Abortion - No Matter What

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
There is an inconsistency in being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.[/quote]

This I don’t agree with.

The difference between the two is one is an innocet party and the other is guilty of robbing someone else of life and liberty. As a society we should protect the innocent and punish the guilty accordingly.

[/quote]

Don’t get me wrong-I 110% support the right of the victim to defend himself by any means necessary. Killing someone when they no longer are an imminent threat, though, is murder. [/quote]

I mean, I don’t really care what you call it. Call it murder. I’m 100% in favor of the death penalty. Rabid dogs should be put down imo.

What if person A kills person B and survives. He’s incarcerated, released after 20 years, and then kills person C. What then? [/quote]

This would be debatable if we had a perfect criminal justice system. We don’t have anything resembling a perfect system and plenty of people in jail have been found innocent at a later date. We have had numerous cases of innocent people on death row who were later proven to be not guilty.

We thought a dog was rabid and worth putting down but we were wrong. Knowing this I have no idea how anyone could support the death penalty.

202

I think the word “murder” gets thrown around way too much when these discussions happen. The word “murder” has a very precise meaning, just as “theory” does. But “murder” is an emotionally-charged word, and calling something murder when it isn’t just shows we are allowing emotion to dictate our argument.

Abortion and capital punishment both kill human beings. This is called “homicide”. Whether it is justifiable or not is what we are discussing.

203

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think the word “murder” gets thrown around way too much when these discussions happen. The word “murder” has a very precise meaning, just as “theory” does. But “murder” is an emotionally-charged word, and calling something murder when it isn’t just shows we are allowing emotion to dictate our argument.

Abortion and capital punishment both kill human beings. This is called “homicide”. Whether it is justifiable or not is what we are discussing.[/quote]

Good call. Equating taking someone’s welfare away as “homicide” is asinine.

204

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Our justice system also draws a distinction between salvage, whereby to take a piece of junk from someone who doesn’t want it anymore, and theft, where you take the same piece of junk from someone who does. Same thing, only with babies.[/quote]

And what happens when the father wants to keep the baby but the mother aborts it anyways?

205

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I should say that though I am personally opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t be as strongly so if someone who murdered a pregnant woman could not face a stiffer penalty because of that. I just want consistency and justice-not a system run by emotions. I am a fan of the rule of law, not of the rule of the moment.[/quote]

If you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with double murder.[/quote]

Exactly, and what sense does that make in a country with legalized abortion?

206

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yup, like I said, we just don’t agree and it’s largely irrelevant as the death penalty is quickly going away. [/quote]

I just wish it was going away for consistency’s sake and not for political reasons.

207

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think the word “murder” gets thrown around way too much when these discussions happen. The word “murder” has a very precise meaning, just as “theory” does. But “murder” is an emotionally-charged word, and calling something murder when it isn’t just shows we are allowing emotion to dictate our argument.

Abortion and capital punishment both kill human beings. This is called “homicide”. Whether it is justifiable or not is what we are discussing.[/quote]

This is true only because the government decides what constitutes murder since “unlawful” is part of the definition. Abortion and capital punishment are both the killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.

208

[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, it is TWO LIVES. One who is conscious and one who is not and isn’t a fully developed human being yet.
[/quote]
What is consciousness? What is a fully developed human being?

You’re also talking about the entire course of the baby’s life.

How far does this right to protect one’s own body extend? When do I have the right to defend an innocent person’s body?

209

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think the word “murder” gets thrown around way too much when these discussions happen. The word “murder” has a very precise meaning, just as “theory” does. But “murder” is an emotionally-charged word, and calling something murder when it isn’t just shows we are allowing emotion to dictate our argument.

Abortion and capital punishment both kill human beings. This is called “homicide”. Whether it is justifiable or not is what we are discussing.[/quote]

Abortion is the premeditated taking of an innocent life. That equals murder.

210

[quote]cryogen wrote:
You’re right, it’s simple biology, but it’s clearly a subject you’re not very familiar with. However, it can’t be independent because otherwise there would be no point in a gestation period would there? If something can’t respire for itself or eat for itself, how can you make the argument that it’s completely independent?
[/quote]
To quote others on this thread, are you ready to take this argument to its logical conclusion?

Except for respiration, I could make the exact same argument for my 3 and 1 year old.

Oh please do explain.

211

The question here is: When does life begin? That is the one and only question. If you believe that a baby is not alive until birth, then you are ok with someone who walks up to a pregnant woman and punches her in the belly, causing a miscarriage only being guilty of assault. Which is fine if that’s what you believe. But don’t be wishy washy. Choose what you believe and have a conviction. Either you believe its right or you believe its wrong there is not middle ground.

212

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Our justice system also draws a distinction between salvage, whereby to take a piece of junk from someone who doesn’t want it anymore, and theft, where you take the same piece of junk from someone who does. Same thing, only with babies.[/quote]

And what happens when the father wants to keep the baby but the mother aborts it anyways?[/quote]

Same thing as what happens when the husband wants to keep their old comfy sofa but the wife gets rid of it while he’s at work. They get into a fight, but there’s not much he can do.

213

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Our justice system also draws a distinction between salvage, whereby to take a piece of junk from someone who doesn’t want it anymore, and theft, where you take the same piece of junk from someone who does. Same thing, only with babies.[/quote]

And what happens when the father wants to keep the baby but the mother aborts it anyways?[/quote]

Same thing as what happens when the husband wants to keep their old comfy sofa but the wife gets rid of it while he’s at work. They get into a fight, but there’s not much he can do. [/quote]

Or purchases a sofa, doesn’t like the way it fits in the living room and returns it before the husband gets home.

216

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Our justice system also draws a distinction between salvage, whereby to take a piece of junk from someone who doesn’t want it anymore, and theft, where you take the same piece of junk from someone who does. Same thing, only with babies.[/quote]

And what happens when the father wants to keep the baby but the mother aborts it anyways?[/quote]

Same thing as what happens when the husband wants to keep their old comfy sofa but the wife gets rid of it while he’s at work. They get into a fight, but there’s not much he can do. [/quote]
Yeah, not much aside from criminal prosecution. It’s not likely to happen over an old couch, but there is case history over cheated spouses giving away property or selling it for a song.

217

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The question here is: When does life begin? That is the one and only question. If you believe that a baby is not alive until birth, then you are ok with someone who walks up to a pregnant woman and punches her in the belly, causing a miscarriage only being guilty of assault. Which is fine if that’s what you believe. But don’t be wishy washy. Choose what you believe and have a conviction. Either you believe its right or you believe its wrong there is not middle ground.[/quote]

Life begins at the moment a sperm combines with an egg. It is, in fact, human life, because it is comprised of human cells. Until it attaches to the uterine lining, it is very vulnerable life, with a very low probability of survival. The probability of it surviving increases with every passing day. But the odds are still pretty good that a first-tremester baby will end up as a blood clot on a maxi-pad.

So alive, check. Human, check. Viable outside the womb? Hmmm. Jury’s still out on that, but it looks like 20 weeks is about bare minimum, and even then there are no guarantees.

A better question is, when does consciousness begin? Our tools are inadequate for the task of measuring consciousness, but an EEG detecting brain activity is a pretty good indication. If a man is brain-dead, that is, he has a no brain activity as detected on an EEG, is it murder to stop keeping him alive?

If not, then perhaps we can make consciousness our gold standard: killing a conscious being without cause constitutes a crime. I know this won’t satisfy the diehards like Pat who would save every last zygote, but how about it? If there’s activity on the EEG, then it’s a human being with a functioning mind, and it’s not okay to kill it anymore.

218

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The question here is: When does life begin? That is the one and only question. If you believe that a baby is not alive until birth, then you are ok with someone who walks up to a pregnant woman and punches her in the belly, causing a miscarriage only being guilty of assault. Which is fine if that’s what you believe. But don’t be wishy washy. Choose what you believe and have a conviction. Either you believe its right or you believe its wrong there is not middle ground.[/quote]

Life begins at the moment a sperm combines with an egg. It is, in fact, human life, because it is comprised of human cells. Until it attaches to the uterine lining, it is very vulnerable life, with a very low probability of survival. The probability of it surviving increases with every passing day. But the odds are still pretty good that a first-tremester baby will end up as a blood clot on a maxi-pad.

So alive, check. Human, check. Viable outside the womb? Hmmm. Jury’s still out on that, but it looks like 20 weeks is about bare minimum, and even then there are no guarantees.

A better question is, when does consciousness begin? Our tools are inadequate for the task of measuring consciousness, but an EEG detecting brain activity is a pretty good indication. If a man is brain-dead, that is, he has a no brain activity as detected on an EEG, is it murder to stop keeping him alive?

If not, then perhaps we can make consciousness our gold standard: killing a conscious being without cause constitutes a crime. I know this won’t satisfy the diehards like Pat who would save every last zygote, but how about it? If there’s activity on the EEG, then it’s a human being with a functioning mind, and it’s not okay to kill it anymore.[/quote]

Good points, but there is a distinct difference between the brain dead man (most likely due to trauma of some sort) and an unborn child that does not yet show brain activity. The man’s chances of regaining brain activity are slim and is probably only alive due to the machines he is attached to. The unborn baby is in the process of gaining consciousness and is very likely to exhibit brain activity in the near future.