felony to kill the unborn?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

I must agree, however reluctantly.
I would dearly hope and wish that every child is a wanted and loved child. However, the decision to want and love that child when unborn is the responsibility of the mother, so, in turn, the mother must decide.
Its a fact of life that tragedy exists; some people die old, some die young, and some die very very young.
We should work to help those mothers who need support when they are pregnant, but we cannot legislate their decision to bear their child.

I would say that by your reasoning, the mother should have the ability to terminate the child at any age until it can survive on its own. How many young teenagers would be put to death today I wonder? How many seven year olds have become to much of a burden and need to be aborted?

People do not have the right to terminate a life because of the things you've described. The only reason that fetuses are aborted is because they cannot be seen. They cannot scream in agony as they are dismembered in the womb. They cannot express grievences.

It amounts to a summary execution. It may be the law, but that is what it is.

[jajimo]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I would say that by your reasoning, the mother should have the ability to terminate the child at any age until it can survive on its own. How many young teenagers would be put to death today I wonder? How many seven year olds have become to much of a burden and need to be aborted?

People do not have the right to terminate a life because of the things you've described. The only reason that fetuses are aborted is because they cannot be seen. They cannot scream in agony as they are dismembered in the womb. They cannot express grievences.

It amounts to a summary execution. It may be the law, but that is what it is.

By your reasoning, the termination of anything which screams in agony or expresses grievences is a summary execution, whether it can be seen/heard or not. Yet animals are put through this every day and the law, as well as the vast majority of society condones this. Where is your distinction here?

If a human cannot scream in agony or express grievences, is it okay to kill them? What about the mute or mentally disabled?

Again, this comes back to defining what human is.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by jajimo

By your reasoning, the termination of anything which screams in agony or expresses grievences is a summary execution, whether it can be seen/heard or not. Yet animals are put through this every day and the law, as well as the vast majority of society condones this. Where is your distinction here?

The distinction is human vs. animal.

If a human cannot scream in agony or express grievences, is it okay to kill them? What about the mute or mentally disabled?

I think you misunderstood what Yogs was saying. He wasn't saying it was OK to kill for those reasons. He was saying that the reason it's easy for us to kill the unborn was because of those reasons.

[jajimo]

The distinction is human vs. animal.

And the problem is that no one has defined "human." Simply saying "human vs. animal" does not provide any sort boundaries for your statement. Are you speaking solely about hominids? Or are you being more specific and referring to homosapiens? In that case, what differentiates two species from being protected from murder and the other not? If this applies to species, what is keeping it from applying to ethnicities also, since it's a matter of genetics?

[DGB454]

Human as in mankind. Seriously, do I have to explain what a human is?
Are you under the impression that I am in favor of abortion?

[jajimo]

Originally Posted by DGB454

Human as in mankind. Seriously, do I have to explain what a human is?
Are you under the impression that I am in favor of abortion?

"Mankind" is a synonym of "human," it in no way defines it. And yes, you do have to explain what you mean by human. That's the whole problem with the topics of abortion/murder/etc. You're attempting to place a law on something you haven't accurately defined, so far you only have a grey area with blurred edges. Laws (i.e. absolutes) require black & white.

And I'm not just being a cock about this because I want you to define "human" for my pleasure, if you're going to argue any topic, you need to have a concrete understanding of what you're arguing about, and you need to make this understanding apparent to whoever is listening to you. This is regardless of whether you're for or against abortion.

Technically speaking, humans are animals, if you define animals as being anything which is part of the the Kingdom "Animalia." Certainly we aren't Fungi, Protista, or Plantae. Another reason why you need to define the terms you use.

[DGB454]

Actually, I'm sorry but don't have to explain it. I'm not having a problem understanding the term human being/mankind and I don't really see anyone else having that problem . Hopefully you don't take that as rude because it wasn't meant to be.
We are getting off on a tangent that this thread wasn't intended to go.

[jajimo]

Originally Posted by DGB454

Actually, I'm sorry but don't have to explain it. I'm not having a problem understanding the term human being/mankind and I don't really see anyone else having that problem . Hopefully you don't take that as rude because it wasn't meant to be.
We are getting off on a tangent that this thread wasn't intended to go.

Your unwillingness to extrapolate on the meaning of the term demonstrates your lack of understanding of the concept of "being human." This has nothing to do with my personal confusion, and I was not asking you to explain it for my own benefit. However, explaining the term you use in a claim is essential to rationalizing any argument, and your hestitance only questions your credibility.

The relationship between abortion and the definition of "human" should be obvious, if you can't see this, then there is nothing I can do to help you.

[lazysmurff]

look, what jajimo is getting at is "what seperates us from "animals"?

is it communication? well no, animals do that.

use of tools? animals do that too.

soul? thats arguable.

and it may not directly deal with abortion, but when you want to outlaw the killing of unborn children, are we also arguing for vegatarianism? for the abolishment of the death penalty?

[Prelewd]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

look, what jajimo is getting at is "what seperates us from "animals"?

is it communication? well no, animals do that.

use of tools? animals do that too.

soul? thats arguable.

and it may not directly deal with abortion, but when you want to outlaw the killing of unborn children, are we also arguing for vegatarianism? for the abolishment of the death penalty?

Our ability to reason, appreciation of beautiful things, constant criticism, and constantly asking "why?" come to mind..

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by Prelewd

Our ability to reason

Animals reason...ever seen those videos of the chimps solving puzzles and such

Originally Posted by Prelewd

appreciation of beautiful things

that depends on your definition of beautiful. animals appreciate life and nature, which is pretty beautiful to be. actually, they appreciate those things more than humanity.

[quote=Prelewd]constant criticism[?QUOTE]
ive never witnessed an animal critisize anyone or anything...maybe thats a plus on the animals sides...just a thought.

Originally Posted by Prelewd

and constantly asking "why?"

im not sure about this one, as ive never heard an animal question anything, but what makes you think that they dont?

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by jajimo

Your unwillingness to extrapolate on the meaning of the term demonstrates your lack of understanding of the concept of "being human." This has nothing to do with my personal confusion, and I was not asking you to explain it for my own benefit. However, explaining the term you use in a claim is essential to rationalizing any argument, and your hestitance only questions your credibility.

The relationship between abortion and the definition of "human" should be obvious, if you can't see this, then there is nothing I can do to help you.

I was saying no one else seems to have a problem with the term human or mankind and knowing what it means except for you which leads me to believe that either you have a problem understanding or you are nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Either way I am not going to get into that in a thread I created for a totally different purpose. If you wish to explore the definition of human then by all means do so in your thread. I will gladly give mine there.
Question my credibility as you will. It's inconsequential to me at this time.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by jajimo

Your unwillingness to extrapolate on the meaning of the term demonstrates your lack of understanding of the concept of "being human." This has nothing to do with my personal confusion, and I was not asking you to explain it for my own benefit. However, explaining the term you use in a claim is essential to rationalizing any argument, and your hestitance only questions your credibility.

The relationship between abortion and the definition of "human" should be obvious, if you can't see this, then there is nothing I can do to help you.

Actually, you are the one who is failing to grasp a large number of concepts. The questions you ask amount to a child repeating the question "why?" at every answer that is given.


The original point of this thread was discussion of a law that treats a fetus as a piece of property which allows a woman grievances if that fetus is forcibly removed or damaged by someone else.

Now that it has gone the direction it has, its only a few posts away from going into a full blown flame fest. This thread is closed.