New Hampshire Seeks Criminal Penalties for Killing an Unborn Child

[FrankRep]

http://thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/11aFebruary/preborn-baby.001.jpg



A bill in the New Hampshire legislature would impose criminal penalties for causing the death of an unborn child.


New Hampshire Seeks Criminal Penalties for Killing an Unborn Child (http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/6384-nh-seeks-criminal-penalties-for-killing-an-unborn-child)


Jack Kenny | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
20 February 2011


* The bill exempts actions taken by the pregnant woman or her physician, however, so abortions would not be affected.


All you Pro-Abortion people chill out, read the statement above.

[Maximus]

No rational person can oppose this measure. The Pro-Abortion advocates know that they have lost the debate on the science of life in the womb, and so they spout off nonsense like opposing two murder charges when someone like Scott Peterson kills his pregnant wife.

[00_Pete]

IMO you cant have it both ways. If the legislative/judicial body of a society or collective says that life doesnt begin at conception than it shouldnt be an additional crime...and vice-versa of course.

Pro-abortion people that support this law are being hypocrits and anti-abortion people that dont support this law are being hypocrits.

[low preference guy]

IMO you cant have it both ways. If the legislative/judicial body of a society or collective says that life doesnt begin at conception than it shouldnt be an additional crime...and vice-versa of course.

The problem is that no judicial body legislated that abortion should be legal. The Supreme Court usurped authority from the Congress and legislated that.

[eduardo89]

I don't think abortion supporters could be against this since according to them it's "a woman's personal choice", not someone else's

[Mini-Me]

I don't think abortion supporters could be against this since according to them it's "a woman's personal choice", not someone else's

They actually have to oppose it, because the crux of their argument is that it's [solely] the woman's body, or at least that the fetus doesn't count as a person.

[eduardo89]

They actually have to oppose it, because the crux of their argument is that it's [solely] the woman's body, or at least that the fetus doesn't count as a person.

I find it hypocritical for abortion supporters to be opposed to this, since if you believe it's solely the woman's choice whether she has the child or not, then if she decides to have it and someone kills the child, they have taken her freedom of choice away from her.

[Mini-Me]

I find it hypocritical for abortion supporters to be opposed to this, since if you believe it's solely the woman's choice whether she has the child or not, then if she decides to have it and someone kills the child, they have taken her freedom of choice away from her.

The crux of their argument is that the only life involved is the woman's in the first place. If someone stabbed a pregnant woman in the belly and killed the baby (and the woman survived), the pro-choicers would have to call it mere "felonious assault with a deadly weapon" or something to remain consistent. They could not admit any life was taken whatsoever, because the life of the fetus simply doesn't count. Until it's head comes out during birth, it's "not a baby at all," just a "blob of parasitic tissue."

Hypocrisy would be for them to agree that it's murder when someone else kills the baby. That would be trying to have it both ways. (Personally, I tend to consider abortion to be manslaughter rather than murder though, because most who have abortions only do so because they've convinced themselves they're not killing a baby at all.)

[eduardo89]

That's pretty much the Canadian legal stance. They adhere to the "born alive" doctrine which basically states that until you are born, you're not legally anything. So you can have an abortion in week 40 of pregnancy, and it's not murder. I can't understand that viewpoint, it really disgusts me. (I makes it even more disgusting for me considering my daughter is going to be born this week, and I just can't understand how someone can say she's not a living person)

[Mini-Me]

That's pretty much the Canadian legal stance. They adhere to the "born alive" doctrine which basically states that until you are born, you're not legally anything. So you can have an abortion in week 40 of pregnancy, and it's not murder. I can't understand that viewpoint, it really disgusts me. (I makes it even more disgusting for me considering my daughter is going to be born this week, and I just can't understand how someone can say she's not a living person)

It's pretty irrational to think the moment of birth changes something significant about who/what the baby is, how it thinks, how it feels, or its intrinsic value. Anyone who believes it does is deluding themselves, really. At the same time, I don't see a zygote as tremendously more precious and "person-like" than a separate sperm and unfertilized egg either, so I don't take the "life at conception" extreme. I tend to go with tremendoustie on this one, in that I believe life begins with brain waves and a heartbeat. If it looks like a baby, and it squirms like a baby, and it quacks...err, thumps like a baby...then it's a baby. ;)

Before the point life begins, I'm basically of the opinion that "anything goes," although I'd personally be very cautious and reluctant, afraid of doing harm without realizing it. After the point life begins, I can understand the cynical position that, in some cases, "The fetus is an unwelcome guest in my body, and my body is a temple! What would you do with an unwelcome guest in your home?" If I were really that cynical and selfish, I guess I'd evict the guest, and I'd be okay with cynical others doing the same. However, kicking a guest out means showing them the door. It doesn't mean first throwing them into a wood chipper and spraying the resulting buckets of blood and gore outside the window with your air conditioning unit, and it doesn't mean throwing them into a pool of acid and flushing them down the drain. That's called aggravated murder, not eviction. ;) Kicking an unwelcome guest out of your home doesn't mean killing the guest first, it means kicking them out in the most gentle manner possible. This is especially true for guests you basically invited in yourself (which is the most common case for pregnancies; an exception is if someone breaks into your house and leaves a baby in the closet, through no fault of the baby's own). In the case of pregnant women, the most gentle way of evicting your unwelcome guest would usually be called "giving birth" or "inducing labor."

But anyway, I'd better hide before someone comes in here and says I'm a fascist statist that just hates women and wants to see the state enslave them to life-draining parasites or something. ;)

[Ricky201]

I must admit my ignorance by saying that I thought this was already on the books as a crime. I don't understand why it wasn't considered a crime before hand...

[robert9712000]

Wasnt her choice made when she decided to have sex (Er thats right we dont take responsibility for our actions .We want our cake and to eat it too.This btw is just in response to abortions where rape and health matters arent involved.I still think its wrong in those aspects, but ill concede that its my opinion on the other reasons)

I do think it should be up to the states decide,hopefully all the states decide that it is murder and out law it.

So whose gonna protect the rights of the child? Think of the children

[JK/SEA]

Oh boy...an abortion thread.