Wait On That Abortion

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Thank God such an absurd thought hasn't caught hold in our legal system yet.

The ironic thing is that abortion rates are rather steady worldwide, whether they're technically legal or not -- women will get abortions one way or another if they really want them. Might want to brush up on Brazil.

So the long and short of it is that women are going to terminate unwanted pregnancies either way. If it's legal, it's more likely to be safe. If it's illegal, it's more likely to be unsafe.

So you're going to have "dead" DNA strings either way. Whether you're gung-ho about adding more dead, injured, or maimed women to the fray is really what we're arguing here when we cut out all the rest of the crap and it's all said and done.

I think I've demonstrated that since the 1973 decision did not factor in where life begins, or any logic delineating where it "must have begun by" or "could not have started yet", the decision is absurd and arbitrary. After all, a question of where life begins would have some uncertainty, but in that case, the responsible individual (or in this case, Supreme Court Justices) should err on the side of caution. Even if life "might" have started by conception in another individuals mind (I have no doubts, but others might), the responsible action is to say, "Abortion at that point or after could be a murder, so we cannot allow that."

As an analogy, if we suspected, but were not sure, that the population of an endangered species -- the humpback whale, the california condor, the siberian tiger, etc. -- were at a critically low level in population, the responsible action would be to stop hunting them. Why? Because if we're wrong, the worst that happened is that their numbers increase. But if we're right about the population being low and do nothing, they go extinct.

Strangely, many PETA members on the web have supported abortion while opposing hunting and the consumption of animal products. Go figure.

Environmentalists, in the face of mounting evidence against global warming, assert along the lines of "But if it's happening and we do nothing, we're screwed." Their recommended action is to err on the side of what they see as caution. We could always reverse course if it's not true.

Taking a life is a one way street, so every facet of what's going on needs to be understood, and only if it's PROVEN that a human life is not terminated can any action like that take place. That's conservatism, not politically, but in terms of judgment based on the facts we have or can get.

I've heard the whole "back alley" argument before as we all have. The issue is that a crime (like murder) cannot be upheld and supported by the government in a just society. Crime is always in the alleys, out of view, hidden, because in the light of day the non-criminals will object.

Other countries can do what they want - what their citizens decide. But as an American, I want my country to protect life. If people want to go to Brazil to commit a murder, be my guest.

[joeydb]

I fully realize how polarizing and emotional this issue is. I just wanted to be as forceful and clear as others have been with their points of view. The discussion has been lively and energetic, as it should be with a subject of this importance.

As an aside, I consulted a couple of Latin to English dictionaries and websites, and the two definitions I found for "fetus" were "little child" or "offspring".

[Mike]

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?
Here in Vermont, I see that we already have laws regarding causing an abortion. I do have to wonder if this state proposal is preparing for a possible overturn in Roe v Wade

And, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do something about non-functioning adults who proceed to have child after child. Perhaps forced sterilazation could cut down on the number of abortions.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Mike

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?
Here in Vermont, I see that we already have laws regarding causing an abortion. I do have to wonder if this state proposal is preparing for a possible overturn in Roe v Wade

And, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do something about non-functioning adults who proceed to have child after child. Perhaps forced sterilazation could cut down on the number of abortions.

Who wants more killing though? It simpler and cleaner, legally, to outlaw abortion and then not have to worry about "justifiable homicide".

Your latter point alludes to another trend. The welfare recipients are the highest producers of child after child that they cannot themselves afford. There is no financial disincentive. But since receiving welfare is the same as being in a contract with the government, a "temporary" contraceptive injection at the time one receives their check is consistent with contract law. When one gets off welfare, obviously they should be free to go about their lives, and have kids which presumably they can now afford to support.

It would be hard to find another contract where one side can unilaterally increase the costs for the other side without bound. And nobody has the right to have more kids than they can afford. What sound judgment and discipline cannot prevent, technology can. But again, we're talking about prevention -- non-conception, not early execution.

No permanent sterilization should be arbitarily handed down. That sounds too much like the Hitlerian eugenics nightmare that we thankfully defeated. Short duration, temporary, injectible birth control only for the duration where one is dependent on the government for support, because this person by definition cannot support more dependents anyway. In fact, the welfare recipient's children are dependents on the taxpayer.

[Mike]

I'm going to find the actual bill

And, yes, I halfhazardly thru out the idea of sterilization, when birth control injections (is Norplant still the name?) might be suitable for some

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

I'm going to find the actual bill

And, yes, I halfhazardly thru out the idea of sterilization, when birth control injections (is Norplant still the name?) might be suitable for some

I posted the whole bill two posts above

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Mike

I'm going to find the actual bill

And, yes, I halfhazardly thru out the idea of sterilization, when birth control injections (is Norplant still the name?) might be suitable for some

IIRC, Norplant was an under the armpit subcutaneous implant. I think Depo Privera is the one that comes in an injectable form. It lasts a few months, then has to be repeated. It would be perfectly suited to this job.

[Mike]

Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

There's the catch (possibly). Help me out here, I thought I remembered elsewhere legal abortion providers being exempt from the justifiable homicide, but I must be missing it here (and I had my coffee)

[Mike]

It's that lawful defense line, I'm not sure that alludes to a legal abortion ?

Where's the DT legal interpreters?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

There's the catch (possibly). Help me out here, I thought I remembered elsewhere legal abortion providers being exempt from the justifiable homicide, but I must be missing it here (and I had my coffee)

Abortion is not a felony. This bill in no way makes it justifiable to murder an abortion doctor.

it specifically states If there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony

as its been explained by the writers of the bill, it only is for Illegal acts, like if your boyfriend doesnt want a baby and starts beating your pregnant stomach, the woman is justified in killing the boyfriend.

[Antitrust32]

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

[Antitrust32]

any sane, rational person can see that the law does NOT justify killing an abortion doctor. Liberal spin.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

any sane, rational person can see that the law does NOT justify killing an abortion doctor. Liberal spin.

Plenty of sane, rational lawyers - political persuasion immaterial - say it opens a wide hole to do exactly that.

Clearly a husband could murder the doctor performing an abortion on his wife.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Plenty of sane, rational lawyers - political persuasion immaterial - say it opens a wide hole to do exactly that.

Clearly a husband could murder the doctor performing an abortion on his wife.

not according to this law or the law of the land. I think its quite easy to see, even if the wording might be a small bit confusing. They are clearly protecting a pregnant woman or her relative from prosecution if they kill someone who is attacking her womb illegally.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Mike

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?

google: south dakota nebraska murder abortion

And you'll get lots of hits.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Other countries can do what they want - what their citizens decide. But as an American, I want my country to protect life. If people want to go to Brazil to commit a murder, be my guest.

You obviously didn't "brush up." The Brazilian government doesn't allow abortion (or "murder," as you say) and they still have tons of abortions every year.

The "back alley" is not some catchphrase. Outlawing abortion does not stop it. It just makes it more dangerous. So you're not really accomplishing anything by outlawing abortion, unless the accomplishment you're seeking is putting women in a more dangerous situation when they have an unwanted pregnancy. A woman desperate to end a pregnancy she doesn't want will find a way, even if it's illegal and she does so at a much greater risk to herself.

Outlaw abortion and sure, you'll get some extra babies. And you'll also get a bunch of extra dead women. Not a trade-off I'm thrilled about taking, but you might be different.

[somerfrost]

I hesitate to speak to the Dakota bill, I can see the concern from those who are pro-choice, the wording can be taken a couple ways and it's not unreasonable that some nut job will read it as giving him/her open season on abortion providers even though that is clearly not the intent. I am troubled by the suggestion that sterilizing folks is an answer. It takes me back to the 60's and a song written by Phil Ochs, "Here's To The State Of Mississippi" in which he touches on the immorality of forced sterilization. I thought that was an idea who's time had come and (thankfully) gone with the success of the civil rights movement...guess not. There is no question that a lot of folks are simply not ready to be parents due to a variety of reasons (immaturity, drug use, ignorance of basics and a variety of mental health/character issues) but who would make that decision? How can one justify punishing folks for what may happen in the future? No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

[Mike]

Well, I'll be more careful of my flippant use of language. I'm not really suggesting forced sterilization, though a concerted effort to provide education and encouragement for vasectomies and tubal ligations -that, I'm all for.
And this:
No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

That, too, I can agree with

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Mike

Well, I'll be more careful of my flippant use of language. I'm not really suggesting forced sterilization, though a concerted effort to provide education and encouragement for vasectomies and tubal ligations -that, I'm all for.
And this:
No, the answer, as always lies in increased education, greater access to drug treatment/ mental health/ basic health facilities along with certain basic cultural changes...and that won't happen over night. One thing for sure, trying to balance budgets by denying the above to those who need them most won't result in a positive result.

That, too, I can agree with

Please don't take my post as a personal attack, I was responding to the general discussion and didn't mean to single anyone out.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

You obviously didn't "brush up." The Brazilian government doesn't allow abortion (or "murder," as you say) and they still have tons of abortions every year.

The "back alley" is not some catchphrase. Outlawing abortion does not stop it. It just makes it more dangerous. So you're not really accomplishing anything by outlawing abortion, unless the accomplishment you're seeking is putting women in a more dangerous situation when they have an unwanted pregnancy. A woman desperate to end a pregnancy she doesn't want will find a way, even if it's illegal and she does so at a much greater risk to herself.

Outlaw abortion and sure, you'll get some extra babies. And you'll also get a bunch of extra dead women. Not a trade-off I'm thrilled about taking, but you might be different.

Outlawing anything does not stop it. What's your point? That without perfect enforcement no law is worth having?

Gun control, for instance, penalizes legal gun owners, makes them defenseless, yet the criminal who buys his guns illegally is unaffected.

We still have drunk drivers despite repeated attempts to lower blood alcohol limits, adding sobriety checkpoints, and presumed guilt if a breathalyzer is refused.

We still have rampant prostitution even though it is illegal everywhere but in a couple places in Nevada.

And you speak of unwanted pregnancy as if it's as inevitable as the law of gravity, yet you credit those having an abortion as having weighed some huge "choice".

So people are too weak or unthinking to avoid getting unwillingly pregnant, yet these same people are so brilliant as to make a perfectly informed decision regarding if or when to kill their offspring?