That says it all StAnn.
BTS
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg 148 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
yknot
Here was Texas laws and penalties prior to R v W.
The Texas statutes that concern us here are Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196 of the State's Penal Code. n1 These make it a crime to "procure an abortion," as therein [*118] defined, or to attempt one, except with respect to "an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." Similar statutes are in existence in a majority of the States. n2
n1 "Article 1191. Abortion
"If any person shall designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied, and thereby procure an abortion, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years; if it be done without her consent, the punishment shall be doubled. By 'abortion' is meant that the life of the fetus or embryo shall be destroyed in the woman's womb or that a premature birth thereof be caused.
"Art. 1192. Furnishing the means
"Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice.
"Art. 1193. Attempt at abortion
"If the means used shall fail to produce an abortion, the offender is nevertheless guilty of an attempt to produce abortion, provided it be shown that such means were calculated to produce that result, and shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.
"Art. 1194. Murder in producing abortion
"If the death of the mother is occasioned by an abortion so produced or by an attempt to effect the same it is murder."
"Art. 1196. By medical advice
"Nothing in this chapter applies to an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."
The foregoing Articles, together with Art. 1195, compose Chapter 9 of Title 15 of the Penal Code. Article 1195, not attacked here, reads:
"Art. 1195. Destroying unborn child
"Whoever shall during parturition of the mother destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born and before actual birth, which child would otherwise have been born alive, shall be confined in the penitentiary for life or for not less than five years."
-
dawg
St anne, it's going to be hard to retract the truth you told earlier... now you say..."I'll take you up on two things. I believe life begins at conception, regardless of a soul or religious leaning" A retraction of this sort just doesn't stand, the cat's out of the bag, you think God installs a soul at conception... too late... I'm sure you're one of the few that told the truth in this case and I thank you for it.
Then you say this... "and so long as they can call a baby a "clump of cells" or a "zygote," they're able to dehumanize that wee baby into a pile of tissue". The definition of what you're referring to as a clump of cells, is a zygote, its not a definition I came up with, it is in fact a correct definition from wikipedia... calling zygotes babies isn't a correct definition. This is a fact, you are trying to define zygotes as humans, but I can't find a definition that fits your bill.
Then, as if you've proven your point beyond dispute you say this... "Treating babies as if they're disposable is a symptom of an illness in our society"... you have yet to make those of us whom differ see your point, this statement is an attack... but we're cool. I love your passion.
Then you say this... "Regarding people being "saved" from hardship because they found out they were having a handicapped child: I have two severely handicapped children. Lots of people wanted them aborted. Thank God they're here"!
I may have not made this clear, I was talking about "babies dieing" in fact, that's what I said... I was thinking about Tye Sachs syndrome when I wrote that... you may know what it is, but if not then look it up... having a child only for it to suffer a miserable death, makes no sense to me. There are many more mistakes God makes that causes undue suffering and death to newborns, I'm sure a quick google will leave you breathless when you find out the suffering babies endure only to die.
That was my fault, I didn't make myself clear on that point... -
Midget-Sasquatch
StAnn
You make a very valid point about the downside of killing. It removes all hope for something positive to come about. Thats why I too am saddened with the flippant attitude people adopt about zygotes saying its a scientific fact that they aren't a person yet. True enough. I can see the point in arguing that there's no end to talking about what may or may not be. Instead all we can really talk about is the current reality. However, realistically, barring any lethal genetic mutations, its scientifically sound to expect zygotes to continue on developing into persons in a few months time. So to me, whether you kill off the fetus or the zygote you've snuffed out a human life.
But, I also believe though, that ethically there are times where its more humane time to end a life than to keep it going. I'm not talking about fetuses with Down's Syndrome though, but more severe cases. .
So I don't think governments should ban abortions. I just think people should be objectively educated on the matter.
-
dawg
Midget-If you feel that way then you condone murder don't you? Its obvious you don't see zygotes as human if you're willing to kill them just because you know they're going to die... you don't go into a room with terminal patients and machine gun them just to stop their suffering do you?
Two things I've learned, most of you tie abortion into your religious beliefs...
and you guys know better than zygotes being human... your religions are blinding your judgments in my mind. -
dawg
I think this is the reason almost no one dared say that abortion is murder and subject to the same penalties as murder.
And that almost no one dared say that a "law" should be passed making rape victims have the child of the rapist. -
mrsjones5
Two things I've learned, most of you tie abortion into your religious beliefs...
I understand what you're saying Dawg but in my case you're wrong...I tie my not ever considering abortion as an option for myself because I'm a mother and have carried 4 babies one of whom is autistic. Can't speak for anyone else.
-
MegaDude
Dawg,
I'm curious. What are your views on what should be done if a fetus/baby (whatever you want to call it) survives an abortion?
When I answered this question I came to a different view of abortion than I had previously.
-
leavingwt
I agree almost 100% with everything StAnn has written on the topic.
-
dawg
Mega, I don't agree with Roe V Wade... I think we live in the modern age and we can know when a person is pregnant early enough to end the pregnancy long before a zygote can form even to an embryo. We have RU486, we have the morning after pill, we have piss tests for pregnancy, people have way too many options....
I do not agree that any fetus should terminated, period... I see those on the right as having a noble cause in the case of abortion, but they do as they always do, they feel without using logic and bring their religions into the equation and can't think with a level head.
A fetus is defined by this... "In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age (the 9th week after fertilization)".[2] [3]
I think we have way to many options to allow any embryo to develop into a fetus, women should by law, yes by law, be forced to carry the pregnancy if they've allowed themselves to be pregnant that long. I would say its manslaughter if they end pregnancies at that stage, border lining on murder and would have no problem ruling from any bench and enforcing that view. Except in cases where the mother's life in in danger, or when a embryo is known to carry genetic traits they are sure to die from; hard choices must be made in these events and the state has no right to but their heads into these cases.
I see the argument for human life as being noble, but I think we know now what defines a human as a human, and zygotes clearly aren't human beings... nor are embryos which are indistinguishable at that stage in development from every other mammal. Fetuses are right out, they are clearly (in my mind) humans, no excuse for letting the pregnancy last that long in today;s day and age.
Its not a clear cut case in any event, those are my opinions... I'm not a doctor, but have seen all the stages of prenatal development under a microscope and elsewhere and this is the conclusion I come up with after much thought on the subject.
I find it inconceivable that anyone thinks the killing if you will of a group of cells no bigger than a pin head "murder" as some have described here on this site. I know that its their religions that make them take this stand, as no rational human would consider the slides I've seen of zygotes in any way "human"...
It's be good if some degree of rationality could be brought to this subject, I think both sides have done what they always do and dug in their heels... sad that so many suffer when this happens...
So, to answer your question, I'm against the killing of anyone born alive... period, I consider it murder and would have no problem sentencing those guilty of such a crime.