SO capital punishment is wrong, correct? That is murder, right?

You are confusing the guilty with the innocent...typical liberalism.

I thought the hitch on that was a specially-crafted law that specifically allowed a person charged with murder of a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts. I recall there being some debate at the time as to whether or not the real intent of the law was to undermine Roe v. Wade but ultimately it didn't matter - he'd have been eligible for the death penalty whether he'd been found guilty of one count or two. . . Laws like this are the exception rather than the rule (at least that's my understanding, but I'll defer to people who are more expert in legal matters).

My understanding is that until the fetus is clearly alive independent of its mother, it is still considered a fetus with no rights and privileges (except in the case of the law cited - there may be other specific ones). At the moment it demonstrates survival outside the womb it's a baby with full rights as a human being in our system. At least that's my understanding.

Like I said before, I don't particularly care for these "hair-splitting" types of laws, but in lieu of a rational populace that is able to think critically and consider circumstances on a case-by-case basis they're a necessary evil. No different than why a person 17 years and 364 days old can't sign a contract but a person a day (or an hour or a minute or a second) older can. No different why a person 20 years and 364 days can't buy booze but a 21-year-old can. No different why 55 is legal and 56 isn't. We (unfortunately) need "lines drawn" so the dumb monkeys that need objective standards for everything in the world can function.

What is being confused here is the difference between morality and legality. Morals are entirely arbitrary. Each society makes it own. (Any action that you can think of has been morally acceptable in one or more successful society(ies) at some point in history) Problems always arise when you want to impose yours on someone else. We should debate whether a action is moral or not in terms of it’s legality within a particular society. That’s it, end of story. Anything else is just trying to force your viewpoint down someone else’s throat.

No one's innocent, bucko. Since, according to doctrine, we're all born with that original sin thing...

Cute, only one problem......ya gota be born. WAY to easy.

Key word - "with" which when interpreted, can mean it already exists. And as with Adam and Eve, it was the occurrence of sex, not the outcome (baby, miscarriage, Adam shooting blanks) that constituted the original sin.

So there you have it...

SmileWavy

You expressed yourself in a way that mentioned only yourself and a grandchild. Your obvious lack of reference to the raped/impregnated daughter seemed odd to me. As if she were not significant in the equation. Reread what you posted and see if it doesn't appear that way.

You can choose to drive your car, drink milk or shoot your neighbor. The choices you make have consequences. If cars, milk and guns are taken away so that you no longer have those choices, that would be an overstepping of government power.

Sorry to go back a couple of pages, but I am puzzled by a couple of references to support of abortion by Gay and Lesbian women.
Perhaps G & L women have different capabilities in the USA than they do north of the border, but why would they care?
The only lesbian women I know of who managed to get pregnant really had to step out of their normal behavior in order to get that way.
Just call me naive.

Les

The leaders and officials of the leading feminist groups/abortion lobbies, are gay women...Incongruent?...Yes...Which should make any rational man or woman suspicious of what their agenda really is...Man hating perhaps?

It wouldn't surprise me if they found rape and incest especially abhorrent. Additionally, it may be that they are sympathetic to the idea of control over their bodies.

I wouldn't be surprised if they just hated men and anything that involves them.

bingo.
that's it right there..

close, but not quite.
it's not a fetus, by definition of the word, until the third month.. or the lead in to the second trimester.. before that, it's just an embryo.

but I support your point in the rest of your message.. you've got my thoughts bang on...

Don't fool yourself, or confuse yourself...You and I both used to be a fetus, an embryo and a zygote...Today you and I both are humans....Surely if you [as a zygote] had the "choice" you would opt for life, if you say otherwise you are nothing more than a liar.

if murder is wrong, it doesn't matter.

Todd, why do you play these games?...Lets cut the bull...The taking of an innocent life is not the same as taking the life of a murderer.

going back to a point i made a couple pages ago... people can survive by avoiding to eat meat, but do animals choose to be eaten? turned into belts/clothes/shoes? no..

do people who breathe second hand smoke have a choice? no.. but I bet either you, or someone close to you has smoked a cigarette that has (at one point or another) affected them.

do the people of the world have a choice to breathe the noxious discharges of combustion engines? no... but there are millions, if not billions of cars out there at any instant.....

but I bet you own a belt, eat meat, hold someone dear who smokes (smoked) (even if it's yourself), and drive a car....

have you ever cut down a tree?

caught a mouse in a trap?

those choices.. some very life threatening to other people (or other living things) are choices that you make every single day... do you begrudge those who make similar choices the same way you do in this arguement?

So by the definition of a human life that is given on this thread, if a child is being born, the head crowns and is out of the uterus and the doctor clamps his hand over the child's mouth so it can't take its first breath then that's ok? Just chalk it up as another late term abortion? After all, the kid wasn't ALL the way out and it never took a breath...