or opinion where a pro-choice supporter 'sincerely' demonstrates, as long as it's not at the expense of the woman's life and liberty (The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges), that the unborn life isnt worth protecting?

For myself, I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. And that's why pro-choice supporters leave that "subjective judgement" up to each individual woman.

You truly don't believe the fetus is a life worth protecting. Tell me, why can't your logic be extended to already-born children? a 1 year old is still entirely dependent on its mother/parents. Since its existence comes at the expense of its mother, why can't its mother decide whether or not to kill it? There will come a time when this animalistic thinking will be a thing in the past, but it's not now.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Tell me, why can't your logic be extended to already-born children? a 1 year old is still entirely dependent on its mother/parents. Since its existence comes at the expense of its mother, why can't its mother decide whether or not to kill it?

Infanticide isn't exactly a new thing, you know. It very much has been a thing for thousands of years before the modern age. Why is a born-baby's life worth protecting, since it exists solely because of its parents?

 

[tecoyah]

Were overturned, and abortion became illegal, with the possible exceptions of rape, incest, or threat of bodily harm to the mother...What do you think would be a fair and just sentence for anyone who provided an abortion or received an abortion ?

Well....as long as we are playing pretend I say we go all out and give the anti-choice crowd the hard on they desire.

The doctor loses his/her license and gets life in prison.

The woman gets sterilized and flogged before her naked acid wash.

The guy who knocked her up gets a trophy for trying.

 

[Lursa]

This:

You truly don't believe the fetus is a life worth protecting. Tell me, why can't your logic be extended to already-born children? .

Of course I do. I spelled it out quite clearly. Were you allowed to exercise your right to become literate as a child? I hope some mean literate female teacher didnt hold you back.

Again:I do think it's a life worth protecting, but not at the expense of the mother's life. A life is much more than just breathing or a heartbeat. Those are physiological processes we share with many other animals. Is breathing something that you value over your liberty? Your right to have a family and contribute to society and share experiences with others?

It shows great weakness for you to claim over and over that I'm lying. Unless you can prove it, it's just denial on your part. And I note you didnt provide the proof that I requested for your other claims either. Why not?

Did you miss where I wrote: I value the born but value all born people more. There's a distinction there...can you understand it?

And why is my opinion less valid than yours where you value the unborn more than women? Dont deny it, just from what you wrote here, that's the truth. If you see how we can protect a right to life for the unborn that does not deprive a woman of her bodily sovereignty or her Constitutional rights (including life)...please explain.

Tell me, why can't your logic be extended to already-born children? a 1 year old is still entirely dependent on its mother/parents. Since its existence comes at the expense of its mother, why can't its mother decide whether or not to kill it? There will come a time when this animalistic thinking will be a thing in the past, but it's not now.

Yowzaa! This is simple :doh

After birth is when someone's rights can be upheld without violating the rights of someone else (without due process). The born may be cared for by society....the rights of a woman do not need to be violated to do so once born. Society cannot do so before birth, without her consent. So again...the woman's rights are primary in our society. And once born, the baby attains the same status. If you dont like that, why?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Of course I do. I spelled it out quite clearly. Were you allowed to exercise your right to become literate as a child? I hope some mean literate female teacher didnt hold you back.

Again:I do think it's a life worth protecting, but not at the expense of the mother's life. A life is much more than just breathing or a heartbeat. Those are physiological processes we share with many other animals. Is breathing something that you value over your liberty? Your right to have a family and contribute to society and share experiences with others?

It shows great weakness for you to claim over and over that I'm lying. Unless you can prove it, it's just denial on your part. And I note you didnt provide the proof that I requested for your other claims either. Why not?

Did you miss where I wrote: I value the born but value all born people more. There's a distinction there...can you understand it?

And why is my opinion less valid than yours where you value the unborn more than women? Dont deny it, just from what you wrote here, that's the truth. If you see how we can protect a right to life for the unborn that does not deprive a woman of her bodily sovereignty or her Constitutional rights (including life)...please explain.



Yowzaa! This is simple :doh

After birth is when someone's rights can be upheld without violating the rights of someone else (without due process). The born may be cared for by society....the rights of a woman do not need to be violated to do so once born. Society cannot do so before birth, without her consent. So again...the woman's rights are primary in our society. And once born, the baby attains the same status. If you dont like that, why?

Why is it not simple? Because you never actually defined what it means when you say "I do think it's a life worth protecting, but not at the expense of the mother's life." That can mean so many things as to be entirely useless. You get the rhetoric, but you don't have much else. Like you, I don't think the fetus should come at the expense of the mother's life.....if the mother's life is in danger, it makes no sense to prioritize the fetus' life above that of the mother. But I do think it should come at the expense of normal fetal development. I do not take that principal as extreme as you do. Normal fetal development is not an expense that the unborn should be killed for.

It's not the baby's fault you had sex.

 

[Sabre]

People who are against the overturning of Roe -v- Wade keep citing it as if a gospel. How many of you know that Roe herself petitioned to overturn it? and that she has been pro-life for 10+ years?

Norma McCorvey, the woman whose 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case helped make abortion legal in the United States, today petitioned to overturn the historic Roe v. Wade decision. Known for years as just Jane Roe, McCorvey (pictured right) filed the below affidavit in support of a motion in U.S. District Court in Dallas. McCorvey, 55, stated that the landmark case "was built upon false assumptions" and had "caused great harm to the women and children of our nation." McCorvey, who has been stridently pro-life for nearly 10 years, noted that when she filed her original lawsuit 30 years ago, she was unsure of what the term "abortion" even meant.

Jane Roe's Change Of Heart | The Smoking Gun

 

[LadyMoonlight]

Why should the law be concerned what a women does with her body.

Because it's not just her body...it's the death of another human.

 

[AGENT J]

Because it's not just her body...it's the death of another human.

and how do you address that without violating the legal rights of the woman?

 

[Lursa]

Why is it not simple? Because you never actually defined what it means when you say "I do think it's a life worth protecting, but not at the expense of the mother's life." That can mean so many things as to be entirely useless. You get the rhetoric, but you don't have much else. Like you, I don't think the fetus should come at the expense of the mother's life.....if the mother's life is in danger, it makes no sense to prioritize the fetus' life above that of the mother. But I do think it should come at the expense of normal fetal development. I do not take that principal as extreme as you do. Normal fetal development is not an expense that the unborn should be killed for.

It's not the baby's fault you had sex.

Why would you lie? Or did you really not understand the words I wrote very clearly? I provided specific examples, yet you deny you..what? Deny you saw them? Didnt understand what they meant? Just dont want to admit they're valid?

Here, try again:

And what pro-choice people say it's not? Find one quote or opinion where a pro-choice supporter 'sincerely' demonstrates, as long as it's not at the expense of the woman's life and liberty (The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges), that the unborn life isnt worth protecting?

For myself, I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. And that's why pro-choice supporters leave that "subjective judgement" up to each individual woman.

And you quoted it right in your response to me:

I do think it's a life worth protecting, but not at the expense of the mother's life. A life is much more than just breathing or a heartbeat. Those are physiological processes we share with many other animals. Is breathing something that you value over your liberty? Your right to have a family and contribute to society and share experiences with others?

But to simplify it further for you, to one thing period: the mother gets to decide the costs and consquences to the entirety of her life. Not strangers and not the govt.

Is that simple enough for you?

And since there's nothing wrong with having sex, women dont deserve to be punished by accepting consequences they dont want from an accidental pregnancy. You shouldnt be punished for enjoying a perfectly acceptable activity. And most reasonable people understand that.

So with that out of the way (again), can you answer this?

And why is my opinion less valid than yours where you value the unborn more than women? Dont deny it, just from what you wrote here, that's the truth. If you see how we can protect a right to life for the unborn that does not deprive a woman of her bodily sovereignty or her Constitutional rights (including life)...please explain.​

 

[Lursa]

People who are against the overturning of Roe -v- Wade keep citing it as if a gospel. How many of you know that Roe herself petitioned to overturn it? and that she has been pro-life for 10+ years?

Jane Roe's Change Of Heart | The Smoking Gun

We know. Can you explain why you believe that affects the validity of the decision?

 

[Lursa]

Because it's not just her body...it's the death of another human.

It's a human that the govt cannot act on at all, even to protect, without depriving a woman of her bodily sovereignty and self-determination. Without violating her Constitutional rights and possibly even costing her health or her life.

Can you explain why you believe a woman should be forced to make those sacrifices against her will in order to provide the exact same things to the unborn inside her?

 

[Casper]

Were overturned, and abortion became illegal, with the possible exceptions of rape, incest, or threat of bodily harm to the mother...What do you think would be a fair and just sentence for anyone who provided an abortion or received an abortion ?

A soft slap on their hand....