Texas woman strangled newborn son, tossed him in trash, Where was Planned P-hood?

[JohnR! 5,495]

"Murder" is what a society deems it to be.

For most of this countries history (as well as most of the western world) Abortions as we know them today were considered Murder.

Even the Doctors Hippocratic Oath includes a vow concerning abortion.

<<I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.""

People of Faith are often in the forefront in the battle for legitimate rights. It should be no surprise they are often the face of the pro-life movement as well..... yet they are not alone. If you do a little snooping around you will find many others.

here is one such example.

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

Need I remind you that abortion was another one of these movements in which people were warned to "get on the right side of history" .... and yet the number of people who don't agree with it is growing not shrinking, young-sters especially.

Murder, in the United States, is what the law defines it to be. The same law defines what abortions are. The SCOTUS has already ruled over the issue, over 40 years ago.

You can make the case that religious superstition supports this or that, but our Constitution is very clear in separating the State from religions, so any such superstition-derived notion has no weight vis-a-vis the law. In the US the law trumps religions.

In essence, if you want to mix murder and abortion you must do so within the same legal context. It is really not that complicated.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Gegel

[Operator 1,927]

How about the abuse of children by clergy? What's the right side of history there?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Murder" is what a society deems it to be.

For most of this countries history (as well as most of the western world) Abortions as we know them today were considered Murder.

Even the Doctors Hippocratic Oath includes a vow concerning abortion.

<<I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.""

People of Faith are often in the forefront in the battle for legitimate rights. It should be no surprise they are often the face of the pro-life movement as well..... yet they are not alone. If you do a little snooping around you will find many others.

here is one such example.

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

Need I remind you that abortion was another one of these movements in which people were warned to "get on the right side of history" .... and yet the number of people who don't agree with it is growing not shrinking, young-sters especially.

No Danno, Murder is what the law deems it to be.

There are clear legal, moral and ethical reasons why abortion is treated differently to strangling someone or bashing them over the head. It's about giving women the right to control what happens to their own bodies and not be told by others that they must go through a pregnancy they don't want because religious folks object to it.

You can't see that difference so we go round and round and round, with you repeating the same tired old arguments ad infinitum. Give it up!

Edited January 17, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[decocker 7,198]

Need I remind you that abortion was another one of these movements in which people were warned to "get on the right side of history" .... and yet the number of people who don't agree with it is growing not shrinking, young-sters especially.

maybe if your camp is going to claim their battle is to maintain the sanctity of life, they should reevaluate their stance on the right to healthcare. that is a right isn't it? i mean, if this woman had not killed her baby - but simply given up her rights to care for it.. you would certainly agree that we all have a responsibility to this child to chip in on it's medical bills.

no?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For most of this countries history (as well as most of the western world) Abortions as we know them today were considered Murder.

Women that had an abortion or persons administering one were subject to murder charges for most of this country's history? Are you sure about that? Can you prove it?

[Danno 1,228]

Women that had an abortion or persons administering one were subject to murder charges for most of this country's history? Are you sure about that? Can you prove it?

Is this another "drive-by" Big Dog comment with no actually info included?

You're getting weak bro, did my aggressive habit of destroying your "facts" cause you to stop posting them?

I sure hope not.

[GandD 5,966]

For most of this countries history (as well as most of the western world) Abortions as we know them today were considered Murder.

For most of human history the world was flat and the sun rotated around the earth. Thanks for pointing out progress.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Women that had an abortion or persons administering one were subject to murder charges for most of this country's history? Are you sure about that? Can you prove it?

Is this another "drive-by" Big Dog comment with no actually info included?

You're getting weak bro, did my aggressive habit of destroying your "facts" cause you to stop posting them?

I sure hope not.

The other poster was asking if you had anything to corroborate your opinion. Perhaps the way you made the statement gave him the false impression you were attempting to present facts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is this another "drive-by" Big Dog comment with no actually info included?

No, Danno. You made a claim. Question is: Can you back it up?

You're getting weak bro, did my aggressive habit of destroying your "facts" cause you to stop posting them?

The facts I post are not my facts, they're the facts. Opinions I post are mine. Now I know that you don't distinguish between facts and opinion and like to present the latter as if they were the former. You did that here and I challenged you to substantiate what you believe to be a fact. I take it from your response that you are not able to do so. The usual...

[Danno 1,228]

maybe if your camp is going to claim their battle is to maintain the sanctity of life, they should reevaluate their stance on the right to healthcare. that is a right isn't it? i mean, if this woman had not killed her baby - but simply given up her rights to care for it.. you would certainly agree that we all have a responsibility to this child to chip in on it's medical bills.

no?

NOw that is an honest observation so I will respond.

Rule number one, a "Right" is something you have of your own accord.

My right to fee speech does not require you (or the gov't) to provide a soapbox or megaphone.

So I am completely consistent to observe that while you have the right to be free..... that right does not require others to take the fruit of their labor and feed and house you (unless they so choose).

Now I might or might not vote for a social program which addresses the poor who have need, but that charity... is not a right that they can claim. Not in the same sense as their right to life or liberty.

[Danno 1,228]

How about the abuse of children by clergy? What's the right side of history there?

It would seem you have some hostility on this topic as no one brought it up but you.

Offending Clergy are judged guilty by both the common law and the denomination they belong to.

It's similar to the even higher number of cases where School teachers abuse their roll.

They too are judged by the common law and then eventually fired from their job after a prolong period of pay (thanks to the union.)

Anyway,

I know of no religion in this country which endorses the sexual abuse of children. IN the same way that we would not blame a Gay-group for the actions of a few, we also should not disparage any religion which has a offending member.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here's how screwed up the issue is in Texas - I've read about this story in the paper and it seriously makes me sick how little regard for human dignity the State of Texas has.

Family of Pregnant Brain Dead Woman Sues Hospital for Keeping Her on Life Support

Marlise Munoz, a 33-year-old paramedic, was 14 weeks pregnant when a suspected pulmonary embolism left her brain dead two months ago. But doctors at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth told her family a Texas law forbade them from withdrawing life support until the baby's birth or a miscarriage occurs.

SICK!

[Operator 1,927]

It would seem you have some hostility on this topic as no one brought it up but you.

Offending Clergy are judged guilty by both the common law and the denomination they belong to.

It's similar to the even higher number of cases where School teachers abuse their roll.

They too are judged by the common law and then eventually fired from their job after a prolong period of pay (thanks to the union.)

Anyway,

I know of no religion in this country which endorses the sexual abuse of children. IN the same way that we would not blame a Gay-group for the actions of a few, we also should not disparage any religion which has a offending member.

No hostility friend, don't look to deep into it. The topic seemed as germane to the post as abortion does, which you brought up. I'm just curious, like you, as to which side of history these types of things fall on and who holds the moral compass.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I said

mobs of people would have supported her right..... and you are talking about TX law.

Speaking of foot-in-mouth.

Danno, obviously there are people who do not wish to see your abstract. I get it.

No need to focus on TX since there ARE states that allow partial birth abortion. Your example is that it is OK to kill a child before birth but not Ok to do so afterwards.

Most people opposed to you are not "pro choice" they are "pro abortion". You say it is not OK to kill a child EVER, in the womb or out. I agree with you because I am against abortion. But I am PRO CHOICE, which means I do not believe the goverment should force my beliefs on others. As Darmell mentions, the woman can drop off the child at a fire station or hospital and they will care for the child no questions asked. There are obviously options and this woman was obviously mentally ill and unable to make those choices. If there is a failing it is in why did someone not monitor this woman and her baby for the safety of both? Is this the first indication she is sick? I doubt it.

As usual this is about stepping on individual liberty, Republicans do it as well as Dems.

As for abortion climics being for profit...you do not have a problem with profit in other areas of medicine, why in abortion? I suspect the profit margin for most abortion clinics is pretty low actually, be that as it may this IS a capitalist society which you seem to favor most of the time unless someone is making money doing something YOU don't like. Which makes you a Republican. The only difference between Republicans and the Dems is the list of rights they would deny.

[decocker 7,198]

NOw that is an honest observation so I will respond.

Rule number one, a "Right" is something you have of your own accord.

My right to fee speech does not require you (or the gov't) to provide a soapbox or megaphone.

So I am completely consistent to observe that while you have the right to be free..... that right does not require others to take the fruit of their labor and feed and house you (unless they so choose).

Now I might or might not vote for a social program which addresses the poor who have need, but that charity... is not a right that they can claim. Not in the same sense as their right to life or liberty.

golly gee. way to miss the point while twisting your morals into a nonsensical knot.