MSNBC Article Poses Interesting Question

[suffer for joy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek

By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek

Aug. 6, 2007 issue - Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

Thoughts?

[Spheniscine]

I found a pro-life article expressing an opinion on this issue:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathrynJeanLopez/2007/08/04/overturning_roe_v_wade_ends_the_victimization

[nickcopernicus]

Nick:

The penalty should be death by torture. After all, we all know that the aborted fetus suffer's extreme agony even though it doesn't have a nervous system. :ahem:

Cheers,

Nick

[themuzicman]

that question is one for the legal scholars to debate. Just because you're opposed to murder doesn't mean that you can explain the various legal consequences for committing it.

Michael

[Jnthn]

Nick:

The penalty should be death by torture. After all, we all know that the aborted fetus suffer's extreme agony even though it doesn't have a nervous system. :ahem:

Cheers,

NickReally? So as long as a subject doesn't feel pain, tearing their limbs off is OK?

J

[dizzle]

Muz has it right. I can be opposed to something without having worked out what is the legislature and court's job.

(however I do have an opinion - it should be treated like any other murder with perhaps a transition period for societal mindset to accept the criminality of it)

[Darth Executor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek



Thoughts?

Depends on the situation. If she knew exactly what she was doing, she should be charged with murder. The sentence would lessen depending on other mental factors. For example, if she was coerced by family, friends, etc., give her a lesser sentence and charge those that influenced her with being accomplices to murder. I can give more specifics if you want.

[Abelard]

Depends on the situation. If she knew exactly what she was doing, she should be charged with murder. The sentence would lessen depending on other mental factors. For example, if she was coerced by family, friends, etc., give her a lesser sentence and charge those that influenced her with being accomplices to murder. I can give more specifics if you want.

OK, how about some specifics here. This is a true story - my niece (who is Christian and pro-life) recently found out that 1) she is finally pregnant and 2) that she has breast cancer.

Of course she can't treat the cancer without aborting the child. What should her punishment be if she chooses abortion over a double funeral?

[Jnthn]

OK, how about some specifics here. This is a true story - my niece (who is Christian and pro-life) recently found out that 1) she is finally pregnant and 2) that she has breast cancer.

Of course she can't treat the cancer without aborting the child. What should her punishment be if she chooses abortion over a double funeral?These kinds of exceptions are generally acknowledged by all but the most militant of anti-abortionists. I, for one would see no issue in aborting a foetus where it would save the life of the mother.

J

[Minnesota]

that question is one for the legal scholars to debate. Just because you're opposed to murder doesn't mean that you can explain the various legal consequences for committing it.
The question was, "what the penalty should be," not "what is the penalty." Penalties are established by legislators; they're the ones who make the laws, not legal scholars. In main, legal scholars deal with and debate already established laws and their interpretations. If there is no penalty (law) in effect there is nothing for legal scholars to debate. So until abortion is judged to be murder and established penalties have been set there is nothing to explain. Declare abortion murder and set a penalty for it, then a person as well as legal scholars will have something to explain.



These kinds of exceptions are generally acknowledged by all but the most militant of anti-abortionists. I, for one would see no issue in aborting a foetus where it would save the life of the mother.

So there is a scale by which you weigh the intrinsic life-value of one individual with that of another. The taking of an individual life is pretty relative then. Interesting, coming from a conservative Christian.

[themuzicman]

The question was, "what the penalty should be," not "what is the penalty." Penalties are established by legislators; they're the ones who make the laws, not legal scholars. In main, legal scholars deal with and debate already established laws and their interpretations. If there is no penalty (law) in effect there is nothing for legal scholars to debate. So until abortion is judged to be murder and established penalties have been set there is nothing to explain. Declare abortion murder and set a penalty for it, then a person as well as legal scholars will have something to explain.
.

Ask a bunch of liberals what the penalty should be for homicide. I bet you'll get something very different from what the current code is.

The fact is that the question requires a larger discussion than one can have with an "on the spot" reporter, and the people in question realized that it required a deeper discussion, and weren't going to have it with that guy right then and there.

Michael

[Darth Executor]

OK, how about some specifics here. This is a true story - my niece (who is Christian and pro-life) recently found out that 1) she is finally pregnant and 2) that she has breast cancer.

Of course she can't treat the cancer without aborting the child. What should her punishment be if she chooses abortion over a double funeral?

See above. I would also add that I'm skeptical that those are her two choices, unless the breast cancer will kill her before she can give birth.

[Jnthn]

So there is a scale by which you weigh the intrinsic life-value of one individual with that of another. The taking of an individual life is pretty relative then. Interesting, coming from a conservative Christian.So in an unavoidable situation where you face the prospect of two people dying or one person dying - you don't see any difference in the two outcomes or recognise that one outcome is preferrable?

Or are you just being typical Minn and venturing out from 'neath the bridge?

J

[Lizard]

So there is a scale by which you weigh the intrinsic life-value of one individual with that of another. The taking of an individual life is pretty relative then. Interesting, coming from a conservative Christian.

:ahem: It would fall under a very obscure legal theory called self defense. :sarcasm:

Taking a life to save your own is legal, is it not?

[themuzicman]

Three people are hanging from a rope that is all that is holding them from a several thousand foot drop, following a mountain climbing accident. However, the element holding the rope won't sustain the weight of three people.

Is it legal for the 2nd person to cut the rope so that the third one will fall to his death?

Michael

[Minnesota]

Ask a bunch of liberals what the penalty should be for homicide. I bet you'll get something very different from what the current code is.
And your point is . . . . . . . ? That conservatives would never answer anything different than what is on the books? I fail to see what you're getting at.


The fact is that the question requires a larger discussion than one can have with an "on the spot" reporter, and the people in question realized that it required a deeper discussion, and weren't going to have it with that guy right then and there.
Well I don't know if that's a "fact" or not. In any case, the point of the video is quite clear: these people never bothered giving the question any "deeper discussion" or even personal thought.




Should there be a penalty? Pause. . . . "I don't know. I haven't speculated about it much."

"Just pray for them. . . . . No jail . . . No punishment.. . . . It's between her and god."

"I don't have an answer for that."

Pause . . . . ."Well, I don't really know." Should they be sent to jail? "I never really thought about it."

"You know, I never really thought about it."

In five years {time interviewee had been protesting] have you never thought about what should happen? (No answer.)


"That's hard to say. Depends on the state of mind." Should they be sent to jail? "depends."

"They need counseling and help. They're punished enough."



They call abortion "murder" and want it criminalized but apparently haven't given its consequence any more thought than what to have for dinner that night. Is this a major issue? I don't think so; however, I do think it illustrates the lack of foresight in their thinking. Kind of a "Get it out of my sight, and I don't care what you do with it afterward."




It would fall under a very obscure legal theory called self defense.

Taking a life to save your own is legal, is it not?
Three people are hanging from a rope that is all that is holding them from a several thousand foot drop, following a mountain climbing accident. However, the element holding the rope won't sustain the weight of three people.

Is it legal for the 2nd person to cut the rope so that the third one will fall to his death?


I believe that only works when the other life has the ability to decide not to harm you. If a child of two was in some way endangering your life, over which they had no control, (can't think of a good example) would you be justified in killing that child to save your own? I don't believe the courts or society would say you do. As for the three unfortunate danglers, I would hope they had the ethics to at least draw straws, and that none thought he alone had some kind of inalienable right to decide who goes.

[themuzicman]

And your point is . . . . . . . ? That conservatives would never answer anything different than what is on the books? I fail to see what you're getting at. .

The point is that the actual consequences of a crime isn't something that people give a lot of consideration to. They're first concerned with ending the injustice.

Michael

[Minnesota]

So in an unavoidable situation where you face the prospect of two people dying or one person dying - you don't see any difference in the two outcomes or recognise that one outcome is preferrable?
(Sorry, I missed this comment when I last posted.)

In the given scenario I assumed that by not treating the mother the fetus would successfully go to term, so there was never the prospect of two people dying.


Or are you just being typical Minn and venturing out from 'neath the bridge?
:lol: It's kind of amusing how often of late when I've posted an opinion contrary to the Christian-line of thinking, or have taken a Christian point of view to task, I'm called a troll. Evidently you and some others here think this bothers me. Believe me it doesn't. And if calling me a troll makes you feel better inside, then be my guest. It certainly won't change what I post. And THAT you can take to your grave. So go ahead, pleasure yourself. :wink:



And your point is . . . . . . . ? That conservatives would never answer anything different than what is on the books? I fail to see what you're getting at..

The point is that the actual consequences of a crime isn't something that people give a lot of consideration to. They're first concerned with ending the injustice.

And THIS G is why you said "Ask a bunch of liberals what the penalty should be for homicide. I bet you'll get something very different from what the current code is."???

Exactly why are you singling out liberals? Why not:

"Ask a bunch of transvestites what the penalty should be for homicide. I bet you'll get something very different from what the current code is"?

or,

"Ask a bunch of bus drivers what the penalty should be for homicide. I bet you'll get something very different from what the current code is"?

[Abelard]

Taking a life to save your own is legal, is it not?

Legal, but not Christian.

The correct Christian answer to what to do with people who have/perform abortions is to forgive them and to love them.

[Jnthn]

(Sorry, I missed this comment when I last posted.)Don't worry about it.

In the given scenario I assumed that by not treating the mother the fetus would successfully go to term, so there was never the prospect of two people dying. In the scenario given it was stated that chemotherapy couldn't take place while the patient was pregnant. That the doctors were keen to commence chemotherapy straight away gives an indication of the seriousness of the breast cancer.

J

[Minnesota]

In the scenario given it was stated that chemotherapy couldn't take place while the patient was pregnant. That the doctors were keen to commence chemotherapy straight away gives an indication of the seriousness of the breast cancer.

Well, it wasn't stated that chemotherapy couldn't take place while the patient was pregnant. BTW, chemotherapy CAN be used during the second and third trimester. What would be helpful to know is why she can't treat the cancer without aborting the child. So, while it's possible that it's true that treating the cancer would kill the fetus, it's also possible that by not treating it the fetus could still go full term before the mother died---and only one would die. :shrug:

[Jnthn]

Well, it wasn't stated that chemotherapy couldn't take place while the patient was pregnant. BTW, chemotherapy CAN be used during the second and third trimester. What would be helpful to know is why she can't treat the cancer without aborting the child. So, while it's possible that it's true that treating the cancer would kill the fetus, it's also possible that by not treating it the fetus could still go full term before the mother died---and only one would die. :shrug:You may well be right. I could only go by what the poster offered. I've only had male members of my immediate family require Chemo, so I don't know of its effect on females, yet alone those gestating.

J

[dizzle]

STR mirrored my thoughts on this issue (STR allows posting in full of their blogs)

Pro-Lifers Squirm at the Punishment Question...but Why?

Last week, Anna Quindlen chided pro-life activists (captured by AtCenterNetwork on YouTube) for not being able to answer the question, "If abortion is made illegal, what should the penalty be for women who have abortions?"

It's true that most of the pro-life activists in the video appear to be caught completely off-guard. It's painful to watch these good-hearted pro-life advocates so quick to blurt out that abortion should be illegal and so unprepared to explain what that view might mean practically. They are a great illustration of the need for STR's pro-life training.

What's tragic is that the question is not difficult. If abortion is made illegal, it should be made illegal because it kills an innocent human being. If a woman gets an illegal abortion, the law should punish her the same way it punishes anyone involved in any other killing act.

So what is the punishment?

Five minutes into the video, a pro-lifer gives the right answer: it depends. As with any other homicide, the intent and premeditation of those participating in the abortion has to be taken into account.

Imagine that Fred is found dead in his bedroom with a knife in his back. A woman named Maggie is sobbing next to him. Maggie turns out to be Fred's wife (now widow). The knife has fingerprints on it...Maggie's fingerprints. Curiously, three sets of muddy footprints lead into the room from a window and out of the front door. Outside the front door, the footprints stop and comingle. It appears there was an altercation there as well. Maggie sobs and sobs. Through her tears she confesses, "I can't believe I killed my husband!" How should Maggie be punished?

Clearly, you cannot answer the question without more information. You have good reason to believe that the Maggie put the knife into Fred's back. But there are unexplained footprints. Who else was involved and in what way? And there is an equivocal statement from Maggie. She might be astonished that her plot succeeded. She might be regretful that her plot succeeded. She might be regretful that an accident occured. She might be saddened that when she attempted to save her husband's life by wielding the knife at his attacker, the attacker moved out of the way so that the knife missed its intended target. Until we know the intentions of Maggie and the other actors in this bedroom drama, we can't assign punishment.

It's the same with women (or doctors) who would be prosecuted for illegal abortion. The doctor might be prosecuted under a murder charge and the woman might be prosecuted under a manslaughter charge. It might be murder or manslaughter for both parties. The point is, you cannot know what the charge should be without knowing about the intentions and premeditation of the actors. Whether the woman or doctor knows the unborn is a human being may also be relevant to the legal calculation.

So, should she be sent to jail? I don't know. Two of the pro-life activists late in the video make the comment, "I'm not a lawyer." This seems like an evasion, but it's actually very astute. The assignment of punishment is a complicated matter. It depends on intent, premeditation, and other relevant factors.

The point of the question is to unnerve and embarass pro-lifers. We needn't be embarassed at all. We can simply say, "I think women who get illegal abortions should be prosecuted according to the same standards we use to prosecute all other lethal harms." The response lacks the inconsistency criticized by abortion-choice advocates. It also lacks the over-simplification hidden in the abortion-advocate's question.


The point of the question is to unnerve and embarass pro-lifers. We needn't be embarassed at all. We can simply say, "I think women who get illegal abortions should be prosecuted according to the same standards we use to prosecute all other lethal harms." - EXACTLY MY THOUGHTS

We already have laws and legal principles to guide us.

[Teallaura]

See above. I would also add that I'm skeptical that those are her two choices, unless the breast cancer will kill her before she can give birth.They aren't - she can opt for less aggressive therapy until the baby can survive outside the womb. Only if the cancer were mastisized would it threaten her life immediately - and in that case the example is more akin to an ectopic pregnancy where the baby has no chance of survival because mom won't survive long enough.

On the topic - abortion isn't something you can do to yourself (unless you are insane - drug induced abortion being no exception. RU84 is not available OTC and any other chemical cocktail is likely to be as suicidal as more physical measures) so the actual crime would be conspiracy to commit murder. It's generally viewed as a lesser offense (not a light offense by any means) and I see no reason why its provisions would not be perfectly acceptable.

[Teallaura]

Legal, but not Christian.

The correct Christian answer to what to do with people who have/perform abortions is to forgive them and to love them.To forgive before the fact is to condone - which most definitely is not a correct Christian answer to any sin - including the sin of murder.

This is highly disingenuous of you and you should be ashamed. You set a scenario (and by the way, using a real personal anecdote in a debate like that is truly disgraceful - bad enough to use personal tragedy to win debate points but you further set yourself up in a position to be able to demonize any opponent no matter that they deal strictly with the principles involved or not) in which the choice is between either the mother or the child dying (which is very seldom actually the case). Far answered according to your perimeters - and then you pull this holier than thou garbage.

Practice what you preach - don't cheat in debate like that; it isn't very 'loving'.

[Minnesota]

"The point of the question is to unnerve and embarass pro-lifers. We needn't be embarassed at all. We can simply say, "I think women who get illegal abortions should be prosecuted according to the same standards we use to prosecute all other lethal harms." - EXACTLY MY THOUGHTS


We already have laws and legal principles to guide us.
Mine as well, and I'm pro-choice; although, the notion of "same standards" is kind of nebulous.

Illegal Abortion

In no state is unrestricted abortion legal; indeed, virtually all states begin with the presumption that abortion is a crime, though all state statutes do have definitions of legal abortions. About twenty states define an illegal abortion in terms of the definition of a legal abortion; for example, Hawaii defines an illegal abortion as failure to meet the criterion of a legal abortion. (The definition of a legal abortion, in Hawaii, is simply the destruction of a nonviable fetus.) About fifteen states, however, predominately in the East and the South, do define illegal abortions without reference to legal instances of abortion. A few of these, interestingly, include in their definitions the provision that if the mother dies, then the abortion is illegal. Of these states, only some have specific statutes defining an illegal abortion; others merely define a legal abortion and impose penalties for their violation. The remaining states have definitions that specifically mention the limits of when an abortion is acceptable. For example, West Virginia defines an illegal abortion as any activity "with intent to destroy an unborn child or produce abortion [or] if mother dies unless to save the mother."

source (http://law.jrank.org/pages/11826/Abortion-Illegal-Abortion.html)
As with all other crimes involving death, there is no one "standard" used to prosecute--witness the various degrees of homicide: murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, and manslaughter in the second degree. And, of course, the punishment for each is also dependant on the state in which the abortion takes place. So what may get a woman incarcerated for ten years in one state (I don't even know if there is such a punishment) may not even get her to trial in an other.

In Minnesota abortion is a felony under the following circumstances.

145.412 CRIMINAL ACTS.
Subdivision 1. Requirements. It shall be unlawful to willfully perform an abortion unless
the abortion is performed:
(1) by a physician licensed to practice medicine pursuant to chapter 147, or a physician in
training under the supervision of a licensed physician;
(2) in a hospital or abortion facility if the abortion is performed after the first trimester;
(3) in a manner consistent with the lawful rules promulgated by the state commissioner of
health; and
(4) with the consent of the woman submitting to the abortion after a full explanation of the
procedure and effect of the abortion.
Subd. 2. Unconsciousness; lifesaving. It shall be unlawful to perform an abortion upon a
woman who is unconscious except if the woman has been rendered unconscious for the purpose
of having an abortion or if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman.
Subd. 3. Viability. It shall be unlawful to perform an abortion when the fetus is potentially
viable unless:
(1) the abortion is performed in a hospital;
(2) the attending physician certifies in writing that in the physician's best medical judgment
the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman; and
(3) to the extent consistent with sound medical practice the abortion is performed under
circumstances which will reasonably assure the live birth and survival of the fetus.
Subd. 4. Penalty. A person who performs an abortion in violation of this section is guilty
of a felony.

source (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=145.412&year=2006)

[Teallaura]

Minn, so what? Really, there's no Federal abortion statute along with a host of other things regulated solely by the states. The standard in question will be the state's - absolutely nothing in the Constitution mandates that the various states use only one set of standards across the board.

[Minnesota]

Minn, so what?
The "so what" is that STR and DX appear to be saying all crimes have identical standards by which they are deemed illegal. There are no "standards we use to prosecute all other lethal harms." All other lethal harms are judged by their individual characteristics; therefore, the standards by which we prosecute each are quite varied. The aggregate "all other" is not one which incorporates some defined set of standards. Each member of the "all other" likely has some unique characteristic that differentiates its standard from those of the others.


Really, there's no Federal abortion statute along with a host of other things regulated solely by the states. The standard in question will be the state's - absolutely nothing in the Constitution mandates that the various states use only one set of standards across the board.
Looks like my post did not fall on deaf ears, as it were.

[themuzicman]

You have to consider that there are literally millions of women who have had abortions. The pro-life movement isn't going to issue a press release that says that all these women should be put in jail for life. It has become culturally acceptable to kill your unborn child, so it's a bit awkward to say that what's acceptable today should result in long jail sentences (or the death penalty) tomorrow.

So, pro-life people are going to be a bit squeamish. Completely expected.

However, that doesn't make the movement wrong.

Michael

[Teallaura]

Sure there are - you're confusing legal standards with penal ones. The standards of law are very consistent throughout the US even though penal standards vary considerably. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard by which evidence and hence the accused will be judged and that is universal to the American criminal courts.

[Rahab]

OK, how about some specifics here. This is a true story - my niece (who is Christian and pro-life) recently found out that 1) she is finally pregnant and 2) that she has breast cancer.

Of course she can't treat the cancer without aborting the child. What should her punishment be if she chooses abortion over a double funeral? Abelard, your niece NEEDS to consult an oncologist before concluding that she has no other alternative but to have an abortion. There is a vast spectrum of lower toxicity chemo treatments which can be applied to pregnant women. A masectomy should not result in terminating her pregnancy either. I am not sure how she found herself facing such conclusion. Sorry to be off topic but your comments alarmed me as I am a cancer survivor myself and all the medical research I did exposed me to data which also addressed pregnant cancer victims. I can dig it up for you to pass it on to her if you wish.

[Rahab]

Sure there are - you're confusing legal standards with penal ones. The standards of law are very consistent throughout the US even though penal standards vary considerably. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard by which evidence and hence the accused will be judged and that is universal to the American criminal courts. I am not sure which jury, Teal, would conclude "beyond reasonable doubt" that all stages of the human gestation, termination applies as "murder of an existing person". The "People" represented by the prosecution team would have to build a solid case supported by compelling evidence that at all stages of the human gestation, the zygote, embryo then fetus is a person.

Considering how subjective those considerations are whether they come from a philosophical or theological angle, the scientific one would remain the closest to an objectively induced argument. Your jury members would be challenged to form their own opinion as to who or what a "person" is. I frankly do not see how even a scientificaly based prosecution case could meet the burden of defining accurately a "person" and apply it at all stages of the human gestation.

[Teallaura]

I am not sure which jury, Teal, would conclude "beyond reasonable doubt" that all stages of the human gestation, termination applies as "murder of an existing person". The "People" represented by the prosecution team would have to build a solid case supported by compelling evidence that at all stages of the human gestation, the zygote, embryo then fetus is a person.

Considering how subjective those considerations are whether they come from a philosophical or theological angle, the scientific one would remain the closest to an objectively induced argument. Your jury members would be challenged to form their own opinion as to who or what a "person" is. I frankly do not see how even a scientificaly based prosecution case could meet the burden of defining accurately a "person" and apply it at all stages of the human gestation.
Rahab, read the whole thread before jumping in like that - I really do not appreciate it when you take me to task for things I didn't say or argue idiotically when perimeters are given. Your post here is nonsense - the assumption is that abortion is illegal ergo a jury has no business making such a decision. The question before a jury would be whether or not the defendant actually procured or attempted to procure an abortion. The question at issue presently is of penal consequences and specifically the difference between legal standards and penal standards.

Stop doing that - it really irritates me. If you aren't going to bother to read the whole thing or to read carefully please don't address me at all.

[dizzle]

Teal, Rahab looks for each opportunity she can to deny the right to life to certain of th unborn. You are correct, it was completely out of place in your argument.

[Abelard]

To forgive before the fact is to condone - which most definitely is not a correct Christian answer to any sin - including the sin of murder.

This is highly disingenuous of you and you should be ashamed. You set a scenario (and by the way, using a real personal anecdote in a debate like that is truly disgraceful - bad enough to use personal tragedy to win debate points but you further set yourself up in a position to be able to demonize any opponent no matter that they deal strictly with the principles involved or not) in which the choice is between either the mother or the child dying (which is very seldom actually the case). Far answered according to your perimeters - and then you pull this holier than thou garbage.

Practice what you preach - don't cheat in debate like that; it isn't very 'loving'.

What in the world are you talking about? As far as I'm concerned I'm in a conversation and there are no "points" or "rules". I'm not trying to "win" anything. You can "debate" if you wish - but don't be upset when those of us with broader interests refuse to take up strident, polarized positions or buy into your definitions.

I'll repeat - the job of the Christian is to spread the Gospel not to lobby for punishments. We forgive; we do not convict. If you've found something else in the Gospels I'd love to hear about it, but don't expect a debate.

[Teallaura]

What in the world are you talking about? As far as I'm concerned I'm in a conversation and there are no "points" or "rules". I'm not trying to "win" anything. You can "debate" if you wish - but don't be upset when those of us with broader interests refuse to take up strident, polarized positions or buy into your definitions.

I'll repeat - the job of the Christian is to spread the Gospel not to lobby for punishments. We forgive; we do not convict. If you've found something else in the Gospels I'd love to hear about it, but don't expect a debate.Yup - holier than thou. You really know how to dish out the low blows - which is not at all consistent with what Christian behavior should be. You make your 'points' at the expense of others by pulling cheap shots - you should practice what you preach. You won't - but you should.

You knew full well what you were doing - you delibrately and maliciously took things out of context in order to make your 'point' - by degrading others. Did it with Far and now you're doing it to me. Yeah, you're a saint (common understanding of innocence) - not.

[Abelard]

Absurd.

You just don't know how to deal with the fact that forgiving people is scriptural and that wanting the secular authorities to throw people into prison is not.

Take a clue from the people in the video clip. Of course they never considered consequences. Why should they? As Christians, earthly consequences are not our concern.

[nickcopernicus]

Really? So as long as a subject doesn't feel pain, tearing their limbs off is OK?

J
Nick:

That's exactly what I said...:ahem:

Cheers,

Nick

[xevolutionist]

Three people are hanging from a rope that is all that is holding them from a several thousand foot drop, following a mountain climbing accident. However, the element holding the rope won't sustain the weight of three people.

Is it legal for the 2nd person to cut the rope so that the third one will fall to his death?

Michael

That really will depend on whether you are the lowest person on the rope or not. In reality, if the rope withstood the force of all three people falling, then it's unlikely the resting weight will cause it to fail.

[nomad]

Let's say there is a woman who is pregnant who does not want an abortion, but the boyfriend does want an abortion. He manages to procure some RU-486 and get the woman to consume it under false pretenses. She then miscarries, or thinks she miscarries. Later she finds out about the medicine. How would this be prosecuted today?

[xevolutionist]

Let's say there is a woman who is pregnant who does not want an abortion, but the boyfriend does want an abortion. He manages to procure some RU-486 and get the woman to consume it under false pretenses. She then miscarries, or thinks she miscarries. Later she finds out about the medicine. How would this be prosecuted today?

it would depend on the jurisdiction and the district attorney. In most states, even the pro baby murder ones, he could be charged with murder, as even now men who murder a pregnant woman often are charged with two murders, the mother and the unborn baby.

[themuzicman]

That really will depend on whether you are the lowest person on the rope or not. In reality, if the rope withstood the force of all three people falling, then it's unlikely the resting weight will cause it to fail.

You've obviously not into mountain climbing. Frequently a fall will result in a temporary holding point, for which any kind of movement (such as pulling up those who have fallen below that point) will cause both those dangling and those trying to rescue them to fall further to their deaths. If it is determined that they can only pull up enough weight to save one fo the three, can #2 cut the rope?

Michael