Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[RedDenver]

Here's one result of taking the word "murder" out of it. Man I hope this un-person gets an appropriate funeral or memorial service.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43273/man-charged-killing-pregnant-woman-wont-be-charged-ashe-schow

First, the only thing that got dropped was the "abortion" charge, not any murder charge. But it still doesn't make any sense as the law still requires a legal practitioner to perform the abortion and that the abortion can only be done to protect a patient's life or health. So this is still against the law in NY. Not to mention the guy is still being charged with murder of the woman.

 

[Oade]

First, the only thing that got dropped was the "abortion" charge, not any murder charge. But it still doesn't make any sense as the law still requires a legal practitioner to perform the abortion and that the abortion can only be done to protect a patient's life or health. So this is still against the law in NY. Not to mention the guy is still being charged with murder of the woman.

Yeah that's great. What do you think this father would be charged for if the mother had miraculously lived, yet the child had died? Attempted murder?

Suppose he (or the next guy) hadn't used a weapon at all, instead just punched and kicked the mother in the stomach. Not attempted murder of the mother. Yet, the un-person dies. -- Best case scenario, something like that is only going to carry an offense along the lines of aggravated assault. Worst case scenario?

It's a father's right to choose, I suppose.

 

[Oade]

Set a federal point of fetus viability so you take the “murder” aspect out of it  and let the women choose  if they want to deal with the moral /religious ramifications of their choice . Banning abortions doesn’t stop them it only makes a safe medical procedure unavailable and forces women to other even worse alternatives . I’m Firmly against forcing my religious or moral choices on anyone else . 

I see your point, but that's a pretty dull way of washing your hands of responsibility.

If not for your own religious or moral choices, why would/do you oppose any crime at all, and why is it ok to "force" those personal views on criminals? If not for your own morals and religious views, what part of you is it that causes you to oppose murder of a mature adult? Or theft, or bribery? Or are you simply against criminals being held accountable? 

If your unwilling to interject your own personal choices and religious morals "on anyone else", then what society are you helping to shape? Should we not teach 3rd graders that it's bad to steal?

If the kkk started hanging jews tomorrow, would you have any religious or moral objections that would require any forcible punishment?

 

[RedDenver]

Yeah that's great. What do you think this father would be charged for if the mother had miraculously lived, yet the child had died? Attempted murder?

Suppose he (or the next guy) hadn't used a weapon at all, instead just punched and kicked the mother in the stomach. Not attempted murder of the mother. Yet, the un-person dies. -- Best case scenario, something like that is only going to carry an offense along the lines of aggravated assault. Worst case scenario?

It's a father's right to choose, I suppose.

So your point is that committing other crimes like assault somehow means abortion should be illegal? Or are you somehow thinking that making abortion illegal will be a deterrent to assaults and murders?

 

[Oade]

So your point is that committing other crimes like assault somehow means abortion should be illegal? Or are you somehow thinking that making abortion illegal will be a deterrent to assaults and murders?

My point is that criminals should be held accountable for their crimes, and pretending that killing that child wasn't actually ending a the life of that child is insane.

The idea that simply being charged for some variation of assault after intentionally ending the life of another is mind boggling.

 

[RedDenver]

My point is that criminals should be held accountable for their crimes, and pretending that killing that child wasn't actually ending a the life of that child is insane.

The idea that simply being charged for some variation of assault after intentionally ending the life of another is mind boggling.

But you're complaining about the guy not getting charged with an abortion charge, which isn't at all the same as what you're wanting in this post. 

 

[Oade]

But you're complaining about the guy not getting charged with an abortion charge, which isn't at all the same as what you're wanting in this post. 

Riiight. Not being charged for abortion (or murder, or assault, or anything) after killing an unborn child, is appropriate here. You make a good point, lol.

If this man had killed two adults, he'd be charged with two murders.... This man killed one adult, and one unborn child (at an age children can live outside of the womb no less, not that it really matters), but is then only charged for the crimes against the adult. This is good, justified, and the charges fit the crime, how?

 

[LumberJackSker]

I see your point, but that's a pretty dull way of washing your hands of responsibility.

If not for your own religious or moral choices, why would/do you oppose any crime at all, and why is it ok to "force" those personal views on criminals? If not for your own morals and religious views, what part of you is it that causes you to oppose murder of a mature adult? Or theft, or bribery? Or are you simply against criminals being held accountable? 

If your unwilling to interject your own personal choices and religious morals "on anyone else", then what society are you helping to shape? Should we not teach 3rd graders that it's bad to steal?

If the kkk started hanging jews tomorrow, would you have any religious or moral objections that would require any forcible punishment?

So without religion society wouldn't be able to tell what acts were bad?

 

[Oade]

So without religion society wouldn't be able to tell what acts were bad?

Not necessarily. However, looking at wold history, aspects are debatable.

Are religious views not worth sharing and encouraging if one is religious? Or are religious folks only allowed to practice and talk about their religion from 8-12 on Saturday's and Sundays? 

Why/how is it that religious views should be excluded, even to the extent of self-censorship by religious people, from shaping society, but other philosophical views are valid?

 

[LumberJackSker]

Not necessarily. However, looking at wold history, aspects are debatable.

Are religious views not worth sharing and encouraging if one is religious? Or are religious folks only allowed to practice and talk about their religion from 8-12 on Saturday's and Sundays? 

Why/how is it that religious views should be excluded, even to the extent of self-censorship by religious people, from shaping society, but other philosophical views are valid?

So how did people know what the right thing to do was before modern faiths? And its not like religion has fixed bad behavior. Most of the worst atrocities committed by people were done in the name of god. 

I'm not religious and dont have a problem with people that are most people i know are. But i dont like it when people try to force their beliefs on me. 

 

[TheSker]

So without religion society wouldn't be able to tell what acts were bad?

Setting religion aside, what would your suggested moral baseline be?

 

[LumberJackSker]

Setting religion aside, what would your suggested moral baseline be?

Laws

 

[Oade]

So how did people know what the right thing to do was before modern faiths? And its not like religion has fixed bad behavior. Most of the worst atrocities committed by people were done in the name of god. 

I'm not religious and dont have a problem with people that are most people i know are. But i dont like it when people try to force their beliefs on me. 

That's a great question, I don't have a complete answer, whats you're theory? I would honestly love for someone to put that world view into words for me.

Who's forcing beliefs in this general discussion? It's not as if religious groups haven't been tolerating abortion for quite some time - and acting far more than tolerant to this day. At this rate, seems to me, if abortion is ever made illegal, it will be through our elected political leaders peacefully, not forcefully.

Obviously religion hasn't removed bad behavior from society, nor is that the overall goal of all or even most religions.

Of course murder is far from being a topic tied only to religious morals or philosophy. You don't have to be religious to oppose murder (or any crime), that doesn't mean religious institutions and people should shy away from or be berated for sharing their religious convictions in the course of discussion.(that's not directed at you, just a general point)

 

[TheSker]

Laws

How are laws determined?

 

[LumberJackSker]

How are laws determined?

Is it through religious beliefs?