abortion is murder, and how shall we respond to it

[kenmaynard]

Ok So 86% of all abortions are performed on women who's entire family income is less than $60,000. That doesn't sound rich to me.

It sounds fine to me, and it certainly isn't the salary of the "uneducated and poor"

I have asked this several time to those who say abortion is murder. What should happen to the mother and Dr? Should they go to prison? For how long?

Yes, I think so. For however long people get sentenced for murder now....that is a figure that varies from case to case right?

Way to ignore the nearly 30% who make less than 15,000 a year. Less than 40% of the abortions were really in a non poverty income range.

Also, while I view abortion to be an immoral and selfish act. Sending poor women to prison for premeditated murder for the rest of their lives or giving them the death penalty seems a little barbaric. As for there are varying sentences there is very little variation in the sentencing for premeditated murder.

 

[Caroline H]

The study you point to is 15 years old now and isn't related to the U.S. So here are a couple more.

2.8 per cent of 1,773 abortions performed in the US were attributed to risk to maternal health.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Here is another study that substantiates the previous one.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

The study you point to contains data from 1967-1997, so yours is only 3 years more relevant.

From the small number of studies carried out between 1967 and 1997 that included reasons for abortion, we selected only those that solicited information directly from women who had had an abortion, that were based on open-ended questions or precoded responses with a wide range of response alternatives, and that presented quantitative information on reasons for abortion. Because of the relative paucity of this research, we included some studies with small sample sizes. The 32 studies selected for analysis are listed in the Appendix.

Could you show me where the 2.8% is derived from 1,773 abortions? I don't see that in the article. This is the only thing I see referring to what you have stated, and the numbers there come from 1987-1988?? (circled in red)[attachment=0:2g6e9jin]chart.jpg[/attachment:2g6e9jin]

 

[kenmaynard]

The study you point to is 15 years old now and isn't related to the U.S. So here are a couple more.

2.8 per cent of 1,773 abortions performed in the US were attributed to risk to maternal health.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Here is another study that substantiates the previous one.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

The study you point to contains data from 1967-1997, so yours is only 3 years more relevant.

From the small number of studies carried out between 1967 and 1997 that included reasons for abortion, we selected only those that solicited information directly from women who had had an abortion, that were based on open-ended questions or precoded responses with a wide range of response alternatives, and that presented quantitative information on reasons for abortion. Because of the relative paucity of this research, we included some studies with small sample sizes. The 32 studies selected for analysis are listed in the Appendix.

Could you show me where the 2.8% is derived from 1,773 abortions? I don't see that in the article. This is the only thing I see referring to what you have stated, and the numbers there come from 1987-1988?? (circled in red)[attachment=0:31dz3grt]chart.jpg[/attachment:31dz3grt]

Well why would I need to show you? You found the info all on your own. It is only slightly more recent but it is dealing with statistics from the United States and not some European country.

 

[Caroline H]

Well why would I need to show you?

I guess because of your statement that

2.8 per cent of 1,773 abortions performed in the US were attributed to risk to maternal health.

?

 

[kenmaynard]

Well why would I need to show you?

I guess because of your statement that [quote:26yjofjf]2.8 per cent of 1,773 abortions performed in the US were attributed to risk to maternal health.

?[/quote:26yjofjf]


The table you showed is the raw data. 2.8% of the 1,773 of the abortions were due to risk to maternal health. All the paragraphs were interpretations of the meaning of the raw data.

 

[Caroline H]

Since there has been another thread created discussing this topic, I will continue this in there if you wish. Let's not derail this thread any longer

 

[Lewis]

That is where you are wrong, I do think that we should use deadly force to protect our wife kids, mom. I have argued that many times on this board over the years. And I will use deadly force if I have to, to protect my family. I am not going to stand up there and pray for a man raping and beating my family. Don't want to go to far off topic here.

You aren't making sense to me. When a woman wants to protect her own life you say no trade offs, but when it come to you protecting yourself you say its ok. Why the double standard?

I see that you are one of those hard to deal with people, you just twisted what I said. So you are telling me to keep watching TV while my wife is being raped in the next room, and then after that, he goes in and beats and rapes my daughters, you are the one who does not make sense. This abortion issue is something else, I see that I will just have to stop responding to you.

 

[kenmaynard]

[quote="Lewis W":15vvyvtm]That is where you are wrong, I do think that we should use deadly force to protect our wife kids, mom. I have argued that many times on this board over the years. And I will use deadly force if I have to, to protect my family. I am not going to stand up there and pray for a man raping and beating my family. Don't want to go to far off topic here.

You aren't making sense to me. When a woman wants to protect her own life you say no trade offs, but when it come to you protecting yourself you say its ok. Why the double standard?

I see that you are one of those hard to deal with people, you just twisted what I said. So you are telling me to keep watching TV while my wife is being raped in the next room, and then after that, he goes in and beats and rapes my daughters, you are the one who does not make sense. This abortion issue is something else, I see that I will just have to stop responding to you.[/quote:15vvyvtm]

You said no trade offs. I did not misrepresent your position.

 

[Caroline H]

Here's a scenario that may have already been mentioned in this thread. Scott Peterson was tried for the murder of TWO people....his wife and his unborn son. This was not a new thing, it is standard procedure when a pregnant woman is murdered. So, if we as a country are going to charge those who kill a pregnant woman for the MURDER an unborn baby, then what is the difference? How long does someone who does that go to jail for?

You see, when you start drawing lines and making exceptions, or calling one thing by two different names (like "Choice" on one hand, and "Murder" on the other) things get confusing. Is an unborn baby a living person? If no, why charge someone for murder of a pregnant woman for two murders? If the answer is yes, then why is it legal, and why does my tax money go to help Planned Parenthood? Is it legal for me to pay someone to kill my baby, and yet illegal for someone to kill my baby without my permission?

I just don't understand.

 

[Vic C.]

We need to be really careful here because we are on a slippery slope between what is legal and what is moral. For instance, I live in New Jersey where attempted suicide is a punishable offense (illegal) though it is hardly ever enforced. I'd "hate" to see this law get abused and enforced against any woman who opted for full term even though their life was in jeopardy. :shocked!

 

[kenmaynard]

Here's a scenario that may have already been mentioned in this thread. Scott Peterson was tried for the murder of TWO people....his wife and his unborn son. This was not a new thing, it is standard procedure when a pregnant woman is murdered. So, if we as a country are going to charge those who kill a pregnant woman for the MURDER an unborn baby, then what is the difference? How long does someone who does that go to jail for?

You see, when you start drawing lines and making exceptions, or calling one thing by two different names (like "Choice" on one hand, and "Murder" on the other) things get confusing. Is an unborn baby a living person? If no, why charge someone for murder of a pregnant woman for two murders? If the answer is yes, then why is it legal, and why does my tax money go to help Planned Parenthood? Is it legal for me to pay someone to kill my baby, and yet illegal for someone to kill my baby without my permission?

I just don't understand.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

I don't think the bible considers you to be alive until you are born.

 

[Caroline H]

The words "and her fruit depart from her" clearly means to deliver prematurely.

The word "mischief" refers to harm, as in death or brain damage or something like that. So what it is saying there is that if someone strives with a pregnant woman and she delivers prematurely, then her husband shall be the one to determine what damages should be payed by the offender. If she dies or the baby dies or is harmed because of a premature birth, then the Lord calls for the life of the person.

So my point is valid.

 

[kenmaynard]

The words "and her fruit depart from her" clearly means to deliver prematurely.

The word "mischief" refers to harm, as in death or brain damage or something like that. So what it is saying there is that if someone strives with a pregnant woman and she delivers prematurely, then her husband shall be the one to determine what damages should be payed by the offender. If she dies or the baby dies or is harmed because of a premature birth, then the Lord calls for the life of the person.

So my point is valid.

It certainly does clearly mean early delivery. In ancient times they did not have the medical technology to care for preemies, and all preemies would surely die. The passage is clearly talking about the death of a fetus.


Also it is widely known that the word depart mean to die
and the departed mean the dead.

From Dictionary.com
depart to pass away, as from life or existence; die.
Archaic. departure; death.

So the oldest definition of depart relates to death.

 

[Caroline H]

No, it doesn't always mean to die. Jesus "departed" plenty of times from his disciples, and there are other times that word is used. Preemies who are born 1 moth early can most assuredly survive, even in ancient times. They may have some complications, which is what "mischief" can refer to as well as death, but their viability without medical intervention is very good.

I would like to know what your opinion is regarding my question below, which I posted earlier today.

Here's a scenario that may have already been mentioned in this thread. Scott Peterson was tried for the murder of TWO people....his wife and his unborn son. This was not a new thing, it is standard procedure when a pregnant woman is murdered. So, if we as a country are going to charge those who kill a pregnant woman for the MURDER an unborn baby, then what is the difference? How long does someone who does that go to jail for?

You see, when you start drawing lines and making exceptions, or calling one thing by two different names (like "Choice" on one hand, and "Murder" on the other) things get confusing. Is an unborn baby a living person? If no, why charge someone for murder of a pregnant woman for two murders? If the answer is yes, then why is it legal, and why does my tax money go to help Planned Parenthood? Is it legal for me to pay someone to kill my baby, and yet illegal for someone to kill my baby without my permission?

I just don't understand.

 

[kenmaynard]

No, it doesn't always mean to die. Jesus "departed" plenty of times from his disciples, and there are other times that word is used. Preemies who are born 1 moth early can most assuredly survive, even in ancient times. They may have some complications, which is what "mischief" can refer to as well as death, but their viability without medical intervention is very good.

I would like to know what your opinion is regarding my question below, which I posted earlier today.

Here's a scenario that may have already been mentioned in this thread. Scott Peterson was tried for the murder of TWO people....his wife and his unborn son. This was not a new thing, it is standard procedure when a pregnant woman is murdered. So, if we as a country are going to charge those who kill a pregnant woman for the MURDER an unborn baby, then what is the difference? How long does someone who does that go to jail for?

You see, when you start drawing lines and making exceptions, or calling one thing by two different names (like "Choice" on one hand, and "Murder" on the other) things get confusing. Is an unborn baby a living person? If no, why charge someone for murder of a pregnant woman for two murders? If the answer is yes, then why is it legal, and why does my tax money go to help Planned Parenthood? Is it legal for me to pay someone to kill my baby, and yet illegal for someone to kill my baby without my permission?

I just don't understand.

He should not have been charged with two murders. That is if the law is to remain consistent. He was only charged because of public outrage.

Also the passage was clearly not talking about the limited few weeks wen a baby can survive outside the womb. Depart means death, and preemies in ancient time died the great majority of the time.

 

[Vic C.]

This is General Talk people, not General Debate. If we can't discuss the topic, I don't feel the need to continue.

We can't just pick and choose definitions to suit our side of a debate. The primary definition of "depart" is simply, "to leave, go away".