Michigan Votes Forum

What's wrong with killing a baby?

jercommm:

What's wrong with killing a baby?

how many have you killed so far?

Why does the bill excuse the woman who consents to a "partial birth" abortion from conspiring with the doctor? Is this bill saying the woman not only cannot decide to have this procedure, but if she does, she isn't culpable? In other words, women are not able to decide for themselves, right or wrong.

If this procedure is illegal, all parties involved should be punished.

 why does society not punish both? because there are those out there who think that abortion is a viable birth control option. why do you fight so hard for "a woman's choice" to have an abortion, but so hard against "a smoker's choice" and "a bar owner's choice"?

you seem to believe that a woman can make unerring decisions under physical, emotional, and mental duress that certainly will come back to haunt her for the rest of her life, but you seem to believe that no smoker can make similar decisions under ideal conditions. you have donated much verbiage to the subject that you don't trust others to make the right decision for themselves, yet you trust women completely to make life and death decisions. what is the difference? the women make up half of the population you say you don't trust. make up your mind. do you trust them to make good decisions? then let them make all decisions, not just those for abortion. if you don't trust them to make decisions, don't give them any freedom to choose at all. 

there is a third option. keeping your nose out of other people's business and letting them make decisions for themselves. that makes smoking no less harmful, abortion no more right, but it does put the power to make decisions in the hands of the citizens who must make them, not yours. if your principles do not allow you to do this, at least be consistent with the application of your principles.

 that is a good question. and yes, all parties involved should be punished. that might stop more abortions from happening, and in the end, would be a good thing. the loss of an innocent life is never to be worked for.

 another apparent inconsistency is your opposition to the death penalty, which puts guilty criminals to death after super due process, but your support of abortion, particularly partial birth abortion and other proceedures in the late term as "a woman's choice". you have not yet answered the question of the difference between late term abortion and infanticide. i'd be interested to hear what hairs you have to split on that one.

If your replying to me, silence, let me make it clear to you, since like uber, you want to argue before you even know my position.

I am not against smoking. Decide that for yourself. Just don't foul my air.

We are not discussing smoking or the death penalty.

I think abortion is a bad thing, but not my decision. Partial birth abortion is even worse, as I understand it. But if it is made illegal, where is the logic of excusing the woman who conspires with the doctor? Does this apparent contradiction expose a flaw in the reasoning used to reach the conclusion it is a crime?

jmangan:

If your replying to me, silence, let me make it clear to you, since like uber, you want to argue before you even know my position.

(i've read your posts, and i know your position. your reputation precedes you.)

I am not against smoking. Decide that for yourself. Just don't foul my air.

(so you are arrogant enough to believe that the air in a privately owned bar packed with smokers is suddenly YOUR air?) 

We are not discussing smoking or the death penalty.

(we are comparing your position on freedom of choice on one subject being different from your position on freedom of choice on another. your lack of consistency does you no credit if you are trying to convince people that your views stem from your convictions.)

I think abortion is a bad thing, but not my decision.

(the law says that murder is illegal unless it's in some prescribed manner justified. how do you justify the taking of an innocent life? it is your decision as to whether you allow abortions to continue to be legal, especially in the late term. these horrid proceedures do service to no one other than the mother who doesn't wish to be pregnant anymore. there is no doctor who will go on record as stating an absolute necessity for the proceedures, nor are there any conditions or diseases that would necessitate these late term horrors.)

 Partial birth abortion is even worse, as I understand it. But if it is made illegal, where is the logic of excusing the woman who conspires with the doctor?

(there is no logic. conspiring to kill should have the same consequences as it would for any heinous killing.)

 Does this apparent contradiction expose a flaw in the reasoning used to reach the conclusion it is a crime?

(no, it exposes a flaw in the legislator that wrote it.)

 

 i've read this bill, it says nothing about excusing the woman or the doctor. perhaps it's in the tie-barred bill. i'm going to read that next...

 i don't believe that the bill implies that the mother is not a conspirator to give "excuse" to the mother, but to make her an actual full party to the crime, before, during, and after the fact, bringing the full sentence to bear on her, not just a diminished sentence as if she were just a conspirator.

(6) A woman who obtains or seeks to obtain a partial-birth

 abortion is not a conspirator to commit a violation of this

 section.

That sounds to me like the woman can not be charged with a crime.

 and it sounds to me as if she cannot claim that she is a simple co-conspirator, but must accept that she went to the doctor and requested that he perform an illegal act. one person requesting that another perform an illegal act that causes the death of another is murder. therefore, both parties are murderers, and neither is a simple conspirator to murder. both performed acts that lead to the death.

"(i've read your posts, and i know your position. your reputation precedes you.)"

In contrast to you and a few other posters here, I do not adhere to a ridgid ideology, seeing the enemy in every piece of legislation proposed. I do have an ideology, but I also have reason.

I believe we disagree on what that section means. I will watch closely, if this bill becomes law, if a woman is ever charged with a crime for agreeing to a "partial birth" abortion.

 so what is your reason for justification? how do you justify the death of an innocent person? simply because that person has not 'matured' enough? simply because that person wasn't "born" yet? simply because that person was not wanted? every state in the union makes it a crime to kill a baby while it is being born. every state in the union makes it a crime to kill the mother, and thus killing the child, making such things TWO murders.

if you define 'rigid ideology' as the ideals that i hold dear, as if to demean them by making them seem inflexible and unyielding, then yes, i like some others do adhere to 'rigid ideology', but then again, so do you. 

flexible ideologies are called whims.

This bill charges neither the doctor, nor the mother, with murder. It mandates the maximum sentence to 2 years for violation of the "partial birth abortion" ban.

 how can a woman be a conspirator if she initiates the actions that cause the death? she is a principle to murder, pure and simple. i too will watch this bill closely should it become law.

My ideology is not "flexible". It is tempered with reason. You may call that a whim, as you do, I call it reasonable.

 in response to your statement, let me paraphrase a quote you yourself made in another thread.

"not to far... but maybe too fast."

 perhaps i didn't make myself clear... flexible ideologies without reasons are whims. 

what are your reasons for excusing the innocent deaths?

You assume so much. Every discussion is not going to fit your idelogical frame work.

My question is still about who is responsible for the alleged crime of "partial birth abortion". Is it the doctor and the mother, or just the doctor? And if the woman is not charged, why not?

You bring up another question. If it is murder, as you suggest, why is this bill making the maximum sentence 2 years, and not life?

 my personal belief is that the mother is always responsible for the welfare of the child, especially if she requests it's killing. but you believe that to be rigid idealism. so, no reason to kill the child leaps to mind... hmmm...

what was that about flexibility without reasons? do you give no reasons because you have no reasons, or because there are no reasons.

 is a pregnant woman one "person", or one "person" with another "person" growing inside her?

 you have not answered the question.

bugman:

 is a pregnant woman one "person", or one "person" with another "person" growing inside her?

 still no answer. our friend gypsy has stated that this question would be answered 'if' it was asked in the right thread. yet it has been here for days without an answer. perhaps this question is too provocative.

 the answer they must be groping with is this. yes, a pregnant woman is a "person" with another "person" growing inside her. an individual invested with rights.

THE SOCIAL WELFARE ACT (EXCERPT)

400.109a Abortion as service provided with public funds to welfare recipient; prohibition;