The Abortion Oxymoron

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teelynn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Teelynn

Guest
I have been reading about a locally highly publicized murder in our area where the woman murdered was pregnant. The authorities have arrested a suspect, and are going to charge her with a “double homicide”.

How can we justify charging this woman with murdering the unborn child of the victim, and still make it legal for a mother to walk into an abortion clinic and violently kill her own unborn child?

Does the state recognize the fetus as a child or doesn’t it? Who can understand this?:confused:
 
I have noticed that hypocrisy as well. It seems that the government’s view is that only desired unborns are “alive” human beings. It also seems that the underlying (and detestable) principle of this hypocrisy is that the woman chooses to give her unborn a right to life.

It is obvious enough from Scripture that God disagrees with these principles. And also, even the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution would disagree that humans receive their right to life, etc. from the choice of other human beings, because all people are endowed by their Creator with these unalienable rights. Such rights are not a matter of choice, but are objective realities that America’s morality by majority mentality needs to recognize ASAP.

Pax!
 
I, too, cannot discern a difference between ‘homicide of an unborn child’ and ‘abortion’. They’re both the same, except for the number of words and spelling.

I think I’ll use the excuse of the pro-abortion people:

[sarcasm]“I personally am against homicide, but who am I to tell someone else they can’t kill another human and her child.” 🤷 [/sarcasm]
 
vppoole said:
I have noticed that hypocrisy as well. It seems that the government’s view is that only desired unborns are “alive” human beings. It also seems that the underlying (and detestable) principle of this hypocrisy is that the woman chooses to give her unborn a right to life.

It is obvious enough from Scripture that God disagrees with these principles. And also, even the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution would disagree that humans receive their right to life, etc. from the choice of other human beings, because all people are endowed by their Creator with these unalienable rights. Such rights are not a matter of choice, but are objective realities that America’s morality by majority mentality needs to recognize ASAP.

Pax!
Click to expand...
So, if a woman does not DESIRE to give life, she has a right to kill the baby. The INTENT either makes a BABY human or inhuman according to the government.
Uh Huh…makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:

The Supreme Court has been trampling on our Constitution for too long!!!:mad:
 
I would LOVE IT if someone that is pro choice could explain this illogic. (although, I doubt that anyone on this particular forum is pro choice) If this is the case, that a woman has to right to choose to give her baby life or not to…then they have no right to charge this “suspect” of double homicide! And if it is because only the “mother” has this right, then why is it not the right of the mother to kill her child, say, when this child is 3 months old? It is STILL the mother and it is STILL the child. And why has this not been argued in our legal system? It’s probably a stupid question that I am just not getting but???:confused:🤷
 
This rationale does not make any sense to those whose hearts believe in the Lord of life, the Creator, who alone has power over life and death and who recognize the evil for what it is.

But in a society that is increasingly being inudated with individualism, perhaps it might be understood by the completely selfish motive behind it. If I want an abortion, that is MY right, MY decision, MY body…My, My, My…I am God…If I “choose” to keep the child within my womb, then NOBODY better take it away from ME. I am in control of my own destiny and lord of my own choosing…

But you are correct, Teelynn - it is a complete oxymoron. Any lawyers out there who might explain the legal concept which absolutely makes no sense to me.
 
It would appear that the humanity of an unborn child is decided solely by whether or not the mother would prefer to kill it.

That’s a peculiar legal standard, now, isn’t it?
 
Her baby was wanted and those who do not want their baby think they can just throw it away and no harm. :mad:

Paul
 
I think this is relatively simple to explain.

Pro life politicians don’t have enough votes from among the “I’d never have one but I support the right to choose” politicians to pass anti abortion legislation, but those same politicians can’t quite bring themselves to admit that all babies are just little bundles of protoplasm. So they vote that killing a wanted baby is murder.

The dichotomy in the law reflects the conflicted opinions that individuals have about life. You see, deep down, most people know a baby is a baby human a person.
 
Remember the case of Scott Peterson in California a few years ago? Abortion supporters were vocally opposed to charging him with the murder of his unborn child when he killed his pregnant (8 months along if I recall correctly) wife. The prosecutor in California decided not to press charges against him for the murder of his child, only for the murder of his wife.
 
rpp said:
Remember the case of Scott Peterson in California a few years ago? Abortion supporters were vocally opposed to charging him with the murder of his unborn child when he killed his pregnant (8 months along if I recall correctly) wife. The prosecutor in California decided not to press charges against him for the murder of his child, only for the murder of his wife.
Click to expand...
Yep, I remember the Scott Peterson case. I had not heard about the pro abortion objection to the “double murder”. I do remember them going back and forth about charging him with double murder. This is a local murder, where a jealous woman killed the pregnant girlfriend of a Chicago Bears player. (or at least she is charged with her murder) The prosecution wants to charge her with a double homicide. Going to keep an eye on this one.
 
PaulinVA said:
I think this is relatively simple to explain.

Pro life politicians don’t have enough votes from among the “I’d never have one but I support the right to choose” politicians to pass anti abortion legislation, but those same politicians can’t quite bring themselves to admit that all babies are just little bundles of protoplasm. So they vote that killing a wanted baby is murder.

The dichotomy in the law reflects the conflicted opinions that individuals have about life. You see, deep down, most people know a baby is a baby human a person.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think it is instinct that sneaks through now and again, telling people in the legal system that yes indeedy, pregnant women are carrying real babies, not just a blob of tissue.:rolleyes:

Lord Have Mercy on Us!!!
 
Scott Peterson was convicted on 2 counts of murder.

Lacy Peterson’s family successfully pushed Congress to pass Lacy and Conner’s Law, a Federal Law that if a crime was committed against a pregnant woman, the perp would be charged with 2 crimes. It’s a Federal law, applying to Federal crimes…so I guess interstate kidnapping etc would fall under this category.

(I used to watch a lot of Court TV 😊)
 
Basically, the conviction of Scott Peterson should be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In it Justice Blackmun conceded that there wasn’t enough evidence to say whether the unborn was a person, but if there were sufficient evidence, then Roe v Wade would fall because the right to life is a higher right than the right to privacy.

I submit to the court, that the State of California granted personhood to Conner Peterson in the conviction of Scott Peterson. An unborn either is or is not a person. California conceded that it is.

I’m confused to the fact that abortion is still legal :confused:
 
Most states try to get around this paradox by defining “murder” in two different ways. Their statutes say that murder in the unlawful killing of a human being and then go on to say that murder is the unlawful killing of an unborn fetus. Not every state does this double talk but the ones that do get around it by saying that a fetus is not a human and/or can justify abortion by saying it is a ‘lawful’ killing like self defense. Sigh it makes me sick sometimes to see what the legal system can justify using words.

Hope this helps answer the “legal” question.

Pax
 
I’m so glad that we live in a country where some murders are “lawful”.

Today, everything that we want to do is “lawful” if we can afford a good enough attorney, look at our elected officials…

It’s just too bad that the “lawful” murder is committed by the mother and father against their own flesh and blood!

Once a mother can justify murdering her own baby, then everything else seems like it’s not really that evil?

What is so sad is the fact that so many “Catholics” tolerate or even justify the murder of innocent babies by abortion (1 BILLION worldwide, 50 MILLION in the US) !

That’s how much progress the Devil has made.

We have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us!!!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Scott Peterson was convicted on 2 counts of murder.

Lacy Peterson’s family successfully pushed Congress to pass Lacy and Conner’s Law, a Federal Law that if a crime was committed against a pregnant woman, the perp would be charged with 2 crimes. It’s a Federal law, applying to Federal crimes…so I guess interstate kidnapping etc would fall under this category.

(I used to watch a lot of Court TV 😊)
Click to expand...
Okay, I am relieved that I remembered incorrectly. It is not often that I am happy to be wrong; this is one of them.
 
Non_sum_dignus said:
It would appear that the humanity of an unborn child is decided solely by whether or not the mother would prefer to kill it.

That’s a peculiar legal standard, now, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
The fetus is regarded not as a person but as a kind of property, more or less on the same level of a cat or dog. Once the mother has chosen to have the baby, then she becomes responsible for it. For instance, she cannot abuse her baby by taking drugs, because that would put a burden on society; on the other hand, she can kill it by taking a drug, because that would relieve society of any burden.
 
Teelynn said:
I would LOVE IT if someone that is pro choice could explain this illogic. (although, I doubt that anyone on this particular forum is pro choice) If this is the case, that a woman has to right to choose to give her baby life or not to…then they have no right to charge this “suspect” of double homicide! And if it is because only the “mother” has this right, then why is it not the right of the mother to kill her child, say, when this child is 3 months old? It is STILL the mother and it is STILL the child. And why has this not been argued in our legal system? It’s probably a stupid question that I am just not getting but???:confused:🤷
Click to expand...
Sad to say, the pro death folks are probably at this moment coming up with a law that will make it impossible for the States to give the unborn ANY connotation of being human.:mad:
 
RobbyS said:
The fetus is regarded not as a person but as a kind of property, more or less on the same level of a cat or dog. Once the mother has chosen to have the baby, then she becomes responsible for it. For instance, she cannot abuse her baby by taking drugs, because that would put a burden on society; on the other hand, she can kill it by taking a drug, because that would relieve society of any burden.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Robby, for some insight…

Yet they are taking away parental rights little by little. In other words, it is only the mother’s property while she is pregnant.:rolleyes:

This one however, is the only explaination that makes sense to me. A sick and twisted kind of sense, but with this logic, I can see why the laws might be as they are. Don’t want to sound melodramatic, but it looks like a communistic type of logic to me. Don’t even want to speculate on the next step.:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top