Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[ENIGMA]

It's a fairly clear-cut case really.

The mother engaged in reckless activity (sex and the resulting pregnancy) which resulted in the premature death of the embryo. The mother had no intention of killing it, she just engaged in activity which had a significant chance of killing it (more likely than the stereotypical "Man recklessly tosses brick over sidewalk, killing pedestrian beneath" scenario, at any rate). That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

If you wish to consider the bunch of cells a person, and abortion murder, then miscarriage is by definiton, involuntary manslaughter.

...

So I take it that you now have some moral objection to laws against involuntary manslaughter?

I thought you guys were supposedly the one's who valued human life...

Still waiting for an answer Al...

Do you have an objection to involuntary manslaughter laws or do you have no problem jailing women who miscarry?

Please be consistant.

[AlAyeti]

Cephus,

Your view sems to say that if a person just finds a situation in life taht is inconvenient, they can just murder the people that infringe on their rights.

The problem is that the only real opposition to abortion is purely emotional.

Really? Who gets hysterical when Roe vs. Wade is even "possibly" threatened? You see thousands of Birkenstock wearing leftists marching and chanting.

Once you start looking at things from a logical and reasonable standpoint, there is no way you can oppose some form of legal abortion, simply because there aren't a lot of other options.

Whoa. If a woman was shown the little perfectly formed person inside of her then there wouldn't be many abortions. There has always been "legal" abortions when things go horribly wrong and there is no other diagnosis and prgonosis other than death for either the mother or unborn child.

Adoption, while it can be a wonderful option, simply doesn't have enough willing families.

So why limit snuffing out "unwanted children" to any age?

There are many millions of children nationwide that will *NEVER* be adopted because there aren't enough adoptive families willing to take them in. So that brings us to either abortion or keeping the child and let's be honest, if the mother doesn't want the child in the first place, she's not going to be a good mother and raise a healthy, happy, productive offspring.

Let's be honest. If morality and good role models were the order of the day and not the celebration of sexual promiscuity, then pregnancy would be limited to just a few accidents and not classified as a venereal disease.

Why in the world would ANYONE in their right mind want to force a woman who has no interest in a baby to keep one? That's just insane.

Excuse me, I don't think a mistake is where you give up on anyone. Mother or child. Why not wrap societies arms around the hero mother and take care of her and her children?

Unwanted children get abused, mentally, physically and sexually, they do poorly in school because they have no parental support, they have a much higher chance of getting into drugs, teenage sex and... you guessed it, another unwanted pregnancy.

Poor role models and teaching against immorality seen as a hate crime and racism.

And this is supposed to be compassionate? I don't think so.

Please view an abortion for the opposite of compassionate? I think so.

[AlAyeti]

Enigma,

You're such a sport. Too bad this subject matter is so grim.

ENIGMA wrote:

It's a fairly clear-cut case really.

The mother engaged in reckless activity (sex and the resulting pregnancy) which resulted in the premature death of the embryo. The mother had no intention of killing it, she just engaged in activity which had a significant chance of killing it (more likely than the stereotypical "Man recklessly tosses brick over sidewalk, killing pedestrian beneath" scenario, at any rate). That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

If you wish to consider the bunch of cells a person, and abortion murder, then miscarriage is by definiton, involuntary manslaughter.

...

So I take it that you now have some moral objection to laws against involuntary manslaughter?

I thought you guys were supposedly the one's who valued human life...


Still waiting for an answer Al...

Do you have an objection to involuntary manslaughter laws or do you have no problem jailing women who miscarry?

Please be consistant.

Miscarriage is an interesting place to shatter abortion logic like a cheap glass. Parents that suffer a miscarriage are devestated because their child died. No matter the age of the unborn. Their grief is incredible and suffered for a lifetime. (I will not soil this topic with any personal perspective.)

"Me?" Not consistent? Did someone else get the name AlAyeti to post under?

If you swerve your car around another car and cross the white line on the right of the road and strike and kill a person, then you will be held to a charge of involuntary manslaughter that will carry a criminal penalty.

IF, you are backing up your car in the driveway and your neighbor was bending over a picking up a newspaper and you backed over him and killed him, there would be no crime.

It is all in the premeditation or the conscious choice to do something wrong.

Abortion is 100% premeditated. Especially the medical staff involved.

[ENIGMA]

Still waiting for an answer Al...

Do you have an objection to involuntary manslaughter laws or do you have no problem jailing women who miscarry?

Please be consistant.

Miscarriage is an interesting place to shatter abortion logic like a cheap glass. Parents that suffer a miscarriage are devestated because their child died. No matter the age of the unborn. Their grief is incredible and suffered for a lifetime. (I will not soil this topic with any personal perspective.)

"Me?" Not consistent? Did someone else get the name AlAyeti to post under?

I don't know, you tell me.

As for consistancy, I find it lacking when one declares themselves an "empiracist" and quite clearly fails to act accordingly.

For instance:

If you swerve your car around another car and cross the white line on the right of the road and strike and kill a person, then you will be held to a charge of involuntary manslaughter that will carry a criminal penalty.

IF, you are backing up your car in the driveway and your neighbor was bending over a picking up a newspaper and you backed over him and killed him, there would be no crime.

It is all in the premeditation or the conscious choice to do something wrong.

WRONG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter (which includes negligent manslaughter) is the crime that results from a death that occurs despite a lack of intent to kill. The criminal law of England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and United States differentiate between various crimes based on mens rea (criminal intent), and involuntary manslaughter is generally associated with a level of negligent mens rea. While specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances. Recklessness is defined as a wanton disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, which landed on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent was not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the Mens Rea required for murder does not exist. However, in dropping the brick, there was a good chance of injuring someone, therefore the person who dropped it was reckless.

This is not a particularly hidden page. I found it within 30 seconds of starting my search. Granted, I am a college student with a decent amount of experience at web searching and a metabolism that is significantly more active at midnight than, say, the average adult's (although you are in California, supposedly, so time difference and all would likely cancel that out...) so I'll cut you some slack... It might have taken you a couple minutes to find it. Even so, I find it fascinating that you persist on making statements that are quite readily found by such a quick search to be false.

As to whether getting pregnant amounts to reckless endangerment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb28.html

Medical textbooks, U.S. government statistics and many obstetrician/gynecologists state that about 15 percent of pregnant women will miscarry. But this number refers only to "clinical" pregnancies -- those confirmed by a pregnancy test at a doctor's office.

An authoritative study published more than 15 years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine found that more than twice as many pregnancies, 31 percent, result in miscarriage.

Not a coin toss, but certainly more probable than dropping a brick off of a bridge at random and killing someone below.

[AlAyeti]

You bring up "mens rea," and then go on with your perspective?

Oh I cannot wait. Guilt and innocence is what it's all about. You interject a term most appropriate but unsettling for those that claim abortion is not murder.

Here's some other interesting words to use:

mens rea - (law) criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal); often at issue in murder trials
malice aforethought
planning, preparation, provision - the cognitive process of thinking about what you will do in the event of something happening; "his planning for retirement was hindered by several uncertainties"
premeditation - (law) thought and intention to commit a crime well in advance of the crime; goes to show criminal intent
jurisprudence, law - the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"

As for consistancy, I find it lacking when one declares themselves an "empiracist" and quite clearly fails to act accordingly.

For instance:

Quote:
If you swerve your car around another car and cross the white line on the right of the road and strike and kill a person, then you will be held to a charge of involuntary manslaughter that will carry a criminal penalty.

IF, you are backing up your car in the driveway and your neighbor was bending over a picking up a newspaper and you backed over him and killed him, there would be no crime.

It is all in the premeditation or the conscious choice to do something wrong.


WRONG:

Wrong by wikipedia cross examine? Have you ever been to a trial? I have. I worked for law firms for years. I'd love to see a wikipedia prosecution OR defense. Even here in the blue-state midwest (I'm listening to Jesse Jackson a lot now) accidents and criminal negligence are two different things. Even to the Rev. Jackson.

In my two scenarios one would have the District Attorney filing charges and one would not. Please, in your little college there must be a professsor or two that you could run my little comparison by.

You will find when you "do" the research, there is a no neglligence or intention of running over you next door neighbor as opposed to violating the written law of passing on the right.

Here is your original scenario Enigma:

ENIGMA wrote:

It's a fairly clear-cut case really.

Clear cut case of negligence and NOT an accident. Or is there a strange strawman being prosecuted? Certainly

The mother engaged in reckless activity (sex and the resulting pregnancy) which resulted in the premature death of the embryo.

Sex and the resulting pregnancy? Was the woman married or not? Did she get married or pregnant to kill her unborn child? A miscarriage is not a act of wilful intent.

Let's see a law about manslaughter shall we? This is where the term precedent comes from. It's a legal term.

prec-e-dent (prs-dnt)
n.
a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases:

From the 1998 Criminal Code of Oregon:

163.118 Manslaughter in the first degree.

(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the first degree when:

(a) It is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life;

(b) It is committed intentionally by a defendant under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance as provided in ORS 163.135, which constitutes a mitigating circumstance reducing the homicide that would otherwise be murder to manslaughter in the first degree and need not be proved in any prosecution; or

(c) A person recklessly causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205, and:

(A) The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or

(B) The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115.

(2) Manslaughter in the first degree is a Class A felony.

(3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means pursuant to religious beliefs or practices of the child or person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.

///

The mother had no intention of killing it, she just engaged in activity which had a significant chance of killing it (more likely than the stereotypical "Man recklessly tosses brick over sidewalk, killing pedestrian beneath" scenario, at any rate). That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

An accident or a naturally occuring miscarriage carries no negligence or intent. There are many forms of accidents that are neither reckless or intentional.

Please employ empiricism to your use of manslaughter and mine. Call your local DA's office or BAR association.

If you wish to consider the bunch of cells a person, and abortion murder, then miscarriage is by definiton, involuntary manslaughter.

And let us try the case and see who and what constitutes GUILT. Please, please.

So I take it that you now have some moral objection to laws against involuntary manslaughter?

None at all. There will be accidents and there will be negligence. The evidence will show who is guilty of a crime and who is not.

Abortion, you have proved, is murder.

I thought you guys were supposedly the one's who valued human life...

You are thinking correctly here.

Why try a person whose only involvement in the death of another was an accident? NO prosecuator will get involved.

Still waiting for an answer Al...

I doubt this statement.

Do you have an objection to involuntary manslaughter laws or do you have no problem jailing women who miscarry?

When in history has there been a precedent set to try a woman for a miscarriage? I have posted that abortions have been found as a criminal act in fact the Hippocratic oath can be used to establish guilt.

Please be consistant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Quote:

Involuntary manslaughter (which includes negligent manslaughter) is the crime that results from a death that occurs despite a lack of intent to kill. The criminal law of England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and United States differentiate between various crimes based on mens rea (criminal intent), and involuntary manslaughter is generally associated with a level of negligent mens rea. While specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances. Recklessness is defined as a wanton disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, which landed on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent was not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the Mens Rea required for murder does not exist. However, in dropping the brick, there was a good chance of injuring someone, therefore the person who dropped it was reckless.

This is not a particularly hidden page. I found it within 30 seconds of starting my search.

I believe that. No one with any experience with crimianal courts would have even attempted what you did. Thus is the hysterical and emotional side to covering guilt. Though I do applaud your bravery. Now, maybe you will see things more clearly. That comes from "heraing" both sides of an issue.

Granted, I am a college student with a decent amount of experience at web searching and a metabolism that is significantly more active at midnight than, say, the average adult's (although you are in California, supposedly, so time difference and all would likely cancel that out...) so I'll cut you some slack... It might have taken you a couple minutes to find it.

Empiricism will involve more than thirty seconds sometimes. I'll excuse your being a busy college student and all.

Even so, I find it fascinating that you persist on making statements that are quite readily found by such a quick search to be false.

I am confident that after you get off the phone with a DA that I will find my position validated while you look for Advil to ease your headache derived from cognitive dissonaance. Though, it won't be your last, the cure is better found in seeking and grasping the truth and not the bobbleheadism found in abundance in college learning experiences.

As to whether getting pregnant amounts to reckless endangerment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb28.html

Medical textbooks, U.S. government statistics and many obstetrician/gynecologists state that about 15 percent of pregnant women will miscarry. But this number refers only to "clinical" pregnancies -- those confirmed by a pregnancy test at a doctor's office.

An authoritative study published more than 15 years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine found that more than twice as many pregnancies, 31 percent, result in miscarriage.

Not a coin toss, but certainly more probable than dropping a brick off of a bridge at random and killing someone below.

Do you have any idea what this says? This is not a place where you find ideological, philosophical or legal support for willingly, recklessly and premeditated killing.

Risk does not carry with it culpabilty nor complicity in a crime.

Just being alive carries with it the risk of death. We do not prosecute mountain climbers that survive an avalanche that there friends didn't survive. UNLESS, someone cut a rope or pushed someone OR brought a bad rope knowingly.

Guilt or innocence?

Big difference.

You know "mens rea" wise.

[Cathar1950]

I find the debate between murder and manslaughter interesting. But the fact remains Abortion is neither. It is a medical procedure and sometimes it is a miscarriage both are often lumped in the abortion statistics.
At this time a "little perfectly formed person" is debatable after it is born you can say it is a perfectly formed human maybe on the child, and it is not murder according to the law no matter how many times you say it.. What matters is the woman's right over her body.
So could be prevented with birth control and education. Abstinence is not very effective do to all the pregnancies that occur from people who are practicing it. It seems more of a denial of sex then practice.
This is between her and her dr. and nothing else at this time. I am not an advocate of abortion and I also do not believe children already born should go with out despite what ever their parents have done or are doing.
No one can argue that an embryo or a zygote is a person. It is a possible or potential person but not a person. Even an egg and a sperm are possible or potential.

Abortion, you have proved, is murder.

By law it is simply not true.

The fingers that typed the above was lucky they were not aborted. Of course seeing what happens when children are allowed to live is all too obvious as well.

No they just wouldn't be typing or feeling lucky.

Does this inculde a female from conception? Science has proven that a person is just that by DNA.

They are human not a person.

Miscarriage is an interesting place to shatter abortion logic like a cheap glass. Parents that suffer a miscarriage are devestated because their child died. No matter the age of the unborn. Their grief is incredible and suffered for a lifetime. (I will not soil this topic with any personal perspective.)

Some times they are just relieved.

[Cephus]

Your view sems to say that if a person just finds a situation in life taht is inconvenient, they can just murder the people that infringe on their rights.

It has nothing to do with inconvenience and certainly nothing to do with murder. Murder is a legal term which means killing that is not sanctioned by law. Since abortion is legal, it cannot be murder and any reference to it as such is a lie. But you knew that, didn't you?

Really? Who gets hysterical when Roe vs. Wade is even "possibly" threatened? You see thousands of Birkenstock wearing leftists marching and chanting.

Who whines endlessly about "killing the babies"? It's the Bible-thumping religious reich.

Whoa. If a woman was shown the little perfectly formed person inside of her then there wouldn't be many abortions. There has always been "legal" abortions when things go horribly wrong and there is no other diagnosis and prgonosis other than death for either the mother or unborn child.

Another lie. Plenty of women know exactly what's in there, they simply don't want it. Don't you ever get tired of telling whoppers, Al? Didn't your mother teach you better?

So why limit snuffing out "unwanted children" to any age?

Because legally speaking, once you are born, you gain certain rights in our country.

Let's be honest. If morality and good role models were the order of the day and not the celebration of sexual promiscuity, then pregnancy would be limited to just a few accidents and not classified as a venereal disease.

In a perfect world, yes, but we don't live in a perfect world so we have to actually deal with reality. The reality is that people are stupid and people will have unsafe sex and most of these people have no business ever having a child. The world is screwed up enough as it is without keeping the cycle of irresponsibility rolling generation after generation.

[AlAyeti]

Slavery was once legal. People were shown the truth, felt compassion, grew a conscience and a heart and things changed.

Or were changed.

[Cathar1950]

When they make it illegal you can call it murder. Until then stick to feeding the kids, promote birth control and sex education.
But a zygote is not a human, it has the potential. It is not a person it has the possibility. No one is sacrificing on the alter of satan.

[Jose]

Slavery was once legal. People were shown the truth, felt compassion, grew a conscience and a heart and things changed.

Or were changed.

...except for the current slave market, a signifincant proportion of which goes under the name of "lower prices." You complain about "illegal immigrants" in the US...why not go after the [rich and powerful] who bring them in explicitly to bondage in their factories? Why not go after the companies that produce products using slave labor in other countries, or go after the retail establishments that sell these products? We have a minimum wage in the US, but it is often not paid. Worse, Congress has not raised it in years--but they raise their own salaries quite often, as exemplified by the $3100 raise they gave themselves this week.

But that's off-topic. You say that we are speaking of "perfectly-formed" human embryos. Have you actually looked at any? I have. They're not perfectly formed. At best, they are indistinguishable from a variety of other primate embryos--and you probably wouldn't say much about a macaque abortion. Embryos are even less formed at earlier stages. At the stage when Plan B would work, they are unrecognizable. You can't tell a human from a cow from a tumor. To claim that a late-stage embryo is typical of all abortions is to misrepresent the truth.