Originally posted by Ushgarak
It might be nice if you guys remained vaguely on-topic.
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
.......So yes we do have an odd way of things on our little island... Like Abortion! :eek!: What do they think of Abortion in your country Bardock?
Well, abortion is illegal but up to the 14th week it isn't punished. It is legal up tpo birth if the life of the mother is at danger. And it is legal to the 14th week when the pregnancy came from Rape.
14 to 24th week the woman will go without punishment while the Doctor that aborted it can be held accountable.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And in counterpoint... yes, that CAN be denied, because you need to establish at what point a foetus becomes a child. Before that point it isn't murder at all, by any legal or moral standard.
If biological death or "the irreverseable cessation of heartbeat and electrical brainwave activity," is the end of life, then the contrapositive of this, "the commencement of heartbeat and electrical brainwave activity," is the beginning of life.
This occurs between 10-12 weeks of fetal development, and approximately 90% of all abortions are performed before this time.
"Well, Ush, murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another human since a fetus is not a human it is not murder."
That it is not human is an OPINION.
As I have already said several times, at SOME point a foetus DOES become a Human, an that point is before birth, therefore abortion is potentially murder, hence the point is open to debate.
---
"If biological death or "the irreverseable cessation of heartbeat and electrical brainwave activity," is the end of life, then the contrapositive of this, "the commencement of heartbeat and electrical brainwave activity," is the beginning of life.
This occurs between 10-12 weeks of fetal development, and approximately 90% of all abortions are performed before this time"
First of all, it doesn't matter at what point most are perforned, the problematic bit is the legal cut off point, which is past 12 weeks in most western countries.
Secondly, you state that as if all scientists are united on the definition, they are not. Heck, medicine is not 100% on defining the point of death yet, so your basic premise there it a tad faulty.
Thirdly... with science having absolutely NO way to prove any of this, all statements about when it is and is not illegal are pretty much guesswork, and if a religious type wants to guess at zero weeks, citing philisophical beliefs about the nature of what life is... science is not in a very good position to contradict.
The very nature of what life (in the sense of being a human) is and when it starts is a big big mystery that science is still trying hard to unravel.
I think people should remember that the legal cut-off points in most countries are based on one outdated factor- the point at which it was thought the foetus could not survive on its own; any further, and then it could, and then the abortion becomes illegal.
Now science has advanced and premature babies before the cut-off point are becoming viable. This throws the legal argument into chaos, because it is based on a false premise.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Well, Ush, murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another human since a fetus is not a human it is not murder."That it is not human is an OPINION.
As I have already said several times, at SOME point a foetus DOES become a Human, an that point is before birth, therefore abortion is potentially murder, hence the point is open to debate.
That it is before births is certainly an opinion too, isn't it?
Even if it was the killing of a human being it would still not be murder, it would be an abortion which is a different term. It is not murder in any way.
Again, that is an opinion only, not a fact.
If the foetus has passed the point where it becomes a functional human being, then by any reasonable definition, to kill it is murder. Just because it is in a womb, does not make it any different to kill it. Only its biological status can make a difference. It IS murder in some places, and places that don't think it is simply have erroneous legal systems.
You may disagree, but my point is that these things are all opinions. The idea has been floated that there are cold, hard facts here. There are not.
Since there was only was part of your post worth reply to, Ush (disregarding "I won't allow such arrogance" in which case you have zero choice, arrogance isn't an offence) then that is what I shall do.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am sorry, but dig deep enough... and this debate pretty much IS about murder and nothing else.
Well then considering the only terms needed are legal terms, and murder is primarily a legal term, and we're discussing if abortion is murder....then abortion is not murder. It doesn't fit the definition of murder. UK law states that abortion is not murder.
You persisted and said the law agrees with you and you f*cked up, not my problem.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, that is an opinion only, not a fact.If the foetus has passed the point where it becomes a functional human being, then by any reasonable definition, to kill it is murder. Just because it is in a womb, does not make it any different to kill it. Only its biological status can make a difference. It IS murder in some places, and places that don't think it is simply have erroneous legal systems.
You may disagree, but my point is that these things are all opinions. The idea has been floated that there are cold, hard facts here. There are not.
I could go and kill a baby in the womb and walk away not being convicted of murder, because it's not murder. What more do you need?
Oh yes, "by any REASONABLE definition". Aka any definition Mr. Captain England's morals agree with. Well that's just kind of tough isn't it? The legal definition doesn't agree with your morals but the fact that THIS is a fact, is something you can do nothing about. Zero. Nada. It's not murder. Legally. "The law can sometimes be wrong", but does that change the fact that abortion isn't murder outside of your subjective morals (aka factually)? Nope.
That IS a cold hard fact. In the UK, abortion is not murder. Because the definition of murder does not apply to it. Your morals may not agree to it, but in suggesting the legal definition to be unreasonable purely because of this, you've reached a peak of arrogance I dare not dream of.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Since there was only was part of your post worth reply to, Ush (disregarding "I won't allow such arrogance" in which case you have zero choice, arrogance isn't an offence) then that is what I shall do.I could go and kill a baby in the womb and walk away not being convicted of murder, because it's not murder. What more do you need?
Actually it would depend on the age of the Embryo/ Foetus and the situation and the Country.
I wouldn't go round kicking pregnant women to test your hypothesis just yet mate. 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Actually it would depend on the age of the Embryo/ Foetus and the situation and the Country.I wouldn't go round kicking pregnant women to test your hypothesis just yet mate. 😉
A) I refer to the country I live in, which is coincidentally the country a certain other poster lives in, who also told me I was wrong but was wrong himself.
B) It doesn't. Anything done in utero can't be murder.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) I refer to the country I live in, which is coincidentally the country a certain other poster lives in, who also told me I was wrong but was wrong himself.B) It doesn't. Anything done in utero can't be murder.
-AC
However the other inmates in the prison you find yourself after kicking the pregnant woman might see things differently, I suspect after you test your hypothesis you will go on rule 43. 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
However the other inmates in the prison you find yourself after kicking the pregnant woman might see things differently, I suspect after you test your hypothesis you will go on rule 43. 😉
What Bardock said.
This is the problem, everyone resorts to hysteria and subjective morality rather than factual info. The very fact that they're in prison for ACTUAL murder (possibly) says that they couldn't say much anyway.
Next.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What Bardock said.This is the problem, everyone resorts to hysteria and subjective morality rather than factual info. The very fact that they're in prison for ACTUAL murder (possibly) says that they couldn't say much anyway.
Next.
-AC
😉 Try explaining this to "Bubba", Anyway on rule 43 you will not see that many muderers beyond the child kind so you should get on if you're sent down for assaulting a pregnant woman leading to the loss of her child. 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
😉 Try explaining this to "Bubba", Anyway on rule 43 you want see that many muderers beyond the child kind so you should get on if your sent down for assaulting a pregnant woman leading to the loss of her child. 😉
Don't care about "Bubba" or any other prisoners. Stabbing a baby in womb and killing it isn't murder, the most it would be is manslaughter through technicalities.
That's about all that need be said on the matter.
-AC
Ok Ac you proved your point. If you want to kill babies or agree with people that kill babies or in general if people want to kill babies then it's no one elses business to kill the baby but the woman that holds the baby so if she wants to kill the baby or not kill the baby but if she chooses to kill the baby then it's her choice to kill the baby and not anyone elses choice to kill the baby . I do not agree with people that decide to kill babies but thats not my business so they could kill the baby if they want even though it disturbs me.