It should be Murder?

[Cearbhall]

This is a different case, because it is illegal to bury someone without a physicians death certificate.

Not the point.

A law like that must exist.

Ok then. That's what he was asking.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I don't understand how someone can call themselves pro-life and support execution.

I do! There is a fundamental moral difference between killing an innocent human being and executing a hardened criminal.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Execution is still just as bad as murder and abortion to me.

If you stop to think, I hope you will see the contrast between the one who murders an innocent human being and the execution of a hardened criminal.

 

[Cearbhall]

They should! Those who succeed in their suicide attempt should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and subjected to the death penalty.

This made me chuckle, I'll give you that.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Remember, when a woman has an IUD fitted, she hasn't conceived yet! There is no fertilised egg there to 'kill' at that moment

You may need to check on the facts of conception. Have you heard about ectopic pregnancies. My understanding is--correct me if I am wrong--that fertilization takes place outside the uterus.

 

[nomadictheist]

They should! Those who succeed in their suicide attempt should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and subjected to the death penalty.

Perhaps they can't prosecute because the victim's family refuses to press charges...

 

[Cearbhall]

You may need to check on the facts of conception. Have you heard about ectopic pregnancies. My understanding is--correct me if I am wrong--that fertilization takes place outside the uterus.

A pregnancy test is done before an IUD is fitted.

 

[redleghunter]

Five things:

1. Laws have changed concerning bombings. Bombs have gotten more precise so they can cause less collateral damage.

2. Again, this is military law, not civil law. If you or I were to launch a missile at a city, whether it's a country our nations are at war with or not, we would be prosecuted for multiple counts of homicide, and probably an act of terrorism, not to mention illegally owning and operating weapons systems, etc...

3. Collateral damage has its own set of laws governing it, in which only official members of the armed forces are authorized to clear the launching of a missile or the dropping of a bomb. There are long investigations into any operation involving collateral damage, and the more extensive the damage, the more intensive the investigation.

4. Any persons harboring combatants or leaders of enemy armed forces are deemed to intend harm to armed forces members. If you are fighting in an urban area, you are governed by the military rules of engagement, which prohibit firing at non-combatants, among other things.

5. While the launching of a missile or dropping of a bomb is intentional, the purpose is not to inflict collateral damage but to take out a target, whether that target is an enemy leader, production facility, or something similar.


And, before we go into specifics, I don't believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified during WWII, nor do I believe nuclear warfare will ever be justified. Bombing entire cities of civilians to make a point in a war is no better than terrorism, imo.

You are correct. I too agree about nuclear weapons. Only time it would be justified by the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is in retaliation. Or used against military targets.

I will add even with precision munitions a thorough collateral damage estimate process is evident in all services. It's regulation to do so and punishable by UCMJ if not done correctly.

If an enemy combatant uses a protected civilian facility like Hezbollah and Hamas do, the facility loses its protected status.

However commanders must employ proportionality when engaging. Meaning if a combatant shoots from a hospital full of civilians at a helicopter, the pilot must apply proportionality. If they can avoid the gunfire by changing altitude they will do so instead of firing back and endangering civilians. If the air crew is in imminent danger of loss of life then they can take the appropriate measures in self defense. Again proportional.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

We did it ourselves.

We use common sense, and common sense tells me that killing an innocent human being who is not guilty of a crime should not be executed by dismemberment or poisoning.

 

[redleghunter]

And all that answers how you know the mind of God how? None of it pointed to any validity of the bible being gods word. Just ways of viewing it.

What does the Bible tell you on how to find Christ? The answer awaits the seeker.

Those who kick against the goads end up befuddled like the Pharisees.

 

[redleghunter]

Why do people keep answering Belk with science? The topic is personhood. It's not a matter of science. Of course a zygote is a human life. Everyone who was paying attention in elementary school knows that. That fact doesn't automatically lead to certain laws.

Thanks. I will bookmark this thread the next time the Climate Police here on CF appeals to science to change our liberties, economy, way of life and violates our privacy.

 

[Armoured]

We use common sense, and common sense tells me that killing an innocent human being who is not guilty of a crime should not be executed by dismemberment or poisoning.

But a foetus isn't a human being, as has been explained.

 

[redleghunter]

Because they don't have a coherent answer, and resort to nonsense and emotion to hide the fact.

When does a human being become a person. We should take a poll.

 

[redleghunter]

Did you miss the following from this forum:

"It should be Murder?
Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by SteveB28, Dec 28, 2015."

Will you apologize now for you oversight?

Yes the thread should move to a legal forum.

 

[redleghunter]

If science cannot answer a question dealing with science, then no one can!

Now I'm wondering why all the world leaders met in Paris for climate change. It must not have been the science.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

If, one day, we come to a consensus that abortion is so egregious that it should be considered as 'murder', then you will have your day.

The Hippocratic Oath was held in high esteem by physicians for around two thousand years until it was thrashed in 1973. It prohibited abortion.

 

[redleghunter]

What part of "not a scientific question" didn't you understand?

Reproduction is not science?

I know it starts out with two people and all who have chemical reactions attracting them and most here know the rest of the story.

 

[Armoured]

The Hippocratic Oath was held in high esteem by physicians for around two thousand years until it was thrashed in 1973. It prohibited abortion.

Nope.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not a question that deals with science...

However some chemical reactions led to the matter at hand.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Most people disagree with it, have always disagreed with it on this issue.

Always? Really? How about the Hippocratic Oath which was recognized by the medical profession since before the Christian Era? Said oath prohibited abortion.