So when someone is killed by lethal injection under the control of the state has a murder been committed? What about when the life support system is switched off for a RTA victim who is in a PVS?
Taking an innocent human life…But, no need to even go off on a tangent here. Is this man a murderer, or not? The abortion supporters here must say no. The loss of her child is no different than the loss of blood cells from a split lip, if he struck her. Again, charges for the assault, battery, whatever, sure. But murder of the unborn? Abortion defenders have already answered that question for us.[/quote]
OK huge strawman there. Just because someone supports the right of a woman to choose an abortion in certain circumstances doesn’t mean that they value the fetus as equal to blood cells from a split lip.
For me the man is not a murderer though which is why I feel that there should be a specific crime of the unlawful killing of a fetus.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK huge strawman there. Just because someone supports the right of a woman to choose an abortion in certain circumstances doesn’t mean that they value the fetus as equal to blood cells from a split lip.
For me the man is not a murderer though which is why I feel that there should be a specific crime of the unlawful killing of a fetus.[/quote]
Unlawful killing of a fetus? Rofl. That’s just…that’s just hilarious. “Only the law should kill a fetus!” What the heck does that even mean to pro-aborts? A fetus is just biological material to you guys. Like a blood cell. A fingernail. Skin cell. Or, any other number of cells you guys always compare the unborn to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
OK huge strawman there. Just because someone supports the right of a woman to choose an abortion in certain circumstances doesn’t mean that they value the fetus as equal to blood cells from a split lip.
For me the man is not a murderer though which is why I feel that there should be a specific crime of the unlawful killing of a fetus.
Unlawful killing of a fetus? Rofl. That’s just…that’s just hilarious. “Only the law should kill a fetus!” What the heck does that even mean to pro-aborts? A fetus is just biological material to you guys. Like a blood cell. A fingernail. Skin cell. Or, any other number of cells you guys always compare the unborn to.[/quote]
Which takes me back to the point I already made:
Whatever you called it though would be an open goal for the pro life lobby to attack.
Because you want to sensationalise the issue and claim beliefs that I haven’t ever espoused you fail to actually address the point that I raise.
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
Unfortunately pro-lifers are typically unable to hold a rational, reasonable discussion on anything related to abortion so it is impossible to intelligently debate the issue.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
[/quote]
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?[/quote]
Actually, if the fetus is not a unique individual. And it is something that the women, and no one else has rights over. It is just part of her body, as the pro-abortion people generally note. Meaning, destroying the fetus would really just equate to bodily harm. So I would think assault causing bodily harm would clearly be the charge.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?
Actually, if the fetus is not a unique individual. And it is something that the women, and no one else has rights over. It is just part of her body, as the pro-abortion people generally note. Meaning, destroying the fetus would really just equate to bodily harm. So I would think assault causing bodily harm would clearly be the charge.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Given the advances in genetics, every time you scratch your nose you’ve committed a holocaust of millions of lives.
How about we stop pretending it’s a black and white issue here. It’s the same mentality that holds back stem cell research and stops medical advances.[/quote]
If we wanna get black and white here, technically you could simply classify a fetus as an obligate parasite for a period of time during gestation.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Given the advances in genetics, every time you scratch your nose you’ve committed a holocaust of millions of lives.
How about we stop pretending it’s a black and white issue here. It’s the same mentality that holds back stem cell research and stops medical advances.
If we wanna get black and white here, technically you could simply classify a fetus as an obligate parasite for a period of time during gestation. [/quote]
So he cured her? And they’re going to charge this guy?!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?
Actually, if the fetus is not a unique individual. And it is something that the women, and no one else has rights over. It is just part of her body, as the pro-abortion people generally note. Meaning, destroying the fetus would really just equate to bodily harm. So I would think assault causing bodily harm would clearly be the charge.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?
Actually, if the fetus is not a unique individual. And it is something that the women, and no one else has rights over. It is just part of her body, as the pro-abortion people generally note. Meaning, destroying the fetus would really just equate to bodily harm. So I would think assault causing bodily harm would clearly be the charge.[/quote]
How is it a part of her body when it is a separate being… You cannot argue a fetus is like an arm or a pancrease, it has it’s own…She does not have a right to kill a person even if it’s in her.
[quote]pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?
Actually, if the fetus is not a unique individual. And it is something that the women, and no one else has rights over. It is just part of her body, as the pro-abortion people generally note. Meaning, destroying the fetus would really just equate to bodily harm. So I would think assault causing bodily harm would clearly be the charge.
How is it a part of her body when it is a separate being… You cannot argue a fetus is like an arm or a pancrease, it has it’s own…She does not have a right to kill a person even if it’s in her.[/quote]
But yes, murder of an unborn if the intention of the mother was to carry to term.[/quote]
I like your point, but it raises more questions than it answers. Is it ok for the mother to have such a decision over the worthiness of the life in question?
There is an uncomfortable arbitrariness to this, no matter which way a woman ultimately chose.
Further, if a murderer kills the mom (and the unborn child), how do you prove she wanted it to term and thus the unborn qualifies as a murdered human being? Testimony from friends? Purchase of baby consumer goods? Frequent doctor visits? What standard of proof?
And, the murderer can - and will - always argue that she could have changed her mind at any point and that is unfair to punish him for murder when there is no proof that the unborn would have ever risen to the status of “life”. Somewhere in there is a bona fide constitutional violation argument that the murderer would not be afforded Due Process.
I can appreciate the sentiment, but the standard cannot be based on what the mom wanted to happen with regard to the unborn child. Impossible to manage, I fear, even if we all agreed that would be the “right” approach (and many do not).
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Where have I equated a fetus to a fingernail? All I have said is that an early stage fetus is not the same thing as a living breathing human being therefore killing it is not murder. A new designation is required in law to avoid the contradiction that currently exists.
What new designation is needed? Property destruction?
Actually, if the fetus is not a unique individual. And it is something that the women, and no one else has rights over. It is just part of her body, as the pro-abortion people generally note. Meaning, destroying the fetus would really just equate to bodily harm. So I would think assault causing bodily harm would clearly be the charge.
How is it a part of her body when it is a separate being… You cannot argue a fetus is like an arm or a pancrease, it has it’s own…She does not have a right to kill a person even if it’s in her.
I’m making a legal argument, not a moral one.[/quote]
Point taken…I jump on the pill box to fast sometimes.
Actually there’s a philosopher, Elizabeth Harmon, who argues that only fetuses which are later to be carried to term are persons. It’s counter-intuitive, but it’s more consistent than it looks.
But yes, murder of an unborn if the intention of the mother was to carry to term.
I like your point, but it raises more questions than it answers. Is it ok for the mother to have such a decision over the worthiness of the life in question?
There is an uncomfortable arbitrariness to this, no matter which way a woman ultimately chose.
Further, if a murderer kills the mom (and the unborn child), how do you prove she wanted it to term and thus the unborn qualifies as a murdered human being? Testimony from friends? Purchase of baby consumer goods? Frequent doctor visits? What standard of proof?
And, the murderer can - and will - always argue that she could have changed her mind at any point and that is unfair to punish him for murder when there is no proof that the unborn would have ever risen to the status of “life”. Somewhere in there is a bona fide constitutional violation argument that the murderer would not be afforded Due Process.
I can appreciate the sentiment, but the standard cannot be based on what the mom wanted to happen with regard to the unborn child. Impossible to manage, I fear, even if we all agreed that would be the “right” approach (and many do not).
[/quote]
Interesting post to say the least, but like you will no doubt agree, this issue is cloudy at best (and will remain so, to the great annoyance of many - including myself). I don’t like the idea of abortion, but I dislike the idea that the government or any form of governing body can legislate what a woman can and can’t do with her body for nine months.