Casey Anthony Trial/Abortion

[PastaRocket848]

Abortion has existed for thousands of years.

but it wasnt until the 60's that it became state-sponsored murder.

 

[PastaRocket848]

Ok, not a bad point you are making. When does a fetus develop a heartbeat? 9 weeks in? I assume you don't have a problem with abortion in the first 9 weeks then right?

considering that self-replication begins almost immediately, i would argue the point that life begins at the moment of conception. if one were to argue that the heartbeat is the issue, it would be 9-10 weeks in (that is when it is audible via doppler, it is actually beating ahead of that time obviously).

my view of abortion is this: i couldn't imagine being the girl who would rather murder her child than wear a condom. how we've let it get to this point in society where people actually argue FOR a woman's "right" to murder her children under any circumstance is beyond me. that is my personal viewpoint. of course, being a libertarian, i don't believe it's the government's job to enforce my view on the public at large.

i think from a legal standpoint there is a serious issue that needs resolved: duality in the law. if i get drunk, drive my car, hit a pregnant woman, and her unborn child dies, i'm guilty of vehicular homicide, regardless of the age of the fetus or how she became pregnant. if she elects to end the child's life herself, it's "her right to choose". that is a problem. it's either life or it isnt, and it should be up to a woman (who of course has her own interests to pursue, often contrary to the unborn child's) to decide whether or not the thing in her belly is a human being. if i can go to jail for killing the baby she damn sure ought to as well, whether she "chose" to or not.

thats just my .02 on the issue

 

[PastaRocket848]

So all plants, all animals, all cells in the human body should be protected by that definition. Yeah I'll go back to my original point, there's no EASY way to define when life (worthy of protection by law) begins.

yes, plants, animals, cells, even sponges, are all life. it doesnt have any bearing on the issue at hand. life already has an accepted definition, that is the point. what makes it "worthy of protection by law" is the fact that it is human. i suppose we could argue whether the fetus is human now?

 

[Ranger29860]

.

my view of abortion is this: i couldn't imagine being the girl who would rather murder her child than wear a condom. how we've let it get to this point in society where people actually argue FOR a woman's "right" to murder her children under any circumstance is beyond me.

YEAH! Because things like rape or harm to the mother don't exist. Abortion is a VERY tricky issue and i swing both ways on the argument. but to say it twice now that its only girls who don't wear condoms is dishonest and a underhanded way of painting the issue.

 

[juleswin]

Theres a lot of outrage about the Casey Anthony trial and I certainly can understand why. This got me thinking however theres a lot of outrage over the murder of a 2 year old child as there should be but howcome the murder of an unborn fetus is acceptable? I know this sounds pretty harsh and even extreme but logically it doesn't make sense.

How the fu*k do you know Cailey was murdered? maybe it was an accidental drowning or some other freak accident. I hate this, some reason we have to lock up or kill a human for another death.

Btw I grieve just the same for Cailey as I grieve the death of a street hobo.

 

[PastaRocket848]

YEAH! Because things like rape or harm to the mother don't exist. Abortion is a VERY tricky issue and i swing both ways on the argument. but to say it twice now that its only girls who don't wear condoms is dishonest and a underhanded way of painting the issue.

what percentage of abortions do you HONESTLY believe come as the result of a rape or medical necessity? Ron Paul himself has stated that in all his years as a ob/gyn he's never seen one. if that were to happen, where a mother's life were in jeopardy, there could be provisions to allow that to happen, without setting the precedent that it's ok to be irresponsible because there is "another way out".

 

[PastaRocket848]

How the fu*k do you know Cailey was murdered? maybe it was an accidental drowning or some other freak accident. I hate this, some reason we have to lock up or kill a human for another death.

Btw I grieve just the same for Cailey as I grieve the death of a street hobo.

I think anyone with a bit of common sense and a television who has been around to see this whole thing unfold knows that it wasnt a matter of IF she did it, but rather whether the state could prove it. when you're kid accidentally drowns, do you think your retired police officer father would A: frame it to look like a murder, or B: call the damn police? im gonna go with B. frankly im glad she got off. she lives right near my house. it's like a media circus around here. at least this way someone will have the opportunity to suffocate her to death (she won't last a month on the street) like she did her baby rather than the painless lethal injection she'd have gotten in jail.

 

[AuH20]

Casey Anthony will receive the O.J. treatment from now on. It is apropos and she'll probably crack under the pressure. I wouldn't bet on this lying narcissist retaining her freedom in the long run. No first & second degree murder was the right verdict considering the dearth of forensic evidence, but the rest was bunk.

 

[Ranger29860]

what percentage of abortions do you HONESTLY believe come as the result of a rape or medical necessity? Ron Paul himself has stated that in all his years as a ob/gyn he's never seen one. if that were to happen, where a mother's life were in jeopardy, there could be provisions to allow that to happen, without setting the precedent that it's ok to be irresponsible because there is "another way out".

roughly 7- 10% depending on the study a small number yes but still a number.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

That being said why do you consider life starting at conception?

 

[Billay]

How would "science" answer the question any more than it already has? Biologically, it is undeniable that human life begins with conception. It is only via unscientific value judgment that one can conclude certain post-conception human life is fair game for elective killing.

Which is interesting. If I punch a preggers women in the stomach and her baby dies I can be charged with murder.

 

[Ranger29860]

Which is interesting. If I punch a preggers women in the stomach and her baby dies I can be charged with murder.

They i would argue this is that (and i know i am stretching it) when the mother decides to keep the baby at that point she has contracted with it to protect it and to afford it rights while it lives off of her. So at that point it would be murder since the mother has now recognized the child. Now at a certain point the child is now established enough within the womb the mother no longer has a say unless the child is endangering the mothers life.

This is just me throwing that out there not saying this is correct, just a way at looking at it.

 

[dannno]

Which is interesting. If I punch a preggers women in the stomach and her baby dies I can be charged with murder.

Ya but a lot of people are pro-choice because they want the mother to have privacy over her own body. If the mother of the fetus brings forth the complaint that you killed the fetus in her, then she is choosing to make her pregnancy a public matter.

 

[nicoleeann]

If we can't yet scientifically say when a baby becomes a person it seems to me that we should probably error on the safe side......
We could say a baby isnt a "person" until they are up to 3 years old. They can't actually do anything worthwhile until then, they can't communicate and most of us cannot recall "thinking" before we were 2 or 3 years old. They are completely dependent on their parents.
Why can't i choose to kill my baby when it is already born? What if I don't want to be forced to take care of it and feed it? I shouldn't be forced to be a slave to this baby. If i were to eject my baby from my house and place in in the alley, it would die....but i shouldn't be forced to house that baby right? It should be my choice whether i want it on my property or not, just like in my body. both result in death.
No matter how strong i believe in personal freedom, I just can't get my head around abortion. And I used to believe in it.

 

[Ranger29860]

If we can't yet scientifically say when a baby becomes a person it seems to me that we should probably error on the safe side......
We could say a baby isnt a "person" until they are up to 3 years old. They can't actually do anything worthwhile until then, they can't communicate and most of us cannot recall "thinking" before we were 2 or 3 years old. They are completely dependent on their parents.
Why can't i choose to kill my baby when it is already born? What if I don't want to be forced to take care of it and feed it? I shouldn't be forced to be a slave to this baby. If i were to eject my baby from my house and place in in the alley, it would die....but i shouldn't be forced to house that baby right? It should be my choice whether i want it on my property or not, just like in my body. both result in death.
No matter how strong i believe in personal freedom, I just can't get my head around abortion. And I used to believe in it.

The thing is once a baby is out and in good health the baby can be taken care of by others. When it is in the mother it is only taken care of by her. That being said i side on the current system of time.

 

[JohnEngland]

Not everyone shares the opinion that human livelihood begins at a certain point. Until science answers that question, debate will both persist and get you nowhere.

With regards to abortion, the science is settled and it supports the pro-life position. A new, unique human life is conceived at conception. Quite frankly, it's almost so obvious that you don't even need the science as support for the argument.

The debate is really at the point of whether an unborn human child is a "person", a socially-constructed term if ever I heard one. Kinda like the false term "race" which we all use to discriminate between people of differing skin pigmentations.

 

[nicoleeann]

The thing is once a baby is out and in good health the baby can be taken care of by others. When it is in the mother it is only taken care of by her. That being said i side on the current system of time.

yes people want to adopt babies, but what about the older kids (7+) nobody wants to adopt or take care of those. If i don't want to take care of my gradeschooler anymore I shouldnt have to wait 6 months to find someone to adopt them. I want that leech out of my life now. I shouldn't have to provide for him if i dont choose to.

 

[Matthew Zak]

Just the act of conception is life at work -- it represents life giving life -- it came from life and it becomes life -- how can anyone say that it seizes to be life at any point? It's life the entire time. Hell, sperm is life, the egg is life -- it's all life.

The legal debate is fallacious because it attempts to redefine life.

Life:

life/līf/Noun
1. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
2. Living things and their activity: "some sort of life existed on Mars".

Even if it is decided that life begins at conception rather than birth, this debate will NOT go away or become easier. Life is continuous. Abortion IS termination of life, period. We all know that, and it is incredibly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I am an atheist, and I am pro-choice under limited circumstances. Though I've never had to make that choice.

We know what murder is... but when should abortion be considered murder? That is the question.

I terminate about 250,000,000 potential people every day, sometimes two or three times that amount. I don't think that will be considered murder any time soon, though there are people out there who would argue otherwise.

Yes, a baby fetus is special, it has the potential to grow into a lovely, important part of humanity. But do they have to? If we can't ask this question, let alone answer it, we'll never even be civil about this.

I don't think under the guise of a legal definition that the two sides will ever see eye to eye. Both sides have a case, and have every right to feel the way they do.

This is not and never will be a cut and dry, black and white issue. There's going to have to be a compromise.

 

[Matthew Zak]

Making abortion completely illegal would present another moral hazard: What if the mother can not take care of the child? Should our tax dollars be used to take care of that child? Foster care? Really? "Hey welcome to the world, now grow up without a family."

There's a HUGE difference between murdering a 2 year old, and aborting a baby in it's first trimester. At that stage in development there is still no way to know for sure if it will survive the pregnancy, and who knows what kind of disease or malfunction it could have. Should a parents go to jail for Neglect if they have a miscarriage?

I think that every potential abortion should be reviewed on a case by case basis. There should be a certain line drawn, but before that, there should be many things to consider without having to consult a dictionary.

 

[malkusm]

I'm going to leave this Mises quote here, as food for thought. It's what came to my mind when I read the OP.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that every human being repeats in his personal evolution not only the physiological metamorphosis from a simple cell into a highly complicated mammal organism but no less the spiritual metamorphosis from a purely vegetative and animal existence into a reasonable mind. This transformation is not completed in the prenatal life of the embryo, but only later when the newborn child step by step awakens to human consciousness.

Then there is the case of the animals. We are fully aware of the unbridgeable gulf separating our reason from the reactive processes of their brains and nerves. But at the same time we divine that forces are desparately struggling in them toward the light of comprehension. They are like prisoners anxious to break out from the doom of eternal darkness and inescapable automatism. We feel with them because we ourselves are in a similar position: pressing in vain against the limitation of our intellectual apparatus, striving unavailingly after unattainable perfect cognition.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

I just think it's interesting that Scott Peterson was supposedly convicted on less evidence then Casey Anthony. It's sickening, but she'll get what's coming to her when she's out free roaming the streets. Whether it's complete alienation or something else.