They Call It Murder?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]John S. wrote:
I don’t get any of there arguments. I was once told that to be declared a living thing it would have to be able to live by itself. If thats the case wouldn’t someone on life support be considered not living?[/quote]

Yep, not to mention people that are simply unconcious. The only way to form a logical pro-choice arguement is to also concede infanticide for up to at least three months of age, and this is what the lead pro-choice advocates say. But even these arguements run into flaws when you consider the unconcious, the severely brain-damaged, siamese twins, and likely others.

42

[quote]tedro wrote:
I’m sorry, I thought you said by not aborting we were condemning people to a life of misery. Nobody can decide this but the person living the life themselves. This is a very poor pro-choice arguement.

[/quote]

You don’t understand. Lixy is all knowing. She is the one to decide who livs and dies, who leads a life of misery, and who doesn’t.

It is her right to give her blessing to killing unborn children, who have no voice.

The more that bitch posts, the more I am convinced her hell is going to be one hot son of a bitch, and I can’t imagine it happening to a more deserving, ass raping, pedophilic piece of shit than our own resident death officer.

43

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You don’t understand. Lixy is all knowing. She is the one to decide who livs and dies, who leads a life of misery, and who doesn’t.

It is her right to give her blessing to killing unborn children, who have no voice.

The more that bitch posts, the more I am convinced her hell is going to be one hot son of a bitch, and I can’t imagine it happening to a more deserving, ass raping, pedophilic piece of shit than our own resident death officer.

[/quote]

Lixy’s a female?

44

[quote]tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You don’t understand. Lixy is all knowing. She is the one to decide who livs and dies, who leads a life of misery, and who doesn’t.

It is her right to give her blessing to killing unborn children, who have no voice.

The more that bitch posts, the more I am convinced her hell is going to be one hot son of a bitch, and I can’t imagine it happening to a more deserving, ass raping, pedophilic piece of shit than our own resident death officer.

Lixy’s a female?[/quote]

He believes that lixy is.

45

[quote]Sloth wrote:
3. The boy is charged with “destroying an unborn fetus without the mother’s consent”. We (as a society) can choose what we feel to be an appropriate sentence for that crime.

he is charged with a property crime? vandalism?[/quote]

My point is, why can’t he simply be charged with “destruction of an unborn fetus without the mother’s consent”? As a society we can make that act a criminal offense in-and-of itself, and punish that act as we see fit. I don’t see how that is logically inconsistent.

You’ve set up a false dichotomy where destruction of a fetus has to be treated as either murder or as destruction of property. It’s not quite the logical “catch-22” you’ve setup.

46

[quote]John S. wrote:
I don’t get any of there arguments. I was once told that to be declared a living thing it would have to be able to live by itself. If thats the case wouldn’t someone on life support be considered not living?[/quote]

Who told you that definition if life? Life is a pretty amorphous concept, but I don’t know any widely accepted definition that is anything close to what you’ve stated (let’s ignore the fact that “in order to be living it has to live…” is circular).

The arguments are pretty simple as long as you understand the basic premise that each “side” is operating under:

Those that are “pro-life” consider an embryo/fetus to be a living being. Typically (but not always) these people adopt a religious definition of “life”.

Those that are “pro-choice” believe that an embryo/fetus is not a living being. They typically believe that an embryo/fetus is more valuable than simple “property” because of its potential for life, but that is not yet alive. Typically (but not always) there people adopt a strictly biological definition of “life”.

Most of the misunderstanding happens when someone from one “side” tries to analyze the arguments of the other side without recognizing that the other side is operating under a different premise.

Personally I understand the arguments of both “sides” and see no point in arguing this issue with the purpose of changing someone’s mind.

Then there is the issue or whether or now Roe v. Wade is sound law, which is orthogonal (but related) to the issue of whether or not an embryo/fetus is alive.

47

how is a embryo or a fetus considered property? It is the beggining stage of life? Maybe its just because a bunch of unresponsible assholes would not like to take responsibilty for there actions I guess the thought of adoption is to much for them.

48

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Sloth wrote:
3. The boy is charged with “destroying an unborn fetus without the mother’s consent”. We (as a society) can choose what we feel to be an appropriate sentence for that crime.

he is charged with a property crime? vandalism?

My point is, why can’t he simply be charged with “destruction of an unborn fetus without the mother’s consent”? As a society we can make that act a criminal offense in-and-of itself, and punish that act as we see fit. I don’t see how that is logically inconsistent.

You’ve set up a false dichotomy where destruction of a fetus has to be treated as either murder or as destruction of property. It’s not quite the logical “catch-22” you’ve setup.[/quote]

Destruction of an unborn is fetus, is what he did. It’s a description. But the nature of the crime is of property damage.

49

[quote]John S. wrote:
how is a embryo or a fetus considered property? It is the beggining stage of life? Maybe its just because a bunch of unresponsible assholes would not like to take responsibilty for there actions I guess the thought of adoption is to much for them.[/quote]

I’ve been talking hypothetically but I guess I’ll step up and give you my own personal perspective.

  1. I consider neither embryos nor fetuses “property”. As far as I can tell no one in this thread (nor anyone I know) has taken a position that an embryo is “property”, so I’m going to assume you felt like throwing out a strawman.

  2. I consider sperm and ova to be the beginning stages of human life.

I am personally “pro-choice” because, as I said before, I don’t believe embryos are “alive” and thus I don’t consider their destruction murder. It’s really that simple. I am not “irresponsible”, nor am I an “asshole”. I don’t condone “baby killing” because I don’t believe the an embryo is a “baby”. From a biological standpoint I do not consider a first trimester embryo a living human being and thus it is not my business what a mother decides to do with her body.

If I personally believed that embryos were “alive”, as you seem to believe, then I would be adamantly against both abortion and hormonal birth control (both of which result in the destruction of viable, conceived embryos).

I respect that you and others believe that an embryo is “alive” and so I can see how it would logically follow that you oppose abortion and birth control.

Because I respect your belief that an embryo is “alive”, and I assume that you respect my belief that an embryo is “not alive”, this discussion can’t really go any further. Instead, I’ll pose some questions that I find interesting.

  1. How can one be Christian and be “pro-choice” when the Bible seems to state pretty clearly that life begins at conception?

  2. How can someone be “pro-life” and condone hormonal birth control, when hormonal birth control causes a woman to expel viable, conceived embryos?

50

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
John S. wrote:
how is a embryo or a fetus considered property? It is the beggining stage of life? Maybe its just because a bunch of unresponsible assholes would not like to take responsibilty for there actions I guess the thought of adoption is to much for them.

I’ve been talking hypothetically but I guess I’ll step up and give you my own personal perspective.

  1. I consider neither embryos nor fetuses “property”. As far as I can tell no one in this thread (nor anyone I know) has taken a position that an embryo is “property”, so I’m going to assume you felt like throwing out a strawman.

  2. I consider sperm and ova to be the beginning stages of human life.

I am personally “pro-choice” because, as I said before, I don’t believe embryos are “alive” and thus I don’t consider their destruction murder. It’s really that simple. I am not “irresponsible”, nor am I an “asshole”. I don’t condone “baby killing” because I don’t believe the an embryo is a “baby”. From a biological standpoint I do not consider a first trimester embryo a living human being and thus it is not my business what a mother decides to do with her body.

If I personally believed that embryos were “alive”, as you seem to believe, then I would be adamantly against both abortion and hormonal birth control (both of which result in the destruction of viable, conceived embryos).

I respect that you and others believe that an embryo is “alive” and so I can see how it would logically follow that you oppose abortion and birth control.

Because I respect your belief that an embryo is “alive”, and I assume that you respect my belief that an embryo is “not alive”, this discussion can’t really go any further. Instead, I’ll pose some questions that I find interesting.

  1. How can one be Christian and be “pro-choice” when the Bible seems to state pretty clearly that life begins at conception?

  2. How can someone be “pro-life” and condone hormonal birth control, when hormonal birth control causes a woman to expel viable, conceived embryos?[/quote]

How can a embryo not be considered alive? it is clearly the beginning stages of life? If I was to punch a women in the stomach while she was in her first trimester would I not have killed her baby? Now lets say someone hit your wife(weither you have one or not but I am going to assume you do) in the stomach during her first trimester, would you not claim they killed your baby?

51

[quote]John S. wrote:
How can a embryo not be considered alive? it is clearly the beginning stages of life? If I was to punch a women in the stomach while she was in her first trimester would I not have killed her baby? Now lets say someone hit your wife(weither you have one or not but I am going to assume you do) in the stomach during her first trimester, would you not claim they killed your baby?[/quote]

  1. I personally don’t believe that the mass of cells that makes up an embryo is a human life, with rights, just because it has the potential to become a human life. After an embryo becomes a fetus, things become pretty amorphous. I believe that most fetuses assume a form I would consider a human life somewhere within the second trimester.

  2. As I said before, sperm and ova are the beginning stages of human life.

  3. No I would not consider you to have killed a baby. I would consider you to have committed an especially grievous assault resulting in the death of an unborn fetus and would want your punishment to be particularly harsh; maybe on the order of a manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder sentence.

  4. See #3.

Do you consider women that take birth control pills to be killing babies? Should they be arrested and charged with murder when the pills cause their bodies to discard fertilized eggs?

52

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
John S. wrote:
How can a embryo not be considered alive? it is clearly the beginning stages of life? If I was to punch a women in the stomach while she was in her first trimester would I not have killed her baby? Now lets say someone hit your wife(weither you have one or not but I am going to assume you do) in the stomach during her first trimester, would you not claim they killed your baby?

  1. I personally don’t believe that the mass of cells that makes up an embryo is a human life, with rights, just because it has the potential to become a human life. After an embryo becomes a fetus, things become pretty amorphous. I believe that most fetuses assume a form I would consider a human life somewhere within the second trimester.

  2. As I said before, sperm and ova are the beginning stages of human life.

  3. No I would not consider you to have killed a baby. I would consider you to have committed an especially grievous assault resulting in the death of an unborn fetus and would want your punishment to be particularly harsh; maybe on the order of a manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder sentence.

  4. See #3.

Do you consider women that take birth control pills to be killing babies? Should they be arrested and charged with murder when the pills cause their bodies to discard fertilized eggs?[/quote]

I am angaist birth controll pills, The fact of the matter is thats a human life being destroyed. Now how could someone who hit a women in her first trimester be convicted of murder? If acording to your logic(they are not alive) the worst they could throw out would be assult against the monther because no life was actually taken(according to there logic). If you are willing to demand murder then some part of you is telling you that they have life.

53

An abortion debate? Nobody has any strong feelings about that.

Now consider that a doctor was performing an abortion in the 8th month, where he pulled out an arm, the person getting the abortion freaked out over the sight, actually got up and left the office, and proceeded to give birth at a local hospital.

They tried to take it to court, but the doctor won because it was done inside the womb regardless of the fact that the child is now alive with one arm.

Legally life does not begin until after birth, so even in the delivery room, you can still get an abortion. (1 year after birth in England as long as its done by the mothers hands, if that law is still in place.)

A fetus needs to be defined, and that definition cannot be changed because of accidental or intentional destruction. If its not murder for the abortion doctor, then it cannot be murder for this kid. But if it is murder in this kids case, then it must be murder for the doctor.

I do not like to have any opinion that is not thought out. Too many people on the right and left, (and the nuts all over the place,) tend to chose an opinion for some arbitrary reason, mostly because it is what their party thinks, and then sticks to that belief no matter what.

I have thought about this issue, and thinking about the fact that the nervous system forms after 2 weeks, and there are measurable brainwaves at 30 days, the latest an abortion should be performed is 29 days after conception.

People talk about choice, but the choice was already made when that condom was not used, or the pill was not taken, and those legs were spread wide.

Don’t want to get pregnant? Spit or swallow.

Now there is always the person who brings up the emotional story of back alley abortions to support choice, forgetting that they CHOSE to get a back alley abortion, and could have chosen not to.

I am not going to feel guilty for a person making one bad choice, then making things worse by making an even worse choice to cover up that first stupid choice.

We all have to realize that the other side has their opinion based on caring about somebody. One for the pregnant person, and one for the fetus.

I do care about those pregnant people, and I care about that fetus. Yet the pregnant person already made a choice that got her pregnant, which the fetus had nothing to do with, though was the result of. The problem as I see it is the fetus is paying for the mistake of the person who got pregnant, while the pregnant person is getting out of it.

Finally if you are worried about a child being unwanted, find a gay couple.

54

[quote]John S. wrote:
I am angaist birth controll pills [/quote]

Don’t use them.

55

[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
I am angaist birth controll pills

Don’t use them.[/quote]

Too bad your parents didn’t take your advice.

56

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

  1. How can one be Christian and be “pro-choice” when the Bible seems to state pretty clearly that life begins at conception?
    [/quote]
    By all rights they can’t. Those are folks trying to have and eat the cake.

[quote]
2) How can someone be “pro-life” and condone hormonal birth control, when hormonal birth control causes a woman to expel viable, conceived embryos?[/quote]

Well you have a point here, but that’s not how it’s supposed to work. It’s supposed to stop the egg from popping out. But is does happen and it is conceivable that the egg can be fertilized but not allowed to attach to the uterus. It is hence called a abortificant, because of this potential.

So you are right in saying that a right thinking Christian, or rather anybody who is adamantly pro-life cannot rely on hormonal contraception alone. You have to make damn sure the sperm and the egg don’t meet. Actually, male hormonal contraception solves this problem.

Exogenous testosterone stops sperm production and hence is a better contraceptive method. Unfortunately, testosterone is such a pariah and/or a societal boogy man, that it will probably never be generally accepted.

57

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Muslims tend to have little respect for life as it is, so this sentiment doesn’t surprise me. By that logic every girl in every arab country should be aborted because they are doomed to a life of hardship and misery.That being said, though inevitably it will become so, this thread isn’t about debating what abortion is, it is about the law’s view of a fetus. A woman can abort a fetus all she wants to and it is nothing but extraneous tissue.

Where did you fetch this from? The protocols of the elders of Arafat? You are sounding more and more like JTF.

Here’s something you might want to check out.

At the time of Muhammad’s birth, women in 7th century Arabia had few if any rights. Even the right of life could be in question, since it was not uncommon for small girls to be buried alive during times of scarcity. In the Qur’an, it is said that on Judgment Day “buried girls” will rise out of their graves and ask for what crime they were killed. Part of Muhammad’s legacy was to end infanticide and establish explicit rights for women.

Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet . Muhammad and Women | PBS [/quote]

And not much has changed since the 7th century. If I were a female in a muslim dominated country, I rather be the family dog or dead. By your own logic, people who are destined to has miserable lives are better off being aborted in the first place.

[quote][i]No shit! You don’t even recognize a woman’s right to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy not realizing that you’re condemning her and her baby to a life of misery. And the icing on the cake is that you also oppose giving them some of your tax-money…

You have no respect for pregnant women.[/i][/quote]

My contention is that since women are treated poorly in most muslim countries, it only makes sense by your own logic allied, they’d be better off aborted since they will likely be miserable. Just like China! How’s that working out for them anyhow?

58

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

  1. How can one be Christian and be “pro-choice” when the Bible seems to state pretty clearly that life begins at conception?

By all rights they can’t. Those are folks trying to have and eat the cake.

  1. How can someone be “pro-life” and condone hormonal birth control, when hormonal birth control causes a woman to expel viable, conceived embryos?

Well you have a point here, but that’s not how it’s supposed to work. It’s supposed to stop the egg from popping out. But is does happen and it is conceivable that the egg can be fertilized but not allowed to attach to the uterus. It is hence called a abortificant, because of this potential.

So you are right in saying that a right thinking Christian, or rather anybody who is adamantly pro-life cannot rely on hormonal contraception alone. You have to make damn sure the sperm and the egg don’t meet. Actually, male hormonal contraception solves this problem.

Exogenous testosterone stops sperm production and hence is a better contraceptive method. Unfortunately, testosterone is such a pariah and/or a societal boogy man, that it will probably never be generally accepted.[/quote]

There is also a wide-spread belief among pro-lifers that life begins at implantation. This would not contradict the use of birth control at all. I don’t agree with this, as biologically it is indisputable that life begins at conception. Most pro-choicers do not even argue this. After this, I prefer Marquis’ Future like ours arguement.

59

[quote]pat36 wrote:
My contention is that since women are treated poorly in most muslim countries, it only makes sense by your own logic allied, they’d be better off aborted since they will likely be miserable. Just like China! How’s that working out for them anyhow? [/quote]

That’s nothing but a reductio ad absurdum. Women in Muslim countries (and many other places) look forward to having girls because they tend to take care of the elders much more than boys.

Read my post again. I wrote that you don’t have the right to decide what a chick does with her body. If you don’t like abortion, take steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place (education, contraceptives, abstinence, etc…). But one a pregnancy happens, you don’t have the moral right to limit the girl’s options. If it’s in contradiction with your scriptures, suck it up!

I’m sure you would be singing a different tune if you were the one who had to put up with the 9 months, delivery and all.

60

[quote]lixy wrote:
No shit! You don’t even recognize a woman’s right to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy not realizing that you’re condemning her and her baby to a life of misery. And the icing on the cake is that you also oppose giving them some of your tax-money…

You have no respect for pregnant women.[/quote]

And you don’t recognize a man’s right to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy that would condemn him to a life of misery. Either having to marry this chick, somehow(almost impossible) getting full custody of the child, or paying a ridiculous amount of child support to the woman and living as a penniless slob.