God never was too interested in public relations, at least the God of the Bible wasn't. He was quite content to contradict what the public thought, and encourage His followers to do the same. The public even killed Him for it. MOD EDIT - Rule 2
And YOU cannot answer my post......you know , the one about reporting a crime, how you would do it and what evidence there would be....can't you THINK of an answer? I don't really care about your imaginary "god".
So, let's say I get a girl pregnant, and one of my friends tells me there is this doctor who lives in this remote house who will perform abortions, and gives me his card, with his name, a phone number, and an address. I look up the number to the dispatch that has jurisdiction over that area, call them and report the crime. At that point, a deputy/officer calls me, gathers what evidence I have, and either opens an investigation, or contributes that to perhaps an already open investigation on that location. Once enough evidence mounts into that case to satisfy, in the DA's mind that a crime has been committed, and the DA believes they can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to a jury, they indict before a grand jury. At that point a warrant is put out by the court, an officer serves that warrant, and either arrests or notifies, depending on the jurisdiction and their proceedings. Once the court date arrives, the prosecution and the defense make their case before a jury, that the person in question is performing or not performing abortions, respectively. The jury them decides, guilty or not guilty. If guilt is found, the judge then uses legally mandated sentencing guidelines. This is as specific as I can be, for how a hypothetical law could be enacted to prosecute abortions. Would you like me to come up with names for the hypothetical people? Perhaps put on some macabre puppet show? You guys really don't understand how the legal system works do you? It's very surprising that you actually suggested arguing the legal aspects of abortion when you don't understand how the law works.
Hope you don't mind I have placed both your replies to me here, makes it easier to keep track. Firstly, let us come to an agreement of certain terms we both can be satisfied to use. 1. Referring to a zygote, embryo. fetus etc can we use the term unborn and not 'baby' 2. Not to use the term 'murder' in relation to abortion, murder is a legal term that abortion does not fit into. 3. I will use pro-life not just towards you but to the pro-life campaign in generally, I would appreciate you using pro-choice in return. You cannot have a discussion on the morality of abortion without involving the legality of it, unless you are prepared to admit that your own moral position has no bearing on the legality and can only govern how you live your life. Once pro-lifers start using the courts in order to obtain a legal standing for their moral viewpoint it becomes a legal issue and not a moral one. To state that the unborn are defenceless is not correct, if that were so then every single pregnancy would fail. The unborn from the moment of fertilization defend themselves against the natural immunity of the woman. The unborn releases a chemical molecule called phosphocholine which is also found in the nematode worm, the purpose of this molecule is to suppress the immune system and prevent it attacking the "foreign" object. "Another role for foetal transferrin receptors on trophoblasts could be to bind maternal transferrin at the materno-foetal interface, thus frustrating maternal immunosurveillance. This is similar to a mechahism used by schistosomes in the host-parasite relation where host proteins are bound by the parasite to escape immunological recognition." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37515 "During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion has three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother's arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta becomes largely independent of control by the local maternal vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placental lactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit. " - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115596 Yes it does. Let us assume that sometime in the not to distant future that SCOTUS finds that the unborn are 'persons' from the moment of conception, this is would be assumed would render all elective abortions illegal, however this assumption is incorrect for with the protections inferred by the status of personhood there are also restrictions, a prime restrictions is that no person can use another persons body, or parts of, without their consent .. not even a mindless person can. By giving the unborn the status of personhood the courts MUST give the same protections the unborn receive to the woman as well ie equal protection, just as it does to all born people. In order for the courts to render decisions the unborn, as a person, would be assigned a level of mens rea (guilty mind), because the unborn have no real intent they would be deemed as mentally incompetent meaning they cannot be held legally responsible for any wrong doing .. however this does not mean they have free reign to impose injury onto another person unless they have consent to do so, and as the consent to sexually intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, by definition if a woman does not consent to being pregnant then the unborn are causing injury without consent which allows the woman to seek all and any remedy to those injuries, including deadly force and under the states obligation to protect it's people from non-consented injury it should pay for the means necessary to stop those injuries occurring. I do not believe it is ok to end people's lives, unless that ending is justified .. ending a life through self-defence to stop non consented injuries IS justified. Comprehensive sex education coupled with free contraception is the best method for reducing unintended pregnancies and as such abortions, and you would be surprised the number of teenage girls who despite knowing where babies come from don't know that they can get pregnant the first time they have sex, around 1/3rd in one study found this, add to this that a number of teenage girls, mainly from states with abstinence only sex education, have been taught that condoms don't work and so don't bother to use them and I would say that the education system is failing our children. It is of no coincidence that 6 of the top 10 states for teenage pregnancies are states that have abstinence only (or close to it) education. Teen pregnancy rates by State - http://www.livescience.com/27417-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.html Sex education by State - http://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/State_Sex_Education_Laws.htm 1. New Mexico - 93/1,000 - Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. 2. Mississippi - 90/1,000 - Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must include information about abstinence until marriage and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. They are not required to provide information on contraception. 3. Texas - 85/1,000 - Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must also teach abstinence until marriage. The law does not require schools to provide information about STDs or HIV/AIDS. But if it is provided, it must include information on abstinence until marriage. 4. Nevada - 84/1,000 - Schools are required by law to provide STD, HIV/AIDS and sex education. 5. Arkansas - 82/1,000 - Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. 6. Arizona - 82/1,000 - Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must include information about abstinence. They are not required to provide information on contraception, STDs or HIV/AIDS. 7. Delaware - 81/1,000 - Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence, contraception and prevention of STDs and HIV/AIDS. 8. Louisiana - 80/1,000 - Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must include information about abstinence. The schools are not required to provide information about contraception, HIV/AIDS or other STDs. 9. Oklahoma - 80/1,000 - Schools are not required by law to provide general sex education, but they must provide information on abstinence and HIV/AIDS and other STDs. The state does require information on other methods of disease prevention, but not necessarily about contraception. 10. Georgia - 78/1,000 - Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on STDs, HIV/AIDS, contraception and abstinence. No of course not, misinformation is by far the biggest problem. Still doesn't seem to change the fact that states with abstinence only education suffer the most from teenage pregnancies. Here is a report detailing the reasoning why repeat abortions are happening - http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf
Do they arrest the house owner? For what? The people visiting the house? For what? Now back to the questions you're trying so hard to avoid. HOW do you suspect a woman of having an abortion? If my house is broken into or I see a body in a ditch I call 911 and say, my house was broken into, the door was smashed items stolen( a reason to believe it was broken into and evidence it was). Or , "I saw a body". WHAT do YOU say if you suspect a woman of having an abortion? HOW is evidence obtained? What IS the evidence?
The link you provided pretty much says what I've been saying all along: That abortions happened in large numbers before they were decriminalized even though they were more dangerous. Illegal abortions would never be as dangerous today as they were then, since medical abortions would probably dominate. There was little to no attempt to enforce anti-abortion laws, as it was impossible, unless a botched abortion killed a woman or sent her to a hospital. That's a good link you provided, you should read it. Here's also a short book that is entirely on-line that will raise your awareness. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5&brand=ucpress
I am constantly amazed by the "pro-lifers" (most of whom have no memories of "Pre-Roe")..... who actually believe banning abortion would "work". Or could it be...for some....they don't care if it would work, they just want the IMAGE of being a "more moral country"???
What crime? Is it a crime to have a card printed? Let's say that you're certain your girlfriend IS pregnant (she could have been wrong), how do you know she didn't have a spontaneous abortion? Do you have any evidence that a jury can look at and examine, or do you just have rumors? Explain specifically what that evidence might be. SPECIFIC evidence obtained in a manner that does not violate a woman's civil rights. All we're asking for, and have yet to receive is a description of specific evidence that the DA would need to prove his case. A rumor that a certain person provides illegal abortions plus a rumor that a certain girlfriend visited the premises is not sufficient evidence for conviction or even sufficient for prosecution.
I emphatically agree. In my defense, this was how I started the debate. I feel I was pushed into using these labels because I'm the only pro-life person here, and I was being told, repeatedly, that I was anti-choice, hated women, etc. I did not appreciate the welcome this board gave me. I'm not saying that justifies me pushing back, just the reason why I did. You cannot have a discussion on the morality of abortion without involving the legality of it, unless you are prepared to admit that your own moral position has no bearing on the legality and can only govern how you live your life. Once pro-lifers start using the courts in order to obtain a legal standing for their moral viewpoint it becomes a legal issue and not a moral one. If an intruder came and shot a child in a bedroom, unprovoked, that child could be described as defenseless. It wouldn't make sense to argue that the child had life support systems in place, such as the ability to breath. Nor could we even extend it to the situation and say that the child had the ability to wake up and run away, or even stood a chance, however small, of somehow defeating the armed intruder in a fight. My point isn't that the fetus is hopeless, but rather it has no defense against abortion. When the subject of aborting a fetus comes up, the fetus has no defense against an abortion. Therefore, since an entity which is alive, and is composed of human matter, and is unique, is under a threat it has no defenses against, I maintain that the fetus is defenseless. I'd agree with this ideal more if the fetus had some responsibility for it's location. Let's put this into an example: I have a right to go to a public park and enjoy it. Someone gets in my way, putting their body in my way. For the sake of this argument, it is technically legal to murder this person. So, I pull out a gun, shoot them, and then go about enjoying the park. Their right to life does not negate my right to enjoy the public park. I'd consider that heinous enough, but let's take it a step further. Let's say that by no fault of their own, that person was at that location, obstructing my right to enjoy the park, and they had no ability to get out of my way, nor defend themselves from the gun. I took out a gun and shot them. That's more heinous than the first example, but according to your example, that person's right to life does not obstruct my rights. Let's take it one final step. Let's say that MY actions placed that person at that location, however unintentional it was for me to do that, I did. Now I take out a gun and shoot them, and this illustration properly renders a situation where both one entity and myself have our rights, and it is my choice to remove their rights, in favor of my own. Now let's take it a final step and apply it to this discussion. Let's say that a person wants to enjoy a public park, but has unintentionally placed an immobile defenseless person in their own way, obstructing their entry to the public park. The pro-choice argument (normally), is that they don't support the person ending the obstructing person's life, but they will defend their right to choose to end that person's life, because they have the right to enjoy the public park. The pro life argument (usually), is that it would be morally unacceptable, if one is a bystander to this situation, to simply allow said person to end the obstructing person's life, no matter how much right the first person has to enjoy the park. I have no choice but to agree with you, and add a caveat. Another example is called for, this one less silly and complicated. Everyone knows that drugs are bad. But, education, telling people, yet again, not to do drugs, probably will end up compelling someone not to do drugs. To that end, sure, educate against abortion. My point is that education, while well and good, is hardly the solution to the abortion issue, as your signature implies. It would be like suggesting that instead of criminalizing theft we just educate people that stealing is bad. Sure, let them know, but the law does have a place there. I believe so strongly in stopping abortion, that I'd be willing to overlook the coercive force of redistribution, along the ridiculousness of calling contraception "free" simply because someone else is paying for it, and agree that we should use other people's money to help the issue. That said, making abortions illegal can't hinder the ability of those "free" contraceptives to do their job either. My solution: do both! - - - Updated - - - The doctor confesses. Can we move along now?
LOL! How simple life is for YOU....... Why would the doctor confess? You really think doctors performing illegal abortions would just go to the police and confess!!??!!!
One cannot make an argument against abortion by claiming a zygote is entitled to the same rights and considerations as the person it resides in without admitting to ignorance of what a ZEF actually is. Yes, it contains human cellular material and DNA, but it is not yet capable or defined as a person.
I believe you're exactly right. Evidence of that can be found in Dallas A. Blanchard's book The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Rise of the Religious Right in chapter 8. Here is what he says: I'm sure that what he found in Florida was true across the nation. Criminalizing abortion allows the self-righteous to be amazed when women die from dangerous illegal abortions.
People confess to heinous crime all the time. Maybe he had a change of heart and felt bad. Anyway, I answered your stupid question. I can't believe I did, but I did. You asked me to come up with a hypothetical way it could be prosecuted. That's one of hundreds of possibilities. Perhaps he filmed a procedure, or offered to teach an undercover cop for a price, or offered to give an abortion to an undercover cop, or blatantly advertised because he felt it his obligation to stand up to the system, or a witness walked in on a procedure, etc etc etc.... I've answered your question, over and over and over. I'm done with it now. - - - Updated - - - Because it isn't medically defined as such means it has no moral rights? A group of medical doctors got together and reconciled thousands of years of philosophical debate by slapping a definition on something? It's not capable of what? Are people who become incapable of something no longer "defined as people"?
If you're going to imagine things, try to imagine something realistic. And we're not "moving along" until you provide some examples of EVIDENCE that an abortion crime happened. We're stuck here until you answer the question. Failure to answer the question will be assumed to be a confession that there is no evidence to be obtained, and therefore no prosecutions will be following a criminalization of abortion.
Actually, those making the accusation of murder are required to provide the proof. You can't charge someone with murder simply because they can't prove a negative. "Human life" is a broad term; it would include sperm and eggs. Women are human life and you are willing to dehumanize and oppress them based on a belief you can never prove. That is why your position is inferior.
Wow, you people don't give up. No matter how wrong you are, you just can't say "I was wrong" so we can move on. Here, read the following link. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mits-arranging-abortions-in-eighth-month.html I'm going to go do something else with my time now. This has moved beyond dead horse pathetic.
Nope, you did NOT answer those inconvenient questions in posts 264, 267, 270, 271, and 280...... That has to mean you have no answers but just want to make women's life worse for your pleasure. You cannot separate women from the abortion no matter how you try to weasel out of it....the doctor(if there IS one) is not the only one involved. - - - Updated - - - You have proven no one wrong by avoiding those inconvenient questions...or in any other way. You just hit a brick wall of facts and can't handle it...
Your personal attacks on me always come when you have no answers. You guys demanded to know how I would enforce an abortion law. I explained how. You guys said it wasn't realistic. I demonstrated an instance of it actually working in real life. Now I'm "weaseling". In your mind, I'm some kind of cave troll that believes women inferior to me. In your mind, I want these laws to oppress women, and in your world, my ideals MUST, in the end, oppress women. They honestly don't, and they still work. Imagine that. You don't address how it doesn't work, you just tell me I didn't answer the question. In truth, you did get my answer, but it wasn't the answer you were expecting out of me. It didn't fit neatly into your idea of what a cave troll should say, and it pisses you off. I'm wrong, before I even say anything. Either I admit to your perception of me, or I'm not being honest. Reality doesn't matter to you. My viewpoints don't matter. All you want is to plead for honest and respectful debate, all the while trying to cram me into your little ad hominem box. I don't fit in that box, and until you stop trying to disenfranchise my viewpoint with your strawman lies, this debate is over, if it ever was one in the first place.
Charges dropped, insufficient evidence: http://www.managementinpractice.com...s-illegal-abortion-prosecution-against-doctor
No, there is no debate because making abortion illegal does not stop abortions. It ONLY makes life harder for poor women. (and clogs up the court system with witch hunts) And, all you were asked were questions that would have to be answered by someone IF RvW was ever challenged.....
So even if this article turns out to be true, no women will be going to jail. Even this doctor did not confess to doing anything illegal herself, but only referring women out of the country. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to evidence. I frankly doubt the whole story since they are reporting that these late term abortions involve healthy women with healthy fetuses, and it doesn't make sense for a woman to carry a pregnancy that long and suddenly change her mine. It is on a par with reports from live action.
Curious Ozymandis..... how do you come down on a few simple questions- 1. Do you consider abortion to be the same as murder? Yes or No? 2. If abortion were made illegal, would you want it punished the same as murder? Yes or No? 3. If a woman self-induced an abortion at 3 weeks using an abortifacient, would you want her punished the same as a murderer? Yes or No?
Ok, fair enough, but within the discussion between myself and you there is no need for either of us to be like that .. let us have a civil debate. I fear you are missing the point, the child in your example is not causing non-consented injuries to another person where as the unborn, in a non consented pregnancy, is causing injury. The issue of whether the unborn has defence against abortion is moot, as it is the 'intruder' and not the victim .. a better comparison would be you coming home and finding someone in your house who attacked you causing injury, do you have the right to defend yourself? That is no correct, if the person attacks you then you have the right to defend yourself, up to and including deadly force .. if the person is just in your way then no you do not have the right to inflict injury upon them. Again you are missing the basis of the points made, it is not the case that someone simply being in your way obstructing you means you have the right to kill them, if the person in your way were to attack and injury you then your right to self-defence is assured. However the action of sexually intercourse is not the legal cause of pregnancy, sexually intercourse is a factual cause, one of many that leads to pregnancy. There is only one entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one and that entity is a fertilized ovum, if that fertilized ovum did not implant there would be no pregnancy regardless of the number of times sexual intercourse occurs. All sexual intercourse does is create the risk of pregnancy and people are not expected to suffer injury through a risk taken, and again your comparison does not hold water. If my actions place a person at a location even unintentionally and that person attacks and injures me I still have the right to defend myself ie if I invite a person into my home and that person then attacks me I can defend myself even though I invited them in. The invitation does not extend to the consent to causing injury. You would need to update your comparison by adding that the person placed in the way is not actually defenceless, the unborn are the ones that instigate the process that cause injuries to the woman, not the woman instigating injuries towards the unborn. My signature line reads "Abortion Reduction = Education NOT Legislation" and as such I am not saying that education alone will mean the end to abortion- the end to abortion will only ever become a reality when we have the ability to create an artificial womb and the ability to remove the unborn without killing them - There are plenty of studies to show that comprehensive sex education and free contraception DOES reduce abortion, something that abstinence only sex education does not do. As far as laws are concerned I only have to point you in the direction of Canada to show that no legislation on abortion does not mean a greater number of abortion. Canada's abortion rate is lower than the USA, on the other hand Brazil, with severe restrictions has an estimated abortion rate higher than the USA, also take Eastern Europe, while under the regime of the USSR the abortion rate was one of, if not, the highest in the world due to the expense and lack of contraception, once the USSR collapsed the abortion rate in the old USSR countries dropped by over 50% and this was in direct correlation to the introduction of free or very cheap contraception. I consider anything supplied by the state as free, taxes once collected are no longer the property of the people who pay them, they are the states to do with as they seem fit for the betterment of the population .. would you accept other people telling you what to do with your money would you? I also believe that abortion is not the solution .. but . .I also do not believe that legislation is the right way to achieve, at least, reductions. History tells us that even when abortion was a it's most restrictive it made little difference to the number performed. I often see pro-lifers quote the rise in abortions in the years immediately after the Roe decision, I find it incredible that they believe that the number of abortions increased simply because of that ruling. Do you really believe that women in their thousands suddenly decided to get abortions, that in my opinion is a very naive conclusion to make.
No...human understanding and knowledge have allowed society to become informed enough to recognize distinctions between the arbitrary labels we give to "Things" and thus become a bit more civilized in the ways we treat each other. How would YOU define a "person"? Not that it actually matters in a society, unless you are the dictator in charge.
