Is abortion murder? Jon Dougherty reviews lawsuit won by pro-life demonstrator against city

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 17, 2002 | Jon Dougherty

[FreeMe2]

If your authority end with control over a woman's body...

Why is it illegal to have a doctor remove a funtioning limb?

Why cannot a person decide they don't like their arm or leg and then have it amputated?

[4CJ]

Isn't our entire criminal justice system built on a foundation of society making moral decisions? Why have laws against rape, robbery or murder at all? Criminal laws recognize that someone (the victim) has been harmed by another (the perpetrator, aka the criminal). Is it your position is that as long as you are not harmed then it's ok? I'm not attacking you, I can empathize with your desire to allow individual freedoms, but in this case, there is a victim. And it's not the woman that made the decision to abort her child.

[Psalm 73]

"Why is it illegal to have a doctor remove a funtioning limb?"

Why are you directing this question to me?
Read the previous dozen posts and you will see that you aree preaching to the choir.

[Quila]

there is a victim. And it's not the woman that made the decision to abort her child

Where I normally don't have a problem prohibiting something where someone is harmed, to do what while at the same setting up a system of forced birth makes me want to back off a bit. I get very protective when someone wants to get invasive with my body, whether it's telling me what to eat and drink or ingest (or not), or making me piss in a cup. I can't imagine someone telling me "You will carry this baby to term."

That's on the theoretical side. On the reality side, outlawing it would just drive the industry underground. And if you think abortion doctors are unethical now, just wait. We won't put a dent in the number of abortions.

[Quila]

Let's begin by putting the death angel's little helpers in prison for life.

Then it goes underground and things get even nastier. Economics rules all. We have to make the market for abortion go away or the sellers will always be there.

[AppyPappy]

I simply don't believe I have the authority to enforce this view onto a pregnant woman's body by force or by law.

But you do believe in the legality of murdering innocent people (ie babies) as long as you don't pull the trigger.

[Psalm 73]

"We have to make the market for abortion go away or the sellers will always be there."

Not gonna happen as long as there are people like you who do not care what happens to either babies or thier mothers, as long as nobody bothers YOU. Not too selfish.

[Psalm 73]

"I can't imagine someone telling me "You will carry this baby to term."

"I can't imagine someone telling me "You must not kill your baby."
What about after the baby is born? Would that be OK? If not, why not?

[Mikey]

"... this ruling wasn't going to change the nation's abortion laws,"..."

People have to get this thought outta their heads, we are not one nation . We are a union of states. Each state having its own constitution. Each state sending representatives to the United States (i.e., the District of criminals Columbia).

If Michigan declares abortion to be murder (which it is) than the United States (I.E., District of Columbia) has no say in the matter.

This also holds true in all matters concerning state law. The Federal government has only those powers granted to it by the Constitution. The power structure goes something like this; God, man, local government, state government, Federal government. <.p> Note the Federal government has the least power of all, but it would seem as everything's been turned upside down and the Federal government has all the power and the people are but subjects and God is being tossed out of schools, court houses, etc.
This is not the way its supposed to be people.

Congress has no power whatsoever over each individual state except those which are specifically enumerated to it by the Federal Constitution;

"The congress shall have power--

1). To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform thoughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United S tates:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States: 7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress od science and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offences against the law of nations:

10. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

11. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use, shall be for a longer term than two years:

12. To provide and maintain a navy:

13. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and navel forces:

14. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions:

15. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress:

16. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district ( not exceeding ten miles square ) as may, by the cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings:-- and,

17. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Where does it say the Federal government (The United States) can tell a state what to do, unless the people consider an abortion mill to be a "needful building" ?

If the people believe an abortion mill is a "needful building" , then God help us all.

[Quila]

What about after the baby is born? Would that be OK? If not, why not?

After the baby's born, it has nothing to do with her body anymore. Therefore my one point of contention disappears.

[Quila]

Not gonna happen as long as there are people like you who do not care what happens to either babies or thier mothers, as long as nobody bothers YOU. Not too selfish.

What everyone thinks matters exactly zero, and will do exactly zero to affect the market. The only people's thinking that matters are the pregnant mothers; they're the market. Distance yourself from the moral arguments and put on that cold, hard thinking cap and look at the law of supply and demand.

[Mikey]

"it has nothing to do with her body anymore..."

Really, what if she breast feeds the baby?

[Quila]

But you do believe in the legality of murdering innocent people (ie babies) as long as you don't pull the trigger.

As with the death penalty, the issue is so complex (I don't like reductio ad absurdum) I haven't completely made up my mind one way or another. Feel free to post info, but I'm not up to debating this right now because I can't truly support either side.

[Psalm 73]

"After the baby's born, it has nothing to do with her body anymore."

Well, it has to do with someones body. Someone must work to provide for the baby, the baby cannot exist in a vacuum.
Perhaps the town could vote on whether they want to support the baby or not. If the people vote NO, then the baby dies.
But then what about the disposal fee, darn.
In the real world, Quila, our actions DO have an effect on someone else. That is why what BeezleBubba did on his own time with that intern was OUR business, too.
And the rights of babies don't just depend on whether they are in the womb, or a foot outside of it.

[Psalm 73]

"Distance yourself from the moral arguments..."

Then just flush our Constitution down the toilet, for without moral arguments it is meaningless.
(Liberaltarians, apply "FLAME" here).

[AppyPappy]

It's actually very simple. I changed from pro-choice to pro-life when I started thinking about the facts of the case. Having children helped as well. My wife's gyno was the local abortionist and he spoke of the "fetus" as a child during the pregnancy. "Your baby is fine. You can see the baby's heartbeat on the screen" etc. If HE knew it was a baby, obviously it IS a baby. And you shouldn't kill babies. Even if you really want to do it. Especially with a 2 year waiting list for adopting said babies.

[Quila]

That is why what BeezleBubba did on his own time with that intern was OUR business, too.

It was none of our business. It may have been a good excuse to get a rotten person thrown out of office, but the action itself was none of our business. Saying something can be banned because of a very indirect, fuzzy harm is a dangerous slope to start on.

Otherwise, just reading all the abortion content with an open mind...

[Quila]

Strangely, fatherhood did help show me in a very concrete sense the wrongness of abortion, but didn't take me all the way.

Especially with a 2 year waiting list for adopting said babies.

That waiting list is not necessarily because of lack of babies, but because of the extreme blocks the government has put up to make adoption difficult.

[Quila]

Then just flush our Constitution down the toilet, for without moral arguments it is meaningless.

This is far beyond the Constitution, it's the laws of economics. You can change the Constitution with a set process, but you'd have to change human nature to change the laws of economics.

[AppyPappy]

There is a huge lack of babies. I know several people trying to adopt. Some give up and go to China to get them.