Republicans block bill to shield people who travel out of state for abortions

Rape and incest cloud the discussion as they aren’t the only reasons for abortions. It’s not unusual to get pregnant on the pill — as in once or twice in an adult life. No one should have to have a fetus grow in to a baby against their wish in their bodies. That’s slavery. I’d move out of any anti choice state.

 

I’m reminded of someone once saying self-righteousness kills more people than smoking…… or abortions, I might add.

 

It is a good quote, but what did the self-righteous of Jesus day do? Their self-righteousness filled them with such tremendous pride that they justified their own desire to shed innocent blood. They killed Jesus.

 

I’ve asked you twice now, 1)since you deem it murder should a woman spend over 10 years in prison for obtaining a abortion. And 2), if she is caught attempting to get one, should she be held in confinement and monitored until she gives birth. You can’t answer or unable to ( you answered my questions before, so now you’re ducking).

 

In my mind, in the grand scheme of things, a human life is no more sacred than, say, a dog’s, who we’ll put to sleep when we have to. Our lives are special only as to one another - one another outside the womb. Having said that, plank, I’d no more want to see a fetus at viability killed than I’d want to see an elk shot for sport. Until viability, a woman ought to be allowed an abortion.

Your opinion, and that’s all it is, of what life is from a Christian perspective is no more valid than mine from a non-Christian one. Thus, I’m pro choice and consider forcing the Christian perspective on to the rest of us to be self-righteous. This doesn’t mean you’re not a fine and moral man. You seem to be. And if your faith brings you comfort, as mine does me, I’m truly happy for you. I’m not anti-religion; just anti religion forcing its world view on those who don’t share it. It’s difficult for me to understand why the Christian right doesn’t understand that.

 

I answered it earlier, but maybe not as direct as you may have liked. I’ll repeat my answer, but be more specific. I said if murder can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then a mother should be convicted of murder. Whatever the law and the penalty for the person outside the womb is, that should be the law and the penalty for doing the same thing to a person inside the womb.

If the law demands prison for an identical scenario outside the womb, then that should be the penalty for doing the same thing to a person inside the womb.

So, if a person dismembers another person outside of the womb, then whatever penalty that action would get outside the womb that should be the penalty for dismembering a person in the womb.

If a person burned another person alive in chemicals outside of the womb, then whatever penalty that carries outside of the womb, that is the penalty that should apply to the person who burns an unborn person alive with chemicals.

Now the mother is not directly doing these things herself in an abortion. That is the abortionist doing these things. So, the abortionist should get the death penalty because he is doing these things directly. Someone is paying him/her to do it, and in a murder case outside of the womb the person paying another person to murder also is considered guilty of the crime. I don’t know the law well enough to know if the person who pays for a hit man always gets an equal or a lesser punishment, but whatever rules would apply outside the womb is what should also apply in the womb.

And there is one more consideration…I do think misinformation plays a role here. I think some women have been sold a lot of lies about what the nature of abortion is. They think it is a clump of cells. They go in for the ultrasound part of the pre-abortion process and the person doing the ultra-sound part purposefully uses the wand in such a way as to not show the best pictures of the baby. I think there is a possibility that some women aren’t aware of the true nature of what they are doing. But some women are. I think once we reach a point where the law is clear, though, then ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. At that point I think mothers are fully responsible.

And then also some women are forced by their husbands and their fathers to go get an abortion. They shouldn’t be held responsible for that, and the father or the husband should be able to be prosecuted for that.

 

I can see it now. Pregnant women eats lunch meat and has miscarriage. Involuntary manslaughter charges brought.

 

Obviously an exaggeration but probably not that far from the truth.

 

Burden of proof will be on the expectant mother mourning her miscarriage to prove she didn't cause it.

 

I don’t agree with that. The burden of proof has always been on the state.

 

Now what happens to all of the fertilized embryos at IVF clinics?

 

Meh. It’s the woman’s choice wether to grow a human or not. They are just going to get to other states or try it on their own. Can’t wait for the first murder trial in Texas for a medical procedure and watch them try to extradite a woman from New York. That’ll be some shit.

 

Should the state have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pregnant woman considered the fetus a human being? If the woman and her doctor thought that continued pregnancy would jeopardize her health and possibly her life should the state be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perception of the pregnant woman and her doctor was incorrect i.e that continued pregnancy would not adversely affect the woman?

 

That is precisely what I am saying. The state has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not want to punish an innocent person, and our laws are written in such a way that it is much more likely that a guilty person gets away with a crime than an innocent person gets convicted of a crime that they did not do. That principle actually comes from the Bible. In the Old Testament there was a high threshold of evidence required to convict a person of a capital crime. Deuteronomy says there had to be 2 or 3 witnesses to convict for a capital crime. In the New Testament there is a high threshold of evidence required to admit a charge against an elder in a church. Two or three witnesses is the high threshold required. And this is where our proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard comes from. It ultimately comes from Christianity and the 9th commandment not to bear false witness against a person. The state (and even the media) breaks the law of God when they wrongfully destroy someone's innocent reputation by assuming guilt without proof. The state also breaks the 5th commandment to not murder when they wrongfully put someone to death for a capital crime they did not commit. The state also breaks the 8th commandment not to steal when they imprison someone and steal their life away for something they did not do. So, the state is also bound by the law of God to obey His commandments. The state has no right to take the life of the innocent, steal from the innocent, or ruin the reputation of the innocent. The accused have rights, and they are presumed innocent until the evidence proves otherwise.

Other discussions could be had about the various ways that we have failed to uphold that principle in our nation's past, but the principle does carry forward into the modern context. Now if you apply that to the abortion context, yes, there might be a lot of women who get away with abortions. But that is assuming the only thing written in the law prohibits murder. If you get a law on the books that explicitly defines abortion as murder, then all the bets are off. The plausible deniability of not knowing that what you are doing is murder goes away because it is explicitly stated in the law that abortion carries all the penalties that a typical murder conviction would carry with it. In that scenario there is no cover for "I didn't know what I was doing is against the law."

 

Since there is no way to tell the difference of a natural miscarriage and an abortion pill induced miscarriage, should the police investigate all miscarriages?

 

Hospitals refusing to fully treat miscarriages now.

After New Abortion Laws, Some Patients Have Trouble Obtaining Miscarriage Treatment

Before Texas’s restrictive abortion law took effect, Amanda received a standard surgical procedure for a miscarriage. After the law, when she had another miscarriage, she said the same hospital declined to perform surgery and sent her home with instructions to return only if her bleeding was so excessive that it filled a diaper more than once an hour.

 

My initial thought is no, but I haven't thought about it much. It is an interesting question. I think it is a right to privacy issue for sure. I do believe privacy has become a political football and means a lot more to some people who subscribe to certain political ideologies than it originally meant. But I think even the constitutional writers would consider this a privacy issue.

So, I don't think every miscarriage should be investigated, but if there is good reason to investigate then there could an investigation. I am squarely in the camp of criminalizing abortion, but also having strong rights to protect those who could potentially be accused. There is a way to do this where mothers don't have to worry about possible legal repercussions being involved with a miscarriage. I think the state needs to have really good evidence to charge someone, and I think the state needs to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction. I also think the state needs to respect privacy rights as they go about investigating things like this.

I guess the question is...do we have the resources to investigate every miscarriage? Probably not. And if we had the resources could an investigation be done for every miscarriage in such a way as to protect the privacy rights of mothers and families? I suppose it is possible, but I think it is doubtful that such resources would be available. We may just have to accept that laws are on the books, but people will violate those laws anyways and get away with it. It is not perfect, but no system is perfect. And that would be an improvement over the current system we have right now. There are instances where the guilty will fall through the cracks, but God will get them on the day of judgement.

 

Well if abortion is murder, and the death of an olive size fetus with no consciousness and no feeling is as egregious as murdering a child, then why wouldn’t you investigate every miscarriage? A human being (per your definition) died. Why wouldn’t it be investigated?

 

Yes, I was weighing that possibility, which is why I said you asked a really great question. I brought up resources, which we don't have unlimited resources. Do you think Bradford or Levi County could afford to investigate every miscarriage? Do you think they would have the budget to afford something like that?

Ideally, in a perfect world where every county had unlimited budgeting, sure, that might happen. Then there is the privacy issue of a mourning mother. I mean the murder scene is literally in her body, which the state does not have a right to just examine her body. So, there are some real challenges to investigating something like this. I suppose the only type of investigation that could be done is examining the remains of the baby, which could be an effective way of determining what happened to the baby. I'm sure forensics could determine if poison, drugs, chemicals, or a coat hanger were involved with the baby's death. However, I imagine in many miscarriages you may not even have something to examine. So, I guess it is possible on some level to do some kind of investigation, but I think the cost would be astronomical. My gut says it probably isn't feasible from a budget perspective. I think we would probably have to live with not investigating every single case unless if the state got really efficient about how they go about it.

 

So you want to criminalize something and call it murder, but then don’t think it is important enough to enforce?

Watching you morally wrestle with these truly bizarre scenarios would be comical if it weren’t so frightening.