User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 8:26:26 AM EDT
[#1]
As has been posted already, the anti-life, pro-abortion liberals don't take into account the infant's right to live. Would you like it to be legal for anyone to kill you just because they've decided they don't want you? Lets make abortion legal up to the age of 40. That should be ample time for your parents to see if they really want you, and if you survive your teenage years without them killing you then you must be alright.
Remember, pregnancy is 100% preventable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 8:59:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Quoted: Excellent post on the two Malums, I give high marks for that, but you fail in the murder catagory. Lets go back to Cornell Law dictionary (I prefer Blacks, but hey). Murder " the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" Now, as we know, abortion is not illegal (thank you specifically to my god!) it can then not be murder. Which is exactly why I posted this, which you somehow missed in your response to my post: Quoted: If you don't believe that abortion qualifies as murder, please define for me the point at which a fetus becomes a human being, and therefore deserves protection from arbitrary slaughter. For the purposes of this question, you don't get to hide behind "There's just no way to tell." If "There's just no way to tell" is the best you can do, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and consider a fetus human until it's proven otherwise? If not, what's to stop us from continually redefining the standards of humanity upward until a "fetus" is not viable until it is literally "viable:" able to clothe and provide food and shelter for itself, can communicate at least on a basic level, etc? Damn, I love it when they try to use the law for part of their argument! "They?" Who is "they?" Exsqweeze me, are these books available as a database, on-line??? [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 11:04:02 AM EDT
[#3]
Abortion is evil, it is murder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 12:01:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: [b]One question that has to be answered is the fetus inside a woman's body a separate life-form to say that this life-form has it's own rights to live or is it since the fetus is ,at the time, in cruel terms, only a potential human being, that is growing inside her where the woman has the right to decide if this "growth" should continue to full birth to a human child?[/b] [b]ArmaLiter[/b] [b]When does the heart begin to beat?[/b] At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. [b]When is the brain functioning?[/b] Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). [b]When does the developing baby first move?[/b] "In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." [b]When are all his body systems present?[/b] By eight weeks. [b]How about nine weeks?[/b] At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist. By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." [b]When does he start to breathe?[/b] "By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid within his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." [b]Can he cry?[/b] Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor ". . . injected an air bubble into the baby’s amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby’s face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby’s head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself upright with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby’s head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus." [b]Does the unborn baby dream?[/b] Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks. REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception. [b]Does he/she think?[/b] We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life. The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero. [b]Can he/she feel pain?[/b] Yes, by the 8th week and perhaps earlier. By this age the neuroanatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present by 8 weeks. Without doubt a abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant. [b]What of The Silent Scream?[/b] A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600). You will not find a serious rebuttal to this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 12:57:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Excellent post on the two Malums, I give high marks for that, but you fail in the murder catagory. Lets go back to Cornell Law dictionary (I prefer Blacks, but hey). Murder " the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" Now, as we know, abortion is not illegal (thank you specifically to my god!) it can then not be murder. Which is exactly why I posted this, which you somehow missed in your response to my post: Quoted: If you don't believe that abortion qualifies as murder, please define for me the point at which a fetus becomes a human being, and therefore deserves protection from arbitrary slaughter. For the purposes of this question, you don't get to hide behind "There's just no way to tell." If "There's just no way to tell" is the best you can do, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and consider a fetus human until it's proven otherwise? If not, what's to stop us from continually redefining the standards of humanity upward until a "fetus" is not viable until it is literally "viable:" able to clothe and provide food and shelter for itself, can communicate at least on a basic level, etc? Damn, I love it when they try to use the law for part of their argument! "They?" Who is "they?" You be they. My god has told me that a fetus is a fetus until it is born into this world. That beith may be at 4 months for some, and 10 months for others. So it is a pretty abitrary number. Birth does not happen when the Fetus crowns, it happens when the fetus's umbilical cord is cut and the fetus is removed from the mothers body. Shazaam, at that very moment, a baby is born. Up until that moment, a woman has the choice to dispose of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 1:00:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Abortion is evil, it is murder. While you can debate whether abortion is evil, and you wil not get any arguments from me, you cannot call it murder, as has already been proven. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. Abortion is legal, so IT CAN"T BE MURDER. (whats the problem here, these people can't read?) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 1:05:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Uh, dude, it was stated that this poor young baby was being operated on to correct an inhereted disease, I can only imagine that the doctor *was* offering moral support to the little tyke, and that the youth was returning that support by grasping hands. The grasping of the doctors finger is the result of the grasp reflex being used, no intellectual thought process was involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 1:08:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Uh, dude, it was stated that this poor young baby was being operated on to correct an inhereted disease, I can only imagine that the doctor *was* offering moral support to the little tyke, and that the youth was returning that support by grasping hands. The grasping of the doctors finger is the result of the grasp reflex being used, no intellectual thought process was involved. Oppps, I thought I had used the "Obvious Sarcasm" tag, I must have used the "hard to see Sarcasm" button instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 2:46:11 PM EDT
[#9]
12 pack trojan condoms - $6.50
1 month supply of female birth control pills - $59 Avoiding the $300-$500 cost for an abortion - PRICELESS!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 2:51:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: I dont believe in abortion but I also dont believe I have any right to tell some woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. Likewise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 3:50:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: I dont believe in abortion but I also dont believe I have any right to tell some woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. Likewise. Well I don't know guys, think about it. Once we get to tell women tha tthey are forced (legally) to have or not have certain medical procedures on their bodies, the next logical step is being able to tell them other things they are required to do with their bodies. I mean, every single one of us here understand the true nature of incrementalism, right? So blowjobs for every male could become a requirement, servicing at our whim, after all, it is no big thing, not like scraping the inside of their uterus out, is it? So if we allow the anti-choice zealots their way on this one, it might just work out in our favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 4:03:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: How am i paying for her decisions? If you get supoened, blood tested, etc., you are obligated to pay without YOUR choice being considered. Here's the point, on the other hand, What if you really wanted her to have the baby? What would that matter? It's HER body right? You had NOTHING to do with the outcome.... Yet you have NO LEGAL voice in the decision. When my first wife thought she was pregnant, I felt on top of the world. Then she told me she was going to have an abortion. And I don't think I have felt lower, even with all the pain I have dealt with since. I could not talk her out of it. And the only reason she would give me for going through with it was "that she was young and it would slow her down". No our marriage did not last long after this. ED |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2003 7:14:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How am i paying for her decisions? If you get supoened, blood tested, etc., you are obligated to pay without YOUR choice being considered. Here's the point, on the other hand, What if you really wanted her to have the baby? What would that matter? It's HER body right? You had NOTHING to do with the outcome.... Yet you have NO LEGAL voice in the decision. When my first wife thought she was pregnant, I felt on top of the world. Then she told me she was going to have an abortion. And I don't think I have felt lower, even with all the pain I have dealt with since. I could not talk her out of it. And the only reason she would give me for going through with it was "that she was young and it would slow her down". No our marriage did not last long after this. ED You own guns right? Well you should've held her at gunpoint for months until she had the child. You should've done EVERYTHING YOU COULD'VE to save your child from that evil witch. CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 12:19:47 AM EDT
[#14]
For the record, having 2 kids of my own, I am definitely pro-life.Now, having that out of the way, IMHO I have found that there is no changing peoples' opinions of this topic.One side only pisses the other off and vice versa.Not to hi-jack the thread,but do peoples' opinions get changed either way??
To me , the legal-eagles are somewhat correct.Abortion is not murder as defined by law.But,to some of us who subscribe to a certain belief system(no offense to those who don't),abortion is wrong because of a life being taken.Not the life of a junkie breaking in your home you shoot to stop a threat,nor a man convicted of a capitol offense on death row, but a small life being sustained by the mother and her womb. Now ,to play devil's advocate for a moment.It is commonplace for a grown/adult/whatever human being to be taken off of life support in a hospital because they are not capable of sustaining their own life,and the relatives for whatever the reason feel the need to have life support disconnected.What would the difference be?Is it not still ending life?So why not be able to do it to babies(some call them fetuses)? Just my .02 cents,but I've found that pro-lifers will continue to be pro-lifers,and pro-choicers will continue to be pro-choicers.No matter how many clinics are blown up,no matter how many doctors are murdered,women will still have "viable fetuses" terminated ,and people will still make it known that they think it is wrong.I don't know what the answer would be... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 3:17:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: [red]yes I think fetuses are human beings. I also think its ok to kill them[/red], there are far too many people on this planet as it were. (shrugs shoulders)... Well, that pretty well sums it up. At least you're honest. Maybe we should bring back the gas chambers for population control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 4:09:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Mental Wards at New Jersey Hospitals Double as Foster Homes
[url]http://snurl.com/1ovn[/url] Keep having those babies, the crazy people need new toys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:20:06 AM EDT
[#17]
Often what the law requires us to do, and what the law allows us to do, is at odds with what honor requires us to do.
That is all I have to say on this subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:45:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Yeah, like some of you would want your wife to carry a baby if she got pregnant through rape [rolleyes] This one always comes up. [rolleyes] I'm all for abortion if your wife get's raped, it should be done in a hospital. BUT, nationally I'd be willing to bet good money that less than 1% of all abortions are because of a rape. Most abortions are "convenience murders" in the name of birth control. I'm to important/busy/poor/rich/lazy/involved in school/involved in work/whatever to be bothered raising a child. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:49:01 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Ok...Parshooter... I beleive the father should have some say also. What percentage of say? 50% would be useless, that's a tie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:59:19 AM EDT
[#20]
If you truly believe, in your heart and soul, that abortion is the moral equivalent of murdering a human child (SAY A ONE OR TWO YEAR OLD)....
...I have a few questions: Why do you allow it to happen? If I believed that it was truly the same as murdering a child [b][red](I don't)[/b][/red], I would drop everything, and go to where it is happening, and stop it. Think about it. If you found out that there was a house in your neighborhood where they were systematically murdering children everyday, and the cops FOR SOME REASON wouldn't stop it, wouldn't you do something? Wouldn't you stop it? I would. How is it then that most of those who call it "murder", just picket and lobby? Doesn't the murder of children MORALLY DEMAND immediate action? What truly moral person would claim to worry about legal repercussions? Do not think that I am recommending, or inciting such action. No. I am merely pointing out that I don't believe the severity of the Pro-Life rhetoric. I know many people who are Pro-Life, and they are good people. I don't believe their inaction means that they are without moral courage. I just think that they do not TRULY believe that it is the equivalent of murdering a child. How could they? Is there not a moral imperative to act? If they DID truly believe this, and did not act to stop it, then it is clear that they lack moral courage. What other conclusion is there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 7:03:53 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: If you truly believe, in your heart and soul, that abortion is the moral equivalent of murdering a human child (SAY A ONE OR TWO YEAR OLD).... ...I have a few questions: Why do you allow it to happen? . . . I am merely pointing out that I don't believe the severity of the Pro-Life rhetoric. I know many people who are Pro-Life, and they are good people. I don't believe their inaction means that they are without moral courage. I just think that they do not TRULY believe that it is the equivalent of murdering a child. How could they? Is there not a moral imperative to act? If they DID truly believe this, and did not act to stop it, then it is clear that they lack moral courage. [red]What other conclusion is there?[/red] Many choose the hill they want to die on and abortion isn't it. Eric Robert Rudolph, James Kopp etc. didn't stop a single abortion but look what it got them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 7:23:09 AM EDT
[#22]
Exactly my point. I think the rhetoric is stronger than the belief.
Think about it. If you found out that there was a house in your neighborhood where they were systematically murdering children everyday, and the cops FOR SOME REASON wouldn't stop it, wouldn't you do something? Wouldn't you stop it? I would. If one believed this, how could they NOT act? If I thought children were being murdered I'd stop it. I'd stop it as it was occurring. If it was like the above situation, so would you. But it's not. Whether people care to admit it, abortion in the early term isn't the same thing. True there is a slippery slope that will get your brain there, but I think that people's inaction proves that their heart doesn't truly believe that it is an equal act to murdering a child. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 7:48:16 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Whether people care to admit it, [red]abortion in the early term isn't the same thing.[/red] True there is a slippery slope that will get your brain there, but I think that people's inaction proves that their heart doesn't truly believe that it is an equal act to murdering a child. What are YOU doing about THIS obvious infanticide? It's happening right now -[u] today[/u]. Are you going to throw your life away (and your family's) in a [b]futile[/b] attempt to stop the killing of an infant just seconds before it takes it's first breath? Why not? Does the legal line-in-the-sand of exiting the birth canal "magically" transform the newborn into a life worth protecting? Does the baby's brain and heart suddenly become functioning as a newborn's in those short few seconds it passes the birthcanal? Does it not feel the pain as a newborn would? Do you think it's just a lump of goo not worthy of protection? Or do YOU, through some massive act of cognitive denial, engage in contorted rationalizations and legal hair-splitting to disavow the fact that a full-term baby will be killed today just SECONDS before it's born all the while you sit and cast judgement upon those who equally refuse to take action in an utterly futile (and counterproductive) attempt to stop the abortions??? Hearts and minds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 8:05:24 AM EDT
[#24]
Again, you prove my point.
I feel the same way you. I'm against it, yet refuse to act because of the "futility" of such actions. But, as I said before, if this was the case: Think about it. If you found out that there was a house in your neighborhood where they were systematically murdering children everyday, and the cops FOR SOME REASON wouldn't stop it, wouldn't you do something? Wouldn't you stop it? I would. In this case I would act. I would have no fear of "futility", or legal repercussions. How could you not act in such a case? Unfortunately (or fortunately), partial birth abortions do not occur in "abortion clinics". They are rare (abhorant) procedures that happen in hospitals. Quite a different situation from the offensively casual atmosphere of an out-patient, "clinic". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 8:08:44 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Think about it. If you found out that there was a house in your neighborhood where they were systematically murdering children everyday, and the cops FOR SOME REASON wouldn't stop it, wouldn't you do something? [red]Wouldn't you stop it?[/red] I would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 8:12:31 AM EDT
[#26]
So would I.
I'm not casting judgement, as much as just acknowledging that this is a morally complex mess. It has been forced upon us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 8:18:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: While you can debate whether abortion is evil, and you wil not get any arguments from me, you cannot call it murder, as has already been proven. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. Abortion is legal, so IT CAN"T BE MURDER. (whats the problem here, these people can't read?) That does need to be discussed further. Were the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust "killed" or murdered? It was, after all, "legal" to "kill" them. Is shooting a 4 year old girl in the back of the head because she is Jewish not murder if/because it is legal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 8:52:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Can we get some additional forums here, please?
Forum x - Movie Forum, esp. "heat", and questions about what guns they used... [b]Forum y - Religion Forum z - Abortion /RTC/RTL[/b] Topics like this one would fit nicely into either of the above. My only contribution. For those that bring the Big Guy (or Girl) into the picture, who are we, piddly little bipeds who have a hard time using more than 20% of our brain's capacity, to determine the will of a being that, with the blink of their eye, can create or destroy [u]whole universes[/u]? It's the same problem I have with the "My God's better than your God" argumements. When you're arguing tenets of [b]faith[/b] you are, by definition, not arguing a [u]rational[/u] point. You either believe, or you don't. I have seen examples of the use of moral (religious) codes compared to legal (societal) codes. People seem to be confused about the distinction. Yes, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all share the ten commandments (or versions thereof) as articles of faith, but the societies based on those religions have interpreted those same beliefs differently. It's not an "apples and oranges" comparison - it's questioning whether the fruit exists at all for the purpose of argument (discussion). If somebody is doing something that is illegal, society will punish them through the legal system (arrest, arraignment, trial, sentence) If somebody is doing something "legal", but viewed as morally wrong, you can ostracise them from your companionship (find a new fourth for bridge), or exclude them from your faith by formal declaration (excommunication in RCC). If they're not part of your faith, you can pray for them. But in the end, it's [u]not up to you, or me, or anybody else [b]here[/b][/u] [b][size=4]It's up to God[/size=4][/b] When that person stands before the Supreme Being on judgement day, they, like you, will have to answer for their actions during their life. Some faiths believe that, if you have additional lessons to learn, that you get re-cycled (reincarnated), to learn some more. Maybe that's how it's done. I don't know...it's my first time through (that I remember [rolleyes] I do know that I don't have to answer to you in this life unless you are my wife, parent, boss, priest, or friend (life-and-death type). For all other aspects of my life, behavior, and actions? I'll wait my turn to stand "Captain's Mast" before the Man (or Woman) when I die. On a second, more easily debatable point: We have heard $ #'s thrown around for child care v. abortions - in IL, the IL Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) refuses women Public aid coverage for injectable birth control (Depo-Provera), despite the fact that it lasts for 90 to 120 days, is 99.99% effective, can't be "forgotten". Why? Because it "doesn't encourage women to be responsible" and take their pills (no, I'm not kidding), and it costs more than oral cotraceptives. In addition, they won't allow more permanent measures (tubal ligation) until women are 25 years old... even when they have already had children, and don't want any more. You want to talk about a "right to choose"? [rant]I think that the liberals are trying to guarantee themselves a continually regenerating voter base by denying BC [/rant] Done now.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 9:10:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: While you can debate whether abortion is evil, and you wil not get any arguments from me, you cannot call it murder, as has already been proven. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. Abortion is legal, so IT CAN"T BE MURDER. (whats the problem here, these people can't read?) That does need to be discussed further. Were the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust "killed" or murdered? It was, after all, "legal" to "kill" them. Is shooting a 4 year old girl in the back of the head because she is Jewish not murder if/because it is legal? It was Legal, in the german occupied lands and in Germany itself. Remember, the winner rights the rules, and gets to postdate those rules a it sees fit. You are trying to argue a legal standpoint, and it just won't work. Stick to the emotinalism, that you have a faint chance of winning with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 9:15:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: If you truly believe, in your heart and soul, that abortion is the moral equivalent of murdering a human child (SAY A ONE OR TWO YEAR OLD).... ...I have a few questions: Why do you allow it to happen? If I believed that it was truly the same as murdering a child [b][red](I don't)[/b][/red], I would drop everything, and go to where it is happening, and stop it. Think about it. If you found out that there was a house in your neighborhood where they were systematically murdering children everyday, and the cops FOR SOME REASON wouldn't stop it, wouldn't you do something? Wouldn't you stop it? I would. How is it then that most of those who call it "murder", just picket and lobby? Doesn't the murder of children MORALLY DEMAND immediate action? What truly moral person would claim to worry about legal repercussions? Do not think that I am recommending, or inciting such action. No. I am merely pointing out that I don't believe the severity of the Pro-Life rhetoric. I know many people who are Pro-Life, and they are good people. I don't believe their inaction means that they are without moral courage. I just think that they do not TRULY believe that it is the equivalent of murdering a child. How could they? Is there not a moral imperative to act? If they DID truly believe this, and did not act to stop it, then it is clear that they lack moral courage. What other conclusion is there? To lift a quote from the anti-choice crowds playbook "I'm to important/busy/poor/rich/lazy/involved in school/involved in work/whatever to be bothered raising a child." Uh, I mean "I'm to important/busy/poor/rich/lazy/involved in school/involved in work/whatever to be bothered saving a child." It's not even a child yet, I mean it hasn't been born. Why worry about it. I can make a donation to have someone else do something aboutit. Conscience salved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 9:37:24 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: While you can debate whether abortion is evil, and you wil not get any arguments from me, you cannot call it murder, as has already been proven. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. Abortion is legal, so IT CAN"T BE MURDER. (whats the problem here, these people can't read?) That does need to be discussed further. Were the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust "killed" or murdered? It was, after all, "legal" to "kill" them. Is shooting a 4 year old girl in the back of the head because she is Jewish not murder if/because it is legal? It was Legal, in the german occupied lands and in Germany itself. Remember, the winner rights the rules, and gets to postdate those rules a it sees fit. You are trying to argue a legal standpoint, and it just won't work. Stick to the emotinalism, that you have a faint chance of winning with. Geez, Bill, this read like the holocaust wasn't murder. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 9:41:34 AM EDT
[#32]
Just so I get this straight in my mind.
If I bad guy kicks your pregnant wife in the stomach and kills the unborn child, he's only guilty of assault. This I can tell you, he would be begging for death by the time I'm through with him regardless of how you they ain't alives feel. Tj |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 10:21:44 AM EDT
[#33]
I thought I'd point out that gay sex never ends in an unwanted pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 11:39:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: While you can debate whether abortion is evil, and you wil not get any arguments from me, you cannot call it murder, as has already been proven. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. Abortion is legal, so IT CAN"T BE MURDER. (whats the problem here, these people can't read?) That does need to be discussed further. Were the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust "killed" or murdered? It was, after all, "legal" to "kill" them. Is shooting a 4 year old girl in the back of the head because she is Jewish not murder if/because it is legal? It was Legal, in the german occupied lands and in Germany itself. Remember, the winner rights the rules, and gets to postdate those rules a it sees fit. You are trying to argue a legal standpoint, and it just won't work. Stick to the emotinalism, that you have a faint chance of winning with. Geez, Bill, this read like the holocaust wasn't murder. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Sorry, but as it was codified in German law that is specifically was not murder to kill jews, as much as we all want it to be, it still isn't murder. Of course, since we won the war, we get to say that the laws in place were nullifed, and we were able to rewrite the laws so that they mirrored what we wanted. To the victor belong the spoils of war. The victor writes history. If the germans really wanted their way oflife protected, so that they could merrily continue to kill off whomever they pleased, they should have won the war. If they had, do you think that there would be mention of a Holocaust, anywhere? I don't. Do you think there would be any jews left to champion the cause? I don't. As there were specific laws in place, allowing for ht ekilling of Jews and other undesirables, it was not murder, fo rhte germans. It was some big ass killings, but not murder. Only after we won the war did we get to come in and tell them it was murder. Post dated so to speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 12:15:44 PM EDT
[#35]
[b]Hielo[/b], does it really matter if what happened in the holocaust was "legally-proscribed killing of Jews"? Common sense would insist it was still "murder". If you really believe (and I think you do) that there are certain "unalienable rights" (such as right to life) then the law allowing murder of innocent Jews is null and void. Therefore, it is "murder" REGARDLESS of what the law says because the law allowing such killing is repugnant to the natural rights of the innocent victim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 12:28:47 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: [b]Hielo[/b], does it really matter if what happened in the holocaust was "legally-proscribed killing of Jews"? Common sense would insist it was still "murder". If you really believe (and I think you do) that there are certain "unalienable rights" (such as right to life) then the law allowing murder of innocent Jews is null and void. Therefore, it is "murder" REGARDLESS of what the law says because the law allowing such killing is repugnant to the natural rights of the innocent victim. No, you see, you are falling into the same semantics trap the rest of the crowd is falling for. If we can agree that words have meaning, we can then agree on the meanings of those words. There are many words that have an absolute meaning and they are codified in books, often times you will find words that carry a negative connatation are codified in law books, so that we know what tehy absolutely mean, with no gray areas. Murder is one of those words. It has an absolute meaning, and we have demonstrated that by having this assinine nazi/jew demonstration. It *was* legal to kill jews andother undesirables in Nazi germany, holding your breath and expressing your "feelings" about how wrong it was doesn't change the fact. Feelings don't enter into the equation. As soon as we kicked their ass and rewrote their laws, we were then able to say, "see, we won, and we say it is murder, so it is", and so it was. Does that mean I would have skipped merrily into the gas chamber? No, not at all, the same way I dont follow any law that actively aim to harm me in some way. You can change themeaning of a word, but please do not change the meaning of a word, then go back and apply your new meaning to the people who came before you. Thats just not kosher |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 12:30:49 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Therefore, it is "murder" REGARDLESS of what the law says because the law allowing such killing is repugnant to the natural rights of the innocent victim. Just as an aside, do you see any oxymoron here in the use of "Natural Rights" and "Innocent Victim" here? I surely do, and it brought a smile to my face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 1:21:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Therefore, it is "murder" REGARDLESS of what the law says because the law allowing such killing is repugnant to the natural rights of the innocent victim. I surely do, and it brought a smile to my face. When it is "legal" to violate the inalienable rights of innocent people, then something has is give. Either it's really not "legal" or these rights really aren't "inalienable". I agree that words DO mean things. So is the "right to life" an [u]inalienable[/u] right? Or was Jefferson et al. just full of sh!t? I do understand your point however, but I'm taking the next logical step. If the [u]law[/u] says a certain type of killing is "legal" then it can't (according to you) be considered "murder". But my point is that if such a law violates natural laws - then it is NOT a law, it is nothing. Therefore, the act of killing WOULD be "murder". You seem to be using a variation of the Nuremburg defense in saying that you're just relying on "the letter of the law" with regards to whether it was murder. But that works about as well here as it did for the Nazis in Nuremburg. It was "murder" and the law was wrong. A rose by any other name... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 1:53:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Therefore, it is "murder" REGARDLESS of what the law says because the law allowing such killing is repugnant to the natural rights of the innocent victim. I surely do, and it brought a smile to my face. When it is "legal" to violate the inalienable rights of innocent people, then something has is give. Either it's really not "legal" or these rights really aren't "inalienable". I agree that words DO mean things. So is the "right to life" an [u]inalienable[/u] right? Or was Jefferson et al. just full of sh!t? I do understand your point however, but I'm taking the next logical step. If the [u]law[/u] says a certain type of killing is "legal" then it can't (according to you) be considered "murder". But my point is that if such a law violates natural laws - then it is NOT a law, it is nothing. Therefore, the act of killing WOULD be "murder". You seem to be using a variation of the Nuremburg defense in saying that you're just relying on "the letter of the law" with regards to whether it was murder. But that works about as well here as it did for the Nazis in Nuremburg. It was "murder" and the law was wrong. A rose by any other name... SUre, we could call it murder, if you want, you can call it a hot fudge sundae if you want. But there are many differnet types of killing, there is Euthanasia, there is abortion, there is Execution and when properly donw, within the guidleines of the law, none of them are murder. If you decide as a crazed person that pregnant women are all carrying the anti-christ and you stumble upon a few of them as they are entering an abortion clinic and decide that you will slash their bellies open and kill the fetuses, I do bleive that you have committed murder on said fetus. If on the other hand the female escapes your wonton act and goes ahead and aborts her fetus, that is not murder, that is a legal abortion. Of course it didn't work for the Nazi's you silly goose....they lost. How do you think those trials would have gone if they had won? Are you seeing outside of your box yet? Even a glimmer? Oh, and just for giggles, how about showing me one of these inalienable rights you keep bandying about? Just one will do to bring all of my arguments tumbling down around my head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 2:21:15 PM EDT
[#40]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain [red]unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...[/red] Euthanasia is murder, legal or not. Abortion is murder, legal or not. Execution is not murder = the guilty have, by their willful actions forfeited their right to life. If not so, then defending yourself against a killer would be wrong. So I guess you think Jefferson, Franklin et al. were just blowing smoke out their arse when they wrote about life being an "unalienable right" in the DOI? Interesting. BTW, I never equated "killing" with "murder". [u]Murder[/u] is a violation of a person's natural right to life regardless of what the law says. There's a higher law that trumps US Code or Nazi Germany's Laws or any manmade laws (that being the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God) that the Founding Fathers believed in, wrote about and used to establish this nation and its founding legal principles. Just because it's not being enforced anymore doesn't make the principles and rights ascribed in the DOI irrelevant. [b]You are letting the law define what behavior is "legal" instead of using your RIGHTS define which laws are legal.[/b] Your rights were written LONG before the law was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 2:28:25 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain [red]unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...[/red] Euthanasia is murder, legal or not. Abortion is murder, legal or not. Execution is not murder = the guilty have, by their willful actions forfeited their right to life. If not so, then defending yourself against a killer would be wrong. So I guess you think Jefferson, Franklin et al. were just blowing smoke out their arse when they wrote about life being an "unalienable right" in the DOI? Interesting. BTW, I never equated "killing" with "murder". [u]Murder[/u] is a violation of a person's natural right to life regardless of what the law says. There's a higher law that trumps US Code or Nazi Germany's Laws or any manmade laws (that being the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God) that the Founding Fathers believed in, wrote about and used to establish this nation and its founding legal principles. Just because it's not being enforced anymore doesn't make the principles and rights ascribed in the DOI irrelevant. [b]You are letting the law define what behavior is "legal" instead of using your RIGHTS define which laws are legal.[/b] Your rights were written LONG before the law was. Sorry, but your example doesn't cut the mustard. You say Euthanasia is murder, yet it is not, it is state sponsored and as such is quite legal, and as it is legal, it is not murder. But then you go on to say that Executions are legal killing and not murder, as they are state sanctioned and acceptable? I don't understand the dichotomy? And youy also state that while Abortion is state sanctioned *and* legal, that it is still murder? Murder is not "[u]Murder[/u] is a violation of a person's natural right to life regardless of what the law says." Way incorrect, murder is a legal term, used to denote and specify "The [u]unlawful[/u] taking of antoher life. And so, we have yet again, come full cirlce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 2:44:02 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Unalienable, meaning can not be rightfully taken away. But they can be given up as in the case of a murderer who takes an innocent person's life. There is no such thing as inalenable rights, never were, never will be. You have a right to life, unless the state finds your death to be useful (as in war, or "paying" for a crime, or for any other reason that the state can justify). You have a right to liberty, until the state decides that your liberty is no longer neccessary, than it will remove your liberty, try not showing up for a summons for not cutting your lawn, see what happens. You have a right to pursue happiness, unless your happiness is outside of the accepted view, then you have no right to pursue that happiness. There are no unabridgable rights, that much has been proven through our 250 year history. During the revolution, what do you think the penalty was for acting as a spy for the british? Or say, providing aid and comfort to the enemy? Do you think Franklin and Jefferson did not know tha tthe state was depriving citizens of their unalienable rights? Do you think Jefferson or Franklin would turn a spy loose? Or is this a diffrent case, and do you think it needs to be argued seperately? There is no higher authority than the U.S. Supreme Court, you may have a belief in one, but if you wish really hard enough, I doubt that it will change any matters of mere mortals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 3:00:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Sorry, but your example doesn't cut the mustard. You say Euthanasia is murder, yet it is not, it is state sponsored and as such is quite legal, and as it is legal, it is not murder. Quoted: But then you go on to say that Executions are legal killing and not murder, as they are state sanctioned and acceptable? I don't understand the dichotomy? Quoted: murder is a legal term, used to denote and specify "The [red][u]unlawful[/u][/red] taking of antoher life. "Unlawful" according to what laws? Legitimate laws or illegitimate laws? (how would you know the difference?) Natural Laws (from which man's laws are derived) or man's laws which are subordinate to Natural Laws? It is well accepted that laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. So then it must follow that there may exist standing laws on the books that are null & void, i.e. "illegitimate". Therefore, even though a certain statute may exist in US Code doesn't mean it is legitimate. If one of man's laws violates a higher law (the Constitition) or an even higher law than the Constitution (your natural rights) then it is an illegitimate law. Let me reiterate: [b]You are letting the law define what behavior is "legal" instead of using your RIGHTS define which laws are legal.[/b] Don't you see you've put the cart before the horse? I understand you're simply using the basic legal defintion of "murder" but you're not understanding that that definition can be flawed in the cases where the law is flawed. If the definition of what constitutes "murder" is based on an illegitimate law, then the definition is wrong too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 3:14:13 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: There is no such thing as inalenable rights, never were, never will be. Quoted: Do you think Franklin and Jefferson did not know tha tthe state was depriving citizens of their unalienable rights? Do you think Jefferson or Franklin would turn a spy loose? Quoted: [red][b]There is no higher authority than the U.S. Supreme Court, [/b][/red] [b]<<< SNIP!!! >>>[/b] [b]WHOA!!! WTF!?[/b] [%|] [b]Says WHO????[/b] Just HOW in the world did the SCOTUS endow you with your "rights", some of which are enumerated in the Constitution which was written BEFORE the SCOTUS was formed???? The SCOTUS [u]itself[/u] acknowledged that laws that are repugnant to the Constitution (and your rights) are null and void REGARDLESS of whether the SCOTUS has ruled on them yet!!! If the SCOTUS rules you have no right to read books - does that mean your right no longer exists??? OF COURSE NOT!!! It just means your rights are being trampled by the SCOTUS. You are woefully bassackwards on the source of (and authority over) your rights [b]Heilo[/b]. [V] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 3:46:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I dont believe in abortion but I also dont believe I have any right to tell some woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. So if she has all the power to choose, then why must you be forced to pay child support if SHE decides to have the baby. If YOU decide NOT to have the baby, (so what), then why must you pay for it under force of law? You had the choice about it prior to the moment......................wrap that rascal. Absolutely Agreed Oly...wrap that rascal tighter than Dick's Hatband. ... You don't want a kid. You wrapped that rascally fellow up to prevent it. But, ut.OO. somethin' slipped through.... so what.. It is no longer YOUR decision. Regardless. You have been immasculated. It is TOTALLY HER DECISION. And if she decides to have a little baby doll, it's up to YOU to pay for it for the next 18 years. YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT??? SO WHAT??? What power do you have to say that she will NOT have that baby? What power do you have to say that you will NOT pay for that baby if she decides she wants a little doll? SHE has the power to choose abortion or not. Where is YOUR power to choose to pay child support or not? Hmmm.... The amazing thing is, if you just keep it in your pants you don't have to worry about things like that. Everything you've just mentioned is completely avoidable by not sleeping with every woman you get horny around. Maybe those Christians are on to something with that whole "No sex before marriage" thing on levels above and beyond mortal sin. It's a veritable pandora's box you open when you sleep with someone else. STD's, psychotic morons, and the possibility that you may end up tied to one for the rest of your life in marriage or child support. Simply keep it in your pants, and all that isn't an issue. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... And your point? The same can be said of women, keep their pants on and they won't ever have to deal with the situation. It takes both the man and woman to make a baby, how is it only the woman's decision that matters? If it's the woman's decision, why is it forced on the man, who may or may not have made the same decision as she did? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 3:55:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Exactly my point. I think the rhetoric is stronger than the belief. Think about it. If you found out that there was a house in your neighborhood where they were systematically murdering children everyday, and the cops FOR SOME REASON wouldn't stop it, wouldn't you do something? Wouldn't you stop it? I would. If one believed this, how could they NOT act? If I thought children were being murdered I'd stop it. I'd stop it as it was occurring. If it was like the above situation, so would you. But it's not. Whether people care to admit it, abortion in the early term isn't the same thing. True there is a slippery slope that will get your brain there, but I think that people's inaction proves that their heart doesn't truly believe that it is an equal act to murdering a child. If half the homes in the US had parents eating their children for Thanksgiving dinner, and the authorities would kill you for trying to stop the murders from happening, would you go killing half the parents in the US? Your comparison is not even close to a good analogy. If there was ONE abortion clinic in the US, and nobody except the ONE doctor who worked there would ever perform an abortion... THEN you'd see pro lifers take matters into their own hands. As it stands, you wouldn't do squat about the legal killing of 6 year old children the day before Thanksgiving. Because by the time you got one or two sets of parents, you'd be dead (or imprisoned for life)... and things would continue on without a change. [b]IF[/b] you would actually try to kill the millions of parents who eat their children... then you're just another whackjob like the people who kill abortion doctors... You wouldn't make one bit of difference, and you'd have life (in prison) or death as your reward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 4:55:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: No, you see, you are falling into the same semantics trap the rest of the crowd is falling for. If we can agree that words have meaning, we can then agree on the meanings of those words. There are many words that have an [red]absolute meaning[/red] and they are codified in books, often times you will find words that carry a negative connatation are codified in law books, so that we know what tehy absolutely mean, with no gray areas. Murder is one of those words. You are correct. Murder is one of those words. It is brought to us from our Christian roots, where the Old Testament says "Thou Shalt not Kill". This Commandment is codified into law, in the form of statutes. If words have meaning, lets look at "kill". Seems clear, until you go to the Aramiac, and find out it means "Murder". Murder, is further defined, as "the taking of innocent life". Consequently, we see, that according to "Higher Authority", "Murder", has a "higher" definition than statutory law. The Federal constitution trumps state law, just as God's law trumps mans law.. Just the way it is. BTW, if ya disagree, take it up with those who gave you your freedom. Our CHRISTIAN founders. You are correct, there are absolutes. God's law is one of 'em.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:12:04 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: There is no such thing as inalenable rights, never were, never will be. You are full of shit. Just because YOU say the state is superior to any higher authority, does NOT make it so. The founders knew, and understood, such as you would eventually make their appearance in our republic. They left us their words. You see Hielo, The concepts of freedom, and liberty, came from the Bible, not from man.... [b]John Hancock April 15, 1775 "In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements....All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity; "It is the Happiness of his Church that, when the Powers of Earth and Hell combine against it...that the Throne of Grace is of the easiest access--and its Appeal thither is graciously invited by the Father of Mercies, who has assured it, that when his Children ask Bread he will not give them a Stone.... [/b] Or Alexander Hamilton??? [b]"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States. "I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man. [/b] So hielo, do you think, I'm gonna give credence to some new agey feel good new york liberal??? OR, the guys who founded our soon to be overcome and trashed Nation?? Just wanna add here. It IS possible to lose your inalienable rights. It happens at the moment you refuse to Die for them. (Or maybe never knew you had 'em to begin with) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:34:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: No, you see, you are falling into the same semantics trap the rest of the crowd is falling for. If we can agree that words have meaning, we can then agree on the meanings of those words. There are many words that have an [red]absolute meaning[/red] and they are codified in books, often times you will find words that carry a negative connatation are codified in law books, so that we know what tehy absolutely mean, with no gray areas. Murder is one of those words. You are correct. Murder is one of those words. It is brought to us from our Christian roots, where the Old Testament says "Thou Shalt not Kill". This Commandment is codified into law, in the form of statutes. If words have meaning, lets look at "kill". Seems clear, until you go to the Aramiac, and find out it means "Murder". Murder, is further defined, as "the taking of innocent life". Consequently, we see, that according to "Higher Authority", "Murder", has a "higher" definition than statutory law. The Federal constitution trumps state law, just as God's law trumps mans law.. Just the way it is. BTW, if ya disagree, take it up with those who gave you your freedom. Our CHRISTIAN founders. You are correct, there are absolutes. God's law is one of 'em.... Simple question Liberty86, to wit, who's god say abortion is wrong? Mine has no opinion on the matter, whats yours say? And if your is against it, who are we to say that yours trumps mine? Waiting anxiously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:37:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: There is no such thing as inalenable rights, never were, never will be. You are full of shit. Just because YOU say the state is superior to any higher authority, does NOT make it so. The founders knew, and understood, such as you would eventually make their appearance in our republic. They left us their words. You see Hielo, The concepts of freedom, and liberty, came from the Bible, not from man.... [b]John Hancock April 15, 1775 "In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements....All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity; "It is the Happiness of his Church that, when the Powers of Earth and Hell combine against it...that the Throne of Grace is of the easiest access--and its Appeal thither is graciously invited by the Father of Mercies, who has assured it, that when his Children ask Bread he will not give them a Stone.... [/b] Or Alexander Hamilton??? [b]"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States. "I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man. [/b] So hielo, do you think, I'm gonna give credence to some new agey feel good new york liberal??? OR, the guys who founded our soon to be overcome and trashed Nation?? Just wanna add here. It IS possible to lose your inalienable rights. It happens at the moment you refuse to Die for them. (Or maybe never knew you had 'em to begin with) Wait a second, so we can lose our inalieanble rights? Wouldn't that make them a teeny-tiny bit alienable? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
