Posted on 10/27/2015 6:14:50 AM PDT by wagglebee
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
You can’t prosecute this doctor. The fact that the mother wanted this child instead of choosing an abortion cannot be the deciding factor on wrongful death.
I would be sorely tempted to deny the personhood of several particularly evil figures from the past century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Obama, and other communists. However, that would be a lie. What makes them so disgusting is the fact that they are people, fully human and created in God’s image, but they have knowingly chosen pure evil.
“viable”... what does that mean?
A newborn can’t survive without external inputs.
Isn’t abortion legal at 22 weeks? If its legal to kill a baby at that age then its legal. You can prosecute the doctor for malpractice, but you can’t prosecute him for wrongful death just because this mother didn’t want the baby to die. The mother’s choice cannot be the determining factor for wrongful death.
It's "legal" to murder a baby up until the moment of birth, what difference does that make?
If its legal to kill a baby at that age then its legal.
You seem to miss the fact that this baby was BORN AND ALIVE.
You can prosecute the doctor for malpractice, but you cant prosecute him for wrongful death just because this mother didnt want the baby to die.
He's not being "prosecuted" for anything, it's a civil matter.
The mothers choice cannot be the determining factor for wrongful death.
Nonsense. If a doctor's malpractice causes death, it's wrongful death, the age of the victim is irrelevant.
Only women could write laws as convoluted as this.
Very true.
No newborn is ever “viable”.
For that matter, there are hoards of "non-viable" adults roaming the interior and faubourgs of every major city throughout Western civilization.
Oops. I forgot. Employing the phrase "western civilization" is surely a "micro-aggression" among those hives of "non-viability" known as "universities."
And to show the absurdity of our laws.... I also argued that a woman should have until the baby is 2 and 1/2 years old to decide if she wants to keep the baby or not. I mean, they need time to really determine if this kid is going to be worth keeping. If they are REALLY ready to be a good parent. To decide if they REALLY want to take care of a child. To decide if they are REALLY ready to be tied down and provide for someone else. To decide if the y are REALLY ready for such responsibility and lifestyle change. The problem with our abortion laws is that women don't have enough time to really make an informed decision. And, the woman might find out the kid is ugly, or looks like her ex husband, or cries to much, or has to eat too often, or is retarded, or just a dumb kid, or can't talk soon enough. Heck, there are a gazillion reasons a woman might want to kill her baby, and certainly we want women to have all of the necessary decision factors so they can REALLY make their best decision.
I didn't' make many friends among the liberal women in the class... but the professor thought it was an amazing argument. (She was a very conservative lady)
I assume you’ve studied the SLED apologetic argument?
On the flip side, one speaker related how he made the argument that there is no difference between abortion and infanticide and some pro-abort women told him afterwards - “You’ve convinced us, we’re now for infanticide”.
Incredible, eh? The assumption behind the equivalence argument is that everyone is opposed to infanticide, but obviously, sexual “freedom” is worth giving even that bit of humanity up.
What’s next? Someone accepting cannibalism because it would be inconsistent not to?
The doctor apparently was careless and negligent, causing the death of an innocent, helpless, defenseless human being, and should be held accountable for that.
But the mother bears some of the responsibility for this tragic death as well. The IUD - a device which can and does act as an abortifacient - shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Yeah... if it's solely a woman's decision then its solely a woman's decision. Age should have nothing to do with it. Think about it... she gets pregnant from some loser she met one evening.. and the man has no say in anything. His only choice is to pay the child support if she chooses to keep the baby or go to jail. If she aborts it and kills his kid, he has no say. And if he's in the military the government will send her child support straight to her for 18 years.
Why make women make these decisions so quickly. Give them a couple or three years trying to raise this kid to make their decision. And certainly she should have the right to sell the kid to the highest bidder if they want. We can't support income inequality for single moms by depriving them of the right to sell their "goods".
They’ll probably soon have cute little gas chambers where you can insert babies up to a certain size and walk away. “No questions asked”
More humane than vacuum abortion
And yet the brain would be fit to sell for profit with the proceeds going to the nearest socialist political campaign fund right?
A darkness continues to fall upon our nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.