Collins, Murkowski: We Sunk Skinny Repeal to Protect Planned Parenthood

[thackney]

The abortion of a pre-viable fetus is not murder.  And the point of the Constitution is to protect individual liberty against the tyranny of the state.   Especially tyranny based on religion   

Why is it if a third party kills the unborn they can be charged with murder, but if the mother chooses to do it, it is not murder?  The law makes no distinction of viable outside the womb for those crimes.

Since you ignored it the previous time I posted this in this thread, I will post the link again.

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Treated equally under the law?

[Jazzhead]

If one believes life comes at conception . . .

You are entitled to that belief.  You are not entitled to have the state force that belief on others, and deprive them of their liberty.     

[Bigun]

It most certainly is not his argument is that the state should not deprive a woman of her liberty to kill a child.  How is that different than killing anyone else

No difference.   Murder = retroactive  abortion.

[Jazzhead]

Why is it if a third party kills the unborn they can be charged with murder, but if the mother chooses to do it, it is not murder? 

Those are different situations.   A third party tortfeasor is depriving the mother of something valuable - her unborn child.  That's why that distinction exists in the law - the fetus's rights are derivative of the mother's.  Vis a vis the mother, a pre-viable fetus has no such rights.  It is up to the mother to decide whether to reproduce, not the state.   

[Jazzhead]

It most certainly is not his argument is that the state should not deprive a woman of her liberty to kill a child.  How is that different than killing anyone else

You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others.   Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.   

[Cyber Liberty]

But they can force a man to be a father.  That s ok right?

Good point.  They say a man gives up that right at conception by virtue of the act of having sex, but somehow that responsibility doesn't attach for the mother.  That doesn't make sense to me.

[Cyber Liberty]

You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others.   Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.

I know that dragging religion into this argument carries weight in the circles you run in, but I see it as nothing but a cheap device.  It's quite possible to make a moral argument about not allowing abortions quite free of religion.

[jmyrlefuller]

The state cannot force a woman to reproduce.  That is tyranny.  That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.

The reproduction has already begun before the abortion happens. Only in the case of rape is she being forced to reproduce.

To kill the being created as a result of that choice in the womb is beyond tyrannical; it is downright barbaric.

[thackney]

You are entitled to that belief.  You are not entitled to have the state force that belief on others, and deprive them of their liberty.   

But the state does force that viewpoint on others already, if the death is caused by a third party, not an abortion.

[Hoodat]

The state cannot force a woman to reproduce.

No one is forcing a woman to reproduce.  Another lie on your part.  Women aren't victims here.  They do have control of their bodies.  They do get to decide whether or not to allow a man to ejaculate inside of them.

[Cyber Liberty]

No one is forcing a woman to reproduce.  Another lie on your part.  Women aren't victims here.  They do have control of their bodies.  They do get to decide whether or not to allow a man to ejaculate inside of them.

IOW, women have "agency."  A favorite word of the left.

[Mom MD]

The state cannot force a woman to reproduce.  That is tyranny.  That is a deprivation of her fundamental liberty.

The choice to reproduce is made at the time of conception not later

[Mom MD]

You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others.   Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.

There was no religious point in that statement   Try again

[Cyber Liberty]

There was no religious point in that statement   Try again

He says that all the time.  It's a leftist talking point. It's in statements like these he tips his hand about his true political leanings.

[Cyber Liberty]

The choice to reproduce is made at the time of conception not later

This concept is already recognized in the law, because the father gets no choice about abortion, neither pro or con.

[txradioguy]

Those two either need to announce they are switching parties or their respective states need to primary them OUT of their current political office.

And quite honestly...this is one of those times I'd support Trump trying to get a Republican primaried out of office.

[txradioguy]

There was no religious point in that statement   Try again

@Mom MD

Any opposition...even that based in facts and logic...will automatically be labelled as being based in religious bigotry by Jazz.

[driftdiver]

You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others.   Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.

@Jazzhead
The state imposes ALL kinds of beliefs which have a religious foundation.   Things like murder, theft, slander, adhereing to the states laws and more. Why don't you have issue with all of those equally?

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead
The state imposes ALL kinds of beliefs which have a religious foundation.   Things like murder, theft, slander, adhereing to the states laws and more. Why don't you have issue with all of those equally?

[Cyber Liberty]

He went quiet.  His friends need to tell him what talking points to bring back from the hive.

[roamer_1]

I also have no objection to placing restrictions on abortion once the fetus becomes viable.

The baby IS viable if left alone.

[Cyber Liberty]

The baby IS viable if left alone.

Leave him alone, he's still communing with the Hive to tell him what to say....

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Why is it if a third party kills the unborn they can be charged with murder, but if the mother chooses to do it, it is not murder?  The law makes no distinction of viable outside the womb for those crimes.

I sure would like to see someone try to answer this question.

At some point genetic material shared between a man and a woman becomes an individual human life.  When exactly is that?  And is that a question for science or religion?  I don't know.  I have my opinion, but I don't know.  What I do know is that the answer is not variable on a case-by-case basis depending upon what is "convenient" for the "mother"/

[Cyber Liberty]

I sure would like to see someone try to answer this question.

At some point genetic material shared between a man and a woman becomes an individual human life.  When exactly is that?  And is that a question for science or religion?  I don't know.  I have my opinion, but I don't know.  What I do know is that the answer is not variable on a case-by-case basis depending upon what is "convenient" for the "mother"/

The "tell" in this quandary is what are the rights of the other half of the conception?  The father?

[Hoodat]

You want the state to impose your religious beliefs on others.   Sorry, that's not how things work in this country.

I want the people of a state to have the right to determine their own laws.  The only one here who believes in government imposing its beliefs on others and denying the people the right to establish their own laws is you.