It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

page: 79
40
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 




1. the killing
2. of a human being
3. by another human being
4. with malice aforethought.


Being

it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character, cf. sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex and evolved state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").


Does embryo fulfill the definition of a being? No. Therefore killing it is not murder, even by your definition.



edit on 9/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



Then how do you explain people being charged for double murder when killing a pregnant women?

According to you...the law does not see the fetus as a "being"...at yet people are charged with murder.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 

It's the like a merry go round, with no new arguments being presented; this thread might as well be closed.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I guess the difference between abortion and genocide is that abortion is the mass killing of pseudo people that nobody wanted and genocide is the mass killing of real people that people may have wanted (but not the U.S. or we would have stopped it).

In conclusion christians like genocide but not abortion.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
You can not refute my logic so instead of conceding the argument you side track and digress, then you resort to name calling. It's predictable really. It is unfortunate that you find my grammar difficult to comprehend; I think it is pretty clear and articulate; don't you?
edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)


I cannot refute what I haven't read. Sorry but i just have trouble processing large blocks of text that don't use paragraphs, my eyes go all funny and I get a headache. I didn't call you any names i simply informed you i wouldn't be able to reply because i can't read what you posted.

That's not side tracking or digressing either.


Oh come on...what a weak excuse. Here...I'll put it in paragraph form for you. If you want...I can write up a summary and some notes for you if this is too much for you to handle


Here is what he said...formatted for you sensative eyes



This is a conflation of the issue.

These sort of stretches in logic and denying of facts is clear indication that this self-serving logic is just a rationalization of an issue in such a way that suits pre-determined conclusions.

It is the DNA of this unique Human Being which proves that the termination of this life is not the same as cutting off the piece of the mothers body, as it is not her body or life that is terminated by the abortion, but the life of her child; isn't that what abortion is after all? A tumor is not a human being clearly, as a tumor is the case of something gone wrong. The unfolding of a human life, and especially in the delicate stages in question, is quite the opposite; it is not something gone terribly wrong, but something which against all odds is going miraculously right!

To call pregnancy a burden is like making the woman a victim of some tragedy, but it is really the result of her choice to engage in sexual intercourse. If people are absolutely unwilling to be open to the possibility of conception and responsibilities of child rearing, then why in the world are they having sex? Isn't the primary purpose of sexual intercourse reproduction? Because that's what I learned in my biology class.



Is that better for you? Can you reply to him now instead of trying to dodge....like you so love to do???



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Good luck trying to use official definitions with Maslo...he prefers to use Wikipedia as his sole source for everything.

Apparently Wikipedia trumps medical definitions and medical websites



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 




Then how do you explain people being charged for double murder when killing a pregnant women? According to you...the law does not see the fetus as a "being"...at yet people are charged with murder.


By stupidity of the law. Either something is a human with full human rights, then killing it is murder, or something is not a human with full human rights, then killing it is not murder. The law system which states that abortion is legal (fetus apparently does not have human rights) and at the same time prosecutes killing of a pregnant woman with fetus as double murder (fetus suddenly has human rights) is simply internally inconsistent, or illogical.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin
 




Then how do you explain people being charged for double murder when killing a pregnant women? According to you...the law does not see the fetus as a "being"...at yet people are charged with murder.


By stupidity of the law. Either something is a human with full human rights, then killing it is murder, or something is not a human with full human rights, then killing it is not murder. The law system which states that abortion is legal (fetus apparently does not have human rights) and at the same time prosecutes killing of a pregnant woman with fetus as double murder (fetus suddenly has human rights) is simply internally inconsistent, or illogical.



Stupidity or not...it is what it is....it is current practice.

So your use of the "law" to define what is and what is not murder is ILLOGICAL.


We both see that it is inconsistent...my solution would be to declare abortion as murder. Am I to assume that you would want to make it legal for anyone to kill an unborn child? A boyfriend who doesn't want a child can do something to kill the unborn child and not face any sort of punishment???



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Wikipedia trumps simple definitions since it also provides context. Online medical dictionaries wont tell you there are actually different kinds of medical death, and only one kind (brain death) is taken as actual legal death (determining cessation of human rights, which is relevant to our discussion). They list only the most common, more historical definition, which is now outdated in modern clinical practice with EEGs. Otherwise we wont need things like Uniform Determination of Death Act, we would just look up death in your online dictionary.



edit on 9/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
Oh come on...what a weak excuse. Here...I'll put it in paragraph form for you. If you want...I can write up a summary and some notes for you if this is too much for you to handle


Thanks for that, and it's not a weak excuse, i see massive sections of text like that and just skip them as trying to read them messes with my eyes.


This is a conflation of the issue.

These sort of stretches in logic and denying of facts is clear indication that this self-serving logic is just a rationalization of an issue in such a way that suits pre-determined conclusions.

It is the DNA of this unique Human Being which proves that the termination of this life is not the same as cutting off the piece of the mothers body, as it is not her body or life that is terminated by the abortion, but the life of her child; isn't that what abortion is after all? A tumor is not a human being clearly, as a tumor is the case of something gone wrong. The unfolding of a human life, and especially in the delicate stages in question, is quite the opposite; it is not something gone terribly wrong, but something which against all odds is going miraculously right!


Yes and no basically depending on how you view it. You could argue that the developing fetus is a part of the mothers body as it grew from one of her eggs, or you could argue it's unique DNA means it isn't a part of her body. But i the end the mother has to support that fetus, it uses her liver, her kidneys, her endocrine system and all of the rest. I think someone should be allowed control over such things.



To call pregnancy a burden is like making the woman a victim of some tragedy, but it is really the result of her choice to engage in sexual intercourse. If people are absolutely unwilling to be open to the possibility of conception and responsibilities of child rearing, then why in the world are they having sex? Isn't the primary purpose of sexual intercourse reproduction? Because that's what I learned in my biology class.


When i say burden i simply mean the physical effects it has on the body. As for sex being all about reproduction you might want to check the animal kingdom a little more, especially primates. Sex seems to also be a bonding experience for primates, that's why we as humans, even in monogomous relationships continue to do it using protection. The chemical changes in the brain have very deep effects, especially if repeated over time.

Also the primary purpose of something is rather undermined as an argument when people use protection to try and stop it from happening don't you think?


Thanks to mindspin for editing the post. You can try and say i was dodging all you like but the simple fact is i struggle to read large bodies of text, my eyes go all funny and i get a headache. Is it really that awful?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Yes and no basically depending on how you view it. You could argue that the developing fetus is a part of the mothers body as it grew from one of her eggs, or you could argue it's unique DNA means it isn't a part of her body. But i the end the mother has to support that fetus, it uses her liver, her kidneys, her endocrine system and all of the rest. I think someone should be allowed control over such things.


And after it is born, the baby uses the mothers mammary glands to survive.

Round and round we go with illogical arguments trying to show that a human is not a human :shk:



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 




We both see that it is inconsistent...my solution would be to declare abortion as murder. Am I to assume that you would want to make it legal for anyone to kill an unborn child? A boyfriend who doesn't want a child can do something to kill the unborn child and not face any sort of punishment???


Not legal of course. But it would not be murder. Assault, damage of property (when something is not human person, it is property, fetus is a property of the mother), psychological damage, health damage etc..



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Assault?

You are ok with someone getting off with assualt for killing someones unborn child???


The more you reveal...the more twisted your thinking is.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


If its under the legal abortion limit, why should I not be? (if its over, then of course its murder). Assault, and destroying of property, and health damage.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

And after it is born, the baby uses the mothers mammary glands to survive.

Round and round we go with illogical arguments trying to show that a human is not a human :shk:


the difference being that a baby is a fully formed and functional being and the fetus is not fully formed or functional. Round and round we go where you compare an actual human being to a fetus.

If all you are going to do is repeat arguments then there is no point responding to you. We dont agree so lets leave it alone and stick to debating other people, otherwise we will continually fill up this thread repeating ourselves.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Originally posted by mrphilosophias
reply to post by Rustami

appreciate it, you may enjoy my testimony of when I first believed which was one night when I sat down the Colt to pick up the green pocket Gideon NT that my "high school sweetheart" had left sitting on the kitchen bar I suppose a day or two previous and who had also recently gone through with an abortion, anyway as soon as I began to open just the cover- immediately an audible voice as if sitting beside me to the left said my name then "I am Jesus, I died for your sins, believe in Me and you will never perish", awestruck or as if by another power I stood to my feet turned to the voice and said yes Lord and here are just a few interesting scriptures I came across later

Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died

if one suffers, all suffer

rejected by men, but chosen by God

As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever.

who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.


The book,Fatherhood Aborted: The Profound Effects of Abortion on Men by Guy Condon and David Hazard, includes the following:
Aftershocks of Male Post-abortion Trauma:

Suicidal ideation: We do now know how common this is, but it does occur especially in the fathers who wanted the child.

Some men discuss becoming involved with pornography and sexual addictions following an abortion loss.

When men identify the issue that is troubling them after an abortion experience, it is named as the loss of fatherhood. www.menandabortion.info...



about half of all abortion-seeking women generally have a man sitting by in the clinic or doctor's waiting room

males offers a remarkable opportunity to make rapid gains - common ground gains - in reducing the frequency and toll of abortions

Abortion has many victims, and one of them is the father of the child.

The laws of the United States do not acknowledge the right a father to stop the abortion of his own child, but rather place that act solely within the decision of the mother.

This raises a multitude of problems.

On the one hand, the father who wants to defend the life of his child is often accused of meddling in something that is not his business.

On the other hand, the father who wants to leave the (mistaken) decision of abortion in the hands of the mother alone is often accused of being uncaring and distant.
www.priestsforlife.org...


For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw near to God.

edit on 9-3-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Isn’t it fascinating, that I write online that I think abortion is wrong because it is the murder of innocent children and thus comparable to genocide and it creates this much debate.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



the difference being that a baby is a fully formed and functional being and the fetus is not fully formed or functional. Round and round we go where you compare an actual human being to a fetus.

If all you are going to do is repeat arguments then there is no point responding to you. We dont agree so lets leave it alone and stick to debating other people, otherwise we will continually fill up this thread repeating ourselves.


If you would stop ignoring your previous statements where you admit that a fetus is human life...then we wouldn't have to go round and round like this.

Please define "fully formed and functional". Last time I checked...a newborn isn't "fully formed"...it is still developing. "Functional" is a whole other story...are mentally challenged individuals "functional"?


You can continue to deny biology...it just makes you look foolish.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Isn’t it fascinating, that I write online that I think abortion is wrong because it is the murder of innocent children and thus comparable to genocide and it creates this much debate.


did you notice that I proved abortion to be genocide?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
someone deal with this?


Originally posted by mrphilosophias

Originally posted by MindSpin
Besides a court ruling (which is just a group of peoples opinion), no one can provide any argument based on solid logic nor science to claim otherwise. I don't allow a court ruling to dictate my opinion or use of words.

Well lets see what the law says.


Originally posted by grahag
The question isn't whether life is being terminated, but if abortion is murder or genocide. Murder is a legal term, which applies to adults and children, which a fetus is NOT. Genocide doesn't describe this as well, as it's not dependent on someone else's decision, but the decision of the person carrying the fetus.

You can argue all you want but those are the facts. Your opinion is a different matter. I'm fine with your opinion, as yours and mine differs, however, calling abortion murder OR genocide is factually wrong. It IS the termination of life, but I don't think anyone is picking that particular nit, so it doesn't make sense for you to argue it when no one is disputing that.




What is murder?
murder:

Murder

5. Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

* of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
* unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
* any reasonable creature (human being);
* in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
* under the Queen's Peace;
* with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).


This definition of murder comes from the U.K. Like this legal definition you have precluded the unborn, but for what reason? The reason for this preclusion of abortion from the definition murder is a presumption(unfounded, hidden premise) that abortion is not murder. If you understand this then you will understand that the logic is circular. In fact it is actually proof that abortion is murder or else you would not need wording to preclude it. It is interesting how these contradictions work against themselves, and quite satisfying to discover these absurdities.


18 U.S.C. § 1111 : US Code - Section 1111: Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to
perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason,
espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child
abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or
perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
killed, is murder in the first degree.


This United States Federal definition of murder certainly include unborn children.


PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

Note the necessity to exempt abortion from the definition of murder. Without this exemption abortion would fall into the definition of murder. Again, the exemption is a proof that it is murder, and it too follows from a hidden premise and unfounded presumption that abortion is not murder, and it too is circular in it's logic.

simply murder can be summarized as such:



The elements of common law murder are:

1. the killing
2. of a human being
3. by another human being
4. with malice aforethought.


Lastly



S.1019 -- Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)

S 1019 PCS

Calendar No. 89

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1019

To amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to protect unborn victims of violence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 7, 2003

Mr. DEWINE (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. TALENT, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mr. Allen) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

May 8, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to protect unborn victims of violence.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

`CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

`Sec.

`1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child.

`Sec. 1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child

`(a)(1) Any person who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided for that conduct under Federal law had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall be punished as provided under section 1111, 1112, or 1113, as applicable, for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being, instead of the penalties that would otherwise apply under subparagraph (A).

`(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

`(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), 844(f), 844(h)(1), 844(i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), 1952(a)(2)(B), 1952(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

`(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).

`(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

`(c) Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--

`(1) for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in a medical emergency;

`(2) for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

`(d) In this section--

`(1) the terms `child in utero' and `child, who is in utero' mean a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb; and

`(2) the term `unborn child' means a child in utero.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 90 the following:


Murdering a pregnant woman is double homicide.

The argument simply put:
1.) Taking the life of an innocent Human Being is ethically unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent Human Being.
:. (therefore)
Abortion is ethically unacceptable.

There may be certain acceptable concessions however as the extent that Gov't can limit abortions is actually limited. However, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of the 70 million abortions which have happens since 1973 in the U.S.A., have not fallen into this category of 'necessarily accepted evil.' I have dealt with this issue more in depth here Also addressed here is what many believe to be the critical ambiguity which lies at the heart of the debate; what is the difference between a human being and a human Person.


What is genocide?


Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide


Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:

* (a) Genocide;
* (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
* (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
* (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
* (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.


under sections 2a and 2d it seems that abortion would indeed fit into the internationally accepted definition of Genocide.

This thread should now be closed, but it won't; thankfully the truth will always prevail in the end.

edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Note the exceptions of murder in the legal definition of murder, or the deliberate wording of legal definition which precludes the unborn. Also note how these exceptions are actually implicit concessions to the fact that abortion is murder.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join