A basic question for "pro-lifers" who agree to abortion in cases of rape-

Could you rephrase that?

What is a crime against chastity?

 

Section 3 qualifies.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272

 

From wiki:
challenged and removed. (November 2007)

Crimes against chastity are crimes now most commonly prosecuted in the Islamic states according to sharia law nowadays, but such crimes have been prosecuted all over the world throughout history. They are, where prosecuted, usually treated as the gravest of crimes, usually punishable with the death penalty.

They include but are not limited to the following sexual acts, defined as such in the jurisdiction where they are prosecuted:
Adultery
Fornication
Homosexuality
Paedophilia
Prostitution
Sodomy

On April 6, 1967, birth control advocate Bill Baird was arrested in Boston, Massachusetts on charges of "crimes against chastity" for holding a lecture on birth control at Boston University and giving an unmarried female a condom and a contraceptive sponge.[1] Baird served three months in prison but, in 1972, won a Supreme Court case, Eisenstadt v. Baird.

Massachusetts continues to have laws on "Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order", which includes laws against providing contraception or information on contraception to unmarried persons (Chapter 272, Section 21 & 21A), but the latter are now a dead letter.[2]
And the deader the better.....or at least renamed.

 

Why are people against contraception and want to make it illegal, if it stops unwanted pregnancines in some situations?

 

It is the killing of a baby. Killing does not always equal murdering. This could be considered justifiable homicide.

That, and honestly, it's a compromise that I don't like, but can live with as a pro-lifer. I am willing to compromise on abortion, to use standards for abortion that most of Europe has--no questions asked abortion until 12 weeks. After that, only if a specific condition will make childbirth unsafe to the mother (i.e. risk of death).

 

Sam, why do you REFUSE to answer the question of the OP and are desperate to change the subject???

 

What about the "method" of conception would "justify" the "homicide"?

 

Viability does not equal human. There are many people alive today who are not viable - they require dialysis, daily medication, are paralyzed, have brain damage, or have some other condition which makes them incapable of living without continual significant support. Would you call someone like Steven Hawking a non-human? He is completely dependent upon constant care to remain alive. Just like a baby before viability.

 

What person is Stephen Hawking physically attached to?

 

No it isn't . .take any medical dictionary and find where it's says baby for any of the stages during pregnancy. The use of baby is purely an informal use in everyday language and mostly used by pro-lifers in order to project a negative slant against those who do not agree with them.

The majority of Europe does not have a 12 week elective limit, and even those that do make exceptions for the mental health of the female.

 

I already answered your question.

- - - Updated - - -

Mental health. By your logic, a woman should legally be allowed to abort a full grown fetus just because shes very depressed? As John Mccain said, "health" is a dumb BS excuse to justify excuse.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant.

 

Take any subject matter medical dictionary and find where in any of the stages of pregnancy that the zef is called a 'baby'. The use of baby is purely an informal use in everyday language and mostly used by pro-lifers in order to project a negative slant against those who do not agree with them.

Medically it is not a baby until it is born .. that is a simply checked fact.

Life only has as much value as another places upon it.

IF a zef is ever deemed a person from conception then it not only gets the protection of that status, but it must also abide by the restrictions, one of which is that no person may use another persons body without consent and before you come back with the erroneous consent to sex = consent to pregnancy, it does not, consent is an agreement between two people and cannot be transferred to another without the agreement of the person who gave the initial consent.

ie. Consent to one person (a man) for one act (sexually intercourse) cannot be used as proxy consent for another person (the fetus) for a different act (pregnancy)

You could try the implied consent argument, but implied consent is only valid until the person explicitly, by word or action, says 'no', once that has happened implied consent becomes moot.

I wouldn't know what an abortionist thinks, I've never met one and as far as I know there are known posting in this forum, and it is ironic that you state you argue from a rational position when you use such irrational words such as abortionist when talking to pro-life people.

- - - Updated - - -

Ask your right-wing and/or religious friends.

 

Learn the difference between biologically dependent and socially dependent, then you will see why your comparisons have no credence.

 

Regardless, it's a human life. You choose your terms for effect, I can do the same.

Most of Europe does have a 12 week elective limit. (yes, a mental health exception is allowed in most of those).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

According to the above, only 8 of the 27 have a limit of over 12 weeks or 3 months (one of those has a limit of 13, another 14, and another 16). The other 19 have a limit of 12 weeks or shorter (in the case of Slovenia).

So, yes, most of Europe has an elective abortion limit of 12 weeks or less. Note I said elective, which means no questions asked. I didn't say that there weren't exceptions (although in Germany, there seem to be none).

Please research before you post wrong facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Stephen Hawkings is biologically dependent on others. Without their help, biologically, he will die.

 

YOU ARE the Anti-Choicer! Ask your pals why if you don't know?????


My explanation is that they are too stupid for words!

 

According to your first sentence , when a fetus is viable it's not human (???)

But a nice segue to keep from actually addressing my post......

 

Never disagreed that it is human life, so that one fails.

I choose my terms to reflect the reality not the subjective projection used by pro-lifers.

Define mental issue and then come back to me about researching, and I know what elective means, though the reality is that mental issues cover a very, very, wide scope.

Funny, never seen him attached to another person using their body to sustain his own.. have you? .. SH is socially dependent, not biologically dependent.

 

considering the fact, that you always ignore, that post 24 week abortions are rare and are performed only for life threats the female and/or fetal disability incompatibility with life, the rest of your comment is just plain crap.

 

Would you pass a law saying that a person could be assigned to take care of Stephen Hawking against their will?

 

Fugazi, you DO realize that Sam WANTS you to help him change the subject so he doesn't have to talk about the OP's question?

 

Yes, if its a human at conception then rape alone (absent life threatening complications to the mother) is not justification for an abortion.

In the case of rape, the criminal (rapist) should be punished, not the baby. For example, assume a criminal assaults a woman and disables her so she cannot work. The woman suffers lifelong physical disability, and her family suffers. We don't allow her to kill her child - even a 1 day old child - to ease her mental and financial burdens.

 

No, not being viable does not mean it is not a human. Many people are not viable (Steven Hawking for example) but are still considered human.

 

IF it's "a human at conception is a matter of opinion.

 

Definitions from a dictionary is not an argument.

Here is an argument: its a viable at 21 weeks, therefore its a human being at 21 weeks and beyond.

 

Steven Hawking has ALS, he is literally helpless at this point, he requires constant care 24/7, and will die if not provided that care.

The issue is viability.

What you raise - the physical location of the baby - is a different subject and why there are exceptions for abortion. With adults, if 2 people do not get along - ranging from the relationship being inconvenient to one person threatens the life of the other - then the primary solution is to separate the 2 people not to simply kill one. With a baby, because of the physical attachment, before viability separation means death to the baby and separation must be restricted.