@handyandy saidI never saw anyone have their head cut off either.
Especially since you've never seen one... and neither has Dr. Earl.
Do I have to in order for me to say that would sicken me?
@earl-of-trumps saidWhat sickens me is your insistence that women have no legal right to choose.
I never saw anyone have their head cut off either.
Do I have to in order for me to say that would sicken me?
2 edits
@handyandy saidWhat sickens me is that this is even a debate. Evolutionarily, it is absurd to think an unborn baby that has yet to move spatially 1ft in any direction outside of the mothers womb ( as AThousandYoung believes) is not human with natural rights and it should be just as absurd legally to think so...however as per usual we are talking about lawyers interpretations, not moral/ethical ones.
What sickens me is your insistence that women have no legal right to choose.
@athousandyoung said"The charge of child destruction is rare.[16] There were ten cases in the ten years to 1987.[17] When a woman who had a backstreet abortion while 7½ months pregnant was given a suspended sentence of 12 months in 2007,[18] the Crown Prosecution Service was unaware of any similar conviction.[16] In 2000, a man stamped on his girlfriend's abdomen and thereby caused her to go into premature labour. Since he had intended to kill the foetus in the womb, whereas in fact the baby died shortly after birth, he was convicted of manslaughter and attempted child destruction.[19]https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html
A Texas statute making it a crime to procure or to attempt to procure an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother infringes upon a woman’s right of privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not all State laws are legal. That's why I asked for a specific example of someone convicted of murder.
In South Wales, in February 2011, Carl Whant raped and fatally stabbed 19-year-old Nikitta Grender, the fiancée of his cousin, who was due to give birth to her baby daughter two weeks later, at her home in Ringland, Newport. He was convicted of child destruction, and arson for setting her home alight after the killing. The stab wound killed her unborn daughter. Whant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a minimum term of 35 years. The crown advocate of the Crown Prosecution Service in Wales said, "Child destruction is a very rarely used charge; we are not aware of another case like this one in Wales".[20]
In 2012, a woman who self-administered an abortion drug when 39 weeks pregnant was convicted of unlawful abortion under the 1861 Act.[21] The sentencing judge remarked that she might equally have been charged with child destruction.[21][22]
In 2015, Kevin Wilson and an accomplice, who was under eighteen and could not be legally named, were convicted of child destruction and grievous bodily harm after they beat and kicked Wilson's pregnant ex-girlfriend, causing fatal injuries to the foetus.[23]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction#Incidence
@joe-shmo saidWhat are these natural rights of which you speak, because some people believe that shelter, food and healthcare are natural rights so I guess it’s culturally relative. Maybe if these rights were enshrined into your constitution there probably wouldn’t be anything like the number of terminations, rather than forcing women to give birth against their will.
What sickens me is that this is even a debate. Evolutionarily, it is absurd to think an unborn baby that has yet to move spatially 1ft in any direction outside of the mothers womb ( as AThousandYoung believes) is not human with natural rights and it should be just as absurd legally to think so.
3 edits
@kevcvs57 saidSo what your saying is; if life wasn't tough and all the essentials were paid for by(?)...that women probably wouldn't kill their children at the rate we currently experience?
What are these natural rights of which you speak, because some people believe that shelter, food and healthcare are natural rights so I guess it’s culturally relative. Maybe if these rights were enshrined into your constitution there probably wouldn’t be anything like the number of terminations, rather than forcing women to give birth against their will.
Basically, the condition that "likely" leads to less children being killed is a contract with said individuals and government that guarantees a complete bubble from the natural world paid for by people that brave the natural world? Perhaps abortion is the best option for your type of people after all.
@joe-shmo saidThat's "child destruction" not murder. It's a separate crime which avoids the messy complications that come if you declare a fetus a person.
"The charge of child destruction is rare.[16] There were ten cases in the ten years to 1987.[17] When a woman who had a backstreet abortion while 7½ months pregnant was given a suspended sentence of 12 months in 2007,[18] the Crown Prosecution Service was unaware of any similar conviction.[16] In 2000, a man stamped on his girlfriend's abdomen and thereby caused her to go in ...[text shortened]... sing fatal injuries to the foetus.[23]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction#Incidence
What is your stance on fetuses inheriting?
@kevcvs57 saidNatural rights are negative rights.
What are these natural rights of which you speak, because some people believe that shelter, food and healthcare are natural rights so I guess it’s culturally relative. Maybe if these rights were enshrined into your constitution there probably wouldn’t be anything like the number of terminations, rather than forcing women to give birth against their will.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
@averagejoe1 saidWhy don't you go to bed thinking about what it looks like to die from COVID?
Earl, you sending libs to bed tonight thinking about what an abortion looks like? Cruel indeed. They never think about that. They never will. They never will. It is not convenient. But who am I to say.......
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidA dog can inherit money in the form of a Trust by the deceased. So, a fetus. Here is one for you....... If a woman can decide whether or not to abort,,,, i.e.,stop the heart of...an unborn baby, how does that differ from her deciding whether to drink or not. A society gives her the right to abort, but not the right to drink, both of which affect a baby.
That's "child destruction" not murder. It's a separate crime which avoids the messy complications that come if you declare a fetus a person.
What is your stance on fetuses inheriting?
@thelistener saidAbortion is before the child has come into existence.
A dog can inherit money in the form of a Trust by the deceased. So, a fetus. Here is one for you....... If a woman can decide whether or not to abort,,,, i.e.,stop the heart of...an unborn baby, how does that differ from her deciding whether to drink or not. A society gives her the right to abort, but not the right to drink, both of which affect a baby.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will adversely affect the child all its life.
@wolfgang59 saidSo you are one of the posters who admits that that thing, the blob, (been called a zygote or other such nonsense) is a child....I'd thought you were in the other camp that the murder is OK through the 9th month since it is not a baby yet. A confusing lot.
Abortion is before the child has come into existence.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will adversely affect the child all its life.
So you write on that 'the child' could be affected. Why are you concerned about Alcohol hurting it, but, on the other hand, saying that cutting it's spine and yanking it out is OK? A confusing lot, indeed.
1 edit
@thelistener saidWhat don't you get? In one scenario, the child could live a terrible existence due to alcohol while in the womb; the other, the child wont be born.
So you are one of the posters who admits that that thing, the blob, (been called a zygote or other such nonsense) is a child....I'd thought you were in the other camp that the murder is OK through the 9th month since it is not a baby yet. A confusing lot.
So you write on that 'the child' could be affected. Why are you concerned about Alcohol hurting it, but, on the other hand, saying that cutting it's spine and yanking it out is OK? A confusing lot, indeed.
Anyone who can't see the difference between an abortion and lifelong suffering is dense.