Science is changing the abortion debate

NH Sunday News ^ | 6/8/03 | Bernadette Malone

[Texas Eagle]

This is a perfect example of why Republicans shouldn't try to distance themselves from us so-called "single-issue voters."

We're right. We know we're right. And it's just a matter of time before an overwhelming majority of Americans will come to see how right we've been all along. And when that happens, Republicans will be in the catbird seat for eons.

Let's do what we can to make sure most of those Republicans are not "Republicans for Choice", or "Log Cabin Republicans" or "Bloomberg Republicans", "Giuliani Repubicans" or other RINOs.

We need to stand our ground and let those groups decide just how important slicing and dicing innocent little human beings in the comfort of the womb is to them.

[Kerberos]

"There is quite a difference between killing a convicted murderer or rapist than an innocent baby!!!!!"

And exactly what is that difference?

[smith288]

And exactly what is that difference?

Good God...

[Paul_B]

A really great prolife article. Thanks!

[2nd amendment mama]

Are you really serious? Or are you just ignorant?

[Kerberos]

"Are you really serious? Or are you just ignorant? !!!!!"

"Good God... "

Don't have an answer, huh.

[reg45]

there is no loss to that person "as a whole". Only the baby loses.

I would say that the WHOLE BABY loses.

[Justa]

Convicted murderers have been tried, convicted and judged to be a direct threat to society, whereas unborn babies are not. One is guilty, the other is innocent. And you can't tell the difference? Good God indeed!

[2nd amendment mama]

Well if you can't tell the difference what is the sense of an answer from me?

For the record - the death penalty applies to someone convicted of a heinous crime. Can you tell me just what crime an aborted/murdered baby has committed?

[Coleus]

Kerberos: Babies have NO choice whatsoever and adults do, one knows the law and if they choose to kill then they deserve to die, there are plenty biblical passages stating so.

Federal Laws Protect Animals and NOT Human Beings!

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/endanger/endanger_6.html

The ESA is the best-known wildlife protection law, but there are others,n[16] particularly the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. A7A7 703 - 711. This law forbids anyone to "hunt, take, capture, kill, . . . [or] possess" any bird protected by one of the treaties or to disturb their nesting sites. 16 U.S.C. A7 703; 50 C.F.R. A7A7 10.1, 10.12.

There are over 800 species of migratory birds, including many common ones like Canada geese, barn swallows, and two kinds of starling. See 50 C.F.R. A7 10.13. Indeed, very few birds are not migratory for regulatory purposes. Courts have held that even the accidental killing of a migratory bird can be a criminal act under this law. See United
States v. FMC Corp. , 572 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Corbin Farm Service , 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal.), aff'd , 578 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1978). Occasionally a businessperson will find that a flock of birds is interfering with her enterprise. Her inclination may be to put out some poisoned corn, but she does so at her peril.

The law also prohibits possessing any part of a migratory bird or its nest, egg, or product. See 50 C.F.R. A7 10.12. Thus having a robin's egg or feather is a federal crime, though this is enforced only in commercial situations. Indian lore projects need to stick with turkey feathers, which are commercially available.

---

There is a up to $500.00 (not to exceed ever $25,000) fine http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html to any one that kills an 'endangered' fox, or upsets/touches certain turtle nest eggs along our shores. Under the detailed listings of the federal Endangered Species Act. There are NO laws to protect innocent, living human beings created in God's Image and likeness in the USA! Turtle eggs yes, humans NO.

http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html

There is a $350.00 to $500.00 'amount due' to kill the human species. (AKA abortion) And in second/third human trimesters; scissors are jabbed into the HUMAN head and the brains are sucked out-In elective surgeries- daily, in the United States, all under the guise of a woman's "right." The only real "right" is the "right" to remain silent.

When will humans become "endangered" and protected?

When will the so called pro-"choicers" realize basic science skills of the food-chain? Human's are NOT at the bottom of the food-chain.

[UnChained]

...is a woman who gets an abortion the same as O.J. Simpson, morally speaking? And if so, would it be the view of most pro-life freepers that a 20 to life jail sentence ensue? And if not, why not?

Actually, since this is first degree murder, a death sentence would be more appropriate in both examples. The abortionists should also be charged.

Im most cases though, negligent homicide/manslaughter would be more appropriate for the mothers since they were fed a lifetime of propaganda that the unborn aren't sentient beings.

[Kerberos]

"For the record - the death penalty applies to someone convicted of a heinous crime. "

No kidding! And did you figure that out all by yourself.

[Kerberos]

Great Post. And you guys wonder why you can never persuade anyone to your side of the argument.

[MHGinTN]

How would you answer your question?... What is the difference between a convicted murderer and an innocent individual alive human being in the womb? In 250 words or less.

[Kerberos]

” Convicted murderers have been tried, convicted and judged to be a direct threat to society”

And on that point we are in agreement assuming that the accused has been giving all of their constitutional protections, and tried in a court of competent jurisdiction by a jury of their peers. Once that has occurred and they have been found guilty based on factual evidence presented to the court, they then deserved to be punished. Moreover, for the crime of murder they deserved to be punished in the harshest terms.

” One is guilty, the other is innocent.”

I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make here as in the first part you a relating to a living, breathing sentient being who has full capacity to do right or wrong and therefore can be found to be innocent or guilty. In the second part you are relating to an unborn fetus who has no capacity to do either right or wrong and so therefore can not be found to be either innocent or guilty of anything. Your comment does not make any sense.

But then again the pro life movement tends to frame their positions in illogical emotional terms. For example some posters assertions earlier on in this thread that abortion constitutes murder is just patently false. Murder is a statutory offence that can only be perpetrated on a living human being that has rights, i.e. a person who exists outside of the womb.

Now you may feel that is a form of murder, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but the fact is legally it isn’t. So, try to frame your arguments on fact, not beliefs. Accusing people of heinous crimes, for which they have no criminal liability, and other demeaning and scurrilous remarks is not the way to win someone over to your side.

And keep in mind that it is not the objective goal of the pro life movement that I have an objection too, it is the methodology they employ, which has been a complete failure for the last 30 + years, that I have an objection too.

I am old enough to remember when Rowe v Wade became the law. And there was much wailing and gnashing of the teeth, and many claims that the law was unconstitutional and would not stand. Yea right, 30 years down the road and the pro-life movement has produced zero results.

Perhaps it is time for the radical pro lifers to take a hard look at themselves and take a break from judging others for awhile. However, I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

[Kerberos]

"How would you answer your question?"

See post #35 And sorry it's 422 words. I don't develop arguments in simple yes and no propositions.

[MHGinTN]

In the second part you are relating to an unborn fetus who has no capacity to do either right or wrong and so therefore can not be found to be either innocent or guilty of anything. Your comment does not make any sense. Kerberos

innocence \i-ne-sens\ n 1 : blamelessness; also : freedom from legal guilt 2 : guilelessness, simplicity; also : ignorance
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

I'm of the opinion that you've failed to frame the argument the way you would like the strawman to stand. The preborn are human, alive, individual, a separate life from the life supporting host, and when the brain begins functioning to direct the coherence of the organism, aware.

How about acknowledging the unborn to be human beings, alive and in third trimester aware. How would such individuals be compared to convicted criminals regarding the intentional killing of each, one by the state the other by a serial killer called an abortionist, protected by the state?

[Kerberos]

"

one by the state the other by a serial killer called an abortionist"

You have done an excellent job of demonstrating the point I brought forth in post #35 where I stated:

"So, try to frame your arguments on fact, not beliefs. Accusing people of heinous crimes, for which they have no criminal liability, and other demeaning and scurrilous remarks is not the way to win someone over to your side."

You seem to be unaware that abortion doctors are not serial killers. If they were in fact serial killers, they would be arrested.

Thanks for helping to support my argument.

[MHGinTN]

Abortion doctors are in fact serial killers, but they are not serial murderers. Are you trying to argue that the preborn are not alive individual human beings? If they're not, why is it desired by some to kill them to be rid of them?

serial \sir-e-el\ adj 1 : appearing in parts that follow regularly 2 : effecting a series of similar acts over a period of time ; also : occurring in such a series serially adv
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

[MHGinTN]

The following is the actual way the entry reads in the dictionary:

serial \sir-e-el\ adj 1 : appearing in parts that follow regularly (a ~ story) 2 : effecting a series of similar acts over a period of time (a ~ killer); also : occurring in such a series serially adv
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated