What is her punishment?

[steen]

Well, I see your logic, but a fetus doesn't enter a woman's body through the barrier-contraceptive (=door), so your analogy is does not apply.....and I don't see an analogy which would include a burglar forming within a home.....nore is the home's purpose too form people, like a womb's purpose is.

Maybe if you used an analogy using a factory or something......

That is still nonsense. If the woman uses contraceptivces, it is because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Hence, that directly is NOT consent to pregnancy.

 

[Jerry]

That is still nonsense. If the woman uses contraceptivces, it is because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Hence, that directly is NOT consent to pregnancy.

It's not direct consent, no, but it is implied.
It's like an assumed risk.

You may not wish to receve an std, but you accept that possibility when you have sex.

It's the same thing for if you were to drive fast, join the military, smoke, skydive, whatever.

Ultimately, if you do not wish to take the chance, do not engage in the activity.

 

[Kelzie]

It's not direct consent, no, but it is implied.
It's like an assumed risk.

You may not wish to receve an std, but you accept that possibility when you have sex.

It's the same thing for if you were to drive fast, join the military, smoke, skydive, whatever.

Ultimately, if you do not wish to take the chance, do not engage in the activity.

Or buying a house. If you don't buy a house, there's no risk of it being broken into. Therefore, if you do buy a house and it gets broken into, you implied consent. Right?

 

[Jerry]

Or buying a house. If you don't buy a house, there's no risk of it being broken into. Therefore, if you do buy a house and it gets broken into, you implied consent. Right?

Your hot.....but like I said, a fetus doesn't enter a woman's body through the barrier-contraceptive (=door), so your analogy is does not apply.....and I don't see an analogy which would include a burglar forming within a home.....nor is the home's purpose too form people, like a womb's purpose is.

 

[Kelzie]

Your hot.....but like I said, a fetus doesn't enter a woman's body through the barrier-contraceptive (=door), so your analogy is does not apply.....and I don't see an analogy which would include a burglar forming within a home.....nor is the home's purpose too form people, like a womb's purpose is.

Thanks.


The method of "entry" is irrelevant to the analogy. Burglars steal from houses. Fetuses don't take anything from the mother when they leave. It still doesn't make the analogy incorrect. It just means you can't compare every single part of the two situations, which as fine as long as the part you are comparing is valid. Which it is. Doing an action does not imply consent to an outcome as long as you take steps to avoid the outcome.

 

[maryk1]

Some 15 year olds are tried as adults in murder cases (this equates if abortion is murder). Anyway, once she commits murder, is she innocent anymore?

I don't get the doctor thing. You give the woman who actively pursues an abortion 1 year, the accomplice 5. She got pregnant, decided she didn't want to carry, sought out a person qualified to safely perform an abortion for her, went to solicit his services, and then paid him to perform the surgery. If I wanted my wife killed (which I do not), decided to do it, found a person who would commit the act for money, and paid him to do it, which he did, I wouldn't get 20% of the time in prison he gets. I think we would both be sentenced to life. Or, at least both of our sentences would be more commensurate with our crimes, but I wouldn't be spared a lengthy prison term because I seemed innocent (naive), would I?

I proposed that this unborn chnild is protected by the same Constitution that porotects you and me. And then yiou go off on a wild tangent that completely ignores the provision requiring that no one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property absent due prosess of law.
Now before you take on that question tell us this: Do you take the Constitution seriously?

 

[tryreading]

I proposed that this unborn chnild is protected by the same Constitution that porotects you and me. And then yiou go off on a wild tangent that completely ignores the provision requiring that no one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property absent due prosess of law.
Now before you take on that question tell us this: Do you take the Constitution seriously?

You are confused, you proposed nothing of the kind. Below is the post I responded to:

One must consider the circumstance. Suppose that she is a 15 year old and she is coerced into an abortion much against her will by a parent. I would think that she is innocent or nearly so. If she were over 25 and of sound mind and she voluntarily asked for an abortion I would see to it that she got at least a year in jail and that the doctor who did it would get not less than 5 years.These are merely examples, a few among many that could be offered..

I take the Constitution very seriously. It protects people who have been born - persons, or citizens. Please read below:

Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[steen]

It's not direct consent, no, but it is implied.
It's like an assumed risk.

You may not wish to receve an std, but you accept that possibility when you have sex.

You are consenting to the fact that there is a risk from your activity. But sure as hell, people seek treatment for the STD, NOT consenting to actually having the STD.

 

[maryk1]

I first came onto this forum yesterday, SXaturday, and I am really quite unfamiliar with the mechanics of the whole thing.
Yet when I made my first posting I poroposed the oportion of th Constitution that requires that all have the right to due process, No one seems willing to confront the Copnstitujtion and give me a lot of arguments, substantial as smoke, why an unborn is not human.and deserving of nothing of Constitutional protections.
Am I to believe that the Constitution is merely an 18th Century construct? Has it been abolished as one would abolish the multiplication table?
Face the facts and give us a straight answer that is in support of life and the Copnstitution.

 

[tryreading]

I first came onto this forum yesterday, SXaturday, and I am really quite unfamiliar with the mechanics of the whole thing.
Yet when I made my first posting I poroposed the oportion of th Constitution that requires that all have the right to due process, No one seems willing to confront the Copnstitujtion and give me a lot of arguments, substantial as smoke, why an unborn is not human.and deserving of nothing of Constitutional protections.
Am I to believe that the Constitution is merely an 18th Century construct? Has it been abolished as one would abolish the multiplication table?
Face the facts and give us a straight answer that is in support of life and the Copnstitution.

As far as the mechanics, I responded to your latest post to continue a linear dialog.

You misunderstand. Nobody said the fetus isn't human. But legally it is not a person, according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court, because its not born. See the 14th Amendment below.

 

[steen]

I proposed that this unborn chnild

There is no such thing. It is as silly as calling you an "undead corpse."

is protected by the same Constitution that porotects you and me.

What you propose simply isn't so. See Roe vs Wade section IX for a summary of why you are wrong.

And then yiou go off on a wild tangent that completely ignores the provision requiring that no one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property absent due prosess of law.

There is no provision that states that "no one" may..... Your claim is false.

Now before you take on that question tell us this: Do you take the Constitution seriously?

In contrast to you who make up false claims about it?

 

[tryreading]

I first came onto this forum yesterday, SXaturday, and I am really quite unfamiliar with the mechanics of the whole thing.
Yet when I made my first posting I poroposed the oportion of th Constitution that requires that all have the right to due process, No one seems willing to confront the Copnstitujtion and give me a lot of arguments, substantial as smoke, why an unborn is not human.and deserving of nothing of Constitutional protections.
Am I to believe that the Constitution is merely an 18th Century construct? Has it been abolished as one would abolish the multiplication table?
Face the facts and give us a straight answer that is in support of life and the Copnstitution.

Would you care to answer the thread's question?

 

[Jerry]

The method of "entry" is irrelevant to the analogy. Burglars steal from houses. Fetuses don't take anything from the mother when they leave. It still doesn't make the analogy incorrect. It just means you can't compare every single part of the two situations, which as fine as long as the part you are comparing is valid. Which it is. Doing an action does not imply consent to an outcome as long as you take steps to avoid the outcome.

Beauty and logic...damn, just damn.
Alright, I'll give you that point. Doing an action does not imply consent to an outcome as long as you take steps to avoid the outcome.

Within the context of this thread, as soon as the fetus exists, it is protected by the 14th. amendment and can not be terminated outside of any situation in which one could not otherwise kill anyone ells.


..........but I'm sticking to my assumed risk argument (hay, I guy's got too have something).

 

[Kelzie]

Beauty and logic...damn, just damn.
Alright, I'll give you that point. Doing an action does not imply consent to an outcome as long as you take steps to avoid the outcome.

:lol: I appreciate a truthful guy.

Within the context of this thread, as soon as the fetus exists, it is protected by the 14th. amendment and can not be terminated outside of any situation in which one could not otherwise kill anyone ells.


..........but I'm sticking to my assumed risk argument (hay, I guy's got too have something).

Now come on. Existence doesn't give anything rights.

 

[Jerry]

You are consenting to the fact that there is a risk from your activity. But sure as hell, people seek treatment for the STD, NOT consenting to actually having the STD.

I'll give you that.
I concede the consent issue, but I hold to assumed risk.

When I perches a firearm, I am not consenting to an accidental discharge, but I do have too accept that risk.

 

[Jerry]

:lol: I appreciate a truthful guy.

Now come on. Existence doesn't give anything rights.

Hay now, I said "within the context of this thread".

Within the context of law, per Roe-v-Wade, existence doesn't give anything rights.

 

[Kelzie]

Hay now, I said "within the context of this thread".

Within the context of law, per Roe-v-Wade, existence doesn't give anything rights.

Fair enough. Within the context of the thread, what do you think the punishment should be for a women who has an abortion? My apologies if you already answered, I don't feel like going back and looking and I never pay enough attention to the abortion threads to remember what was said.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Jerry quoted: "Since after that thefts continue unabated, and since a traditional penaly for incorrigible thieves is death (after first cutting off hands and so on or the initial offenses), it logically follows that abortion can be an appropriate penalty for MONTHS of continuous theft."

--and wrote: "When has any kind of sex with a woman, he is legally giving her his sperm as a gift. She is then free to do with it as she pleases (she could even give it too a lesbian friend.......that would make for a good story )."

This is IRRELEVANT to the Natural Mindless Biological actions that constitute sperm-meets-egg and embryo-implants-in-womb. How many gifts or the ordinary type are returned after Christmas, eh? Even accepting a gift of semen does not mean accepting ANYTHING else. Some women, for example, think that semen makes a good skin lotion. I don't know if it actually is, but as long as there are women who think so, there will be willing recipients of that gift FOR THAT PURPOSE ONLY. So, if some semen is applied to skin too close to the birth canal and pregnancy occurs, then that pregnancy was NOT necessarily granted consent at all.



Jerry also wrote: "We have a hard enough time putting gang founders to death, since when is the death penalty applied to habitual thieves?

It WAS VERY TRADTIONAL, back in the Middle Ages and earlier, when thieves were given warning-punishments (like having hands cut off), and yet persisted. See the Code of Hammurabi, one of the foundations of ALL legal codes since.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
Thieves WERE put to death under that code.



Jerry also wrote: "In my opinion, if you are using a contraceptive which is 99.99% effective, then you are giving this consent for the fetus to exist should the proverbial dice role that 00.01% chance."

Your opinion is worthless in this matter. The woman who uses birth control DOES NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT AT ALL. And that's why something more than 50% of abortions are done, to ENSURE that birth does not occur, AFTER birth control failed. So, put your efforts into promoting research into higher-reliability birth-control methods, and that fraction of ALL abortions could be whittled down to as close to zero as the methods' effectiveness approaches 100%.

 

[FutureIncoming]

FutureIncoming wrote: "Thieves WERE put to death under that code {of Hammurabi}"

I forgot to mention that the main reason death sentences for thieves has gone out of style is because of modern beliefs that thieves can be "reformed". While this may be true for many thieves, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an unborn human. It has no brainpower to learn ANY different behavior besides theft!

 

[Felicity]

FutureIncoming wrote: "Thieves WERE put to death under that code {of Hammurabi}"

I forgot to mention that the main reason death sentences for thieves has gone out of style is because of modern beliefs that thieves can be "reformed". While this may be true for many thieves, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an unborn human. It has no brainpower to learn ANY different behavior besides theft!

It only takes 9 months to "reform" a fetus!

 

[Jerry]

This is IRRELEVANT to the Natural Mindless Biological actions that constitute sperm-meets-egg and embryo-implants-in-womb. How many gifts or the ordinary type are returned after Christmas, eh? Even accepting a gift of semen does not mean accepting ANYTHING else. Some women, for example, think that semen makes a good skin lotion. I don't know if it actually is, but as long as there are women who think so, there will be willing recipients of that gift FOR THAT PURPOSE ONLY. So, if some semen is applied to skin too close to the birth canal and pregnancy occurs, then that pregnancy was NOT necessarily granted consent at all.

First:

The method of "entry" is irrelevant to the analogy. Burglars steal from houses. Fetuses don't take anything from the mother when they leave. It still doesn't make the analogy incorrect. It just means you can't compare every single part of the two situations, which as fine as long as the part you are comparing is valid. Which it is. Doing an action does not imply consent to an outcome as long as you take steps to avoid the outcome.

Beauty and logic...damn, just damn.
Alright, I'll give you that point. Doing an action does not imply consent to an outcome as long as you take steps to avoid the outcome.

Within the context of this thread, as soon as the fetus exists, it is protected by the 14th. amendment and can not be terminated outside of any situation in which one could not otherwise kill anyone ells.

..........but I'm sticking to my assumed risk argument (hay, I guy's got too have something).

Second:
Sir, I reject your aperent view of life-processes in such a sterile, "mindless" way. The sperm and the egg have no mind, that is just a fact, but I do not discount the minds of thoughs who put the two together.

Actions make things happen, and if you do not wish to deal with a possable consequence of an action, you would be best off not performing that action.

 

[Jerry]

FutureIncoming wrote: "Thieves WERE put to death under that code {of Hammurabi}"

I forgot to mention that the main reason death sentences for thieves has gone out of style is because of modern beliefs that thieves can be "reformed". While this may be true for many thieves, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an unborn human. It has no brainpower to learn ANY different behavior besides theft!

Do you really want me too call you on that?
"...besides theft...", so, according to you, a zygote does have enough brainpower to learn theft?

Thank you for illustrating how absurd the notion of a fetus committing 'theft' really is.

Theft:
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

You were just speaking of 'mindless' biological processes. That is exactly what the biological function of feeding a fetus is, 'mindless'. A fetus can not commit theft without being a "person".

When you say that an 'unborn human' (which includes fetus, zygote and embryo) is committing theft (thus deserving of the death penalty), you are simultaneously saying that the fetus/zygote is a "person"; thus protected by th 14th. amendment which prevents the mother from aborting it.

I need you too clarify your position, are you saying that an unborn human is a "person", or do you wish too revise your stance on theft?

 

[Felicity]

I need you too clarify your position, are you saying that an unborn human is a "person", or do you wish too revise your stance on theft?

I can't help it...I find myself snickering...:mrgreen:...simply marvelous [snicker-snicker]!

 

[steen]

I'll give you that.
I concede the consent issue, but I hold to assumed risk.

Sure.

When I perches a firearm, I am not consenting to an accidental discharge, but I do have too accept that risk.

Sure. But if you shoot yourself in the foot and thus incur an unwanted medical conddition as a known risk, does that mean that you shouldn't seek medical help to rectify the unwanted outcome?

 

[Jerry]

Fair enough. Within the context of the thread, what do you think the punishment should be for a women who has an abortion? My apologies if you already answered, I don't feel like going back and looking and I never pay enough attention to the abortion threads to remember what was said.

Heh, no, actually....I don't think I did.

We should kill them and eat their livers.