Abortion Penalty

[aurik]

While it is a valid point, it relies on what could be described as the semantic of legality. Granted it's not murder as stated by the law, or even by the dictionary, but one should assume that when the variable presented is legality that someone calling it as murder is using it in a more abstract way to label the killing of something that most would say is defenseless. No one's really going to buy that "it's not murder because it's not illegal".

It is definitely not murder if it's explicity legal. Example: you're in your home and someone breaks in and waves a gun in your face. Being a real-life ninja you stab him with a sharpened spoon and he dies. Now, did you murder the intruder? Or did you kill the intruder?

[Xavier]

Sounds like you owned the intruder.

[aurik]

It was totally sweet.

[divisortheory]

While it is a valid point, it relies on what could be described as the semantic of legality. Granted it's not murder as stated by the law, or even by the dictionary, but one should assume that when the variable presented is legality that someone calling it as murder is using it in a more abstract way to label the killing of something that most would say is defenseless. No one's really going to buy that "it's not murder because it's not illegal".

It is definitely not murder if it's explicity legal. Example: you're in your home and someone breaks in and waves a gun in your face. Being a real-life ninja you stab him with a sharpened spoon and he dies. Now, did you murder the intruder? Or did you kill the intruder?

This happens all the time where I live, and it is explicitly legal to kill a person in such a case. I think state laws differ here though, but where I live you can definitely kill a home intruder.

[Kuya]

Yet, you feel absolutly safe making arbitrary statements such as: "Life begins at conception". Shouldn't we be making these choices on logical thought, instead of what makes you feel better?

I am. Its not what makes me feel better, its the most logical time to define the start of human life. Name any other phase in human development where you so clearly go from potential to human? I've yet to find a better point logically. Any other other point is simply an arbitrary point in development.

So as soon as the male cell and female cell merge, it then becomes murder to eliminate it?

[Gafgarionn]

While it is a valid point, it relies on what could be described as the semantic of legality. Granted it's not murder as stated by the law, or even by the dictionary, but one should assume that when the variable presented is legality that someone calling it as murder is using it in a more abstract way to label the killing of something that most would say is defenseless. No one's really going to buy that "it's not murder because it's not illegal".

It is definitely not murder if it's explicity legal. Example: you're in your home and someone breaks in and waves a gun in your face. Being a real-life ninja you stab him with a sharpened spoon and he dies. Now, did you murder the intruder? Or did you kill the intruder?

This happens all the time where I live, and it is explicitly legal to kill a person in such a case. I think state laws differ here though, but where I live you can definitely kill a home intruder.

In Ohio you can kill anybody that even steps foot on your property. A recent example was this girl that was dared to ding-dong-ditch a suspected "haunted house". Apparently the owner didn't appreciate it much and fired shots at her while she was in her car, killing her. If she was still in the yard it'd be legal, but the shooter is facing 19 years in prison. Crazy to think that the only thing separating guilty from innocent in this case was a curb. Aaaaaaaaaand that's pretty much why I hate politics and government!

[aurik]

Yet, you feel absolutly safe making arbitrary statements such as: "Life begins at conception". Shouldn't we be making these choices on logical thought, instead of what makes you feel better?

I am. Its not what makes me feel better, its the most logical time to define the start of human life. Name any other phase in human development where you so clearly go from potential to human? I've yet to find a better point logically. Any other other point is simply an arbitrary point in development.

My personal belief is that the organism assumes its rights as a human being when it is no longer has a parasitic dependency on another specific human being. That's a pretty distinct moment in human development.

[Ryko]

While it is a valid point, it relies on what could be described as the semantic of legality. Granted it's not murder as stated by the law, or even by the dictionary, but one should assume that when the variable presented is legality that someone calling it as murder is using it in a more abstract way to label the killing of something that most would say is defenseless. No one's really going to buy that "it's not murder because it's not illegal".

It is definitely not murder if it's explicity legal. Example: you're in your home and someone breaks in and waves a gun in your face. Being a real-life ninja you stab him with a sharpened spoon and he dies. Now, did you murder the intruder? Or did you kill the intruder?

Well for one the intruder shoulda known that I had utsusemi up (and should have used reraise to boot), and secondly I'm not trying to argue the legality of it. In that case it is a matter of self-defense, however the concept of self-defense is to get you off from being convicted from murder. In the end fine, all you did was kill something, and I get your point that the people who are up in a tizzy about this would probably be better served using the correct term. However my point was that no one's going to focus on whether or not it's murder as described by the law because anyone familiar with this argument knows that they're not describing it that way. They're using a harsh term that in their mind is equivalent but everyone knows that they're just talking about the principle of killing something that has no say in the matter. I mean (and trust me, I'm already sighing at having to use a racially motivated statement) if a slave owner killed his property for trying to read and no court would convict him, would one say it's not murder?

I named one that you defined as arbitrary. You named one that I defined as arbitrary. Just to clarify, you feel that it's possible for a human being to not have a brain and be alive?

Using that concept at what point do you take away one's right to live in terms of mental capacity? Are they still "alive" if all they can do is breathe? What if theyre woefully mentally retarded or comatose? Is it ok to "mercy kill" (not a loaded question, just asking for my edification), if one cannot fend for itself should they be left to die?

My personal belief is that the organism assumes its rights as a human being when it is no longer has a parasitic dependency on another specific human being. That's a pretty distinct moment in human development.

On that note can we kill trust fund babies? (It's a joke, chill)

[Fuuko]

I especially like the "seriously grow up" part. And no, the logic is not like self-defense and cold blooded murder are the same thing, nor that rape and sex are the same thing.

You basically call anyone who gets an abortion a murderer, and that their excuses only exist to help them sleep at night. In the same breath you separate rape victims and the mothers health, which I guess means you understand the need for exceptions, or difficult choices. Yet, in both cases, the fetus is being aborted and a "child" is being killed.

I don't call everyone who gets an abortion a murderer I call all those who get it outside of rape or the health of the mother one. You even admit I make exceptions, and yet fail to grasp it.

You own words "yet, in both cases, the fetus is being aborted and a "child" is being killed.", works for rape and self-defense. After all in all those cases someone is still dieing and intercourse is taking place. You defeat your own pathetic point. You are arguing that circumstances have no effect on what is a crime and what is not, but are only applying it to abortion.

And to Divsor, yes I think they should have jail time. But more to the point your entire point is flawed you can think things are a crime and not demand that people spend time in jail. How many crimes in the US only have a fine?

[aurik]

Well for one the intruder shoulda known that I had utsusemi up (and should have used reraise to boot), and secondly I'm not trying to argue the legality of it. In that case it is a matter of self-defense, however the concept of self-defense is to get you off from being convicted from murder. In the end fine, all you did was kill something, and I get your point that the people who are up in a tizzy about this would probably be better served using the correct term. However my point was that no one's going to focus on whether or not it's murder as described by the law because anyone familiar with this argument knows that they're not describing it that way. They're using a harsh term that in their mind is equivalent but everyone knows that they're just talking about the principle of killing something that has no say in the matter. I mean (and trust me, I'm already sighing at having to use a racially motivated statement) if a slave owner killed his property for trying to read and no court would convict him, would one say it's not murder?

Yea I'm just harshing on people for using loaded words, it doesn't really impact the validity of their arguments.

Also, to continue this meaninless semantic derail, just because one doesn't get convicted for something doesn't make it less against the law.

[-Omni]

In before Perm.

Also, it's not a registered human being until it's out of the womb and the umbilical cord is severed. Until then, it's a parasite.

[aurik]

And to Divsor, yes I think they should have jail time. But more to the point your entire point is flawed you can think things are a crime and not demand that people spend time in jail. How many crimes in the US only have a fine?

So how much should we fine women who get abortions?

[Ryko]

About tree fitty

[Xavier]

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

[-Omni]

And to Divsor, yes I think they should have jail time. But more to the point your entire point is flawed you can think things are a crime and not demand that people spend time in jail. How many crimes in the US only have a fine?

So how much should we fine women who get abortions?

In other words, how much is a baby worth in terms of money?

Holy slippery slope, Batman!

[aurik]

Dammit you saw right through my trap card.

[Fuuko]

Yet, you feel absolutly safe making arbitrary statements such as: "Life begins at conception". Shouldn't we be making these choices on logical thought, instead of what makes you feel better?

I am. Its not what makes me feel better, its the most logical time to define the start of human life. Name any other phase in human development where you so clearly go from potential to human? I've yet to find a better point logically. Any other other point is simply an arbitrary point in development.

My personal belief is that the organism assumes its rights as a human being when it is no longer has a parasitic dependency on another specific human being. That's a pretty distinct moment in human development.

Not really, a newborn still has a parasitic dependency on a the mother. You can debate when a child stops needing a parasitic relationship forever, its not clearly defined.

So as soon as the male cell and female cell merge, it then becomes murder to eliminate it?

It becomes a human, again find a better point at which to absolutely define the change from potential to human.

[Ryko]

Raises a question about morning after pills, though what they prevent I guess is potential at the last second since they're working to stop implantation, not cutting it off after it happens.

[aurik]

Yet, you feel absolutly safe making arbitrary statements such as: "Life begins at conception". Shouldn't we be making these choices on logical thought, instead of what makes you feel better?

I am. Its not what makes me feel better, its the most logical time to define the start of human life. Name any other phase in human development where you so clearly go from potential to human? I've yet to find a better point logically. Any other other point is simply an arbitrary point in development.

My personal belief is that the organism assumes its rights as a human being when it is no longer has a parasitic dependency on another specific human being. That's a pretty distinct moment in human development.

Not really, a newborn still has a parasitic dependency on a the mother. You can debate when a child stops needing a parasitic relationship forever, its not clearly defined.

No, it has a dependency on a mother, not necessarily the specific biological mother.

[-Omni]

Raises a question about morning after pills, though what they prevent I guess is potential at the last second since they're working to stop implantation, not cutting it off after it happens.

Should "pulling out" be a punishable offense?