We have people taking both sides of every issue you can think of on this "high school sports website based in Kentucky", no reason to think there isn't some that could discuss this also.

 

I think the reason no one debates this, is that in their heart of hearts they KNOW that Abortion is Killing of another living being and is indefensible in 99% of the cases.

 

When does High School sports begin for a child???... 7th, 8th, or 9th grade???

 

All kidding aside...

 

The first time I ever heard of abortion when I was very young, my initial gut feeling was to be perplexed and saddened that it even happens, and that it was wrong and very contradictory to the understanding that all human life should be valued.

 

Many years later after hearing all the various arguments on the topic, I still feel very much the same way that I initially did. I've never been too comfortable with the idea of it.

 

I don't believe that my Catholic upbringing had anything to do with my initial gut reaction, but the Catholic exposure that I had surrounding the topic most likely helped solidify my feelings regarding it, however If I had no exposure to religion, I still believe that I would've felt the way that I did, and still do.

 

Although Catholicism teaches against artificial contraception, I have no problem with it. It seems like a more logical responsible solution than creating a life and then destroying it.

 

Some arguments can be made for extreme cases, but I'd have to bet that 99% of all abortions happen merely as an avoidance to taking the responsibility of giving birth and raising the child.

 

Religion or no religion, I'm disappointed that modern society promotes, and makes it a legal viable acceptable option. It feels like a grave contradiction of how most in society view the wrongness of murder. How abortion gets a legal pass regarding murder is beyond me, and doesn't hold up logically regarding our basic moral values.

 

Not everyones' views on moral value issues are identical, but regarding murder in general, I'd lean towards believing that most in society are against it and find it to be wrong. Abortion = murder. By our general standards and views towards murder, how can it not be murder too? Life begins at conception, and that itself seems cut and dried. Not too sure how it can be viewed any differently. Ending that life through abortion is by definition murder. That too is cut and dried. Society may have offered a sort of leniency towards it to avoid responsibility, but calling it anything but murder is by definition "Denial"

However, having said that, I also don't believe it's the government's job to legislate based on faith, thus I have no issue with the current laws.

 

May seem like a contradiction, but I try my darnedest to keep my religious and political views separate.

 

While I understand where you are going, I look at it form a different direction. You often hear the statement,

 

"I am against abortion but it is none of my business what someone does with their body so I don't think it should be outlawed by the government, it should be her choice."

 

I will often ask someone do they think the government should nose into how parents raise their children. They will reply no. I will follow, what if discipline goes beyond spanking and reaches the point of abuse. While you may be against such abuse, do you think the government should interfere? They will often say of course, child abuse is wrong. Which I reply but you also think abortion is wrong.

 

Where I am going with this is so often people say we cannot legislate morality but while we may not realize it, we already do and have been doing so for centuries and will continue to do so. So, why is child abuse or spousal abuse illegal? Because it is wrong, it is immoral.

 

Now, on the flip side, should everything that is wrong or immoral be illegal. That depends on if someone is being harmed. In child and spousal abuse, someone is obviously being harmed. With abortion? Well, if you think it is a child it is obviously being harmed. How about adultery? It is definitely immoral and wrong You could say the spouse is being harmed emotionally but we generally don't outlaw harm that is intangible due to complexity. So for the most part, adultery is not a crime. Also there is the view that maybe the spouse committed adultery due to the other spouse's behavior ie no marital relations, lack of attention and affection, abandonment, etc.. While those may not make adultery OK, they throw in the question of is blame possibly shared between the couple?

so often people say we cannot legislate morality but while we may not realize it, we already do and have been doing so for centuries and will continue to do so.

 

I had a Marianist priest for a couple political science classes while I was in college. I'll never forget something he said once.

 

A student, responding to a question, said that a law was inappropriate because "you can't legislate morality" to which the the teacher replied "Really? I'd say morality is the ONLY thing we've legislated. What else can you legislate with?"

Kentucky has specifically-defined fetal homicide statutes.

 

First and second degree fetal homicide requires intent to kill or harm the fetus.

 

Third degree requires wanton disregard of risk.

 

Fourth degree requires reckless action.

 

I do not know whether a person could be prosecuted for third or fourth degree fetal homicide without knowledge of a pregnancy, but murder/manslaughter do not apply to fetal homicide cases.

 

A woman cannot be prosecuted for fetal homicide for anything she does herself.

 

 

Even drug or alcohol abuse?! If I'm 8 months pregnant and go on a coke binge that puts me in the hospital, end up in labor and deliver a stillborn child, I can't be prosecuted for causing the death of that fetus? Even if an autopsy shows the baby died from cocaine poisoning?

Even drug or alcohol abuse?! If I'm 8 months pregnant and go on a coke binge that puts me in the hospital, end up in labor and deliver a stillborn child, I can't be prosecuted for causing the death of that fetus? Even if an autopsy shows the baby died from cocaine poisoning?

 

No. It's VERY explicit that pregnant women can't be charged for killing their own unborn fetus. In fact, I don't believe Kentucky has any laws allowing for prosecution of pregnant women that harm their own fetus in any way.

I am shocked and disgusted at the same time. :ohbrother:

No. It's VERY explicit that pregnant women can't be charged for killing their own unborn fetus. In fact, I don't believe Kentucky has any laws allowing for prosecution of pregnant women that harm their own fetus in any way.

Healthcare professionals must test newborns for prenatal drug exposure when there is suspicion of maternal drug abuse...are they then charged? I know this is different from an unborn fetus.

I am shocked and disgusted at the same time. :ohbrother:

 

There is a current House Bill on this subject in Frankfort...

HB 136/LM/CI (BR 818) - R. Henderson

AN ACT relating to substance endangerment of a child prior to birth. Create a new section of KRS Chapter 530 relating to family offenses, to create the crime of substance endangerment of a child prior to birth when a mother's use of alcohol or controlled substances prior to birth results in the birth of a child with substance abuse problems or serious physical injury.

(Prefiled by the sponsor(s).) Jan 5-introduced in House; to Judiciary (H)

Healthcare professionals must test newborns for prenatal drug exposure when there is suspicion of maternal drug abuse...are they then charged? I know this is different from an unborn fetus.

 

Right, they absolutely test for drug exposure for a variety of reasons, but I don't believe charging the mother with a crime on the back end is one of those reasons.

 

My brother-in-law is a hospital pediatrician. I know that where he is, sometimes babies come out addicted to drugs so if they test positive, they actually keep the babies there for detox often times against what the mother wants, but it has to be done.

When does science tell us the fertilized egg, zygote, whatever you call it, become a genetically distinct human organism?

That is a different question. As spindoc stated above, science has not given us an answer as to when "life begin." You stated that it had.

Agreed, and everyone at least so far has the same opinion.

 

Then why is abortion not murder?

 

That is not a scientific fact. Science has not determined when life begins.

The whole "when does life begin" issue has been hard for me. I personally am against abortion and would never have one, but without feeling comfortable with an answer to that question, I don't feel like I can be against it legally. That also makes it difficult for me to decide "when is it too late to have an abortion?" I just don't know. There has to be a cut off time, but I just don't know what that it. Spindoc reports a baby surviving at 20 weeks. I'd be fine with that being the cut-off.

 

I do find it hypocritical if someone is anti-abortion (because it takes a life) but gives an exception for rape or incest. If abortion takes a life, why do those children not have a right to life?

I do find it hypocritical if someone is anti-abortion (because it takes a life) but gives an exception for rape or incest. If abortion takes a life, why do those children not have a right to life?

I agree those children deserve the same chance, even if they are given up for adoption.

That is not a scientific fact. Science has not determined when life begins.

I think there is much conjecture on that as many doctors have concluded that life begins at conception. As has the Legislature of this and many other states.

That is not a scientific fact. Science has not determined when life begins.

With all due respect, it's semantics. Is it not "science" that displays a heartbeat on ultrasound? We, myself at the top of the list, often refer to science like its a panel of long bearded labcoat guys burdened with the responsibility of telling us all where all the black lines are. This is a moral issue. Never has been nor will be a science issue. There may be a panel of judges that make that determination, but there will never be a scientific stance on this one in my opinion.

Edited July 30, 201412 yr by spindoc