That’s not what CNN report says at all. Did you read it or just copy and paste the headline? This is what one top Democrat told me, they said, “Everyone who expresses any level of suspicion or contrary views, they call everyone, and they beat the shit out of them and say stay on message,” Lee asserted. Basically no one threatened to beat the shit out of anyone. The person relaying the story said in his own words “beat the shit” to represent his characterization of being yelled at or threatened.
That is true, but I choose to abide what God says which has final authority. I know many do not agree with that or that there is even a God. One day they will know, but I know whom I believe in and that is unshakable.
"Herf, derf. What I choose to say God has said in the Bible shall be treated with the utmost, inviolable authority! Until I switch things around and say that God said something different in the Bible. Or I choose to focus on a different part!"
I feel this seems to say that the government should post no limits at all. (Apologies if I am misinterpreting.)
This is why i dont consider it murder for the most part. We have different terms based on intent. If you have been taught it isn't human, then you arent intending to kill a human.
The problem is that your religious texts don't directly address the topic. You chose to interpret them as addressing the topic. That is why even the religions that also utilize your texts don't all agree on this issue.
You should actually look at the history of those laws. They were largely bad faith laws passed by people trying to make abortion points in recent years. Most of the laws were passed in the time period of the late 1990s through the mid-2010s. Most states that have laws predating that period recognized the event but treated it as a separate crime, not murder.
Similar to abortion, I would say a criminal punching an 8 months pregnant woman - and causing the developing infant to be lost at that stage, is just about murder. Almost all women would feel that level of grief at 8 months. I have no issue with it being charged accordingly as murder. On the other hand a violent act causing a woman to miscarry at something like 12 weeks, i don’t see as murder. Although it should probably be an elevated crime if indeed a violent crime can be linked to a miscarriage (ex. if convicted of felony assault, double the sentence for causing the loss of the fetus). I have no issue treating it like that. But murder is a reach. If we wanted to charge people for doing stupid stuff that caused themselves or someone else to lose a 1st trimester or 2nd trimester pregnancy to miscarriage, intentionally or otherwise, then we are going to need a lot more women’s prisons. Good luck!
Why would a 12 week baby be any less of a baby who was several months older? A baby, at twelve weeks is now 5.4cm long from head to bottom, which is about the size of a plum. The internal organs and muscles have grown, and the heartbeat can be picked up on an ultrasound scan. The skeleton is made up from tissue and hardening into bone. When a human life begins (at conception) yes governments can choose whatever laws, restrictions or non restrictions it wants. Doesn't make it right just because it's legal. As human life begins regardless of stage of growth we all have innate worth. Value is not derived from something outside of the individual, it is intrinsic to who they are. That is why destroying a human being is wrong. We are talking about helpless human beings. If the intrinsic value of unborn human beings qualifies them for protection under many homicide statues, why is something extrinsic - like the mother's choice - relevant? How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the little human being inside her? What would prevent say a government who deems a certain type of citizen or group of people based on race, sex or beliefs should not exist from exterminating them as in exercising government pro choice? Maybe they are deemed as sub human? If there are no absolutes to the sanctity of life what makes this action wrong but not abortion? The only rational is based on opinion that a mother has the right to kill her baby because she or a segment believe a baby is not a baby until after birth. It would have to claim a fetus is not a baby, I suppose that is why some abortions have been done during 8 months of pregnancy or actually done near birth.
Why do we always describe the fetus in terms of food? A peanut, then a grape, a tater tot, a chicken nugget, then a we go through more fruits- lime, lemon, apple, tomato, then a burrito, mango, squash, lettuce, cantaloupe, pumpkin.
It really comes down to if you view a fetus as an individual life or do you view it merely as an extension of the mother’s body. Either way you view it, you are terminating an individual life or you are terminating part of a woman’s body.
In this case size comparison. But to my two daughters they are the apple of my eye and my wife is such a peach.
A number of reasons. A lack of consciousness or ability to engage in sensory perceptions (which develops about 3-4 months after that stage) is probably the most commonly cited one. Again, the notion that a fetus at 12 weeks old is not treated the same as a baby who has been born is entirely consistent both with religious law in many religions and in the law of this country historically.
1. It's still a life that is maturing. How much consciousness does a 5 minute baby have when born? Life is a steady progression up to adulthood. 2. How many religious laws or religions have you studied to know how they all compare? 3. Why is comparison more important than differences? A fentanyl tablet might compare to an aspirin tablet in shape and size but one is lethal.
A baby generally has consciousness when it is born. They are aware of their surroundings. They have access to each of their senses. Consciousness is usually attached to the development of a cerebral cortex, which occurs at 26 weeks. There are still debates as to whether the development of the capacity of consciousness is actually when consciousness begins, due to some issues surrounding pregnancy and the somewhat sedated nature of a fetus at this stage, but it would be difficult to argue consciousness prior to the development of the capacity for consciousness. In contrast, multiple studies have shown consciousness amongst newborns, by showing brain reactions to sounds and other stimuli. Many. I didn't claim to know how they all felt. However, there are differences between many religions on the topic. Heck, as I pointed out Jewish Law, which is based in the texts you cited (amongst others, obviously), does not agree with your position. No idea what you are even talking about here.
in GA there actually is a law allowing a taxpayer to claim a dependent on a pre born child. I’m not sure how many other states have this provision.
