My advice to you stands: you should carefully explain your beliefs to the court should you ever be called for jury duty. what you are suggesting as being the only proper evidence in order to impose the death penalty may have some biblical basis, but has zero basis in law and less in practicality.
furt:
I do hope that you are aware that if abortions were “anti-legal,” as you put it, that a lot of thse women would be doing the abortions on themselves. So, congratulations on making those evil doctors stop practicing…
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, 15 hours, 31 minutes and 56 seconds.
8185 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,023.23.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 10 hours, 5 minutes.
THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!*
That was “anti-legal abortion,” not “anti-legal.” I dislike using political wordplay like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” as I find them both a little dishonest. Pro- and anti-legalized abortion seem fairer and more accurate.
Yes, I am aware of the dangers of home abortion. I am aware of the deeply emotional nature of abortion, which is why I seldom, if ever, discuss it on these boards or elsewhere. And I am aware that there is a great deal of gray area; I for one think there could be a reasonable compromise worked out. I do not necessarily believe that life begins at conception.
However, I believe that a 30-week old fetus, with brainwaves and fingerprints and all, is not something we should just discard into the trash. Sorry if that makes me a nut.
No, it doesn’t. I just do hope you’ve been paying attention in all of the other debates that have happened here where the facts that third-trimester abortions are never done out of choice, that the life of the pregnant woman or the viability of the fetus makes an abortion the best unfortunate thing to do have surfaced.
If a woman might die from complications but the law says she can’t abort, I have problems with that. If a doctor says the fetusb will be born braindead and deformed and an abortion would be the best action, I don’t want it to be illegal. And those cases (or similar) are the only reasons people get pregnant and seven months later wind up aborting. Not because they didn’t make their mind up yet…
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, 21 hours, 7 minutes and 45 seconds.
8195 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,024.40.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 10 hours, 55 minutes.
THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!*
Well, you’re assuming that I believe that abortion is murder, and that I believe that a fetus is a human being. I don’t. I also don’t believe that eating meat is murder. I believe that some people believe these things, however, I don’t act according to other people’s beliefs. And I don’t want their beliefs to affect my behavior. I mean, I don’t think that people should have kids, unless they can assure those kids of a good genetic background, and I don’t believe that people should have more than say three kids (not including multiple births). However, other people don’t believe this, and I’m not trying to impose MY standards on other people. Or at least, I’m not trying to do it by legislation.
As for requiring eyewitnesses for murder cases…eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Usually it’s not because of malice, but simply because people don’t see and remember as precisely as they could. Again, I have SERIOUS problems using a religious belief as a legal standard. This is not the time and culture that those standards were written for. If YOU want to keep them, that’s fine with me. Just don’t expect me to use them. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I’d move.
My dictionary defines murder as “the act of killing with malice aforethought.” Hmmm. Women don’t have abortions because they’re malicious, doctors don’t perform abortions because they’re malicious, but it’s a FACT that some anti-choice zealots have been known to viciously kill doctors out of sheer hatred.
Pro-choicers know who the REAL murderers are!
I am amused by people who claim to be “pro-life,” but support the death penalty (like good ol’ boy Dubya). They worship the mass murderer when he is a fetus, then want to destroy him later…hey, isn’t that POST BIRTH ABORTION???
A little addendum to what I just posted…
Mahaloth claims he is “against abortions that are done for the sake of convenience, simply becasue the fetus isn’t a wanted human being.”
Let’s just change a few words here & there…
how about “… capital punishment that is done for the sake of convenience, simply because the criminal isn’t a wanted human being.”
Isn’t that what the death penalty is all about? Then, the death penalty must be murder, also.
This is why I think the anti-choice/pro-death penalty fanatics are such hypocrites.
Trixie, I was sitting trying to come up with an eloquent, deep response to your last remark, but all I have is a simple one.
Executions are not equal in my mind because the person dying, the murderer, had a choice in the beginnign. Do I, knowing that capital punishment is a law in my state proceed to murder someone?
While the fetus doesn’t have anything like this. Do you see the difference? Actually, I should ask, are you willing to see the difference?
Thank goodness only the guilty people are on death row :rolleyes:
If you’re positing that abortion is murder, you are logically concluding the following:
- that the fetus is a full human being from the moment of conception. This is a religious belief, not in any way a medical fact. A two week old or two month old fetus is not in any way viable outside the womb. It is potentially a person, but not actually so. EXCEPT in the religious sense.
- given this, you are logically stating that from the moment of conception until the actual birth, the woman’s status is that of a carrier of a full human being. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that the woman has no biological input into the child. Its as if at the moment of conception someone put something fully formed inside her, and she has no choice but to carry it to term. This is in fact the religious reason for being against abortion, as the idea behind it is that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception. Once again, this is a religious belief only. Society has no interest in your soul, the fetus’s soul, or anyone else’s soul. It is about protecting everyone’s rights, be they male or female. Society has no interest as a society in devaluing the rights of one half of its members because of a religious belief that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception.
- logically, then, you are stating that a religious tenet should be codified into law, and that those who are in violation of this religious tenet should recieve a punishment equal to that of a murderer of some degree, even if not of the maximum degree, because in the belief system of your religion, the act in question is equivalent to murder. This is about as egregious an attempt to inject religion into the law of the land as you can get.
I’m new here, so please excuse the rash replies and baited breath…Here is my two cents:
A person who believes in the “sanctity of life” (as used by G.W.Bush in the first debate) is anti-choice (some might use the term “pro-life”, but that term doesn’t fit the description very well) and therefor MUST be anti-capital punishment. They are the same thing…killing little babies or grown up babies is still killing.
Yes, I KNOW this is radically oversimplified. But, when you break it down this is the brunt of the issue. I don’t see how a person can be anti-choice and pro-DEATH penalty.
Then again, maybe I should just be shot.
No, I don’t think that would be necessary.
However, you might want to read the whole thread and notice that both sides are debating those exact points and coming up with reasons why they feel a certain way.
Care to elaborate with the knowledge that a whole thread above your post gets into a little more detail than your post?
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three weeks, two days, 5 hours, 15 minutes and 15 seconds.
8248 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,031.09.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 15 hours, 20 minutes.
David B used me as a cite!*
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? We are dealing with an EXTREMELY personal issue that has to be dealt with in a Nationwide (or at least Statewide) arena. I feel like it needs to be dealt with in a more objective manner.
Satan, you mention sides. What place do the religious (certainly construed as a side) have when deciding when a fetus becomes an independant entity? (I’m not singling out Religion specifically. I question the right of any group to make this call.) The same applies for the death penalty. Do we, as the right wing side or left wing side or whichever side you happen to side on, have the right to determine who gets put to death and who does not?
Yes, these are VERY TOUCHY subjects. No one wants to live in an environment that condradicts their belief system. However, we are a nation made up of (teeming?) millions of sides. All these sides probably will never agree. So we are left with this:
(prefaced by an I feel, of course)
We as a society do not have the collective right to determine who gets put to death OR what a woman chooses to do with her own body.
Satan’s pal,
blast
No, you are “logically” concluding this, assuming your axioms are true (e.g., only viability = personhood), an assumption I don’t hold. Some definition of viability may be argued as “medical fact,” perhaps. But the existence of that state as logical proof of personhood is not at all a scientific conclusion. It’s simply your belief.
And, of course, it’s not at all true that there are no philosophical or logical arguments (i.e., non-religious ones) defining conception as the boundary of personhood. You may not buy these arguments. But to state that this is purely a religious conclusion is not accurate.
1 - The Supreme Court defined viability as the point at which the state can begin to regulate the availability of abortion.
2 - Throw me some philosophical & logical arguments, purely secular ones, for why personhood begins at conception.
- The definition of viability YOU used seems like a circular argument…AND is incorrect,
from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/Roe25.html
" According to the Court, a state’s interest in potential life is not “compelling” until viability, the point in pregnancy at which there is a reasonable possibility for the sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb. A state may but is not required to prohibit abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman’s life or health".
Obviously, thanks to advancements in neo-natal care, what was a “viability” point in 1973 may be different than a viability point in 2000
- This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, try http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38445 for starters
Here are some secular, science based arguments on when life begins http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html
I don’t expect that you would necessarily agree with them…but it’s incorrect to claim or imply that there are only religious non-secular reasons to oppose abortion.
For further secular arguments, try doing a google search on Nat Hentoff, an atheist, a self proclaimed liberal/progressive, writer for the Village Voice…and pro life.
beagledave
I’m in the midst of reading all those links you put up, but in the meantime I’d like to know what was circular in my logic about viability. I read the quote you put up from the Planned Parenthood site, and as far as I can tell it is saying the exact same thing I said, especially the second sentence in that quote, so you’ll forgive me if I’m a little confused.
Also, I did a search on Nat Hentoff and found all kinds of articles on free speech, slavery in the Sudan, police brutality, and euthanasia, but no article where he explicitly states why he’s pro-life - he mentions a couple of times in passing that he is. If you can find me a link (I’ll continue looking) please post it.
-
perhaps it was the wording, but your definition of viability included no mention of fetal development–the key component of the SCOTUS definition…if what you were trying to say is : “Once a child can have sustained survival outside the womb, THEN the state may prohibit some abortions”…then I would agree with your definition of viability as defined by SCOTUS
-
Nat Hentoff article links
from http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0020/hentoff.shtml
"When I first met (Cardinal) O’Connor, I decided to tell him where I was coming from. I hadn’t heard of the “seamless garment,” but I said: “I’m a Jewish atheist civil-libertarian pro-lifer.” He took out a pen and asked me to repeat it. I think he thought he might have discovered a new sect. "
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0499hentoff.htm
http://www.californiaprolife.org/news/week1/person.htm
First an amazing tidbit: you’re not going to believe this, but I couldn’t get to enterstageright.com at work. It was a prohibited site, on the basis that it was a journal that a person at work would have no reason to be reading for business purposes. The Village Voice, on the other hand, could be reached. When did that become a business journal, I wonder?
Liberal bias by our systems administrators? I don’t know, but it sure was strange.
Anyway, you win. There is at least one secular person presenting secular arguments against abortion, which proves your point that it is possible to be pro-life purely on the basis of secular considerations. (I refer explicitly to the last two articles you linked. The first three are on related matters, but don’t go into the secular argument against abortion.)
I mean, they don’t get any more non-religious than Nat Hentoff. I remember reading him in my college days (this was before his “apostasy”, and that’s as far as I’ll go in identifying how old I am, except that it does explain why I wasn’t aware of his position), and admiring him limitlessly. He’s the left’s answer to William Buckley.
This doesn’t mean I agree with his pro-life position, of course, but that wasn’t the point of our exchange. Before I get into a discussion on that, I’d want to read, reread and do some thinking, (I read all the articles you linked to, as well as the earlier links) so that I understand the arguments.