Abortions and the bible.

#726
#726
volfanjustin said:
a lot of old people are dependent, a lot of people with physical and mental problems are dependent, should we be allowed to kill all them also?
Click to expand...
If they are on life support? Yes. The ones closest to the person, along with the doctor decide.
 
#727
#727
luthervol said:
If they are on life support? Yes. The ones closest to the person, along with the doctor decide.
Click to expand...
who said life support? I said a lot of those people are dependent on others, can we off them too? A lot of lazy ass people who refuse to work and sit at home all day living off us who do work, can we kill them also?
 
#728
#728
Roustabout said:
Slippery slope. Nazi Germany did notview Jews as humans deserving protection. Slavery is another example.
Click to expand...

He who rules the roost gets to make the rules. Just history.

Might makes right. Morality and ethics are decided by the self serving victor who claims their scale of morality and ethics as the standard.
 
#729
#729
Septic said:
For a "murder" to occur, a human being must be killed by another unlawfully. The argument you deem baseless is that many (including courts) don't share your views that an unviable fetus rises to the level of being a "human." When they are ~>28 weeks it is widely accepted that the fetus becomes viable ex utero. This is why late term abortions are not legal and why your cries of "murder!" are what is, in fact, baseless.

You don't have to like this answer or even agree with it, but its truth isn't diminished by your unwillingness to reconcile it.
Click to expand...
How convenient for you and your party that there is a definition out there for you to use that has the word "unlawfully" in it.

Also, there you go again using selective viability to justify your position.
 
#730
#730
superdave1984 said:
This all revolves around each person's definition of "murder" and "child". We will not all agree on either.


Child
noun: child; plural noun: children
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

synonyms: youngster, young one, little one, boy, girl; More
a son or daughter of any age.

an immature or irresponsible person.

a person who has little or no experience in a particular area.

the descendants of a family or people.



Murder
noun: murder; plural noun: murders

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

INFORMAL
a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience.

verb
verb: murder; 3rd person present: murders; past tense: murdered; past participle: murdered; gerund or present participle: murdering

kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.



Legal definition of child:
This word has two meanings in law: (1) In the law of the domestic relations, and as to descent and distribution, it is used strictly as the correlative of “parent,” and means a son or daughter considered as in relation with the father or mother. (2) In the law of negligence, and in laws for the protection of children, etc., it is used as the CHILD 197 CHIROGRAPH opposite of “adult,” and means the young of the human species, (generally under the age of puberty,) without any reference to parentage and without distinction of sex.



Legal definitions of murder:

Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code.

Common Law Murder
At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

"Intent-to-kill murder"
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm. For example, if the defendant fatally stabbed the victim, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim, the defendant would still be liable for murder.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.


So, it would appear that, legally, a fetus is a child. However, since abortion IS legal, it is not technically murder by some definitions. Unless you go with the common law definition.

I agree with the legal definition, especially "the young of the human species". I would interpret murder using the Common Law definition.

Argue away.
Click to expand...
This isn’t going to carry much weight as they will use the terms as it fits their agenda. It’s funny how the left wants to be all “scientific” with the unborn. Fetus, embryo. These terms, in their proper context, are in no way meant to undermine the full reality and truth of human development. For example, try walking up to a mother and asking her how her neonate is doing.

Or, ask a newly pregnant mother how her blastocyst or embryo is doing. This is exactly what they are doing. They are misappropriating technical terms to muddy the reality of human development.
Human life and development begin at conception. Motherhood begins at implantation. These are facts, not feelings or opinion.

The cold truth is that abortionist are killing humans in the womb and selling their body parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc and Behr
#733
#733
luthervol said:
Because a fetus is not an independent living human being.
Click to expand...
There are many other classes of human beings that are not independent due to their psychological or physical condition, but you only accept/promote the cessation of one of those lives.

Again, you're very specifically choosing words so as to somehow try to skirt those (like me) who are revealing the fallacies within them. Your hope is that this week, you've found a group of words that we will either A.) Not be able to specifically pick apart, or B.) run out of energy picking them apart. In either case, you get the feeling of victory and choose to go on with your life as if you aren't putting the unborn human life into such a tightly arranged box so that you can then destroy it.
 
#735
#735
Roustabout said:
Scary isn’t it?
Click to expand...

Depends on when, and where, and time and space, and which side you are on(winner or loser)......it's all relative and it is scary, but, more so natural.

All we need to do is remind ourselves by watching natural life, of all types on this planet, and read and understand human history, and understand, we really aren't different, we are born, we die, and survival is somewhat of a crap shoot, so don't be the slowest in the herd or on the losing side of a battle.
 
#736
#736
mrmax86 said:
How convenient for you and your party that there is a definition out there for you to use that has the word "unlawfully" in it.

Also, there you go again using selective viability to justify your position.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the definition of "murder" was developed in a partisan way as to excuse abortion?

You're just crazy talking at this point.

And since you can't seem to wrap your head around my position despite drawing you a road map, I'm anti-abortion slightly less than I'm anti-nanny state. It's ironic, really, how your ilk pretends to be for less government intervention and deregulation unless the codification of laws isn't congruent with your personal beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970 and Purple Tiger
#737
#737
Human
adjective: human
1. relating to or characteristic of people or human beings.
"the human body"

of or belonging to the genus Homo.
noun
noun: human; plural noun: humans
1. a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

1 U.S. Code § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
 
#738
#738
Roustabout said:
This isn’t going to carry much weight as they will use the terms as it fits their agenda. It’s funny how the left wants to be all “scientific” with the unborn. Fetus, embryo. These terms, in their proper context, are in no way meant to undermine the full reality and truth of human development. For example, try walking up to a mother and asking her how her neonate is doing.

Or, ask a newly pregnant mother how her blastocyst or embryo is doing. This is exactly what they are doing. They are misappropriating technical terms to muddy the reality of human development.
Human life and development begin at conception. Motherhood begins at implantation. These are facts, not feelings or opinion.

The cold truth is that abortionist are killing humans in the womb and selling their body parts.
Click to expand...

If you want to have a conversation based on facts and not feelz, appropriate words need to be used. Conflating terms to appeal to emotion isn't going to be an effective platform to rationally debate. You know this and wouldn't allow anyone else to get away with it in any other setting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, rjd970 and Purple Tiger
#739
#739
mrmax86 said:
There are many other classes of human beings that are not independent due to their psychological or physical condition, but you only accept/promote the cessation of one of those lives.

Again, you're very specifically choosing words so as to somehow try to skirt those (like me) who are revealing the fallacies within them. Your hope is that this week, you've found a group of words that we will either A.) Not be able to specifically pick apart, or B.) run out of energy picking them apart. In either case, you get the feeling of victory and choose to go on with your life as if you aren't putting the unborn human life into such a tightly arranged box so that you can then destroy it.
Click to expand...
I have no problem whatsoever fully supporting Roe vs. Wade. Never have and never will.
Side tangent that I occasionally bring up and do not really wish to debate...just food for thought for the more religious posters.
Does life begin at fertilization?
Is that the point at which a human is created?
Does that two celled human have a soul?
Is there an eternity? (heaven/hell)
Will the soul of that two celled human live eternally?
The good place or the bad place?
Just always found that extrapolation fascinating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#740
#740
Septic said:
No, it's not, you're conflating concepts.

Fetal viability of a fetus it means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
Click to expand...
You still have not explained what you mean by normal conditions.
 
#741
#741
luthervol said:
I have no problem whatsoever fully supporting Roe vs. Wade. Never have and never will.
Side tangent that I occasionally bring up and do not really wish to debate...just food for thought for the more religious posters.
Does life begin at fertilization?
Is that the point at which a human is created?
Does that two celled human have a soul?
Is there an eternity? (heaven/hell)
Will the soul of that two celled human live eternally?
The good place or the bad place?
Just always found that extrapolation fascinating.
Click to expand...
We know, you have said it a million times already, Roe v Wade is brilliant, 60 plus million abortions is brilliant. We know where your radical mind stands
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr
#742
#742
Roustabout said:
Slippery slope. Nazi Germany did notview Jews as humans deserving protection. Slavery is another example.
Click to expand...
This is the end of the path that we're on right now. Only when humans that are walking around on this earth are being justifiably (according to law or government) murdered, will the course correct itself. The mission of the opposition (pro-life movement), is to educate people on the value of all human life at all stages, and put in place policies that educate, support, and fund pro-life policies that will have the same end as the current policy, but without the loss of life.

If we were able to take the massive funding that Planned Parenthood gets into centers that promote education, psychological assistance, motherhood training and/or adoption support, we wouldn't need abortion at all. The root cause for the creation of abortion is for convenience. There are some extreme circumstances that become gray or difficult, but that's where the greatest effort must be spent to help/counsel those in need. MOST of the abortions in this country have been performed for convenience (the data has been posted in this thread).

Truth is, most of the funding for PP comes from people who want to push a political agenda. It benefits Liberals politically to have people running to Planned Parenthood.
 
#743
#743
mrmax86 said:
There are many other classes of human beings that are not independent due to their psychological or physical condition, but you only accept/promote the cessation of one of those lives.

Again, you're very specifically choosing words so as to somehow try to skirt those (like me) who are revealing the fallacies within them. Your hope is that this week, you've found a group of words that we will either A.) Not be able to specifically pick apart, or B.) run out of energy picking them apart. In either case, you get the feeling of victory and choose to go on with your life as if you aren't putting the unborn human life into such a tightly arranged box so that you can then destroy it.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares about winning word battles, perceived fallacies or even your personal opinion. You are not going to convince Pro-Choice advocates to change their minds and vice versa. Until the court decides differently, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#744
#744
Purple Tiger said:
Nobody cares about winning word battles, perceived fallacies or even your personal opinion. You are not going to convince Pro-abortion advocates to change their minds and vice versa. Until the court decides differently, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
Click to expand...
FYP
 
#745
#745
#746
#746
mrmax86 said:
This is the end of the path that we're on right now. Only when humans that are walking around on this earth are being justifiably (according to law or government) murdered, will the course correct itself. The mission of the opposition (pro-life movement), is to educate people on the value of all human life at all stages, and put in place policies that educate, support, and fund pro-life policies that will have the same end as the current policy, but without the loss of life.

If we were able to take the massive funding that Planned Parenthood gets into centers that promote education, psychological assistance, motherhood training and/or adoption support, we wouldn't need abortion at all. The root cause for the creation of abortion is for convenience. There are some extreme circumstances that become gray or difficult, but that's where the greatest effort must be spent to help/counsel those in need. MOST of the abortions in this country have been performed for convenience (the data has been posted in this thread).

Truth is, most of the funding for PP comes from people who want to push a political agenda. It benefits Liberals politically to have people running to Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

Really? All that will eliminate pregnancies that are dangerous to the mother, pregnancies due to rape/incest or all unplanned pregnancies? I'd rather have Planned Parenthood, which also does GYN checkups and educates people on/distributes birth control, which can ELIMINATE the need for abortions.
 
#747
#747
#749
#749
Purple Tiger said:
Really? All that will eliminate pregnancies that are dangerous to the mother, pregnancies due to rape/incest or all unplanned pregnancies? I'd rather have Planned Parenthood, which also does GYN checkups and educates people on/distributes birth control, which can ELIMINATE the need for abortions.
Click to expand...
You have listed under 1% of all abortions, what about the other 99% plus
 
#750
#750
Purple Tiger said:
Nobody cares about winning word battles, perceived fallacies or even your personal opinion. You are not going to convince Pro-Choice advocates to change their minds and vice versa. Until the court decides differently, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
Click to expand...

End thread. Just reality. Only other option is fighting it out and winner decides.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top