Jump to content
NZT48

All abortion is murder and should be treated under law the same as any other murder.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, chrisg said:

?

 

Even with a lot of nurture I doubt any solitary, or maybe not even solitarymale  has a bedful of babies ?

(Actually babies in bed are a very bad idea - my daughter could give me bruises I didn't know you could get bruises on the odd occasion she needed comfort - very restless sleeper ? )

Cheers

 

 

I have not a clue what you're talking about here. Are you sure you wanted to reply to me ?

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna know something?  "Murder" is only a crime because the majority of people (or majority of those that matter) have said it is*.  The majority of people also say abortion isn't the same thing - so it isn't.  Woo.  Gotta love language and moral relativism, eh? ?

*Really.  Talking about world-wide and throughout history, here.  And even if you focus on the modern Western world,  it wasn't "because Ghu said so in my magic book", it was the majority - who happened to believe their magic books.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NZT48 said:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/baby

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/child

So tell me, how do you know when someone does and does not have "the ability to feel and think"? Would it have been alright to abort you before you were of this age? Is it alright to kill someone who is in a coma or someone who is under general anesthetic?

Um, you've heard of electricity and modern technology?  Because if you have, that's a stupid question.  And if you haven't I don't have the time to educate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devout of < your choice of religion > will kill living breathing humans and maim the babies and or young children because their ' book ' tells them to. Cos if their god tells them to kill and or maim and scar, it means the pain and death suffered is not important.
And then they the devout get all up-in-arms because individuals are making choices to abort unborn foetus out-side of the devout's field of influence. I think the devout need to go take a chill pill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, eveln said:

Oooo harsh imo.

It IS harsh.  But then most religion is.

If you actually read the bible, it's a horror story.  I never said I agree with it, just giving an example of how it can be viewed.

Apparently the OP doesn't read the bible either, or would be more familiar with the idea of original sin and the consequences of it in catechism.

Whether or not you agree with abortion, or subscribe to a religion that does or doesn't allow or agree with it, the debate inside these institutions is as great as the debate outside of it.

There are many, many reasons to be pro-choice.  God gave us free-will, human beings should be allowed to choose their own path etc etc.  There are a some reasons to be anti-abortion if you consider the life that could have been, what could have come of it etc.

What it comes down to, ultimately, is that the responsibility for the choice is yours (or should be).  It should not be for the government or a religion or a person to mandate that choice.

While that is not the way of the world, it would be nice to think that one day it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chaos.Lady said:

It IS harsh.  But then most religion is.

...  God gave us free-will, human beings should be allowed to choose their own path etc etc.  ...

Well, whether it be a god or our own evolutionary prowess, we do have the capacity for free-will. I actually quite liked the post I described as " Oooo harsh imo," ... just sayin'
... it's why I hid the emoji underneath ... somehow I fucked it up and it went with Merlin's quote ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2018 at 4:01 PM, chrisg said:

Technically the maximum population the earth can support is approximately 10 billion, we are at present rates expected to well and truly exceed that by the end of this century.

The figure is based upon maximum possible food production, which we may become better at.

However it is not that simple, food distribution across the globe is not equal which means large areas are already starving to death and have been for decades. If you had experienced at first hand the heartbreak of starving and dying children in Africa, as I have, more than a few have died in my arms whilst trying to save them, then I do not think you would ask such a stupid question.

Many studies show that we are already over-populated in real terms because of the distribution mentioned and have been for quite a while. Studies also show that at any given time we are around 21 day away from serious global starvation issues if a few crops fail on a large scale.

. . .

What if we all went vegan?

On 8/28/2018 at 5:23 PM, aliali said:

There fixed that for you. The basics are religion is a load of bollocks so you can immediately ignore any claims about Gods will or some such.

Why do you believe "religion is a load of bollocks"?

On 8/28/2018 at 7:11 PM, chrisg said:

In the end most all religion derives from ancient belief structures concocted by rather ignorant people who probably saw thunder and lightning as an annoyed God...

Then it was corrupted by oral translation and then handed down as "Gospel."

The royal families found religion a useful way to placate the masses, then enter the Roman Catholic Church - a subject unto itself.

Sorry, the imaginary friend in the sky is just that, imaginary...

. . .

Have you read The Bible?

On 8/28/2018 at 7:37 PM, Nich... said:

Prove it.

It depends on the definition of "human being" I guess, and Oxford isn't helping me out with that. Do you think it would have been alright if you were killed immediately after conception?

On 8/29/2018 at 12:47 AM, Cybes said:

Wanna know something?  "Murder" is only a crime because the majority of people (or majority of those that matter) have said it is*.  The majority of people also say abortion isn't the same thing - so it isn't.  Woo.  Gotta love language and moral relativism, eh? ?

*Really.  Talking about world-wide and throughout history, here.  And even if you focus on the modern Western world,  it wasn't "because Ghu said so in my magic book", it was the majority - who happened to believe their magic books.

Oxford defines murder as "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." so if it isn't against the law then it isn't murder* so if it was lawful for me to come to your house and kill you unprovoked then that would not be murder* so when I said "All abortion is murder..." it wasn't true*. I want to point out that good is not a democracy and neither is truth.

*Perhaps unless you are going by God's law instead of man's.

On 8/29/2018 at 1:24 AM, Kothos said:

Um, you've heard of electricity and modern technology?  Because if you have, that's a stupid question.  And if you haven't I don't have the time to educate you.

I don't know what you mean when you ask me if I have heard of "modern technology".

22 hours ago, eveln said:

The devout of < your choice of religion > will kill living breathing humans and maim the babies and or young children because their ' book ' tells them to. Cos if their god tells them to kill and or maim and scar, it means the pain and death suffered is not important.
And then they the devout get all up-in-arms because individuals are making choices to abort unborn foetus out-side of the devout's field of influence. I think the devout need to go take a chill pill

Don't paint them all with the same brush.

21 hours ago, Chaos.Lady said:

. . . 

There are many, many reasons to be pro-choice.  God gave us free-will, human beings should be allowed to choose their own path etc etc.  There are a some reasons to be anti-abortion if you consider the life that could have been, what could have come of it etc.

What it comes down to, ultimately, is that the responsibility for the choice is yours (or should be).  It should not be for the government or a religion or a person to mandate that choice.

. . .

The fact that God gave us free will does not mean it is okay to use it however we want, especially by killing innocent babies.

"human beings should be allowed to choose their own path"? So let the innocent babies have that choice instead of killing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NZT48 said:

 

The fact that God gave us free will does not mean it is okay to use it however we want, especially by killing innocent babies.

"human beings should be allowed to choose their own path"? So let the innocent babies have that choice instead of killing them.

Sure it does.  That's what free will is all about.  If you choose the path of the devil, you end up with him.  It's only human laws and punishment that force us into line (sometimes).  

Apparently you need to read up on how free will works.

Free will cannot take effect until someone is old enough to understand what it means and what consequence choices have and has the ability to choose.  Until then the responsibility lies with the ones who take the ownership for it.

If I leave a baby on its own, does it choose not to take care of itself?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NZT48 said:

I don't know what you mean when you ask me if I have heard of "modern technology".

 

 

You can see inside people's brains FFS - the electrical activity represents thoughts and feelings.  Things without brains, like an embryo, don't have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kothos said:

You can see inside people's brains FFS - the electrical activity represents thoughts and feelings.  Things without brains, like an embryo, don't have them.

reductio ad absurdum. i disagree that we can necessarily see the presence of any and all 'thoughts and feelings', nor that they — however they are definited — are necessarily the final measure of the presence intrinsic human life. 

from my post here:

"i have never bought into the arguments that claim to prove the foetus isnt a real human before a certain stage. i put these in the same category as 'insects dont feel pain' or 'certain animals dont have emotions' or similar areas in which science that is FAR from conclusive is often misused to add credence to what are, in truth, convenient assumptions. "look, its only a blob, it doesnt even look like a person yet, it cant possibly have feelings, nor a scrap of the intrinsic worth we ordinarily ascribe to slightly older humans". BULLSHIT! in other words, i am comfortable erring on the side of abortion at any stage after fertilisation being an act of murder. certainly, the notion of abortion as a form of retroactive contraception is utterly repugnant to me. however, i also believe that there are circumstances in which it is morally justified to kill a fledgling human life."

when i say 'murder' i am not invoking the legal definition.  that would be justifiable homicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

 

"Justifiable Homicide " is when someone is trying to kill you but you get in first ?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chrisg said:

?

 

"Justifiable Homicide " is when someone is trying to kill you but you get in first ?

 

Cheers

That seems to fit the circustances of children in general ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NZT48 said:

It depends on the definition of "human being" I guess, and Oxford isn't helping me out with that. Do you think it would have been alright if you were killed immediately after conception?

Sure.  What next?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Sure.  What next?

Lots of other people would have been happy about it too...

 

❤️

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, @~thehung said:

 i put these in the same category as 'insects dont feel pain' or 'certain animals dont have emotions' or similar areas in which science that is FAR from conclusive is often misused to add credence to what are, in truth, convenient assumptions.

Insects DO feel pain. You can measure that too. They have nerves and brain cells.

These aren't assumptions. Until we encounter an alien life form that we can see has high order behaviour without using brain cells, it's simply true that life on Earth orders mind information using brain/nerve cells. Other information is ordered in things like DNA.

I don't see this issue as that complicated. On Earth, the presence of a CNS implies thoughts, the absence of it implies no thoughts.

And I think most people in the pro-choice camp abhor the idea of using abortion as retroactive pregnancy avoidance. It's an extreme last resort when other options have failed, because nothing is perfect.

Edited by Kothos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NZT48 said:

 

It depends on the definition of "human being" I guess, and Oxford isn't helping me out with that. Do you think it would have been alright if you were killed immediately after conception?

You're equating the "conceptus that became Nich" with "Nich the person". They're two diffetent things.

Deleting Nich the person is not okay - he is a person with thoughts and feelings.

Deleting Nich the conceptus is okay - not a person. No thoughts and feelings.

By your argument, it would have been murder for Nich's parents to use contraceptives at the moment of his conception, because that would have resulted in him not existing as well. Or even to not have sex at all and just let that sperm and egg go to waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Don't paint them all with the same brush.

I didn't. It's why I used the term " devout " rather than just religious.

 

I do know that new babies that have their penis or vagina cut do cry ... lots. As speech is not developed, they can cry or sorta gurgle with merriment.  A feotus is capable of suffering in the womb due to any number of issues, so I would guess
they do feel. ...

Since many religions adhere to cutting new borns  I really don't see what is wrong with a person or couple choosing to end an unborn foetus. Ideally this is done early so's to impact physically less on the female carrying the foetus. And
also the earlier the fetus is killed the less it will ( hopefully ) 'feel'.

As long as I've been apart of the discussions on abortion, the only one that actually makes sense ( to not allow abortion ) to me is the desire to continue the human race << I can see that thousands of years ago that would have been seen as a thing.
Just not nearly such a relevant need today. And if you or anyone really and fucking truly is concerned about the possibility of aborting a potentially incredible human being , then I suggest rather strongly that you treat the children that are
already wandering around this earth with the basic respect of letting them evolve with out abuse. ... but as that's a real pie-in-the-sky ideal, I suggest you go chew some cud and get used to the idea that kids will be aborted, one way or the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chaos.Lady said:

That seems to fit the circustances of children in general ... ?

?

That's why I'm kind of keen on people needing a license to have, or at least to keep children, but sometimes they do make parents grow up.

Children require endless patience and even the best will lose their temper sometimes. I have a study in contrasts with my two daughters, the first was and remains a quiet and very easy child/adult to get along with, the younger one quite literally screamed for the first few months of her life unless cuddled, then she learned to sit up and has been hell-bent on world domination ever since ?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Chaos.Lady said:

Sure it does.  That's what free will is all about.  If you choose the path of the devil, you end up with him.  It's only human laws and punishment that force us into line (sometimes).  

Apparently you need to read up on how free will works.

Free will cannot take effect until someone is old enough to understand what it means and what consequence choices have and has the ability to choose.  Until then the responsibility lies with the ones who take the ownership for it.

If I leave a baby on its own, does it choose not to take care of itself?  

Killing innocent babies is depriving them of their ability to have that choice. That is what I meant to convey.

If it makes a difference then replace "okay" with "good". It is not good for Trump and Putin to use their free will to start thermonuclear world war, is it?

13 hours ago, Kothos said:

You can see inside people's brains FFS - the electrical activity represents thoughts and feelings.  Things without brains, like an embryo, don't have them.

Calm down. I still think a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. It is from the point of conception that one has their own unique DNA and soul.

11 hours ago, Kothos said:

And I think most people in the pro-choice camp abhor the idea of using abortion as retroactive pregnancy avoidance.

Why?

11 hours ago, Kothos said:

By your argument, it would have been murder for Nich's parents to use contraceptives at the moment of his conception, because that would have resulted in him not existing as well. Or even to not have sex at all and just let that sperm and egg go to waste.

I don't think so.

5 hours ago, eveln said:

I didn't. It's why I used the term " devout " rather than just religious.

. . .

Since many religions adhere to cutting new borns  I really don't see what is wrong with a person or couple choosing to end an unborn foetus. Ideally this is done early so's to impact physically less on the female carrying the foetus. And
also the earlier the fetus is killed the less it will ( hopefully ) 'feel'.

By that logic it is alright to kill anyone as long as it's done painlessly. Do you really believe that?

I mean don't paint "The devout of < your choice of religion >" all with the same brush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

Calm down. I still think a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. It is from the point of conception that one has their own unique DNA and soul.

 

Well here endeth the discussion.  I only have debates centred on facts.  Unless you can prove the existence of a soul, then your belief in it means you and I inhabit totally different mental spheres, and never the twain shall meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2018 at 4:45 PM, NZT48 said:

Change my mind.

Look at your statement:

"All abortion is murder and should be treated under law the same as any other murder."

There are defensible positions for a person charged with murder, such as those in s418 of the Crimes Act 1900:

"(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person or..."

There are also laws that provide for situations where taking a single life is necessary to prevent further loss of life, e.g. a police officer shooting a criminal that was pointing a gun at someone. Crimes Act 1949 s3ZC:

"(2)  Without limiting the operation of subsection (1), a constable must not, in the course of arresting a person for an offence:

(a)  do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, the person unless the constable believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the constable);"

So even if "All abortion is murder and should be treated under law the same as any other murder", they're still going to take place, and somehow I doubt that's what you have in your head when you and your ilk spout rhetoric like "abortion is murder".

Nobody will change your mind, thankfully we don't have to, because as lacking in character as our lawmakers are, most of them are willing to accept realities they don't like when push comes to shove.

Edit: Predicted incoming question: In Crimes Act 1949 s3ZC(2)(a), how does an abortion "protect life" or "prevent serious injury to another person"?
Answer: People die in childbirth. In cases where a doctor identifies that carrying the embryo to term is likely to kill or seriously injure the mother, the abortion either protects her life, or prevents serious injury to her. The abortion provides that 1 person dies instead of 2.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kothos said:

Well here endeth the discussion.  I only have debates centred on facts.  Unless you can prove the existence of a soul, then your belief in it means you and I inhabit totally different mental spheres, and never the twain shall meet.

If you don't believe souls exist why don't you just reply to the rest of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

If you don't believe souls exist why don't you just reply to the rest of it?

For the same reason I don't visit high security mental hospitals for the criminally insane to get help with my maths homework.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All parents should kill their children at the earliest opportunity. This would spare them the suffering of this sinful, mortal world and fast-track them into Eternal Paradise. Such murders are readily forgiven under the stated rules of the Holy Bible, thereby allowing these parents to join their now-grateful children in the Heavenly Garden of Our Lord. Though they may have to wait a little while - perhaps the Church could organise some sort of regular murder ceremony to get things moving faster. Yahweh himself set the example for all to follow (with Jesus).

If your parents haven't murdered you yet, then perhaps they don't love you enough?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×