Liberals are ok with abortion but hate war. Conservatives are ok with war but hate abortion. Both agree that it’s sometimes acceptable for one person to be responsible for the death of another, they just draw their lines differently.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.
The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?
And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.
If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.
Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]
And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]
Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]
They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]
So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.
[quote]pat wrote:
So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]
Or, the issue is that about woman having the right to remove a [insert word here that means some stage of the resut of a sperm entering an egg] from her body. Some say she has the right, even if it results in [word] dying, some say she does not if it results in [word] dying.
The court documents clearly state that abortion after 24 weeks is illegal. This doctor routinely performed abortions at thirty weeks and beyond. He broke the law, and should go to prison.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.
The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?
And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.
If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.
Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]
The details of the case are clear. The facts are that this guy was an abortion dr. He did his job. Now if his patients died, did they not sign disclaimers that stated the risks of the procedure and therefore recuse the dr from responsibility?
Look, this cocksucker is just a bad doctor. If I am a bad employee, I get fired, not go to prison for murder.
When you have a medical procedure done, you sign a release stating that you understand that you can die from it. Secondly, these “patients” are coming in to have their children killed. Services were provided, what’s the problem?
I know full well, where this would go. The question of the legitimacy of abortion and what it actually is is going to come up and is important to the discussion.
The paradox is simply this, is an in utero person different from one outside the mother? The law says that killing a fetus outside the mother is murder and one inside is a perfectly legal procedure. That is a HUGE dichotomy.
This doctor should have his license revoked and never be allowed to practice again. He should not go to jail for murder because he’s less ethical than his counterparts.
What is the definition of a human? What makes a person a person? That will answer all your questions as to when life begins and what is a human.[/quote]
The official position of the SCOTUS is that a human is not a person until birth.
This is outdated nonsense.
Murder is also not a Constitutional(Federal) question. It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the states individually. So whether or not a state wants to prosecute abortion as murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, infanticide, etc… is entirely up to the state.
[/quote]
SCOTUS doesn’t date as far back as the Hippocratic Oath, which originally had “not to commit abortion” or something along those lines in it. [/quote]
What difference does it make. The Constitution is the law of the land not the Hippocratic Oath.
The question posed to the SCOTUS at the time was an impossible one. The concept of genetic identity was nonexistent at the time. Since the process of conception is clear now, Roe V. Wade is outdated.
[/quote]
Actually the country laws were founded on Rule of Law. The Constitution is part of that, but not the only of its kind. The subject had been decided on before Europeans had their eyes on America. Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, and others through Natural Law and common sense that no one SHOULD kill an innocent person for any reason.
We have forgot our moral absolutism. And, a great death will come upon the world because of it. Over 75 years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that of sexual morality going first of our moralities and causing a great genocide of our children for the sake of self satisfaction. He wrote Humanae Vitae, and asked those in the world to stay close to his teaching, but collectively they ignored it.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.
The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?
And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.
If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.
Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]
And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]
Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]
They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]
Did you really just claim that a baby is aware of pain as a plant is aware of pain?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Liberals are ok with abortion but hate war. Conservatives are ok with war but hate abortion. Both agree that it’s sometimes acceptable for one person to be responsible for the death of another, they just draw their lines differently. [/quote]
That’s why I am Catholic, I hate war and abortion. The killing of innocent person is never justifiable.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]
Or, the issue is that about woman having the right to remove a [insert word here that means some stage of the resut of a sperm entering an egg] from her body. Some say she has the right, even if it results in [word] dying, some say she does not if it results in [word] dying. [/quote]
Yes, but you’re not asking the vital question: Should she have the abortion?
She has the legal “right” to abort, she has the choice to abort in the instance of free will and law, but should a woman have an abortion?
Everything has turned into clinical terms. Can a woman have an abortion, anybody remember your elementary English teacher? “Well you tell me does have the ability to have an abortion?” The answer is yet, but the correct question in the instance of the English teacher is “May I?” and in the instance of the Mother, “Should she?”
I say no, she should not have an abortion. For her own sake, and her children’s sake.
[quote]firespinner93 wrote:
The court documents clearly state that abortion after 24 weeks is illegal. This doctor routinely performed abortions at thirty weeks and beyond. He broke the law, and should go to prison. [/quote]
Too much law, not enough justice.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]firespinner93 wrote:
The court documents clearly state that abortion after 24 weeks is illegal. This doctor routinely performed abortions at thirty weeks and beyond. He broke the law, and should go to prison. [/quote]
Too much law, not enough justice. [/quote]
Isn’t that always the case these days?
Personally, I think justice would be cutting the good doctor’s spinal cord with a pair of scissors, just like he did to those babies.
[quote]firespinner93 wrote:
Isn’t that always the case these days?[/quote]
I have rarely seen justice served.
For the most part, I’m pro-life. However, there are extreme exceptions the way I see it. I remember one of my parents who worked for CPS telling me about this story
A 10 year old girl was raped by her father. She ended up with a fetus inside her. Doctors said that if she had the baby, there was good chance the baby and the mother could die or they could both have serious complications that could affect them for life.
It’s not always black and white.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
For the most part, I’m pro-life. However, there are extreme exceptions the way I see it. I remember one of my parents who worked for CPS telling me about this story
A 10 year old girl was raped by her father. She ended up with a fetus inside her. Doctors said that if she had the baby, there was good chance the baby and the mother could die or they could both have serious complications that could affect them for life.
It’s not always black and white.[/quote]
It is sad when a little girl is even put in that position, having her innocence taken from her and all.
Your story is a little anecdotal, but I would say if it got to the point where the girl had her life endangered they could have induced labor.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
For the most part, I’m pro-life. However, there are extreme exceptions the way I see it. I remember one of my parents who worked for CPS telling me about this story
A 10 year old girl was raped by her father. She ended up with a fetus inside her. Doctors said that if she had the baby, there was good chance the baby and the mother could die or they could both have serious complications that could affect them for life.
It’s not always black and white.[/quote]
The exception is always the mother’s life. The baby does not trump the mother. It’s highly unlikely a ten year old girl would survive child birth. That’s not what’s in question. Mom is as important as baby, baby is as important as mom…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.
The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?
And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.
If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.
Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]
And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]
Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]
They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]
So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]
Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.
To be honest, I think it should be up to the mother/parents.
If they don’t want the kid, they don’t want it. Regardless of it’s before or 3 hours after the birth.
I think this is equivalent to capital punishment. Instead of a bullet through the head, which is quick and relatively painless, we gotta go through a lengthy pain free drug injection process so it can be ‘completely painless’.
A child is born severaly retarded. The most merciless thing to do is end its life. It will bring pain to everyone.
Your kid is born, and it has Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
What would you realistically think? “Oh noooo…”. You’d feel crushed, probably. No one wants their kid to be born like that. No one wants a retarded kid. So why force people to have to keep these kids?
Those are my two cents.
People will think I’m a monster, but I try to be completely objective. These concepts of abortion is murder are religious in nature and they are fucking stupid.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.
The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?
And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.
If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.
Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]
And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]
Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]
They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]
So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]
Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.[/quote]
So the second after children are born…they start feeding themselves, wash themselves, care for themselves, buy their own car, buy their own house, go to their own job on Wall Street, have their own kids. No, babies after birth are still completely dependent on the mother.
So you agree with pat in his OP, that it doesn’t if the child is born or not…if the child is dependent on the mother or parents they should be able to terminate the child.
So mentally handicap children should be terminated, too.
So as long as they kid is harder than normal to raise, we shouldn’t force the parents to take care of their child. Or does this include all children, even healthy children?
You sound very dogmatic in your statements, you did not prove that “abortion is murder are religious in nature.” You just claimed it definition of dogmatic.
I have to disagree with you, after all the great philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, Aquinas, Hobbes, and English and American jurisprudence, as well as many more, disagree with you.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This thread is a non-starter.
The purported OP question was “should this guy go to jail?”, not, what do you think about abortion. The “should this man go to jail?” question comes down to: did this man break the law?
And the answer is clearly yes: he did. He both harmed/killed the female patients, and killed a number of live-born infants, which by no one definition of the word constitutes abortion, legal or otherwise.
If the OP wanted to have a another debate on abortion, that should have been the topic of the post.
Though a couple posts in it became clear that the OP had skimmed the article he linked, was unaware of the specific details of the case, and wanted to argue the 'ol “There’s no difference between a zygote and an 8-month old fetus: it’s all the same!” line.[/quote]
And, I ask again, what is the difference between a zygote and a eight month old fetus?[/quote]
Quite a lot actually. They differ in mass, organ formation, brain function, etc…
However, both are still the whole living body of a human with a unique genetic identity distinct from either contributing parent gamete.
^this is the only objective definition of a person.[/quote]
They do not possess personhood.
Hence, they are not people.
As far as I can tell, the mothers didn’t want the baby.
I see no problem with this. I don’t understand why it matters when the abortion occurs.
Babies feel and are aware of pain just as much as a plant is.
I can’t recall a thing before the age of 2, let alone in the womb.
You are on auto pilot up until that point.
[/quote]
So you are ok with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of 2? Ok, I can accept that argument. That’s makes a lot more sense than killing a kid in utero is fine but the second it exits the pussy it’s murder.[/quote]
Again, it relates to personhood.
Up until birth, the baby is ENTIRELY dependent on the mother. It has no history or contact in any shape or form with the outside world.[/quote]
So the second after children are born…they start feeding themselves, wash themselves, care for themselves, buy their own car, buy their own house, go to their own job on Wall Street, have their own kids. No, babies after birth are still completely dependent on the mother.
So you agree with pat in his OP, that it doesn’t if the child is born or not…if the child is dependent on the mother or parents they should be able to terminate the child.
So mentally handicap children should be terminated, too.
So as long as they kid is harder than normal to raise, we shouldn’t force the parents to take care of their child. Or does this include all children, even healthy children?
You sound very dogmatic in your statements, you did not prove that “abortion is murder are religious in nature.” You just claimed it definition of dogmatic.
I have to disagree with you, after all the great philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, Aquinas, Hobbes, and English and American jurisprudence, as well as many more, disagree with you. [/quote]
And many others agree with me.
Aristotle, Socrates and others existed at a time where pedophilia was morally acceptable, as was torture, slavery, rape, pillaging and whatnot.
The reason they thought abortion was bad was because they believed it would end the human’s soul’s journey. While they were against abortion, also because they said it would cause problems for the mother during the medical procedure, they did gave advice on how to induce a miscarriage.
The famous philosopher Rene Descartes (I think therefore I am), believed that animals did not feel pain because they had no minds and that the soul of the human resided in the pineal gland.
Just cause they were great thinkers does not mean they weren’t without fault; so, spare me.
It seems in the modern world that the majority of those who oppose abortion are religious.
“So as long as they kid is harder than normal to raise, we shouldn’t force the parents to take care of their child. Or does this include all children, even healthy children?”
People have abortions because they cannot afford having a child or don’t want one. What is it of my concern what ‘type’ of child it is?
I don’t see why people should be forced to raise a mentally retarded child. The key word is FORCED.
A mentally retarded person contributes very little to society and can be a burden on the parents. Some individuals have a problem with raising their children, having to see them suffer and whatnot. Does it mean they won’t be loved? No. Would they rather have a child who is not handicapped or has illness? Yes.
I find it extremely selfish to raise a child who has severe issues, mental or physical.
Do you know the life you are putting this person through? Just for the sake of your ‘morality’, you’re willing to make one or more individuals suffer a terrible fate. Most parents say they would die for their kids. I would and I certainly wouldn’t mine to live a life of suffering.
http://www.whypain.org/all_he_needs.html
"So you agree with pat in his OP, that it doesn’t if the child is born or not…if the child is dependent on the mother or parents they should be able to terminate the child.
So the second after children are born…they start feeding themselves, wash themselves, care for themselves, buy their own car, buy their own house, go to their own job on Wall Street, have their own kids. No, babies after birth are still completely dependent on the mother."
All children are dependent on their parents. Even teenagers are. It’s all about personhood. In the womb, it is not subject to interactions with anyone or anything other than what the mother passes on. It is not privy to any sort of stimuli. I fail to see why 2 months as opposed to 8 months, matters. It is a potential human.
Either way, your point is just a terrible strawman.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
How far along was she when she had this abortion?[/quote]
It was multiple abortions, from a unlicensed doctor, some of the “abortions” occurred after the baby was born alive.
Pro-choice or not, the laws are this are pretty clear.
The OP is trying to snide in saying he should be let go because abortion is legal, pretending there’s no difference between what’s going on at one month and what’s going on at 8.[/quote]
Can I abort a 16 year old?
[/quote]
Are you a muslim?
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
And many others agree with me.
Aristotle, Socrates and others existed at a time where pedophilia was morally acceptable, as was torture, slavery, rape, pillaging and whatnot.
[/quote]
Wrongness in one area doesn’t discredit them in another. That is not how arguments work.
I stopped right here, I am sure you had some good points below, but your premise right here is flawed. The main reason why they were against abortion was because of the fact that it is inherently against human flourishing. Plain and simple. Kant pointed out we can tell if something is moral by looking to see if the act were to be done by all and exclusively, if it would promote human flourishing.
So, if everyone aborted their children and no one did not abort their children, would humans flourish? No, human existence would be extinct in one generation.
As well, most societies, cultures, and religions have found abortion to be repugnant practice.
Anecdotal, looking at Russia and the effects of wide spread abortion, even Russian government is worried about their population problems.
Not sure if this is historically accurate or not, but what about Spartans ‘throwing away defective babies’? Look at what they achieved.
I just watched ‘Freakonomics’ the other day, and they started talking about the ‘drop in crime’ around 1990ish, and what were the reasons for it. Of course the police tried to take credit for most of it saying how they were using ‘new’ tactics and ‘getting tough on crime’ etc. But what they allege caused ~45% of the drop in crime was because of Roe v. Wade, and that there simply wasn’t as many children that would’ve been born into poverty, eventually moving onto a life of crime.
Whether true or not, it’s something to think about.