Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1081

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The unlawful taking of a life.

So if the ones taking the lives define what is lawful, then they may merrily take as many lives as they want without being guilty of murder.
[/quote]

Sure, except we had support from the UN to lawfully take the lives of those responsible for 9/11. A majority of the world supported this and even helped.

Perspective is a part of everything.

What does internation law say about the matter? Do we even care? Does a legal term like “murder” apply here?

I would say an armed invasion can be “justified,” but until we have a unified and enforcable international set of laws, the idea of lawful, in this context, is largely irrelevant.

[quote]
If a group of Tibetan-Americans based in New York flew a plane into a building in Shanghai, killing 3000 people, would it be “lawful” for the Chinese to bomb and occupy Manhattan? Should killing the New Yorkers who plant IEDs to destroy Chinese troop carriers be considered “lawful”?[/quote]

They could try…

If I’m not mistaken Afghanistan (specifically the Taliban) was asked to hand over Al Qaeda and they didn’t. If they had, we would not have invaded. I have no reason to beleive China wouldn’t make the same request and the U.S. would likely not comply, but would try and convict your Tibetan-Amercian terrorists. Problem solved.

This isn’t your grand fathers war, fighting terrorist organizations is vastly different than fighting a state.

The law doesn’t really apply, which was my entire point. This all started when Zecarlo started throwing the term “murder” around. I know how touchy PWI get’s about using legal terms incorrectly.

For the third time now, no innocent person should ever be killed in war. Which means if you are a U.S. troops and you “murder” someone (which I am assuming is defined under the UCMJ) you should be punished accordingly.

1082

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

I don’t think its about survival, its about way of life. You always have the option to surrender in war and it does not imply death.

[/quote]

Not to get into semantically argument, it depends on what you consider survival. Prisoner camps, re-education camps, living as a subject… None of that will be considered “survival” in a true sense to those who have been free and have a will to live.

You know the whole “live free or die”, “I’d rather die on my feet than live on me knees” point of view.

I don’t think we disagree with the overall point here, and I’d rather not get into a back and forth about what is or isn’t survival for these purposes. [/quote]

So your okay with killing people who are not a direct threat to your life as long as it improves your life and means you are more free?[/quote]

What? No.

That is closer to the opposite of what I said.

Am I having a bad day explaining, or are you and ze just making shit up at this point?

1083

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What does internation law say about the matter? Do we even care? Does a legal term like “murder” apply here?

I would say an armed invasion can be “justified,” but until we have a unified and enforcable international set of laws, the idea of lawful, in this context, is largely irrelevant.

[/quote]

Excellent. I’m glad you said this, because it allows me to bring the question full circle.

What is to prevent an advocate for abortion from using the precisely same argument?

[i]"What does federal law say about the matter? Do we even care? Does a legal term like “murder” apply here?

I would say aborting a fetus can be ‘justified,’ but until we have a unified and enforceable national set of laws, the idea of lawful, in this context, is largely irrelevant."[/i]

Note that this is not my argument, but it has at least as much merit as the one you gave.

1084

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What does internation law say about the matter? Do we even care? Does a legal term like “murder” apply here?

I would say an armed invasion can be “justified,” but until we have a unified and enforcable international set of laws, the idea of lawful, in this context, is largely irrelevant.

[/quote]

Excellent. I’m glad you said this, because it allows me to bring the question full circle.

What is to prevent an advocate for abortion from using the precisely same argument?

[i]"What does federal law say about the matter? Do we even care? Does a legal term like “murder” apply here?

I would say aborting a fetus can be ‘justified,’ but until we have a unified and enforceable national set of laws, the idea of lawful, in this context, is largely irrelevant."[/i]

Note that this is not my argument, but it has at least as much merit as the one you gave. [/quote]

Fair point. I hadn’t thought of it that way. I will respond after I’ve thought about this for a while. I don’t think it has the same merit, but I’m not sure how to express that at the moment.

1085

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No one, that isn’t a psychopath, supports the “murder” of non-enemy combatants. [/quote]
That’s why the victors call it collateral damage.

1086

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No one, that isn’t a psychopath, supports the “murder” of non-enemy combatants. [/quote]
That’s why the victors call it collateral damage. [/quote]

Euphemism is a pair of clean white gloves that hide the bloodstains on the executioner’s hands.

1087

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m suprised no one is questioning zecarlo use of the term “Murder.”

Interesting…[/quote]
Murder, as stated, is a legal term. If Iraq had been able to defeat us and decided to charge American POWs as murderers, they could have. Legal terms also vary by nation and culture.

1088

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m suprised no one is questioning zecarlo use of the term “Murder.”

Interesting…[/quote]
Murder, as stated, is a legal term. If Iraq had been able to defeat us and decided to charge American POWs as murderers, they could have. Legal terms also vary by nation and culture. [/quote]

Sure, but that’s not what you were talking about…

1089

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No one, that isn’t a psychopath, supports the “murder” of non-enemy combatants. [/quote]
That’s why the victors call it collateral damage. [/quote]

War is nasty business.

1090

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What does internation law say about the matter? Do we even care? Does a legal term like “murder” apply here?

I would say an armed invasion can be “justified,” but until we have a unified and enforcable international set of laws, the idea of lawful, in this context, is largely irrelevant.

[/quote]

Excellent. I’m glad you said this, because it allows me to bring the question full circle.

What is to prevent an advocate for abortion from using the precisely same argument?

[i]"What does federal law say about the matter? Do we even care? Does a legal term like “murder” apply here?

I would say aborting a fetus can be ‘justified,’ but until we have a unified and enforceable national set of laws, the idea of lawful, in this context, is largely irrelevant."[/i]

Note that this is not my argument, but it has at least as much merit as the one you gave. [/quote]

My response is:

1.) There is a unified federal law for murder that is enforcable. There is not a unified internation law covering war that is enforcable, which is why using a legal term to describe the killing of an enemy combatant is inaccurate.

There are issues with the legal term of murder being used for abortion. I concede that point. However, imo there should not be as I’ve said several times the argument regarding value/personhood is semantics used solely to allow an activity that everyone knows is morally reprehensible to continue. Science back the antiabortionist, but we all know this “debate” is not about science.

2.) Not all homicides during war are justified, but the killing of the enemy is typically justified unless you (Your state or organization) is the aggressor. In my opinion there are very few justifications for abortion. I, being a reasonable America, understand this is a gray area and abortion should be available when health is a concern. I dont’ agree with it, but I understand and accept the exception. Same goes for rape and other unlawful acts that result in pregnancy. Yes, I said abortion was morally reprehensible and now am saying certain abortions are okay, yes it’s inconsistent, so is life. This is a gray area and sometime the lesser of two evil, while still evil, is well less so

That said, if we compare abortion to war than who is the fetus in our comparison? The Jihadist that flew a plane into a building, a Japanese imperial soldier that Kamikazed into Pearl Harbor, or the innocent bystander killed by an aggressor? I think we all know the answer or is this just collateral damage?

  1. In 100% of abortions there is an innocent party that is killed. Innocents are a tragic side affect of war. They are not targeted nor are they purposefully (most of the time) killed. In an abortion, the fetus is the “enemy.”
1091

There is no federal law against murder.

The war in an abortion is over who controls a woman’s uterus. The fetus is the collateral damage in this war.

1092

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

I don’t think its about survival, its about way of life. You always have the option to surrender in war and it does not imply death.

[/quote]

Not to get into semantically argument, it depends on what you consider survival. Prisoner camps, re-education camps, living as a subject… None of that will be considered “survival” in a true sense to those who have been free and have a will to live.

You know the whole “live free or die”, “I’d rather die on my feet than live on me knees” point of view.

I don’t think we disagree with the overall point here, and I’d rather not get into a back and forth about what is or isn’t survival for these purposes. [/quote]

So your okay with killing people who are not a direct threat to your life as long as it improves your life and means you are more free?[/quote]

What? No.

That is closer to the opposite of what I said.

Am I having a bad day explaining, or are you and ze just making shit up at this point?[/quote]

I thought I understood what you said since I agreed with it. Freedom is the same as survival in some cases? And of course this would vary from person to person what their definition of freedom was. Obviously living under British rule is no where near as bad a prison or re-education camp but that was also unacceptable to many back in the day.

1093

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
There is no federal law against murder.

The war in an abortion is over who controls a woman’s uterus. The fetus is the collateral damage in this war. [/quote]

Murder is typically against state law, I thought there were at least some instances were murder was tried under federal law. Murder also is against the law in every single state of the United States, so the law is in effect universal.

I would say the battleground is the womans uterus, but the war is life vs liberty. Sure, the fetus is collateral damage because the victor gets to call it what they want, right?

1094

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So your okay with killing people who are not a direct threat to your life as long as it improves your life and means you are more free?[/quote]

No, I’m not okay with killing anyone.

I think it is an appropriate reaction to kill those that are trying to take your life from you, as a defensive measure.

I’m not “for” this action, I’m not “pro” killing. I am simply aware that self defense is the only real defense, and one often has to react to the world around him or her.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

I thought I understood what you said since I agreed with it. Freedom is the same as survival in some cases? And of course this would vary from person to person what their definition of freedom was. Obviously living under British rule is no where near as bad a prison or re-education camp but that was also unacceptable to many back in the day.[/quote]

Yes, freedom is survival in some cases, to some people.

This however does NOT mean “So your okay with killing people who are not a direct threat to your life as long as it improves your life and means you are more free”.