It should be Murder?

SteveB28 · Jan 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
In a Christian web forum you are the "fringe minority."

And proudly so!

SteveB28 · Jan 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
Do you expect me to take your question seriously? Are having a problem asking reasonable questions?

As seriously as the proposal to make abortion into a murder crime?

The question is a very serious one. If you are going to charge women who deliberately cause a miscarriage (as opposed to those that happen spontaneously) with a crime, you need some means of sorting out the 'guilty' from the innocent!

So, legal eagle, how is it to be achieved?

DaisyDay · Jan 12, 2016

redleghunter said:
And your point is what exactly? "Kill them all and let God sort it out?"

If you think that's my point then you really are not very good at following a conversation.

Armoured · Jan 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
Is a "fetus" a human being? If it isn't, then what is it? A serial killer is guilty. How a bout a "fetus"? Should the law make a difference between someone who is guilty and another who is innocent?

No, a foetus is not a human being. It is a human organism, but that's not the same thing.

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Uncle Siggy said:
Yea spouses can claim just about anything and it will be investigated no matter if it is obvious BS or not.

We had one SSgt accused of sexually molesting his own daughter (age 4) by his spouse. They were in the process of getting a divorce and when it was looking like she wasn't going to get custody of the kids up popped the false accusations...

My first Article 32 investigation was a wife claiming rape and sodomy by her CPT husband 3 years prior.

She waited 3 years to file with MPI.

That made it hard to handle witness testimony as there were no rape kits etc. There were reports of her going to the ER for "injuries" but she never filed reports.

So it was the classic "he said she said" case. Given the hospital testimony and types of injuries I recommended General Court Martial so she could have her day in court and the officer had a chance to officially air out his defense.

As coincidence would have it, the COL CM convening authority was none other than the officer who did the commanders inquiry on Bergdahl.

He sent the rape case to CM and based on the scant evidence there was a not guilty from the panel.

Of course the CPT never got promoted.

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Armoured said:
No, a foetus is not a human being. It is a human organism, but that's not the same thing.

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Armoured said:
No, a foetus is not a human being. It is a human organism, but that's not the same thing.

Now a summary for those who don't want to link surf.

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
At what point in the development of the unborn child would you consider it to be a moral duty to protect the life of a human being?

Let me know if you get a straight answer. And also how many different answers you get.

Had an atheist once tell me personhood starts at ensoulment.

When I asked when that was they said sometime at brain activity. So it was a nebulous answer.

Of course my followup question was why did atheists believe in souls and where do they go when a person dies.

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
For those who believe in God there are only two kinds of children: born and unborn. If you reject this premise, then perhaps you should limit yourself to visiting atheistic web sites.

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

ToddNotTodd said:
Until it's a person, it's an "it". Calling it a child is an attempt at emotional manipulation.

It's delusional manipulation to dehumanize what science has clearly defined as a human being at conception.

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Just Ben said:
Calling a child an "it" only shows what side people are on. A fetus is a child in Gods eyes.

Armoured · Jan 12, 2016

redleghunter said:
Now a summary for those who don't want to link surf.

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

(International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36 (in press)

i.e. not a scientific publication. Feel free to stop your false claim about science just any time at all.

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Belk said:
Since we are dealing with law the relevant question is "Is the fetus a person"? My answer would be no. It does not have the requisite cognitive function to be a person.

At what exact point in fetal development would you consider one becomes a person?

redleghunter · Jan 12, 2016

Armoured said:
(International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36 (in press)

i.e. not a scientific publication. Feel free to stop your false claim about science just any time at all.

Feel free to keep reading as all the links have references from medical doctors.

The only false claim is the one you just launched against me.

SteveB28 · Jan 12, 2016

Why do you imagine that the concept of a 'human being' rests solely upon scientific classification?

Armoured · Jan 13, 2016

SteveB28 said:
Why do you imagine that the concept of a 'human being' rests solely upon scientific classification?

It's a variation on appeal to authority. If you can find a tame scientist to claim human beings exist from conception, you get to use it as a club to batter people with in any abortion discussion. Never mind that "human being" is not a scientific term, nor that the closest scientific concept, "human consciousness" doesn't exit from conception. No, you claim your misappropriated scientific sounding claim and you hammer it again and again and again until people get bored debunking the PRATT, and then congratulate yourself on winning the argument when there's no one left correcting you.

redleghunter · Jan 13, 2016

SteveB28 said:
As seriously as the proposal to make abortion into a murder crime?

The question is a very serious one. If you are going to charge women who deliberately cause a miscarriage (as opposed to those that happen spontaneously) with a crime, you need some means of sorting out the 'guilty' from the innocent!

So, legal eagle, how is it to be achieved?

What country do you reside?

Surely any American would know their basic rights.

SteveB28 · Jan 13, 2016

redleghunter said:
What country do you reside?

Surely any American would know their basic rights.

Not a question of rights.

It's a question of investigative procedure.

redleghunter · Jan 13, 2016

SteveB28 said:
Why do you imagine that the concept of a 'human being' rests solely upon scientific classification?

We are not discussing concepts when if comes to defining the beginning of a human being. It's scientific fact.

Do you believe the earth is undergoing climate change and if so is man contributing to it? If so what is the basis of your belief?

redleghunter · Jan 13, 2016

Armoured said:
It's a variation on appeal to authority. If you can find a tame scientist to claim human beings exist from conception, you get to use it as a club to batter people with in any abortion discussion. Never mind that "human being" is not a scientific term, nor that the closest scientific concept, "human consciousness" doesn't exit from conception. No, you claim your misappropriated scientific sounding claim and you hammer it again and again and again until people get bored debunking the PRATT, and then congratulate yourself on winning the argument when there's no one left correcting you.

You mean like using a euphemism as in organism to make it palatable for women to dispose of human life?

If you actually read the multitude of references I posted you would see it is not a few scientists who state conception marks the beginning of a human being. So the science is clear.

Personhood is a philosophical matter.

One who believes only some human beings are entitled to personhood have the burden of proof on the matter. A serious burden of proof because we are talking about ending the life of a human being in development.

We have heard such claims of personhood defined as:

At first breath

At quickening (whenever that is)

At developed brain activity (when exactly and do they mentally infirm count?)

At ensoulment (what exactly is that?)

As the mother determines

As the state determines viability (we have several of those)

When the heart starts beating

When the fetus can feel pain

Only during the first trimester

Up to the third trimester

One month after birth (extreme view of eugenicist Peter Singer)

When the fetus looks "human."

There are probably quite a few more.

So for our non-Christians who do not have an absolute moral Law Giver, they must choose one of the subjective particulars I listed above or the hundreds of possible scenarios. Or they can pick science which they so often do for just about anything else to determine certainty but in this case, they don't.

Why is scientific fact ignored in the instance of the definition of human being?

It's painfully obvious.

It should be Murder?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

So is America great again yet?

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

So is America great again yet?

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

So is America great again yet?

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Similar threads