Remove the stigma!

[Archivist]

The problem with this argument is that it implies that morality is dependant on the laws of the land. ActionJack is saying that murder is a moral concept, and and moral evil (and I agree), whereas you (and others) are saying that murder is a legal concept, and is illegal.

Well stated, although I would take the view taht it is a legal issue.

If it became illegal to have an abortion, would we then be able to call it murder and to classify it as wrong?

If the laws were so drafted, yes.

Can the government decide that 5 year olds with intellectual disabilities are not really children, and that they can be legally killed?

First, a very basic issue of the Common Law is that of a life in being. A 5-year-old is a life in being and would be protected. A fetus is not a life in being. Second, in the US the 14th Amendment to our Costitution specifically provides that citizenship begins at birth, so a five-year-old has all the protections of a US citizen.

Would that then mean that killing a 5 year old is not murder?

No, for reasons already stated.

To me, murder is murder.

Correct, but murder is not what some in this thread are caliming.

And it is defined by God, not the government. I don't care whether the laws of the land don't classify it as murder. The government can't change reality.

Actually the concept of murder doesn't exist in Scripture, because there was no mens rea requirement. The Bible rather deals with the issue of manslaughter.

The fact is that words have meaning. We have to deal with the accepted meanings that are provided to us in qualified sources.

 

[Atlantians]

Two reasons: 1) Just because you believe that life begins at conception, the woman who is a victim of rape might not and should not be required to carry a fetus to term just to satisfy your moral views and

What she believes if it is wrong, is wrong.
And should not be used to justify the death of an innocent human being.

2) Article XIII prohibits involuntary servitude except in cases of criminal punishment, and forcing a woman to acrry a child to term against her will qualifies as involuntary servitude.

The 13th Ammendment does not apply to natural biological processes.
It does not apply to pregnancy.

See my previous answers. Apparently you care very little for rape victims if you want to put them through this.

Oh bull!
How dare you say such a thing!

I could just as easily assert that you care very little about the human being inside of here who is brutally shredded and ripped apart in the Abortion procedure that can sometimes even damage the mother!

Leave out personal attacks and how dare you misuse an argument to pity.

Remember, I am not proposing that we force rape victims who want to carry the fetus to term to have abortions. I think taht they should be free to do that if they so desire. You are the one who wants to impose your moral views on others.

I want to protect the life of an innocent human being.
And I also believe that with therapy, few women who feal that killing a child of rape would appease their guilt would feal so afterwards.

But we are talking about a legal issue, so it is the legal definition that must prevail.

We are talking about a morale issue in a non-formal setting.

If I were arguing this in a court of law I would be sensitive to that.

You are using a scholarly and legal deffinition of murder.

If you want to define murder in that fassion, go ahead.
And I will follow suit.

But criminal homocide is homicide prohibited and punishable by law. Abortion does not meet this definition.

No one said "criminal homicide" simply "homicide".

What is your source? Black's Law Dictionary, the recognized source in the legal field, defines murder as "the Killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

I was paraphrasing.
And that deffinition is not very good. You can kill someone in self defence with "malice aforethought".

Dictionaries are not the be all and end all of the English language. I was offering a wider and more inclussive deffinition based on more than just the English Legal deffinition.

Actually I was more reffering to the deffinition of murder in the languages of Hebrew and Greek.
Which implied more a killing of an innocent, than killing someone unjustly.

You need to study history. The Nuremberg Court found the actions bu y the Nazis to be "crimes aginst humanity," so yes, it was illegal under international law.

International law didn't exist.
The Nuremberg Court established international law.

A fetus is not a living human child. If it were, it would be legally protected.

It is living, it is a human child.
That is why we want it protected for reason's Sake!

As stated above, it is not murder. There is really no reason for us to discuss this if you are going to insist on making up your own definitions.

You are arguing technicalities.

No, potential human being.

Wrong.

At conception, the cromosomes of the sperm and egg join and form a living organism.
This organism is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. IE: Human.

Because, as stated above, involuntary servitude is prohibited. If you don't like that, I suggest you work to have the 13th Amendment repealed or revised.

The 13th Ammendment does not apply to biological processes or pregnancy.

When you are dealing with legal issues, semantics matter.

We are not dealing with a legal issue. We are dealing with a moral issue.

So, now I am not entitled to my opinion? Actually, my views are supported by the accepted legal and lingistic definitions, as I have shown by quoting from reliable sources.

Arguing semantics is one thing, being Scientifically accurate is another.

The scientific issue hasn't been raised in this thread, and you have supplied nothing to back that claim.

Yes it has.
It was in my response to Quirk.

Again:
A fetus is a living member of the species of which it was concieved.
This is scientific fact.

1) A human being, as the term human is used in common speach, is any unique member of the species of homo sapiens sapiens.
Thus any unique member of the human race is a human being.

2) A fetus is a unique organism/being. It grows, developes, has a metabolism, and has a response to its suroundings based on its awareness (awareness in the physiological sense of reaction to stimuli, not sentient awareness) thereof, aswell as being seperate and self-contained, unlike say a skin cell which is living but a part of a larger being/organism and is thus not a being in of itself. A fetus is a living entity unto itself.
Thus a fetus is living or was at one point living if its life was terminated.

3) A fetus is a member of the species of which it is concieved. This is blatantly obvious, but forgotten. A fetus is genetically and biologically a member of the race of which its parents are of. A fetus is the product of succesful reproduction. Reproduction is the causing of the emergence of a new unique member of the race of being it is genetically and biologically a member of.
Thus a fetus of human biology and genetic code is a human fetus.

4) A child is the offspring of parents. A child is an offspring of its parents at any stage of development. An offspreing is a child at anystage of development because the words are synonymous when used literally.
Thus a fetus of human descent is a Human child.

5) A baby is, in the common sense of the word, the young offspring of a human being, being a more specific term than child (which covers from conception and on, but is ussually thought to end at teenagerhood or pre-teen-hood). This includes all early stage development from conception to the dawn of toddlerhood.
Thus a pre-born Living Human Child is at all stages a baby.

Thus a human fetus is by scientific and linguistic deffinition: A living Baby Human Child.

No, you haven't proven anything. I have provided definitions from reliable sources; you have not. You are aware, I presume, that Coke is the father of the Common Law.

Did He call a Fetus a potential human being?
I thought you said that He did.
If He did, He was wrong.

No, that is basic Constitutional law. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus against her will is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

No it isn't.

Yes, the mother is a life in being. The fetus is not.

Yes it is.

I don't understand this particular reply. It was written in response to my statement "When did I say that it was about me?" which I wrote in reply to the statement "But this is not about you." So, yes, he did say that.

He was using an idiom.

Had the Soviet leaders been brought up on chages of Crimes against Humanity, they would most certainly have been found guilty. However, Stalin and his underlings were all dead by the time the Soviet Union collapsed, so no such trial ever ocurred.

You can't really try a Sovereign nation unless you have taken them over militarily.

Actually the concept of murder doesn't exist in Scripture, because there was no mens rea requirement. The Bible rather deals with the issue of manslaughter.

Define "the concept of murder".

 

[Trashionista]

That is scientifically false and logically absurd.
A fetus is a living member of the species of which it was concieved.
This is scientific fact.

1) A human being, as the term human is used in common speach, is any unique member of the species of homo sapiens sapiens.
Thus any unique member of the human race is a human being.

2) A fetus is a unique organism/being. It grows, developes, has a metabolism, and has a response to its suroundings based on its awareness (awareness in the physiological sense of reaction to stimuli, not sentient awareness) thereof, aswell as being seperate and self-contained, unlike say a skin cell which is living but a part of a larger being/organism and is thus not a being in of itself. A fetus is a living entity unto itself.
Thus a fetus is living or was at one point living if its life was terminated.

3) A fetus is a member of the species of which it is concieved. This is blatantly obvious, but forgotten. A fetus is genetically and biologically a member of the race of which its parents are of. A fetus is the product of succesful reproduction. Reproduction is the causing of the emergence of a new unique member of the race of being it is genetically and biologically a member of.
Thus a fetus of human biology and genetic code is a human fetus.

4) A child is the offspring of parents. A child is an offspring of its parents at any stage of development. An offspreing is a child at anystage of development because the words are synonymous when used literally.
Thus a fetus of human descent is a Human child.

5) A baby is, in the common sense of the word, the young offspring of a human being, being a more specific term than child (which covers from conception and on, but is ussually thought to end at teenagerhood or pre-teen-hood). This includes all early stage development from conception to the dawn of toddlerhood.
Thus a pre-born Living Human Child is at all stages a baby.

Thus a human fetus is by scientific and linguistic deffinition: A living Baby Human Child.

I have already responded to this. Though I didn't need the bio lesson.

I use it as a scientific term also.
But the scientific-ness of the term is used to hide and diminish the humanity of the child by pro-abortionists.
Ironic though, that the word means, essentially, "unbornchild'.
Fetus is a latin idiom meaning: developing child.

Another redundant point I have already countered.

I am also rather annoyed by the continued use of pro-abortionists, instead of pro-choicers or pro-choice people, but I'm not going to argue something I've already stated.

Just know using big fancy-schmancy words doesn't make one's argument any more compelling.

Fine so am I.
The deffinition of the seperation and church and state is not what you think it is as expressed by your view bellow:


Why are secular, atheistic, and humanist oppinions superior to religious ones that religious ones are defaulted against?

Why should the morality of this nation be based only in secular, atheistic, and humanistic oppinions rather than religious ones?

The state is not supposed to force the practice and adherence to a particular religion.
The state is supposed to dictate the morality of the nation.
And legal morality must be based on oppinions.
All oppinions are based on assumptions at some level or another.

You, by saying religious views (in this case that Abortion is morally wrong) must be ignored in the legal square, you establish secularism as, quite frankly, the state religion.

"You must only present secular views in legal matters."

Atheistic views, humanistic views, are all considered secular.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't think the State should be atheist. I don't vote in my MPPs based on what their religious views are. They are politicians, not preists. Just because there are Christians in Canada doesn't mean they should only be promoting a Christian view.

You can't disagree with the Catholic Church and still honestly call yourself Catholic.
Martin Luther tried that already.

Didn't need the history lesson, but thanks anyways.

Also, there is something to be said in Christianity for not being judgemental - which includes commenting on whether someone else should be Catholic or not.

 

[Trashionista]

Human beings are intrinsically more valuable than animals, pets or any other creature. People are made in God’s image; animals are not.

I hate "the animals are lesser" argument. No, they're not. They lead deep emotional lives. I'm no Ingrid Newkirk supporter, but I don't see how anyone can think of dog or a bird of somewhat lesser to humans.

I know we'd all be gutted if something happened to our family cat. He's not just a cat - he's a member of the family.

And humans are animals. Maybe some believe we have the most intellect or most power over our fellow animals, but to say we're just intrinsically "better" just... bothers me.

 

[LunarPlexus]

I hate "the animals are lesser" argument. No, they're not. They lead deep emotional lives. I'm no Ingrid Newkirk supporter, but I don't see how anyone can think of dog or a bird of somewhat lesser to humans.

I know we'd all be gutted if something happened to our family cat. He's not just a cat - he's a member of the family.

And humans are animals. Maybe some believe we have the most intellect or most power over our fellow animals, but to say we're just intrinsically "better" just... bothers me.

Thankyou!

We are all part of life...this argument about humans being more valuable than other lifeforms is just speciocentricity. We are human, so of course we believe we're more valuable.

 

[jad123]

I hate "the animals are lesser" argument. No, they're not. They lead deep emotional lives. I'm no Ingrid Newkirk supporter, but I don't see how anyone can think of dog or a bird of somewhat lesser to humans.

I know we'd all be gutted if something happened to our family cat. He's not just a cat - he's a member of the family.

And humans are animals. Maybe some believe we have the most intellect or most power over our fellow animals, but to say we're just intrinsically "better" just... bothers me.

Hey don't get me wrong, I am an animal lover. My dog is "part" of the family and I am a very serious fish/reef keeper. My wife would tell you how much care I give to my fish. But animals are not created ion God's image and have no moral code. As much as I love animals and my pets what gets me is people who put pets and trees over the rights of an unborn child.

 

[jad123]

Thankyou!

We are all part of life...this argument about humans being more valuable than other lifeforms is just speciocentricity. We are human, so of course we believe we're more valuable.

Would you die for your dog or cat like you would you child?

 

[Archivist]

What she believes if it is wrong, is wrong.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Please check you grammer.

And should not be used to justify the death of an innocent human being.

Again, you think that it is a human being. If the woman who has been raped doesn't regard it as such, why should she have to carry her attackers spawn to term.

The 13th Ammendment does not apply to natural biological processes. It does not apply to pregnancy.

Proof of this please, or is this just your opinion?

Oh bull! How dare you say such a thing! I could just as easily assert that you care very little about the human being inside of here who is brutally shredded and ripped apart in the Abortion procedure that can sometimes even damage the mother!

No, I put the rights of a person, i.e. a life in being, abopve the rights of a fetus, who is only a potential human being.

Leave out personal attacks and how dare you misuse an argument to pity.

Please show me where I made a personal attack.

I want to protect the life of an innocent human being.

So do I. I want to protect innocent women who are victims of rape or incest.

And I also believe that with therapy, few women who feal that killing a child of rape would appease their guilt would feal so afterwards.

Again, I'm not sure what you are tying to say here. You might want to correct the grammer.

We are talking about a morale issue in a non-formal setting.

A morale issue? I think you mean a moral issue. Actually it is both a legal and a moral issue.

If I were arguing this in a court of law I would be sensitive to that.

Again, it is both a legal and a moral issue.

You are using a scholarly and legal deffinition of murder.

Yes, and you have not provided a source for you definitions so I presume that they are merely your own opinion.

If you want to define murder in that fassion, go ahead. And I will follow suit.

Again, I have provided a definition from a noted scholarly source.

No one said "criminal homicide" simply "homicide".

I thought that you were arguing that such abortions should be illegal? If you are saying that it should be a choice left you to the woman then we are in agreement.

I was paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing what?

And that deffinition is not very good. You can kill someone in self defence with "malice aforethought".

Then you provide a better definition from a noted source. Black's Law Dictionary is the standard in the field; I don't think you will find a better definition elsewhere.

Dictionaries are not the be all and end all of the English language.

No, but we require a source that can provide an accurate explanation of a term or phrase upon which a majority of cultivated speakers can agree. Dictionaries provide that service.

I was offering a wider and more inclussive deffinition based on more than just the English Legal deffinition.

Again, what is your source? Are you saying that you personal opinion trumps Black's Law Dictionary?

Actually I was more reffering to the deffinition of murder in the languages of Hebrew and Greek. Which implied more a killing of an innocent, than killing someone unjustly.

But the crime that we call murder did not exist in ancient times, because there was no mens rea requirement.

International law didn't exist. The Nuremberg Court established international law.

There was no international law prior to 1946? You really need to learn more about history.

It is living, it is a human child.
That is why we want it protected for reason's Sake!

It is a living human child after birth. There is no agreement as to the status of a fetus prior to birth. Some people say that life begins at conception, some at quickening, some at birth.

You are arguing technicalities.

It is a legal issue. Technicalities are important.

Wrong. At conception, the cromosomes of the sperm and egg join and form a living organism.
This organism is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. IE: Human.

In your opinion and the opinion of some others. As I already stated, there is not agreement on this.

The 13th Ammendment does not apply to biological processes or pregnancy.

If deals with making a person engage in "compulsory service or labor against his or her will." (Wikipedia)

We are not dealing with a legal issue. We are dealing with a moral issue.

Again, we are dealing with a legal and a moral issue.

Arguing semantics is one thing, being Scientifically accurate is another.

But you haven't supplied scientific facts, nor are they relevent to this issue because it is a matter of legal rights.

 

[LunarPlexus]

Would you die for your dog or cat like you would you child?

Probably not. But then I'd rather die than have a child in the first place.

I didn't exclude myself from this speciocentricity thing, I'm human too, so of course I consider myself more intrinsically valuable than my dog and cats. That doesn't mean that I am.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

First, a very basic issue of the Common Law is that of a life in being. A 5-year-old is a life in being and would be protected. A fetus is not a life in being. Second, in the US the 14th Amendment to our Costitution specifically provides that citizenship begins at birth, so a five-year-old has all the protections of a US citizen.

So a human must be a citizen before it has rights.

You would do well with this Princeton fellow that believes any human that is handicapped or retarded should be killed.

The facts are that at the moment of conception there is a new life and dna shows it is a human life. The fact is that homocide is the killing of another human being. The fetus is a human being and so abortion is homocide.

Funny how a pregnant woman that gets murdered is treated as a double homocide and yet you still have this fantasy that killing the baby in the womb is not homocide.

Like I said... I think you and this Princeton fellow would be good friends deciding who can live and who cannot.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I hate "the animals are lesser" argument. No, they're not. They lead deep emotional lives. I'm no Ingrid Newkirk supporter, but I don't see how anyone can think of dog or a bird of somewhat lesser to humans.

I know we'd all be gutted if something happened to our family cat. He's not just a cat - he's a member of the family.

And humans are animals. Maybe some believe we have the most intellect or most power over our fellow animals, but to say we're just intrinsically "better" just... bothers me.

You may want to read the Catechism from 2415 to 2418.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art7.htm

 

[LunarPlexus]

So a human must be a citizen before it has rights.

You would do well with this Princeton fellow that believes any human that is handicapped or retarded should be killed.

The facts are that at the moment of conception there is a new life and dna shows it is a human life. The fact is that homocide is the killing of another human being. The fetus is a human being and so abortion is homocide.

Funny how a pregnant woman that gets murdered is treated as a double homocide and yet you still have this fantasy that killing the baby in the womb is not homocide.

Like I said... I think you and this Princeton fellow would be good friends deciding who can live and who cannot.

I believe that the rights of a woman supercede the rights of a non-sentient being.

But I also believe that the fetus belongs to her, and is covered by her own rights. I don't consider abortion to be homocide, but if a pregnant woman is killed and thus her fetus is also, it should be considered double homocide. I believe this because nobody has the right to tell this woman to abort, just as they have no right to force her to. This decision rests with her alone, and as her rights cover that of the fetus, then damaging her fetus against her will is an violation of her rights, and should be punished accordingly.

 

[Archivist]

So a human must be a citizen before it has rights.

You really need to read more closely. If you will go back and read Post #41 you would see that I was responding to a post in which it was claimed that if a woman could have an abortion, then we could also kill retarded five-year-olds. My point was that that this is not so because in the US citizenship begins at birth so a five-year-old has all the protections of a US citizen. I never said that you have to be a citizen to have rights.

You would do well with this Princeton fellow that believes any human that is handicapped or retarded should be killed.

Again, you really need to actually read what is being written. I specifically said that this could not be done to someone who is actually been born because they have all the rights of a US citizen.

The facts are that at the moment of conception there is a new life and dna shows it is a human life. The fact is that homocide is the killing of another human being. The fetus is a human being and so abortion is homocide.

We do not agree as to the exact momemt that life begins. Some say that it is conception, others quickening, others birth.

Funny how a pregnant woman that gets murdered is treated as a double homocide and yet you still have this fantasy that killing the baby in the womb is not homocide.

This was already explained very well by LunarPlexus.

Like I said... I think you and this Princeton fellow would be good friends deciding who can live and who cannot.

Do you actually read what is written before you reply???? I'm not making any decisions as to who should live or die. I have already written that the decision to carry a fetus that is a product of rape or incest to term is one that can only be made by the woman.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I believe that the rights of a woman supercede the rights of a non-sentient being.

But I also believe that the fetus belongs to her, and is covered by her own rights. I don't consider abortion to be homocide, but if a pregnant woman is killed and thus her fetus is also, it should be considered double homocide. I believe this because nobody has the right to tell this woman to abort, just as they have no right to force her to. This decision rests with her alone, and as her rights cover that of the fetus, then damaging her fetus against her will is an violation of her rights, and should be punished accordingly.

At 6 weeks the baby has a fully developed nervous systema dn can things just fine and is aware of it's surroundings as far as anyone knows.

The fetus is NOT part of the woman. At conception it has it's own DNA and from a purely scientific stand point it is not part of the woman. It is a baby that recieves nurishment from the mother and protection (that is a hoot huh... "protection") in the form of anti bodies and protection from the elements while this child grows.

But look up 'homocide' in the dictionary and then look uo 'life' in the dictionary. You will find that the baby at conception has life and by it's DNA and blood is a unique creature seperate from it's mother and that homocide simply means the killing of another human.

Time to wake up amd smell the coffee people.

As I said previously... even our legal system sees the murder of a pregnant woman as DOUBLE homocide. Did you see it this time, "double". That is because the child in her womb is considered a seperate human life.

Get it?


The way our legal system gets around the homocide with a mother killing her baby is by saying it is not a "person". Has nothing to do with being a citizen or else I could go around killing all the illegal immigrants that I want.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What is the defintion of life?

Does the baby at conception meet that critieria?

 

[Archivist]

What is the defintion of life?

There are multiple definitions for the word "life" in both Webster's Unabridged and in Stedman's Medical Dictionary.

Does the baby at conception meet that critieria?

It depends on which definition you use.

Your argument ignores the fact that the woman is a person-in-being. Her rights outweigh those of the fetus, which is a potential person-in-being.

 

[Archivist]

The way our legal system gets around the homocide with a mother killing her baby is by saying it is not a "person".

Have you actually read Roe v. Wade? It does not say what you are claiming.

Has nothing to do with being a citizen or else I could go around killing all the illegal immigrants that I want.

No one has made this claim.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Your argument ignores the fact that the woman is a person-in-being. Her rights outweigh those of the fetus, which is a potential person-in-being.

And your argument says a woman can kill another human so she will not have to carry the baby for term and then give birth to it.

Is killing another human acceptable if it is to avoid discomfort and a little pain?

 

[Archivist]

And your argument says a woman can kill another human so she will not have to carry the baby for term and then give birth to it.

We are talking about a woman who has already been victimized once.

Is killing another human acceptable if it is to avoid discomfort and a little pain?

I'm looking at the male symbol next to your name. I think that most women would tell you that pregnancy is much more than "discomfort and a little pain." This is far more than that--you are calling for a woman to be forced to bear the mental angusih of carrying her attacker's spawn to term. In addition, remember that women still die in childbirth. Shouldn't she have the right to an abortion simply as a matter of self-defense.

Since you want to force women who have been raped to carry the child to term against their will, are you willing to go on record as being resposible for the following (after all if you want to deny them their choice, certainly you should be willing to do this):

Reimbuse the woman for any lost wages, including paying for all sick days;

Reimburse the woman for any uncovered medical expenses;

Reimburse the woman for any post-delivery weight loss programs, laser treatment for stretch marks, breast lifts and any other treatment to restore her body to its pre-pregnancy condition;

Reimburse the woman for any needed psychiatric care;

Reimburse the woman for any and all other expenses dealing with the pregnancy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It depends on which definition you use.

I am curious to know what Stedman's Medical Dictionary says.