Let's be clear about "common ground on abortion"


6 comments posted
I believe the Dems will make

I believe the Dems will make a big difference in reguards to birth control availability,seems they have a plan.

People should be able to choose to use birth control, to avoid having to make another choice.

If you think the point of conception is NOT when life begins, and all you have is a clump of cells and not a living human being.
Then at least concider this -

Soon after you were conceived you were no more than a clump of cells.
This clump of cells was you at your earliest stage, you had plenty of growing to do but this clump of cells was you none the less.
Think about it.
Aren't you glad you were left unhindered.... to develope further.
Safe inside your mother's womb until you were born.

ausblog's picture
Posted by ausblog (not verified) on 26 January 2007 - 7:52am
Not really the same

Once you are born, you are able to breathe and eat/drink. Until then, the fetus is dependent upon the mother for everything. The mother is doing the living.

I also don't believe I am nothing but a sum of cells.

So when it comes to creating government policy, I don't think we should have government occupation of wombs based on some extreme religious notion that every sperm is sacred.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 26 January 2007 - 5:53pm
No Mam, ain't no spam

No Mam, ain't no spam

ausblog's picture
Posted by ausblog (not verified) on 27 January 2007 - 7:00pm
Born alive rule.........

The "born alive" rule is a legal principle that holds that various aspects of the criminal law, such as the statutes relating to homicide and to assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". Recent advances in the state of medical science have led to court decisions that have overturned this rule, and in several jurisdictions statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include unborn children.

The born alive rule was originally a principle at common law in England that was carried to the United States. Its original basis was that because of the (then) state of medical science and because of the rate of still births and miscarriages, it was impossible to determine whether a child would be a living being. This inability to determine whether a child in the womb was in fact alive, and would be successfully born, had ramifications with respect to the laws relating to assault and to homicide. (It is not possible to kill a child that has already died, for example.) Thus the act of a live birth was taken to be the point at which it could be reliably determined, in law, that the various laws applied.[1][2]

However, advances in the state of the art in medical science, including ultrasonography, foetal heart monitoring, and foetoscopy, have since made it possible to determine that a child is alive within the womb, and as a consequence many jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, have taken steps to supplant or abolish this common law principle.[1]

As of 2002, 23 states in the United States still employed the rule, to lesser or greater extent.[2]

The abolition of the rule has proceeded piecemeal, from case to case and from statute to statute, rather than wholesale. One such landmark case with respect to the rule was Commonwealth vs. Cass, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the court held that the stillbirth of an eight-month-old foetus, whose mother had been injured by a motorist, constituted vehicular homicide. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the foetus constituted a "person" for the purposes of the Massachusetts statute relating to vehicular homicide. In the opinion of the justices, "We think that the better rule is that infliction of perinatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable foetus, before or after it is born, is homicide.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison for killing the unborn (and rightfully so) then the unborn should have equil consideration in relation to abortion..

ausblog's picture
Posted by ausblog (not verified) on 27 January 2007 - 7:05pm
Is a fetus earmarked for

Is a fetus earmarked for abortion of any less value to a fetus killed by violence.

Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same.

It's just not ethical to protect one without the other.....they're one and the same........

ausblog's picture
Posted by ausblog (not verified) on 29 January 2007 - 5:45am
So what you're saying is

If a woman has a right over her body, then so does the government, so do men, so do everyone. I disagree.

I don't know what your series of comments has to do with the topic of the thread. You're arguing with yourself.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 30 January 2007 - 7:24pm