DescentBB

It seems there is conservative man in NH that is running for sheriff. If elected he states he will arrest anyone committing and act of murder on a fetus if they abort it and if need be will use deadly force. Now before you liberal types get your lacy undies all moist and think we have another Akin, I happen to think the guy has a point. If someone kills a pregnant woman how often do you hear that the guy will be charged with two homicides? Now if this occurs in the first trimester most people don't get up in arms but here's a list of scenarios. After you read them and before you go into knee jerk mode, pause and think about what you are saying.

1) The baby is born. Is it murder to kill the baby?

2) It is one week until birthing. Is it murder to kill the baby?

3) It is one month until birthing. Is it murder to kill the baby.?

4) It is the latter stages of the second trimester. Is it murder to kill the baby?

So in your mind at what point does it stop being murder and it is OK to kill the fetus? Some of you will point out Rosie vs Wade and say the courts have mandated it is OK to abort at any stage of pregnancy. If you agree with the premise that human babies are throw away items, then (if you are younger) what is to stop you from thinking that the infirm and elderly should also be classified as throw away items? After all the only reason people are getting abortions is because the child is viewed as a nuisance and a drain on resources. With the Obamacare mandate looming and govt. panels that will approve of treatments based on cost and the age of the recipient, how long before some bean counter figures out if we can abort humans early on then why can we not abort them later on?

Go ahead...give me your best reasoned shot as to why this is a stupid post and your logic is superior.

Would women who suffer miscarriages be charged with murder?

I can see this thread not ending good.

fliptw wrote:Would women who suffer miscarriages be charged with murder?

No, if it a naturally caused miscarriage. Please refrain from items other than induced by another human being. Counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin should be reserved for another thread.

Its a valid question: a pregnant woman goes to a hospital, and comes out no longer pregnant.

How would the Sheriff objectively know it was or wasn't a miscarriage?

CUDA wrote:

I can see this thread not ending good.

Yeah, personal viewpoints aside...this won't end well.

fliptw wrote:Its a valid question: a pregnant woman goes to a hospital, and comes out no longer pregnant.

How would the Sheriff objectively know it was or wasn't a miscarriage?

Well, I think the hospital has to report if they performed a abortion. Correct me if I'm wrong

to terminate after the first trimester for anything other than medical necessity seems to me wrong, However, I still contend it is a matter between the woman and her physicians, and frankly, until birth occurs the mother is the dominant controller(or ought to be) of outcome.

callmeslick wrote:...until birth occurs the mother is the dominant controller(or ought to be) of outcome.

...Why?

Why should birth be the point at which the state begins to protect the child? Why not the point you mentioned (after the first trimester), or some other point when they meet some measure of personhood?

This is one area where I've personally always found the stereotypical left perspective to be very inconsistent. The strength I see in that ethical worldview is the fundamental stance on support/protection for the helpless/marginalized/powerless... yet the unborn are nearly always excluded, even extremely late in the process. It's absolutely bizarre.

----------

Put another way: Why does the "well, I don't like X, but that's just me" disclaimer fly here?

It wouldn't work for X = racism. It wouldn't work for X = sexism. It wouldn't work for X = greed. So why is it acceptable to abstain on one's ethical feelings for X = abortion?

CUDA wrote:I can see this thread not ending good.

It helps if folks here realize that they're not going to change someone else's mind, and that it's best to keep the dialogue professional even if they have very strong feelings about the subject (which I certainly do).

If not, you're right, this thread could end early.

callmeslick wrote:to terminate after the first trimester for anything other than medical necessity seems to me wrong, However, I still contend it is a matter between the woman and her physicians, and frankly, until birth occurs the mother is the dominant controller(or ought to be) of outcome.

I'm totally with you until you bring a third party into it. IMO it should be illegal to perform an abortion. I'm very much against the state having any say between a mother and her child, before or after birth. I think at that point you're venturing out of the protection of life argument into something else.

I can't help but think that something has been lost in all of the human rights marches in the last 100 years. It has something to do with parents not being allowed to spank their children, legally (in some places anyway). I child is not a private entity. That parent does have primary interest, almost akin to ownership. I can't think of a good way to describe it, but when I have a child it is MY child. It would not be here if not for me. It is a human being, but not in the same way that an adult is. I don't have a right to abuse or harm that life, before God, but I do have the sole right--the responsibility to determine how it will develop.

Since the Akin debacle, no one has asked the Republicans this question. Do they still have in their abortion platform no exceptions for rape or incest? I think they still do and no one is asking them that, despite their condemnation of Akin. But ask most women, and they will most definitely disagree with that stance.

Let me put to you boys succinctly. If I were the victim of a rape and became pregnant because of it, I would NOT hesitate what-so-ever to abort the result, no matter what stage the pregnancy was at.

That's a good example of what I find so bizarre.

Even among pro-lifers, most support exceptions for rape and incest.
Even among pro-choicers, most oppose late-term abortions.

...So why are the political platforms so polarized, when the actual ethical positions of the constituents generally aren't?

Because this whole argument in based on emotions, not logic. The other big wall is who should have the power to control what goes on in a woman's body, the woman, or the state. There's never going to be a straight forward answer, or a solution.

tunnelcat wrote:...who should have the power... the woman, or the state. There's never going to be a straight forward answer, or a solution.

Why not?

Let's say your state changed the "dividing line" at a specific point in the second trimester, with an exception for rape/incest. It wouldn't make everyone happy, but how is that not straightforward?

Foil wrote:That's a good example of what I find so bizarre.

Even among pro-lifers, most support exceptions for rape and incest.
Even among pro-choicers, most oppose late-term abortions.

...So why are the political platforms so polarized, when the actual ethical positions of the constituents generally aren't?

very well stated, and I may add that it goes beyond this topic. I suspect the root cause of the polarization is that 1)people are making money from selling
the polarization and 2)constant finger pointing and infighting over what should be issues where reasonable compromise can be acheived distracts the bulk of the populace from the fundamental unfairness of the power structure in the US.

Yeah, none of us like the idea of a late term abortion, it's really crunchy at that point. As a male, I don't think that I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, at any point, regardless of the time of her term. It's just not for me to decide--simple as that. Women are not walking incubators and I refuse to treat them as such.

Perhaps if this country possessed a better understanding (including access) of contraception WITH education then we would have far fewer women forced to make a horrific decision like this.

Foil wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...who should have the power... the woman, or the state. There's never going to be a straight forward answer, or a solution.

Why not?

Let's say your state changed the "dividing line" at a specific point in the second trimester, with an exception for rape/incest. It wouldn't make everyone happy, but how is that not straightforward?

I'd be happy with that, as would most sane women. I think that putting the dividing point at the end of the first trimester, three months, would be even better solution. Late term abortions are just nasty affairs. I would resort to late term abortion ONLY if it was rape, incest or medically necessary for the woman. I don't know why a woman would wait that long after a rape in the first place, but it should be an option. But Romney/Ryan and the Republicans want personhood status, no abortions at all, even for a one day old embryo. That means no hormonal birth control, which would normally stop an embryo from implanting. It's too extreme and restrictive and not going to sit well with most women.

CobGobbler wrote: As a male, I don't think that I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, at any point, regardless of the time of her term. It's just not for me to decide--simple as that.

This kind of thinking is both harmful and illogical. The left is always accusing the right of making science conform to their religious beliefs, well the left makes science conform to their political beliefs.

Last time I checked it takes 2 people to procreate, and half of that developing DNA belongs to someone else, no a developing child is not some body part, that a woman has complete control over, as if it were a breast or a foot. The fixation with the one who is carrying the child is part of the problem. What if men bore children, would they own them like some piece of property.

If a women has sole control of reproduction rights, why should any man be responsible for child support? …see how harmful that kind of thinking can be? And it doesn’t end there either.

Sorry man, I can't make or force a woman to do something with her body. If a women wants to get an abortion, that is solely her decision. I understand your way of thinking though Spidey: you're a white male, you're not used to anyone else having the power to make a decision and you don't like it. That's fine, but the fact is men aren't the ones that carry offspring, it's not our body, therefore it's not our choice. I'm not for or against abortion simply because I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with herself. Sorry if you don't like other people making decisions without consulting you first spidey. But oh well, get over yourself. [removed]

Way to stoop, CobGobbler. Spidey has a valid point.

No, he doesn't have a point. Men do not carry the fetus, it is not our choice. The embryo is not a separate part of the female body, it is a gestating organism that nourishes itself from the female body like a parasite. It does not do that from us. We have no say in what women do with their body.

Last time I checked, men aren't responsible for any type of child support before the fetus is born. So it's not even a good example, I'm sick and tired of listening to white men think they know what's best for everyone else on earth. It makes me sick to my stomach that I have to include myself in your demographic. You don't know what's best for a woman's body, you may think you do, but you don't. So quit talking like you do, how many women post on this site? One? Two? You guys toss these opinions back and forth like you have it all figured out and you know exactly what it is going on with the female body and what's best for the other 53% of the U.S. population.

And I'm sorry Thorne, and to Spidey, but it's all about power. The white male power structure is so scared that other people are making decisions that they react this way, it has nothing to do with your guys' religion otherwise you would give a ★■◆● about that fetus when it is born, but after that point no one cares anymore. You don't have the power to make those decisions for women; and you guys don't know how to handle that.

CobGobbler wrote:[removed]

I wrote:

I can see this thread not ending good.

Told ya

CobGobbler wrote:Sorry man, I can't make or force a woman to do something with her body. If a women wants to get an abortion, that is solely her decision.

But once she is pregnant, it is no longer "just her" body...now is it.

woodchip wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Sorry man, I can't make or force a woman to do something with her body. If a women wants to get an abortion, that is solely her decision.

But once she is pregnant, it is no longer "just her" body...now is it.

yes it is, until the umbilical cord is cut, technically speaking.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Sorry man, I can't make or force a woman to do something with her body. If a women wants to get an abortion, that is solely her decision.

But once she is pregnant, it is no longer "just her" body...now is it.

yes it is, until the umbilical cord is cut, technically speaking.

Tell that to St Peter when you meet him.

St. Peter was probably without understanding of how the entire process worked, let along of an opinion.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Sorry man, I can't make or force a woman to do something with her body. If a women wants to get an abortion, that is solely her decision.

But once she is pregnant, it is no longer "just her" body...now is it.

yes it is, until the umbilical cord is cut, technically speaking.

well then "TECHNICALLY" where late term abortion is legal the mother could still kill the baby when it's out of the womb then

technically yes, CUDA. You see, human ethics and mores are just that, arbitrary decisions upon right and wrong(input from religion and other sources).

CUDA wrote:

But once she is pregnant, it is no longer "just her" body...now is it.

yes it is, until the umbilical cord is cut, technically speaking.[/quote]well then "TECHNICALLY" where late term abortion is legal the mother could still kill the baby when it's out of the womb then[/quote]

Why not, abortion doctors do it all the time.

once again, Woodchip, some data please? That assertion is both dead wrong, and laughably absurd.

and, your mastery of quotes is awesome. Might be time to simmer down, sip some coffee and relax.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Sorry man, I can't make or force a woman to do something with her body. If a women wants to get an abortion, that is solely her decision.

But once she is pregnant, it is no longer "just her" body...now is it.

yes it is, until the umbilical cord is cut, technically speaking.

Then it must have DNA matching that of the rest of "her body", technically speaking.

LOL @ [removed]. Score!

only by your definition, Thorne. The woman is still providing all nutrients, all immunity from disease, physical protection and oxygen conversion. I'm not, by the way, arguing that late-term abortion is 'right', but merely pointing out that such is a moral and ethical decision, and that such ethics and mores vary between societies and evolve over time.

callmeslick wrote:once again, Woodchip, some data please? That assertion is both dead wrong, and laughably absurd.

and, your mastery of quotes is awesome. Might be time to simmer down, sip some coffee and relax.

Here ya go:

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/p ... -from-spin

D&X = Dilation and Extraction or Partial birth abortion. So i think 2200 times a year qualifies as "doing it all the time"...don't you?

D and E in the 20-24 week range is hardly termination of a functional, full-term pregancy, and you damn well ought to know it. Jus t because someone wants to call them 'partial birth' means nothing, those were not functionally viable births. Sometimes the zeal in folks to make a point is astounding.
I suggested viability of a live birth and connection to the mother via an umbilical cord. You come up with pure, ideological crap. As usual.

CobGobbler wrote:No, he doesn't have a point. Men do not carry the fetus, it is not our choice.

If who carries the fetus were the only factor involved you might have a point. You're in denial of the significance of the fact that a man had a part in the creation of that life.

CobGobbler wrote:The embryo is not a separate part of the female body, ...

Win. That doesn't even make any sense. What is it, then, a non-separate part of the female body?

CobGobbler wrote:... it is a gestating organism that nourishes itself from the female body like a parasite.

Bad analogy (also a particularly ugly one). There may be some similarities, but the body of a host does not make provisions for the life of the parasite, from formation through to birth.

CobGobbler wrote:We have no say in what women do with their body.

This may work to get you in safe with the feminist crowd, but your conclusion is entirely emotional, not rational. [removed]

CobGobbler wrote:I'm sick and tired of listening to white men think they know what's best for everyone else on earth. It makes me sick to my stomach that I have to include myself in your demographic. ...

Hating everyone for what "everyone" does is no way to go through life. A lot of men do not arrive at these opinions alone, but as a man I insist that it is my right to decide what is good and what is bad in all aspects of life touching me.

CobGobbler wrote:And I'm sorry Thorne, and to Spidey, but it's all about power. The white male power structure is so scared that other people are making decisions that they react this way, it has nothing to do with your guys' religion otherwise you would give a **** about that fetus when it is born, but after that point no one cares anymore. You don't have the power to make those decisions for women; and you guys don't know how to handle that.

Wow. What was who smoking, and how much did they burn through to come up with that? I'm not exactly a card-carrying member of some white male power structure. I'm just me. No power. But I'll be damned if I'm going to say it's OK for a woman to abort her baby when it certain is not. There are things being done to fetuses after they're born that are also not good, like dozens of shots, the public school system, confusion about the subject sexuality, early introduction to sexuality in vulgar and promiscuous forms, a lack of discipline, ... , and I'm against all of those too.

callmeslick wrote:only by your definition, Thorne. The woman is still providing all nutrients, all immunity from disease, physical protection and oxygen conversion.

The difference in DNA is a fact, slick, so don't do this "your definition" bull★■◆●. Also he fact that the mother's body nurtures the embryo is not in dispute, and does not detract from the idea that it cannot be classified simply as part of the woman's body. On a humorous note that won't make any difference to you deluded lot, last time I checked your body doesn't eject parts.

callmeslick wrote:I'm not, by the way, arguing that late-term abortion is 'right', but merely pointing out that such is a moral and ethical decision, and that such ethics and mores vary between societies and evolve over time.

Muddying of the waters by a vague calling-up of all variances of opinion aside, the fact that it's a moral decision is also not in dispute.

You were wrong earlier when you stated that morality and ethics were arbitrary. Morality and ethics pertain to specifics about the interrelationships between us, and between us and God. A person's morality or ethics can be such that they fail to correctly discern or justly serve those interrelationships. You might say their moral compass is off.

nonsense, Thorne. What if I don't accept your concept of God? That doesn't make me wrong, or my moral compass off one bit. I just hold a different view. Look around you, the world is chock-full of thousands of differing views of God and morality. None of them are inherently wrong. Right and wrong in such matters are merely consensus opinions of given societies.

callmeslick wrote:D and E in the 20-24 week range is hardly termination of a functional, full-term pregancy, and you damn well ought to know it. Jus t because someone wants to call them 'partial birth' means nothing, those were not functionally viable births. Sometimes the zeal in folks to make a point is astounding.
I suggested viability of a live birth and connection to the mother via an umbilical cord. You come up with pure, ideological crap. As usual.

"However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[5]"

So you don't care that maybe the fetus is viable? From what I understand a fetus in the 23-24 week range has a 1 in 3 chance of survival in a neonatal ward. I suggest the real ideological crap comes from the likes of you trying to promote a political agenda.

callmeslick wrote:nonsense, Thorne. ...

Yours is the real nonsense, not to just throw that back at you--whether they are right or wrong is directly linked to whether their perception of reality is accurate or inaccurate. And it is possible to know one way or the other, it just takes effort. Granted it can be complicated, with so much misinformation going around, brought on by confusion, lack of education, self-interest (like with CobGobbler here), power struggles, emotions, deceptions, personal blind spots, spiritual blindness, ... The situation we find ourselves in is not conducive to having the truth fall into our laps, but truth exists. All of this stuff you're throwing out I've seen before, and as far as I can tell it is a combination of confusion and perhaps taking the easy way out. Maybe you think you've got bigger fish to fry in life, or maybe you really believe in this nonsensical, nonscientific notion that there is no absolute.

Food for thought.