to pro life people:

[Perry]

I think you're not reading it correctly..

Exodus 21: 22-24

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or has a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury[to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury[to the mother], you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Footnotes:

Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

I understand now. It is not however black & white. It still doesn't get over the hurdle of when exactly the fetus becomes a baby. Does this entire verse still hold water at 8 1/2 months? 8 months? 7 months? 5 months? So it's helpful....but then again not really.

 

[Brennon]

I understand now. It is not however black & white. It still doesn't get over the hurdle of when exactly the fetus becomes a baby. Does this entire verse still hold water at 8 1/2 months? 8 months? 7 months? 5 months? So it's helpful....but then again not really.

You're right, and it's a difficult question. I sort of favor when brain waves can be detected (the ceasation of brain activity, so the start is life?) Which last I checked, was around 8 weeks.

Being the devil's advocate I am, that was more of a verse for the staunch pro-lifers that like to use the bible to argue the point. ("I knew you in the womb") But yes, it is quite a difficult question.

 

[JDeVriese]

I don't think you could have a set penalty for feticide -- just like every state has it's own penalties for murder, rape, theft, etc. I believe this is an issue best left up to local governments. My personal beliefs would place feticide between murder and manslaughter for the person committing the act, and conspiracy to commit for the party that is giving consent to do so. With that being said, it is my own belief -- something that I would not suggest be enforced at a level beyond constitutional authority.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

If a woman gets an abortion for convenience, than the father should demand an abortion for convenience also. She doesn't want the work involved in raising a child, thus the man doesn't want to pay the next 18 years child support. I see no difference. No sex act = no baby. DUHHH
Over a dozen ways to prevent pregnancy today, there is no reason for abortions. If the woman is so stupid she can't figure that out then maybe she should freeze her eggs and get sterilized. Two people don't make a baby, only the woman decides to screw with out protection does a bay occur. A fetus is dependent on the mother for life as much as a newborn that can't feed or shelter itself. I'm being harsh on the woman but that is where the responsibility lies ultimately. The fetus is no longer parts of the father or mother, its DNA is unique from either.

.

 

[JDeVriese]

Taking your point from another angle, a feticide takes ALL the paternal responsibility off the shoulders of the father, including future child support -- this is often something omitted from debate on this issue. And yes, it does take two to conceive a baby; even if the mother nurtures the baby, the father still has a duty to the child.

 

[Corydoras]

even if the mother nurtures the baby, the father still has a duty to the child.

Why? Wasn't the existence of the baby her choice and hers alone?

Where is the responsibility that goes with the power of choice?

 

[JDeVriese]

No, it is a joint responsibility between the mother and the father. Either party can choose to not have marital relations within the relationship. Therefore if pregnancy occurs, it is the result of an action of both parties; they have joint responsibility to the wellbeing of that child. The power of choice rests between both man and woman, with choice being the decision to fornicate in this case.

 

[Perry]

You're right, and it's a difficult question. I sort of favor when brain waves can be detected (the ceasation of brain activity, so the start is life?) Which last I checked, was around 8 weeks.

Being the devil's advocate I am, that was more of a verse for the staunch pro-lifers that like to use the bible to argue the point. ("I knew you in the womb") But yes, it is quite a difficult question.

If I was asking it for myself(which is of course impossible because I am a man) I would ask the most simple question that always seems to work. What would Jesus do? Funny how the answers come so easily with this question for me personally. Anything less then doing what you believe is the will of God is sin and therefor deserving of death.
Of course...every single one of us has fallen short in this area according to the bible and so we are all deserving of death.

Two cannot argue this idea if one is an athiest and the other a Christian. It just does not work. It's like a dog and a human attempting to argue what color is blue.

 

[noztnac]

What should the law be for killing a baby?

 

[Benaiah]

You're right, and it's a difficult question. I sort of favor when brain waves can be detected (the ceasation of brain activity, so the start is life?) Which last I checked, was around 8 weeks.

Being the devil's advocate I am, that was more of a verse for the staunch pro-lifers that like to use the bible to argue the point. ("I knew you in the womb") But yes, it is quite a difficult question.

God says "before" you were in the womb. Showing me that he he recognizes a person not at birth, but before birth.



To answer the OP, if it's a human life, than they should be brought up on murder charges. The doctor or the girl? What if a girl hired a hit man to kill her 5-year-old son?



Anyways, I protest outside of Planned Parenthoods often, and I love it when some liberal comes up and actually talks or argues with me. I've taken Biology for the past 4 semesters and have no problem laying the smack-down with those emotional and ignorant people.

 

[apc3161]

It's up to the states, G.

Bingo.

 

[noztnac]

Bingo.

That's a political stance and probably the best way to go politically but...

You can't deprive another individual of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness under the constitution.

Murder is a federal crime.

If abortion is murder it should be a federal crime.

If abortion is simply a medical procedure like removing a wart it should not be a crime at all.

I tend to think it is murder.

 

[noxagol]

That's a political stance and probably the best way to go politically but...

You can't deprive another individual of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness under the constitution.

Murder is a federal crime.

If abortion is murder it should be a federal crime.

If abortion is simply a medical procedure like removing a wart it should not be a crime at all.

I tend to think it is murder.

Wrong. The federal government does not legislate criminal laws like murder. Such laws are up to the states. It is feasible, though virtually impossible, to live in a state where murder is not illegal.

 

[huchahucha]

I don't know anything about current abortion laws and am probably not qualified to answer this, but who cares...

Assuming the country has gone to a federal ban on abortion, the penalty should be public execution for the mother and the doctor. A fascist society should have fascist penalties for crimes, and look on the bright side - you get a dead baby, a dead mommy, and a dead doctor. How's that for population control?

If we go to a states rights system, then the issue becomes a little more complex. If nothing else, you know California will legalize abortion, so there will always be at least one state in the union where the procedure can be performed. Depending on the situation, there should at least be a fine comparable to what it would cost to fly to Cali (or some other legal state) and get the procedure done. Also, if you have some black market abortion doctor blatantly breaking certain state's abortion laws for profit, I think jail time would be appropriate.

As for the "legs open, legs closed" method of choice, I totally agree. But it isn't just the ladies with a problem. The guys need to show some fuckin' integrity and wear a rubber. If you are not ready to live up to the possibility of "accidentally" starting a family, then swallow your pride, go home and masturbate.

 

[noxagol]

As for the "legs open, legs closed" method of choice, I totally agree. But it isn't just the ladies with a problem. The guys need to show some fuckin' integrity and wear a rubber. If you are not ready to live up to the possibility of "accidentally" starting a family, then swallow your pride, go home and masturbate.

I concur with this message.

 

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

The world would be a lot better off if people would get respect back for the baby in the womb. Right now in this culture it is a loathsome creature, associated with morning-sickness, bloating and the inability to get to work on time. I think if I would have had a baby with the first girl I loved, instead of being "safe", I would still be with that girl, +1 child of mine.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't believe in taxes so I don't think a government that survives on private contributions would be able to enforce anti-abortion laws in the first place. They would be focusing on other stuff. I tend to lean pro choice but I do keep my eyes open for alternatives.

 

[noztnac]

Wrong. The federal government does not legislate criminal laws like murder. Such laws are up to the states. It is feasible, though virtually impossible, to live in a state where murder is not illegal.

Not true. The federal government does legislate criminal laws like murder.

Go look at this link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002332----000-.html

 

[axiomata]

Not true. The federal government does legislate criminal laws like murder.

Go look at this link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002332----000-.html

It's up to the states if the act occured in their jurisdiction. The code you linked to deals with US nationals murdered out of the country, where states have no jurisdiction.

 

[Theocrat]

Death Should Be the Penalty

Abortion is murder because it's the killing of an "innocent" life. More importantly, abortion is a violation of God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, et. al.) Specifically, the grounds for this judgment comes from Exodus 21:22-25:

"If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief [injury] follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief [injury] follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

First, we see here the text gives an example of an accidental abortion, not intentional abortion. If the penalty for an accidental abortion is so severe, then it's obvious that a deliberate abortion is much more severe. It is not neccesary to ban intentional abortion, since it's already eliminated by this case law.

Second, the penalty for even an accidental abortion is death. If a man mistakenly bumps into a pregnant woman during a fight and causes her to abort her child, he must suffer the death penalty. How much more, then, shall a person suffer it who deliberately induces an abortion?

Third, even if no injury occurs to the mother or the fetus, the man in this case law is liable to a fine and, indeed, should be fined. We see here that the law clearly protects the pregnant woman and her fetus.

Fourth, since even a mother bird with eggs or her young is protected by law (Deuteronomy 22:6, 7), clearly any tampering with a birth is a grave matter--destroying life is forbidden only in the exception where it is authorized by God's law.

Therefore, abortion, being murder of a life in the womb, is to be punished by death.