T
Teelynn
Guest
Yep, another good insight. The laws are beyond perverted:sad_yes:
- Status
B
Benadam
Guest
The morality of this nation has become utilitarian. Only usefullness is worthy of love.
C
c659smith
Guest
We cannot stop evil in this world. Abortion is evil and can only fight it through education and through changing laws that sponsor evil.
Show abortions and the babies that are murdered through mass media. Stop being sqeamish. The Catholic Church has the money to do such a campaign if it decides to do so.
Do not worry about the money issue of taxes or losing some of the folk. Jesus did not. Give onto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s. Tell it at the pulpit. Do not allow polititicians to receive communion who sponsor or vote for such laws after all they are out of Communion with the Church. This wll apparently have to come from the top. I wonder what Saint Peter would have done?
To show there are people who care and there are alternatives to having an abortion and of course pray.
To pray and peacefully stand watch outside these clinics.
Show abortions and the babies that are murdered through mass media. Stop being sqeamish. The Catholic Church has the money to do such a campaign if it decides to do so.
Do not worry about the money issue of taxes or losing some of the folk. Jesus did not. Give onto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s. Tell it at the pulpit. Do not allow polititicians to receive communion who sponsor or vote for such laws after all they are out of Communion with the Church. This wll apparently have to come from the top. I wonder what Saint Peter would have done?
To show there are people who care and there are alternatives to having an abortion and of course pray.
To pray and peacefully stand watch outside these clinics.
E
Eric_Closs
Guest
It seems to me that the authorities charging the suspect might have praiseworthy integrity, rather than hypocrisy.
Not knowing anything about this case except the original post, I offer the following for what it is worth…
If the district attorney accused the murderer of a pregnant woman with two instances of homicide, it seems that the accuser thinks that there are two victims and thus two murders. Simply because someone is a lawyer, or working as a prosecutor, does not imply they believe abortion is not murder; or that it is in anyway legally justifiable. The passage of a law does not imply that the law is constitutional, or moral, or true.
As we are commonly aware, when someone is charged with a crime, those accusing the person are required to prove that the crime has been committed by the suspect. The mere fact of the charge being leveled against a person does not indicate it is even possible for that person to have committed the crime. The charge only indicates that someone accuses them of that crime.
The reason that a state prosecutor is charging someone with “double homicide” in the case of a pregnant mother may very well indicate that the prosecutor believes 1) that a baby in the womb is human and 2) that said child has a right to life, infringed upon by the so-called right to abortion.
It seems like a possibility, anyway.
pax Christi nobiscum
Not knowing anything about this case except the original post, I offer the following for what it is worth…
If the district attorney accused the murderer of a pregnant woman with two instances of homicide, it seems that the accuser thinks that there are two victims and thus two murders. Simply because someone is a lawyer, or working as a prosecutor, does not imply they believe abortion is not murder; or that it is in anyway legally justifiable. The passage of a law does not imply that the law is constitutional, or moral, or true.
As we are commonly aware, when someone is charged with a crime, those accusing the person are required to prove that the crime has been committed by the suspect. The mere fact of the charge being leveled against a person does not indicate it is even possible for that person to have committed the crime. The charge only indicates that someone accuses them of that crime.
The reason that a state prosecutor is charging someone with “double homicide” in the case of a pregnant mother may very well indicate that the prosecutor believes 1) that a baby in the womb is human and 2) that said child has a right to life, infringed upon by the so-called right to abortion.
It seems like a possibility, anyway.
pax Christi nobiscum
- Eric
C
c659smith
Guest
You are correct but the law gives the medical doctor the legal ability to kill the child in the womb and I am afraid to say but if the left have their way through all nine months.
B
Benadam
Guest
Whether or not the law expresses it explicitely, it is demonstrating that the human person’s value is based on it’s usefullness. If the mother chooses it, it is usefull. Whether the mother hasn’t or not, if both are murdered the child has probable usefullness because the mother had not exercised her productive right to deem it useless.
C
c659smith
Guest
If it was the mothers decision through choice. Choice though requires one to be educated on both sides, what they are requesting to be performed( Shown an abortion, shown the baby in 4d in the womb), and their choices if the woman chooses Financial support available, support, and adoption) to take the baby to term.
What is the psychological and physical effects on the woman once having an abortion
The view though is that the secularist wants to control groups and segments of the population. After all they are worried about animals and global warming.
T
Teelynn
Guest
Particularly minorities. It’s called “social engineering”, one of the prominent promoters being Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. If you google her you will find many of her quotes on the subject. Gives you a good idea of where the secular mind set is on the subject.:bigyikes: Extremely chilling.
C
c659smith
Guest
The Democratic leader defended plans in the government’s $825 billion (£600 billion) economic stimulus package to reimburse states for contraceptives and other family planning services given out as part of the Medicaid programme for people who cannot afford health insurance.
This is a Catholic Politician that can still receive communion.
Mrs Pelosi told ABC television: "The family planning services reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs.
“One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government,” she said in an interview on Sunday on ABC’s This Week.
John Boehner, the House Republican leader, told Fox News: “Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats’ spending plan has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating more American jobs.”
G
Gardenman
Guest
In addition to what Benadam said up above, I think the key word to this double standard is “wantedness”.
Women who choose to abort do not WANT their babies.
Pregnant women who are killed DO “WANT” their babies…or rather, “did”…
Abortion, given it’s current legal status, allows a woman to hire a physician to kill her UNWANTED baby. No “crime” there. (I’m not agreeing with this by any means, just stating facts)
Lacy Peterson WANTED her baby. Her husband killed her AND the baby. Now it’s suddenly a crime, and he’s charged with double murder.
I would love to see what would happen if a woman who is pregant, yet planning to abort, gets murdered, does the murderer get charged with double murder as well? I suspect that the “UN-wantedness” of said child would suddenly be swept under the rug or kept a secret just to further the case. Scum bag lawyers can turn the other way when such a case (and $$$) proves to appeal to jurists and the public…the more drama, the better. Thus, the death of the baby, even though truly unwanted, makes for a better case and looks better for the lawyer.
In either case, we still have 2 dead women and 2 dead babies.
Women who choose to abort do not WANT their babies.
Pregnant women who are killed DO “WANT” their babies…or rather, “did”…
Abortion, given it’s current legal status, allows a woman to hire a physician to kill her UNWANTED baby. No “crime” there. (I’m not agreeing with this by any means, just stating facts)
Lacy Peterson WANTED her baby. Her husband killed her AND the baby. Now it’s suddenly a crime, and he’s charged with double murder.
I would love to see what would happen if a woman who is pregant, yet planning to abort, gets murdered, does the murderer get charged with double murder as well? I suspect that the “UN-wantedness” of said child would suddenly be swept under the rug or kept a secret just to further the case. Scum bag lawyers can turn the other way when such a case (and $$$) proves to appeal to jurists and the public…the more drama, the better. Thus, the death of the baby, even though truly unwanted, makes for a better case and looks better for the lawyer.
In either case, we still have 2 dead women and 2 dead babies.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
In reality these type of laws around the country were initiated by pro-life politicians in order to demonstrate the illogical falacy of abortion. It is a step in protecting the unborn. When laws like this are proposed at the state level it is the pro-aborts who step up to speak against them, for sooner or later they know any person with common sense should be able to come to the proper conclusion that abortion is murder and the doctors that perform them are the same as the person that kills the unborn while murdering its mother. Let us put the blame on the killer, those that support the killer, the majority of the time the mother is being duped in beleiving it is just a choice and in reality has not been able to see herself as a victim also until after she has made the wrong choice.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???
Let us pray for conversion.
D
Dee123
Guest
I totally agree with you all that this is an absolute oxymoron. Completely illogical. I’m in Canada. We don’t have any abortion laws. There was a Conservative MP who tried to bring in a bill that would essentially charge someone with double homicide if he/she killed a pregnant woman. It was practically avoided. No one in the country took it seriously. It was up for no discussion/debate. So sad. Basically, I think it was along the lines that it would possibly raise the issue of the reality of the actual life within the womb.
D.
D.
E
elts1956
Guest
I’m almost afraid to mention these laws. A pro abort pol. will challange them.
D
Don_L
Guest
All of this is part of the deliberate obfuscation of truth regarding abortion.
First they argued about when life begins -science said at conception.
Then they argued that it was just fetal tissue - partial-birth abortion exposed that lie.
Then they argue only that it’s a woman’s constitutional right to choose (that emminations/penumbra thingy) . But they abhor it when a pro-life person convinces them to chose life.
Then they argue that a woman has a right to do what wshe wants with HER own body. but -Obama showed us what that really means - the slaughter of a child that is already 100%disconnected from that woman and fully alive should be causually and cruelly disposed of because the woman INTENDED to abort it. (It’s called infanticide folks)
Now they stopped arguing because it is too embarassing - they just do it.
First they argued about when life begins -science said at conception.
Then they argued that it was just fetal tissue - partial-birth abortion exposed that lie.
Then they argue only that it’s a woman’s constitutional right to choose (that emminations/penumbra thingy) . But they abhor it when a pro-life person convinces them to chose life.
Then they argue that a woman has a right to do what wshe wants with HER own body. but -Obama showed us what that really means - the slaughter of a child that is already 100%disconnected from that woman and fully alive should be causually and cruelly disposed of because the woman INTENDED to abort it. (It’s called infanticide folks)
Now they stopped arguing because it is too embarassing - they just do it.
Z
zalo
Guest
Hey guys, can anybody here tell me what the sentence they think should be for having an abortion?
T
Tigg
Guest
I don’t know about this, but all pro-lifers are now the target of the MO state police. A thread in politics entitled “A New Threat to Freedom” has been started. Talk about an oxymoron!
B
Bennie_P
Guest
R
ryecroft
Guest
Although I am for all practical purposes a pro choice Catholic, I have to agree with this argument. It does seem to be an oxymoron - that is why in the Peterson case he wasn’t charged with a double murder. I think part of why this occurs is because you do have two factions of politicians, judges and attorneys- those that are pro life who believe that no matter what time in pregnancy the fetus/embryo is a full fledged human being and those who don’t believe that a fetus/embryo is a full fledged human being. So as long as the debate goes on, I expect this type of situation will continue to arise.
F
fastro
Guest
I suppose we can justify it the same way we justify “aborting” adults in capital punishment cases.
D
Don_L
Guest
Capital punishment is not the same as abortion. There is a world of difference between society and the medical community aiding a mother in the slaughter of her INNOCENT child and the justice of that rare execution of a not innocent person.
The latter is sometimes morally permissable - though not desirable - while the former is an atrocity.
Making moral equivelance here may be politically okay, but it’s moral error.
The Church through the ages has suppported CP, but never abortion, though the Catholic Catechism now rightfully frowns on CP, it has never done other than condemn abortion.
The latter is sometimes morally permissable - though not desirable - while the former is an atrocity.
Making moral equivelance here may be politically okay, but it’s moral error.
The Church through the ages has suppported CP, but never abortion, though the Catholic Catechism now rightfully frowns on CP, it has never done other than condemn abortion.
- Status