"Abortion is murder!"...how to destroy it in 3-4 quick questions

Or all of China.

 

Your appalling ignorance on this topic is your problem.

Abortions have been happening throughout recorded history. The bible even has a procedure for an abortion. Ancient Egyptians used crocodile feces to induce abortions.

So yes, no theist laws outlawing abortion is going to stop it happening. All that unconstitutional law will accomplish is either make women into criminals or to kill them because of a lack of proper medical facilities.

 

I also find it strange when pro-lifers cite these cases without even bothering to research them, from the link you supplied

"A mother who admitted killing her nine-month-old baby girl while suffering from postnatal depression has been jailed for three years. She was originally arrested for murder but later pleaded guilty to culpable homicide on the grounds of diminished responsibility at the High Court in Edinburgh in June."

Culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is committed where the accused has caused loss of life through wrongful conduct, but where there was no intention to kill or "wicked recklessness". It is an offence under common law and is roughly equivalent to the offence of manslaughter in English law. Voluntary culpable homicide is homicide where the mens rea for murder is present but mitigating circumstances reduce the crime to culpable homicide.

Erin Sutherland was suffering from post natal depression and the Scottish NHS could offer her no support or help, she was sent to a consultation where she was told that because her child was over 6 months old there was no help available, she also phoned a post natal depression service at 1pm on the day she killed her daughter and an employee noted she was 'anxious and seemed scared by a letter she had received from her ex-partner regarding access to the children'.

So again you are wrong, Culpable homicide is not murder.

 

There was an intention to kill.

She could have sought adoption. Or at the very least dropped the baby off at a hospital (which is legal).
Instead, she killed.

 

not according to the court - Voluntary culpable homicide is homicide where the mens rea for murder is present but mitigating circumstances reduce the crime to culpable homicide.

So you have no idea what post natal depression is or how it affects particularly women?

Here this might help - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/postnataldepression/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

Then you don't believe it's really "murder", do you.....just some "lesser crime"?

 

Either way, I believe it's very sad and terrible.

 

I fail to see the logic of folks screaming "murder", when others are getting rid of an unwanted/unplanned clump of foetal cells.

 

Most of them DON'T believe it's "murder"....the just scream that.

90% of them when pressed...and you can get a straight answer out of them?....admit they would see it as some "lesser offense" if it were made illegal.

So even they don't believe their own hyperbolic rhetoric.

And the few that WOULD treat it "as murder"....are typically misogynistic men who have never had a successful, long-term relationship with a woman.

 

Jesus said that to hate another person is an act of murder and the punishment for that is eternal death. That means the angry, hate filled right wingers in this forum are all in BIG trouble.

 

If a "pro-lifer" ever tries "God hates abortion"...

throw 1 Samuel 15:3 at them....where God ORDERS the killing of actual children and babies, not embryoes and fetuses.

 

And pro-choicers usually won't admit that a pregnant woman who regularly ingests opiates is assaulting the fetus in the womb. Their ideology says that the fetus is not a person, and thus cannot be assaulted. But I would love to see a pro-choicer tell a person who has suffered a debilitating, life-shaping injury that occurred in the womb "You were not assaulted; that injury occurred before your "life".

I couldn't imagine telling someone that their injury occurred in a land before time, and no one is to be held responsible. If you believe a woman can do anything to a fetus that she pleases, then that is pretty much what you would have to say.

 

If as you state our "Ideology" says a fetus is not a person, then the assault would not be on a person. In my particular case you would be correct as I believe to be considered a "Person" it would be important to be able to think and function in some way as the creature it has always defined. In the fetal stage a human is much the same as a chimp or chicken...incapable of displaying the attributes that represent the fully formed version of the animal it will become. Thus is the fetus not considered to be a child...or a chick or a baby.

 

What the heck has that got to do with :

Quote Originally Posted by Gorn Captain View Post

Exactly.....they CONTRADICT their own rhetoric.

Either abortion is "murder"...as they say and they'd want it treated as such. i.e, if illegal?....up to and including EXECUTING women who self-induce.

Or they are LYING and DON'T believe abortion is murder but some "other kind of thing"."""


This is about the title :"Abortion is murder!"...how to destroy it in 3-4 quick questions


"""""But I would love to see a pro-choicer tell a person who has suffered a debilitating, life-shaping injury that occurred in the womb "You were not assaulted; that injury occurred before your "life""""

Why? And why not? If that's what happened ...(shrug)


I'd like to see an Anti-Choicer explain to a severely deformed child suffering from birth defects..."you owe your horrible pain filled life to us, we stopped your mother from aborting you so you could suffer for us.""

See, I can be silly, too.......do you really intend to go around speaking to people like that?

 

Abortion is murder but it is a different type of murder.

Would pro-choicers advocate for euthanizing a severely deformed baby who already happened to be born?
If not, why not exactly?

 

I would argue that the fetus has the right to cause injury to the woman to a limited extent. There is a big difference between the rapist and a fetus. The rapist made a conscious choice that put him in that situation. The fetus, on the other hand, is akin to an innocent bystander. Do you think it should be ok for the woman to kill an innocent bystander out of self defense to her body, even if the risk of serious harm to her person is very low? I think the answer is no.

The fetus can by no means be held personally accountable for the effects of its physical presence on the woman's body, because it essentially was someone else's actions that put the fetus there. I can agree that the rapist can be held personally accountable for any harmful effects the woman may experience during the course of the pregnancy, but if the woman chooses to kill to undo some of the harm caused by the rapist, that is wrong too. Two wrongs do not make a right.

(Note I am not talking about the woman killing her rapist, that is a completely different matter)

 

The fetus is neither innocent or not innocent, it doesn't have the capability of "innocence".
And it causes the woman harm and you know it because you have been shown many times it does and YOU have NEVER shown that it doesn't.

It is NOT "someone else's actions" that put the fetus there....the presence of the fetus is what causes the woman harm and IF the fetus is deemed a person then she has every right to use self defense and kill it.

And you have had that explained to you for years.....what is so difficult for you???

 

It's a no-win situation. If pro-lifers say it is murder, pro-choicers will accuse them of not really meaning what they say because they do not want to give the woman the maximum punishment, whereas if pro-lifers say they want to give women the maximum punishment pro-choicers will raise a firestorm and say how extremist and unreasonable the pro-life side is. So pro-choicers will complain either way, whatever the answer is that is given.

What if I believe it is murder but there are extenuating circumstances and some of the arguments brought up by pro-choicers may not be entirely wrong?

 

If that wasn't a great "weasel out of answering the question".

A. Neither Anti-Choicers nor Pro-Choicers would get to decide. DUH the law and courts would decide what kind of murder it would be called....


The Anti-Choicers are the hypocrites...they say it's murder but don't want the "murderers" punished like it was a murder....how DOPEY!

 

In what state is it a double murder? I don't think all states charge it the same way.


Yes, if you take away a woman's CHOICE(in this case to have a baby) by shooting her you are reprehensible .

If you take away a woman's choice and force her to give birth(sustaining the injuries of pregnancy and a life long committment) you are reprehensible.

 

You could argue anything you wish the reality is that the law does not support your argument, regardless of the intent or lack of no person can injure another without consent, even a mentally incompetent person cannot injure another person without consent and the fetus is by no means an innocent bystander for it is the fetus that instigates and maintains the continuous injury process, without the fetus there would be no injures incurred. The only entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one is a fertilized ovum that implants into the uterine wall, regardless of the actions that led to that fertilized ovum being where it is - especially as there is no illegal activity that led it to being where it is - the fetus, as a person, cannot assume to have consent to injure another person.

The law assess causality by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.

A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the last negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

It could be said that the woman (and man) contribute to the pregnancy and as such contributory negligence could come into play .. however .. The assumption of risk can, and is, often tied into contributory negligence where the actions of a person can bring harm to themselves but even so those people who consent to risk do not lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others. The distinction between the assumption of risk and contributory negligence is that the former is viewed as serving one's interests, while the latter is action that does not serve one's interests.

In general even if a woman can be said to have assumed the risk that a fertilized ovum will harm her, since people are not bound to continue their assumption of risk, neither would she be bound ergo even if we were to apply an assumption of risk analysis to pregnancy it would not entitle a fertilized ovum to harm a woman unless she has consented to that harm.

 

Makes perfect sense, killing a pregnant woman takes away her consent as to whether she remains pregnant or not, an abortion is the absolute of a woman giving her consent to remain pregnant or not and that is what pro-lifers cannot understand, consent pretty much over-rules any other right, no person can legally do anything to you without your consent.

I'd be interested to see if you can find a single case of a woman being prosecuted where she has given consent for the death of her fetus.

 

Just remember to steer clear of the economic costs to society, and the rise in poverty associated with abortion. Up since Roe V Wade. Because you are the only one that matters. Who cares about society as a whole.
Oh, and don't mention the explosion in the rate of STDs, and their associated treatment costs as well. Also on the rise since Roe v Wade, but hey, it was a lot of fun on the way up!