Abortion is in the constitution.

I don't understand them injecting "murder" into the abortion issue since the only logical tie would not be on the baby but on the mother and abortionist.

 

Since abortion is legally sanctioned, then it's not murder. Good thread.

 

Wow! You actually misunderstood her misunderstanding. I am amazed.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Sorry, I am bored to death with yet another of your rather ridiculous and meaningless premises like .. "Fetus will grow faster and some where in there is a POINT "


When pregnancy goes from 9 months to 2 or 3 as you claim it will let me know Or you learn what "ARTIFICIAL means " mean (which seems to be never)

I never said there was anything artificial about pregnancy....must be imagination desperately at work

 

And this part?

That would be as a private citizen as well.

I never mentioned a time limit. But at least you are consistent. BTW the law does currently allow you to disconnect from me even if it would kill me.

 

That would be a subjective view. Some people actually think having to listen to Pee Wee Herman is cruel.

 

Not really....

I've stated this before, that the title should have been asterisked, then the detail on the asterisk would explain in the OP as the penumbral reasoning of Roe v Wade, and by that reasoning, is 'in the constitution' (in the penumbra sense, inherent sense).

So, your actual complaint should be something similar to, 'why didn't you, at the minimum, asterisk the title and explain it in the OP ( because I've made that point often enough in my comments )?

That complaint would be fair.

However, fairness is not your thing, I get it.

 

It is a very accurate description of the shots. Most of those who die from it have clots.

 

That may be but I was responding to YOUR post (#862).

The executioner commits murder, period end of story (i.e. takes a life deliberately and with premeditation, gets paid for it and it is fully sanctioned by the state and it is "legal").

"Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

That's not quite what the 5th Amendment says, maybe YOU should try reading it. Here's what it does say exactly, the key part is highlighted:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Regardless, you are partially correct. As I said many posts ago, the Constitution has many flaws, including several contradictions. State sanctioned murder is just one of these. That it didn't apply to slaves when the Constitution was ratified is another flaw. That there's nothing in the Constitution that practically and realistically enforces it on government servants, the very entity that is supposed to protect the individual rights of The People is yet another flaw. I could go on and on ... In fact I did a few years ago:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/

 

i know it's subjective. I don't understand the logic. It's like saying "I love chocolate, but I can't stand hot cocoa."

 

I am opposed to capital punishment. Not because I do not think some people deserve to die, but because of the possibility of a mistake.

We can play with definitions, but that should not be the basis for an argument unless the argument is about the definition itself. Some people simply should not be allowed to live. Their crimes are so heinous that capital punishment is the only just punishment.

On the other hand, whether you want to admit it or not, a fetus is a living being. We can argue forever whether it is a human, but that is beside the point. At some point they have a heart beat, a functioning brain and can feel pain. They are the most innocent of the innocent. There is no comparison between that fetus and an execution.

 

LOL! He was by every standard.

 

I can't disagree with any of the above. I am opposed to state sanctioned murder, which is also what war is, period. When a government has the power to commit murder "legally", it is no longer a government that serves the people in order to perform its primary mandated function and the purpose for which a government exists in the first place, to secure the individual rights of The People. I also agree that some "human beings" are defective and their continued existence present a danger to everyone. But you are absolutely correct, our system of justice is as badly flawed as it is corrupt and there are over 2.3 million people incarcerated as well as over 5 million forever chained to the criminal "justice" system (i.e. on probation or parole), too many of whom are innocent or have committed "crimes" which should never be crimes in the first place, never mind a capital crime. That is far beyond any other country on the planet. Part of the problem is that the criminal justice/prison industries are extremely profitable and create a tremendous conflict of interest. Same with the military industrial complex of course (a super bloated budget of $3/4 trillion each and every year).

I can't and don't disagree with the above either. But it is not up to me, you and definitely not up to the state to determine what a woman can and cannot do with her own body, including that which may contain a fetus. There are many reasons why a woman may want to have an abortion (see Post #863 for some examples) and some are not good reasons at all but it is still her body and absolutely her right to choose, whether we agree with her reason(s) or not.

 

The problem with that argument is that it is no longer just the woman's body. There is a living being in there. I would consider abortion more "murder" than executing a person that forfeited his right to live. That fetus, soon to become a fully developed child is entirely innocent. When that woman, and that man, created that fetus they created something that is beyond just the woman's body.

 

Okay, but is it inappropriate for you, me, or the church, or another individual to condemn the abortionist? By words alone?

Is it inappropriate for a private citizen -- not the government -- to block access to an abortion clinic to try to save the unborn?

 

Yes it is her body and her body alone. It's not yours, mine and definitely not the state's.

That is still within and part of her body.

It doesn't matter what you or I consider, it changes nothing when it is a fetus that is part of the host mother's body. It's beyond the woman's body when it is born, not before.

 

What if it's completely out of the birth canal, breathing on its own, and crying, but still connected, via the cord, to the woman's body?

 

You are free to "condemn" or not "condemn" the abortionist as you see fit, that's your prerogative. There are many cases in which the abortion is necessary so how would an abortion be performed without an abortionist?

It should be and I believe it is illegal in some jurisdictions. In some cases you are saving the unborn from what exactly? See some of the reasons for abortion I posted in Post #863.

 

Then it is born, no?

 

You tell me.

 

Why do I have to tell you, isn't it obvious?

 

I'm not at all against abortion to save the life of the mother or even to save the child from profound and hideous birth defects, so long as it's done as soon as the defects are detected.

In other cases, one is saving the unborn child from having a pair of sharp scissors thrust into its skull in order to kill it. I don't even like bumping my head on the subway door. I really don't like sharp scissors in my brain.

 

If a law were passed saying it's not "murder" to shoot an Asian for fun, I think it'd still qualify as murder.

 

Technically..It wouldn't qualify. Murder the word means breaking the law when you kill someone.
You literally have to use a different word, or you wont be making any sense.

Killing someone isnt always against the law. So every death caused by a person isnt always murder.

 

To me it is, LOL. You I don't know about.

But if you say "yes," then I back up by centimeters and ask you to declare at what physical point in the birthing process rhe fetus becomes a human being deserving of legal protection. There are people who believe that you may kill the baby so long as the cord is still attached, or even 1/4 attached.