Idaho GOP candidate calls for executing women who end pregnancies

[LordKiran]

There is no animal stupider than a Christian.

stupider isn't a word.

It's a perfectly normal word, as much as it pains me to defend unter.
Is Stupider (Stupidest) a Word?

I don't really care if it is or isn't. It is traditionally held that "stupider" isn't a word. I was relying on unter knowing this to subtly undercut his position of "There is no animal stupider than a Christian." without having to explicitly call him out.

 

[Derec]

I don't really care if it is or isn't.

And yet you categorically stated that it isn't a word.

It is traditionally held that "stupider" isn't a word.

Really? By whom?

I was relying on unter knowing this to subtly undercut his position of "There is no animal stupider than a Christian." without having to explicitly call him out.

And it backfired.

 

[LordKiran]

And yet you categorically stated that it isn't a word. [1]

Really? By whom? [2]

I was relying on unter knowing this to subtly undercut his position of "There is no animal stupider than a Christian." without having to explicitly call him out.

And it backfired.[3]

1. Your inability to look beyond the superficial layer of what I said is not my problem.

2. The same institutions that uphold tradition in the first place? Academia primarily in this case? Does this question not have an obvious answer for anyone else?

3. Sure, which is why I explained it more articulately the second time around.

4. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Care to explain, or are we just arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[Derec]

1. Your inability to look beyond the superficial layer of what I said is not my problem.

Well excuse me for reading your posts as written and not looking for some hidden pseudo-kabbalistic meaning.

2. The same institutions that uphold tradition in the first place? Academia primarily in this case? Does this question not have an obvious answer for anyone else?]

Really? I am not aware that academics take a dim view on this comparative of "stupid". Care to share some sources for this?

4. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Care to explain, or are we just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I corrected your false statement about "stupider" not being a word. You are the one who wants to argue about hidden meanings and such.

 

[Angry Floof]

/mod

If we're gonna snipe and insult, let's direct it at the people who are in positions of power and could conceivably, and in fact are lusting to, enact such a heinous punishment on women.

 

[Copernicus]

/mod

Some posts have been move from this thread to here.

 

[Underseer]

Wouldn't the death penalty be more appropriately awarded to the doctor who actually takes the baby's life?

If abortion is murder, then it is basically a contract murder and both the hitman (doctor) and the person putting out the hit (mother) should be charged with murder, just like with any other contract murder.

Ah, so you don't want to answer the fatwah, but will let the state do it?

 

[RVonse]

If you’re pro-death penalty, and think abortion is murder, then the statement makes sense within that worldview. At least this chap is honest about it I suppose...

Furthermore the law as it currently is written does have serious problems. For example, if a person under the influence of alcohol runs over and kills a pregnant woman the law calls that situation a double homicide. Yet if that same woman survives injury....and then later decides to abort the same fetus....that is perfectly legal.

Regardless your position on abortion, the law has to treat one exactly the same as the other. Or it is a mockery of justice.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Regardless your position on abortion, the law has to treat one exactly the same as the other. Or it is a mockery of justice.

Not at all. It's quite consistent.
The fetus does not have independent rights. It's the woman's choice to have the kid or terminate the pregnancy.

If you terminate a fetus against the woman's will, that's killing her kid she wanted to have.
If SHE terminates, it's her body/her choice, and the act isn't infringing on anyone else's rights.

 

[Derec]

Wouldn't the death penalty be more appropriately awarded to the doctor who actually takes the baby's life?

If abortion is murder, then it is basically a contract murder and both the hitman (doctor) and the person putting out the hit (mother) should be charged with murder, just like with any other contract murder.

Ah, so you don't want to answer the fatwah, but will let the state do it?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem with conditionals? I said "if". I do not think abortion should be illegal in general and much less classified as murder, but if it is, both accomplices should be prosecuted, not just one.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless your position on abortion, the law has to treat one exactly the same as the other. Or it is a mockery of justice.

Not at all. It's quite consistent.
The fetus does not have independent rights.

In which case it should not be murder to kill it no matter who does it or why.
You just showed that it is quite inconsistent.

 

[Angry Floof]

Ah, so you don't want to answer the fatwah, but will let the state do it?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem with conditionals? I said "if". I do not think abortion should be illegal in general and much less classified as murder, but if it is, both accomplices should be prosecuted, not just one.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless your position on abortion, the law has to treat one exactly the same as the other. Or it is a mockery of justice.

Not at all. It's quite consistent.
The fetus does not have independent rights.

In which case it should not be murder to kill it no matter who does it or why.
You just showed that it is quite inconsistent.

It is the woman's decision to make. Nature (or God, if you want) provides an arbiter for the question of ending a pregnancy: the woman.

 

[Derec]

It is the woman's decision to make. Nature (or God, if you want) provides an arbiter for the question of ending a pregnancy: the woman.

That is only her decision to make if the embryo/fetus is not classified as a human person. And then you should not be able to charge somebody with murder for killing this unperson, if you are consistent.
There is much extremism on both sides of the abortion question. I am certain that if the pro-abortion side were less militant, the discussion on general legality of abortion would have died down by now.

 

[Angry Floof]

It is the woman's decision to make. Nature (or God, if you want) provides an arbiter for the question of ending a pregnancy: the woman.

That is only her decision to make if the embryo/fetus is not classified as a human person. And then you should not be able to charge somebody with murder for killing this unperson, if you are consistent.
There is much extremism on both sides of the abortion question. I am certain that if the pro-abortion side were less militant, the discussion on general legality of abortion would have died down by now.

My view is not extreme. Human embryos form inside human women's bodies. Nature (or God, if you like) provides an arbiter to this very important question - the woman.

 

[Derec]

My view is not extreme. Human embryos form inside human women's bodies. Nature (or God, if you like) provides an arbiter to this very important question - the woman.

So you are saying that the embryo is fully human (hence murder if anybody else kills it) but somehow the embryo's mother has a "licence to kill"? That is an extremist position.

 

[Angry Floof]

My view is not extreme. Human embryos form inside human women's bodies. Nature (or God, if you like) provides an arbiter to this very important question - the woman.

So you are saying that the embryo is fully human (hence murder if anybody else kills it) but somehow the embryo's mother has a "licence to kill"? That is an extremist position.

I am saying that this very unique and important issue of ending a pregnancy has an arbiter already, provided by nature (or God, if you like) and that arbiter is the woman whose womb holds the embryo or fetus. No one but she has the right to choose that for her. Unless she's incapacitated as in a coma or something, she is the arbiter of that question.

One day when (and if) you are able to see women as human beings, you will not have the stomach to call this an extreme position.

 

[Copernicus]

My view is not extreme. Human embryos form inside human women's bodies. Nature (or God, if you like) provides an arbiter to this very important question - the woman.

So you are saying that the embryo is fully human (hence murder if anybody else kills it) but somehow the embryo's mother has a "licence to kill"? That is an extremist position.

Derec, I have a serious question for you. Do YOU personally consider abortion to be murder? Don't hide behind a conditional. I just want your personal opinion.

If you answer affirmatively, then how would you define "murder"? What is the difference between murder and, say, killing in self-defense, euthanasia, capital punishment, medical surgery, etc? For example, medical surgery invariably kills some human cells, but it is not usually considered "murder" by the vast majority of people. Abortion may kill an embryo, but at what point does a mass of cells become an embryo, fetus, baby? When is abortion more like surgery and less like murder (or vice versa)? When does a pregnancy create a bona fide "person"?

 

[RVonse]

Regardless your position on abortion, the law has to treat one exactly the same as the other. Or it is a mockery of justice.

Not at all. It's quite consistent.
The fetus does not have independent rights. It's the woman's choice to have the kid or terminate the pregnancy.

If you terminate a fetus against the woman's will, that's killing her kid she wanted to have.
If SHE terminates, it's her body/her choice, and the act isn't infringing on anyone else's rights.

Im no lawyer. But cearly the law treats the crime of murder as a crime against the victim. That would be the fetus and NOT the mother. So if the fetus is not a legal person it is not murder. It could make sense to invent another lesser crime against the mother who wanted to bring to term a fetus. But you just can not call killing a fetus murder if the fetus is not a legal person.

The law has to treat everyone the same.

 

[Derec]

I am saying that this very unique and important issue of ending a pregnancy has an arbiter already, provided by nature (or God, if you like) and that arbiter is the woman whose womb holds the embryo or fetus. No one but she has the right to choose that for her. Unless she's incapacitated as in a coma or something, she is the arbiter of that question.

One of the points of society and laws is that biological happenstance should not be destiny.
For example, natural state is that the stronger can beat up the weaker and take their stuff. But we live in a society to a large extent to mitigate this state of affairs through laws.

One day when (and if) you are able to see women as human beings, you will not have the stomach to call this an extreme position.

I see women as human beings. I just don't see them as superhuman beings, with special rights and protections.

For the record, I do not think abortion is murder. But then neither should be killing a fetus by a third party. If you punch a pregnant woman in the belly and she miscarries, that should be assault and battery, possibly aggravated, but not homicide.

 

[Derec]

Derec, I have a serious question for you. Do YOU personally consider abortion to be murder? Don't hide behind a conditional. I just want your personal opinion.

No, but I do think there should be restrictions in later pregnancy. And I am not hiding behind the conditionals, I am posing legitimate scenarios. For example, if all abortion is banned, why should the doctor be the only one prosecuted for a crime?

When does a pregnancy create a bona fide "person"?

That's the big question, isn't it? I do not think it can ever be adequately answered scientifically, but legally there must be some cutoff, or several. Since the process is continuous, a better approximation is to have more than one cutoff rather than a single one (like conception as pro-lifers want or birth as pro-choicers want).

It's like with growing up. That is a continuous process and a 17 years and 364 days old human is not significantly different than the same human at 18 years and 0 days but legally there is a difference. A sane legal system puts several cutoffs in because it is insane to treat a baby legally the same as a 17 year old just because they are both minors. Same should be the case with pregnancy. A zygote is not the same as a third trimester fetus, (no matter how much both extreme sides rant that they are) and they should not be treated the same legally.

 

[Juma]

Derec, I have a serious question for you. Do YOU personally consider abortion to be murder? Don't hide behind a conditional. I just want your personal opinion.

No, but I do think there should be restrictions in later pregnancy. And I am not hiding behind the conditionals, I am posing legitimate scenarios. For example, if all abortion is banned, why should the doctor be the only one prosecuted for a crime?

When does a pregnancy create a bona fide "person"?

That's the big question, isn't it? I do not think it can ever be adequately answered scientifically, but legally there must be some cutoff, or several. Since the process is continuous, a better approximation is to have more than one cutoff rather than a single one (like conception as pro-lifers want or birth as pro-choicers want).

It's like with growing up. That is a continuous process and a 17 years and 364 days old human is not significantly different than the same human at 18 years and 0 days but legally there is a difference. A sane legal system puts several cutoffs in because it is insane to treat a baby legally the same as a 17 year old just because they are both minors. Same should be the case with pregnancy. A zygote is not the same as a third trimester fetus, (no matter how much both extreme sides rant that they are) and they should not be treated the same legally.

Humans become persons some time AFTER we are born. So according to your logic it should be ok to kill the baby after it has been born?

Thing is: abortion really isnt so much a question about the baby as about the mother. It is her body.
If it was only a question about the baby it would be an easy one.