Here is a question for all those that are supposed "pro-choicers": at what age do you believe an unborn human (fetus, fertilized zygote, etc.) that is injured or killed (excuse me, terminated) during a violent attack on their mother should be before they allowed to have civil rights that allow for criminal procesution of the assailant? These are your ideas, not whatever the current law may be. We have all heard that it's "all about the woman" time and again. When do the unborn become humans in YOUR minds? "Only after they're born," some will say. "The law says 3 months, so that's what I say," others will claim. If any of you or your loved ones were carrying a 3 month old unborn "child" that was killed after being beaten with a bat during a criminal assault, would you want to press criminal charges on the assailant for killing the "child?" For the one in a million chance there is a pro-choice alledged Christian in this forum, when does the Bible say an unborn baby "develops" its soul? What do you say?
There is no need for special laws for assaults on the "unborn." There is no way an assaulter can kill the unborn without severely injuring the pregnant woman, and prosecution for that should be sufficient. There are quite a lot of Christian pro-choicers, so the chances are better than one-in-a-million that there is one on this board. The Bible says nothing at all about abortion, and seems to indicate that the "breath" of life which occurs at birth is a critical moment.
"There are quite a lot of Christian pro-choicers" Yet you and your ilk routinely say stupid crap like "religion should have nothing to do with the law" Well according to you here, it doesn't have anything to do with oposition to the law. Your self serving interpretation in the latter part of that silly post was laughable.
True that. Are Christian pro-choicers using religion as a reason why abortion should be legal? Feel free to post your own interpretation.
You are, once again, resorting to demonizing the suspected motives your opposition may have because you simply cannot defend your actual position on the topic.
I believe very little force can be applied on an unborn child, especially late term that can kill or injure the child without much harm to the mother. There are times when there are only a few inches between the child's head and the mother's outer layer of skin. A moderate punch can and will kill a child. Ask a progressive pregnant friend if you could lightly hit her above her child since you feel that only a severe strike could possibly injure it. As for the Bible...passages like Jerimiah 1:5 talk about God knowing the person and having a plan for them before they were born, or in the womb, etc. The soul must therefore exsist at least sometime during or before pregnancy. I wouldn't take the chance of killing a person/soul based on guesswork. There are no passages directly about attacking a pregnant women in the Bible, but Exodus 21:12 is close ( if two men are fighting and kill the unborn child...then the father may allow one or both to be put to death). If the death penalty is allowed for accidental death, what more would someone suffer under Mosaic Law if they were to have beat a pregnant women during the commison of a crime? The Bible does not cover such outlandish acts, as any layman would know such attackers would have been quickly tried and sentanced to stoning. Just like there are no laws that cover what would happen if two homosexual mem wanted to be married in the local temple back in the day of Jesus. No one did such things, so there was no law.
The unborn "baby" is pretty well protected by the woman's body during pregnancy. http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html This is a special event -- the birth of a prophet. God brought the prophet Jeremiah into the world for a divine purpose, and because of that, God was planning Jeremiah's life "before" he was even conceived. God was preparing him to do miraculous things, such as speak on behalf of God while still a child and setting him up as an overseer of nations and kingdoms. But the anti-abortionists simply overlook this on their way to claiming that the one phrase they quote proves God sees us as individual people while still in the womb. God saw Jeremiah in that way, but to claim it applies to all of us is akin to saying that we were all prepared as children to speak for God, and that God has placed all of us "over the nations and over the kingdoms" of the world. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not; therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives. You are misreading. Are you truly suggesting that there were no homosexuals in the time of Jesus? This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.
When the fetus becomes of viable age, 24 weeks or more, then that should be enough for charges to be laid should someone harm the fetus - that someone being someone other than the woman.
Well most people disagree, so killing children in utero at will remians a punishable offense, unless you are a heartless mother!
So if a man pushes a woman down a flight of stairs and kills the child inside of her that she had intentionally planned, all he should be charged with is battery? You don't sound very pro-woman to me.
Your comment shows that you really don't know why women have abortions in the first place. It isn't always because they don't want children. Some women don't have a choice.
But I thought you were pro "choice"? Of course there is a choice, there is always a choice. There are a lot of adoptive parents out there.
It should also be noted that adoption is not an argument to solve unwanted pregnancy. It is an argument to solve unwanted parenting. Big difference.
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong. However the child at that point is the property of its mother, so its a question of damaged property.
I've heard someone say the child belongs to the mother just like the bread belongs to the oven. I see your reasoning is similar to that of slaveholders some 150 years ago. Unborn children, like slaves are the property of the slaveholder, or mothers today. Unborn children should not have civil rights, per say, but maybe like slaves there are some inheritance rights that may be awarded them. Unborn children, like slaves may be beaten or even killed as the master or mother today dictates.
Killing should not be an option to solve unwanted pregnancy when pregnancy is a 100% preventable condition!
