Originally Posted by JaJae Laws are based on humanity. I would think that would be a fairly accurate description of what it must be like to witness a partial-birth abortion. It's an emotional event. Sure, it would be emotional. Lots of things are emotionally disturbing, but that alone does not ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
04-21-2007, 06:56 PM
| #81 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard  Communist Moscow 
| Originally Posted by JaJae Sure, it would be emotional. Lots of things are emotionally disturbing, but that alone does not make them illegal - there is more reasoning and logic that trumps emotion. 
__________________ Perhaps the sentiments contained in the preceding post, are not yet sufficiently favorable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. - slightly modified from Common Sense, Thomas Paine, 1776 I am Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas... I am the champion of the Constitution.  | ||||
     |
|
04-21-2007, 06:59 PM
| #82 | ||||
| Guest
| Originally Posted by thomez But why? The fetus is still the same person. How can a couple of inches make such a huge difference?
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:00 PM
| #83 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by 03 white zx3 because the difference between being inside of someone and being outside of someone is very important, even if only a matter of inches?
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:01 PM
| #84 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by thomez Laws are based on humanity/emotion all the time in the medical profession as well it should be.
One could say it should be perfectly legal to kick kittens because they don't see any reason or logic that should make it illegal, other than people simply don't think it's humane or something we as a society should allow.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. | ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:02 PM
| #85 | ||||
| Guest
| Originally Posted by thomez While I agree with you to some extent, I think some consideration must be given to late second and third trimester fetuses. At the very least consideration must be given after viability, correct?
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:04 PM
| #86 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by JaJae the legal protection of animals has little if anything to do with the "medical profession" or laws about such for humans
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:06 PM
| #87 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by 03 white zx3 a fetus is only viable if the mother chooses to let it leave her body alive, at which point it receives legal protection
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:07 PM
| #88 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by thomez It's the same premise though in the rational that was given of emotions and laws.
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:07 PM
| #89 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by thomez Why then in some states can you be charged and convicted of harming a fetus?
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:09 PM
| #90 | ||||
| Guest
| Originally Posted by thomez So you support legal abortion for any reason at literally any time during the pregnancy?
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:09 PM
| #91 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by JaJae yet it has nothing to do with the laws regarding human medicine
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:10 PM
| #92 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by JaJae is there not a difference between me punching you and you punching yourself?
what is mine is mine to control the destiny of, not yours | ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:11 PM
| #93 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by 03 white zx3 sure, it is the only non-arbitrary position which ensures the right of an individual to control their body as they please
| ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:13 PM
| #94 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by thomez Not at all. But you're saying the fetus has no rights. So while me punching you is assault, what's the deal with extra charges for harming something that doesn't and shouldn't have protections under law in your opinion?
There are many states that have laws on the books for "Fetal Homicide." | ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:17 PM
| #95 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws - 31 are state statutes and three are case law. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. At least 15 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy Fetal Homicide Laws Fetus's have rights that protect them from being murdered in most states. The "reason and logic" hasn't trumped emotion on most states in America. | ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:20 PM
| #96 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by JaJae I don't believe that you should be able to be charged criminally for the harm of a fetus, though obviously that is at least assault - an example was the 2 murder charges for that guy that killed his wife and their fetus, which I found ridiculous. What was the name of the 2nd person killed? What was their Social? Was there a death certificate issued? Absolutely not, because it isn't a person with legal rights yet, until birth. In every other aspect the state has not recognized that fetus as an individual, yet you could be charged for the murder of it? Insane.
However, there is a big difference between making a decision for yourself regarding your body, and someone making a decision for you. In such rare circumstances, maybe a civil suit would be appropriate - charging someone with an infringement on your reproductive capability/capacity/etc...? I'm honestly not sure. However, I am sure that it isn't murder. The passage of some law for such a rare circumstance seems appropriate, possibly, although it is hard for it to not seem like a contradiction of the state's laws. | ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:38 PM
| #97 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by thomez How is fetal homicide making a decision regarding the mother's body? It's regarding the fetus. It's homicide. Homicide means that legally a human was unlawfully killed.. aka murder. The fetus is considered a human that was murdered in fetal homicide cases.
It's like should we allow a pregnant woman to be killed on death row before the child is born? That was a big debate years ago. Most people recognize a fetus in the late stages as being its own entity. And if that's the case its only natural for society to move towards protecting it in some ways. | ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 07:52 PM
| #98 | ||||
| Guest
| Originally Posted by thomez Connor was no longer in his mother's womb. He was "born" essentially although who knows if he was born before or after death, or exactly how he was born. Laci was 8 months pregnant with a fully viable fetus. She had chosen life for her son.
I couldn't disagree more with your lack of regard for life, especially after viability. At some point during a pregnancy, we need to afford some sort of protection to our unborn. I am completely pro-choice, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Women should be able to make up their minds on what to do with their pregnancies way before birth (especially before viability!!) provided that there aren't extenuating circumstances involved (Such as fetal deformity, severe risk to the mother etc). While I am all for having the right to choose what to do with my body, at some point we have to realize that it's NOT just my body (goodness I sound like a pro-lifer here  ). I guess that's just my opinion of course.I have to ask a curious question. Do you have children? | ||||
| |
|
04-21-2007, 08:14 PM
| #99 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by 03 white zx3 I believe I've debated with you in the past about similar issues on the other forum and we disagreed. My views haven't changed... have yours changed after you had children?
| ||||
| |
|
04-22-2007, 12:11 AM
| #100 | ||||
| Guest
| Originally Posted by JaJae Yes. I was very much pro-life until shortly after I had my daughter 10 years ago. I was the poster child for our local pro-life movement/groups (quite literally!!). But sometime after my daughter was born (before she was 1 even) I became pro-choice. There isn't a specific moment or anything that happened in my life that made my opinion change either.
I have to admit that it seems odd to be debating this subject being pregnant myself, and I had a hard time with it during the very beginning of this pregnancy. I wasn't second guessing my views, but still felt awkward saying it would be okay to end the life of an embryo the same age of the one I was fighting so hard to keep (I've had a decent amount of problems with this pregnancy). My views on abortion haven't necessarily changed anytime in the past 9ish years. I fully support a woman's right to choose, BUT I believe it should be done ASAP and that there should be time limits on how far along a woman can be when she aborts. Ultimately, I believe that the fetus should be given some rights (such as I have no problem with Scott Peterson being charged with a double homicide and would push for the same if someone did s |
