Utah women may face murder charges after miscarriages

[serverandenforcer 33]

I think its the person's choice. I do not agree with abortion but I am not going to tell a person what to do with their bodies. They have to answer for it someday, I don't. Doesn't affect me in the least bit. I have my 4 wonderful children. Someone wants to be a douche bag and terminate their pregnancy, it will catch up to them one day. It always does.

 

This is how I see it. Say for instance when mym mom becomes old and elderly and has to be taken care of frequently. It becomes an inconvenience for me to carry on with my life. Do I have the right to terminate her life because she is an inconvenience? Now let's throw rape into the mix. Let's use the example that I have been captured and tortured continuously by my captors and they offer me a way to escape but only if I kill my mom. Do I have the right to kill my mom? If the answer is vehemently no, then that same response should be placed on an unborn. Right now unborns don't have an advocate to defend them, and to step back saying it will someday catch up to the ones who teminated that unborn's life isn't good enough. They need to be fight for just as we would fight for anybody else. Does an unwanted pregnancy suck... heck yeah, especially from an assault. But there is now another life involved, a life that should be valued and cherished. I think our government has done a piss poor job in promoting life. We have killed an incentive to encourage life.

 

I believe there is a famous quote by Edmund Burke that would fit this.

Edited March 2, 2010 by serverandenforcer

[UnknownPilot 33]

Does an unwanted pregnancy suck... heck yeah, especially from an assault. But there is now another life involved, a life that should be valued and cherished.

 

Why?

 

That is a serious question, and not meant to be, or spark, flames.

[+Dave 2,319]

Don't disagree with you SD, but I am busy with my life and family to be an advocate. If a person wants to take up the cause, then so be it. It still doesn't affect me. It really doesn't. So I guess what I am saying is my stance is really no stance. Same thing with someone being gay, just don't care. Those are issues that do not have any bearing on whether I am going BBQ this weekend or not, or if my Tigers with have a good spring training or not. Unless you are an actual advocate for these people why let it bother you.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Why?

 

That is a serious question, and not meant to be, or spark, flames.

 

Simple way to answer that... Should lives of your family members, your own children should be valued and cherished? If so, then why? Shouldn't that response be the same for an unborn? What makes an unborn undeserving of such a response? Just because of its predicament of being in a womb - which by the way the unborn has no control of. The world rallies left and right for human rights but turns a blind eye to a helpless innocent being that has no control over the situation that it's in. An unborn is a human being and its out of selfishness and ignorance not to acknowledge that.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Don't disagree with you SD, but I am busy with my life and family to be an advocate. If a person wants to take up the cause, then so be it. It still doesn't affect me. It really doesn't. So I guess what I am saying is my stance is really no stance. Same thing with someone being gay, just don't care. Those are issues that do not have any bearing on whether I am going BBQ this weekend or not, or if my Tigers with have a good spring training or not. Unless you are an actual advocate for these people why let it bother you.

 

Well I am advocate for pro-life. Have been for a long time. In my point of view, anybody who does value life should be bothered about it. Now, I'm not saying to go out with signs and protest at the local clinic... by the way I think that loses support instead of gains.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Born or unborn, there is nothing special about us

 

How can you say that? There's something special about all of us. We are a unique presence in this universe, albeit there may be other intelligent life out there, but it's got to be really freaken rare since we haven't discovered any yet. That means the occurence of intelligent life isn't a common phenomenon, which means its special. Yes, I'm even saying that you're special.... but don't hold me to that

Edited March 2, 2010 by serverandenforcer

[UnknownPilot 33]

I'm sorry, but this is purely emotional.

 

Simple way to answer that... Should lives of your family members, your own children should be valued and cherished? If so, then why?

 

I don't have kids. I don't want kids. And I have no desire to contribute to the over-population problem we have, both in this country and on this planet. But that is neither here nor there.

 

What you are asking is if a person that matters TO ME is considred important by me. And the answer is yes, I feel that they are valued and to be cherished, but only by me, and only because they matter to me personally. In otherwords, it's self-interest. I don't, and can't, expect anyone else to give a rat's ass. If they do, well great, but any thing said outsiders do for them should come purely from their own pockets and time, not through a socialist gov't program.... and I digress.

 

 

Shouldn't that response be the same for an unborn?

 

Per the above.... no.

 

 

What makes an unborn undeserving of such a response?

 

This is not a "person" that has become entangled in society yet. There is no real attachment to it by anybody yet (I'm not here to argue semmantics or split hairs, my point is that the level is not even comparable), nor have they managed to get anybody dependent upon them yet. In other words, their presence, or lack of it, equals the same. It's zero sum.

 

 

The world rallies left and right for human rights

 

I don't. I only care about OUR freedom and rights and Constitution. Other countries are their own problem.

 

 

but turns a blind eye to a helpless innocent being that has no control over the situation that it's in. An unborn is a human being and its out of selfishness and ignorance not to acknowledge that.

 

Actually.... it's quite the opposite I'm afraid. It's pure selfishness that drives your argument. See, if you really sit down and approach grieving and loss from a logical standpoint, you (have to) realize that the only reason it hurts, is because YOU won't have them around anymore. It is selfishness. I'm not saying that it's bad or wrong. It is what it is. I'm just saying that the real selfishness is the claim that every life is sacred and should be held up as something great. It might be, it might not be. That "life" could be the next Lenin (Vladimir (not John) aka "pure evil incarnate") just as much as it could be the next Einstein. However in all likelihood it's going to be nothing more than a drain on planetary resources providing no good at all and doing nothing of note.

 

Also, it's selfish to insist that somebody should be forced to take repsonsibility for that life, even if it means tossing it into an orphanarium (Futurama term, sorry lol). Or worse, to grow up in absolute squalor and not given the love or care one should be (to do it right). That is a cruel fate flippantly, and selfishly assigned to these individuals, simply because you want to insist that human life is somehow special or important or sacred. (How many kids have you adopted? How many do you plan to?)

 

Quality (of life) - not quantity.

[+Dave 2,319]

 

 

Born or unborn, there is nothing special about us -

 

 

You haven't had my BBQ then either. It'll make you go to church and kick out a stain glass window and slap your momma.... There are those on this site that can testify to that too.

 

[UnknownPilot 33]

How can you say that? There's something special about all of us. We are a unique presence in this universe, albeit there may be other intelligent life out there, but it's got to be really freaken rare since we haven't discovered any yet. That means the occurence of intelligent life isn't a common phenomenon, which means its special. Yes, I'm even saying that you're special.... but don't hold me to that

 

The only thing that makes people beleive they are special, is that they beleive they are special - IOW, self-interest. ;)

 

We are nothing more than atoms. Stardust. Life just like any other. Life itself isn't as rare as some once beleived, nor is it that fragile or difficult to spark. And "intelligence" or not, opposable thumbs and tools or not, the world spun before us, and it will spin without us. It's no different than any other species that has ever lived and gone extinct. The only ones to notice are us.

 

That doesn't mean I think we should just disappear, I very much agree with Commander Sinclair's repsonse to the question of why we should remain in space (Season 1 of Babylon 5), but the only real reason for that to matter is selfishness. It matters to ME and perhaps us as a species. But not to the dinosaurs, not to Algae, not to extremophiles living on black smokers on the ocean floor - and certainly not to the cosmos at large.

[UnknownPilot 33]

You haven't had my BBQ then either. It'll make you go to church and kick out a stain glass window and slap your momma.... There are those on this site that can testify to that too.

 

 

lol, I'm sure it's a blast. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a nihilist, and I don't want to see everyone wiped out. I'm just taking the purely pragmatic, scientific approach. We are overpopulated, that does need to change. And in the grand scheme of things, well, even if we manage to turn this rock into asteroids, it won't really matter, as Sol will absorb it anyway. We're just dust along for the ride, 'cept that we can look around us and marvel at it as we go.

 

[+Dave 2,319]

lol, I'm sure it's a blast. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a nihilist, and I don't want to see everyone wiped out. I'm just taking the purely pragmatic, scientific approach. We are overpopulated, that does need to change. And in the grand scheme of things, well, even if we manage to turn this rock into asteroids, it won't really matter, as Sol will absorb it anyway. We're just dust along for the ride, 'cept that we can look around us and marvel at it as we go.

 

 

But do they have BBQ?

 

I guess I contributed to the over population with my 4 kids. It was going to be 3 but we got the 2 for one sale that day. Thats what happens when ones wife is gone on a remote tour for a year.

[FastCargo 412]

Personally, I don't think the State (generic government term) should be involved in abortion issues...period.

 

The State should not restrict your choice to continue with a pregnancy or not.

 

But, the State will not help you abort it either. No State funding for clinics, doctors, regulation, etc, that has anything to do with abortion. Any doctor/clinic who receives State funding will not be allowed to perform abortions.

 

You want the responsibility of a choice? You live with the consequences.

 

FC

 

PS I do find it ironic that the folks who tend to push for abortion rights also tend to object to the death penalty for capital crimes. Seems to me an odd contrast...allow terminations for beings who for the majority of cases have done nothing wrong except to exist, vs folks who have damaged society, harmed others deliberately, and do nothing but take up oxygen and resources (unless they become involuntary organ donors....).

[UnknownPilot 33]

PS I do find it ironic that the folks who tend to push for abortion rights also tend to object to the death penalty for capital crimes. Seems to me an odd contrast...allow terminations for beings who for the majority of cases have done nothing wrong except to exist, vs folks who have damaged society, harmed others deliberately, and do nothing but take up oxygen and resources (unless they become involuntary organ donors....).

 

Agreed.

 

God Bless Texas.

 

 

I’m from Texas. In Texas we have the death penalty. And we USE it.

 

That’s right, if you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. That’s our policy.

 

They’re trying to pass a bill right now through the Texas Legislature that will speed up the process of execution in heinous crimes where there’s more than three credible eye witnesses. If more than three people saw you do what you did, you don’t sit on death row for 15 years, Jack, you go straight to the front of the line.

 

Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty … my state’s puttin’ in an express lane.

Edited March 2, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[FalconC45 157]

How can you say that? There's something special about all of us. We are a unique presence in this universe, albeit there may be other intelligent life out there, but it's got to be really freaken rare since we haven't discovered any yet. That means the occurence of intelligent life isn't a common phenomenon, which means its special. Yes, I'm even saying that you're special.... but don't hold me to that

 

UGH. Everytime a person tells me that I'm special just because I'm in this god forsaking wheelchair, I just to tell them to f*%* off, but usually I'm daydreamin of blowing their brains out instead

 

Falcon

[serverandenforcer 33]

Wow Unknown Pilot, if that's what your view is on everything, then there is no point for me to argue with you about this. According to how you see things, I am completely backwards. The real question is though which way is the right way. We're both going to state that our views are the correct ones till we're blue in the face. I guess only in the end we will find out what's right and what's wrong.

Edited March 2, 2010 by serverandenforcer

[UnknownPilot 33]

Wow Unknown Pilot, if that's what your view is on everything, then there is no point for me to argue with you about this. According to how you see things, I am completely backwards. The real question is though which way is the right way. We're both going to state that our views are the correct ones till we're blue in the face. I guess only in the end we will find out what's right and what's wrong.

 

 

The "backwards" part is in claiming that what isn't selfish is, and vice versa, and also ascribing some specificly bad association with selfishness.

 

In other words - "An unborn is a human being and its out of selfishness and ignorance not to acknowledge that.", the selfishness is in that stance in and of itself. It also implies that selfishness is also an inherently bad thing (it can be, but many things can be, that doesn't mean they are inherently so).

 

I never said it was bad to be selfish. I just pointed out how that is the root of grief, and this notion that we are somehow "special", and that as such, innately valuable in some way.

 

But you are right however, we probably won't do much to convince the other on the matter. And so I don't wish to push for any sort of argument. I just didn't want you to think I was trying to insult you or call you, yourself, backward or anything.

[serverandenforcer 33]

The "backwards" part is in claiming that what isn't selfish is, and vice versa, and also ascribing some specificly bad association with selfishness.

 

In other words - "An unborn is a human being and its out of selfishness and ignorance not to acknowledge that.", the selfishness is in that stance in and of itself. It also implies that selfishness is also an inherently bad thing (it can be, but many things can be, that doesn't mean they are inherently so).

 

I never said it was bad to be selfish. I just pointed out how that is the root of grief, and this notion that we are somehow "special", and that as such, innately valuable in some way.

 

But you are right however, we probably won't do much to convince the other on the matter. And so I don't wish to push for any sort of argument. I just didn't want you to think I was trying to insult you or call you, yourself, backward or anything.

 

I'm not offended... I just have a personal passion against abortion. I know that the world sees that as backwards of me.

[eraser_tr 29]

 

But, the State will not help you abort it either. No State funding for clinics, doctors, regulation, etc, that has anything to do with abortion. Any doctor/clinic who receives State funding will not be allowed to perform abortions.

 

PS I do find it ironic that the folks who tend to push for abortion rights also tend to object to the death penalty for capital crimes. Seems to me an odd contrast...allow terminations for beings who for the majority of cases have done nothing wrong except to exist, vs folks who have damaged society, harmed others deliberately, and do nothing but take up oxygen and resources (unless they become involuntary organ donors....).

 

Mostly agreed, but it goes both ways, pro-life and pro-death penalty, if life is so sacred no matter how inconsequential, then even a criminal's life is worth keeping around.

 

To not be contradictory, you've got to be pro-life and anti-death penalty (and in a wider sense, anti-violence all together), or find that every once and a while, it may be better overall if someone unborn isn't and that some who have wronged deserved to die.

 

For elective abortions, no state funding is perfectly reasonable, but what about in the case of rape, incest or their life is in danger? There's the exception to every rule.

 

And how about this: those stuck in poverty tend to have the most abortions. By forcing them to have the kid, that's often more welfare and medicaid money to be shoveled out. So it comes back to bite you anyway.

[+Dave 2,319]

Lets talk about more important stuff, like.....BBQ, spring, and cooking a hog in the pit. This other stuff is just to serious. Beers and BBQ at my place this summer. (3rd annual CA shindig is coming)

 

 

[FastCargo 412]

Mostly agreed, but it goes both ways, pro-life and pro-death penalty, if life is so sacred no matter how inconsequential, then even a criminal's life is worth keeping around.

 

To not be contradictory, you've got to be pro-life and anti-death penalty (and in a wider sense, anti-violence all together), or find that every once and a while, it may be better overall if someone unborn isn't and that some who have wronged deserved to die.

 

I would tend to agree except in the following: Unlike a fetus (or for that matter, stem cells) where there is only the possibility to save other lives through abortion, a person who is harvested as a capital punishment case is capable of saving other lives immediately.

 

For elective abortions, no state funding is perfectly reasonable, but what about in the case of rape, incest or their life is in danger? There's the exception to every rule.

 

Sure there is...never said there wasn't. But, these cases are relatively rare, and so can be addressed on that individual basis. Does not mean the law is invalid.

 

And how about this: those stuck in poverty tend to have the most abortions. By forcing them to have the kid, that's often more welfare and medicaid money to be shoveled out. So it comes back to bite you anyway.

 

This to me is a fallacy. There are plenty of agencies out there (non-profits, charities, etc) that will happily accept babies to be adopted. Heck, you can even leave a baby at a police station or fire station. Getting babies adopted usually isn't the issue...it's getting older children adopted that's tough. This idea that there aren't any options other than welfare for unexpected or unwanted babies is untrue.

 

And besides...there is no 'forcing' them to have the kid...again, the law I proposed does not prohibit abortions...merely the State funding such. Nothing that says she couldn't go to a private or charity practice to get a safe abortion.

 

FC

Edited March 2, 2010 by FastCargo

[JediMaster 451]

I think the definition of life should be simple: if the mother dies NOW, can the fetus/baby be removed from the womb and live, or will it die? The heartbeat argument holds no water because there are microscopic organisms with heartbeats.

If leaving the womb means death, no matter the technology to sustain available, it's not a person yet. It's just potential.

Having lived thru miscarriages with my wife, I've had no choice but to become inured to emotional attachment until the pregnancy has progressed to a "safe" point.

[eraser_tr 29]

Yes, there are many options for giving away a baby, but even with unwanted children, mothers get attached and keep the baby, even when they can't properly take care of it. The point I'm making is designing a law, you have to take into account possibilities and side effects, not going after one outcome with tunnel vision on a specific subscription of morality.

 

No organism can have a heartbeat, without having an actual heart, I wouldn't exactly call the most primitive circulatory and respiratory systems a heartbeat.

[shotdown 8]

Nobody is "pro-abortion" (well unless its rape/incest) It's just nobody else can't tell a person what they do with their body.

 

Actually, the problem is what they do with someone else(the unborn child)'s body.

Edited March 3, 2010 by shotdown

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

A real question, that is, when can a foetus be considered a person? Some people now want for a miscarried foetus the same things they'd have wanted for a stillborn child: giving him/her a name, and deserving funerals. In the past times, the question could have been the same for living, standing people to be considered as persons, integrated in their societies. In many archaic societies (some Native American peoples, for example), there were formal rituals for every individual to become a real part of the community, and before these, he/she was naught, only bearing a temporary, unofficial name, when having one. At the Romans, the newborn wasn't part of the family before the paterfamilias has recognized him/her as such. Wasn't it the case, he/she could be abandoned like a waste. As heartless as they could look, these archaic rituals kept close to the nature, not polluted by the Jewish/ Christian/ Muslim beliefs that placed the Man far above the rest of Creation. We can see today how large the way we have f****d up this Creation.

 

I'm for a total freedom of choice for the women to carry on or abort their pregnancy. If the question can be asked for a foetus, a woman is unquestionaby a human being whose free will can't be suspended for 9 months for any reason. She can't be seen as a simple egg shell on two legs, condemned to carry on a pregnancy she don't want. In fact, even with an egg, maturing life can be swiftly aborted by simply raising your arse up! By the way, I have a real admiration for the women's ability to carry and mature life. If I was feeling a life growing in my belly, I think I would simply turn mad!

 

Personally, I don't have children and don't want to have ones. When you give life, you also give pain, old age, and death. Strange birth gifts, to say the truth, but that's a package, you can't choose to discard some options. That's not because you won't live old enough to see your children use pipes and bags to painfully piss that they'll never use them. Moreover, I agree with some things that have been said before: we humans really become much too numerous and greedy for this poor little round rock. And the future we have prepared for the next generations is a scaring one. Sometimes, I think that the human kind should just stop to reproduce and accept to die from old age, as it would be a much more deserving, decent, and quiet death than to be drowned in her own s**t, which is to happen within the next two centuries.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Shame there aren't more Women on the Forum, to give their opinion

 

It sounds like the Taliban on here