Ooh, fun controversial topic. Yay generic branding of complex issue positions!
God bless ad hominem. What would we do without baby killers anyway?

@Watermonkey: I think it's technically it's a matter of choice and intent. It's implied that in killing a pregnant woman one wishes to have the baby go along with it or that one doesn't care about the baby enough to go ahead and finish off the mother. The law punishes one for both with the assumption that both choices are against the mother's will - I'm going to ignore suicide completely in this legal argument because I think that's a separate debate - whereas with abortion implies the mother's choice.

Hmm. Constitutionality is at best a bothersome topic. Depends if you treat an unborn child as property or as individuals. Don't bash me for this, there's precedent for this with slavery - and if you're going to go moral on me and say how wrong that mindset was, well I'd suggest you calm down and understand I'm only talking about legal possibilities here.

If you treat an unborn child as an individual, you could assert that in some cases, following due process, preventing abortion would be a cruel and unusual punishment. - I would like to remind people that the Constitution of the US transcends all other laws, including state and federal laws on murder.
If you treat an unborn child as property, then we just follow normal property laws with appropriate exceptions.

I'm a guy. I refuse to pass judgment on things I am not able to experience.
However, I do have a few issues with the nature of this thread.

I don't think that the imposition of us-vs-them mentalities is appropriate here. While in the United States it is common to label pro-abortion as a liberal concept and the resulting negation as a corollary for the conservative stance, abortion really is a very private issue. Furthermore, people who actually have qualms about abortion but still have to treat it as a serious option are faced with tyranny of the majority when denied the ability to abort. - I'm not supporting abortion, I'm just saying that when you do make abortion illegal, you're imposing your moral code on other people. Same case as slavery.

Whatever the case, I'm just suggesting that people talk with cool heads and without using labels for a complex and very sensitive issue.
Including you, Baby Killer accuser.

This post has been edited by osknockout: May 13 2008, 02:32 AM

Ah, I see I said 'had' abortions. I don't mean to imply that the law would work retroactively. I do mean that over time millions of poor girls would be imprisoned while financially secure females will be getting their abortions in Canada, etc. with Christian conservative daddy or hubby picking up the tab.

The fact is, you can't deny women their reproductive rights without justification, and if the justification is that an embryo is a child then that woman SHOULD go to prison or get the death penalty for murdering somebody. If you deny it, then you're basically admitting that you don't truly consider an embryo to be an equal human being, but something less.

Yes, I know killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide, which is what I'd want if my pregnant wife was murdered. I don't know if it's a double homicide if it's the first trimester however, and I don't think it should be.

I don't believe in a woman's right to choose if she's choosing to kill children. I don't consider a 5 month old fetus to be a child yet. The Supreme Court agrees with me.

Answer the following question: Why should abortion be banned? If your answer is "because a fetus is a human being" then the next question is "why should a woman who kills her unborn child recieve a punishment less than a woman who kills her born child?" If your answer is, "Welllllllllllllll, it's not quite a person just yet, sooooooooo" that doesn't wash.

What I'm saying is as anti- abortionists win their little victories here and there, eventually we'll have fetuses being treated as living, breathing human beings and millions of women in prison for infanticide. It's just logical.

This post has been edited by mikeyboy63: May 13 2008, 03:06 AM

WOW!!!! Calling Obama a Baby Killer for supporting a possible law? Don't think so... guess not a supporter of Obama? Quite the opposite, you're an opposer of Obama and instead of pointing out how "your" candidate is better you attack the competition, typical. Just as almost on every campaign, both candidates end up so attack that past the elections we all know what bs president we have. Well, on the issue, I believe everyone has the right to choose whether they want to continue through a pregnancy or not.

Well, just to clarify my stance, if you're interested: I'm sure you can see in my signature who my candidate is for President. He's a OBGYN medical doctor and has delivered over 4000 babies. I'm not personally a big fan of babies and I've avoided them my whole life and will continue to for the rest of my life. Dr. Paul obviously believes abortion is murder, but I'm sure he'd prefer it to save the mother's life. Otherwise, adopt it out. However, he states unequivocally: It's not the business of the Federal Government to weigh in on the issue! It's for the states to decide. I couldn't agree more. That's why Roe vs Wade MUST be overturned. If your state declares it illegal, no worries, there's always Nevada!

Personally, I think Amendment 13 should be overturned because it's not the business of the Federal Government to weigh in on the issue, it's for the states to decide slavery laws. <grin>

You missed my key point about Obama... it's NOT A MATTER OF THE UNBORN. Let me say this again. Senator Barack Obama supported a practice where children who survive late-term abortions, in other words are ALREADY BORN, can be left to starve to death in soiled hospital rooms. Nor was this a one-time thing. Obama has consistently opposed numerous partial-birth abortion bills and opposed 2 different versions of this bill.

That was my major point. It's one thing to defend the killing of UNBORN children... but it's a whole different story to defend the killing of newly BORN children, which is what Obama did, and what you are doing right now in defending him!

Obama has falsely claimed in the past when questioned on this topic that he opposed the Illinois bill because it lacked the wording of the federal bill stating such an act would not encroach on the ruling of Roe v. Wade. However, what he failed to mention is that Senator Richard Winkel sponsored an amendment to make that bill WORD FOR WORD identical to the federal bill, and Obama, who chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, deliberately killed that amendment in his committee. Talk about hypocrisy.

When a person's actions kill newly born children like this, then yes, they SHOULD be severely punished. What's wrong with that? I never said I support the death penalty. I do not support it. I think it is hypocritical for either a liberal like Obama or a conservative like George Bush to support abortion and oppose the death penalty, or vice versa. And of course, we're not even putting the right people on death row to begin with, as all those pardoned by DNA evidence can attest.

You ought to read my original post better, because you seem to have missed all my major points.