How Much Time?

[Pinball]

I am with BJ and Joe with this one, i think that it is wrong and you are taking a life, but in the back of my mind I think of a large majority of people who are getting abortions would be unfit to raise a child. Our children services are already stretched extremely thin.

There were approx 1.3 millions abortions in the US in 2000. Would that be 1.3 million children who would grow up in broken homes with unfit parents? Would the cycle just continue to spiral out of control worse then it already is?

I have questions, but no answers.

[sohotrightnow]

So, if this were overturned, should I be able to use a frozen embryo to bypass a carpool violation? I mean, it is a human right? Thoughts?

[Danny Hogan]

So, if this were overturned, should I be able to use a frozen embryo to bypass a carpool violation? I mean, it is a human right? Thoughts?

hahaha

[Pinball]

So, if this were overturned, should I be able to use a frozen embryo to bypass a carpool violation? I mean, it is a human right? Thoughts?

Probably couldnt be frozen............

[Beta]

One thing i can't wrap my mind around is that when someone kills a pregnant women, in some states that is double homocide while aborting a baby is legal.

Yeah that's what I don't understand either.

.

This isn't commenting on the issue of "what after birth"...as I am with just the abortion itself; as the smaller % situations (death during child birth, etc) are left out for now in light the situational majority picture. My statements were made barring any race, financial situations, criminal situations, etc etc. Child birth death has been happening since humans (or any mammal) has been in existence. Less often today, because of technology.

I mean in all honesty...is catering to the people that would do that, going to solve their problems or perpetuate them?

.

I've always said that the anti-choice people should be required to adopt all babies waiting adoption before they can press forward the anti-abortion agenda. Until then, the idea that the babies should all be born and put up for adoption is a red herring.

Who do you think adopts those babies? People that like abortion? Doubtful. If they're truly for abortion then I would think they would be able to look at the baby in person and say "he/she should have been aborted". Sounds messed up, but it's true.

If all these people are in favor of something before the fact (birth)...I would think they should be after the fact (birth) also. If you are against life happening, can you honestly renege as soon as it's cute?

[peterwho]

I understand there is a demand for babies, provided they are white and healthy. Otherwise, not so much.

The following statistics don't exactly support your assertion:

50,000 children were adopted from public foster care in 2001;
50% were male;
50% were female;
38% were White;
35% were Black;
16% were Hispanic

-U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, AFCARS Report

There seems to be considerable demand, too:

2,000,000 couples competed for 58,000 children placed for adoption in 1984

- a ratio of 35:1

-"Adoption--It's Not Impossible," Andrew B. Wilson,
Business Week, 7-8-85, p. 112

[Zamboni_Driver]

One thing i can't wrap my mind around is that when someone kills a pregnant women, in some states that is double homocide while aborting a baby is legal.

Breaking down these situations based on my theory of transgression and necessary evil

1. Teenage girl get pregnant in a 1-night stand. Opts for an abortion

Transgressor: The Girl
Counter-situation: Society would want to allow a girl that had been raped and is now pregnant access to an abortion. Thus the girl above is offered the same option.

2. Guy kills a pregnant woman, and it is considered a double homicide

Transgressor: The Guy
Counter-situation: ?? (We would need to provide a situation in which society would allow a guy to kill a woman because of an overriding sympathy for his situation)

The difference is who is the transgressor and is there a counter-situation that demands the existence of the other so as not to create double standards.

[Danny Hogan]

i was commenting more on when the law considers the beginning of human life.

with both occurring early in the pregnancy (when abortion is permitted) one is homocide one is legal.

one of the legal eagles on here can correct me but from my understanding that is how it is in several states.

[Zamboni_Driver]

i was commenting more on when the law considers the beginning of human life.

with both occurring early in the pregnancy (when abortion is permitted) one is homocide one is legal.

one of the legal eagles on here can correct me but from my understanding that is how it is in several states.

That post really wasn't directed at you, I just cut and pasted cause I needed the hypothetical.

I'll give another 1 where the courts/legal differ on the beginning of life...

You must be 21 years old to drink. I should be able to drink 20 years and 3 months after I was born - cause I was alive 9 months inside my mom.

This case actually happened - judge ruled against this argument but as I recall he never specified why, just said the defense was playing games with the verbage.

[Beta]

I'll give another 1 where the courts/legal differ on the beginning of life...

You must be 21 years old to drink. I should be able to drink 20 years and 3 months after I was born - cause I was alive 9 months inside my mom.

This case actually happened - judge ruled against this argument but as I recall he never specified why, just said the defense was playing games with the verbage.

Hmm, my prosecution would state that you must show ID stating that you are 21 years old to buy alcohol...your age on your license is defined by the time in between your "date of birth" and the present day and not "how long you've been alive. Like "when were you born" = the day you were born/birth/left the womb.

[laxfan25]

I just think that if guys got pregnant abortions would be available at the local Med Station, and it is unfair for the males in society to take control over womens' bodies. I think it is also hypocritical to not allow easy access to the morning-after pill. It is a private decision, one between a woman an her doctor. It's not that big a step to telling the bitches they've gotta wear a burkah! (Sarcasm/hyperbole intended).

[sohotrightnow]

sohotrightnow wrote:
So, if this were overturned, should I be able to use a frozen embryo to bypass a carpool violation? I mean, it is a human right? Thoughts?


Probably couldnt be frozen............

How do you figure? What if I kept my embryo in a cooler in my passenger side seat?

[sohotrightnow]

Danny Hogan wrote:
One thing i can't wrap my mind around is that when someone kills a pregnant women, in some states that is double homocide while aborting a baby is legal.


Yeah that's what I don't understand either.

Here is the code:

Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that— (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following: (1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title. (2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

[sohotrightnow]

Here is some further reading that looks at the juxtapositon between abortion and fetal homicide

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Roes ... kUVVA.html

[Steno]

zamboni -
you were a philosophy major, no? your posts read like an epistemology textbook.

or maybe some people are just born like that.