Proposed HHS Regs: Bad Law, Bad Science

That one must not be forced to commit any act against their own conscience is an extremely simple principle that anyone should be able to comprehend.

"To punish institutions becasuse they do not 'recognize' the procedures as moral by limiting or refusing them funding for other medical research or treatment is extortion and also invalid".

This is what needs to be protected. The rights of Hospitals, clinic and medical personnel to live and work within the bounds of their conscience and faith".

So if an institution is refused certain funding, then then that institution and the people working there ("...Hospitals, clinic and medical personnel...") can't "live and work within the bounds of their conscience and faith"? I don't follow that logic.

So, is it only the abortion/contraception issue where people MUST be allowed to follow their conscience (i.e. continue to receive government funding while doing so, which seems to be the area where they are being 'forced'? I haven't heard of anyone being made to do so at gunpoint.)

How about Muslim cab drivers and transporting people with alcohol? Or Muslim cashiers and handling pork products?

What if that doctor or pharmacist is a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness? Does that mean you are fine with them refusing to dispense anti-depressants, or products that use plasma?

If not, then it is only about certain people of particular religions with certain matters of conscience that are protected, and not everyone.

(Or, more likely, simply a pro-life legislative 'back door', since it is ONLY pro-life issues that seem to be under any sort of protection.)

The amount of 'splitting hairs' comments on here borders on the totally ridiculous. It is immoral, unethical and unconstitutional for a government to (in essence) require that ANY citizen or institution be involved in Any activity that their conscience forbids as 'sin' -OR- punish them if they refuse. The concept is not really any different than that of being a military 'conscientious objector'.

A hospital employee whose conscience says they can't be involved in an abortion (or the killing of a child born alive after an abortion, etc...) should not have to be concerned that their beliefs will get them fired. The hospital has other employees who have no problem with doing whatever they are requested to do.

A hospital/institution that was founded as a religious (faith-based) outreach should not be forced to deny the very basics of it's doctrinal beliefs in order to be eligible to receive funding for medical research in other areas simply because abortion (etc...) is against those tenants. Perhaps that would be the very hospital that is destined to make the major breakthrough in adult stem cell research, cancer treatment, etc... that would save millions of lives.

It is focused on the issue of abortion because, at this time, that is the issue that is in the public arena. That's the area where employees are needing protection. That's also the only one of the examples given that involve a person's death...infinitely more important than getting a cab ride, a drug or cosmetics (& all of which can be obtained elsewhere).

to European:
HAVING a conscience is not the problem...NOT HAVING one IS!

Oh, and as for 'conscientious objectors', that's a different status because the person did NOT choose to be in that job at all. They are drafted. Nobody drafts someone into being a pharmacist.

And they don't change what the military is, in order to accomodate, or what the military does. What they do is to put them in a position that, based on the regular duties of the position, does not conflict with their conscience while still doing every component of their normal job.

In other words, they would not let them refuse that act, they would remove them FROM that job, and put them in a job where that particular act will never be a part of their duties.

If they object to dispensing one medication, in a job where dispensing medication is their job, they would put them in a job where they do NOT dispense ANY medications. They don't change the job to suit the objector, they put the objector in a job that doesn't, inherently, conflict with their conscience.

And I have no problem with those who have problems doing that.

"A hospital/institution that was founded as a religious (faith-based) outreach should not be forced to deny the very basics of it's doctrinal beliefs in order to be eligible to receive funding for medical research in other areas simply because abortion (etc ...) is against those tenants."

I disagree. In fact, the government shouldn't give ANY money to ANY religious organization for ANY reason. It's my tax money and I don't want religions benefiting from it at all. If a church has a medical center, it could use it to leverage people into believing in its faith. That would be government funds assisting in proselytizing.

Karen said: "The government doesn't control how private institutions treat their employees. What they DO is to decide where and how to distribute public funds."
Of course, because these are two absolutely & completely different parts of the situation...
Part 1> The personal employees' rights to not be required to do something against their conscience in order to keep their job.
Part 2> The rights of an institution/faith-based outreach to have a morality based mission and if they are involved in medical research...still be able to qualify for federal funds.

Karen said: "And abortion is more important.. TO YOU. Are you the arbiter of how important a particular religious tenet is to someone else? "
No, BUT that has nothing to do with what I said. Besides, I honestly don't know of Any Sane, Thinking person who really believes that it's more important for them to easily get the first taxi along - or get a prescription filled anywhere - or buy cosmetics that contain placenta or any other type of product etc... than it is to be able to decide for themselves that they don't want to be involved in the taking of a human being's life. (If someone doesn't choose to provide something I thought they would, I can always get it someplace else.)
I have quite a few beliefs that are a part of my faith...and there are those that I'd say are of less importance than Life. For instance, I believe in tithing the first of my income...a very important part of my belief system...as important as it is, I believe that if I were in a situation where I had to choose between saving a life or going to give my tithe first, God would say 'save the life'. Besides things aren't always mutually exclusive....
So, tell me, Karen... IS it more important to YOU that you don't have to go to a second store to buy your facial cream containing placenta... than whether or not you can decide for yourself what practices you will (or won't) be involved in?

Daniel & Karen: I refer you to read about the experiences of nurse, Jill Stanek. When she was hired for her position, she was NOT informed about the abortion practices of that hospital. She'd worked there for some time before coming face to face with the practice of placing babies born alive after being aborted into the soiled laundry room and allowing them to die of neglect. I believe that if a hospital is going to perform abortions, then it should be forthright when hiring and it is responsible for seeing that the employees who are going to be working in that area are supportive of the practice. If a hospital employee is not, they shouldn't have to work that area. Let's get real...there is no shortage of people who think abortion is OK...just as there is no shortage of those who do not. Plenty of employees to fill positions in any of the hospital's areas.

I'm looking at these comments and, wow...talk about twisting a person's words...guess I shouldn't be surprised. To reiterate, the main points I made were:
(part 1): It's wrong to REQUIRE that an employee be involved in something that goes against their 'faith' or else they'll lose their job. They can certainly work in another area of the hospital and this DOES NOT change what the hospital is doing. There ARE other people who will choose to do the job.
(part2): It's also wrong for the government to REQUIRE that a faith-based organization act contrary to their own beliefs in order to be considered for any federal funds that they would otherwise be eligible for. We are NOT talking about the government giving tax dollars to a church...I'm saying that if there's a faith-based organization that is involved in some kind of medical research, then they should be equally eligible for any available federal funding for research into that area...without denying the tenants of their faith. It would NOT benefit any church or religion...only medical science. It would not be an opening for coercing people into believing the same way. That kind of statement only shows a lack of knowledge about true Christianity anyway.

And finally, Peter... how ridiculous. NO ONE is without sin except Jesus. To follow your line of thinking...just because someone commits the sin of gossiping, jealousy or stealing, etc... not only would it then be okay, but they MUST abide by the wishes of another person who wants to make them commit murder.

Peter from your other blogs you believe in evolution, fine. Then we started out as small puddles of goo but we were alive, what then is the difference between that and a fertilized human embryo it is but a small puddle of goo but very much alive.Whether or not it can feel pain or not is a mute point it is alive and we as a nation have always tried to stand for the innocent the weak, what makes this any differnt.

And Karen using the military as an example is not a very good argument because the American people forget that the military is not a democracy it is a dictatorship that is why there are Generals, and captains and seargents and privates, one tells the other what to do when to do and how it is to be done and they do it, the only exception to this is if it violates the law then they are obligated to report such things or face the same trouble as those who did the ordering.

We shouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything that goes against thier beliefs, but that is what all you left wing liberals want,its always about and what you can get, and the heck with you. Oh and by the way the me decade ended in the 80's.

Robert, planned parenthood did not give $300 billion to Planned Parenthood. It gave $100 million. I'm not interested in you paranoid "undercover work." Frankly, as a fundamentalist who trusts his faith above actual evidence to understand the physical universe, your using of data is suspect anyway.

And I'm going to say it again because no one has responded in any way to this reality: fundamentalists have no problem with the death of an innocent. Their entire belief system is based on the need for Jesus to die for them to be saved. The problem they have is with people having sex.

Peter said: And I'm going to say it again because no one has responded in any way to this reality: fundamentalists have no problem with the death of an innocent. Their entire belief system is based on the need for Jesus to die for them to be saved. The problem they have is with people having sex.

Boris says: Peter these kinds of problems are humiliating for fundamentalists. I keep asking the creationists to name one time when science has had to revise one of its theories in the face of religious claims by Christians. This also hasn't been responded to because it's just too embarrassing for them.

Christians do indeed live in fear that other people are enjoying life, having sex is just one of these things, doing things the Christians wish they could do but are afraid to. And they are afraid that these deeds really will go unpunished in any kind of highly implausible judgment before God too. But the anti-choice mania of Christian fascism is also driven by a male dominated religion's fierce anti-feminism stance and its desire to keep power out of the hands of women and control them. Also fundy Christians believe that the fetus was created by their God and given a magical boogy spirit that lives forever called a soul and abortion is therefore an act of disobedience toward the Christian God. Far below the fear and repulsion of sex, below keeping women second-class citizens, below supposed disobedience toward their God, below several other factors somewhere lies, among a very few fundamentalist Christians a small concern for the unborn. I would think anyway. I haven't meant a Christian yet that could convince me that they has any concern at all for the unborn but only for the other things I've mentioned above.

"We shouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything that goes against thier beliefs..."

Considering that different people have different beliefs, applying that attitude consistently to everyone is a prescription for anarchy.

Thank you, Jesse, for revealing this for what it is. A measure that is meant to be about, and to only protect the consciences of the Pro-life people.

'Freedom of Conscience', my eye. It doesn't protect anyone else's conscience about any other issue of conscience in any other job in which issues of job duties which might conflict with religious conscience might come up.

There's lots of religious beliefs out there that impact what a person would and would not be willing to do when it involves their job.

A challenge.

Find me ONE applicable 'religious conscience' issue not related to being pro-life that you think this ruling cover. Just one that would allow that employee to refuse to do a regular, and legal portion of their occupation's duties on that basis, that doesn't involve abortion, or birth control.

It really worries me that, even in this comment thread, the abortion debate is overshadowing the fact that this is about more than abortion. It's also about limiting access to contraception. The breadth of the objections potentially allowed is frightening.

Obviously I would hope that people are able to find jobs that fit in with their conscience, and I would hope that employers would not fire people unnecessarily when compromises can be worked out, but to allow people to limit access to, and information about, certain medications in a particular area because, oh, look, they've got the job already and can't be fired from it just because they refuse to perform part of it -- that scares me.

It's not allowing people their individual consciences that scares me. What scares me is allowing people to force decisions on others using the power they have by virtue of the job they hold. I would hope that, if legislation protecting the former is really necessary, it would be limited by provisions to prevent the latter.

Jessie said: In what way was it a lie? It's easy for you to say I'm wrong but that doesn't make it so nor does it mean you're correct - why not demonstrate that your statement is true? Screaming "You're a liar" is what little kids do in hopes that you'll believe them even though you know better. if you want to accuse somebody of lying then be ready to demonstrate that they indeed did lie.
If you're so sure my claim is a lie (that abortion is murder) then demonstrate how my facts, logic, reasoning, or conclusion were not true. Why not? maybe because they are true and everybody knows it?

Boris says: Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a human being -- it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, i.e., such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body.

To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.

Jessie said: You know, it's pretty funny. I talk about the scientific aspect of things and you all chime in talking about religious things. And saying that creationists are liars you're implying that all creationists are liars - which you do not know to be true. you're clearly willing to say unkind things of other people in blanket statements - statements that you do not know are true. You will say just about anything to get your point across, won't you? Or am I wrong on that? Do you even believe it's wrong to lie to begin with? I do.

Boris says: The Bible says the earth is flat, on a foundation that never moves and is orbited by the sun and stars. Is this true or false? What will you do? Tell me the Bible is lying, or lie and say it isn’t? Gotcha.

Jessie said: By the way, you might look up "straw man argument" - google knows all about it. Such tactics aren't particularly helpful. (Look up Ad hominem as well - you sure argued against me much more then you did my argument.)

Boris says: Why should I look those things up? Your statement is a prime example of both. ROFL!

Jessie said: It's just too bad that you can't figure out how to demonstrate the error in my statements. If it's nonsense show me which part isn't correct! Since you can all see through it may I say that it ought to be easy. I want to know the truth. Teach me! Don't just hurl insults.

Boris says: Now that the errors in your statements HAVE been pointed out above you are free to make more false statements I suppose. I know you can't accept the truth about your position because you are a Christian.

Jessie said: To add a little honest to the context, that is spread out over probably millions of individual congregations. It's not like one guy sits there collecting $90B (or whatever it really is...)

Boris says: Well we already found out where the money goes thanks to Congress. It goes for multi million dollar jets for Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Todd Bentley and many other televangelists. They also found out Christian missionaries do not feed people who refuse to convert but as a matter of course routinely let those people starve to death.

Jessie said: Actually, there are numerous Christian organizations who solicit donations and feed hungry children around the world. Look up World Vision, or Compassion International, for a couple. And lots of churches also collect donations to feed the hungry. Mine does, and it's a really tiny one. And then there are hospitals - the majority of hospitals were started by Christians. Even in this country just think of all the hospitals that are named St. somebody or another. Then there are Baptist hospitals and so on. And Christians have started mission hospitals around the world in order to help with sick and suffering people.

Boris says: That doesn’t change the fact that fundamentalist Christians have done everything they could to stymie medical progress for 2000 years. For 1500 years the Church prevented doctors from studying cadavers because the churchmen insisted there was a magical boogy entity in the body. Once the scientists pushed the priests out of the way it was discovered how many diseases could be cured. This oppression of science set the world back 1000 years. We could have cured cancer and heart disease a thousand years ago if it weren’t for the Christian system of dogmatic superstitions. Christianity owes the world hospitals for all its damage to scientific progress it has caused.

Jessie said: The Christian belief does teach the helping of the hungry and the sick. What about you?

Boris says: Secular humanism and all religions teach the same things fella. Hamas, labeled a terrorist organization by Fox News, is a humanitarian religious organization, which has built many hospitals in the Middle East, feeds the poor and houses widows and is no more dangerous or violent than Christianity.

Jessie said: Easy to say, but why don't you demonstrate that my statement is wrong? It's really a very simple statement.

Boris says: My first responses have definitely proved you wrong. Perhaps you should find someplace to spread you propaganda. As I said before you’re busted.

Re Posted by: Boris | September 10, 2008 10:12 AM,
Re Posted by: Karen Brown | September 10, 2008 10:48 AM
~~
Karen Brown first:

Said Karen: I'm asking, and apparently from your lack of response, you can't meet the challenge, if you can think of ANY example of an issue of religious conscience that would be covered by this ruling that wasn't a doctrine covered by a Papal encyclical, to be blunt.

Whether there are other issues isn't my point. There exists the distinct possibility that abortion is technically murder since it is the taking of an innocent unique human life.
It doesn't matter whether there is 1 or a hundred "medical procedures" which are each murder -- if it is murder, it's still murder. The fact that only religious people wish to not perform murder and the fact that at current these murders are only routinely performed in one area of life does not change the fact that if they are murder nobody ought to be forced to do them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, to Boris:

Boris says: Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force.

You're wrong here: While many forms of murder can involve physical force, there are many forms that do not involve physical force! For example, suffocation, starvation, poison. Poison is even mentioned specifically in the online legal dictionary under "First Degree Murder" http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=754&bold=poison||


Furthermore, while some forms of abortion does involve poisoning the fetus, other common ones actually kill the fetus by sucking it up a vacuum tube then crushing it's skull with stainless tongs and vacuuming up that too. That's physical force! Anybody that's sucked up a vacuum tube and has their skull crushed with tongs is pretty much going to die - and from physical force.

Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a human being

Sorry man but science doesn't back you up. A hundred years ago you might have gotten away with that statement. I grew up on a small family farm and I've seen mammals in all parts of life - including unborn baby meadow mice (the barnyard cat caught the mother mouse and well ate it. When the cat ripped apart the mouse, there were these tiny little mice in there and we saved one and fed it on drops of fresh milk, and kept it warm in a box with some soft padding and a little lightbulb. I think it lived a day or two. It's eyes weren't even open.) But I digress. Anyway, "being" means "The state or quality of having existence." A fetus sure does exist. It sure is human - it is a human being! With our modern technology we have been able to image unborn babies and they are the same thing 5 minutes before birth as they are 5 minutes after birth. I'm not sure if you think that they somehow magically pop into being the instant they are born or what, but science is clear - they do exist, they are human, they are alive, and abortion is murder. I realize that the current interpretation by some judges say otherwise, but judges can be and have been wrong.

-- it is a potential human being, i.e.

Sorry, it does exist (it is a being) and it is human. It's a human being.

it is part of the woman.

It is dependent on the woman, and it is inside of the woman, again science has proven that it is not part of the woman. The DNA of every baby aborted is not the same as either of it's parents. Not only is it not part of the woman, It doesn't even touch the woman(until the placenta breaks)! Neither does it's blood mix with that of its mother! The fetus is isolated from physically touching the mother. Sorry again, it's not part of the mother - it is inside and dependent on the mother however. But lots of things are inside people that aren't part of them, and even a 5 day old or 5 year old child are dependent on the mother - that doesn't change the fact that they are human beings!


The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being,..

Wrong again! Are you saying that intentionally killing an innocent person by poison is not murder because no physical force against against the victim? That's absurd. Busted? Hmmm.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman,

Does anybody have any right to live? I'm not sure where you draw your ideas of right from. But if they be the government, then if the government decides that a fetus does have a right to live then it sure does.


I think our founding fathers thought of it that way:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,... (Declaration of Independence)

but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body.

Again, science says just the opposite. The fetus is different DNA, and is unquestionably somebody else. Being in is not the same as being part of and neither is being dependent on the same as being part of. Do you also say that a woman can kill her child when it's 4 minutes old? After all, does it have a right to live? What gives it a right to live?

Boris says: The Bible says the earth is flat,
Show me. I'm an eager learner. But you've already said so many untrue things that I feel compelled to ask you to find me the verses you're talking about so we can discuss them.

on a foundation that never moves

So what if God built his foundation (supporting device) out of orbits and masses. The earth is still here - hasn't crashed into the sun or the moon. Do you think that just because you can't build a foundation out of anything except bricks mud and sticks that God is also limitted that way? Why couldn't He use gravity, mass, and orbits? That's a foundation too - it holds things in place.

and is orbited by the sun and stars.

Show me the verse you're talking about so we can discuss it.
Is this true or false? What will you do? Tell me the Bible is lying, or lie and say it isn’t? Gotcha.

You've already made enough false statements that all I can say is I suspect you're wrong but show me what you've got and we can discuss it.


Boris says: Now that the errors in your statements HAVE been pointed out above you are free to make more false statements I suppose. I know you can't accept the truth about your position because you are a Christian.

You said "Abortion is not murder" but neither that nor anything else you said pointed out why or how I was in error. As a matter of fact, you made some absurd claims your self - like that murder requires physical force, or that abortion isn't murder because a fetus isn't a human being - it's human and it is in the state of being!


Boris says: Well we already found out where the money goes thanks to Congress. It goes for multi million dollar jets for Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Todd Bentley and many other televangelists. They also found out Christian missionaries do not feed people who refuse to convert but as a matter of course routinely let those people starve to death.



Everything in life is abused by some. Criminals are equal opportunity employees. There is no religion that does not have some criminals claiming to belong to it. There is no line of work that does not have some criminals on the payroll. But the fact that there are a few bad apples -- a few people who do bad things while claiming to belong to a certain faith does not mean that that faith's teachings are bad and it does not mean that there are millions of true followers who are good people as a result. It is most absurd to make the statement you did - but I guess it's not the first this evening is it.



Boris says: That doesn’t change the fact that fundamentalist Christians have done everything they could to stymie medical progress for 2000 years.


I don't think that's true. Is that another one of your whoppers for this evening, or would you mind showing your best evidence?


Boris says: Secular humanism and all religions teach the same things fella.

First of all, I'm pretty sure that's not true. But more importantly, that's not the point!
You insulted Christians saying that they raise 90billion a year and could solve 95% of world hunger but don't. "Where's the money," you ask. So I say "Yes they do, go look." Then you say "So does Hamas." But that's not the point! You implied that they could easily solve world hunger and yet don't even try - I guess you know that was a lie.

Hamas, labeled a terrorist organization by Fox News, is a humanitarian religious organization, which has built many hospitals in the Middle East, feeds the poor and houses widows and is no more dangerous or violent than Christianity.



That's just outright not all true. Hamas stands for Ḥarakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement". Sure they may have social programs for their own country, but I don't see them traversing the world to set up missions or feed hungry children in Africa. Am I wrong on that one? And as to them being no more dangerous or violent then Christianity, that's not right either. Assuming we take "Christianity" to mean the following of the Christian Bible and we consider all of the bombings and other violent acts performed by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) I'd say you're wrong there again.

Boris says: My first responses have definitely proved you wrong. Perhaps you should find someplace to spread you propaganda. As I said before you’re busted.



You said I was wrong but you didn't prove that I was wrong. Did you?

On which point am I wrong? Are you saying that a fetus isn't alive? or that it isn't human? or that it isn't unique? or that it isn't innocent?

What you did say is that a fetus isn't a human being - but it clearly is human and is in the state of being, so you're wrong on that one.

You also said that The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being,.. -- but that's just a lie because murder can also be committed by poisoning which isn't a physical force.

Am I making as little sense to you as you are to me?

Regards,

-Jesse

PS: By the way, when you quoted in another thread the following:

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of
breaking out: This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no
religion in it!" - John Adams.

That quote was out of context. The exact following text was as follows:

But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as
Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be
mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.

Once again, Jesse.

Abortion is legal. You may not like it, but that's the facts. And murder is an illegal act of killing a human being. For something to be murder, it first has to be illegal.

Since abortion is legal, therefore, it is, by definition, not murder.

No matter what you think of it.

Abortion is specifically legal, therefore, it isn't an unlawful killing, therefore it is not murder.

Wrong by definition.

Re: Posted by: Farcy | September 14, 2008 7:52 PM

Dear Farcy,

Thanks for your response. I really appreciate your integrity in character.

Said Farcy: The flaw I still see with your reasoning is that the use of the word murder is an emotionally driven response to try to back up the justification that abortion should be illegal.
Alas as an engineer it is my aim and practice to get to the bottom of things, understand what's really going on, and then say it the way things are. So my reasoning has brought me to describe abortion as fitting all the requirements for murder - in other words, an emotionally loaded word. Unfortunately, it's also a legal term with a certain meaning, so it's the word I use.

Unfortunately "murder" is still an inaccurate term where the specific, legal, logical circumstances that qualify as being murder are different than that of abortion. Why?
1) It is not illegal, abortions cannot under any circumstances be performed by any medical professional in any situation where it is legally restricted.

Indeed I am well aware that abortion is legal, but that's not my point. My point is that it is only legal by what appears to me an illogical exemption by some judges in the highest court. If we look at all the things that make regular murder what it is, abortion technically qualifies.

2) Fetuses are classified differently than humans. If fetuses are to be granted the same rights and privileges as humans there is a much greater complication of what stage of pre-birth development is a fetus a human? This determination is beyond the scope of the justice and legal system that benefits from the much more black and white definition of life as born and unborn.
The problem is that it isn't just so black and white. No magic change happens on the baby as it's born -- that is to say that 5 minutes before birth it looks just the same as 5 minutes after birth. It's unquestionably the same thing.

Imagine a sort of simplified hearing where a person has been charged with killing a child. The plaintiff informs the judge that the defendant had intentionally and with premeditation killed the child. The judge then asks "Where was the child at the time of the killing?"

If the plaintiff says "Outside the womb" then the judge is likely to say "That's murder." But if the plaintiff says "Inside the womb" then the judge will say "Oh, that's not murder."

But under what other circumstances does where a person is determine what they are? When we ask the question "Is it okay to kill this?" the important followup question is "What is it" -- not "Where is it?"

My purpose to define murder so as to restrict it to cases where a human is killed unlawfully as an act of malice, is to point out that abortion opponents do time and time again shortchange their own argument by using this term. They think that defining abortion as such is reason alone to making it illegal, because it's a powerful word and will illicit the best response of supporters.

I agree that redefining something incorrectly isn't a reason to change the law - but as I see it, abortion does qualify for all the legal requirements (except the judge's overruling of the law and exempting it) to be classified as murder.

However the word "murder" still doesn't accurately describe or really supply any logical reasoning as to why abortion should be illegal.

The word "murder" may not provide any logical reasoning, but the fact that abortion does involve premeditation, intention, and that the fetus is human and alive and not sentenced to death is very interesting, and I can see why people would be interested in changing this law which they (and I) see as a double-standard.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Well, we can keep this simple.

The fact is, all those reasonings and philosophical musings aside, it is still legal.

As long as its legal, its not murder. That's my sole, and only point. Murder has a definition that is based on the act being illegal. Even if it was as frivolous as 'You can kill all people with blue eyes with impunity, it is perfectly legal.' without any basis whatsoever other than it is a law that was passed according to the process that political system permits.. then killing people with blue eyes is legal. Therefore, 'technically', not murder.

Legality is the ONLY issue here, when dealing with the technical definition of murder.

Once again, not saying its murder doesn't make it right, holy, good, or even sensible. Only saying its not ILLEGAL.

Says Farcy: Therefore when you quote the Declaration of Independence, or the U.S. Constitution as being the absolute determination about how a person's rights should be treated, you are ignoring its entire function as the real reason Americans have any freedoms at all.

I just mentioned the Declaration of Independence to show that there was merit in the idea that our founders had in mind to base our original law on a law that was greater then man's law, and that and that all people had a right to life, and therefor it is possible that a law is passed which is "wrong" according to the higher law espoused by the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

But my main point has been that abortion is the only legal form of killing where the punishment doesn't fit the crime - there hasn't even been a crime on the part of the human being to be killed.

~~~

Said Karen:As long as its legal, its not murder. That's my sole, and only point. Murder has a definition that is based on the act being illegal.

If that had been your only point we'd have finished long ago since several times I've said I'm well aware of the fact that abortion is legal today.

But the fact is that our laws weren't just written whimsically for no particular reason at all - they (at least the murder laws in question) were written very carefully and for reasons. There are particular exceptions for particular reasons so that the punishment fits the crime. The default rule is that killing somebody is always illegal but there are certain exceptions but in all (except abortion) the punishment fits the crime. Abortion is the only one where the punishment is death even when there is no crime committed on the part of the human being being killed.

Does that seem at all illogical to you?

Anyway, I can see why many logically thinking intelligent people would look at the law and the abortion exception and come to the conclusion that something was wrong and ought to be changed. So I'm not at all surprised that some people are balking about being required as part of their otherwise not murder related job to aid or abet in what used to be and what they think fits all of the requirements for murder:
Even if it was as frivolous as 'You can kill all people with blue eyes with impunity, it is perfectly legal.'
Exactly! If the law did say that about people with blue eyes, can't you see people balking about having to kill people with blue eyes as part of their otherwise not killing related job? Can't you see people wanting to change the law? in that case?

By the way, what would be your response if the law were changed to treat the killing of a human fetus the same way it did the killing of any other human being?

Thanks,

-Jesse

Said Karen: My point, my one and only point is.. as long as it is lawful, it isn't unlawful. Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? And murder is characterized by being UNLAWFUL.
I'm well aware that abortion is legal and that usually one cannot be charged with murder for killing an unborn baby, although there are some exceptions:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/15/cutts.trial/index.html
http://wjz.com/local/David.Miller.2.812428.html "Man Gets Life For Killing Girlfriend & Fetus ... David Miller ... was sentenced to life without parole two times Monday--one for the death of the fetus and the other for the mother."
http://wjz.com/local/David.Miller.2.812428.html
http://www.lifenews.com/state3099.html

Therefore, abortion is not even close to being the only exemption.
But abortion is the only exemption where there is the punishment of death when there was no crime or threat of death to the person killing the fetus.

And abortion isn't a punishment.
Well, if we take punishment to be the payback for a crime, then it's hard to say that abortion is punishment since the fetus never committed any crime. But on the other hand, there is the concept of unfair punishment where somebody is punished as if they had committed a crime which they did not commit. But even then it is assumed that they committed it.

And this is another good point that you bring up: There isn't even a proper word to describe the killing of an innocent human being. It can't be "punishment" because the fetus isn't even said to have committed any crime. It can't be "Self defense" because the fetus has not even threatened any crime. It can't be an accident. It's certainly not warfare. What is it?

There is only one description that comes to mind for a case where an innocent human being is killed without even being accused of any crime and without having threatened anybody's life - and that is "murder."

Just war is really corporate self-defense. There is simply no category for the legal killing of an innocent human life (who has never threatened anyone's life).

All the other exemptions to a killing being classified as murder carry a punishment or result that is comparable to the crime.

In the case of an accidental killing, there was no crime because the killer had no desire nor intention in the killing.
In the case of self defense, the first-killer-wannabe threatened the life of another in such a way that there was no time for a trial and the death he received is proportional to the crime he attempted to and would otherwise have committed.

In the case of war, it is just like self defense - both sides are trying to kill eachother and the stakes are the same for both sides (death.) so again the punishment fits the crime.
In the case of capitol punishment, again, the justice system is there to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

But where does abortion fit into it?

Imagine this court case: The judge walks in, all rise and seat, then the prosecutor explains to the judge "This woman killed her child." The judge then asks "Where was the child at the time?" and the lawyer says "Just burn, 3 minutes prior." Then the judge will say "That's murder." but if the answer comes back "An estimated 3 minutes before birth," then it's not murder?

Now I realize that legally in the courts today abortion is not murder because murder has an exception for abortion from case law. That is not my point. My point is that it is quite reasonable that thinking people well may want to address this issue and get the law changed. Unfortunately nobody was allowed to vote on it like is supposed to happen.

Anyway, back to my courtroom scene. If the baby is 3 minutes before birth it's not murder and if it's 3 minutes after birth it is murder. The baby is the same thing 3 minutes before and 3 minutes after birth. Killing it does exactly the same thing - it kills it. So the only difference is where it is. And since when does where I am change what I am? How can the exact same thing really be murder in one case and be something different in the other?

Either both are murder or neither are, in the reality of things. And this is a contradiction which some people want to fix.

Murder is not wrong because it's illegal. The law didn't make murder wrong. Murder was thought by the majority to be wrong, so the law was written making it illegal. But abortion was not excepted because of a majority citizen vote, but because of a judge who thought he knew better.

And the core legal doctrines which were the basis for killing being murder with exceptions for self defense and criminal executions and accidents are based on the ideas along the lines of all men being created equal, life, liberty, and justice for all, a fair and speedy trial, and having the body of evidence in hand (habeas corpus).

And all the current exceptions other then abortion (self defense, criminal executions, and accidents) are coherent with these original core legal doctrines. But abortion does not fit in.

As I said, accidental, self defense, and capitol punishment (to the degree that the latter is allowed) are all as a result of majority agreement among the citizens, and carry punishment that fits the crime. Abortion is and does not - it is the result of some judges who thought they knew better.

That's why several states have by proper legislative methods banned or tried to ban abortions to varying degrees.

What I'm saying is that there is something to the issue and it makes sense that some people would like to change the law. It was put in place not by a representative legislative form of lawmaking or by the people's vote but by the stroke of the pen of a few judges.

Don't you agree that abortion is the only killing where the victim has done nothing to deserve death? And that it is the only exception which was brought not by representative or legislative or vote type of lawmaking? Can you see why some people would see it as a legitimate inconsistency to be concerned with?

Jesse,
You said: So are you saying that a fetus that's about to be aborted is not human, not unique not innocent, or not life? Which is it not?

Boris says: A fetus is a potential human, potentially unique, potentially innocent, potentially life.

You said: I'm in the USA. I don't know where you are. But in USA, I can legally drive anything up and down the driveway on my own property as much as I want. It doesn't even need to be street legal. I don't even need a driver's license. That's what property rights are all about.

Boris says: Property rights? Do you think you have the right to own property too? Don’t pay the taxes on your house for a few months and you will find out who really owns your property fella, and it ain’t you. ROFL!.

You said: Could you please substantiate that claim? Driving on public roadways is often said to be a privilege and not a right, but on one's own property it's entirely different - people have the right to be an and drive on their own property!

Boris says: Could you please substantiate that claim.

You said: You're the one who said that murder requires physical force. Poison disproves that.
You're the one who said that a person doesn't have the right to drive on their own property. That one's just absurd and wrong. I don't know how you could have said that one. (I'm from the country. People here own big chunks of land with long driveways on their own property.)
You're the one who said that the Bible clearly states that the earth is flat - but heretofore refuse to show me just where it clearly states that.

Boris says: Prove those verses say the earth moves and isn’t flat. Your proofs are hilarious.

You said: So? not very many people are on this blog. Besides, I think Sheila agrees with me that an unborn human fetus is a human being.
Boris says: Sheila probably believes in the same stupid boogymen you do.

You said: So what of a planet travels at something other then a circular orbit? the earth is still moving through space on an exact course determined by the masses and movements of everything in the universe. The Bible doesn't say that the orbit is perfectly circular. And by the way, the path that my GPS antenna takes on my car roof as my car drives around isn't circular either - bit it's still fixed to the top of my roof and does not move from there!

Boris says: So the Bible is wrong when it says the earth cannot be moved right? Since the Bible is wrong about that why should we believe any of it?

You said: Which isn't true? that a fetus is 100% human? or that it's in the state of being? (existing)

Boris says: The first statement is a lie Jesse.
You said: As I said before, I already know that abortion is legal. But that's not my point.
But you ask about people going to jail for killing an unborn baby. It has happened a few times:

You said: "A jury in Canton, Ohio, found former police officer Bobby Cutts Jr. guilty of murdering his pregnant girlfriend, Jessie Marie Davis, and their unborn child"
"Man Gets Life For Killing Girlfriend & Fetus ... David Miller ... was sentenced to life without parole two times Monday--one for the death of the fetus and the other for the mother."
"An Ohio teenager accused of attacking his pregnant girlfriend and killing her unborn child after she refused to have an abortion saw his trial begin. Alfonso Price, now 16, allegedly attacked Kerria Anderson because she refused to have an abortion of her baby, whom Price thought he fathered.
... Both teens are charged with aggravated murder and other lesser charges."
With some diligent research you should be able to find more such incidences.
But it is clear that abortion CAN and HAS been murder.

Boris says: If you force a woman to have an abortion then you are breaking the law. A woman has the right to bear or keep the child.

You said: I'm not saying that abortion is not legal, I'm just answering your question as to whether people go to jail for aborting a fetus - and the answer is yes it has happened.
Ahh good to hear that you always tell the truth. So what's the truth about driving on one's own property? What's the truth about the Bible "Clearly stating that the earth is flat" (your words)? What's the truth about whether murder requires physical force against the victim?

Boris says: Your version of “truth” and mine are radically different. That’s the truth.

You said: You show me where the Bible "Clearly says that the earth is flat" (and I mean THE BIBLE, not some lunatic elsewhere) and I'll tell you some places in the Bible where it comes out against abortion. (Hint: Murder, "Shedding innocent blood," and "If two men are fighting ... if mischief follows..")

You said: But I have proved wrong some words you have said! For example, You said that murder requires physical force against the actual human being - but poison can clearly be used to commit murder, and that's not a physical force against the actual human being!
Boris says: You’ve only proved that you are a desperate antifeminist religious fanatic with a reckless disregard for the truth.
You said: You also said that nobody has a right to drive on their own driveway (I'm assuming a driveway on their own private property) - which is clearly wrong. Check out property rights.

Boris says: You better check your property “rights” because they don’t really exist. The government gives property and the government can take it away any time they want. If the public wants to build something on “your” property they’ll take it from you and there isn’t a thing you can do about it. Wake up. We don’t live in a free country. You have believed propaganda.

You said: I keep saying over and over that I know that abortion is legal.

Boris says: You keep saying everything over and over and over again because you lost your case a long time ago and you know it.

You said: But I'm saying that it's only legal because a some judges in the highest court made an illogical exception to the definition of murder in order to allow abortions.

Boris says: That is your opinion, the opinion of a religious fanatic.

You said: That's not true: Abortion does fit the legal requirements for murder EXCEPT a judge made an exception. So the only reason that abortion isn't always legally murder is because a judge made an exception specifically for abortion.

Boris says: Opinion.

You said: By studying the facts. An unborn human baby at any age is unquestionably human, innocent, and life. Under no other circumstances does our law permit the taking of an innocent human life!

Boris says: But potential life is different.

You said: You use facts like what? I know that a human fetus is human. I know that it is alive. I know that it's innocent. You're the one who thinks that somehow it's not human until its head pops out into air or whatever. But dood, there's nothing magic about birth! what do you think it is before it's born - a dog? Do you think it suddenly becomes human when it takes its firth breath of air?

Boris says: Nothing magic about birth? So a fetus doesn’t have a magical boogy spirit that makes it live forever? The rest about driveways and supposed rights is just a bunch of nonsense, inaccuracies and outright lies. Give up Jesse. The world has rejected you backward superstition based anti-feminist ideas. Find something else to complain about.

Sheila,

Thanks for your encouragement. I really appreciate it!

Keep up the good work,

-Jesse

Medical professionals who do not believe in abortion or infant killing drugs such as RU486 should not have to perform or participate in procedures that violate their conscience. Many of these folks go into the profession to SAVE life, not to DESTROY life. Forcing such folks to violate their conscience may discourage young, bright hopefuls from entering this helping profession altogether. Someone else's politics should not be forced on others.