Buttigieg Defends Abortion by Suggesting the Bible Says ‘Life Begins with Breath’

[berdie]

I agree that a woman has a natural right to decide with whom and where and when she wants to reproduce. That isn't at issue.
What is at issue, here, is the act of eliminating the result of reproduction, and calling that a "choice" to reproduce or not. It's like deciding to be childless when the little nippers are in kindergarden. That same child will not be able to walk and feed itself for years. Again, with the definitions, "viability" can be construed to permit killing the child right up until it can get a job and support itself. Ideally, the legal profession should clarify the meaning of words, but modern attorneys pushing agendae have gone off into using words as tools of obfustication.

It isn't hard, counsellor, If you have a chicken egg, and it is not fertilized, you may have breakfast, at worst, something to go bad in the barn or get thrown at someone's car.
If it has been fertilized, you'll get a chicken.

If you have a human egg, and it is not fertilized, it goes out with the menses. If you have a human egg and it is fertilized, and implants in the uterine wall, you get a human.

That's when life begins, all need for nurturing aside. If you nurture an unfertilized egg, you get an infection...or a mess, but not a human.

 

[berdie]

I think the founding fathers would have rather harsh words, and harsh actions for those killing babies because it is a woman's right to choose.  They would as I do consider it murder.

Women have self aborted in the USA for a long time prior to Roe vs Wade.  My maternal grandmother told me if a woman was pregnant in the 20s 30s 40s, and did not want the child, they merely went to the local drug store and got a reed to self abort.  She indicated it was a common practice for women.  Until she mentioned it, I had no idea.

Funny thing, when I mentioned it to my mother, the conversation, she quickly indicated 'she had no business telling you that'.  The secrets from prior generations.

There is no doubt in my mind that this has happened for years.  But since it has become legalized it has become acceptable and more prevalent.

This is not a Constitutional right. It would take a strong argument to convince me that the right to privacy equates to abortion.  I haven't heard one yet.

[Hoodat]

This is not a Constitutional right. It would take a strong argument to convince me that the right to privacy equates to abortion.  I haven't heard one yet.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution either.

[roamer_1]

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution either.

Well, not that way anyway.

[Jazzhead]

If they're not viable they won't live upon birth. What are you trying to say?

And, as for teenagers, you do understand that we are not allowed to kill them either, right? 

Both of your points make the case against abortion.   

I'm  not interested in making the case "for" abortion.  Only the case in favor of individual liberty,  properly secured against government and the tyranny of the majority by the U.S. Constitution. 

[txradioguy]

I'm  not interested in making the case "for" abortion.  Only the case in favor of individual liberty,  properly secured against government and the tyranny of the majority by the U.S. Constitution.

You support the tyranny of the minority through judicial fiat.  That's about as anti individual liberty as you can get.

By the way...which amendment in the Constitution gives women the right to murder an unborn baby?

[OfTheCross]

You support the tyranny of the minority through judicial fiat.  That's about as anti individual liberty as you can get.

By the way...which amendment in the Constitution gives women the right to murder an unborn baby?

If it's murder why aren't States prosecuting them?

[Jazzhead]

If it's murder why aren't States prosecuting them?

Good question.  And the answer, of course, is that it's not murder.   That's just emotional language of the sort that both sides use to demonize those with opposing views.   

This is a matter of individual conscience, period.     

[XenaLee]

Good question.  And the answer, of course, is that it's not murder.   That's just emotional language of the sort that both sides use to demonize those with opposing views.   

This is a matter of individual conscience, period.   

It's more a matter of a severe LACK of individual conscience, period. 

[txradioguy]

If it's murder why aren't States prosecuting them?

The state is trying to stop it by cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood which in most states is the only place conducting abortions these days.

It should be up to the states whether to make it legal or illegal.  Were it illegal in a state then they could prosecute them.

When a pregnant woman is murdered and the baby dies as well the person committing the murder is charged twice.

More directly to your question...DA's can't go after the abortionist because more times than not the woman getting the abortion is the only witness against the doctor and they for various reasons refuse to testify.

States like Georgia and their LIFE Act are beginning to craft laws that will criminally prosecute a woman for having an abortion.

So there are states that are beginning to do exactly what you say they aren't.

[txradioguy]

Good question.  And the answer, of course, is that it's not murder.

What do you call ending the life of a living human being?   

That's just emotional language of the sort that both sides use to demonize those with opposing views.

No...it's called facts and reality.  Again you're trying to frame an argument to support life as "emotional" is straight out of the Alinsky playbook.

So Progressive of you.

This is a matter of individual conscience, period.   

Anyone supporting abortion or choosing to end a human life by abortion has a severe lack of conscience...period.

[Sanguine]

I'm  not interested in making the case "for" abortion.  Only the case in favor of individual liberty,  properly secured against government and the tyranny of the majority by the U.S. Constitution.

Regardless of what this morning's spin is, you very solidly made the case against abortion.  Now, you need to reconcile that with the "woman's right to choose".....

.....waiting...... 

[aligncare]

It's more a matter of a severe LACK of individual conscience, period.

But just let a mother who wants and delivers her baby and then disciplines her toddler based on biblical principles of corporal punishment, then they’ll put her in jail for child abuse. But, if she chooses to kill her third-trimester or just-born baby, then it’s health care.

[XenaLee]

But just let a mother who wants and delivers her baby and then disciplines her toddler based on biblical principles of corporal punishment, then they’ll put her in jail for child abuse. But, if she chooses to kill her third-trimester or just-born baby, then it’s health care.

Typical leftist insanity.   Always backasswards from what it should be, ethically, morally and logically.

[Smokin Joe]

If it's murder why aren't States prosecuting them?

It's a federal crime...

The 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]

source

Maybe you can reconcile for me why the unborn human is a "human being" when someone else kills it, but not when mommy contracts the hit.

The contention that it is not a human being does not stand up, scientifically, biologically, logically, not even within the contorted visions of the legal community. It is a cognitive disconnect which has been used as an excuse to perpetrate the slaughter of Americans by the tens of millions, even as we decry smaller acts of genocide in the world.

Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

Maybe Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius?

[XenaLee]

It's a federal crime...source

Maybe you can reconcile for me why the unborn human is a "human being" when someone else kills it, but not when mommy contracts the hit.

The contention that it is not a human being does not stand up, scientifically, biologically, logically, not even within the contorted visions of the legal community. It is a cognitive disconnect which has been used as an excuse to perpetrate the slaughter of Americans by the tens of millions, even as we decry smaller acts of genocide in the world.

Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

Maybe Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius?

I don't consider it to be a disconnect, per se.   I consider it to be just one more leftist lie, one of many.  Especially despicable is the leftist lawyers that will prosecute for murder someone for having killed or caused the death of an infant in utero....  and then will turn around and defend abortion and those that have abortions as 'their right'.   

And anyone that participates in a late term partial birth abortion is a damn ghoul.   Scientists are developing artificial wombs that should, logically, keep that practice from ever happening, since the infant could be removed from the mother and grown in the artificial womb and then adopted when fully developed.   The only thing that would stop that is the evil forces behind pushing abortions.   They want those murders to continue.   Plus, we've all seen how rich the ghouls have gotten by selling "baby parts".

[OfTheCross]

It's a federal crime...source

Maybe you can reconcile for me why the unborn human is a "human being" when someone else kills it, but not when mommy contracts the hit.

The contention that it is not a human being does not stand up, scientifically, biologically, logically, not even within the contorted visions of the legal community. It is a cognitive disconnect which has been used as an excuse to perpetrate the slaughter of Americans by the tens of millions, even as we decry smaller acts of genocide in the world.

Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

Maybe Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius?

Well, in terms of the law they could make them match.

 as is. the law that you're referring to applies with the exclusion of abortion:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

[txradioguy]

Well, in terms of the law they could make them match.

 as is. the law that you're referring to applies with the exclusion of abortion:

Here let me help you...you cherry picked the law and left out some salient points.

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

[Smokin Joe]

Let me see....for generations, or at least the seven I have been acquainted (from my great grandparents to my great grandchildren), the condition of a pregnant woman has been referred to by a phrase: "With child".

Not "With lump of tissue"

Not "With fetus"

But "With child".

All the mincing words and other lawyerly nonsense does not change the simple cultural regard for the situation, a regard that crosses cultures and persists throughout history.

She is described as being "with child".

[roamer_1]

She is described as being "with child".

It is not entirely their fault - Being raised in materialistic evolution, there is no sense of the nobility which is the cause that Man strives toward thoroughout all of recorded history.

Having no sense thereof, is it any surprise that they would trample upon all that is noble or pure?
Because that is certainly the result, always - the legitimization of sin, and the deflowering of purity, as noble man regresses with a surety - ever circling closer to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[jafo2010]

Seven non elected lying lawyers made the decision to support abortion.  As a result, what would be 20% of our population was murdered and planted to satisfy the eugenics policies of Margaret Sanger and the present day Democommie Party.

We lost roughly 3,000 people each with the Pearl Harbor attack by Japan and the attack on 9/11, but the destruction 0f 60+ million lives, and we have one political party defending this eugenics policy with a fervor.

It is a tragedy of grand proportion, and if you believe in God, I doubt he is very happy with the people of this nation.

[Sanguine]

Seven non elected lying lawyers made the decision to support abortion.  As a result, what would be 20% of our population was murdered and planted to satisfy the eugenics policies of Margaret Sanger and the present day Democommie Party.

We lost roughly 3,000 people each with the Pearl Harbor attack by Japan and the attack on 9/11, but the destruction 0f 60+ million lives, and we have one political party defending this eugenics policy with a fervor.

It is a tragedy of grand proportion, and if you believe in God, I doubt he is very happy with the people of this nation.

Even if you don't believe in God, I doubt He is very happy with this situation.

[OfTheCross]

Here let me help you...you cherry picked the law and left out some salient points.

Yeah..abortion is excluded. The law doesn't apply there.

When someone kills themselves you don't charge them with murder. All deaths aren't treated the same in the eyes of the law.

[txradioguy]

Yeah..abortion is excluded. The law doesn't apply there.

Ummm yes section B includes abortion.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

Abortion is intentionally causing the death of an unborn child.

When someone kills themselves you don't charge them with murder. All deaths aren't treated the same in the eyes of the law.

Are you really this obtuse?

[Hoodat]

When someone kills themselves you don't charge them with murder. All deaths aren't treated the same in the eyes of the law.

That would depend on what State you are in.  Each State has different laws regarding murder, assault, pumping gas, getting tattoos, erecting billboards, practicing law, elective surgery, etc.  This is stated explicitly in the Bill of Rights as a power reserved for the States.   Abortion and marriage are no different.  It is up to each State to determine its laws per the Constitution of the United States of America.  Either you follow the Constitution or you don't.