Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Mule,

In the case where a man breaks into my home at night and I shoot the man dead, there it would be the State's responsibility to see that the man's rights were not taken away unjustly. All I ask is for the same rights given to the unborn. If I killed my child in order to save my wife, I would expect the State to have a hearing and decide whether my actions were justified.

I want to see that right given to the unborn. Do you see the point? I might very well justify my actions to save my wife's life, but I fully expect the State to demand proof and pursue that case of justifiable homicide.

Believe it or not I've trying to get some work done, so I'm not avoiding you.

My Mom had a tubal pregnancy when I was much younger and she literally almost died.

A bunch of lawyers a judge and a court case proving the legality of the abortion would have been just what she needed.

Best,

Kurt

[kstar]

Originally Posted by skipdup

Do you really think we should abolish all laws?

Skip - I think SatMan is saying that most people don't kill other people because the government or "God" says it is wrong.

Best,

Kurt

[skipdup]

A DA deciding whether to prosecute or not does not equal lawyers, judge, court case.

Not taking a side with or against 72 Doung. Again, just sayin...

[Mule]

Originally Posted by skipdup

I think I agree with what you mean.

However, murder (as in me going across the street and thrill-killing my neighbor) is pretty serious and pretty absolute. Some things are in fact black-and-white. Most things are not.

We couldn't agree more. The world of fanatics (religious or otherwise) is black & white, no gray allowed.

[cool_chick]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Kurt, my thinking on the matter is I will support any abortion that allows the life of the child to develop fully to the age when he or she can be adopted.

http://www.malepregnancy.com/

[kstar]

Originally Posted by skipdup

A DA deciding whether to prosecute or not does not equal lawyers, judge, court case.

Not taking a side with or against 72 Doung. Again, just sayin...

I guess the threat of a charge from a DA or a grand jury is fine then . . .

Oh boy.

Best,

Kurt

[Mule]

The nut buster on this is Doug's charge of who's paying.

Remember, once we figure out who IS paying, all payments go to Mule at PPOT.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I guess the threat of a charge from a DA or a grand jury is fine then . . .

Oh boy.

Best,

Kurt

Didn't say that nor did I mean that.

You were exaggerating... Clearly, the "state" decides things all the time without a trial, jury, lawyers, etc...

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Mule

The nut buster on this is Doug's charge of who's paying.

Remember, once we figure out who IS paying, all payments go to Mule at PPOT.

Mule:

I suspect Doug already knows who will pay and the premise of this thread is rhetorical.

The sinners* will pay in hell, yes?

Best,

Kurt

*According to Doug's or his religion's specific interpretation of their specific book or text, your mileage may vary.

[Mule]

Damn! I thought this had more potential than carbon credits!

[frogger]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

The sinners* will pay in hell, yes?

Sinners? What's that?

Hell? Where's that?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by skipdup

Didn't say that nor did I mean that.

You were exaggerating... Clearly, the "state" decides things all the time without a trial, jury, lawyers, etc...

Skip: we're getting side-tracked, but I don't think I am exaggerating the potential of what Doug described at all.

Surely you're not suggesting Doug's concept of abortion law would not at least involve lawyers and perhaps grand juries on thousands and thousands and more potential cases? There might even be one or two over-zealous lawyers as well.

Best,

Kurt

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I have no doubt you got lost. With that in mind, I will now give it to you as simply as possible.



My decisions concerining those other scenarios, once again for your benefit, have absolutely nothing to do with my position on abortion. They are entirely seperate issues. You may as well ask me who I'm rooting for in the Superbowl, and try to infer some position on abortion from that.

I know you do not like that answer. It does not provide you with any basis from which to jump to your own conclusions, using your own additional assumptions. I have deprived you of your "aha!!" moment, wherein you can paint your picture of me, as so many others here have attempted. None of them have hit on it yet, and I suspect you would not either. You get lost too easily.



I've made my position on abortion abundantly clear. I'm against it. It ends a human life. I hesitate to call it "murder" as some would, as I do see differences, at least early in the pregnancy. "Morning after" pill? I have no trouble with that, as just one point where I feel it is not yet a human life. I do have a problem with it, however, insofar as it opens the door to arguing about "when" it is still acceptable to abort.

Given an inch, the pro choice crowd has taken a mile. Some would say it's not a "life" until it pops out on its own. Third trimester, or even right up to any time before a natural delivery, is fair game to this crowd. As some one mentioned earlier, the doctor must actually kill the baby in its mother's womb. That's no more than a sick, twisted game to me. Kill it inside: abortion. Kill it outside: murder. Either could happen on the same day to the same baby; the result is the same, but the legalities and morals of it are clouded in semantics and timing. I find that appalling.

As a result, I am undecided and am actually quite torn concerning very early term abortions. If aborting in the first week is o.k., why then, surely the first month is really not all that different. If we allow abortions in that first month, the the baby has no better chance of survival (not that that has anything to do with it) in the second month... and so it goes. I see it as a slippery slope I would prefer to avoid.

One final point of clarification. I know you didn't specifically ask me about this, but I do suspect that you are lost on this one as well. While I consider myself deeply religious, I subscribe to no real "religion" as you would understand it. See the "God thread" for my thoughts on that. Anyway, the only way that is relevant here is that my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my stand on abortion. I'm able to clearly seperate the two. Ending another human's life under those circumstances is wrong, even in the absence of any religion whatsoever. Just as wrong as if I chose to end your, or anyone else's life. It's just plain wrong.

I wish I could express myself as well as you have in this thread.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by Mule

Skip, anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing is sick. I think the point here is that govt. or religious absolutes never work and the more serious the issue, the worse they are.

I think abortion is a great medical procedure.

Without it there would be too many unwanted, neglected, perhaps despised unfunctional children. No matter what you say, that is a bad thing.
There are already too many kids missing the love and guidance of one parent. Imagine if that child or others like him had two parents who didn't want him.
Fantastic, right.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Skip: we're getting side-tracked, but I don't think I am exaggerating the potential of what Doug described at all.

Surely you're not suggesting Doug's concept of abortion law would not at least involve lawyers and perhaps grand juries on thousands and thousands and more potential cases? There might even be one or two over-zealous lawyers as well.

Best,

Kurt

Kurt- I don't know. Why would it have to take lawyers? Someone breaks into my house, I kill them, DA decides not to press charges - all is right in the world.

Surely you don't think Doug wanted each and every abortion tried in a court of law???

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong...

- Skip

[dipso]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Mule:

I suspect Doug already knows who will pay and the premise of this thread is rhetorical.

The sinners* will pay in hell, yes?

Best,

Kurt

*According to Doug's or his religion's specific interpretation of their specific book or text, your mileage may vary.

I can't pay in hell, I am not a christian. Hell is a christian invention and only christians go to hell.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Mule:

I suspect Doug already knows who will pay and the premise of this thread is rhetorical.

The sinners* will pay in hell, yes?

Best,

Kurt

*According to Doug's or his religion's specific interpretation of their specific book or text, your mileage may vary.

Kurt,
Come on, I keep telling you this is not a heaven or hell question. For you read consequence instead of sin. How are we effected when 50 million lives (statistical modeling aside) are not here. Who laments what might have been with these people who were not allowed to have a life? I for one do lament the loss here. It becomes more poignant because the practice continues. It is still making our unhappy history that much sadder.

[frogger]

Say, who forgot to abort Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.?

[Rikao4]

Skip, what if they did
your screaming my wife was in danger / dying.
While not right, don't decide for me.
Rika

[Mule]

Froggy, help me convince them that sending me money will square it with God & I'll cut you in.