Say Roe v. Wade is gone and there's a non gay marriage amendment

Let the hyperbole fly.

 

So we should only have laws that will never be broken? We can just eliminate the judicial system right now if that is the case. I don't know if you have noticed, but rape, murder, armed robbery, piracy, speeding, risiting arrest, spitting on the sidewalk, and tearing the little tags off of mattresses still happens. That doesn't mean that we don't make it illegal. Imagine how much safer it would be if bank robbers didn't have to worry about guards and police officers trying to stop them.

One of the choices is to ban them and then leave it up to the mother whether or not to obey the law, the exact same way we treat murder of the born. Any person found guilty of getting or performing an abortion would then be charged with 1st degree murder, and things would proceed normally from there. I don't think all the women choosing to have an abortion for any of the top 95.1% of the reasons given will chose to risk life imprisonment to have an abortion, and the doctors who perform them would be even less likely to do so. For the 2.8% of women who are physically in grave danger from carrying a child to term, there can be an exception made.

Reasons given for having an abortion:
* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

 

Man, those stats pretty much speak for themselves. They certainly disspell a lot of the myths about why women have abortions.

 

Your violent methodology is appalling. Do you have ANY compassion for the born as well as the unborn? I would ask you to look deeply at the mother same way as you do the unborn child. She is suffering too, and there lies the true problem.

We shouldn't create sick black markets that won't help to stop abortions. It just makes a bad situation worse. Your violent attempts to control people will not work. Period. Prohibition is the worse evil. It solves nothing and creates many unforeseen problems. Police enforcement along with prison time and death sentences is not the "Christian" way either, btw.

We can not define when life begins. It is impossible. Life is a continuation. There is no beginning and no end.

Antisonic, many of us do not want abortions to happen. We know it causes much suffering. We just do not see use of force (Hitler) as the correct way to stop a moral illness. So you can cut that crap out.

Sorry, I have to go now. I have a pro-life BBQ to attend...

 

Who said anything about use of force?

I'm just pointing out that once you start accepting certain forms of murder, there's a risk of allowing more and more forms to become acceptable.

If a human is allowed to be slayed for nothing more than being an "inconvenience," what's to stop someone for making the argument of putting down the elderly, sick, poor, etc?

 

How about one at half-mast to indicate the pregnancy prevention?

 

Originally posted by Sishir Chang

The problem with abortion is that there is no bright line legal definition of when life begins.

In most legal instances its accepted that life begins at birth yet as things like the Peterson murder case and the Protection of the Fetus law shows, it is also considered murder if a fetus is also killed during a murder. On top of that trying mothers who abuse drugs while pregnant as child abuse is directly defining the fetus as a separate life. These are in direct quandry with legal abortion is considered not murder [/b] because the fetus isn't considered a separate life.

So while a woman can be charged with child abuse while doing cocaine while pregnant she is perfectly fine to terminate that pregnancy through abortion.

What we need is an agreed upon definition of when life begins. I would suggest that that answer depends on two things: Consciousness and viability.

<b>Keeping in mind your examples here, can you provide us with an instance (besides abortion) where it is considered that life legally begins after birth?

SS Numbers. Tax-deductibility. Any others?</b>

 

The use of force is threat or use of prison time, or the death penalty, for having an abortion. Plus the use of police forces to try and stop the control of the abortion pills and the like. It will be a sad joke. Don't you think tons of homemade RU-486 made in a trailer park and carried by your local drug dealer sounds super? I can't believe we think we can actually enforce this. It's a wasted, violent method. Our time and money could be spent in a much more positive and effective fight.

Most people are not trying to make abortions "acceptable", just legal. IT IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Laws do not actually decree what is correct and incorrect, just what is legal and illegal. Some laws just make matters worse, even though they might have good intentions. How we can truly help those when they are hiding from us due to their fear of us? We will be pushing them away.

In the early '80s the was a big push for a "war on drugs". Police enforcement and prisons will solve our problems! Look where that got us... Personally, I do not want to see abortion houses next to the crack houses.

BTW, Hitler strictly forbid abortions for the Aryan women. It was another of his sick attempts at control. (not to even mention his deadly persecution of homosexuals)

Again, making abortions illegal will just make a bad situation worse. Attempts at control are counterproductive and immoral.

~Metta~

 

Thats a terrible definition, no offense. 90% of the patients in most ICU's are neither "viable or conscious".

The cerebrum forms from the neural tube which starts to "roll" at only 3 or 4 weeks post conception.

I think that when the heart begins to beat (around 6 or 7 weeks), the fetus should be considered "human". Ob/Gyns can diagnose fetal demise when the heartbeat is no longer heard.

 

Any woman who has an abortion should be put to death. First degree murder is what it is.

 

Was this sarcasm? I hope so.


This sounds as reasonable as most of the rest of the stuff I've seen in this thread. Americans love to have everything cut and dried. Nuance is something those evil French do... right? So why not have a constitutional amendment codifying B-Bob's suggestion. Marriage is sacred, and needs to be protected. So let's do this, folks. It's brilliant!

"As for marriage, I will repeat that I advocate a "three strikes" law to uphold the institution of marriage. People will three divorces should be prohibited from marrying again. I see "gay marriage" as no threat at all to the institution.'
~B-Bob

Of course, his opinion about gay marriage would have to be left out, as reasonable as I think it is.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Okay, you win. But I think the red and white stripes should be oriented lengthwise, with a star on the end.

and giddy, the half-mast idea is pure brilliance. There is such a bipartisan wave building here.

 

Off the top of my head I don't believe fetus' can be considered tax deductable or be able to apply for SSI. For that matter a fetus couldn't get a passport or any other form of legal identification or citizenship because you need to have a birth certificate to prove where you were born. I'm not aware of the unborn having inheritance rights either.

I believe in most circumstances fetuses and embryos are not considered legally people.

 

I don't know about the statistic but if they are ruled to be brain dead then they are considered dead and no longer human. My definition would follow a similar standard working in reverse.

Also you might be mistaking my definition of consciousness with wakefulness. When what I actually mean is the ability of the brain to think and be aware.

Yes the cerebrum forms from the neural tube but a rolled neural tube isn't the same thing as a cerebrum. At some point the cerebrum is formed and we can't have consciousness without a functioning cerebrum.

IMO this is a bad definition. There is an emotional attachment to the heart but IMO the function of the heart shouldn't qualify as the standard for what it means to be an individual human life. Your heart can stop beating for several minutes and you can still be considered alive. The same doesn't apply to the brain. For that matter you can get a heart transplant but you can't get a brain transplant.

 

just wondering, and this is for people on both sides, is status quo hurting anybody? do we have to make a change on this issue right away? I think the country is too split on this issue for it to be constructive to make a firm, nationwide decision.

 

As far as I'm concerned the issue is one of definitions, it's really not the "pro-fascist" or "death monger" ideological argument that both sides make the other side out to be:


1. People who are against abortion believe that life begins at the moment of conception. For them this is a mater of faith, and no amount of evidence otherwise.

2. People who believe in abortion believe that the fetus is not a fully qualified human being, but rather something more akin to an appendage up to a specific point.

If you step back and accept each side's suppositions in turn, their respective position makes sense.

1. People who are against abortion, would you make it illegal for people with gangrene or blood poisoning to get amputations? That is how your argument seems to the other side.

2. People who are for abortion, would you condone the mass killing of 2 year old babies, for any reason whatsoever? This is how your argument seems to the other side.

Attacking each other without resolving these differences won't do anything but harden each side's position. Calling each other names like baby killer or fascist will only help to harden those who are opposed to your position.

Because these tactics are the norm, there will never be a substantive consensus on this subject in the US. Positions are too divided and too entrenched.

 

Hey Ottomaton, I'm down with the 2-yr-old policy you mentioned there. Or at least this one two-year old of a coworker.

 

Bottom line is someone needs to define when life begins. The laws in this country (as mentioned earlier) are amibuous.

You can kill your own child in the womb and it is ok.

However in some states if you kill a pregnant woman you can be brought up on charges of killing her and the unborn child.

Makes zero sense.

 

Sarcasm? No

What I really want? Hell no.

Where the pro-life agenda wants to go? You better believe it. The doctor is merely the accomplice. The woman should be seen as a cold blooded, premeditated, first degree murderer. How can it be any different?