563 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

When I say abortion is murder, it carries the connotation that abortion is unlawful killing which it is not. The entire abortion debate carries a lot of emphasis on words and terms used, I suggest you read Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood for deeper insight on the debate.

Unless abortion is illegal... in which case it is unlawful killing.

[Mishelle]

Self-defense is a form of voluntary manslaughter in the US that does get jail time.

Sure, some stances of "killing" might be legal but, by your definition, once they are not... they are murder. If someone is getting thrown in jail for killing babies, then killing babies is murder.

That's just your logic. Illegal killing = murder.
Therefore, getting thrown in jail for killing a baby = murder.

Not every person who kills in self defense gets jail time. If someone enters your home and you shoot them and they die, you will not get jail time. If you're in fear for your life and standing your ground, in some states you will not get jail time. Like I said there's lawful killing and unlawful killing. People accept the fact that abortion is killing, the debate is whether or not its lawful.

[8143FF763271]

They were human beings in the sense that they are born but they weren't considered people under the law. Awas that wrong, yes. They campaigned for civil rights and got them. There are still human beings fighting for civil rights but there's a difference between civil rights and human rights.

Word? What's the difference? That some humans have them and others don't? You know, like civil rights back in the day?

[Mishelle]

Unless abortion is illegal... in which case it is unlawful killing.

Then what is a miscarriage? Accidental manslaughter?

[8143FF763271]

Not every person who kills in self defense gets jail time. If someone enters your home and you shoot them and they die, you will not get jail time. If you're in fear for your life and standing your ground, in some states you will not get jail time. Like I said there's lawful killing and unlawful killing. People accept the fact that abortion is killing, the debate is whether or not its lawful.

The debate isn't whether or not it's lawful/unlawful. The debate is whether or not it should be. You're arguing that things are LEGAL before they are OK and it's the other way around. We're having a moral argument here. We're not arguing about how abortion gets treated in the US. We all know that. That's a fact.

By the way, unlawful means it doesn't follow the law.
Lawful means it follows the law.
If there's a law putting people in jail for killing babies... then abortion is murder.

I mean this is so basic. By this time I hope you realize I'm mocking you and not even entertaining a serious argument with you.

Then what is a miscarriage? Accidental manslaughter?

Technically, maybe, but without reckless behaviour so you wouldn't be able to get penalized for it.

[Mishelle]

Word? What's the difference? That some humans have them and others don't? You know, like civil rights back in the day?

~Back in the day~ you could kill a Native American and it wasn't illegal. Today murder is considered the unlawful and premeditated killing of a human being by another human being and currently the philosophical debate on whether or not fetuses are beings is still raging. If a fetus is a human being with the rights of a human being then in vitro fertilization would be illegal, getting chemotherapy or any kind of medical treatment that could result in a miscarriage would be illegal. Miscarriages would factor into child mortality rates and the notion of these things being implemented is quite absurd to me, I don't know about you.

[8143FF763271]

~Back in the day~ you could kill a Native American and it wasn't illegal. Today murder is considered the unlawful and premeditated killing of a human being by another human being and currently the philosophical debate on whether or not fetuses are beings is still raging. If a fetus is a human being with the rights of a human being then in vitro fertilization would be illegal, getting chemotherapy or any kind of medical treatment that could result in a miscarriage would be illegal. Miscarriages would factor into child mortality rates and the notion of these things being implemented is quite absurd to me, I don't know about you.

Bro... You keep repeating, over and over again, how things are as if that's equal to how they should be. Killing a Native American wasn't illegal back in the day. Let's go back in time. This is your argument: Killing a native American is legal, therefore, it's OK. If a Native America had the rights of a human being, then taking its buffalos would be illegal. Dead indians would factor into homicide rates and the notion of these things being implemented is quite absurd to me, I don't know about you! Since Native Americans are clearly not human beings (they don't speak English and are brown).

Again, these things are ABSURD to me... but I don't pretend they are absurd under some scientific/democratic framework. We just happen to NOT care about unborn babies. Just like people back in the day happened to not care about Native Americans.

[Mishelle]

The debate isn't whether or not it's lawful/unlawful. The debate is whether or not it should be. You're arguing that things are LEGAL before they are OK and it's the other way around. We're having a moral argument here. We're not arguing about how abortion gets treated in the US. We all know that. That's a fact.

By the way, unlawful means it doesn't follow the law.
Lawful means it follows the law.
If there's a law putting people in jail for killing babies... then abortion is murder.

I mean this is so basic. By this time I hope you realize I'm mocking you and not even entertaining a serious argument with you.





Technically, maybe, but without reckless behaviour so you wouldn't be able to get penalized for it.

Actually no im not saying things are legal before they're ok because there are some things that are legal that turn out not to be ok. For example it was legal to rape your wife, now its not legal. The point is for something to be considered legal or illegal there has to be some logic in justifying why it should be legal or illegal. Its justifyable why premediated murder would get you jail time. Its not justifyable to throw a woman in jail because she can't physically, emotionally, or financially care for a child.


No one knows what can cause a miscarriage so it would be damn near impossible to determine whether or not the mother engaged in a type of behavior that caused a miscarriage. Again, it would be absurd.

Edited by Mishelle, 14 August 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[8143FF763271]

You just contradicted yourself.
You called it murder in the first place. In order for it to be murder then you'd have to be taking a human life am I right?

I also strongly disagree with the third trimester bologna.
Babies have survived premature labor as early as 22 weeks.
Third trimester starts at 28 weeks.

IT'S NOT A HUMAN LIFE...
IT'S ABOUT IT BEING A HUMAN ///BEING///
FOR IT TO BE A HUMAN ///BEING/// IT HAS TO HAVE RIGHTS.
OTHERWISE IT'S SOME OTHER CREATURE.
LIKE A NATIVE AMERICAN OR SOMETHING.

[Mishelle]

You just contradicted yourself.
You called it murder in the first place. In order for it to be murder then you'd have to be taking a human life am I right?

I also strongly disagree with the third trimester bologna.
Babies have survived premature labor as early as 22 weeks.
Third trimester starts at 28 weeks.

If you look in the dictionary infanticide is killing a child after birth. If its not born its not infanticide.

[8143FF763271]

Actually no im not saying things are legal before they're ok because there are some things that are legal that turn out not to be ok. For example it was legal to rape your wife, now its not legal. The point is for something to be considered illegal or illegal there has to be some logic in justifying why it should be legal or illegal. Its justifyable why premediated murder would get you jail time. Its not justifyable to throw a woman in jail because she can't physically, emotionally, or financially care for a child.


No one knows what can cause a miscarriage so it would be damn near impossible to determine whether or not the mother engaged in a type of behavior that caused a miscarriage. Again, it would be absurd.

So women should be able to kill their actual babies if they realize they can't take care of them?

What? Things like that can be verified by a doctor. I mean alcohol fetal syndrome is a big thing and I think that women who give their babies that should be liable for negligence. I don't know what's "absurd" about that.

[Mishelle]

Bro... You keep repeating, over and over again, how things are as if that's equal to how they should be. Killing a Native American wasn't illegal back in the day. Let's go back in time. This is your argument: Killing a native American is legal, therefore, it's OK. If a Native America had the rights of a human being, then taking its buffalos would be illegal. Dead indians would factor into homicide rates and the notion of these things being implemented is quite absurd to me, I don't know about you! Since Native Americans are clearly not human beings (they don't speak English and are brown).

Again, these things are ABSURD to me... but I don't pretend they are absurd under some scientific/democratic framework. We just happen to NOT care about unborn babies. Just like people back in the day happened to not care about Native Americans.

I keep repeating myself because you keep making these ridiculous ad hominem arguments. Youre bringing up the struggles and suffering of clearly born human beings and equating them to the same status of human matter with only the potential to become human beings. And you don't see anything illogical about that?

Did you know in California it's against the law for a woman to drive wearing a housecoat?



Wait what? Where are you getting this information?
Doctors are fully capable (in most situations) of determining the cause of a miscarriage

In most situations, not all. So what is the court to do when the cause can't be determined?

[8143FF763271]

I keep repeating myself because you keep making these ridiculous ad hominem arguments. Youre bringing up the struggles and suffering of clearly born human beings and equating them to the same status of human matter with only the potential to become human beings. And you don't see anything illogical about that?



In most situations, not all. So what is the court to do when the cause can't be determined?

You're going in circles now, bro. We already went over the fact that they are living human organisms.
You then brought law into it instead of showing that they're not.

It's also not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be telling you you're an idiot. It would also be my sincere opinion.

[Mishelle]

So women should be able to kill their actual babies if they realize they can't take care of them?

What? Things like that can be verified by a doctor. I mean alcohol fetal syndrome is a big thing and I think that women who give their babies that should be liable for negligence. I don't know what's "absurd" about that.

When a baby can't be taken care of you can adopt it out. Some women physically can not handle a pregnancy and can die in childbirth killing both themselves and the infant because in some countries abortion is illegal even if its a threat to the womans life. Again, im not saying the law is infallible and everything that is legal is ok and everything that is illegal is wrong what i'm saying is there's a fundamental difference in what the goal of an abortion is and what the goal of a premeditated murder is and trying to equate them is asinine.

You're going in circles now, bro. We already went over the fact that they are living human organisms.
You then brought law into it instead of showing that they're not.

It's also not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be telling you you're an idiot. It would also be my sincere opinion.

The law CURRENTLY and in my opinion correctly defines a human being as a born person. Science CURRENTLY and in my opinion correctly defines a FETUS as a potential being and not a being until it's born or viable outside of the womb. So what does bringing up the past status of Black slaves have to do with this argument?

Edited by Mishelle, 14 August 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[Arkidas]

Yes I think a a woman / girl should be able to choose whether she wants to bear a child for 10 months. It would be unbearable to do any thing you don't want to do so constantly for such an extended period.

[8143FF763271]

When a baby can't be taken care of you can adopt it out. Some women physically can not handle a pregnancy and can die in childbirth killing both themselves and the fetus because in some countries abortion is illegal even if its a threat to the womans life. Again, im not saying the law is infallible and everything that is legal is ok and everything that is illegal is wrong what i'm saying is there's a fundamental difference in what the goal of an abortion is and what the goal of a premeditated murder is and trying to equate them is asinine.

Those are few cases in which abortion could be counted as a self-defense clause. The goal of an abortion can be not having a financial burden. If I wanted to kill my kids because I don't want to spend money on them, it would be counted as a premeditated murder. Equating that to abortion isn't asinine. It's the same exact thing. You're killing your kid to avoid taking care of it.

The law CURRENTLY and in my opinion correctly defines a human being as a born person. Science CURRENTLY and in my opinion correctly defines a FETUS as a potential being and not a being until it's born. So what does bringing up the past status of Black slaves have to do with this argument?

Do I have to link you again to that 6th grade biology page or do you not have Alzheimer's?

Edited by kami12, 14 August 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[Frizzle]

Did you know in California it's against the law for a woman to drive wearing a housecoat?


Using extremities to get a point across is not as affective as you think. Using out-dated laws that were introduced for a reason into modern context is absurd and incorrect.

Wait what? Where are you getting this information?
Doctors are fully capable (in most situations) of determining the cause of a miscarriage

You mean like SIDS? Oh wait..

[Mishatu]

If the unborn aren't technically human beings, why did the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (2004) come about?

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/

And if you check google, there are several instances where killing a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide.

[Frizzle]

SIDS and miscarriage are two completely different things bro.

Also, because clearly you missed it. I did say in most cases.

That is true, but it doesn't count for the hundreds of thousands of world wide miscarriages that have happened and doctor's do not know why they happened.