Thread: Question for pro-aborts…………...

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Since you pro-choice/aborts believe that the unborn in the womb does not deserve protection for all sorts of various reasons….that taking their life is nothing…and certainly less than taking an animals….I just wonder how far you would take this…..
Could you stand next to an abortionist and watch him/her perform an abortion….three months,,,,six months…..nine months?

Up until 26 days after birth if you want to get really close. But I'd refrain from infanticide to avoid mistakes.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Please give the reason behind your yes or no answer.

I already have given this reason multiple times and you ran away from addressing it.
Thumbs up to infanticide.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

I am just so curious…..as to who will really have the guts tell the truth or hide behind statements that have nothing to do with this.

You're the only one hiding behind statements.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

But then pro-choicers want abortion to be legal……so how far would they go to help. I would think a lot…since they say morally it is not wrong. So if its not morally wrong….what would they find objectionable…to watching or helping an abortionists?
So what is it……yes or no?

Could you rephrase this last question because I couldnt understand what you were asking.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Yours is a post filled with outright lies. The history behind all this…is that before 1973 abortion was illegal.

LOL But much earlier it was entirely legal. Indeed, the catholic church never expressly outlawed abortion until the 19th century - like many US states.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

It was illegal for obvious reasons. Our courts believed that abortion was immoral that it killed a living human being. Why else was it illegal? Our Constitution does not say that the unborn LIVING HUMAN IN THE WOMB….is not included in the protections given. I am sure the Founders felt that the personhood of the unborn was not an issue and did not need to be spelled out specifically…because what nation could do what we are doing now. It is inconceivable. The unborn did make a difference back then…because the laws reflected punishing those who did kill an unborn in the womb.

Wrong. The federal court made little attempt to regulate such practices which the states only outlawed as Christianity became more political during the 19th century. That's just the US. Around the world the history of abortion was much different. In Europe, for example, it was extremely common in some area of Europe throughout its history.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

No one debates other surgical procedures do they? How many debates are going on right now about heart transplants or hip replacements? LMAO Abortion is the only procedure that is done to kill a living human being. If you can't see the simple difference between them…then I don't know what else to say. Well I do but can't.
Are those cells living or dead? Are those cells human? If they were not alive and growing….why would an abortion be necessary? When does life begin?

A sperm cell if also alive. Is a teenage boy a genocidal monster? Because by your logic he certainly is.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Yours is a post filled with outright lies. The history behind all this…is that before 1973 abortion was illegal. It was illegal for obvious reasons. Our courts believed that abortion was immoral that it killed a living human being. Why else was it illegal? Our Constitution does not say that the unborn LIVING HUMAN IN THE WOMB….is not included in the protections given. I am sure the Founders felt that the personhood of the unborn was not an issue and did not need to be spelled out specifically…because what nation could do what we are doing now. It is inconceivable. The unborn did make a difference back then…because the laws reflected punishing those who did kill an unborn in the womb.

No one debates other surgical procedures do they? How many debates are going on right now about heart transplants or hip replacements? LMAO Abortion is the only procedure that is done to kill a living human being. If you can't see the simple difference between them…then I don't know what else to say. Well I do but can't.

Are those cells living or dead? Are those cells human? If they were not alive and growing….why would an abortion be necessary? When does life begin?

There were no laws in the United States which prohibited abortion when this nation was founded. None! The anti-abortion laws in the United States were predominately from the late 19th Century and 20th Century and were predominately justified based upon protecting the woman from possible harm caused by the abortion and were not about protecting the pre-born. Try reading the Roe v Wade decision which documents these facts.

The question of "when life begins" is a strawman because it is irrelevant. When does personhood begin is relevant as all inalienable Rights are inherent in the PERSON. Inalienable Rights do not exist for non-persons. This is a matter of law and not personal opinion.

Let us take one moment and think about the consequence of establishing personhood for a fetus. A pregnant woman, through her negligence, falls down a flight of stairs which results in the death of a fetus she's carrying in her body. Under the law, if that fetus is a person, she would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Are we really willing to start sending women to prison that accidently cause the death of a fetus? Let us go further and establish "personhood" starting at conception. I forget the exact number but as I recall 20% or more of all zygotes die within the first 2 weeks often without the woman even knowing she's pregnant. Are we going to begin prosecuting these women for the death of the "person" they are responsible for? They would also be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Hundreds of thousands of women are going to be sent to jail so we'd need to build more prisons just to house them.

Let us also look at the tax laws. If the pre-born are persons then they qualify as a dependent on our tax filings. Even if the pregnancy only lasts for 2 weeks the taxpayer could claim the "person" as a dependent when they file their tax return. Hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue to the US government. Can we afford the off-setting tax increased to accommodate these deductions?

The legal ramifications alone of imparting "personhood" to the pre-born are extensive if we consider them and all of this is a question of law and not personal opinions or beliefs. When a person puts forward a "belief" they must consider the ramifications of that belief.

Shiva said,

"There were no laws in the United States which prohibited abortion when this nation was founded. None! The anti-abortion laws in the United States were predominately from the late 19th Century and 20th Century and were predominately justified based upon protecting the woman from possible harm caused by the abortion and were not about protecting the pre-born. Try reading the Roe v Wade decision which documents these facts."

"The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652.1 Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify.2 A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby.3 Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder.4 Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children."5 "Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."6"

"Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions."

"During the 1840's and 1850's, 13 states passed laws forbidding abortion at any stage. Three others made abortion illegal after quickening. In 1856, the Iowa Supreme Court held that pre-quickening abortion was not a crime, but in the next legislature, the prohibitions against pre-quickening abortions were restored 27-0 and 53-1"

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_fact...rtion_history/

"The question of "when life begins" is a strawman because it is irrelevant. When does personhood begin is relevant as all inalienable Rights are inherent in the PERSON. Inalienable Rights do not exist for non-persons. This is a matter of law and not personal opinion."

What did the courts rule in the Scott Peterson case?

Originally Posted by churchmouse

"The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652.1 Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify.2 A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby.3 Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder.4 Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children."5 "Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."6"

Having done additional investigations into this, as opposed to simply accepting the information at "face value" we find that the above prosecutions were based upon the codification of Christian religious beliefs at the time. The details of the prosecutions are unknown as I was unable to find the specific cases online but we must note that with the adoption of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights the imposition of laws based solely upon religious beliefs where the violations of the inalienable Rights of the Person became unconstitutional (RE: Reynolds v US)

As noted in the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade there had been very limited historical cases of abortion being outlawed historically based upon religious beliefs but that those cases did not represent the general views of society at the time. The above cases do reflect that as generally abortion was not illegal in the American colonies prior to the American Revolution which established the Inalienable Rights of the People (persons) in the United States. There is no historical precedent that the pre-born are persons which remains without dispute.

Of note "infanticide" does not relate to abortion. It relates to the murder of an infant that is a person and not to abortion which deals with the termination of pregnancy which is unrelated to persons or infants that are persons. Infanticide has long been considered murder by virtually all civilized nations.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

"Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions."

English common law did not establish abortion as being a criminal offense. It can also be noted that the US Constitution takes precedent in America over English common law.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

"During the 1840's and 1850's, 13 states passed laws forbidding abortion at any stage. Three others made abortion illegal after quickening. In 1856, the Iowa Supreme Court held that pre-quickening abortion was not a crime, but in the next legislature, the prohibitions against pre-quickening abortions were restored 27-0 and 53-1"

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_fact...rtion_history/

These laws were not actually addressed until the US Supreme Court addressed the matter in Roe v Wade. Such laws, for the most part, were unconstitutional upon review by the Supreme Court when it addressed the abortion laws in Roe v Wade. Citing laws that were inherently unconstitutional is not an argument for new laws which are unconstitutional. As also noted the anti-abortion laws of the 19th Century predominately addressed the safety of the woman as abortion was highly dangerous to her health and life at the time. These laws were intended to protect the woman and not the pre-born upon general review of them.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

What did the courts rule in the Scott Peterson case?

The court ruling in the Scott Peterson case was that Scott Peterson assaulted and killed Laci Peterson. Because the assault on (murder of) Laci Peterson resulted in the death of the fetus she was carrying an additional count of "murder" of the fetus was justifiable based upon the Inalienable Rights of Laci Peterson.

Lacking any violation of the Rights of the Woman there can be no additional counts levied against the accused. This, by analogy, is the same as the secondary charge levied of "armed robbery" that can be added to the charge of "robbery" in a criminal case. Lacking the "robbery" then the secondary count of "armed robbery" becomes moot and cannot be prosecuted. If the woman's rights are violated by assault which results in harm and the loss of the preborn in her body then the secondary charge of "death of the fetus, embryo or zygote" can be added to the criminal counts against the accused. The simple death of a zygote, embryo or fetus is not a criminal offense and is only a criminal offense based upon the unlawful violations of the Rights of the Woman.

As we are well aware no State can impart "personhood" to the preborn as it would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade. The preborn are not "persons" under the US Constitution and cannot be defined as such by state law. Crimes such as assault or murder only related to "persons" and that relates to the woman and not the preborn.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Having done additional investigations into this, as opposed to simply accepting the information at "face value" we find that the above prosecutions were based upon the codification of Christian religious beliefs at the time. The details of the prosecutions are unknown as I was unable to find the specific cases online but we must note that with the adoption of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights the imposition of laws based solely upon religious beliefs where the violations of the inalienable Rights of the Person became unconstitutional (RE: Raymond v US)

As noted in the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade there had been very limited historical cases of abortion being outlawed historically based upon religious beliefs but that those cases did not represent the general views of society at the time. The above cases do reflect that as generally abortion was not illegal in the American colonies prior to the American Revolution which established the Inalienable Rights of the People (persons) in the United States. There is no historical precedent that the pre-born are persons which remains without dispute.

Of note "infanticide" does not relate to abortion. It relates to the murder of an infant that is a person and not to abortion which deals with the termination of pregnancy which is unrelated to persons or infants that are persons. Infanticide has long been considered murder by virtually all civilized nations.



English common law did not establish abortion as being a criminal offense. It can also be noted that the US Constitution takes precedent in America over English common law.



These laws were not actually addressed until the US Supreme Court addressed the matter in Roe v Wade. Such laws, for the most part, were unconstitutional upon review by the Supreme Court when it addressed the abortion laws in Roe v Wade. Citing laws that were inherently unconstitutional is not an argument for new laws which are unconstitutional. As also noted the anti-abortion laws of the 19th Century predominately addressed the safety of the woman as abortion was highly dangerous to her health and life at the time. These laws were intended to protect the woman and not the pre-born upon general review of them.



The court ruling in the Scott Peterson case was that Scott Peterson assaulted and killed Laci Peterson. Because the assault on (murder of) Laci Peterson resulted in the death of the fetus she was carrying an additional count of "murder" of the fetus was justifiable based upon the Inalienable Rights of Laci Peterson.

Lacking any violation of the Rights of the Woman there can be no additional counts levied against the accused. This, by analogy, is the same as the secondary charge levied of "armed robbery" that can be added to the charge of "robbery" in a criminal case. Lacking the "robbery" then the secondary count of "armed robbery" becomes moot and cannot be prosecuted. If the woman's rights are violated by assault which results in harm and the loss of the preborn in her body then the secondary charge of "death of the fetus, embryo or zygote" can be added to the criminal counts against the accused. The simple death of a zygote, embryo or fetus is not a criminal offense and is only a criminal offense based upon the unlawful violations of the Rights of the Woman.

As we are well aware no State can impart "personhood" to the preborn as it would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade. The preborn are not "persons" under the US Constitution and cannot be defined as such by state law. Crimes such as assault or murder only related to "persons" and that relates to the woman and not the preborn.

Scott knew he was killing two lives and so did the courts….and in their ruling they gave the unborn personhood. How can this be if Connors life was not considered a person? Odd isn't it?

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Scott knew he was killing two lives and so did the courts….and in their ruling they gave the unborn personhood. How can this be if Connors life was not considered a person? Odd isn't it?

Can you answer my posts? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Since you pro-choice/aborts believe that the unborn in the womb does not deserve protection for all sorts of various reasons….that taking their life is nothing…and certainly less than taking an animals….I just wonder how far you would take this…..
Could you stand next to an abortionist and watch him/her perform an abortion….three months,,,,six months…..nine months?

Please give the reason behind your yes or no answer.

I am just so curious…..as to who will really have the guts tell the truth or hide behind statements that have nothing to do with this.

But then pro-choicers want abortion to be legal……so how far would they go to help. I would think a lot…since they say morally it is not wrong. So if its not morally wrong….what would they find objectionable…to watching or helping an abortionists?

So what is it……yes or no?

I'll give you your straight answer .. yes I could and yes I would.

My reasons are simple .. prior to the time a fetus can survive without the need to be within the womb then it is nothing more than a (mostly) non-destructive parasite.
Using morals is totally wrong in this or any other type of debate as morals are not fixed, they are fluid that change as we change, plus your morals may be totally different to someone who lives in a different society in another part of the world.

In order for what you want to become law you would have to transcend numerous other laws, including :-

1. The right of a person to have control over their body
2. The right of a person to have freedom of choice

Just how would you enforce any such law anyway? Would you take the woman who was pregnant but wanted an abortion, lock her away, remove any objects that she could try to abort with, force feed her (the body will abort a fetus, if the mother becomes severely starved), strap her to a bed, inject her with drugs in order stop her trying to delay the birth, force her legs apart in order to deliver the fetus or operate without her consent.

you are advocating -- in order --
kidnapping
forceable imprisonment
torture
actual bodily assault
injection without consent

Each of these carries a custodial sentence and in some countries the death penalty.

I have answered your question, now you answer mine ...

Do you think contraception should be banned?

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Since you pro-choice/aborts believe that the unborn in the womb does not deserve protection for all sorts of various reasons….that taking their life is nothing…and certainly less than taking an animals….I just wonder how far you would take this…..
Could you stand next to an abortionist and watch him/her perform an abortion….three months,,,,six months…..nine months?

Please give the reason behind your yes or no answer.

I am just so curious…..as to who will really have the guts tell the truth or hide behind statements that have nothing to do with this.

But then pro-choicers want abortion to be legal……so how far would they go to help. I would think a lot…since they say morally it is not wrong. So if its not morally wrong….what would they find objectionable…to watching or helping an abortionists?

So what is it……yes or no?

Once again showing that you have a binary grasp of a complicated concept. It is not such a simple topic as if Abortion is right or wrong, because it intersects with other issues.

Is abortion wrong? Yes. (not withstanding obvious triage scenarios)
Is telling somebody what they can and can't do to themselves an unforgivable violation of liberty? Yes.

If making abortion illegal would end abortions, then you'd have a catch 22 scenario. But, it's not that simple, Making abortion illegal does not make abortions stop. History shows us that making something illegal doesn't even really make a dent. It might have before you could have an abortion in medicinal form. If you made it illegal, the supply chain would change, and that is all. Instead of it being shipped in from China, it would come by catapult over the Mexican border. The only way to reduce demand for abortion, is not by constrcting supply, because if there is a demand, there will always be a supply... History has shown us this -- But by confronting the sociological, psychological, and economic issues that lead to the demand. This is fact, no matter how much you want it to go away by making it illegal, your desired approach would have the opposite effect. It would make identifying at risk women, and helping them to go through with their pregnancies impossible because any lines of dialogue would be closed.

Originally Posted by FFbat

Once again showing that you have a binary grasp of a complicated concept. It is not such a simple topic as if Abortion is right or wrong, because it intersects with other issues.

Is abortion wrong? Yes. (not withstanding obvious triage scenarios)
Is telling somebody what they can and can't do to themselves an unforgivable violation of liberty? Yes.

If making abortion illegal would end abortions, then you'd have a catch 22 scenario. But, it's not that simple, Making abortion illegal does not make abortions stop. History shows us that making something illegal doesn't even really make a dent. It might have before you could have an abortion in medicinal form. If you made it illegal, the supply chain would change, and that is all. Instead of it being shipped in from China, it would come by catapult over the Mexican border. The only way to reduce demand for abortion, is not by constrcting supply, because if there is a demand, there will always be a supply... History has shown us this -- But by confronting the sociological, psychological, and economic issues that lead to the demand. This is fact, no matter how much you want it to go away by making it illegal, your desired approach would have the opposite effect. It would make identifying at risk women, and helping them to go through with their pregnancies impossible because any lines of dialogue would be closed.

Finally ... someone with a bit of knowledge. I can see that you don't support abortion, I do, but at least you have put forward a very mature comment with a feasible alternative to reduce abortion without the stupidity of making it illegal... however don't expect CM to take any of it on board.

The ONLY way to reduce abortion is to educate people and provide free contraception for any person who can indulge in sex.