Abortion

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
When I addressed the question of stem cell research to Sithsabre, you had this to say:

A "whole new can of worms" is equating my question to Sithsabre with a whole new argument and "worthy of it's own thread" means that whole new argument would take this thread off topic.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Saying "It should have it's own thread" and "Don't talk about it here because it doesn't apply" are two different things. I even said it was slightly related in a section of my post that you conviently appear to have ignored.

But the whole point of the question is that Sithsabre is a hypocrite who picks and chooses what is right and wrong when it comes to his religion and beliefs. And, when someone is hypocritical in their practices then they have no right to be deciding what is right and wrong for someone else. When your beliefs are arbitrarily [B]chosen, then they are no more or less right or important than those that have been chosen by another person [/B]

This I can't dispute. It's a good point.

Originally posted by Trickster
I think technichally (legally) it may not be, the fact that abortion is not murder doesn't mean it isn't.

Yes, it does mean that it isn't, considering it's a legal term only.

-AC

You would argue that there cannot be legal murder?

For instance, that the killing of civilians in war is not murder because of the state of war? (Possibly not a great example, I know).

At the same time, though abortion is not classified as murder, if the fetus is a person, then it is murder.

Originally posted by Trickster
You would argue that there cannot be legal murder?

There cannot be legal murder. Murder is a crime, and by definition something that is legal is not a crime.

if you look at it from a legal point of view that is.
from a moral standpoint you could argue that the death penalty is murder but abortion is not, you could argue that the death penalty is not murder but abortion is. but from a strictly legal standpoint neither is murder. but then people will blend moral with legal and thats how discussions such as this get covered in horseshit

Originally posted by PVS
if you look at it from a legal point of view that is.
from a moral standpoint you could argue that the death penalty is murder but abortion is not, you could argue that the death penalty is not murder but abortion is. but from a strictly legal standpoint neither is murder. but then people will blend moral with legal and thats how discussions such as this get covered in horseshit

Once you speak of a moral standpoint, though, you need to define a 'moral murder'. Doesn't really work too well. People tend to just mean a killing that, while not illegal, should be. It tends to simply be an argument that the legal definition isn't comprehensive enough, which is perhaps arguable. A moral murder is almost a contradiction in terms, though, like a 'moral rape'.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
When I addressed the question of stem cell research to Sithsabre, you had this to say:

But the whole point of the question is that Sithsabre is a hypocrite who picks and chooses what is right and wrong when it comes to his religion and beliefs. And, when someone is hypocritical in their practices then they have no right to be deciding what is right and wrong for someone else. When your beliefs are arbitrarily [B]chosen, then they are no more or less right or important than those that have been chosen by another person [/B]

Yes, I believe in stem cell research.

You and Arachnoid need a chill pill dude.

I take a look at all of the viable options and opinions in this world, and after having spent my high school years living, thinking, and breathing liberal,... I gained some maturity and decided that the Christian conservative world view was the one that most closely lines up with what I agree with.

Just as you pick your worldview from available opinons and ideas.

Very few ideas/viewpoints are original and have not been expressed by someone else already/learned from somebody.

I don't change what I feel for anybody, and it is usually the person who can be depended upon to feel and think a certain way, due to what they believe in, that is trusted to make decisons for others, since the group putting them in charge will know what they stand for.

Bet you would hate to hear that I plan to get on the city council for a few years after I get my degree in northern california, and then be either mayor or govennor before running for pres.

Imangine that, a former rap loving, weed smoking, Spanish speaker from liberal California who grew up and was educated by a system that he deemed immoral and out of wack, and becoming a young neo-conservative pres.

That's a TV movie of the week for sure.

😎

Sounds like a horror flick.

At least I won't be in the country by the time you run for president.

I'm still wondering why people are debating the "viability" of the zygote upon conception. From a scientific standpoint, off course it's alive. It's absurd to debate otherwise. I mean..if a one celled organism like an amoeba is considered to be a "life", why the hell wouldn't anyone consider a zygote to represent a "life"?

Moving on..from a legal perspective, which I believe many are trying to use to represent their opinions as being "factual", most modern laws define everything after the first several months to be "human". However most of these laws never really get into the science of it all..they tend to portray the fetus as an extension of the women's body..which is why the pro life battle has been lost a many a times over the years.

Oddly enough, the very same science that initially portrayed the fetus as being part of the woman's body and just a lump of cells, seems to be the very same science that is causing the pro choice movement the most trouble in recent years.

Do you read posts? I'm guessing you don't. Why am I guessing that? Because who the hell is debating that a zygote is viable? Certainly not me. Viable as in capable of living? Yes. Who denied such things? No one. I actually spelled out that I'm not debating the zygote being a living organism.

I simply said it's not a human and that there's no human life at conception, I proved it too. What it represents to you and what it factually is/what it factually isn't, are different things.

So maybe you should try arguing for a different side of what conception means.

Nobody is denying that a zygote is alive, but a zygote is not human, nor is it a human being. Which is what you claimed.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I simply said it's not a human and that there's no human life at conception, I proved it too.

That's just what the law states bud, however, science teaches us otherwise. Inside a human female, it would definitely be classified as being in the first stage of "human development", so technically speaking that would make it a "human life", regardless of what evolutionary stage it is in..😉

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's just what the law states bud, however, science teaches us otherwise. It's definitely the first stage of "human development", so technically speaking that would make it a "human life", regardless of how evolved it is..😉

Of course it wouldn't make it a human life. It would have to be a human to possess a human life, logically. Being a representative of doesn't make you equal to.

Also, nothing legal about it, it's not a human until it's a foetus. This being the end of the eighth week after conception. It's a bunch of cells that form a human at the end of the eighth week.

That said, do you believe a cell is directly equal to a human being? That's what a zygote is, a cell. A cell is not a human, is it? It's not a human at conception, therefore human life doesn't begin at conception, proven. The organism that will, if left unchecked, go on to become a human is there. It's not a human though.

To claim it represents human life is something I find to be quite stupid, but that's not what you claimed first. You claimed that HUMAN life begins then, it doesn't.

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
..they tend to portray the fetus as an extension of the women's body..which is why the pro life battle has been lost a many a times over the years.

The whole basis BEHIND the pro-life argument is that it is killing someone- even if that person is unborn. But abortion is bad in general for almost all cases (minus rape cases) and abortion gives us yet another control over ourselves into which someday we will lose control over. The abortion itself it bad, but the principle is that if it is abortion now it will be something worse later. Humanity has too powerful a grip on the physical and natural world we live in. We can clone people, extend peoples lives far past what is the normal lifespan, we can kill people basically anywhere at anytime (even if it is illegal), we can deforestate the rainforests, cause The Day After Tommorow, or prevent it... We are evolving these techiniques far to fast and use many of them to easily at the expense of ethics and sometimes lives.

That sounds like a slippery slope argument. Do you have any substantial proof of abortion being something comparable to the destruction of rain forests and cloning, the latter of which is far from being totally within our grasp?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I agree, whether or not abortion is murder IS a central part of the debate, so since it factually is not (your whining and tantrum throwing regardless), those people claiming that it is are serving no purpose but to slow the debate down.

-AC

If no one argued that abortion was murder, this debate would be over, because the whole point of being pro life is to argue that abortion is murder.

Originally posted by Makedde
If no one argued that abortion was murder, this debate would be over, because the whole point of being pro life is to argue that abortion is murder.

✅

Originally posted by Makedde
If no one argued that abortion was murder, this debate would be over, because the whole point of being pro life is to argue that abortion is murder.

Your inability to comprehend that abortion isn't murder on any level notwithstanding, that's how it is. That's why you tried to cite facts as a bad thing, because if no one used them then you would be able to participate in this debate. Since facts are undeniable and against you, there's nothing you can say.

Tough love.

-AC

Since we're debating a legal issue, we may as well include a more accurate defintion of murder:

Murder is the:

unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being;

or;

murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

If we are still to decide whether or not a fetus or embryo is a human being then we cannot be sure whether or not an abortion is murder. Thus, though it is not legally counted as murder - it may in fact be a contradictary law. Legal abortion could be considered by some people to be similar to other laws that have legalised murder (like Chester's anti-Welsh law), but are accepted to be redundant. Just because the law says that it is not murder to kill somebody in certain situations does not mean that in some of these situations it is not. It also depends on which culture you are judging from. Countries that have banned abortion and called it murder have every right to state that it is murder.

Taking your definition from the law on the topic of discussion ultimately renders it pointless, no matter what arguments you make. If it was specified in the definition of murder that it did not include abortion, then you would have a point, but as of yet you only have a law which supports your point of view.

(Sorry if the post's a bit convoluted)

Originally posted by Trickster
Since we're debating a legal issue, we may as well include a more accurate defintion of murder:

Murder is the:

unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being;

or;

murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

If we are still to decide whether or not a fetus or embryo is a human being then we cannot be sure whether or not an abortion is murder. Thus, though it is not legally counted as murder - it may in fact be a contradictary law. Legal abortion could be considered by some people to be similar to other laws that have legalised murder (like Chester's anti-Welsh law), but are accepted to be redundant. Just because the law says that it is not murder to kill somebody in certain situations does not mean that in some of these situations it is not. It also depends on which culture you are judging from. Countries that have banned abortion and called it murder have every right to state that it is murder.

Taking your definition from the law on the topic of discussion ultimately renders it pointless, no matter what arguments you make. If it was specified in the definition of murder that it did not include abortion, then you would have a point, but as of yet you only have a law which supports your point of view.

(Sorry if the post's a bit convoluted)

For the love of intellect.

Murder is a legal term and only a legal term. Therefore nothing to do with abortion can ever be murder.

Anything else is just immoral killing, not murder. It's all been explained to you.

-AC