When is abortion - homicide, when is murder of a human not homicide?

chevyontheriver said:

As a result of Polio many people were put in iron lungs which breathed for them. Were they dead or alive? They could not breathe independently. We see people on respirators as a result of Covid? They can't breathe independently. Are they dead or alive? Human or non-human?

Click to expand...

So you are with a patient, one who needs help breathing, and the electricity goes out and their respirator stops. Are you charged with murder if you don't keep breathing for them?

Tanj said:

It's not an issue of loopholes. Talking about legal murder is like talking about dry water. It's entirely meaningless.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the Jews at Auchwitz.

Tanj said:

It doesn't because, in the USA, abortion is not illegal. Also because if you follow the link to slay it talks about epidemics and dragons.

Click to expand...

Are you then admitting that if abortion becomes illegal it will be murder and that in the past when it was illegal it was murder? Should the government decree that removing one's appendix is murder would it then be murder? What other words are you gong to unilaterilally decimust we not use to describe an action unless the government gives us permission to use them?

Tanj said:

It's not an issue of loopholes. Talking about legal murder is like talking about dry water. It's entirely meaningless.



It doesn't because, in the USA, abortion is not illegal. Also because if you follow the link to slay it talks about epidemics and dragons.



Well, they'd become illegal. Whether the crime in question is murder or some other charge is up to the courts to decide.



I don't know if the supreme court can make its decision retrospective, but by this point you have split hairs down to the atom. In Colorado a few years ago, smoking dope was illegal. Then it wasn't.

This isn't rocket science.

Click to expand...

Your argument is that government defines the word murder, and no one can look at a situation and call something murder if the government hasn't said it, was murder. If that is the case than no Jew was murdered at Auschwitz and no slave was murdered in Virginia for a time after the below referenced Act was put into force. I do not allow the government to circumscribe my vocabulary fro me based upon some arbitrary truncation of the meaning of a word. If I see someone intentionally killing another person I, I will call it murder even if a government says it is legal to do so and you tell me I am definitionally incorrect to do so.

A look at the Casual Killing Act of 1669 that made it legal to kill a slave at will - Face2Face Africa
Did You Know: The Casual Killing Act | Thought Provoking Perspectives (wordpress.com)

BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?

Im reading this website - Does anyone think it's being fair to the discussion?

Giving a good overview of the subject?

Confused-by-christianity said:

So those who carelessly have unprotected sex and get pregnant ought not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?

Click to expand...

Should we allow the dismemberment and disposal of living beings just so we can be careless and have unprotected sex?

Confused-by-christianity said:

BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?

Im reading this website - Does anyone think it's being fair to the discussion?

Giving a good overview of the subject?

Click to expand...

No. the article tries to tell us that a baby can begin to function independently after leaving the womb. Babies remain dependent for years after. It seems the author or authors are in favor of birth as the point at which the killing becomes completely unjustified and have slanted their arguments in that direction. The "When is the fetus alive" headline is silly. Even the article admits that. The fetus becomes alive at conception and remains alive until it dies either by natural means or by being killed. The bone of contention is not whether the fetus lives it is whether it is morally justifiable to intentionally kill it. One can argue the point of moral justifiability but to argue that it is not alive is anti-scientific nonsense.

Confused-by-christianity said:

So your opinion is that :

The only abortions that happen are from people who
1) Carelessly had unprotected sex, when
2) They didn't want children.

This should not be allowed.

Is that a fair summary of your view??

Click to expand...

No, post #28 showed that 86% of abortions were because someone was careless and didn’t want a baby.

BNR32FAN said:

No, post #28 showed that 86% of abortions were because someone was careless and didn’t want a baby.

Click to expand...

This subject is obviously too hot to get a straight answer

I’m out

take care

grasping the after wind said:

Tell that to the Jews at Auchwitz.

Click to expand...

That was murder under a higher law... specifically, the world Court at Nuremberg...

Unfortunately for your analogy, the US recognizes no such higher law. We helped form the International Criminal Court, but we never signed on as members.

Ironic, eh?

Supreme Court Abortion Case Oral Aguments Clarify Debate | National Review

The merciful news is, America isn’t there. Roe’s days may be numbered because of the clarity of the Dobbs oral arguments.

Confused-by-christianity said:

This subject is obviously too hot to get a straight answer

I’m out

take care

Click to expand...

That was a straight answer. I feel like you were trying to oversimplify my view on the subject as if abortions only happen for one particular reason. I don’t know where you would’ve gotten that idea from in our dialog because I never said anything to that effect. So I thought it was relevant to mention where we had already discussed that very subject.

SimplyMe said:

So you are with a patient, one who needs help breathing, and the electricity goes out and their respirator stops. Are you charged with murder if you don't keep breathing for them?

Click to expand...

I could, for a short time, perhaps manage to keep them alive. Why would I be charged with murder unless I tampered with the electricity and caused it to go out? Are they human if they can't breathe on their own? When do they stop being human?

chevyontheriver said:

It IS a good question.

The question I asked was 'Are they dead or alive.' You seem to say 'no'. As in 'I would say no.'

We are as humans, with exceptionally rare exceptions, dependent on other humans. We do not thrive, with exceptionally rare exceptions, when we are alone. So are we alive?

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Yes we are alive. We can breathe on our own

BNR32FAN said:

it is a dead human being, homicide is not limited to babies it includes all stages of human development.

Click to expand...

Not always. Many times people who murder a pregnant woman get charged twice. That is more about intent. It's the woman's choice not a murderer. It's the woman's body, if she doesn't want something growing in it, she can legally have it removed. Therefore it is not homicide or murder.

chevyontheriver said:

As a result of Polio many people were put in iron lungs which breathed for them. Were they dead or alive? They could not breathe independently. We see people on respirators as a result of Covid? They can't breathe independently. Are they dead or alive? Human or non-human?

Click to expand...

They are near death but they have been given the breath of life and lost it.

BNR32FAN said:

you said a fetus is not alive, my point was to prove that they are.

Click to expand...

Not the OP. The OP was is abortion homicide.

BNR32FAN said:

Why is breathing on its own the defining factor for something being alive? Is it because it’s simply one thing that separates a fetus from the rest of human beings? There’s a distinct difference between a living and a dead fetus. You can’t have a dead fetus if there are no living fetuses. Like I showed already the very definition of the word abortion implies that the fetus is alive since the act causes its death.

Click to expand...

I would say it's "developing" it's almost there but not quite alive. You need the breath of life to live.

BNR32FAN said:

So what, it’s not fully developed yet and neither is a baby or a child, or an adolescent. Breathing has nothing to do with whether a life form is alive or not I’ve already proven that since nothing can die that isn’t or wasn’t alive.

Click to expand...

You could say it is a "life form" the way a symbiote is alive. But it can't live on it's own until it can breathe. Until then, it's an Extention of the mother.

rturner76 said:

Not always. Many times people who murder a pregnant woman get charged twice. That is more about intent. It's the woman's choice not a murderer. It's the woman's body, if she doesn't want something growing in it, she can legally have it removed. Therefore it is not homicide or murder.

Click to expand...

It is a homicide, homicide and murder are two different things. Homicide is the killing of a human being whether it be legally, accidental, or illegally, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. I think your misunderstanding me when I use the word homicide. I’m not referring to an unlawful killing or murder I’m referring to the killing of a human being.

rturner76 said:

Not the OP. The OP was is abortion homicide.

Click to expand...

But you weren’t replying to the OP you were replying to my post.

rturner76 said:

I would say it's "developing" it's almost there but not quite alive. You need the breath of life to live.

Click to expand...

You keep dodging the fact that a fetus can die. How can it die if it isn’t alive?