Focus On Family to air Tebow Super Bowl Ad

[jadennis]

According to legal precedent, abortion is a right of privacy issue. A fetus is not a living being until it reaches vulnerability. I.e. See VolVandy's post above.  Therefore, it is the mother's choice.

I don't think anyone who is murdered chose to be so.

I never intended to debate what the law allows for.  That's why I conceded this...

To me, it seems that the only difference is that the law prohibits him from "ending the life" of the child, but allows for the mother to "end the life" of the child.

My whole point was that the fact that the law makes this act of "ending the life of the fetus" a privacy issue in one sense, and a "human rights" (right to life)  issue in another sense is not logical.  It just isn't. 

Again, the essence of the fetus is the same, whether it's life is being ended in accordance with the will of the mother or against the will of the mother.  The fetus either stands on it's own in both cases, or it has nothing to stand on in both cases. 

Again, I know the law doesn't see it this way...I'm just saying that in my opinion, that is not logical.

[Vandy Vol]

VandyVol, another question. 

Didn't the Roe v. Wade decision also acknowledge that as we learned more about "life" and as science progressed, the decision would be reconsidered (or at least could be changed according to new information)?

The Court implied this, but didn't directly state it.  The court stated:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

This suggests man's knowledge may continue to develop and that there may later be a consensus on when life begins, but the court didn't really state that it would later be reconsidered or that new information would inevitably arise at a later date.

Also, I've always wondered how a state can have a law that allows for someone who murders a pregnant woman to be charged with homicide of both the mother and the unborn baby.  You can get two life sentences can't you?  Didn't Scott Peterson get that because Lacy Peterson was pregnant?  Yet, the day before the murder, couldn't Lacy have gone and killed the same fetus/baby by "choice"?

How have those two things never been linked or challenged?

Some states have laws which don't charge a person with double homicide, but rather a homicide and some other newly invented charge.  However, California does charge you with double homicide, and there is now a federal law that was created by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA).  24 states recognize the killing of an unborn child in utero as a homicide during the entire pregnancy, and 10 states limit it to only particular periods later in the pregnancy.  I don't know the exact wording of the state statutes, but I am relatively certain that they have similar wording as the UVVA, which actually exempts abortion from being prosecuted under the statute.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either.  I'm sure the laws have been challenged, but those challenges have apparently been shot down because the laws still stand.  I imagine it has something to do with the sensitive nature of pregnant women and unborn fetuses; people are probably reluctant to repeal such a law because of who it's designed to protect.

[Vandy Vol]

2. Choice versus Murder.  Right of privacy versus the taking of ones life.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  Before said abortion happens, and a pregnant woman is killed, the law (in these particular states) assume she planed on keeping the baby.  I would say that is logical.

That is one thing that I have considered, that the punishment is in relation to the fact that the woman planned on keeping the baby, and thus the killer is being punished for stripping her of that choice.  However, if all other laws do not classify an unborn child as a person or a living human, then it's hard to identify the crime as homicide.  I would think that preventing a life from coming into existence would be a different crime than ending a life already in existence, especially given the explicit wording for the crime of homicide which explains that a human life must be taken.

[jadennis]

That is one thing that I have considered, that the punishment is in relation to the fact that the woman planned on keeping the baby, and thus the killer is being punished for stripping her of that choice.  However, if all other laws do not classify an unborn child as a person or a living human, then it's hard to identify the crime as homicide. 

I would think that preventing a life from coming into existence would be a different crime than ending a life already in existence, especially given the explicit wording for the crime of homicide which explains that a human life must be taken.

Exactly.  Especially since they go out of their way to convince everyone that abortion (killing the fetus) isn't taking a life. 

[GH2001]

Iknew Paul was a doctor but an OB-Gyn?   

COULD.  NOT.  IMAGINE.  HIM.  DOING.  THAT.   

Sometimes he is the only politician who I think "gets it". Him and Palin are about as close to true conservatism as you can get today. Although, I dont like his antiwar views as much, he is spot on in most other issues. He seems to be able to predict things before they happen.