Gosnell case

[Maddhattter]

I’m curious. I do understand this is not the current situation, but would it not make sense that the murder and abortion rules match up like Frost was talking about? I don’t see why one would be murder and another wouldn’t.

The entire abortion debate comes down to when a fetus becomes a person in the eyes of the law. If you state that killing is murder just because something is alive, then you make cancer treatments and eating murder. So, limitation must be made in how murder is defined.

Supreme Court ruling states only after the fetus is viable, capable of sustained survival outside the woman's body with or without artificial aid, may the states ban abortion altogether. Abortions necessary to preserve the woman's life or health must still be allowed, however, even after fetal viability.

Up until the fetus has viablility, as defined above, the fetus is co-opting the biological processes of the mother. The mother has no more legal, and in my opinion moral, obligation to provide those biological services than you have if you can provide a kidney or donate blood to someone who will die without it.

To put it simply... The fetus/baby has no right to the mother's body or biological processes.

Once the baby has reached a point in which is is viable, as seems to have been the situation in the Gosnell case, then I'd wholly agree with Forever Frost that it has become murder.

[The King]

^^^^^
Maddhattter comes through nicely after racrboy utterly fails again

[exlude]

So, if I choose to kill a newborn, that's fine because if I don't feed it, it'll die and it is incapable of surviving on it's own as long as it's my child?

You're still slightly missing viability.

[Forever_frost]

The entire abortion debate comes down to when a fetus becomes a person in the eyes of the law. If you state that killing is murder just because something is alive, then you make cancer treatments and eating murder. So, limitation must be made in how murder is defined.

Supreme Court ruling states only after the fetus is viable, capable of sustained survival outside the woman's body with or without artificial aid, may the states ban abortion altogether. Abortions necessary to preserve the woman's life or health must still be allowed, however, even after fetal viability.

Up until the fetus has viablility, as defined above, the fetus is co-opting the biological processes of the mother. The mother has no more legal, and in my opinion moral, obligation to provide those biological services than you have if you can provide a kidney or donate blood to someone who will die without it.

To put it simply... The fetus/baby has no right to the mother's body or biological processes.

Once the baby has reached a point in which is is viable, as seems to have been the situation in the Gosnell case, then I'd wholly agree with Forever Frost that it has become murder.

Except when you donate blood or a kidney, you didn't create that person, didn't perform actions to start that life. Your argument doesn't apply. You have no obligation to those strangers. If I refuse to give you food, tough. If I refuse to feed my son, I go to jail. If you refuse to give blood or a kidney to someone, tough. If you kill a life that you had to engage in certain acts to create, you're ending a life.

Cancer and eating also doesn't apply. Unless you're saying cancer is capable of becoming a person.

[Forever_frost]

You're still slightly missing viability.

No, just using one of the definitions instead of another. A newborn is not capable of surviving without outside assistance. It cannot hunt it's own food, cannot defend itself nor can it search out liquids to sate it's thirst.

[Maddhattter]

Except when you donate blood or a kidney, you didn't create that person, didn't perform actions to start that life.

I don't see how this is relevant. None of this gives the fetus/baby any rights to the mother's body.

Your argument doesn't apply. You have no obligation to those strangers.

Nor do you have any obligations to a biological process that can be terminated by choosing not to provide your biological services/processes to.

If I refuse to give you food, tough. If I refuse to feed my son, I go to jail.

Correct.

However, if I was legally dependent on you, you would go to jail as well. Even then, you still couldn't be forced to allow me to co-opt your body for my own needs.

If you refuse to give blood or a kidney to someone, tough.

We agree here.

If you kill a life that you had to engage in certain acts to create, you're ending a life.

This is an axiomatic statement with superfluous conditionals. If you kill something, you're ending a life. No matter what kid of life that is. How that life is created is irrelevant.

Cancer and eating also doesn't apply. Unless you're saying cancer is capable of becoming a person.

In the context in which I was using that analogy, it does.

[Tx Redneck]

TheBlaze has a video on this case. I know the left-of-center crowd will go crazy when they see it's Glenn Beck. Personally I find nothing wrong with what Beck has to say. The information on this case and the fact that it is being completely ignored by the media is incredible. I think part of it is that the doctor and his patients are from the same demographic and part of it is that the people get all caught up in this 'it's a woman's body, let her make the choice' argument and ignore the facts.

I don't agree with abortion, but under circumstances where it's legal, I can't make it stop. On the other hand, having a live birth and then murdering the child, well there's a special place in Hell for those people.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...video-segment/

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

[racrguy]

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

You really should post the images in the nsfw forum and/or link them here. Your shock tactics don't really hold any weight, and you aren't adding anything to the conversation...

[Forever_frost]

How is showing exactly what is involved in this procedure "shock tactics?"

[racrguy]

How is showing exactly what is involved in this procedure "shock tactics?"

He's attempting to sway opinion by posting those images. There's some pretty gory shit with almost any type of medical procedure.

[Tx Redneck]

Not a shock tactic at all, just cold, hard truth of what he and MANY other "Dr's" do, they just do their dirt when the baby isn't "viable".

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

[racrguy]

So you don't like it. Take it up with the Supreme Court because at this point there's nobody that can do anything about it outside of those 9 people.

[Forever_frost]

Supreme Court had no authority to say anything on abortion. Try again

[Forever_frost]

He's attempting to sway opinion by posting those images. There's some pretty gory shit with almost any type of medical procedure.

Who would he be trying to sway again? There's gory stuff with medicine but nothing elicits the same visceral response as killing the most helpless and innocent, an unborn child. Unless you think that the same restrictions on posting should be put up for heart surgery. One second:

[racrguy]

Supreme Court had no authority to say anything on abortion. Try again

Shut the fuck up with that authority shit. You keep saying it, yet everything says you're wrong.