106,400 and counting...

Satisfied? Humm... no, otherwise I would not have bothered to write the bill I proposed in the new thread under Politics.

Corinne

 

I haven't seen any prosecutions...have you? </font>[/QUOTE]I think that in the Laci Peterson case, the husband is prosecuted for the murder of BOTH his wife AND his unborn child.

Corinne

 

Jim, how do you get to that number (106,400)???

Corinne

 

Cirinne,

It's a rough calculation based on the statistic that approximately 3800 unborn humans are murdered daily in the USA. </font>[/QUOTE]Frankly, and I speak for myself only, we'd be better off worrying about the living human beings who are dying everyday in the Sudan or in places where there are famines, wars, disasters, or even genocides.... Aborted babies are potential humans until they become viable in their mother's womb, I say let us worry first about those who have come out of the womb. They deserve more.

Corinne

 

I haven't seen any prosecutions...have you? </font>[/QUOTE]I think that in the Laci Peterson case, the husband is prosecuted for the murder of BOTH his wife AND his unborn child.

Corinne </font>[/QUOTE]The name of the Act I was looking for is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, under which Peterson is presently being prosecuted, I think.

It is a start to give a fetus some sort of legal life. But if the fetus has to die before its legal life is recognized, it does not do much good to pro-life rights.

Corinne

 

That's not correct at all. She as in her third trimester of pregnancy. Legal elective abortion can only be done in the first two trimesters.

 

I agree TOTALLY. Who gives anyone the right to decide whose life is more valuable?

 

I believe in the general concept of the sanctity of life. That includes aborted babies, soldiers and noncombatents killed in war, those dying in famines, those put to death for crimes, etc. To me it's not genuine to pick and choose. All human life is precious in His sight.

 

Corinne,

You place yourself in a rather lofty position when you presume to judge which human beings deserve more than others to live. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not judging. I wrote, and you quoted me above: "I speak for myself only".

What I wrote was only my opinion and I stick by it. It is not a judgment, only an opinion that I am not imposing on anybody. Hope you see the difference.

Corinne

 

You give that right everytime you vote for a guy who signs death penalty execution orders, or sends young men and women to war. Aren't these people's lives valuable?

Corinne

 

Why should a woman who has been raped - including incestuous relationships here - "want" a baby by her rapist or father?

Do you have kids? If so, ask your wife what she would feel like if she had been raped by a monster or by her father, and if she would be happy to have the baby?

Corinne

 

The law says that within the legal period, it is not murder, so whatever our beliefs may be, whether a 10 weeks old embryo (this is an example) is a human being just like you or me, with the rights you and I enjoy, the fact of the matter is that we have to obey the law.

It is not as simple as just "killing" someone who is not "wanted", you have to consider other ethics, including the rights of the persons upon whom the baby would be imposed.

The baby, once it has reached the viable stage, should be considered as a potential human being with certain rights (but not all rights); it is my personal opinion.

But it is also my personal opinion that the woman who is carrying that baby also has rights, including the right to decide to kill a fetus when it has not yet reached the viable stage (before 20-24 weeks), and that the rights of the living prevail over the rights of the not yet alive.

It is a point of view with which you may disagree, but whatever your own point of view, neither you nor I can impose it on anyone else. An abortion is a woman's own problem and decision.

Corinne

 

I agree and stand with PJ on this matter.

The Republican Party has failed miserably to end or even stem the tide of this legalized murder.

So our lawmakers have decided that it's a crime to kill an eagle embryo but not to kill and market a human embryo.

Read the full article:
What's even worst and an unspeakable crime of even a higher magnitude is that we market their human remains in something called "stem cell research".

We need to wake up before God Himself wakes us up.

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

What?! Let's test this thought on a different matter.

Should apartheid have been accepted because it was the law in South Africa?

Should American slavery have been accepted?

How about the persecution of religious dissenters in England a few hundred years ago?

Were any of these things "rightly" lawful or were they just declared lawful by wicked men?

The thing liberals in America have successfully avoided so far is the definition of what constitutes a life or IOWs when does life begin?

What right? The right to take someone else's life? Please justify that right by any means you can think of.

Imposed? Please. That is incredibly shallow both morally and politically. In over 99% of all American abortions, the mother has chosen sexual activity with the full knowledge of the possible consequences. No one "imposed" a child on her. She exercised freedom and with freedom comes responsibility.

Please define "alive".

By the way, there is no gray area. Something is either "alive" or it is "dead".

This coming from a self avowed liberal.

Let's try a few other issues under this train of logic:
- You may think that rich people have a social responsibility to provide benefits to the less fortunate... but you cannot impose it on anyone else.
- You may think that everyone is entitled to health care at the expense of the taxpayer... but you cannot impose it on anyone else.
- You may think murder in the privacy of one's on home is wrong... but you can't impose it on someone else.
- You may think rape is wrong... but you cannot impose your belief on someone else.

There is such a thing as objective truth Corrine. Either a baby is alive or it is not.

I believe that there is absolutely no debate that a fetus satisfies the current US legal definition of "alive" between 3 and 9 weeks. A truly objective definition could not disclude going back to within a few hours of conception. We should always err to the side of preserving the most fundamental right- life is a more basic and foundational right than is privacy. The right to privacy is absolutely irrelevant if your life is not protected.

How about infanticide? How about when a teenager becomes a "woman's on problem"? Is it then a valid "decision" to forego the teenager's right to live?

Again, please give us a rational, objective definition of "alive".