Political Crossfire Forums

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: Quote: The main requirement for a killing to be "murder" is that it is an illegal act. in myy view of the law it is illegal. The only reason it exists is becuase of a court full of lawyers who have no clue about science. Your self-deluded ignorance is astonishing. the law does not depend on your views, it depends on the rulings and the written laws. And they have not found abortion to be illegal, and hence it can not be murder, never mind how much you want it to be or repeat the outright lie as often as you do.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

then you support Hitler's massacres of the Jews since they were legal right?
(oh and please, dont even think about that retarded Godwin;s law, just answer the question)

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

Plodder wrote: then you support Hitler's massacres of the Jews since they were legal right?
(oh and please, dont even think about that retarded Godwin;s law, just answer the question)

That's a different issue, the Holocaust was an issue of mass extermination of actual life, whereas abortion is the termination of the potential life.

((Also, congrats on over 1,000 posts steen. :clap:))

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

You are correct, alclarkey, that there is no sudden change in terms of sentience from when a (scientifically speak) human being goes from being in the womb to being born. Birth doesn't change anything about it, other than it's dependence.

But as far as the English language is concerned within a medical context, birth is necessary for something to be considered a baby. This doesn't necessarily mean that something has not been is undeserving of protection (though I think we would all agree that babies are entitled to life; there aren't many here who condone infanticide), but being born is a necessary qualifiant to be considered medically a baby.

Plodder, surely you can come up with an example that won't bring up Godwin's law; there have been far too many accusations of being a "Nazi" from both sides of the abortion debate both on this forum and elsewhere, and anything related to Nazi rule simply brings with it negative and needless connotations. And I am sure that everyone recognizes that legal and right do not always equate.

Plodder wrote: in myy view of the law it is illegal. The only reason it exists is becuase of a court full of lawyers who have no clue about science.
Then your view of the law is wrong, as is your reason for the status of it; the decision was made and is maintained by judges, not lawyers. (Not that I'm saying that judges aren't technically lawyers, but you get what I mean).

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: then you support Hitler's massacres of the Jews since they were legal right?
(oh and please, dont even think about that retarded Godwin;s law, just answer the question) OK, I will bring up Godwin later. Nothing retarded about it.

For now, I challenge you to provide evidence that there actually was a law as what you claim. Certainly Hitler and the SS committed atrocities. But they took great pains to hide their acts and certainly did not have any laws on the book that mandated or allowed their actions.

Hitler's acts were committed per might, not per legality.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

LostSoul3412 wrote: ((Also, congrats on over 1,000 posts steen. :clap:)) :cool: :flwr:

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote:
For now, I challenge you to provide evidence that there actually was a law as what you claim. Certainly Hitler and the SS committed atrocities. But they took great pains to hide their acts and certainly did not have any laws on the book that mandated or allowed their actions.
the government of Hitler was hitler. he controlled absolute power. His word was law and the many speeches that he gave commandidn the Jews to be killed were laws. Same with stalin in fact even more so.[/quote]

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: Quote:
For now, I challenge you to provide evidence that there actually was a law as what you claim. Certainly Hitler and the SS committed atrocities. But they took great pains to hide their acts and certainly did not have any laws on the book that mandated or allowed their actions.
the government of Hitler was hitler. he controlled absolute power. His word was law and the many speeches that he gave commandidn the Jews to be killed were laws. Please provide evidence for your lie.

Quote: Same with stalin in fact even more so. Please provide evidence for your lie.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7781

Plodder wrote: the government of Hitler was hitler. he controlled absolute power. His word was law and the many speeches that he gave commandidn the Jews to be killed were laws. Same with stalin in fact even more so.

But even so, the "laws" of Hitler were proven to be wrong at the Nuremberg Trials. Regardless...

:ot:

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

just as these laws about abortion will be proven wrong wothin the next 20 years.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: If we all hold each other to standards over things that aren't cut and dried like what makes an innocent life and who has the right to take it, we'd live in a fascist state where everyone would be forced into one religion, have to be vegan, have one party, &tc. Banning abortion has no more to do with a fascist state than banning the murder of a born human. One is born, the other is not, dont get it twisted. Both are human and thats what were talking about here. Not outlawing the killing of animals.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

[quote="AllAmericanMan"]Banning abortion has no more to do with a fascist state than banning the murder of a born human.[/quote[]Sure it does.

Quote: One is born, the other is not, dont get it twisted. Both are human and thats what were talking about here. Your appendix is "human." It is an utterly irrelevant classifier.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Your appendix is "human." It is an utterly irrelevant classifier Thats funny I thought we were talking about humans being aborted. This must be the cow abortion thread.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: Your appendix is "human." It is an utterly irrelevant classifier. i still dont get you

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:42 am Post subject:

Plodder wrote: Quote: Your appendix is "human." It is an utterly irrelevant classifier. i still dont get you

He is saying the appendix possesses the same criterion used to justify that the blostocyst or embryo is a human being, and so the appendix should also by extension be given rights to life, and can never be removed.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Saf wrote: A common abortion arguement:
1. A foetus is an innocent life.
2. We have to protect innocent life.
3. Abortions should be illegal.

Okay, I understand your argument but I dispute premise 1. This is nothing new. But about 50% of people hold premise 1 to be true, and about 50% don't. So it comes down to agreeing on what is "innocent life." But think about why most people who are vegetarian are the way they are; they believe:
1. An animal is an innocent life.
2. We have to protect innocent life.
3. I will choose not to eat meat.
Notice that at least most vegetarians do not hold others to their moral standard, even though their standard includes protecting innocent life.

If we all hold each other to standards over things that aren't cut and dried like what makes an innocent life and who has the right to take it, we'd live in a fascist state where everyone would be forced into one religion, have to be vegan, have one party, &tc.

It seems to me like you should be an anti-abortion vegan if you really believed this.

The thing is, the sacredness of human life is absolute. Life is an inherent right that all humans have, and any decent society has to recognize this.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: He is saying the appendix possesses the same criterion used to justify that the blostocyst or embryo is a human being, and so the appendix should also by extension be given rights to life, and can never be removed. an appendix taken by itself will not grow arms legs organ systems, a head , brain. nor will it ever cry, love, breathe, think,nor will it ever reproduce. an embryo will do all these thiungs (with soem exceptions due to birth defects), but an appendix wont. that argumanrt is null and viod.