Technically--there is no "federal law" that says it's not murder. There is federal "case law" that says states can't make a law that says it's "murder."tecoyah said:Simple answer, because federal law does not define it as such.
Thread closed....since your question has been answered
Step #1....readtecoyah said:Simple answer, because federal law does not define it as such.
Thread closed....since your question has been answered
Felicity said:Oh...you have that authority?....pardon moi!
On the other part, I was just making a clarification...Oops...I replied again!...dangit!
There are more than enough court cases and laws to prove you wrong. Assisted Suicide is illegal - hospices are not allowed to assist the death of their patients. I know because I was with my own father recently as he was taken care of by a hospice until his deat. They informed me that they could provide enough mediacation and assistance to get him out of pain but not enough to assist in his death. They, by law, can NOT assist in the death of their patience. Living wills cover things like if you stop breathing or are on a respirator, not someone helping you stick a needle in your arm to apply the drugs that will kill you painlessly. How many times was Dr. Kevorkian arrested for helping suffering people end their life painlessly...now how many times has a doctor who jabs a metal rod into the skull of a vaible fetus and pulls their body parts out of the mother after dismembering it been arrested?ngdawg said:It was Mark Hacking:
I said she DOES have the right to choose, whether YOU like it or not.
And it is a fallacy that suicide is illegal in this country-assisted suicide is illegal in most states and being heard in others.
There are hospices in every state designed so that people who have terminal illnesses and are in the final stages of those illnesses can die as they see fit and do so comfortably and without interference. We DO have the right to choose how to die when faced with catastrophy and we have 'living wills' to carry out whatever wishes we are unable to convey. Hence, your arguments are pointless.
When I chose to have children, I took on the responsibility of speaking on their behalf, I took on the responsibility of doing for them things they were and are incapable of doing or do not have the rights to do. This is no different. Whether taking life from me or me giving them life, what is done is MY choice, MY responsibility until such time as they are old enough either by maturation or legal means, to make their own choices. This is my right. The right to NOT have children, in any means short of killing my born kids, is also mine, should I choose to exercise that right. It is protected by law. Should I be so negligent in exercising my rights that the children I have borne suffer, I lose MY rights. "Murders the baby" can only occur after birth, which of course, takes all my rights away and justly so. Where this 'more often than not' came from, I have no clue...more babies are born than aborted by far. Pregnancy, labor, birth should not be meted out as punishment, something you are suggesting by stating 'faces the consequences of her own actions'. Had men been given the ability to conceive, you know sure as hell, they wouldn't be forced to pass an 8lb'er through their penis.easyt65 said:In this case, the person who is going to die gives his consent to be allowed to die. Who speaks for the fetus? Except the mother who, more often than not, murders the baby because it would inconvenience HER life to have the baby instead of faces the consequences of her own actions.
If you think it's that easy, I've got some swampland in Florida you'd be foolish not to buy by midnight. Sex education in schools is pretty graphic and thorough-depending on a child's mental maturity, perhaps a bit too thorough. The number of teenage pregnancies has been in a small but steady decline the past 20 years-in fact, the largest number of abortions are not performed on school-aged girls, but women 18-35.easyt65 said:Maybe instead of handing out condoms, whisking underaged girls away to have abortions, and hacking up viable fetus during Late term abortions, we ought to spend more time explaining to young girls the consequences of their actions, what it means for the rest of their lives, and that the alternative is to murder an unborn child, possibly denying the world of the scientist who would someday discover the cure to some grave disease, the next Mozart, or Einstein. Maybe accountability and education, and stop making it so easy to get an abortion ("I'll have the cheeseburger combo meal, fries, go large, and an abortion...") would rsult in us not having so many!
You tax dollars, penny for penny, go very little toward state-funded abortions. There are dumber things-funny how no one protests researching the life cycles of roaches or how entire generations of families live off welfare.easyt65 said:We haven't even addressed the financial burden on the tax payers. I can't go out and pray in public because that would be me forcing my religeon and morality on someone, offending them, but I am supposed to pay taxes that go to abortions for anyone who wants one, forcing ME to pay for YOUR beliefs, IMmorality, and irresponsibility? Uh-uh, I have a problem with that. THAT offends me, so bring in the Political Correctness police!
These procedures are probably the least done.easyt65 said:I would be agreeable to having my tax dollars pay for abortions accomplished for the sole documented & proven reason of the mother or baby's safety.
And don't force your beliefs on others nor tell me or another woman what she must do simply because of your beliefs. If you were stripped of your parental rights, you more than likely deserved to be. As for immorality, your assumption is insulting, ignorant and biased. You pay for the dumbest things through government taxes you could think of and probably a few you wouldn't dream of. We don't fill out questionaires of where it 'should' go-you live here, you pay for things-war, social security, the bridges you cross when you drive, medical care and welfare, art museums and parks, none of which had to meet with your approval before being paid for.easyt65 said:You want one for any other reason, that is ELECTIVE surgery - the mother's own choice, which you say she has the right to , sorta like a boob job! If she wants one simply because she doesn't want the baby, SHE can accept responsibility and pay for it. Don't have the money, have the FAMILY (NOT the Goverment) take care of it.
You still want the Principal to have the right to take my teenage daughter to get an abortion during school hours without my knowledge - then HE can pay for it!
Don't force your immorality on me, tell me I have no say in the matter, strip me of my parental rights, then tell me, on top of all that, that I have to pay for it,too!
I just fear the whole eugenics/abortion/euthanasia movement will lead to Nazism like it did before. Failure to remember the past means it will repeat itself. I do not mean it is as a personal insult, but how can you have so little regard for the innocent? I even have enough regard for the evil as humans that I would not kill Hitler or Stalin, but you will even go so far as to slaughter the weakest and most innocent.ngdawg said:Let me put this as succinctly as I can without being rude:
As a free woman, I have the right to give of myself as I see fit. If I want 20 kids, I'll attempt to have 20 kids and suffer the physical maladies producing them would result in. As a free woman, I also have the right to say I don't want to reproduce and, should something go wrong with a birth control method, I have the right to take the steps I deem necessary.
As an anti-choicer, you have the right to say you are, you do NOT have the right to tell any woman what she should do with her life, her body and the life she has become responsible for, whether by mishap, rape or anything else.
"You pro-choicers" is akin to saying "you negroes" or worse. It is bigoted, small minded and devoid of any intelligent debate.
It is not me who is misguided as I make my decisions based on what I learn and feel as a result of that learning.
To be against a woman's personal right to choose, against a person's right to die with dignity goes against everything you claim to be and makes your beginning statements null and void. You are misguided, but what you believe is your burden-you have no right to make it mine.
When did I say that? When you're in school, do you read Shakespeare and think Dr. Suess???Axismaster said:I just fear the whole eugenics/abortion/euthanasia movement will lead to Nazism like it did before. Failure to remember the past means it will repeat itself. I do not mean it is as a personal insult, but how can you have so little regard for the innocent? I even have enough regard for the evil as humans that I would not kill Hitler or Stalin, but you will even go so far as to slaughter the weakest and most innocent.
Look, what I meant by that was that lowered value for human life (which pro-choice movement is) is what leads to Nazism and things that involve mass death. Of course, abortion is worse than Nazism because it kills more people. So I must say that the President of NARAL makes Hitler look like a teddy bear.ngdawg said:When did I say that? When you're in school, do you read Shakespeare and think Dr. Suess???
A) Nazism had nothing to do with any eugenics/abortion/ euthanasia movement-it was the 'ethnic cleansing' of a nation brought on by a misguided lunatic blaming Jews for his own and his country's woes and his psychopathic attempts to rid Europe of anyone he deemed unworthy to live, and make it his own to rule. A sick version of Napoleanic visions for himself. Instead of reading the sicko's version of history, try reading more objective views.
B) Before you go accusing someone of something, you best be sure you have your facts straight, young man. You would be wise to go back and actually read other threads. Pro-choice does NOT mean going out and 'slaughter innocents'-it means giving a woman the right to choose what happens to her, her body, her pregnancy, her life-without government interference.
Nope. The law and the case itself is clear on that, your claim is false.easyt65 said:I believe your point on what the case results mean is obviously open to interpretation, as per your arguments...