"...except in the case of rape or incest."

quote:

---

The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience....

---

Actually the real issue is terminating an unwanted condition. "Innocent" and "life" are rhetorical terms used by those who have no real argument beyond their own desire to impose their beliefs and values on others.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Interesting. Then why was Scott Peterson convited of 2 murders? According to you his son would be simply an "unwanted condition."
Hell, his wife was obviously an unwanted condition; and he should be able to kill his wife because, after all, I don't want to impose my beliefs and values on him.This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:10 PM

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

quote:

---

That is up to the legislature to decide, but second degree murder sounds good. It is the sentence Scott Peterson recieved for killing his unborn son.

---

That's going to be quite a few 9-26 year old girls and women convicted of second degree murder.You interested in sending thousands of girls to prison?

The difference between a partial-birth abortion and murder is 6 inches. The fact remains the same: You have still terminated a human life simply because you didn't want to take responsibility for your actions (pre-marital unprotected sex). You play, you pay.To answer your question, yes. If someone breaks the law they should be punished. I work in Law Enforcment and that is how I see it.This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:14 PM

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

quote:

---

Hell, his wife was obviously an unwanted condition; and he should be able to kill his wife because, after all, I don't want to impose my beliefs and values on him.

---

What about people who take the "Morning After Pill"?Should we convict them of murder if it can be determined that they housed within their bodies a fertilized egg?Also, should we be collecting and searching the menstrual discharge of all female people, since most fertilized eggs never implant and are expelled to die?What about IUD's? Since they prevent preganacy by preventing implantation, should we outlaw them?I mean, Those fertilized eggs are life, right? Shouldn't we be doing all we can to save it?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-14-2006 03:18 PM

quote:

---

Then why was Scott Peterson convited of 2 murders?

---

Because there are legislators that would abuse the law and language for their own agendas.-

quote:

---

According to you his son would be simply an "unwanted condition."

---

No, that would be determination made by the woman carrying the fetus.-

quote:

---

his wife was obviously an unwanted condition

---

Probably, but unlike a fetus at least his wife was a person.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

So tell me tal, do you support the government providing free and easily-obtained birth control and extensive and explicit government-mandated sex education for all children and people, starting from an early age?This is in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

quote:

---

The difference between a partial-birth abortion and murder is 6 inches.

---

And the difference between shooting an enemy combatant and murdering someone with a gun is a piece of paper.

Ooo you got me there!lol

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

quote:

---

That's an interesting question, but even if a fetus gains all human rights at the moment of conception, I'm not familiar with any concept of human rights that mandates that any human being has a right to divert sustenance from the body and organs of another human being.

​

Over 50,000 people are sitting on the transplant lists, waiting for kidneys. And just about everybody has a spare one that they can live without. What's the difference between a putative right of a fetus to take residency in a woman's uterus and a dialysis patient's putative right to go around harvesting kidneys against the will of their donors?

---

I think the fact that the mother carried the fetus up to the point where it has human rights demands that she has certain responsibilities towards its well being.This isn't a stranger after all, and terming it that way it kindof miseleading. This is where your analogy breaks down imo. By bringing the fetus to the point where it has human rights gives you certain responsibilities towards that person.Does a person have the right to demand that you feed them and take care of them? What right does a person have to demand that you divert resources and time for its well being? None, in most cases. But if it is your newborn baby, you do have a responsibility towards its future well being. You can't just throw it in the garbage. Do you disagree with this?So just as a stranger doesn't have the right to demand that you divert your time and resources for his/her future well being, but your newborn baby does, a stranger doesn't have the right to demand to use your organs, but a baby (i.e, fetus with human rights) does.

You play you pay. I don't support the government doing anything relating to sex. That should be for the parents (competent parents anyway)to *gasp* teach their children about sex and its CONSEQUENCES. Have an unwanted pregnance? Either keep the kid or give him/her up for adoption. There are plenty of couples out there that can't have kids of their own that would jump at the chance of adopting. The answer is definately not to scramble the kids brains and crush his skull.Here's a theory: Don't have sex until marriage. I did it. I now have 2 wonderful children and good, solid family life. Who taught me about sex? My mother did when I was 8 years old. All the gory stuff too. It wasn't just jack and jill make a baby jack somehow. I guess that was her nursing and biology degrees coming into play. I didn't rely on the government to tell me how to make my decisions or what the consequences would be.This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:37 PM

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

No, so called "Pro-Choicers" have to agree with this if their logic about ending an "unwanted condtion" is to stand the test.

quote:

---

You play you pay.

---

This seems to support the idea that pregnancy is just punishment for a woman who dares to have sex outside of a legally sanctioned marriage. (Now if only we had something to take care of those lesbians!)

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Understand, Tal, that we're talking about one out of every three women in America.You're advocating the death penalty for one out of every three women in America? Don't you think that could have some repercussions on the population? (yeah, yeah, "so does abortion." Here's the thing - laws against abortion don't prevent abortions.)

rotfl!!!