Is Abortion Murder?

[Bowser]

[QUOTE="Truck Captain Stumpy, post: 3341630]you can google the legal definition for your state or country... it is very specific per the law, and it is not always the same in every location around the globe
in the US alone there are even qualifiers that are applicable as Randwolf noted...[/QUOTE]
I looked it up on Wiki. What I did find interesting was a comment regarding the following...

California's murder statute, Penal Code Section 187, was interpreted by the Supreme Court of California in 1994 as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a prerequisite to a murder conviction.[26] This holding has two implications. The first is a defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother herself could have terminated without committing a crime.[26] The second, as stated by Justice Stanley Mosk in his dissent, is that because women carrying nonviable fetuses may not be visibly pregnant, it may be possible for a defendant to be convicted of intentionally murdering a person he did not know existed.[26]

So, the fetus has no value if the mother decides to terminate, but if her boyfriend causes its death, we then call it murder?

 

[Tiassa]

So, the fetus has no value if the mother decides to terminate, but if her boyfriend causes its death, we then call it murder?

If that's the only way you're capable of comprehending the situation, sure.

Her body. Her choice.

The boyfriend doesn't get to take that away from her.

The random asshole jacking the corner store doesn't get to take that away from her.

Do you understand that women are human beings and thus have human rights?

What takes place inside her body is subject to her governance. Not her boyfriend's. Not some street tough's.

Is this hard for you to understand? If so, why?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I looked it up on Wiki.

you should also take the time to check the references... and don't make assumptions

also note: California is not representative of the US as a whole
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-california-6th-grade-science-climate.html

So, the fetus has no value if the mother decides to terminate, but if her boyfriend causes its death, we then call it murder?

where do you live?
i would start by looking up the laws in your own area

but... i also liked Tiassa's reply to you as well...

If that's the only way you're capable of comprehending the situation, sure.

 

[Bowser]

But you're giving the power of life and death to one person, which I disagree. The life is valid only if the mother decides so, in a nutshell. As far as defining the value of human life, where else has it been diminished by law? We're assuming that the right to life hangs on judicial or legislative decree. If someone defines it as justifed killing, does that really make it justified?
http://archive.adl.org/children_holocaust/about_nazi_law.html

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

But you're giving the power of life and death to one person, which I disagree.

round and round in circles you go...
when you will end, no one can know

you already argued those points and failed to actually support it with any evidence, dude
just because you are a fanatical believer doesn't mean we all are... nor does it mean we all should be because you believe.

and posting a link to Nazi crap-o-la is just another attempt to derail logical conversation with vitriol and nonsensical allusion because of a religious delusional belief...

 

[billvon]

But you're giving the power of life and death to one person, which I disagree. The life is valid only if the mother decides so, in a nutshell. As far as defining the value of human life, where else has it been diminished by law? We're assuming that the right to life hangs on judicial or legislative decree. If someone defines it as justifed killing, does that really make it justified?
http://archive.adl.org/children_holocaust/about_nazi_law.html

Bringing up Nazis is equivalent to conceding you have lost the argument and have no more rational arguments left.

 

[Daecon]

Bringing up Nazis is equivalent to conceding you have lost the argument and have no more rational arguments left.

See post #49.

 

[billvon]

See post #49.

Good point.

Come to think of it, you know who else was always talking about Hitler? Hitler, that's who!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

There's a name for this phenomenon, which I unfortunately can't remember. The phenomenon is that when someone mentions Adolph Hitler in an internet discussion (which isn't specifically about the Third Reich, WWII or Hitler himself), the discussion will almost invariably shut down shortly, if not immediately.

 

[billvon]

There's a name for this phenomenon, which I unfortunately can't remember. The phenomenon is that when someone mentions Adolph Hitler in an internet discussion (which isn't specifically about the Third Reich, WWII or Hitler himself), the discussion will almost invariably shut down shortly, if not immediately.

Godwin's Law.

 

[Tiassa]

But you're giving the power of life and death to one person, which I disagree.

Do you acknowledge that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop?

The life is valid only if the mother decides so, in a nutshell.

What takes place inside a woman's body is her business.

Do you acknowledge that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop?

As far as defining the value of human life, where else has it been diminished by law? We're assuming that the right to life hangs on judicial or legislative decree.

Do you acknowledge that wmen are human beings and have human rights, full stop?

Why should women be expected to answer for the aesthetics of some man somewhere who refuses to acknoledge the humanity and human rights of women?

If someone defines it as justifed killing, does that really make it justified?

If someone refuses to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women, does that mean women aren't people and therefore have no human rights?

Do you acknowledge that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop?

 

[Bowser]

If someone refuses to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women, does that mean women aren't people and therefore have no human rights?

Do you acknowledge that women are human beings and have human rights, full stop?

This is the crux of the issue, who's rights take precedence, the mother's or the child's? Does the mother face death if forced to give birth? No. Does the child face death if aborted? Yes. In my opinion, denying the child its rights prior to taking its first breath is wrong. I would assign it the right of life throughout gestation.

 

[Bowser]

I understand your position regarding a woman's domain over her body, yet I cannot ignore the life she holds. Trying to keep it simple without regurgitating what has already been said, I believe life's value immeasurable.

I'm obliged to let this thread die. We will never agree on this issue and are going in circles. Giving it some more thought, I think there might be more practical (more creative) ways to advocate a pro-life stand through popular media.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I believe life's value immeasurable

no... you believe in the superiority of human life and in the value of strictly human life. there is a difference, and so long as you eat then saying "I believe life's value immeasurable" is hypocrisy.
Which was my point to you earlier

you don't believe in life, you believe in your views and their perceived moral superiority

We will never agree on this issue and are going in circles

this is likely true
unless there can be a common ground, and unless all parties agree to a logical train of thought without biased emotional outbursts, then no parties can come together into a logical discussion of anything... this is the problem dealing with emotionally charged topics like this one as well: you aren't willing to remove your emo-judgement and this doesn't allow you to logically converse.

Giving it some more thought, I think there might be more practical (more creative) ways to advocate a pro-life stand through popular media.

you mean the religion tactic?
shout louder and louder and ignore all the empirical evidence until everyone else goes away in disgust (and then actually accomplishes important things) and allow the myopic prejudiced delusional religious to wallow in their own sense of self righteousness?
it worked for ken ham when debating the ark and creation vs evolution theory

... it's worked for yall here in this thread too
you know, like above when you ask

who's rights take precedence, the mother's or the child's?

and yet, this didn't work earlier in the thread
(what do you call it when you do something over and over but expect different results?)

 

[Kristoffer]

(what do you call it when you do something over and over but expect different results?)

Insanity.

 

[Tiassa]

I understand your position regarding a woman's domain over her body, yet I cannot ignore the life she holds. Trying to keep it simple without regurgitating what has already been said, I believe life's value immeasurable.

I'm obliged to let this thread die. We will never agree on this issue and are going in circles. Giving it some more thought, I think there might be more practical (more creative) ways to advocate a pro-life stand through popular media.

You cannot even acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women?

Really?

 

[Bowser]

no... you believe in the superiority of human life and in the value of strictly human life. there is a difference, and so long as you eat then saying "I believe life's value immeasurable" is hypocrisy.
Which was my point to you earlier

Yes, I do place a high value on human life, mine, yours, and those of the unborn. If you really measure your life equally with that of a rooster, that's your prerogative.

you don't believe in life, you believe in your views and their perceived moral superiority

I do believe the preservation of life to be a moral question.

this is likely true
unless there can be a common ground, and unless all parties agree to a logical train of thought without biased emotional outbursts, then no parties can come together into a logical discussion of anything... this is the problem dealing with emotionally charged topics like this one as well: you aren't willing to remove your emo-judgement and this doesn't allow you to logically converse.

To me it boils down to whose rights take precedence, that is the question at hand. If I tell you that, in my mind, abortion is murder, that's my opinion. By the definitions you provided, a person has no right to life prior to taking their first breath. I would disagree. So yeah, the arguments will be circular based on how we choose to approach the question. All of the discussion leads to our own values in light of the issue.

you mean the religion tactic?
shout louder and louder and ignore all the empirical evidence until everyone else goes away in disgust (and then actually accomplishes important things) and allow the myopic prejudiced delusional religious to wallow in their own sense of self righteousness?
it worked for ken ham when debating the ark and creation vs evolution theory

I don't believe you need be religious to be pro-life. Yes, they are on the forefront of the issue, but there is no prerequisite that one be religious to support the cause. Empirical evidence is that millions have been aborted, that the value of life has been reduced to a choice.

... it's worked for yall here in this thread too
you know, like above when you ask

and yet, this didn't work earlier in the thread
(what do you call it when you do something over and over but expect different results?)

The disagreement comes down to what we value more: a woman's domain over her body or the life of the child she carries. I wasn't expecting anyone to change their position, nor did I anticipate a breakthrough, so the circular drive of this thread was inevitable.

 

[Tiassa]

To me it boils down to whose rights take precedence, that is the question at hand. If I tell you that, in my mind, abortion is murder, that's my opinion. By the definitions you provided, a person has no right to life prior to taking their first breath. I would disagree. So yeah, the arguments will be circular based on how we choose to approach the question. All of the discussion leads to our own values in light of the issue.

You refuse to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women. It doesn't boil down to precedence. It boils down to you trying to put an aestheitcally-pleasing shine on hatred.

What woman in your life are you willing to say it to, Bowser? What woman in your life would you be willing to tell, "I was asked to acknowledge your humanity and human rights, and I refused"?

The disagreement comes down to what we value more: a woman's domain over her body or the life of the child she carries.

But you refuse to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women. It may be your opinion, but you're also promoting hate speech, and you need to stop doing that right now.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I do place a high value on human life, mine, yours, and those of the unborn

as long as they're human, and women know their place, right?
i mean, that is another big point... you don't think women should get the same rights as men and babies, and that is obvious
as Tiassa said, and right on the money "You refuse to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women. It doesn't boil down to precedence. It boils down to you trying to put an aestheitcally-pleasing shine on hatred"

I do believe the preservation of life to be a moral question

but that isn't what you're portraying. you want the preservation of "your POV and your perceived moral superiority"
you don't care about equality at all, from your posts

To me it boils down to whose rights take precedence, that is the question at hand

...and given you don't actually believe women are equal to men or the unborn, it's an easy choice for you
but some of us believe woman are above the "roosters" (which was my point, since you didn't get it above)

By the definitions you provided, a person has no right to life prior to taking their first breath

sorry, you have me confused with someone else... try again

I don't believe you need be religious to be pro-life. Yes, they are on the forefront of the issue, but there is no prerequisite that one be religious to support the cause

we discussed this, didn't we? what is a religion?
you've absolutely ignored ALL empirical evidence and arguments except to reiterate and drive your own points, regardless of their supporting evidence
that isn't logic or discourse, that is fanaticism, and it's normally associated with religion or delusion

The disagreement comes down to what we value more: a woman's domain over her body or the life of the child she carries.

i am just going to re-post another comment, because i couldn't say it better

But you refuse to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women. It may be your opinion, but you're also promoting hate speech, and you need to stop doing that right now.

get it yet, bowser??
No, you will instead go back to the beginning and say

I do place a high value on human life
I do believe the preservation of life to be a moral question (unless they're women with child- then women have no rights. they're breeders/incubators and should know their place)
it boils down to whose rights take precedence
what do we value more: a woman's domain over her body or the life of the child she carries
I do place a high value on human life
I do believe the preservation of life to be a moral question (unless they're women with child- then women have no rights. they're breeders/incubators and should know their place)

repeat ad nauseum
you know, you could just create a chat bot to do that...
(what do you call it when you do something over and over but expect different results?)

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Sorry if it has already been mentioned but, are we on about if a heart beat can be detected or not?