The abortion issue...

"One point here, if the "pro lifers" have their way, soon after will women be investigated for murder in the event of a miscarriage ?
Drank alcohol while preggers, well, involuntary manslaughter....
Not so far fetched as you might think."

On this point... if a person hits a pregnant woman and she miscarries as a result... How would you charge the person? Aggrevated assault on the woman or would you charge the person with the murder of her child?
 
"I knew you possessed enough intelect to understand my point. Thank you!"

The argument can certainly be made, but the hypocricy still stands.
 
Not enough facts, does the fetus have legal status as a person ?
Was the intent of the person hitting the woman to kill the fetus ? If so perhaps murder, if not then at most involuntary manslaughter.
 
"Not enough facts, does the fetus have legal status as a person ?"

Ummm... that is what I am asking you... should the child have legal status?

"Was the intent of the person hitting the woman to kill the fetus ? If so perhaps murder, if not then at most involuntary manslaughter."

But you see, it cannot be murder if you believe abortion is not murder. Nor could it be manslaughter.
 
Well, Super...here is the Law that covers the death of an unborn via the hands of another, other than the mother...and guess what? Even this new laci peterson Law DOES NOT equate the unborn child FULLY as a person, look at what I have put in bold...


SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

`CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
`Sec.


`1841. Protection of unborn children.

`Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

`(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

`(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

`(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1),
and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.


`(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).

`(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) 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, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:
1841'.


SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

(a) PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN- Subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919 (article 119) the following new section:

`Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child

`(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

`(2) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

`(3) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall, instead of being punished under paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

`(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) 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, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

`(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 919 the following new item:

`919a. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child.'.
 
Superfreak said:
"Not enough facts, does the fetus have legal status as a person ?"

Ummm... that is what I am asking you... should the child have legal status?

"Was the intent of the person hitting the woman to kill the fetus ? If so perhaps murder, if not then at most involuntary manslaughter."

But you see, it cannot be murder if you believe abortion is not murder. Nor could it be manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Did you notice "perhaps" and "at most" in my reply ?

I do not see it as an obligation or right to determine when a person becomes a person.
My personal opinion is at birth though.
That opinion seems to have worked for thousands of years...
 
Here is what the Bible says about it:

Exodus 21:22-25:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

---------------------------------------------------------

This CLEARLY shows that the unborn child was worth something but not worth the SAME WORTH as a BORN person, already alive.
 
Care... yes, I understand that the current law does not provide full human rights protections to the child.... and that is a problem. Because at no time is the child anything other than human and as long as it is alive it should be protected by basic human rights (my opinion obviously).

My main problem with the pro-abortion crowd is that the vast majority try to rationalize abortion by pretending that abortion does not end a human life.

If you don't think an unborn child should have human rights extended to it, I can respect your right to that opinion.... even though I obviously disagree with it.

I cannot however respect someone who trys to ignore science simply because it makes them feel better about their position.
 
Superfreak said:
Care... yes, I understand that the current law does not provide full human rights protections to the child.... and that is a problem. Because at no time is the child anything other than human and as long as it is alive it should be protected by basic human rights (my opinion obviously).

My main problem with the pro-abortion crowd is that the vast majority try to rationalize abortion by pretending that abortion does not end a human life.

If you don't think an unborn child should have human rights extended to it, I can respect your right to that opinion.... even though I obviously disagree with it.

I cannot however respect someone who trys to ignore science simply because it makes them feel better about their position.
Click to expand...
If you think I am "ignoring science" you are bitterly -- and somewhat stupidly -- mistaken, my friend.

Science does not and cannot address the issue of ethical personhood. That is a legal and moral issue, not a scientific one. You, personally, believe that all animals of the species homo sapeins sapien should be accorded full legal rights, from the moment they are conceived. That is your right, but it is just an opinion. Nothing you can say can ever make it a scientifically verifiable fact.

I get damned sick and tired of arrogant authoritarians trying to assert their emotional hangups as fact.
 
"If you think I am "ignoring science" you are bitterly -- and somewhat stupidly -- mistaken, my friend."

Yes, to act as though the child is not a human being is ignoring science.

"Science does not and cannot address the issue of ethical personhood. That is a legal and moral issue, not a scientific one. You, personally, believe that all animals of the species homo sapeins sapien should be accorded full legal rights, from the moment they are conceived. That is your right, but it is just an opinion. Nothing you can say can ever make it a scientifically verifiable fact."

Now this part I agree with. Science does not dictate whether or not the unborn child should be entitled to human rights. I have never said otherwise. In fact I have tried to make it a very clear point on that very distinction. I said that science dictates that the unborn child is a human being. In that there is no question. The argument (the portion that is most certainly opinion and therefore debatable) is whether or not that unborn child should be entitled to basic human rights. I am of the opinion that it should (not to supercede the mothers rights, but to be equal to them).

"I get damned sick and tired of arrogant authoritarians trying to assert their emotional hangups as fact."

And I get damned sick and tired of people like you who fail to read and comprehend someones opinion.
 
"If you don't think an unborn child should have human rights extended to it, I can respect your right to that opinion.... even though I obviously disagree with it."

You even quoted the above in your reply, yet failed to comprehend it. Why is that?
 
If you think I am "ignoring science" you are bitterly -- and somewhat stupidly -- mistaken, my friend.

Science does not and cannot address the issue of ethical personhood.

Then "ethical personhood" should not be a determining criteria. Science is quite clear and concise on the subject. You ARE ignoring science, in favor of some contrived terminology that has no basis in science or biological fact.

So... no one is mistaken here, we fully understand you, and your position most certainly does ignore science and biology.
 
"For the same reason you missed my "Perhaps" and "at most" ?
and made an assumption."

I did not miss them. There is no perhaps or at most.... if you believe abortion is not murder, then there is no possibility for the "perhaps" or "at most"
 
Superfreak said:
Care, I could care less what the bible says about it. This is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue.
Click to expand...

so, where did all these ''human rights'' feelings or thoughts come from, that you have super? out of the thin air??

are you OUTRIGHT denying your Chrstianity, no longer a Catholic as i thought you said once you were?

what makes YOUR thoughts on human rights and worth greater than Gods? OHHHH, I forgot!!! you are GOD on here!!! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top