Doctor Who Did 1,200 Abortions Tells Congress to Ban Them

As you read the transcript or watch the video, pay particular attention to the end. The "life of the mother" has and always will be a coup out to keep abortions legal. As the doctor notes, if a woman is in serious trouble, there is no time to prepare for an abortion.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/23/doctor-who-did-1200-abortions-tells-congress-to-ban-them/

 

And because this man was emotionally impacted by the death of his BORN daughter, he wants the government to force all women to give birth.

 

Not so fast CAdy. You also want to force women to give birth.

You said this,

"

And this....

and this...

So YOUR POSITION DENIES, ENSLAVES AND PREVENTS WOMEN FROM CHOOSING.

 

If a woman is forced to engage in the activity that caused the pregnancy, then she can have an abortion. Otherwise no. Fair enough right?

- - - Updated - - -

An abortion doctor who wants to save his own soul and possibly others. This is somewhat encouraging!

 

I decided to look into why this man became pro-life. And I already said this once in another thread, our choices and our experiences in life are what shape our views, well this man's experience with adoption and losing his adopted daughter to a car accident are what ultimately shaped his views in the end.

http://therecordarchlou.wordpress.c...o-explains-why-he-became-a-pro-life-advocate/

Basically his problem with abortion is that it has made it so there are not enough infants in the adoption market. So instead of allowing women to make their own choices he now expects them to become broodmares for the infertile. Kind of sad that this is what caused him to change his mind, sad that it was his own selfish desires and the fact that he and his wife were not getting what they wanted that made him become pro-life. And it is very unfortunate that it took a tragedy like his adopted daughter dying to really change him, although the fact remains his daughter did not die due to abortion, so his reasoning is rather unfounded here.

 

No. Just because she was raped - I assume that's what you're referring to - does not give her the right to murder an innocent. Nice signatures, by the way.

 

I agree it is a difficult situation and you have a point that two wrongs do not make a right, but I would be willing to accept that as a compromise even though the exception is also wrong.

 

You may be right - at the very least, it would save the lives of millions of innocents.
It is certainly better to compromise on that point than to resign countless more of the unborn to the grave.

 

Show me where I ever said abortion should be criminalized.

 

Sorry, a woman has the right to have sex, AND control her own reproductive organs.

He can believe what he wants about his own soul, but not at the expense of all women.

 

She shouldn't have a right to a premeditated homicide just because she decided to have sex though. Have sex all you want, just don't kill your child.

It absolutely is right! What he is asking for is all of our homicide laws to be at least relatively consistent. What you want is a kill at will right for women.

 

Abortion is not included in any fetal homicide law.

The homicide laws were consistent until pro-life zealots used violence against women as a ploy to take away their rights.

 

Funny how some pro-lifers shout and scream that their position is not rooted in religion and yet one of the first responses you give is blatantly religious.

 

So what? A fetus either is a human being or isn't. The identity of the killer doesn't determine if the victim is a human being, does it?

What complete nonsense. You really are kool aid drunk

 

It isn't. In fetal homicide laws, a fetus is a juridical person, a fictional person for that law only.

Meaning you can't dispute it.

 

Nonsense. Unless you consider all victims of homicides fictional persons. You are dreaming.
A homicide can only happen to an actual human being or "person".

 

That's why a special and separate "fetal homicide" law had to be created. We already had homicide laws for human beings.

 

Completely incorrect. Once again, a homicide cannot be committed against a non human person, it is an impossibility.
Secondly, fetal abortion laws were created to clarify that while abortion is legal, other premeditated homicides against children in utero are not.
The people who drafted the bills knew that they would be unncessarily delayed if an abortion exception was not written in, so they wrote it in even though it makes no logical sense.

 

Laws can't contradict the Constitution, and a fetus is not recognized as a person by the Constitution. So the fetus is considered a (juridical) person, a person only for the purpose of this one law.

 

Hmm is that correct .. a fetus is certainly human, though there is no consensus that a fetus is a person, if there were we wouldn't be debating it would we?

It makes perfect logical sense until such time that the consensus is that a fetus is a person.

I would be interested to know where your legal qualifications come from as you seem to be in direct opposition to large numbers of lawyers and judges .. you know people who have trained and qualified to interpret law, and as I understand it no law in the US can conflict with the constitution and there is nowhere in the constitution that grants a fetus personhood.

 

Then clearly abortion is not a homicide. In your own words.

 

Not so much. When there are literally dozens of laws who recognize the personhood of a fetus, and one that doesn't. The odds are not in the pro abort's favor.

 

Really? Show me how many judges and lawyers I am at odds with.
Seems to me that you enjoy throwing red herrings about to cover for the fact that you cannot support your position AT ALL.

It is abundantly clear that you have no ability to interpret law, as the Constitution does not "grant" anyone presonhood.

 

Which Doctor Who???

 

You yourself recognize the flaws in the laws. Laws are constructed by politicians to curry favor among their constituents, that is the only measure of effectiveness for the lawmakers. The laws are flawed and should be rewritten to allow for additional or more severe punishment for a murderer who kills a pregnant woman. Using these flawed laws to insert your moral standards into a society that has already rejected those standards isn't gonna fly.