You’re simply piling on the red herrings, one after another. I am not discussing crime and punishment. I am simply expressing what is completely obvious and proven. You’re busying asserting what I think should be done to people who violate the sanctity of life. I am merely establishing the fact that there is a real life there, a human life and that it’s not ok to take it.
Do we need to rethink our laws? Absolutely. Because, by all standards that matter, a life en utero is a human life and violation there of, is in the millions. There is zero doubt as to what it is.
Because it’s so prevalent, it needs a rethink. Anything that devalues a human life of it’s innate value always does. It needed a rethink when people thought dark skinned people are of lesser value then light skinned European decent. It needs a rethink when all of science, philosophy and ethics agree on a single point that an unborn baby is a human being. There is no other point that matters. Human life always needs to be considered when it’s taken needlessly and recklessly.
We have to be better people and recognizing that killing the unborn is the killing of a human. If most people realized that and most didn’t do it, then legality would be small issue. The fact that it’s at the level of a genocide, particularly to blacks in the U.S. it’s a problem that the law needs to take seriously and see it for what it really is. Anything less would be inhuman.
No, I am challenging your stated beliefs, and so far, you’ve done nothing but duck me on this score. If you truly believe what you say you do, my question to you is extremely easy to answer. The fact that you refuse to answer it seems to me strong evidence of tacit acknowledgement that my point is valid–that point being, your rhetoric does not reflect your true beliefs.
Of course, if I’m wrong–if you truly believe a zygote has the moral and ethical standing of a born human, and therefore, intentionally preventing the further development of a zygote is equivalent to intentionally shooting a 2 year old in the head, and thus deserves the same punishment under the law–you could easily correct me by simply affirming this fact.
Or, you could admit that your rhetoric in this regard is hyperbolic; ie, acknowledge that while you find the intentional interruption of a zygote’s development repugnant, it is not in fact equivalent to the killing of a born human. But don’t dissemble your true beliefs behind “I am not discussing crime and punishment.”
There you go. Now you are discussing crime and punishment. So answer my crime-and-punishment question, please.
The fact that essentially everyone realizes that the killing of a born human (ie, murder) is wrong has not rendered its legality a “small issue”–just the opposite.
Have the courage of your convictions and say that a woman who uses RU486 has committed first-degree murder and should be imprisoned for life. Either that, or explain why she shouldn’t.
Why do you question my beliefs when I have already stated clearly and backed up with evidence.
That the unborn life is a human life and the taking of human life, when it poses no danger to your own is morally wrong. ← This is the only point that matters. Prove this wrong.
I am not the one dodging you are. Trying to drudge up some moral equivalence between our beliefs where it does not exist. You are trying to drag in everything but the kitchen sink into a simple argument that requires very little to prove. You want to prove we are both moral relativists when it suits our needs and I am not a relativist, but a moral objectivist.
Relativism promises to sooth the bleeding heart, freedom from rules and happiness by immediate gratification, but what it actually does is draws the blood , imprisons the heart, and immiserates the people. Because when one persons made up morality conflicts with another’s made up morality, who wins but the strongest? There are no rules.
Because, frankly, I don’t believe you. I think you are substituting rhetoric for actual belief.
Of course, you can prove me wrong and shut me up by simply affirming that, in your opinion, a woman who uses RU486 has committed the exact same crime as a woman who shoots her two-year-old in the head, and therefore should be treated in the same way by the court system.
Prove it. Make the statement.
Dude, you are dodging the question. It is not “everything but, the kitchen sink” a yes or no answer will do.
"in your opinion, a woman who uses RU486 has committed the exact same crime as a woman who shoots her two-year-old in the head, and therefore should be treated in the same way by the court system.
Ok.
Let’s suppose that I accept this as true.
Where does that take us? What is the progression from this idea?
Let’s suppose that abortion is considered murder of a human being. What follow from this if someone did perform an abortion?
Here we go again… Ok, I will back up my claims that the fetal life is a human life:
Start here:
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Timeline_human_development
Continue:
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/cells/embryology/a/human-embryogenesis
Great slide show on human development:
http://www.ehd.org/virtual-human-embryo/
on:
and on:
http://www.onhealth.com/content/1/fetal_development_stages
I am not playing with words you are. You are trying to assign a value proposition to words like person, people and crap like that. Affirming some cockamamie argument that something other than genetics makes a human life what it is. So you want your rhetoric to be the lowest common denominator. So in regular terminology that would be ‘human life’. If you want to be scientific, then ‘homo-sapien’.
I am not having ‘fun with words’ you are. You are trying to introduce red herrings and I will not be tempted by the scent and veer off track.
I have to prove I am a moral objectivist? That I believe in objective moral values, rather than man-made illusory values?
I made the statement:
That the unborn life is a human life and the taking of human life, when it poses no danger to your own is morally wrong.
If you want it laid out as a logical argument then:
p1. Taking a human life is morally wrong unless that life poses a threat to one or more other human lives.
p2. A fetal life is a human life
c. Therefore, taking a fetal life, when posing no danger to other human lives, is morally wrong.
← You either agree or disagree, if you disagree you have to prove the statement false. Good luck.
Do you accept it as true? Do you disagree?
No luck needed. The flaw in your logic is basic and glaring. An unacknowledged assumption in your analogy is that human life at all points of the life cycle have equal moral standing. Because this assumption is incorrect, your entire argument falls apart.
Now, are you finally going to have the courage of your convictions and state that you believe a woman who intentionally terminates her pregnancy hours after conception by taking RU486 is guilty of premeditated murder, and thus deserving of either the death sentence or life in prison without possibility of parole?
Abortion is legal in the US under certain cirucumstances, so consider this more of an ethical or religious question, rather than a legal one.
Assume we agree that there is a difference between involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder, and so forth.
Why wouldn’t the Lord look on abortion in a similar nuanced way? To imagine that He does, is not moral relativism. Individual circumstances matter to Him. Always. Pardon my religion here, I know I have a bit of a different view than some of you. In this imperfect world, we are judged based on the light and knowledge we have.
Excellent points and well said, @anon71262119.
There is no flaw. That is what I am saying. What ever cycle a human life is in, it’s still a human life. It has no more or less value than any other human life.
You have just exposed yourself. You just admitted that you believe that a human life has a different value property based on what phase of development it’s in. I made no distinction between a human life be it a child, fetus, a teenager, an adult or elderly.
You are trying to prove that human life is less valuable than other human lives simply based on what stage that life is in.
So prove it. Prove your value proposition, that based on the stage of development one human life is less “valuable” than another. Then, please show the basis this value proposition is based on…
As I wrote, let’s suppose that I accept your arguments as true.
I’m at a loss as to how this counts as ‘exposing myself’ when I have stated essentially this on several occasions upthread.
And yet, for some reason, you refuse to answer a simple question concerning the legal implications of said lack of distinction. I’ll ask again: Given your belief that there is “no distinction between a human life be it a child, fetus, a teenager, an adult or elderly,” doesn’t it follow that the legal ramifications for interrupting the life cycle at each and every one of those points should be exactly the same?
I’ll do better than that–I’ll prove that you agree with me on this score. How? Via your continued refusal to affirm that a woman who uses RU486 to end a one-day-post-conception pregnancy should receive the same punishment as a woman who intentionally shoots her 2 y.o. in the head. You know in your heart that to posit an equivalency between these two scenarios is absurd, which is why you can’t bring yourself to do it. And that inability on your part indicates you agree with me that the status of a human being varies depending where along the life cycle it is in terms of development.
Well, as abortion is currently legal from conception to half way born (depending on the states law), said woman would incur no punishment.
Should the law be changed then a woman acting I legally should be punished according to the laws violated.
We now have the scientific evidence to establish that human life starts at conception. The law, therefore, certainly should be changed in accordance with that reality.
As with any crime, punishment depends on intent, situation, access to tools to committ said crime and motive and finally what the minimum and maximum the law allows for the crime.
But since it’s not a crime to take a human life in certain stages of development I could not assign a punishment to something that is not a crime regardless to how repugnant the action.
I’ll play your silly game but I need more information on your hypothetical.
What state did the woman take the RU486 drug? And in that state, is it illegal? Assuming we are talking about the U.S. here, right?
And what do you care if a mother shoots her 2 year old in the head? It’s none of your business.
Given your stated position, it matters not one whit whether RU486 is legal. (You’re a moral absolutist, remember?) Neither is it relevant to the hypothetical I posed. You need no more information than I have provided.
So I’ll ask you for the umpteenth time: Given your belief that there is “no distinction between a human life be it a child, fetus, a teenager, an adult or elderly,” doesn’t it follow that the legal ramifications for interrupting the life cycle at each of those points should be exactly the same? And wouldn’t this mean that a woman who takes RU486 on post-conception-day-1 has committed the exact same crime (specifically, premeditated murder) as a woman who intentionally shoots her 2 y.o. in the head, and thus should be subjected to the exact same punishment (life in prison, or even the death penalty)?
Given that you wrote “human life starts at conception”, then shouldn’t this be clear-cut?
If we take as true that an unborn life is a human life, then an abortion is committing murder, and should be tried accordingly.
So, a woman who may not have been aware that she was pregnant due to being very early in her pregnancy could, conceivably, be tried for manslaughter if she did something that caused a miscarriage.
And a woman who willingly cause an abortion or miscarriage could be tried for murder.
Can we prove she was pregnant? What laws do we have on the table? Where did she get the drug? Was it legal? Who sold it and was it legal to sell? What’s the motive?
If we are establishing a case for murder it’s not so cut and dry for any case. Lots of questions need to be answered.
It’s called objective moral values, not moral absolute.
It’s not clear cut. Is the dr performing it more culpable as they know exactly what they are doing?
No murder case is clear cut.