Abortions, Executions and Hamburgers: A Brief Survey

[Traitorfish]

This is true, but at the moment it does exist.

Well, obviously, but that simply means that current interpretations of the constitution permit it, not that it is in any way formally ensured.

 

[Bei1052]

I'd like to reiterate a point on capital punishment I made earlier.

---


I find it rather funny how I could use an axe to break down my neighbor's door, hold a gun to her head, rape her, beat her, strap her to her bed, pour gasoline over her body, light her on fire, tape it and mail it to her family and have the very same people who argue that the unborn can be killed for no other reason than the fact that they exist simultaneously argue that I have a right to life that can't be infringed upon regardless of my actions. Of course, if my neighbor would have killed my while I was in the midst of doing any of that stuff to her, then she would have been excused. It really makes you stop and think how completely screwed up some people's mode of thinking is.

---

I'd actually like to see someone respond to this.

 

[Ajidica]

The fetus isn't sentient until around the 3rd tri.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, obviously, but that simply means that current interpretations of the constitution permit it, not that it is in any way formally ensured.

I agree. Though I would argue that since the Constitution does not hold it as a violation of human rights, and SCOTUS has not ruled it to apply to the ninth (Which would be a tough sell considering it is mentioned as not so in the Constitution), it is a state power to decide as per the tenth. The real only debate, under current constitutional law, is how you feel they should decide. And they have a right to decide.

I'd like to reiterate a point on capital punishment I made earlier.

---


I find it rather funny how I could use an axe to break down my neighbor's door, hold a gun to her head, rape her, beat her, strap her to her bed, pour gasoline over her body, light her on fire, tape it and mail it to her family and have the very same people who argue that the unborn can be killed for no other reason than the fact that they exist simultaneously argue that I have a right to life that can't be infringed upon regardless of my actions. Of course, if my neighbor would have killed my while I was in the midst of doing any of that stuff to her, then she would have been excused. It really makes you stop and think how completely screwed up some people's mode of thinking is.

---

I'd actually like to see someone respond to this.

I can't since I agree with you. Hang the murderer publicly, and that includes he who kills the unborn.

EDIT: @Ajidica- While I doubt this can be proven, regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that the child has more of a right to live than that heinous murderer.

 

[Bei1052]

The fetus isn't sentient until around the 3rd tri.

What does that have to do with what I typed out?

 

[Ajidica]

If you chose not to accept the sentience argument, how about the fact the fetus cannot survive out of the womb for the first tri and a half. (Or so. Biology is not my strong suit.)

What does that have to do with what I typed out?

If it is not sentient or did not previously have sentience or was capable of sentience I don't consider it as having the same rights as humans.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you chose not to accept the sentience argument, how about the fact the fetus cannot survive out of the womb for the first tri and a half. (Or so. Biology is not my strong suit.)

If it is not sentient or did not previously have sentience or was capable of sentience I don't consider it as having the same rights as humans.

So? The innocent child's right to life trumps a woman's right not to be fat. I agree its a bit more complex if the woman was raped or the life of the mother is in danger (Even though I still oppose the exceptions) but to put the fetus at the whim of the mother, allow her to sleep around, get pregnant and kill the child is sick. But not the mass murderer! He has a right to live! Even though he deprived someone else of that right!

 

[Ajidica]

So? The innocent child's right to life trumps a woman's right not to be fat.

???? Are you seriously that dense?

I agree its a bit more complex if the woman was raped or the life of the mother is in danger (Even though I still oppose the exceptions) but to put the fetus at the whim of the mother, allow her to sleep around, get pregnant and kill the child is sick.

Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, any slut knows that. If only from an economic standpoint. Birth control, condoms, and the morning after pill are cheaper then an abortion. Your average slut doesn't have the cash to use abortion as birth control!

But not the mass murderer! He has a right to live! Even though he deprived someone else of that right!

And he will get broomraped in jail and probably killed. It evens out.

 

[Traitorfish]

So? The innocent child's right to life trumps a woman's right not to be fat.

Well, of course, but I don't see what a child has to do with a discussion about a foetus...

Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, any slut knows that. If only from an economic standpoint. Birth control, condoms, and the morning after pill are cheaper then an abortion. Your average slut doesn't have the cash to use abortion as birth control!

Can we not say "slut"? It's a misogynistic slur.

 

[kiwitt]

I'd like to hear some women's opinions on Abortion.

The way I see it, is that if the woman does not want the baby, she can terminate it. Why should we be allowed to dictate what she does with her life and body ?

btw: we could set some artibtrary limits on when she can make that decision. But at the end of the day it is her "freedom" to chose what she wants to do.

 

[GhostWriter16]

???? Are you seriously that dense?

Well, its frankly that and the pain of giving birth. My comment was intentionally glib.

I would consider even a GROWING LIFE that didn't have human rights yet (If that's what you believe) to trump these woman's rights.

Which is why I specified its less glib in cases of rape or danger to the mother. Which is where it gets tricky, and it begs the question "Is the fetus really a life?"

To be logically consistent and say yes, you have to hold my position, that it should always be treated as murder.

Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, any slut knows that. If only from an economic standpoint. Birth control, condoms, and the morning after pill are cheaper then an abortion. Your average slut doesn't have the cash to use abortion as birth control!

Yet it is legal if they can afford it. Or if they get pregnant by mistake and its "Inconveinient."

In any case, that is always their fault except in a case of rape. But I still think the child's right to life trumps the woman's psychological rights. Kill the rapist yes, but not the child.

And he will get broomraped in jail and probably killed. It evens out.

I doubt "Probably." A lot of people live until old age in jail.

If that's the case though, why can't we just show our ultimate dismay by killing them?

Well, of course, but I don't see what a child has to do with a discussion about a foetus...

I would consider those to by synonyms. Well, sort of. Not all children are fetuses, but all fetuses are children.

@Kiwitt- She had the right not to have a child, but once she has one, she has no right to commit murder.

 

[Traitorfish]

She had the right not to have a child, but once she has one, she has no right to commit murder.

Is it possible to "murder" a non-sentient being?

 

[Ajidica]

Can we not say "slut"? It's a misogynistic slur.

Okay, what term would you prefer?
Skank? Doesn't feel right.
Whore? No money is being exchanged.
Tramp? Potentialy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is it possible to "murder" a non-sentient being?

Ummm... Do you think a person who loses physical nerves so they can't feel anything, is not murder?

Or, to make this even worse (And kinda glib), is it not murder to kill someone who's been knocked out for surgery? They aren't actually sentient (Capable of feeling) while unconcious

Or, I don't remember what that fetal defect was where your spinal cord is not fully developed, making a child non-sentient. Is giving birth to that child, and killing it with a knife not murder?

Also, while I am certain a baby cannot feel at conception, I highly doubt it takes as long as you all think. It has a spinal cord at 23 (I think) weeks, so it has to be able to feel by then.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ummm... Do you think a person who loses physical nerves so they can't feel anything, is not murder?

That is not what the word "sentient" means. It refers to possession of conciousness, or the potential for sensory awareness. A non-sentient adult human would be a vegetable.

Or, to make this even worse (And kinda glib), is it not murder to kill someone who's been knocked out for surgery? They aren't actually sentient (Capable of feeling) while unconcious

Capacity for conciousness is more important than the level of conciousness displayed at any given time. If it were otherwise, I would simply restrict myself to eat meat which had been stunned before death.

Or, I don't remember what that fetal defect was where your spinal cord is not fully developed, making a child non-sentient. Is giving birth to that child, and killing it with a knife not murder?

If the child is truly non-sentient, in that it is a vegetable which will die if not put on life support, then, no, it is not.

Also, while I am certain a baby cannot feel at conception, I highly doubt it takes as long as you all think. It has a spinal cord at 23 (I think) weeks, so it has to be able to feel by then.

All I assert is that a foetus is not sentient from conception, not that it is does not attain sentience at some point. I err on the side of caution when it comes to drawing such a line.

Okay, what term would you prefer?
Skank? Doesn't feel right.
Whore? No money is being exchanged.
Tramp? Potentialy.

I would prefer not to issue highly gendered labels in reference to sexual promiscuity. In fact, I would prefer we avoided referencing sexually promiscuity at all, given that it seems to perpetuate the notion that accidental pregnancy is something that only happens to Bad Girls.

 

[Bei1052]

If you chose not to accept the sentience argument, how about the fact the fetus cannot survive out of the womb for the first tri and a half. (Or so. Biology is not my strong suit.)

If it is not sentient or did not previously have sentience or was capable of sentience I don't consider it as having the same rights as humans.

That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. First of all, you ignore the fact that if it's okay to kill the unborn because it's not sentient without it being murder, that it's also okay to kill another being who isn't currently sentient and not have it be murder. Second of all, you're ignoring the slight hypocrisy in claiming that no one has the right to be killed, while simultaneously arguing that said individual could have been killed in the midst of committing his crime. If, therefore, it's okay to kill an individual who is in the process of committing murder, then why is it not okay to kill him afterwards as punishment? You would probably argue that the first is permissible because it would have been done to prevent him from killing someone else, while the second was done after the fact, but then wouldn't you necessarily have to accept the argument that there's nothing wrong with killing someone who has already killed to make sure he doesn't kill again?

On another note, if someone convicted of being a mass murderer is thrown in jail, escapes and commits a rash of more murders, then what? Sure, that's not terribly likely, but it has happened. Do you just throw them in jail again? What if the individual is unrepentant and unremorseful? What strikes me as odd is that violating someone's liberty rescinds the liberty of the violator, yet violating someone's life doesn't rescind the life of the violator. Makes no sense to me.

Is it possible to "murder" a non-sentient being?

Walk into a hospital, head over to their ICU department, find someone in a coma and on life support, unplug them and see if you get slapped with a murder charge.

That is not what the word "sentient" means. It refers to possession of conciousness, or the potential for sensory awareness. A non-sentient adult human would be a vegetable.

Or be in a coma. Or asleep. Or under the influence of anesthetics

 

[Traitorfish]

Walk into a hospital, head over to their ICU department, find someone in a coma and on life support, unplug them and see if you get slapped with a murder charge.

Again, sentience is the capacity for conciousness, not an immediate display of it.

Furthermore, those in a coma are still operating at a unconcious level, while a vegetable is not, so the conflation of the two mental states is just crude.

 

[Bei1052]

Again, sentience is the capacity for conciousness, not an immediate display of it.

People in a coma, a vegetative state asleep or sedated via anesthetics have the capacity for sentience in the same manner that the unborn do. That is, they're not now but might be in the future.

Furthermore, those in a coma are still operating at a unconcious level, while a vegetable is not, so the conflation of the two mental states is just crude.

I hope you realize that, medically, being in a coma is worse than being in a vegetative state.

 

[Traitorfish]

People in a coma, a vegetative state asleep or sedated via anesthetics have the capacity for sentience in the same manner that the unborn do. That is, they're not now but might be in the future.

Perhaps I should list the distinctions which I consider to be of relevance:

Unconscious: Possessing of the capacity for conciousness, despite a lack of present consciousness.
Brain-dead: Nit possessing of a capacity for conciousness, despite possessing the appropriate biological machinery.
Pre-Sentient Foetus: Not possessing of a capacity for conciousness, nor of the appropriate biological experience.

Note "Pre-Sentient". A foetus which has reached the sentient phase of it's development is, in my mind, entitled to life.

I hope you realize that, medically, being in a coma is worse than being in a vegetative state.

I think I may be mis-using terminology here; when I said "vegetable", I meant a brain-dead person, although apparently that is not proper usage. My mistake.

 

[kiwitt]

@Kiwitt- She had the right not to have a child, but once she has one, she has no right to commit murder.

Wikipedia says this

The elements of common law murder are:

1.the killing
2.of a human being
3.by another human being
4.with malice aforethought.[4]
The killing—At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[4]—the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[4] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.[4]

of a human being—This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.[4]

by another human being—at early common law suicide was considered murder.[4] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought—originally "malice aforethought" carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice".

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

i.Intent to kill,
ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Note it specifically says " ... At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath ... "

So it is not murder, as you emotively phrase it.