[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
First of all that is not true. If the stranger shoots and kills an expectant mother he is charged with two counts of homicide, not one.
[/quote]
Are you sure this is consistent across all 50 states?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure it is. [/quote]
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]
Well, you see in the United States of America, according to the Constitution of these said States United, it’s the Legislative Branch of the government that makes creates laws. The Legislative Branch consists of The House of Representatives and the Senate. They are the ones who write and vote on laws. And if with enough votes, a law passes then it gets passed on to the Executive Branch which includes the President and if he likes the law, he will sign it and become the executor of the law. If the law is challenged, the it goes to the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch, which is what you are referring to with regards to Roe v. Wade, interprets the laws that are written and executed.
So Row v. Wade was a successful upholding of the current laws as they were understood at the time. The law did not give us Roe v. Wade was a judicial decision on the U.S. law as it could be determined in 1973. [/quote]
law
lô/
noun
noun: law; noun: the law
1.
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
an individual rule as part of a system of law.
plural noun: laws
"an initiative to tighten up the laws on pornography"
synonyms: regulation, statute, enactment, act, bill, decree, edict, bylaw, rule, ruling, ordinance, dictum, command, order, directive, pronouncement, proclamation, dictate, fiat
"a new law was passed"
systems of law as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession.
"he was still practicing law"
synonyms: the legal profession, the bar
"a career in law"
a thing regarded as having the binding force or effect of a formal system of rules.
"what he said was law"
informal
the police.
"he'd never been in trouble with the law in his life"
statutory law and the common law.
a rule defining correct procedure or behavior in a sport.
"the laws of the game"
synonyms: rule, regulation, principle, convention, instruction, guideline
"the laws of the game"
2.
a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
3.
the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
synonyms: principle, rule, precept, directive, injunction, commandment, belief, creed, credo, maxim, tenet, doctrine, canon
"a moral law"
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
plural noun: the Law of Moses
Origin
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t like abortion, and hope I never have to consider it. I would rather have children born into the world wanted and loved if the mother can determine early in her pregnancy that she does not want a child.
[/quote]
So you’re cool with people that shake their crying infants to death or just leave them in dumpsters to die then?
Clearly they are unwanted and unloved, your criteria for if someone is allowed rights. So you must be okay with it, right? If not, why not?
[/quote]
No, I don’t think that is ok. In that case, the mother chose to have the baby (she could have had an abortion), and suffers the consequences of that choice if she chooses to neglect that child.
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby, so I see a difference between the two scenarios.[/quote]
And I don’t view people who deny natural human rights the same as a functional normal non- evil human. Where does that leave us? Should I arrive at a similar conclusion about the worth and ownership of your life? Certain anyone who denies human rights doesn’t deserve them. [/quote]
Not sure where to go with this one. I don’t deserve to live because I don’t view an under 20-week fetus the same as a human being? Sorry that is how you see it, I see it differently.[/quote]
A 20 week fetus is a human. You can “view” it however you want. Your veiw of something should change what human rights are. Again slave owners didn’t veiw blacks the same as a real white human being either. They were then justified in slavery?
[/quote]
You are an idiot , a fetus can be any mammal no wonder you don’t understand science , I suppose , it’s human if it is a kitten with out a brain 
Eye roll
[/quote]
So, you mean a pregnant woman can give birth to a kitten? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!![/quote]
I don’t know why you keep responding to him. That statement is easily the dumbest thing he’s ever written and that’s saying something. I hope to God he was at least high when he wrote that. [/quote]
Because he has a fucking brain:)
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t like abortion, and hope I never have to consider it. I would rather have children born into the world wanted and loved if the mother can determine early in her pregnancy that she does not want a child.
[/quote]
So you’re cool with people that shake their crying infants to death or just leave them in dumpsters to die then?
Clearly they are unwanted and unloved, your criteria for if someone is allowed rights. So you must be okay with it, right? If not, why not?
[/quote]
No, I don’t think that is ok. In that case, the mother chose to have the baby (she could have had an abortion), and suffers the consequences of that choice if she chooses to neglect that child.
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby, so I see a difference between the two scenarios.[/quote]
And I don’t view people who deny natural human rights the same as a functional normal non- evil human. Where does that leave us? Should I arrive at a similar conclusion about the worth and ownership of your life? Certain anyone who denies human rights doesn’t deserve them. [/quote]
Not sure where to go with this one. I don’t deserve to live because I don’t view an under 20-week fetus the same as a human being? Sorry that is how you see it, I see it differently.[/quote]
A 20 week fetus is a human. You can “view” it however you want. Your veiw of something should change what human rights are. Again slave owners didn’t veiw blacks the same as a real white human being either. They were then justified in slavery?
[/quote]
You are an idiot , a fetus can be any mammal no wonder you don’t understand science , I suppose , it’s human if it is a kitten with out a brain Eye roll
[/quote]
So, you mean a pregnant woman can give birth to a kitten? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!![/quote]
I don’t know why you keep responding to him. That statement is easily the dumbest thing he’s ever written and that’s saying something. I hope to God he was at least high when he wrote that. [/quote]
Oh, I like pit. I disagree with him about everything, but I think he’s an alright dude. I just really think he would do well to educate himself on these matters. He runs on pure emotion.[/quote]
I personally like every one , I think it is the CJS that is operating on emotion and are short fact
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
[/quote]
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
[/quote]
Right, but it would be degrees. It was your comparison that a fetus is less valuable like a stranger is less valuable than a family member. If that justifies the law removing the right to life for a fetus, your comparison leads to the conclusion that the rights of a stranger should also be lesser than a family member.
I’m pointing out that this is legally NOT the case. It’s murder with the same penalties either way. If you think that a fetus is of less value, so the law should differentiate their rights differently than higher value people, AND you believe strangers are similarly of less value (again your own comparison) you’d be a hypocrite to not want to legally differentiate between the murder of a stranger and that of a family member. You must, by your own reasoning, want the rights of a stranger encountering a person to be LESS than that of a family member.
Do you actually believe that the murder of a stranger shouldn’t be punished as harshly. That legally, a victim who is a stranger should have fewer rights?
Because the other times we’ve done it was for slavery or genocide (abortion really should be included in the latter). It’s absurd that a modern “enlightened” society can still keep doing exactly the same thing. You can stop wondering how a normal, advanced, educated people like the Germans could remorselessly wipe out millions of Jews, because you’ve managed the exact same feet. And it all revolves around believing, in spite of scientific facts, they aren’t really people so they are of lesser value.
[quote]
Like a fetus? How is in that direct opposition with me?[/quote]
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
You argument raises plenty of questions I’m sure you won’t want to answer, even to yourself. You’ve already admitted strangers are of lesser value, so how should we reduce their rights? What about the homeless guy on the street with no family? What about the terminally sick or elderly? What about the mentally and physically handicapped?
Surely a 95 year old with cancer who will be dead in months isn’t of even remotely close value to the 30 year old doctor in the prime of life on the verge of curing cancer. Surely the penalties for murdering these 2 humans should be grossly different. I mean, you could even argue you did the old guy a favor because, with pain, his life was basically a negative value. Who cares if he didn’t make the choice.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]
Just to be clear I was referring to the law regarding the murder of a stranger.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
First of all that is not true. If the stranger shoots and kills an expectant mother he is charged with two counts of homicide, not one.
[/quote]
Are you sure this is consistent across all 50 states?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure it is. [/quote]
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx[/quote]
Wel, you got me. It’s just 75%+ of states.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
[/quote]
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
[/quote]
Right, but it would be degrees. It was your comparison that a fetus is less valuable like a stranger is less valuable than a family member. If that justifies the law removing the right to life for a fetus, your comparison leads to the conclusion that the rights of a stranger should also be lesser than a family member.
I’m pointing out that this is legally NOT the case. It’s murder with the same penalties either way. If you think that a fetus is of less value, so the law should differentiate their rights differently than higher value people, AND you believe strangers are similarly of less value (again your own comparison) you’d be a hypocrite to not want to legally differentiate between the murder of a stranger and that of a family member. You must, by your own reasoning, want the rights of a stranger encountering a person to be LESS than that of a family member.
Do you actually believe that the murder of a stranger shouldn’t be punished as harshly. That legally, a victim who is a stranger should have fewer rights?
Because the other times we’ve done it was for slavery or genocide (abortion really should be included in the latter). It’s absurd that a modern “enlightened” society can still keep doing exactly the same thing. You can stop wondering how a normal, advanced, educated people like the Germans could remorselessly wipe out millions of Jews, because you’ve managed the exact same feet. And it all revolves around believing, in spite of scientific facts, they aren’t really people so they are of lesser value.
[quote]
Like a fetus? How is in that direct opposition with me?[/quote]
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
You argument raises plenty of questions I’m sure you won’t want to answer, even to yourself. You’ve already admitted strangers are of lesser value, so how should we reduce their rights? What about the homeless guy on the street with no family? What about the terminally sick or elderly? What about the mentally and physically handicapped?
Surely a 95 year old with cancer who will be dead in months isn’t of even remotely close value to the 30 year old doctor in the prime of life on the verge of curing cancer. Surely the penalties for murdering these 2 humans should be grossly different. I mean, you could even argue you did the old guy a favor because, with pain, his life was basically a negative value. Who cares if he didn’t make the choice.[/quote]
You keep getting fixated on the law for murder of a stranger, that was not my point. An individual values the life of a stranger less than family but under law its what society values so there is no such thing as special cases for a “stranger” because that does not make sense.
For the dying 95 year old what are the circumstances for killing them? Where the persons intentions really just because they were trying to help? The death penalty is not given for all murders, in the 95 year old and 30 year old examples you gave what do you think a jury would be more likely to assign the death penalty for? If someone was up for parole after serving 20 with good behavior do you think there’s a chance the guy who murdered the 95 year old would have a slightly better chance of being approved for release?
I don’t care what your personal beliefs are on these, if society does not handle all cases I mentioned above 100% the same, then there is some different value of human life going on.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t like abortion, and hope I never have to consider it. I would rather have children born into the world wanted and loved if the mother can determine early in her pregnancy that she does not want a child.
[/quote]
So you’re cool with people that shake their crying infants to death or just leave them in dumpsters to die then?
Clearly they are unwanted and unloved, your criteria for if someone is allowed rights. So you must be okay with it, right? If not, why not?
[/quote]
No, I don’t think that is ok. In that case, the mother chose to have the baby (she could have had an abortion), and suffers the consequences of that choice if she chooses to neglect that child.
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby, so I see a difference between the two scenarios.[/quote]
And I don’t view people who deny natural human rights the same as a functional normal non- evil human. Where does that leave us? Should I arrive at a similar conclusion about the worth and ownership of your life? Certain anyone who denies human rights doesn’t deserve them. [/quote]
Not sure where to go with this one. I don’t deserve to live because I don’t view an under 20-week fetus the same as a human being? Sorry that is how you see it, I see it differently.[/quote]
A 20 week fetus is a human. You can “view” it however you want. Your veiw of something should change what human rights are. Again slave owners didn’t veiw blacks the same as a real white human being either. They were then justified in slavery?
[/quote]
You are an idiot , a fetus can be any mammal no wonder you don’t understand science , I suppose , it’s human if it is a kitten with out a brain Eye roll
[/quote]
So, you mean a pregnant woman can give birth to a kitten? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!![/quote]
I don’t know why you keep responding to him. That statement is easily the dumbest thing he’s ever written and that’s saying something. I hope to God he was at least high when he wrote that. [/quote]
Because he has a fucking brain:)
[/quote]
Whoa now, don’t push it 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I don’t view a under 20-week fetus the same as a baby…
[/quote]
What is it? “A glob of goo?”[/quote]
This is a valid question.
If the person isn’t a person until 20 weeks, what is that person? (I mean, obviously other than expendable tissue available for research.)[/quote]
Its a person, just one with slightly less value. We all value human lives differently, your family vs strangers for example.[/quote]
So you are saying that the law should have different lesser penalties if you murder a stranger? That violating the rights of a stranger should be legally more permissible that violating a family member?
[/quote]
I’m glad you brought this up as it already reflects exactly how people view this subject. The accepted penalty for death of a stranger is life in prison or death penalty, depending on your views on that subject. For a family member its the same but with a slightly less pleasant prison experience or slightly more painful death penalty.[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I was correcting him in his assumption that the law for the person of lesser value should be changed, in fact the law is good as it currently stands[/quote]
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
Can’t you just see a murder in court "but I didn’t value the life of the woman I raped and murdered. She was a complete stranger, so you have to let me go. It’s not like she was a family member. "
It’s absurd to base legal protections and human rights on a perceived value. Again this is exactly what slavers and people who gassed Jews and people who cleansed rowanda did.
You don’t get to decide when a human has value and how much, because in this country we have codified natural human rights, which are in diometric opposition to you.
[/quote]
US law also gives us Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]
Well, you see in the United States of America, according to the Constitution of these said States United, it’s the Legislative Branch of the government that makes creates laws. The Legislative Branch consists of The House of Representatives and the Senate. They are the ones who write and vote on laws. And if with enough votes, a law passes then it gets passed on to the Executive Branch which includes the President and if he likes the law, he will sign it and become the executor of the law. If the law is challenged, the it goes to the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch, which is what you are referring to with regards to Roe v. Wade, interprets the laws that are written and executed.
So Row v. Wade was a successful upholding of the current laws as they were understood at the time. The law did not give us Roe v. Wade was a judicial decision on the U.S. law as it could be determined in 1973. [/quote]
law
l�´/
noun
noun: law; noun: the law
1.
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
an individual rule as part of a system of law.
plural noun: laws
"an initiative to tighten up the laws on pornography"
synonyms: regulation, statute, enactment, act, bill, decree, edict, bylaw, rule, ruling, ordinance, dictum, command, order, directive, pronouncement, proclamation, dictate, fiat
"a new law was passed"
systems of law as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession.
"he was still practicing law"
synonyms: the legal profession, the bar
"a career in law"
a thing regarded as having the binding force or effect of a formal system of rules.
"what he said was law"
informal
the police.
"he'd never been in trouble with the law in his life"
statutory law and the common law.
a rule defining correct procedure or behavior in a sport.
"the laws of the game"
synonyms: rule, regulation, principle, convention, instruction, guideline
"the laws of the game"
2.
a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
3.
the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
synonyms: principle, rule, precept, directive, injunction, commandment, belief, creed, credo, maxim, tenet, doctrine, canon
"a moral law"
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
plural noun: the Law of Moses
Origin[/quote]
Lol… I was just being a complete dick.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
[/quote]
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
[/quote]
Right, but it would be degrees. It was your comparison that a fetus is less valuable like a stranger is less valuable than a family member. If that justifies the law removing the right to life for a fetus, your comparison leads to the conclusion that the rights of a stranger should also be lesser than a family member.
I’m pointing out that this is legally NOT the case. It’s murder with the same penalties either way. If you think that a fetus is of less value, so the law should differentiate their rights differently than higher value people, AND you believe strangers are similarly of less value (again your own comparison) you’d be a hypocrite to not want to legally differentiate between the murder of a stranger and that of a family member. You must, by your own reasoning, want the rights of a stranger encountering a person to be LESS than that of a family member.
Do you actually believe that the murder of a stranger shouldn’t be punished as harshly. That legally, a victim who is a stranger should have fewer rights?
Because the other times we’ve done it was for slavery or genocide (abortion really should be included in the latter). It’s absurd that a modern “enlightened” society can still keep doing exactly the same thing. You can stop wondering how a normal, advanced, educated people like the Germans could remorselessly wipe out millions of Jews, because you’ve managed the exact same feet. And it all revolves around believing, in spite of scientific facts, they aren’t really people so they are of lesser value.
[quote]
Like a fetus? How is in that direct opposition with me?[/quote]
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
You argument raises plenty of questions I’m sure you won’t want to answer, even to yourself. You’ve already admitted strangers are of lesser value, so how should we reduce their rights? What about the homeless guy on the street with no family? What about the terminally sick or elderly? What about the mentally and physically handicapped?
Surely a 95 year old with cancer who will be dead in months isn’t of even remotely close value to the 30 year old doctor in the prime of life on the verge of curing cancer. Surely the penalties for murdering these 2 humans should be grossly different. I mean, you could even argue you did the old guy a favor because, with pain, his life was basically a negative value. Who cares if he didn’t make the choice.[/quote]
You keep getting fixated on the law for murder of a stranger, that was not my point. An individual values the life of a stranger less than family but under law its what society values so there is no such thing as special cases for a “stranger” because that does not make sense.
For the dying 95 year old what are the circumstances for killing them? Where the persons intentions really just because they were trying to help? The death penalty is not given for all murders, in the 95 year old and 30 year old examples you gave what do you think a jury would be more likely to assign the death penalty for? If someone was up for parole after serving 20 with good behavior do you think there’s a chance the guy who murdered the 95 year old would have a slightly better chance of being approved for release?
I don’t care what your personal beliefs are on these, if society does not handle all cases I mentioned above 100% the same, then there is some different value of human life going on.[/quote]
I DO care about your beliefs. I want you to answer. give me some numbers of what you think. What less rights should an old person about to die person have?
And NO, the law does not differentiate. Juries can and probably do, but juries can do a lot of different things, including completely disregarding the law. They can intentionally let murders go free, doesn’t mean the law said to. The laws on murder do not distinguish for age or race or gender or anything else YOU personally might use to access value. If you think they do because of jury discretion, then they also differentiate for things like money and race and gender. The law is the same for men and women, though women only generally get half the sentence. The law shouldn’t differentiate between the life of a man and a woman even though society values the 2 differently and juries choose to sentence differently.
Sorry for the late reply. Too busy to use computer for private business at work, and I don’t want to think at night.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes to all of them. Being evil, such as your terrorist example, doesn’t make you not a human. It makes you a giant asshole, but you’re still a person.[/quote]
Can you say why you’re a human to each of these?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Unless every single abortion is performed on male babies this fails the most basic logical test.[/quote]
Not really. Afaik, genuine feminists don’t like women who don’t support their cause, so just because you’re a feminist doesn’t mean you have to attempt to like all women or anything.
Besides, the precondition to all the above is always “the fetus doesn’t count as a human being”. I wrote that more because I think the conservative/anti-abortion people are letting the liberals take the narrative away from where it really should be- whether fetuses count as human beings or not.
And if you consider a fetus a human being solely because you believe in the concept of a soul and think a fetus is imbued with one at the moment of conception, then you’re probably SOL about attempting to convince anyone because it’s no longer about abortion- it’s about religion at that point.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
claiming whether or not a person is a person based on how they look, or whether or not someone has rights based on how they look is a dangerous game. INsert obvious slavery and Jim Crow comparison here. [/quote]
This is disingenuous. IIRC, the two common arguments as to why fetuses in the first trimester (note that I wrote first trimester) are not legally humans is because they cannot survive independent of the womb, and because they possess no capacity for thought, seeing as how their brain or nervous system hasn’t developed in any reasonable capacity yet.
I have severe issues with both arguments, and indeed they’re written into the “are you a human being?” questions I asked above. But if we took those arguments and them alone, then comparisons between blacks not being legal human beings and first-trimester fetuses not being legal human beings don’t really fly. The arguments for why a black man is not a human being are not the same arguments used for why a first-trimester fetus is not a human being.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
[/quote]
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
[/quote]
Right, but it would be degrees. It was your comparison that a fetus is less valuable like a stranger is less valuable than a family member. If that justifies the law removing the right to life for a fetus, your comparison leads to the conclusion that the rights of a stranger should also be lesser than a family member.
I’m pointing out that this is legally NOT the case. It’s murder with the same penalties either way. If you think that a fetus is of less value, so the law should differentiate their rights differently than higher value people, AND you believe strangers are similarly of less value (again your own comparison) you’d be a hypocrite to not want to legally differentiate between the murder of a stranger and that of a family member. You must, by your own reasoning, want the rights of a stranger encountering a person to be LESS than that of a family member.
Do you actually believe that the murder of a stranger shouldn’t be punished as harshly. That legally, a victim who is a stranger should have fewer rights?
Because the other times we’ve done it was for slavery or genocide (abortion really should be included in the latter). It’s absurd that a modern “enlightened” society can still keep doing exactly the same thing. You can stop wondering how a normal, advanced, educated people like the Germans could remorselessly wipe out millions of Jews, because you’ve managed the exact same feet. And it all revolves around believing, in spite of scientific facts, they aren’t really people so they are of lesser value.
[quote]
Like a fetus? How is in that direct opposition with me?[/quote]
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
You argument raises plenty of questions I’m sure you won’t want to answer, even to yourself. You’ve already admitted strangers are of lesser value, so how should we reduce their rights? What about the homeless guy on the street with no family? What about the terminally sick or elderly? What about the mentally and physically handicapped?
Surely a 95 year old with cancer who will be dead in months isn’t of even remotely close value to the 30 year old doctor in the prime of life on the verge of curing cancer. Surely the penalties for murdering these 2 humans should be grossly different. I mean, you could even argue you did the old guy a favor because, with pain, his life was basically a negative value. Who cares if he didn’t make the choice.[/quote]
You keep getting fixated on the law for murder of a stranger, that was not my point. An individual values the life of a stranger less than family but under law its what society values so there is no such thing as special cases for a “stranger” because that does not make sense.
For the dying 95 year old what are the circumstances for killing them? Where the persons intentions really just because they were trying to help? The death penalty is not given for all murders, in the 95 year old and 30 year old examples you gave what do you think a jury would be more likely to assign the death penalty for? If someone was up for parole after serving 20 with good behavior do you think there’s a chance the guy who murdered the 95 year old would have a slightly better chance of being approved for release?
I don’t care what your personal beliefs are on these, if society does not handle all cases I mentioned above 100% the same, then there is some different value of human life going on.[/quote]
I DO care about your beliefs. I want you to answer. give me some numbers of what you think. What less rights should an old person about to die person have?
And NO, the law does not differentiate. Juries can and probably do, but juries can do a lot of different things, including completely disregarding the law. They can intentionally let murders go free, doesn’t mean the law said to. The laws on murder do not distinguish for age or race or gender or anything else YOU personally might use to access value. If you think they do because of jury discretion, then they also differentiate for things like money and race and gender. The law is the same for men and women, though women only generally get half the sentence. The law shouldn’t differentiate between the life of a man and a woman even though society values the 2 differently and juries choose to sentence differently. [/quote]
I’m not sure that question makes sense, they can have less value but the same rights.
The law does not differentiate, if for any reason it would just be non-PC to do so. But when it comes down to it the people/jury’s is more of a grey area rather than black and white of what the law says. For this reason murder ranges from the worst crime possible to something that isn’t a crime at all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
[/quote]
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
[/quote]
Right, but it would be degrees. It was your comparison that a fetus is less valuable like a stranger is less valuable than a family member. If that justifies the law removing the right to life for a fetus, your comparison leads to the conclusion that the rights of a stranger should also be lesser than a family member.
I’m pointing out that this is legally NOT the case. It’s murder with the same penalties either way. If you think that a fetus is of less value, so the law should differentiate their rights differently than higher value people, AND you believe strangers are similarly of less value (again your own comparison) you’d be a hypocrite to not want to legally differentiate between the murder of a stranger and that of a family member. You must, by your own reasoning, want the rights of a stranger encountering a person to be LESS than that of a family member.
Do you actually believe that the murder of a stranger shouldn’t be punished as harshly. That legally, a victim who is a stranger should have fewer rights?
Because the other times we’ve done it was for slavery or genocide (abortion really should be included in the latter). It’s absurd that a modern “enlightened” society can still keep doing exactly the same thing. You can stop wondering how a normal, advanced, educated people like the Germans could remorselessly wipe out millions of Jews, because you’ve managed the exact same feet. And it all revolves around believing, in spite of scientific facts, they aren’t really people so they are of lesser value.
[quote]
Like a fetus? How is in that direct opposition with me?[/quote]
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
You argument raises plenty of questions I’m sure you won’t want to answer, even to yourself. You’ve already admitted strangers are of lesser value, so how should we reduce their rights? What about the homeless guy on the street with no family? What about the terminally sick or elderly? What about the mentally and physically handicapped?
Surely a 95 year old with cancer who will be dead in months isn’t of even remotely close value to the 30 year old doctor in the prime of life on the verge of curing cancer. Surely the penalties for murdering these 2 humans should be grossly different. I mean, you could even argue you did the old guy a favor because, with pain, his life was basically a negative value. Who cares if he didn’t make the choice.[/quote]
You keep getting fixated on the law for murder of a stranger, that was not my point. An individual values the life of a stranger less than family but under law its what society values so there is no such thing as special cases for a “stranger” because that does not make sense.
For the dying 95 year old what are the circumstances for killing them? Where the persons intentions really just because they were trying to help? The death penalty is not given for all murders, in the 95 year old and 30 year old examples you gave what do you think a jury would be more likely to assign the death penalty for? If someone was up for parole after serving 20 with good behavior do you think there’s a chance the guy who murdered the 95 year old would have a slightly better chance of being approved for release?
I don’t care what your personal beliefs are on these, if society does not handle all cases I mentioned above 100% the same, then there is some different value of human life going on.[/quote]
Of course you just had to shift your talking points from the homicide of the innocent to the homicide of the guilty. You were a 2nd grade t-ball player up against a 95 mph, major league pitcher.
Distinctions: they’re always important.[/quote]
I never mentioned homicide of the guilty in the last post. You’re not even playing baseball now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I never mentioned homicide of the guilty in the last post. You’re not even playing baseball now.[/quote]
Is that so?
[quote] andy wrote:
You keep getting fixated on the law for murder of a stranger…The death penalty is not given for all murders, in the 95 year old and 30 year old examples you gave what do you think a jury would be more likely to assign the death penalty for? If someone was up for parole after serving 20 with good behavior do you think there’s a chance the guy who murdered the 95 year old would have a slightly better chance of being approved for release?
[/quote][/quote]
Are you referring to the innocent 30 year old or the innocent 95 year old?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree the law is correct. It doesn’t differentiate between the value of a stranger and that of a family member. All are human and deserve the same legal protection. It is you who were arguing that penalties should change based on perceived worth of the human life. You are the one that mentioned a stranger is of less value, like a fetus. Presumably this makes killing a fetus more permissible. And by your own comparison, you are in favor of making it more okay to kill a stranger, so long as the killer doesn’t value the person being killed.
[/quote]
I never said its okay to kill a stranger, in fact the stranger is of more value than the fetus, not equal like you are saying.
[/quote]
Right, but it would be degrees. It was your comparison that a fetus is less valuable like a stranger is less valuable than a family member. If that justifies the law removing the right to life for a fetus, your comparison leads to the conclusion that the rights of a stranger should also be lesser than a family member.
I’m pointing out that this is legally NOT the case. It’s murder with the same penalties either way. If you think that a fetus is of less value, so the law should differentiate their rights differently than higher value people, AND you believe strangers are similarly of less value (again your own comparison) you’d be a hypocrite to not want to legally differentiate between the murder of a stranger and that of a family member. You must, by your own reasoning, want the rights of a stranger encountering a person to be LESS than that of a family member.
Do you actually believe that the murder of a stranger shouldn’t be punished as harshly. That legally, a victim who is a stranger should have fewer rights?
Because the other times we’ve done it was for slavery or genocide (abortion really should be included in the latter). It’s absurd that a modern “enlightened” society can still keep doing exactly the same thing. You can stop wondering how a normal, advanced, educated people like the Germans could remorselessly wipe out millions of Jews, because you’ve managed the exact same feet. And it all revolves around believing, in spite of scientific facts, they aren’t really people so they are of lesser value.
[quote]
Like a fetus? How is in that direct opposition with me?[/quote]
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
You argument raises plenty of questions I’m sure you won’t want to answer, even to yourself. You’ve already admitted strangers are of lesser value, so how should we reduce their rights? What about the homeless guy on the street with no family? What about the terminally sick or elderly? What about the mentally and physically handicapped?
Surely a 95 year old with cancer who will be dead in months isn’t of even remotely close value to the 30 year old doctor in the prime of life on the verge of curing cancer. Surely the penalties for murdering these 2 humans should be grossly different. I mean, you could even argue you did the old guy a favor because, with pain, his life was basically a negative value. Who cares if he didn’t make the choice.[/quote]
That post pretty much flattens Andy’s ethos.[/quote]
The real darkly comedic part with his choice of comparison is that abortion specifically kills the closest family members.
I know it is a little off topic but it does show that lack of understanding unwanted pregnancies
