Does she have the right to go out and kill her attacker? No. Maybe she should, but she doesn't. Two victims doesn't make less crime.
Printable View
Bloomberg to Cuomo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6U57uPKnNs
Morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the universally medically accepted definition of conception (implantation) and can prevent even fertilization (sometimes sperm doesn't reach the egg until a day or so later).
That said, in every pregnancy there is the possibility of the woman coming down with some disease like cancer where the prescribed treatment could very well kill the fetus. If she's made it to late term a c-section can be performed, but earlier that's a legit reason for an abortion.
Correct, and these also exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy Without an abortion that can prove fatal to the mother.
Sort of.
Direct abortion is never acceptable. Abortion is always murder. Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the baby. The Church teaches abortion is *always and everywhere* wrong. It is murder.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.
The second method is the adminstration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong.
How would "late-term abortion" be defined? What is the current limit as far as when a pregnant "mother" can abort?
Also, if I murder a pregnant woman, I can only be charged with one count of murder, right?
I believe it's in the third trimester to be called a 'late-term abortion.' At this point the child is already 'viable.'
No, you can be charged with two counts of murder.
Quote:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."
Quote:
In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender"
So, would having an abortion a day before the expected due date be acceptable?
What if one could prove in court that the parasite's victim (i.e. mother) had intended to abort the parasite? Could that potentially sway the court in favor of lessening the charge to one count of murder?
Barack Obama thinks that. In Canada abortion is completely legal until the child is born. You can be 2 weeks late (in the 42nd week of pregnancy) and legally murder your child.
I don't know. To me it wouldn't matter. Murdering 1 person or 2 I think you should still get the death penalty.
Ummmm....you didn't carefully read what I wrote or you wouldn't have said what you did. Or maybe you don't understand self defense. Self defense isn't limited to where the other person is not "innocent". Case in point. Someone has been told that if they don't kill you someone else will kill their children. In certain jurisdictions that person may be found innocent of murder because of a duress defense. Or you're shipwrecked and in shark invested waters and someone who is bleeding to death is attracting sharks. If you push him away from the raft, hastening his death, most jurisdictions would allow you to raise the necessity defense.
In the case that I'm talking about, it really isn't even abortion per se. The chemicals being used to treat the mother have the unwanted effect of killing the child. That's not murder no matter how you slice it. Don't let Catholic sensibilities blind you to obvious truth.
And that's why I'm glad I'm not part of the Catholic church because it subjects you to backwards logic. In both instances the result is the same. If the procedure is successful, the baby is dead and the mother is alive. It would be one thing if procedure A gave the baby a fighting chance or if procedure A caused less pain to the baby at death or any other real reason to accept procedure A over procedure B except "the church calls one an abortion".
Save the children from assault weapons by carving them out of the womb with a coat hanger in a seedy motel bathtub beforehand. Yay, Democracy.
In the case of the second example, hastening death has been ruled as murder. I can't remember the case name, but it was established under English common law that killing someone, even though they were already dying, in order to survive (in this case it was on a lifeboat after weeks at sea and they actually ended up eating the guy who they killed) is still murder.
No, the point of the drugs is specifically to kill the child. It is a direct abortion and is unjustifiable. Removing the tube is a true medical procedure which unfortunately results in the death of the child because we have no way of saving him or her.
The only truth here is that your Protestantism has led to moral relativism where claim that sometimes abortion (the murder of an innocent child) is morally permissible.
A) They received a suspended sentence. (No jail time).
B) They actually killed and ate another human being.
So actually that case undermines rather than supports your argument. And we aren't talking about killing a fetus and using it for body parts (the equivalent of what happened in the case you cited). We are talking about whether someone bleeds to death sooner rather than later.
The point is that you are being a slave to someone else's warped sense of justice. Administering drugs is a true medical procedure. And the common abortion procedure of dialation and cutterage is the medically accepted procedure for dealing with babies who have already died in utero.Quote:
No, the point of the drugs is specifically to kill the child. It is a direct abortion and is unjustifiable. Removing the tube is a true medical procedure which unfortunately results in the death of the child because we have no way of saving him or her.
It's the Catholic position that is being morally relativistic, which is saying that one way to kill a baby is acceptable and the other is not because the Catholic church says so. Look at it another way. Was what happened to Terri Schiavo more "morally acceptable" because she was starved to death? No? Then your Catholic logic makes no sense. The "tissue" being removed in your "medically acceptable" version includes a baby. And no effort is made to save said baby. It's just thrown in the trash along with other abortions. You're calling something that is clearly an abortion not an abortion so you can come up with a way to allow it while not allowing abortion. It's silly.Quote:
The only truth here is that your Protestantism has led to moral relativism where claim that sometimes abortion (the murder of an innocent child) is morally permissible.
Actually no, they were sentenced to death. Their sentence was alter commuted.
The judges found there was no common law defense of necessity to a charge of murder, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality, which is what you're arguing.
Progs are such cruel, violent, murderous ghouls.