It would legally be murder, that’s how the law is written, that much I’m not arguing.
But would it be malicious? No. Again, I think you’re using the wrong word here for some reason. Killing does not equal malicious. In order for an act to be malicious there must be the intent to see another suffere, or extreme ill will/spite. I highly doubt that there would be such an intent if a parent killed their child to save them from suffering.[/quote]
You’re not saying there is not some kind of selfish thoughts that would be going through my mind if I killed my four year old just because she had cancer and was in pain? That is a malicious act:
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse[quote]
The term humane has absolutely nothing to do with thinking that animals are humans. The concept of being humane is (at least in theory) a uniquely human one, as only humans have the self awareness to choose to be merciful, compassionate and kind (the definition of being humane).[/quote]
Yes, I only choose to be merciful, compassionate and kind to humans, this idea of modern day thought were you treat your dogs like they are humans is what I am talking about. I am saying people who say be humane to dogs are soft. Yes, dogs are to be treated right, but right does not mean equivalent to a human.
No, read it again. What I was saying that even though you might have trouble killing a dog, even though I personally do not. It is thousand fold harder to kill a human, outside the womb especially. I say outside the womb because democrats have come out and said that if the mother does not want the baby she does not have to keep it. That’s woman’s rights, but what if the baby is a woman doesn’t she have the right to voice her opinion?
Yes, good sir please tell me what malicious means.
[quote]
That’s great. I’m definitely not against alternative options to abortion. If the mothers choose to do this, then more power to them.
Obviously you can’t do anything about it. Like you said, if it looked suspicious it would be investigated.
I agree about not charging the soldiers unless it is intentional or negligent. Thanks for clarifying your position on murder.
So, it wasn’t you who wrote?:
Someone hacked into your account and wrote the above?
If not, then yeah, you did say that a pre-emptive strike would be murder.
Technically you’re right, Bush would be charged with war crimes. But morally, is there any difference between killing an innocent in war or in a civilian context? No, there’s not. Legally there is, but not morally.
LOL. I agree with some of those things and disagree with others. Glad we agree on not doing the pre-emptive strike thing though. :)[/quote]
I did not mean that military and civilian situation was the same.
It would legally be murder, that’s how the law is written, that much I’m not arguing.
But would it be malicious? No. Again, I think you’re using the wrong word here for some reason. Killing does not equal malicious. In order for an act to be malicious there must be the intent to see another suffere, or extreme ill will/spite. I highly doubt that there would be such an intent if a parent killed their child to save them from suffering.
You’re not saying there is not some kind of selfish thoughts that would be going through my mind if I killed my four year old just because she had cancer and was in pain? That is a malicious act:
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse
[/quote]
Oh, ok so you’re using it in the legalistic context. Well, in that case the above would technically be malicious, but abortion would still not be (since it isn’t unlawful).
Being kind, merciful, and compassionate need not be reserved to only humans. And simply because you display such traits towards other living beings does not mean that you are treating them like they are human.
Ok, so you’re basically agreeing with what I said then. Abortion is not malicious but instead would be far more devoid of malice than killing a dog, because human life is (generally anyhow) seen as being more precious than an animal’s life.
Well, technically the baby could not be a woman (a “woman” is a fully developed, sexually mature female human, which a fetus is not) but I see your point. The other problem is that a fetus cannot voice any opinion, they are totally and utterly dependent on the woman who is allowing them to gestate in their womb to decide to keep them alive and allow them to continue developing.
Now, would I be against your alternative suggestion of having the fetus removed as soon as it could survive on it’s own and then given up for adoption? No. I actually think that’s a pretty good idea. Still doesn’t change my mind about abortion being a malicious act though.
Malicious-adj.- having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful, spiteful
or
characterized by malice
motivated by wrongful, vicious, or mischievous purposes
Malice-n.-
the desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite
Law- the intent without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another
Yet another definition of malice would be “feeling a need to see others suffer”.
Synonyms for malice include:
-spite
-spitefulness
-venom
-evilness
-cruelness
-meanness
Does that really sound like characteristics of how a mother would feel towards a potential child? Definitely doesn’t sound like any I’ve ever known.
Technically and legally they aren’t. I am not arguing that you should prosecute soldiers for things they might do in the heat of battle, when their lives are at stake and they have to react in the blink of an eye. That’s a terrible situation to be put in, and I agree that it wouldn’t be fair to legally punish them for making a mistake (unless it was obvious that they were negligent, like you said).
Morally though, it wouldn’t be much different than manslaughter. Lots of vets have serious emotional issues when the come back from war as the result of such unfortunate events. Just the same as a civilian would probably feel tremendous guilt for accidentally killing another innocent civilian.
But, the people who “pull the strings” so to speak need to be held to a higher standard IMO. They have greater control/power, and thus should also have a greater responsibility to use that power ethically. That’s why I’m saying that the politicians in charge or declaring war(s) should be prosecuted should they do so without just cause, or for unethical reasons.
Sento, I think in the description of malice you sunk your own ship. Deliberately harmful. Yea, Abortion is deliberate and harmful to the fetus. There is no benevolant reson to get an abortion, there is only selfishness, which is a negative human trait.
Also, you are making up scenarios and trying to pin us down on specific words. I really don’t give a shit if abortion can be defined as malice or not. It’s a human life and the mother is killing it and it’s not because of self defense. The fetus does not pose any direct harm to any living being and therefore should be allowed to come to term and live it’s life. You are making this so complex when really it is simple and cut and dry.
It would legally be murder, that’s how the law is written, that much I’m not arguing.
But would it be malicious? No. Again, I think you’re using the wrong word here for some reason. Killing does not equal malicious. In order for an act to be malicious there must be the intent to see another suffere, or extreme ill will/spite. I highly doubt that there would be such an intent if a parent killed their child to save them from suffering.
You’re not saying there is not some kind of selfish thoughts that would be going through my mind if I killed my four year old just because she had cancer and was in pain? That is a malicious act:
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse
[/quote]
Oh, ok so you’re using it in the legalistic context. Well, in that case the above would technically be malicious, but abortion would still not be (since it isn’t unlawful).
Being kind, merciful, and compassionate need not be reserved to only humans. And simply because you display such traits towards other living beings does not mean that you are treating them like they are human.
Ok, so you’re basically agreeing with what I said then. Abortion is not malicious but instead would be far more devoid of malice than killing a dog, because human life is (generally anyhow) seen as being more precious than an animal’s life.
Well, technically the baby could not be a woman (a “woman” is a fully developed, sexually mature female human, which a fetus is not) but I see your point. The other problem is that a fetus cannot voice any opinion, they are totally and utterly dependent on the woman who is allowing them to gestate in their womb to decide to keep them alive and allow them to continue developing.
Now, would I be against your alternative suggestion of having the fetus removed as soon as it could survive on it’s own and then given up for adoption? No. I actually think that’s a pretty good idea. Still doesn’t change my mind about abortion being a malicious act though.
Malicious-adj.- having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful, spiteful
or
characterized by malice
motivated by wrongful, vicious, or mischievous purposes
Malice-n.- 1) the desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite
2) Law- the intent without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another
Yet another definition of malice would be “feeling a need to see others suffer”.
Synonyms for malice include:
-spite
-spitefulness
-venom
-evilness
-cruelness
-meanness
Does that really sound like characteristics of how a mother would feel towards a potential child? Definitely doesn’t sound like any I’ve ever known.
Technically and legally they aren’t. I am not arguing that you should prosecute soldiers for things they might do in the heat of battle, when their lives are at stake and they have to react in the blink of an eye. That’s a terrible situation to be put in, and I agree that it wouldn’t be fair to legally punish them for making a mistake (unless it was obvious that they were negligent, like you said).
Morally though, it wouldn’t be much different than manslaughter. Lots of vets have serious emotional issues when the come back from war as the result of such unfortunate events. Just the same as a civilian would probably feel tremendous guilt for accidentally killing another innocent civilian.
But, the people who “pull the strings” so to speak need to be held to a higher standard IMO. They have greater control/power, and thus should also have a greater responsibility to use that power ethically. That’s why I’m saying that the politicians in charge or declaring war(s) should be prosecuted should they do so without just cause, or for unethical reasons. [/quote]
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Sento, I think in the description of malice you sunk your own ship. Deliberately harmful. Yea, Abortion is deliberate and harmful to the fetus. There is no benevolant reson to get an abortion, there is only selfishness, which is a negative human trait.
V[/quote]
Way to take a part of the definition out of context without taking into consideration the whole definition. You have to read the entire definition to understand what “deliberately harmful” is referring to in this case. It means the desire to deliberately cause harm and suffering; it is a spiteful act. This is not present in an abortion (at least none that I have ever heard of).
Again, would you say that putting down a sick dog, or taking a human who is suffering from tremendous pain with no possibility of getting better off of life support would be causing deliberate harm to the individual? You’re essentially killing them right? So, yeah it technically would be. But it’s still not malicious.
Really the only issue I have at this point is with calling abortion malicious. I think we’ve pretty much cleared up all other misunderstandings/questions that I had when I got into this discussion.
As far as benevolent reasons, well that really depends on what the mother believes and the specific situation now isn’t it? Maybe by your belief system there is no benevolent reason, but perhaps the mother doesn’t believe the same as you, and therefore there are.
Again, she could be choosing to spare the child of suffering (terminal disease, living in an area where it would starve to death, or be horribly abused/sexually assaulted and wind up with a terminal disease, like in parts of Africa [obviously I’m not just sticking to America for my examples]), or she could be in a horrible financial situation where she could not support the child (but in this case she would obviously also have the option of adoption, still I don’t think that either choice would be malicious or selfish though).
Also, I suppose that you guys that are for adoption over abortion would be all for a universal health system to pay for all of the OBGYN visits, check-ups, and medications/vaccinations that all of these new unaborted children would require (and that’s just the healthy ones, let’s not forget those who would have been aborted for reasons of terminal illness or other conditions which require a lifetime of health care)? And I suppose that you wouldn’t be against the government taxing you to do it?
And I suppose that you’re all for raising taxes to support the rising costs in supporting the social services which would also accompany finding homes for so many new children coming into the world, not to mention new housing to be able to shelter and feed those who haven’t yet found a new home? And of course I’m sure you’re all for welfare, since the mothers who choose to have 10 kids, rather than aborting 8 of them, would need to be rewarded and supported for their benevolence in actually having the kids rather than aborting them.
And how about the government seizing land from land owners to be able to house all of these new people that you’re bringing into the world? After all there is only so much land, and seeing as how no more kids will be aborted, you’re going to have an exponential increase in the rate of population growth. And of course this is also going to put a huge strain on the environment, natural resource supply, and food and water supplies.
Either that or the government is going to have to put some kind of limit on the number of children that a family can have (kind of like China has). But I doubt you’re going to get much support for that policy.
Obviously many of the above problems already exist, and I’m not saying that abortion is the cure or necessarily a “good” thing. But I sometimes wonder if people are actually thinking things out over the long term.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Also, you are making up scenarios and trying to pin us down on specific words. I really don’t give a shit if abortion can be defined as malice or not. It’s a human life and the mother is killing it and it’s not because of self defense. The fetus does not pose any direct harm to any living being and therefore should be allowed to come to term and live it’s life. You are making this so complex when really it is simple and cut and dry.
V[/quote]
Look, if you guys want to believe that abortion is “wrong”, then that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I may not agree with you in some cases, but I respect your right to believe what you choose to.
But using a word like malicious to describe abortion just isn’t accurate. If you (or Chris) would just let that go there wouldn’t be any more argument from me.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Also, you are making up scenarios and trying to pin us down on specific words. I really don’t give a shit if abortion can be defined as malice or not. It’s a human life and the mother is killing it and it’s not because of self defense. The fetus does not pose any direct harm to any living being and therefore should be allowed to come to term and live it’s life. You are making this so complex when really it is simple and cut and dry.
V[/quote]
Look, if you guys want to believe that abortion is “wrong”, then that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I may not agree with you in some cases, but I respect your right to believe what you choose to.
But using a word like malicious to describe abortion just isn’t accurate. If you (or Chris) would just let that go there wouldn’t be any more argument from me.[/quote]
But what about ruthlessly cutting up and vacuuming out a person is not malicious?