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

Your scenario depends on two things;

1. that the fetus is deemed a person
2. that the woman has consented to the fetus causing her injuries.

If both of the above are shown to be correct then yes a woman could be prosecuted for the harm she cause her fetus due to her actions .. however, if the fetus is not a person then it has no legal protection and if the woman does not consent to the actions and injuries the fetus is causing then her actions can be seen as a means to stop those non-consented injuries from ocurring.

 

Murder is murder, there are only two types of murder - 1st degree and 2nd degree - you would be more correct in saying abortion is homicide because there are different types of homicide one of which is murder.

Murder is a legal term and is defined under 18 U.S. Code § 1111 as "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.", the difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder is 1st degree is a premeditated murder with malice aforethought, where as 2nd degree murder is not premeditated.

A woman seeking an abortion would fall under the 1st degree murder designation if elective abortion were illegal, it would be a premeditated action with malice aforethought and as such would incur the death penalty in states that have it or a life sentence without parole in other states.

There is no way for pro-lifers to weasel out of this.

 

Pure and utter rubbish as usual.

Please provide your research into all of the things above.

 

Did you look at the 'radical right wing extremist publication' called the US Census? Looks like poverty is going up steadily since 1973 Roe v Wade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States


And STDs also are on the rise. The CDC put this study out.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2015/std-surveillance-report-press-release.html

Single parent households are now the norm, when they weren't previously
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pear-from-households-across-america/?page=all

With all of these really negative statistics since Roe V Wade, the real question is where are you getting your rosy information that tells otherwise?

 

nothing you have posted gives any reason to suggest legal abortion is the cause, you are just attempting to correlate unconnected things to create an argument that does not exist .. correlation does not equal causation.

Possible explanations for changes in poverty include: changes in labor market opportunities, female labor force participation, family structure, and government assistance for the poor, and immigration.

STD's have risen due to a change in culture concerning sex, but sex education has not kept up with that change . .to many right wing people are stopping comprehensive sex education becoming standard in schools.

Single parent households have increased due to the removal of shot-gun marriages (declined from 1969 onwards) and divorce becoming easier (R. Reagan started that trend with his passing of the no fault divorce in 1970 when he was Governor of California )

 

You asked for statistics to back my claims. Statistics by their very nature only show correlations.

Wasn't there one of the largest economic booms of all time in the 80s and 90s. The semiconductor revolution, or something like that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that STDs are on the rise because people are having more sex with more partners. Not because 'right wing people' are stopping comprehensive sex ed.

Regan is not the cause of the average child in the US never knowing his father.

 

""""Wasn't there one of the largest economic booms of all time in the 80s and 90s""""




Weren't the 80's and 90's after 1973 ?

 

Yes, that's my point. Why is the poverty rate going up with all of this economic growth? Could it possibly be people making stupid decisions?

 

Uh, not everyone improves....we don't have a country that lifts all boats...


And none of it has to do with abortion....none....abortion has always existed so your theory is wrong.....

 

Nope, I asked for research not statistics. Do you understand the difference between the two?

Here this might help you understand a little better - http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1989/06/art3full.pdf

Which is almost exactly what I said, changes in culture concerning sex .. however the sex education in schools has not kept pace with those changes and that problem can be lain firmly at the feet of right wingers insisting on outdated abstinence only education which has not only been a waste of state funding but an unmitigated failure. Do you think it is just coincidence that 6 of the top 10 states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates are states that have predominately abstinence only sex education in schools?

Reagan was the first US governor to sign a no fault divorce law in 1970, which goes some way to explaining your assertion of "Single parent households are now the norm, when they weren't previously", if you want to move the goalposts to children who never knew their fathers then accept that your initial assertion of abortion causing more single parent households is wrong.

The other factor, which you have chosen to ignore is the decline of shotgun marriages in and around the late 1960's.

 

As best as I can tell, shotgun marriages had a positive influence on society. I don't really see why they were bad. It's really saying that children's, and society's rights to happiness outweigh two fools right to happiness. Personal responsibility is almost always the best option.

 

Oh, ya, forcing people to marry is such a positive thing.......and now you'll blame a 50% divorce rate on abortion, not forced marriages


"Society" has NO "right " to happiness...that idea is just weird.

Sheer idiocy to want two "fools" to get married and have kids.

And "personal responsibility is getting an abortion when you can't afford or don't want a kid.....YOU don't get to dictate what "personal responsibility" is for the world

 

If the woman has been convinced by a pro-choice ideology since the 1960's that the fetus is not a person, even if the laws were changed to show the fetus was a person, then she has no malice aforethought.

 

Apparently Todd and Sarah Palin disagree....cuz they let Levi AND Dakota walk.

 

That sounds like the "if I'm not aware it's a sin then it's not wrong" rational.

 

What determines if something is a "sin", exactly?

 

Shotgun marriages led to domestic violence, but I suppose you think domestic violence is "a positive influence on society"?

I assume you have abandoned your erroneous attempt to link abortion to increases in poverty, STD's, and single parent households.

 

I disagree, the legal definition of malice aforethought is "A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse. A malicious design to
injure. An intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being, or an intent willfully to act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life; but malice aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred towards the individual killed."

The four states of mind that are now recognized as constituting "malice aforethought" in murder prosecutions are as follows -



1. Intent to kill,
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine).

 

What you lose is also the violence, or threat of violence against the idiotic adolescent teen who wants to test their limits. Tell me again how wonderful this is next time you get robbed at gunpoint on your street so someone's teen can score some weed.

 

What has this got to do with your erroneous earlier comments concerning abortion being the cause of pretty much everything that is wrong.

So from you comment one can assume that you are ok with a woman being abused so long as there are both a male and female parent in the home, despite the reality that a child (especially a male child) seeing his father beating up his mother will grow up to assume that it is ok to do the same.

Children are more likely to be exposed to violence and crime than adults are.[2] An experience of violence can lead to lasting physical, mental, and emotional harm, whether the child is a direct victim or a witness. Children who are exposed to violence are more likely to suffer from attachment problems, regressive behavior, anxiety, and depression, and to have aggression and conduct problems. Other health-related problems, as well as academic and cognitive problems, delinquency, and involvement in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, are also associated with experiences of violence.[3],[4],[5] Even community violence that children do not directly witness has been shown to affect negatively children's attentional abilities[6] and cognitive performance. [7] - http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=childrens-exposure-to-violence#sthash.cvqSmNVC.dpuf

http://www.vawnet.org/print-document.php?doc_id=392&find_type=web_sum_AR
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/parentsandyouthinfo/parentscarers/domesticviolence.aspx

 

So, if you don't support abortion, you are for domestic violence? Wow. That's a stretch.

P.S. I don't seem to remember much in the way of any reports of domestic violence incidents before Roe v Wade, but now, it seems pretty commonplace.

 

Yet again another pro-lifer attempts to project what they want to see instead of what is actually there, please quote where I say anything about being for domestic violence if you are against abortion.

I have made no such accusation, I have merely shown that your opinion concerning abortion increasing numerous things as being incorrect.

 

Quite the opposite. I believe that assertion of the vast turnaround in societal well being after Roe v Wade has been proven false. You haven't answered anything with facts. I believe you are making assertions that the whole woman's liberation movement which it appears you believe Roe v Wade is a cornerstone to has made great advancements in society as a whole. I have tried to sidestep how it makes you feel, and show you that economically speaking abortion is a bad idea. However, it would appear you have your "pro-lifer" slings and arrows to throw at anyone who even tries to bring this up.

Remind me again why we should ignore:
- Schools going from #1 in the world to almost dead last
- An explosion in poverty in spite of great economic growth.

 

Supporting a law that forces a woman to pass a large object through her Vagina against her will is violence defined.

Most women (provided the dude wore a condom) would likely prefer rape.