They Call It Murder?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
If one looks at the world map that you provided, one would see that about half the world restricts abortion in some form or fashion, including those primitive, backwater hellholes Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Brazil, Japan, and Australia.

Hardly unambiguous.[/quote]

If you want to split hairs, yeah, abortion is restricted “in some form or fashion”, but no nation would side with Pat’s aborting-a-fetus-of-a-few-days-is-murder.

Look at the UK for example, and the rift between laws in London and Dublin. Guess what the variable is? Guess why abortion laws are so strict in Brazil?

You have to be really stupid not to see the direct correlation.

102

[quote]orion wrote:
If you believe human life begins at conception, fine.

I don´t.

And, even if I did, I think especially the US has enough people behind bars to realize that state sanctioned violence is not the end all and be all of societies problems.

[/quote]
If you want to argue for abortions, at least make sure your argument makes sense.

Life begins at conception, consult any biology textbook and it will say the same, this is NOT debatable, and intelligent pro-choicers (oxymoron?) recognize this. I would hate to form an argument for you, but you may choose to argue that these “humans” are not “human beings”. Not very logical, but that is the stance most pro-choicers take. You could also argue that the fetus has no right to the mother’s body, but arguing that life begins at any point other than conception is just moronic.

103

[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
If one looks at the world map that you provided, one would see that about half the world restricts abortion in some form or fashion, including those primitive, backwater hellholes Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Brazil, Japan, and Australia.

Hardly unambiguous.

If you want to split hairs, yeah, abortion is restricted “in some form or fashion”, but no nation would side with Pat’s aborting-a-fetus-of-a-few-days-is-murder.

Look at the UK for example, and the rift between laws in London and Dublin. Guess what the variable is? Guess why abortion laws are so strict in Brazil?

You have to be really stupid not to see the direct correlation.[/quote]

Reply to my posts, you chicken shit little bitch.

Are you scared of men? I know you prefer defenseless little girls,yetact so fucking tough on the forums.

Are you afraid? Or am I just not your type?

Wht does it take to get a pedophilic rapist to engage?

I fear you words are as mighty as your shriveled little dick - they only sound big in front of those your think you can dominate.

You are a fucking pussy.

104

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Pro-lifers -

Go to an abortion clinic and offer to adopt all of the would be children.

You’d save some lives! It’s God’s work people.

And obviously you can take care of the little buggers.

See, there’s a non-violent solution to every problem![/quote]

I and my wife have adopted a child, a beautiful little girl from China. She is smart, happy, and her hugs are pure gold and a gift grom God.

Your turn…(when you’re old enough).

105

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Pro-life atheists oppose abortion in the belief, that from embryo on, a new individual human being is developing.

Atheists represent less than 1% of the United States (2001 ARIS report). How many of those do you think are against aborting in the first trimester? I bet you that I could fit them all in my courtyard.[/quote]

I fit the description of an atheist against abortion in at least most of the first trimester. 29 days into the pregnancy tops, and even that may be 16 days later then it possibly should be. (Still haven’t fully decided if the nervous system, or brainwave activity is most important.

My reasons are not related to religion, and in fact I think atheism would actually make the act even more abhorrent as there would be no place for the “soul” to go. (Depending on the atheist belief that is.)

Most of the atheists you hear are the vocal annoying ones. And most of them are not real atheists, but instead are just pissed off at God. (They mistook him for Santa and didn’t get their pony they prayed for.)

Other atheists forget that being an atheist is not a religion, and think they need to proselytize to convert the heathens of “science”.

But there are plenty of atheists who are more rational who you do not hear from. Rational people don’t tend to scream at others for simply not believing what they believe. They don’t think just because they are atheists that they have to disagree with everything in the Bible, or Koran, or Torah, or whatever document. These documents are not created out of nothing, but a result of centuries of experiences, and there are good lessons in these documents.

Just being an atheist doesn’t mean I now believe thou shalt kill, or thou shalt steal.

And if you understand the 7 deadly sins, they are kind of self punishing in reality. (Let me repeat, understand.)

EDIT: just did a search and found this web page::

106

[quote]tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
If you believe human life begins at conception, fine.

I don´t.

And, even if I did, I think especially the US has enough people behind bars to realize that state sanctioned violence is not the end all and be all of societies problems.

If you want to argue for abortions, at least make sure your argument makes sense.

Life begins at conception, consult any biology textbook and it will say the same, this is NOT debatable, and intelligent pro-choicers (oxymoron?) recognize this. I would hate to form an argument for you, but you may choose to argue that these “humans” are not “human beings”. Not very logical, but that is the stance most pro-choicers take. You could also argue that the fetus has no right to the mother’s body, but arguing that life begins at any point other than conception is just moronic.

[/quote]

Biologically you may define a fertilized egg as life if you wish, but that does not change that a fetus is not a person by any legal definition.

A nasciturus has certain potential rights that die with him if he is not born.

Brain dead people are also alive technically.

All of this shows that a biological definition is not necessarily the yard stick for the legal definition, nor should it be.

107

[quote]orion wrote:
Biologically you may define a fertilized egg as life if you wish, but that does not change that a fetus is not a person by any legal definition.
[/quote]

You don’t get it, there is NO arguement as to whether or not a fetus, or an embryo, is alive. It is not a matter of defining it “as I wish.”

This is where the future like ours arguement comes in to play. I ask you, why is killing a person, any person, wrong?

And this is exactly where logical pro-abortion arguements run into problems, and is the exact reason why arguing for abortion also leads to the permitting of infanticide.

108

[quote]tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
Biologically you may define a fertilized egg as life if you wish, but that does not change that a fetus is not a person by any legal definition.

You don’t get it, there is NO arguement as to whether or not a fetus, or an embryo, is alive. It is not a matter of defining it “as I wish.”

A nasciturus has certain potential rights that die with him if he is not born.

This is where the future like ours arguement comes in to play. I ask you, why is killing a person, any person, wrong?

Brain dead people are also alive technically.

All of this shows that a biological definition is not necessarily the yard stick for the legal definition, nor should it be.

And this is exactly where logical pro-abortion arguements run into problems, and is the exact reason why arguing for abortion also leads to the permitting of infanticide.
[/quote]

A legal entity is not necessarily a biological person or else I could kill a corporation.

If I simply do not define a yet to be born whatever as a “person” it isn`t one.

You may find it “logical” to do so, others don´t.

You seem to think a fetus is alive even though it cannot procreate, has no metabolism and reacts less to stimuli than a fruit fly.

Others disagree.

Finally I do not think that laws have to necessarily follow a certain “logic”.

There are things in our society we won`t agree on.

State sanctioned violence does not solve such problems, it initiates witch hunts.

No matter how you call it, what you define it as or at what angle you approach it from to some of us the right of a person to decide over its own body is more important than a lump of cells.

So sorry.

The good news is, we do not force anyone to see it our way.

109

[quote]orion wrote:
A legal entity is not necessarily a biological person or else I could kill a corporation.

If I simply do not define a yet to be born whatever as a “person” it isn`t one.

You may find it “logical” to do so, others don´t.

You seem to think a fetus is alive even though it cannot procreate, has no metabolism and reacts less to stimuli than a fruit fly.

Others disagree.
[/quote]
Life begins at conception! There is no arguement about this, I don’t know why you keep thinking there is. Whether or not a fetus is a person is debatable, but if you claim a fetus is not a person you better be ready to accept that a 6-month old is not a person either.

Procreation? What does that have to do with anything? I realize it is part of the definition of “life”, but you better be careful when using it in this arguement. I don’t know many six year olds that can procreate. I think you can come up with something better than that. Nonetheless, human zygotes and embryos are capable of reproduction. Have you ever met twins?

Metabolism? Time to brush up on your biology.

Reaction to stimuli is another poor arguement. The brain dead and comatose don’t have many reactions either, plus, you are going to have to decide on a cutoff point at some point if you use this arguement, which will again lead you to infanticide.

The abortionists are the only ones sanctioning violence, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The right to one’s body does not trump the right to one’s life, especially when the one claiming a right to their body was the one that made the choice to create a new person.

110

[quote]lixy wrote:
If you want to split hairs, yeah, abortion is restricted “in some form or fashion”, but no nation would side with Pat’s aborting-a-fetus-of-a-few-days-is-murder. [/quote]

Splitting hairs? In Brazil, abortions are illegal without a tangible reason. In the U.S., you can get one with no questions asked.

That’s splitting hairs to you?

[quote]Look at the UK for example, and the rift between laws in London and Dublin. Guess what the variable is? Guess why abortion laws are so strict in Brazil?

You have to be really stupid not to see the direct correlation.[/quote]

Point it out.

Abortion laws don’t appear to be clearly delineated between industrialized and non-industrialized countries, Western and non-Western countries, rich and poor countries, etc. So tell me what clear, single factor would produce such different laws on abortion. Other than international DISagreement on the matter, of course.

On a final, broader point, I think you might want to drop the cutesy-if-inaccurate labels such as “adepts of regressionism” and “aborting-a-fetus-of-a-few-days-is-murder” if you’re interested in legitimate debate.

Of course, you haven’t seemed interested in legitimate debate since you joined this site, so I guess I can’t reasonably expect any such inclination from you now.

111

[quote]tedro wrote:

The right to one’s body does not trump the right to one’s life, especially when the one claiming a right to their body was the one that made the choice to create a new person.
[/quote]

And here it is again. They are deciding not to create a new person.

Person=> legal concept, human life=> biological concept.

You have already accepted that there is a continuum of rights until there is an entity that can drink, drive, vote and buy guns.

Minors have less rights than adults, children less rights than minors.

There is no reason why an embryo should not have less rights than a child, which is the case right now and a fetus even less.

You argument falls short where you continuously insist that “human life” automatically has some rights, even a fertilized egg in a petri dish, though there is no reason to assume that it automatically must be that way.

There are also situations where your right to your body trumps other people rights to live, especially if they endanger your health or live.

112

[quote]orion wrote:
And here it is again. They are deciding not to create a new person.

Person=> legal concept, human life=> biological concept.

You have already accepted that there is a continuum of rights until there is an entity that can drink, drive, vote and buy guns.

Minors have less rights than adults, children less rights than minors.

There is no reason why an embryo should not have less rights than a child, which is the case right now and a fetus even less.

You argument falls short where you continuously insist that “human life” automatically has some rights, even a fertilized egg in a petri dish, though there is no reason to assume that it automatically must be that way.
[/quote]

These are the differences between natural rights and legal rights/PRIVILEDGES and does nothing for your arguement. I don’t have the right to vote in Canada, does that make me less of a person? We all have a right to life.

[/quote]
There are also situations where your right to your body trumps other people rights to live, especially if they endanger your health or live.
[/quote]

Self-defense has nothing to do with the current topic.

You still didn’t answer my question, why is wrong to kill a person in the first place? I’m not talking about a fetus, just any old Joe on the street. Why should you not kill him?

113

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Splitting hairs? In Brazil, abortions are illegal without a tangible reason. In the U.S., you can get one with no questions asked. [/quote]

Pat & co don’t like that.

Clearly, no. But I referred you to the big picture.

The grip of religion.

How would you call it? Trying to take away rights that took centuries to acquire is regressionism, pure and simple.

114

[quote]tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
And here it is again. They are deciding not to create a new person.

Person=> legal concept, human life=> biological concept.

You have already accepted that there is a continuum of rights until there is an entity that can drink, drive, vote and buy guns.

Minors have less rights than adults, children less rights than minors.

There is no reason why an embryo should not have less rights than a child, which is the case right now and a fetus even less.

You argument falls short where you continuously insist that “human life” automatically has some rights, even a fertilized egg in a petri dish, though there is no reason to assume that it automatically must be that way.

These are the differences between natural rights and legal rights/PRIVILEDGES and does nothing for your arguement. I don’t have the right to vote in Canada, does that make me less of a person? We all have a right to life.

There are also situations where your right to your body trumps other people rights to live, especially if they endanger your health or live.

Self-defense has nothing to do with the current topic.

You still didn’t answer my question, why is wrong to kill a person in the first place? I’m not talking about a fetus, just any old Joe on the street. Why should you not kill him?

[/quote]

Because a society where people nonchalantly kill each other is no working society at all, see Africa.

Unfortunately for embryos we need not fear retribution or them trying to kill us.

If they were persons in any way, shape or form, which they aren`t.

And self defense has something to do with it because embryos can endanger their mothers lifes.

115

[quote]lixy wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Consensus gentium and assigning guilt by association. Look them up.

That 80% of Europeans support abortion is not an argument. Nor does Christian opposition to abortion on religious grounds serve as an argument against the “pro-choice” position - let alone against those who hold the same position for purely secular reasons.

I made it clear that I am not looking for an argument here. It’s been settled decades ago, and I refuse to engage in that discussion because we all know it’s futile. I do believe that fundamentalists are the driving force behind the anti-abortionist movement. So, no arguments there. Just observations and suggestions.

And yes, there exists a bunch of atheists who oppose abortion, but there are even more believers who prefer empowering the woman rather than have the legislature dictate what her options are.

I’ll ask again. Do you guys see the pattern in this map?

File:AbortionLawsMap.png - Wikipedia [/quote]

Wow, this particularly bad even for you. I say abortion is the taking of a human life. You come back with, “Oh yea, well it’s really popular here in Europe!” What astounding reasoning! Why didn’t I think of that!

Since you like to throw around logical fallacies like you know what they are. Here is the fallacy you are using to support your statements. It’s called ‘Argumentum ad populum’. Translation, it’s trashy logic.

116

[quote]orion wrote:
tedro wrote:
orion wrote:
If you believe human life begins at conception, fine.

I don´t.

And, even if I did, I think especially the US has enough people behind bars to realize that state sanctioned violence is not the end all and be all of societies problems.

If you want to argue for abortions, at least make sure your argument makes sense.

Life begins at conception, consult any biology textbook and it will say the same, this is NOT debatable, and intelligent pro-choicers (oxymoron?) recognize this. I would hate to form an argument for you, but you may choose to argue that these “humans” are not “human beings”. Not very logical, but that is the stance most pro-choicers take. You could also argue that the fetus has no right to the mother’s body, but arguing that life begins at any point other than conception is just moronic.

Biologically you may define a fertilized egg as life if you wish, but that does not change that a fetus is not a person by any legal definition.

A nasciturus has certain potential rights that die with him if he is not born.

Brain dead people are also alive technically.

All of this shows that a biological definition is not necessarily the yard stick for the legal definition, nor should it be.
[/quote]

It really doesn’t matter what the law says. Between a fertilized egg and a full grown human there is no natural break between the fertilization and the full grown human. All the properties that make up a full grown human are already present in the embryo and vice versa.

Nothing is added or subtracted genetically through out the life of a person, only the volume of cells that make up the crude matter of a person. The only time the properties of a full human are not present in the egg is prior to conception.

Is there anytime during pregnancy that you would feel that you would actually be killing somebody versus just a fetus. Keep in mind that children have been born and lived as early as 4 months and more commonly 6 months into pregnancies. I am not talking the law but what you feel.

Secondly, depending on where you draw the line, what about the fetuses that are just slightly before the threshold that you would define. If they were say, two days younger than your define line?

117

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Pro-lifers -

Go to an abortion clinic and offer to adopt all of the would be children.

You’d save some lives! It’s God’s work people.

And obviously you can take care of the little buggers.

See, there’s a non-violent solution to every problem![/quote]

That’s not an argument. Is there at any point between 0 and 9 months that you would consider a fetus a person? Is it ok to kill a person for any reason. Whose going to take care of all the kids is irrelevant. Lets define what they are, then we’ll worry about what to do with them.

118

[quote]orion wrote:
Because a society where people nonchalantly kill each other is no working society at all, see Africa.

Unfortunately for embryos we need not fear retribution or them trying to kill us.
[/quote]
Are you really saying it is ok because an embryo cannot retaliate?

[quote]
If they were persons in any way, shape or form, which they aren`t.

And self defense has something to do with it because embryos can endanger their mothers lifes.[/quote]

These occurences are relatively rare and obviously in these cases the mother also has a right to life, so this has a completely different set of circumstances and can be another topic altogether.

You still have not answered my question.

119

[quote]pat36 wrote:
That’s not an argument. Is there at any point between 0 and 9 months that you would consider a fetus a person? Is it ok to kill a person for any reason. Whose going to take care of all the kids is irrelevant. Lets define what they are, then we’ll worry about what to do with them. [/quote]

Nobody has even attempted to form a logical argument for choice yet in this thread. At least I hope they have not attempted, because the arguments that have been presented are generally pathetic.

120

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
It’s not the woman’s body I am worried about. It’s the little baby inside them. Killing a fetus is like killing a baby outside the womb. Until such point that somebody can convince me that the “fetus” is not a person, then I will continue to be against abortion.

Not quite. You are against abortion because the Vatican (or whatever guru you prefer) told you to.

Lixy, that is the worst form of debate. You not only ignored his reasons, but turned around and created an arguement for him out of thin air. Try to be more honest. This is becoming a pattern for you.[/quote]

Becoming?