[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
Think about all those possible humans that we could be creating if women were always pregnant. This is a great tragedy. So many people who could be alive who aren’t. They must be so sad they don’t exist. [/quote]
Why are you guys bothering with this? Seriously, if he thinks something like the above is germane, and an effective counter-argument, I wouldn’t even bother.[/quote]
Rofl dude. Did you even read my previous post? I respond to shit like, “aren’t you glad you weren’t aborted” with shit like the above. Selective reading much?
[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
Think about all those possible humans that we could be creating if women were always pregnant. This is a great tragedy. So many people who could be alive who aren’t. They must be so sad they don’t exist. [/quote]
Why are you guys bothering with this? Seriously, if he thinks something like the above is germane, and an effective counter-argument, I wouldn’t even bother.[/quote]
Rofl dude. Did you even read my previous post? I respond to shit like, “aren’t you glad you weren’t aborted” with shit like the above. Selective reading much?[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
We care about not murdering humans because there is no point of murdering a human.
When someone gets an abortion there is no chance to sustain the life of that baby, and neither does abortion sustain (actually creates a higher chance of problems) the mother’s life. She is not eating the baby for food, she is discarding it for selfish reasons.[/quote]
Well there we disagree. There is a point in “murdering a human” if it means getting an abortion. Ask someone who has had an abortion why they did it.[/quote]
So you do advocate murdering humans, thank you for answering the question. This will be my last post to you because you some day will probably murder someone and say, well there is a point where murdering a human is justified because of metaphysical bullshit about consciousness.
You admit it, you do not consider it murder unless they have a fully developed human consciousness. So, if someone has a brain disease that affects there ability to understand their surroundings then it is A-Okay to knock them out of the gene pool. Okay, I get you now. I guess since little kids don’t have a fully developed human consciousness they are fair game too.
Your “sureness” fails, because I have no qualms about killing a dog, I’m a cold heartless bastard in the eyes of some. I won’t needlessly kill a dog, just like there is not very many reasons to kill a human, and I haven’t heard a good reason yet about why abortion should be allowed. However, I’ll pull out my shotgun or my rifle and blow a hole through a feral dogs head any day.
And if there was a job that said that for every dog that is killed while on the job, an abortion appointment would be stopped and the mother would take it to term. I’d go buy two truck sized loads of buck shot and .243 and a cattle piston.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Your “sureness” fails, because I have no qualms about killing a dog, I’m a cold heartless bastard in the eyes of some. I won’t needlessly kill a dog, just like there is not very many reasons to kill a human, and I haven’t heard a good reason yet about why abortion should be allowed. However, I’ll pull out my shotgun or my rifle and blow a hole through a feral dogs head any day.
And if there was a job that said that for every dog that is killed while on the job, an abortion appointment would be stopped and the mother would take it to term. I’d go buy two truck sized loads of buck shot and .243 and a cattle piston.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
/deleted with the end of my last post for order.
If the soldiers however are the ones at fault for the collateral damage themselves by being neglectful or malicious in the actions (mowing down a village for no reason, etc.) then they should be taken court martial and charges be pressed.[/quote]
But the distinction between murder and killing is one that seems to be different depending upon the social/ethical standards that one was raised with. Some people believe that killing for any reason is murder (even plants and animals in some cases), others believe that killing for self defense isn’t murder, others believe that killing for the “good of the many” is not murder, etc…
I also question whether you actually know anyone who has had an abortion, because there is nothing “malicious” about it in all the cases that I have personally known. It’s an extremely difficult and emotional decision to be made and not one that is done with the coldheartedness which you seem to ascribe it.
What I was trying to illustrate with the above questions is that just about everyone believes that killing is justified if “insert exception to the rule” occurs. What those specific conditions are though can vary depending on the social/ethical code that the person subscribes to.
What if, like Vegita said, the miscarriage was due to the mother abusing drugs? Then should she be charged with manslaughter? What if she slipped and fell down the stairs? What if it was due to poor nutrition?
My point is that it’s seldom as black and white as people would like it to be. Each situation should be looked at on an individual basis. The same thing is true in the case of intentionally killing another human being (whatever level of development they be at).
In regards to the president situation, by acknowledging that collateral damage will occur in war you are acknowledging that by declaring war the president is willfully declaring the killing of innocents. You as a civilian realize that collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of modern warfare, so it’s pretty safe to say that the president is also aware of this reality. Now, whether that means that he is guilty of “murder” again depends on what ehtical model you’re using to judge the situation by.
Let’s say for example that there was a group of terrorists barracked in a building with innocent hostages and you knew that if you didn’t put an end to the terrorists lives that they would kill millions of other innocent civilians. Let’s assume that there was no way that you could get to and kill the terrorists without also killing the civilians. Would then killing the civilians be considered murder? If yes, they why? If no, then why not?
And to make it so that you could not emotionally distance yourself from the situation, let’s say that your family was among the hostages (god forbid that you should ever have to face such a choice, I truly hope that you nor anyone else reading this does).
[/quote]
On the distinction between murder and killing does depend on social and ethical standards. However, I do not want to become the person that sits in the Ivory tower that says this is right and this is wrong. These are the principals I can see that make sense, listed below:
Self Defense
War/Freedom of tyranny
other situations but I’d have to look at them individually as nothing else comes to mind.
I can confirm that I have know women who have had an abortion. There is nothing “malicious” about cutting and tearing out a fetus into pieces so that they can remove it from the womb while it is still alive, or putting chemicals into the womb? If I came at you like Samson and tore you in half are you telling me you would not consider my behavior malicious?
What Vegita said, I agree partially. I do not think the state should get in the doctor-patient relationship, but just like it is now, if a doctor sees some kind of abuse of patient or someone else by the patient or they confide in their doctor they are abusing something then the doctor has the responsibility to report to the authorities. So, if a mother was abusing drugs while pregnant and caused a miscarriage, the doctor should report it to the authorities so it can be investigated. If a mother was carrying her baby in her arms and fell down the stairs and killed the baby, would you charge her. Probably not, and less likely if the baby is in the womb because how many mothers you know that fall down the stairs to kill their baby.
This is why we have individual trails and a jury, because you have to look at it individually. We do not live in a monarchy so I do not think the above actually happens.
Well if Congress declared War (which is what they do not the Presidential branch) for the sake of defending our Union from a state outside the Union, then killing innocents is very unlikely, unlike our War on Terror where there is no standing army we are fighting.
Well, I like to take Ron Paul’s ideas on the situation of terrorists, if they are killing Americans then they are our problem. If they are killing some other states people that is their problem. And if they are killing Americans have the Presidential branch not declare war, and just have the U.S. or State Congress declare a bounty on the terrorist. See how fast those leaders last with a couple of million dollars for their capture.
On the hypothetical situation of the barracked terrorist, I am not sure of the situation. Are you talking about if we breached the door it would kill the people inside, or more like if we breached the door the terrorist would kill the civilians. Either way, I am not an expert on fucking with fox holing barracked armed criminals, maybe HolyMac can answer this one if he came in here, but I have no real knowledge or learned knowledge to really answer this question. All I could say is that as long as the team was not negligent in their actions and tried to save the civilians then no fault can be placed on them.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Your “sureness” fails, because I have no qualms about killing a dog, I’m a cold heartless bastard in the eyes of some. I won’t needlessly kill a dog, just like there is not very many reasons to kill a human, and I haven’t heard a good reason yet about why abortion should be allowed. However, I’ll pull out my shotgun or my rifle and blow a hole through a feral dogs head any day.
And if there was a job that said that for every dog that is killed while on the job, an abortion appointment would be stopped and the mother would take it to term. I’d go buy two truck sized loads of buck shot and .243 and a cattle piston.[/quote]
I was right. You are illiterate.[/quote]
I catch you with your own words, and you just call me an illiterate, good counter-argument. I wonder if Johnny Cochran used that one?O
[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
LMAO. I said that you would have no qualms about killing and you don’t. Good “catch” there, Sparky. Thats like kindergarten reading level stuff. [/quote]
I don’t have qualms about killing, what’s the big deal with killing something? You a softy now, save the trees and dogs from their human demise?
I said, if you can read, that killing and murdering are two different things. Good “catch” there, savant. That’s like totally pre-school read level stuff.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I always wonder where the gals are when this topic comes up.I guess they’re tired of being told by all the never to be pregnant vocal guys what they should or should not be allowed to do.Oh well…
Yea, when telling someone what to do involves telling them not to kill other human beings. It doesn’t make them any different than any man I would also tell to not kill another human being. You just like to spin the argument so that you attach your view of an embryo as not human to my beliefs scientific, or religious or whatever and then demonize me based on your belief systems. If you would take two seconds and look at it from my belief system that an embryo is in fact a human being a deserving of protection under societal laws and natural laws, I.E. the right to life, then I’m not telling a woman what to do, only that killing the human growing iside of her will be prosecuted as killing a human.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, though that would be nice. Come up with some scientific argument that is valid that shows us that an embryo is not human, and we will be able to have a nice debate. If you just want me to change what I believe to fit your view of the world, well then shouldn’t I expect you to do the same thing? Heck I’m even providing scientific data to help you on your path to my viewpoint, you give me nothing but sarcasm.
V
You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about your viewpoint.I don’t.I don’t expect you to change.I don’t want to change your viewpoint.You feel like I’ve demonized you?Where?Show me.You’ll look long and hard,but I’ll wait.Is it because I believe women have the right to choose what they can and cannot do as regards something that ,unfortunately for you,is their domain?That makes you feel persecuted?So disagreement equals persecution?
Tell me,do the innocents of wars that are euphemistically dubbed ‘collateral damage’ have any less right to live,in your point of view?As I mentioned earlier,IVF? How’s your viewpoint on fertility practices in general?What I would like is some philosophical consistency.Either killing innocent human beings is wrong,or it isn’t.That’s when all the “Well,no but,in some cases…(insert favorite scenario here) it’s sad but unavoidable” shuffling starts.
And that’s even before we get to the point of where does the line in the sand stand as far as what is or what isn’t a ‘human being’ starts to get debated.
I believe that the morality of these things is between each person and whatever moral authority or code they adhere to.Women have been having abortions since the beginning of time,and will continue to do so.Do you think you or any other swinging cock will change that?Why do you think that is?Would you rather have it go into the back alleys again?
I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.
[/quote]
To give you a quick answer to a question you posed and then perhaps projected a little bit on, yes I do view every single “innocent” human life as having the right to live. Doesn’t matter if that life was made in a clinic, via the old fashioned dick to pussy transaction, or if your mom sat on a toilet seat with cum on it and get herself preggers. As a society, we should strive to protect the lives of our fellow humans and prosecute those who violate those rights. So basically what I am saying is I am all for prosecuting anyone who has taken by active decision, another human life under murder 1. Accidental deaths can be handled by manslaughter or other lesser charges but no one gets a pass.
Obviously in this barbaric time we live in, it’s going to be really hard to hold our own military to the same standards. However, I am at total disagreement with our current military ventures and believe we should pull our guys back to our borders until someone puts a bomb on our soil or tries to put boots on our soil. I think we should be fighting terrorists with the CIA, undercover special ops guys who go in and either eliminate known terrorists or bring them in to face thier crimes.
This whole thing is off the topic though. Was my argument too strong for you to just answer straight up? Why make me chase all these tangents down. Of course I have to or else you will accuse me of dodging your questions or accusations.
To get to the part of you demonizing me, you didn’t demonize me specifically, you just demonized anyone who was pro life with the post about running the women out of the discussion. We ran them out because we are insensitive and will never understand the pain they go through yet we sit and make these decisions for them or try to. That was your point, and it’s main spear is an attempt to make pro life people look like insensitive men with no respect for women. Unfortunatley it’s not true and I suspect that my argument got you uncomfortable else someone who doesn’t care what I think or believe wouldn’t have typed up a 5 paragraph response to my post.
Now back to my origional request, bring some science to the table telling me exactly when a human comes into existance. For you to say it’s not relevant is assenine and you my friend are just dodging. Do that or go away.
V[/quote]
So, are you suggesting that a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? Because, in a sense she unintentionally killed the fetus inside of her?
Or, do you then think that any president/world leader who declares war should also be charged with murder/manslaughter since “collateral damage” is pretty much an inescapable reality of modern warfare/bombing? A fact which they must have known before declaring war.
Or, even if by some miracle no civilians were killed during a war, that say any president/world leader who declared war on a non-invading country (since I think most would agree that self defense does not constitute murder) should be charged with mass murder? After all, many of the enemy troops that were killed in such a war may have simply felt that they were defending themselves (thus justified in their attempts to kill their perceived attackers)?
If not, then do you think that someone who kills someone in defense of their life, or an innocent’s life should also be charged with murder? In other words, do you then believe that there is no situation/occasion where killing is justified?
Not saying that I disagree with your assertion that life is precious, just trying to figure out where (if anywhere) and for what reasons you “draw the line”. And maybe provoking some more discussion about the topic of when (if ever) you/others think that killing is justified.[/quote]
There is a distinction between murder and killing. About the miscarriage, I think I already addressed this, it would be absurd to say anyone is at fault when something, as traumatizing and unfortunate as it is, happens that is obviously out of the control of the mother.
There is a difference between doing something malicious and ending somethings life, and when something happens accidentally.
On the President situation, there is many people in the world who try to press war crimes against Bush and other government officials. However, there will be collateral damage in war, which you try to prevent and if the President advocates or dictates the soldiers should make collateral damage in war then yes they should be pressed with charges.
If the soldiers however are the ones at fault for the collateral damage themselves by being neglectful or malicious in the actions (mowing down a village for no reason, etc.) then they should be taken court martial and charges be pressed.[/quote]
But the distinction between murder and killing is one that seems to be different depending upon the social/ethical standards that one was raised with. Some people believe that killing for any reason is murder (even plants and animals in some cases), others believe that killing for self defense isn’t murder, others believe that killing for the “good of the many” is not murder, etc…
I also question whether you actually know anyone who has had an abortion, because there is nothing “malicious” about it in all the cases that I have personally known. It’s an extremely difficult and emotional decision to be made and not one that is done with the coldheartedness which you seem to ascribe it.
What I was trying to illustrate with the above questions is that just about everyone believes that killing is justified if “insert exception to the rule” occurs. What those specific conditions are though can vary depending on the social/ethical code that the person subscribes to.
What if, like Vegita said, the miscarriage was due to the mother abusing drugs? Then should she be charged with manslaughter? What if she slipped and fell down the stairs? What if it was due to poor nutrition?
My point is that it’s seldom as black and white as people would like it to be. Each situation should be looked at on an individual basis. The same thing is true in the case of intentionally killing another human being (whatever level of development they be at).
In regards to the president situation, by acknowledging that collateral damage will occur in war you are acknowledging that by declaring war the president is willfully declaring the killing of innocents. You as a civilian realize that collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of modern warfare, so it’s pretty safe to say that the president is also aware of this reality. Now, whether that means that he is guilty of “murder” again depends on what ehtical model you’re using to judge the situation by.
Let’s say for example that there was a group of terrorists barrakaded in a building with innocent hostages and you knew that if you didn’t put an end to the terrorists lives that they would kill millions of other innocent civilians. Let’s assume that there was no way that you could get to and kill the terrorists without also killing the civilians. Would then killing the civilians be considered murder? If yes, they why? If no, then why not?
And to make it so that you could not emotionally distance yourself from the situation, let’s say that your family was among the hostages (god forbid that you should ever have to face such a choice, I truly hope that you nor anyone else reading this does).
[/quote]
I appreciate you trying to pin us down on a specific black and white set of rules or whatever, but in reality, having an abortion has absolutely nothing to do with choosing to kill my family which is being held hostage by some extremists who if I don’t kill them all, millions of innocents will die. I mean it’s a nice hypothetical conundrum, but the reality of abortion is not even on the same scale as the example you gave.
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to pin you down on anything. I asked a hypothetical question in hopes to illustrate that what people consider appropriate changes depending on the situation. That there is not as much consistency as people would like to pretend.
Most people would probably answer that killing the innocents would be the right thing to do because it would save millions of other innocents. A sort of “good of the many” utilitarian viewpoint.
Yet, I doubt that a lot of people would be comfortable with applying that same ethical model to an abortion situation.
Dodging the question just proves that you were uncomfortable answering it. Precisely what I hoped would happen. It forced you to really think about your ethical models, that’s what hypothetical questions are supposed to do.
You are for the protecting of human life, so am I.
So, would you say that killing one human to save numerous others would be wrong, or murder? How about killing one human to save two? How about killing one human to save one?
[quote]
Our judicial system has been set up to do percicely what you are worrying about, to determine on an individual basis if a crime has been commited or if an accident has occured. One will result in charges against a responsible party, the other will just be left as it is. That system is not perfect and an innocent person may get tagged with a crime and a guilty person may be not charged when they were in fact responsible for the death, but you can’t justify the slaying of hundreds of thousands of unborn humans because our judicial system isn’t perfect. Hell why don’t we just nuke all of our country so no one is ever wrongly convicted. Makes sense doesn’t it?
V[/quote]
Who is saying/trying to do that?
And I agree with you, what is “wrong” or “right” depends on the situation, which is one thing that I was trying to illustrate with my hypothetical questions. You can’t just narrow it down to “killing of innocents = murder”.
The other thing that I was trying to illustrate is that most people are ok using certain ethical models in certain situatioins, but not in others. Which illustrates their lack of consistency when defining “murder”.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
/deleted with the end of my last post for order.
If the soldiers however are the ones at fault for the collateral damage themselves by being neglectful or malicious in the actions (mowing down a village for no reason, etc.) then they should be taken court martial and charges be pressed.[/quote]
But the distinction between murder and killing is one that seems to be different depending upon the social/ethical standards that one was raised with. Some people believe that killing for any reason is murder (even plants and animals in some cases), others believe that killing for self defense isn’t murder, others believe that killing for the “good of the many” is not murder, etc…
I also question whether you actually know anyone who has had an abortion, because there is nothing “malicious” about it in all the cases that I have personally known. It’s an extremely difficult and emotional decision to be made and not one that is done with the coldheartedness which you seem to ascribe it.
What I was trying to illustrate with the above questions is that just about everyone believes that killing is justified if “insert exception to the rule” occurs. What those specific conditions are though can vary depending on the social/ethical code that the person subscribes to.
What if, like Vegita said, the miscarriage was due to the mother abusing drugs? Then should she be charged with manslaughter? What if she slipped and fell down the stairs? What if it was due to poor nutrition?
My point is that it’s seldom as black and white as people would like it to be. Each situation should be looked at on an individual basis. The same thing is true in the case of intentionally killing another human being (whatever level of development they be at).
In regards to the president situation, by acknowledging that collateral damage will occur in war you are acknowledging that by declaring war the president is willfully declaring the killing of innocents. You as a civilian realize that collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of modern warfare, so it’s pretty safe to say that the president is also aware of this reality. Now, whether that means that he is guilty of “murder” again depends on what ehtical model you’re using to judge the situation by.
Let’s say for example that there was a group of terrorists barracked in a building with innocent hostages and you knew that if you didn’t put an end to the terrorists lives that they would kill millions of other innocent civilians. Let’s assume that there was no way that you could get to and kill the terrorists without also killing the civilians. Would then killing the civilians be considered murder? If yes, they why? If no, then why not?
And to make it so that you could not emotionally distance yourself from the situation, let’s say that your family was among the hostages (god forbid that you should ever have to face such a choice, I truly hope that you nor anyone else reading this does).
[/quote]
On the distinction between murder and killing does depend on social and ethical standards. However, I do not want to become the person that sits in the Ivory tower that says this is right and this is wrong. These are the principals I can see that make sense, listed below:
Self Defense
War/Freedom of tyranny
other situations but I’d have to look at them individually as nothing else comes to mind.
[/quote]
Well, 1 and 2 are closely related, but ok, cool.
I’m also not saying that anyone should take a “holier than thou” mindset. But, are you suggesting that you don’t have an opinion on the subject? That you aren’t trying to tell people what you think is right and wrong?
What about killing someone to save others?
See, but it’s the intent behind the actions that matters.
No, I would not consider most abortioins as being malicious as they are not done with malice in mind. Whereas if you came at me like Samson, that would be done with malicious intent.
Another example would be putting down a sick dog. Would you say that doing so would be a malicious act? Technically you are ending the dog’s life, but you aren’t doing it maliciously.
Actually I believe that prior to the legalization of abortion, throwing oneself down stairs in an attempt to cause a miscarriage wasn’t as uncommon as you make it out to be.
Think about it, how does the doctor know whether the mother fell down the stairs by accident or on purpose? Also, I doubt that many mothers are going to tell their doctors that their miscarriage was due to drug abuse.
True.
Is it though?
Kind of depends on the situation though doesn’t it?
If we’re attacked, like if our soil is invaded or we are bombed, then yeah I can see defending ourselves. Even then though, unless we only fight on our soil and don’t do any bombing of the enemy army’s homeland, then there may still be killing of innocents. Would you argue for example that millions of innocents weren’t killed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake? Still, it put an end to WWII and theoretically saved numerous lives which would have been lost had the war continued. So, was it wrong?
But if we go and invade another country in a “pre-emptive strike” to defend against a possible threat, then killing innocents is most certainly likely.
Agreed about the current situation.
Pretty good philosophy, I’d support that policy.
[quote]
On the hypothetical situation of the barracked terrorist, I am not sure of the situation. Are you talking about if we breached the door it would kill the people inside, or more like if we breached the door the terrorist would kill the civilians. Either way, I am not an expert on fucking with fox holing barracked armed criminals, maybe HolyMac can answer this one if he came in here, but I have no real knowledge or learned knowledge to really answer this question. All I could say is that as long as the team was not negligent in their actions and tried to save the civilians then no fault can be placed on them.[/quote]
I’m actually not looking for a tactical solution to the problem. Let’s assume that there is no possible other choices than, kill everyone in the building, or don’t kill them and by doing so kill millions of other innocent civilians. It’s a purely hypothetical question meant to represent a “no win” situation and force you to consider your ethical viewpoint. Obviously if there were a way to save the civilian hostages and the millions of civilians, then that would be the one we would all choose I’m sure.
I have an opinion on the subject, and yes I believe there is right or wrong. The ivory tower comment was about scholars that are listened to without looking at anything else besides what they say.
Killing someone to save someone else I consider in the Self Defense category. If it doesn’t sustain life, what is it for?
A dog and a human are two different things, I already explained I have no problem with putting down a dog. However, what kind of intent is good when performing an abortion? The fetus has done nothing, is not guilty of anything, yet it is okay to kill it if there is good intent? That makes no sense.
I have an opinion on the subject, and yes I believe there is right or wrong. The ivory tower comment was about scholars that are listened to without looking at anything else besides what they say.
Killing someone to save someone else I consider in the Self Defense category. If it doesn’t sustain life, what is it for?
A dog and a human are two different things, I already explained I have no problem with putting down a dog. However, what kind of intent is good when performing an abortion? The fetus has done nothing, is not guilty of anything, yet it is okay to kill it if there is good intent? That makes no sense. What intent would justify killing an innocent human?
That is what tests are for, mothers get blood test, you can test it for drugs. You can test a baby for drugs if you suspect abuse.
Like I said unless people are negligent there is nothing you can do and it is not murder, this will be the last time I say this. Soldier’s Action = Negligent then it is murdering, otherwise it needs to be left a lone.
If you know anything about war, America is not supposed to be going on any pre-emptive strike. That is the same thing your neighbor being pissed at you so you bust into his house and shot him before he even makes a move to go to your house. If that happened, you’d go to jail for murder.
I have an opinion on the subject, and yes I believe there is right or wrong. The ivory tower comment was about scholars that are listened to without looking at anything else besides what they say.
Killing someone to save someone else I consider in the Self Defense category. If it doesn’t sustain life, what is it for?
A dog and a human are two different things, I already explained I have no problem with putting down a dog. However, what kind of intent is good when performing an abortion? The fetus has done nothing, is not guilty of anything, yet it is okay to kill it if there is good intent? That makes no sense. What intent would justify killing an innocent human?
That is what tests are for, mothers get blood test, you can test it for drugs. You can test a baby for drugs if you suspect abuse.
Like I said unless people are negligent there is nothing you can do and it is not murder, this will be the last time I say this. Soldier’s Action = Negligent then it is murdering, otherwise it needs to be left a lone.
If you know anything about war, America is not supposed to be going on any pre-emptive strike. That is the same thing your neighbor being pissed at you so you bust into his house and shot him before he even makes a move to go to your house. If that happened, you’d go to jail for murder.
I have an opinion on the subject, and yes I believe there is right or wrong. The ivory tower comment was about scholars that are listened to without looking at anything else besides what they say.
Killing someone to save someone else I consider in the Self Defense category. If it doesn’t sustain life, what is it for?
A dog and a human are two different things, I already explained I have no problem with putting down a dog. However, what kind of intent is good when performing an abortion? The fetus has done nothing, is not guilty of anything, yet it is okay to kill it if there is good intent? That makes no sense. What intent would justify killing an innocent human?
[/quote]
You’re skipping over the point, I used the example of putting a dog down because it is an intentional act of killing another living creature (one which may have not done anything to “deserve” being killed) where there is no malicious intent involved. You tried to suggest that abortion was a malicious act, I argued that it isn’t.
I explained why I don’t think it is and tried to use some examples of similar (at least in terms of intent) situations to support my claim. That was just one example that came to mind.
As to what intent would justify it, how about to save the human from suffering? That’s an often present intent in terms of putting down sick or injured animals and is seen as the “humane” thing to do. So, let’s say that (hypothetical situation) the child was diagnosed with a terminal disease which would result in a very short life, filled with painful surgeries and medical procedures.
Would aborting the child (before it ever was fully conscious and/or developed) to save it from such suffering be malicious? If so, why the different standard when it comes to animals as opposed to humans?
How about if there were medical complications that meant that the mother would die if she went to term? Still malicious?
Quite honestly, I don’t think you’ve given even one example of when it would be malicious. And honestly doubt that (save for maybe a pregnant sociopath) you could come up with one. Like I said, maybe malicious just isn’t the word that you’re looking for.
Yeah, that would probably work.
How about throwing oneself down stairs though? How would you possibly test for that?
No, it doesn’t need to be left alone. Maybe you want to leave it alone because it forces you to actually examine your ethical standards, but those aren’t the same thing.
You said that killing an innocent=murder. I gave the example of collateral damage in war (killing of innocent civilians) as an example to either confirm or disprove that definition. If you believe that killing innocents=murder, then collateral damage is murder. If you don’t believe that collateral damage is murder, then it isn’t as simple as killing innocents=murder.
[quote]
If you know anything about war, America is not supposed to be going on any pre-emptive strike. That is the same thing your neighbor being pissed at you so you bust into his house and shot him before he even makes a move to go to your house. If that happened, you’d go to jail for murder.[/quote]
Oh really? Well then, we’d better prosecute Bush, and the then members of the US congress for murder, because I don’t recall the US ever being attacked by Iraq or Afghanistan. I’d say that the war was rather “pre-emptive” wouldn’t you say?
I have an opinion on the subject, and yes I believe there is right or wrong. The ivory tower comment was about scholars that are listened to without looking at anything else besides what they say.
Killing someone to save someone else I consider in the Self Defense category. If it doesn’t sustain life, what is it for?
A dog and a human are two different things, I already explained I have no problem with putting down a dog. However, what kind of intent is good when performing an abortion? The fetus has done nothing, is not guilty of anything, yet it is okay to kill it if there is good intent? That makes no sense. What intent would justify killing an innocent human?
[/quote]
You’re skipping over the point, I used the example of putting a dog down because it is an intentional act of killing another living creature (one which may have not done anything to “deserve” being killed) where there is no malicious intent involved. You tried to suggest that abortion was a malicious act, I argued that it isn’t. [/quote]
A dog and human are not the same thing. I do not even suggest killing a dog, cat, tree, et cetera is even close to the same level as murdering a human. Even if that dog is killed intentionally. Therefore there is no parallel to the situations of killing a dog intentionally and killing a human.
[quote]I explained why I don’t think it is and tried to use some examples of similar (at least in terms of intent) situations to support my claim. That was just one example that came to mind.
As to what intent would justify it, how about to save the human from suffering? That’s an often present intent in terms of putting down sick or injured animals and is seen as the “humane” thing to do. So, let’s say that (hypothetical situation) the child was diagnosed with a terminal disease which would result in a very short life, filled with painful surgeries and medical procedures. [/quote]
Killing another human so they do not suffer? Are you Dr. J. Kevorkian, now? No, having an abortion in this situation is still malicious. What if my daughter or son at 4 years old was diagnosed with cancer and was going to die in a few years even with therapy and would be in pain for the rest of their life, would it not be murder if I decided to kill him in his sleep when he didn’t know it was coming and wouldn’t feel it?
The term humane as been over played with animals, most animals are not humans. Therefore the idea of being humane to them is off kilter to me. You do not treat a dog like a human, and you do not treat a human like a dog.
The difference is that one is human and one is not. If you do not understand this, go find a sick dog that needs to be put down, shot it, inject it, or whatever to put it down. Now, this will may be difficult, but go and try to put down a sick person. You won’t have the will power, it is not the same thing. And if you can put down a human as fast as you can a dog, there is some question of your mental state and would suggest you get that checked out.
Yes, it is still malicious, now do not mistake this comment as me saying that a mother should take the burden of killing herself in order to have her baby. There is other things you can do instead of having an abortion, which unlike abortion give the baby a chance to live.
And my question is I know a few surgeons that their entire lively hood is based on performing surgeries to save mothers and children. One of the things that he has had a much higher likelihood of keeping the child alive than abortion is having an early c-section. Taking the child out of the womb after it can survive outside of the womb and putting it in the right environment to live.
Quite honestly, I don’t think you’ve given even one example of when it would be malicious. And honestly doubt that (save for maybe a pregnant sociopath) you could come up with one. Like I said, maybe malicious just isn’t the word that you’re looking for.
Yeah, that would probably work.
How about throwing oneself down stairs though? How would you possibly test for that?
[/quote]
You can’t but you can investigate. If you can’t prove it, what do you want me to do about it, agree abortion should be legal so it is not as dangerous to have an abortion. Should I agree to laws that make it less dangerous for thieves, murders, or terrorists?
No, it doesn’t need to be left alone. Maybe you want to leave it alone because it forces you to actually examine your ethical standards, but those aren’t the same thing.
You said that killing an innocent=murder. I gave the example of collateral damage in war (killing of innocent civilians) as an example to either confirm or disprove that definition. If you believe that killing innocents=murder, then collateral damage is murder. If you don’t believe that collateral damage is murder, then it isn’t as simple as killing innocents=murder.[/quote]
Actually I didn’t say that just killing an innocent is murder, I said if you intentionally kill them, or if you negligently act and kill them it is murder, unless you are defending yourself. That is why I said it needs to be left alone if the soldier cannot be proved to be negligent or have intention when killing an innocent.
[quote]
If you know anything about war, America is not supposed to be going on any pre-emptive strike. That is the same thing your neighbor being pissed at you so you bust into his house and shot him before he even makes a move to go to your house. If that happened, you’d go to jail for murder.[/quote]
Oh really? Well then, we’d better prosecute Bush, and the then members of the US congress for murder, because I don’t recall the US ever being attacked by Iraq or Afghanistan. I’d say that the war was rather “pre-emptive” wouldn’t you say?[/quote]
I never said a preemptive strike was murder, you did. Yes, Bush should have some consequences for going over to Iraq, so should a lot of people in the US Congress, but last time I checked Bush would be charged with war crimes and not murder, same for Congress. With Afghanistan they are harboring people that attacked us, so if someone is harboring someone that attacked me. I would guess those people consider them part of their state. Yes Iraq was preemptive, that is why I have never agreed with the Iraq conflict.
We however agreed not to make preemptive strikes, so why are we doing it? If I were president there is a lot of stuff I would fix that would turn this country around.
Cut taxes & regulations
Cut programs (including War on Every damn thing that anyone likely doesn’t give a fuck about)
Pull the military out of the 130 countries we are in
Stop being in charge of every damn thing
Issue a letter of apology to the people we have pissed off
Smoke some weed and drink some liquor, then go dance at the White House Ball after I went to Church.
I have an opinion on the subject, and yes I believe there is right or wrong. The ivory tower comment was about scholars that are listened to without looking at anything else besides what they say.
Killing someone to save someone else I consider in the Self Defense category. If it doesn’t sustain life, what is it for?
A dog and a human are two different things, I already explained I have no problem with putting down a dog. However, what kind of intent is good when performing an abortion? The fetus has done nothing, is not guilty of anything, yet it is okay to kill it if there is good intent? That makes no sense. What intent would justify killing an innocent human?
[/quote]
You’re skipping over the point, I used the example of putting a dog down because it is an intentional act of killing another living creature (one which may have not done anything to “deserve” being killed) where there is no malicious intent involved. You tried to suggest that abortion was a malicious act, I argued that it isn’t. [/quote]
A dog and human are not the same thing. I do not even suggest killing a dog, cat, tree, et cetera is even close to the same level as murdering a human. Even if that dog is killed intentionally. Therefore there is no parallel to the situations of killing a dog intentionally and killing a human.
[/quote]
Maybe I’m not making myself clear enough.
It’s the INTENT behind the two acts which I am comparing, not the actual situation itself. I am well aware that a human and a dog are not the same thing.
You said that abortion was a malicious act, I said it wasn’t. I gave an example of another act of killing something (which is generally close to the killer’s heart) which was not a malicious act to demonstrate that simply because you kill something does not mean that there is malice behind the act.
[quote]I explained why I don’t think it is and tried to use some examples of similar (at least in terms of intent) situations to support my claim. That was just one example that came to mind.
As to what intent would justify it, how about to save the human from suffering? That’s an often present intent in terms of putting down sick or injured animals and is seen as the “humane” thing to do. So, let’s say that (hypothetical situation) the child was diagnosed with a terminal disease which would result in a very short life, filled with painful surgeries and medical procedures. [/quote]
Killing another human so they do not suffer? Are you Dr. J. Kevorkian, now? No, having an abortion in this situation is still malicious. What if my daughter or son at 4 years old was diagnosed with cancer and was going to die in a few years even with therapy and would be in pain for the rest of their life, would it not be murder if I decided to kill him in his sleep when he didn’t know it was coming and wouldn’t feel it?
[/quote]
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.
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).
The difference is that one is human and one is not. If you do not understand this, go find a sick dog that needs to be put down, shot it, inject it, or whatever to put it down. Now, this will may be difficult, but go and try to put down a sick person. You won’t have the will power, it is not the same thing. And if you can put down a human as fast as you can a dog, there is some question of your mental state and would suggest you get that checked out.
[/quote]
So, what you’re saying is that it’s going to be difficult to put down a dog, because there is an emotional attachment to it (and you feel remorse for having to end it’s life/suffering), but a mother will want to cause suffering and hold ill will against her potential child, and won’t be even more remorseful when killing it?
Yes, it is still malicious, now do not mistake this comment as me saying that a mother should take the burden of killing herself in order to have her baby. There is other things you can do instead of having an abortion, which unlike abortion give the baby a chance to live.
[/quote]
Again, you just don’t know what malicious means.
But, your alternative option would definitely be a viable one.
That’s great. I’m definitely not against alternative options to abortion. If the mothers choose to do this, then more power to them.
You can’t but you can investigate. If you can’t prove it, what do you want me to do about it, agree abortion should be legal so it is not as dangerous to have an abortion. Should I agree to laws that make it less dangerous for thieves, murders, or terrorists?
[/quote]
Obviously you can’t do anything about it. Like you said, if it looked suspicious it would be investigated.
No, it doesn’t need to be left alone. Maybe you want to leave it alone because it forces you to actually examine your ethical standards, but those aren’t the same thing.
You said that killing an innocent=murder. I gave the example of collateral damage in war (killing of innocent civilians) as an example to either confirm or disprove that definition. If you believe that killing innocents=murder, then collateral damage is murder. If you don’t believe that collateral damage is murder, then it isn’t as simple as killing innocents=murder.[/quote]
Actually I didn’t say that just killing an innocent is murder, I said if you intentionally kill them, or if you negligently act and kill them it is murder, unless you are defending yourself. That is why I said it needs to be left alone if the soldier cannot be proved to be negligent or have intention when killing an innocent.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]
We however agreed not to make preemptive strikes, so why are we doing it? If I were president there is a lot of stuff I would fix that would turn this country around.
Cut taxes & regulations
Cut programs (including War on Every damn thing that anyone likely doesn’t give a fuck about)
Pull the military out of the 130 countries we are in
Stop being in charge of every damn thing
Issue a letter of apology to the people we have pissed off
Smoke some weed and drink some liquor, then go dance at the White House Ball after I went to Church.[/quote]
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]pat wrote:
Do you think you would have ever existed if you were terminated as a zygote?[/quote]
That’s a pretty fucking stupid question. Here’s a better one: Do you think I would care if I never existed?
[/quote]
Now that is a stupid question. I am not asking if you care, I am asking if you would exist. It’s a yes or no. You are avoiding the answer because you know the answer is ‘no’, but you just don’t want to admit it.
I take it the “fuck off” is in lieu of an actual argument? I am not making a big deal about anything having a consciousness, you are interjecting feelings where there are none. The argument is simply that consciousness alone does not a person make. If that were true we could debumanize people by first rendering them unconscious, then we can kill them because they are no longer human? That sounds as dumb as it is.
You needed a book to figure that out? Such anceint precepts have been a around for a long time. Since Plato, actually, if you want to name drop a bunch of dead guys.
So by your logic, killing a dog is no different than killing a human?
If you are looking in purely secular terms, the man is the dominate species. All others are subject to our will. Until that changes we are the more special ones.
From a spiritual perspective, we deal with things like ethics, morality, rationality, consciousness and freewill. Things man is burden with and animals are not.
You missed my sarcasm my friend, of course it’s flawed logic, I thought by the sheer rediculous nature of the post I was responding to it would be clear that I was insinuating it would have been good had he been aborted but the trouble with knowing ahead of time that he would turn out to be such an idiot. Of course I don’t really think he should have been aborted, I was just screwing around with what seems like little sucess at wit or humor.
