Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Originally Posted by loueedacat

Obviously there is no perfect ideal of activism or strict constructionism, like everything else it requires practical judgment. But Roe v. Wade is generally believed to be the one of the most extreme and cynnical acts of blatant legislation by the court, even by it's supporters.

I'll go so far as to agree that it is one of the strongest uses of the living document to expand personal rights that are protected by the constitution. Legislating from the bench? Still not sure I agree.
But I will admit that Con Law was never my strong suit (no pun intended).

Originally Posted by loueedacat

you'll see that many of us that think abortion is murder think that illegalizing it will likely cause more issues than it will solve, because people will take risks to avoid discomfort and humiliation. So if we aren't going to make it illegal, we probably aren't going to suggest the electric chair either. In fact, a number of us probably don't support the death penalty either. [I do in theory by the way, though I suspect the endless appeals process necessary to do the best job possible of avoiding executing the wrong guy probably isn't worth it either.]

I'm curious about your position. If it is murder, but not illegalized/criminalized...what would the status of abortion (more importantly, abortion RIGHTS) be in this country? If it is MURDER (using the term in its legal sense) then it is already illegal, it just needs to be added to the classification of killings that are murder. I think you would have to call it a "killing" if it is not be default to be thought of as illegal, no?
If I believed that it is a killing that ought be avoided if possible, (which I do not necessarily disagree with for certain abortions), then wouldn't our end position be the same? (Not that I'd be shocked to find out that it is!) Minimize unwanted pregnancies, minimize abortions. Don't criminalize them. (I will also not be shocked to find out that there are a few differences in our positions either).

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Well--here's where you lose me. As I understand their argument, the pro-life movement takes the position that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that abortion is murder. (the "abortion is murder" position is routinely exhibited on demonstration signs, bumper stickers, etc).

If I kill someone not realizing they were a person with individual rights, it is not 1st degree murder.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I'll go so far as to agree that it is one of the strongest uses of the living document to expand personal rights that are protected by the constitution. Legislating from the bench? Still not sure I agree.
But I will admit that Con Law was never my strong suit (no pun intended).




I'm curious about your position. If it is murder, but not illegalized/criminalized...what would the status of abortion (more importantly, abortion RIGHTS) be in this country? If it is MURDER (using the term in its legal sense) then it is already illegal, it just needs to be added to the classification of killings that are murder. I think you would have to call it a "killing" if it is not be default to be thought of as illegal, no?
If I believed that it is a killing that ought be avoided if possible, (which I do not necessarily disagree with for certain abortions), then wouldn't our end position be the same? (Not that I'd be shocked to find out that it is!) Minimize unwanted pregnancies, minimize abortions. Don't criminalize them. (I will also not be shocked to find out that there are a few differences in our positions either).

There are classes of killings that are legal they are justifiable homicides.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

If you're pro-life and believe that human life begins at the moment of conception; and that abortion is literally the murder of a human being, then would you support and want to see the death penalty applied to any woman who has an abortion, and well as all the medical personnel involved in the procedure? And would any laypersons who counseled the woman to have an abortion and lent any type of assistance in facilitating its performance (for example, driving the woman to the abortion clinic knowing the abortion will be performed) be subject to, if not murder charges, lesser charges such as manslaughter or aiding in the commission of a crime?
If your answer is "no", why not, if abortion is literally the murder of a human being?

Your argument is flawed, as it assumes that the death penalty should be applied.

If it is murder, then yes, murder charges should be applied. That doesn't necessitate that the death penalty be applied though.

Let me try this another way. If you believe human life begins at the moment of conception and/or relatively soon thereafter, then abortion is the act of killing a human being, no different from the killing of a human being outside the womb. And since abortion is planned and the goal is termination of life, it squarely fits within the definition of murder, particularly in terms of the premeditation aspect. I believe this accurately states the position of the pro-life movement.
If we follow this line of reasoning, those who advocate this position, to be consistent, would have to hold the position that any pregnant woman who elects to have an abortion, and those involved in the process, are engaging in a premeditated act of murder.
Now if your position is that there are countervailing considerations that operate to either justify or mitigate the interest of not killing a human being who just happens to be inside rather than outside the womb (for example, the mother doesn't want to go through childbirth or is too young to have a baby), then why wouldn't those same considerations apply to an already-born child? Yet we certainly would never say it's ok to terminate the life of a toddler, or an adult for that matter, due to the type of "considerations" that are argued in the context of abortion. As far as I know, there are NO set of circumstances that are recognized in our society for terminating the life of an "out of the womb" human life (other than acts of self defense in a criminal setting).
My point if that if your a strict pro-lifer, and you believe life begins at conception, there can never be any circumstances justifying the murder of a human being, even in instances of rape, incest, etc. Because if there were SOME set of circumstances that provided moral justification for the killing of a human being inside the womb, those same circumstances would justify the killing of a human being outside the womb.
Anyone care to respond?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Anyone care to respond?

If I kill someone not realizing they were a person with individual rights, it is not 1st degree murder.

You cannot convict someone of 1st degree murder when it cannot be proven that they did not understand they were killing another human being with individual rights

Originally Posted by loueedacat

Then read my post again. I don't know how you could read and ask the same question again.

A - we look at the circumstances of all killings before dolling out judgment. If an adult walks up to a nine year old and shoot him for no reason, that's pretty simple. If an adult shoots a 9 year old that is holding a chainsaw to his five year old sister's neck that different. Aborting a child in the womb because the mother is on crack is different yet again. Even a "purely selfish" abortion involves weitghing the physical burden on the woman. You don't get the same punishment for every very different iteration of the same crime.

B - it's pointless to try to score points by rebutting the most extreme sector of what you demonize as the pro-life movement - not sure anyone posting here is part of that. That's not representaive of most people that are pro-life, anymore than the most extreme pro-abortionists represent you. I bet you don't believe it's ok to stab an 8 month fetus with a coat hanger, but the most extreme elements of the pro abortion movement do - but I'm not going to waste time saying how crazy that is.

A. You keep bringing up examples of killing performed as an act of self defense. Aside from the minority of cases where the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, all other abortions do not implicate self defense issues. Again, if we start with the premise that a fetus is a human life, in what other context do we kill an innocent human being for the sake of the "convenience" of another human being? Conversely, if a fetus is not a human life, but is something "less" in terms of possessing the same set of rights as a "born" human, then it seems to me there is justification for allowing abortions in a variety of contexts.

B. See paragraph A.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If I kill someone not realizing they were a person with individual rights, it is not 1st degree murder.

"Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" ="the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty"

The elements of the offense are

1. Actus reus (the act)
2. Mens rea (the intent)

Originally Posted by kljr

My father's father wanted my mother to get an abortion. fortunately for me, my mother's parents told him that they would do everything in their power to help their 16 year old daughter raise a child. Not all people are in that position or have that luxury to be in that position. Speaking as some one who almost didn't make it here, if the parent's don't have the capabilities to be good parents/ there is something wrong with the child/ full term pregnancy puts the mother at risk/ the woman is a rape or incest victim, then by all means, let her get an abortion. but i don't feel that abortion should be used as a form of general birth control. having said that, i can't get pregnant, so i really don't have any say so in a matter that i will never be in. i will NEVER be the person layed back on a medical table about to have a life taken out of me, so what i say doesn't matter.
i'm pretty sure that in the declaration of independence that it said something "the pursuit of happiness". are we telling these women that they can't have their happiness if that means they get an abortion?

You took that out of context, though.

It's:

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happines"

If you're taking a life in your pursuit of happiness, that is not the correct application of the phrase, now is it?

And we should also look at it in the more complete context as well:

"We hold these truths to be self evidnent, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

So, they look at the equality of men at the point of creation, not "all men are born equal...", but created equal!

Originally Posted by Hutch

"Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" ="the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty"

The elements of the offense are

1. Actus reus (the act)
2. Mens rea (the intent)

Someone can intend to destroy a parasite and unknowingly destroy a human being