Let's make murder legal

from JoeUser Forums
Let's get together and make murder legal. After all, when someone takes a human life, they are only making a choice for themselves. Shouldn't that be a persons right?
Think of the man robbing a store, shooting a clerk dead. The poor robber needed the money because of Americas economic unfairness. That robber is entitled to the same nice things other people have, and should not have to worry that someone else might turn them in.
Feel for the woman that murders her cheating husband. He hurt her feelings, wounded her emotionally. Shes just making a choice to live a more positive, empowered life.
Think of serial killers that murder multiple of women. These guys can't help themselves, and it's unfair for society to judge them. They didn't choose to be serial killers, either nature or nuture made them who they are, and we should understand.

Let's legalize murder.

Think of the woman that kills her unborn child because she cant afford it. The poor woman needs to remain childless because of Americas economic unfairness. She is entitled to the same nice things other people have, and should not have to worry about the burden of a child. Nevermind that the child has an active brain, can respond to it's enviroment and perhaps live outside the womb. It is that womans right.
Feel for the woman that kills her baby as it is being born. Through some medical complication she may be at risk, she is just making a choice to increase her chances to live.
Think of the women that have repeated abortions. It's unfair for society to judge them. They didn't choose to get pregnant, they just wanted to have sex. We should understand

Let's keep murder legal.
politics
21,180 views 55 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not touching that debate with a 20' pole but, I really like the article.. it gets the point across qutie well.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
An unborn baby is not a human, as defined by law.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Nevermind that the child has an active brain


and nevermind the damn woman cant keep her legs shut...

An unborn baby is not a human, as defined by law.


how can a law define life??
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
sandy2: The law is wrong. The law can tell me the sky is made of molten lava, it doesn't make it so. My wife has had three children. Obviously whoever made the law hasn't felt a child interact at 5 months, or twins kicking each other in their mothers womb.

Here's what we should do, let's pass a law that the enviroment is made of ice cream, because laws are always true. That way, everyone in the world could have ice cream whenever they wanted.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Hey I am all for post-birth abortions, I want to stick a jerks head in a whole than vacuum out his/her brains.

I am also for repealing all laws that defeat Evolution (bet Darwin is rolling in his grave with some of the laws we have).

America is the poster child on how to have a Government defeat Darwinism/Evolution.

- Grimrles Xarwin
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
One of the biggest reasons, I am pro-choice is that even if abortion was said to be illegal, the operation would still happen in most cases just in much more dangerous conditions. Also if the child doesn't have a mother who wants to take care of it it will end up suffering through its childhood.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the biggest reasons, I am pro-choice is that even if abortion was said to be illegal, the operation would still happen in most cases just in much more dangerous conditions. Also if the child doesn't have a mother who wants to take care of it it will end up suffering through its childhood.


Same reason I think murder, child pornography, and sex with children should be legal. If they were legal, they'd happen in safer situations. For example, if child pornography were legal, the children would be able to form a union and protect their rights.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even lawmakers are wrong sometimes.

Who gives a shit if its "defined by law"? Just because it's "okay" to do something doesn't mean that you should.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Also if the child doesn't have a mother who wants to take care of it it will end up suffering through its childhood.


I actually used to be pro-choice for this reason, but then i met many people that grew up adopted and they live very happy lives. Sure, the fact that you are adopted would be a difficult fact to live with, but most people manage to get over it and lead normal lives.

For example, if child pornography were legal, the children would be able to form a union and protect their rights.


haha, very good point
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why make murder legal, lets just kill all the poor people and eliminate the problem at the root...


Great argument, to bad the woman is right and you are not.
I like the "slaves were not considered persons" argument better... what happened with people screaming that.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Great argument, to bad the woman is right and you are not.


No. She's wrong.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most of you'll know that I'm a conservative, in the Goldwater tradition as opposed to the Falwell tradition.

d3adz0mbie & I agree on most things, I suspect, but on this issue we don't. I'm pro-choice. There is nothing unconservative about that position. The murder rap just poisons the discussion and guarantees nothing will come of it. We will never be able to parse the nanosecond that divides "pre-life" from "life", at least never to the satisfaction of those who would preserve every egg & every sperm cell as potential human beings. But real people lead real lives and are autonomous beings, endowed by their creator with the ability & obligation to make choices for themselves. The state has no legitimate interest in forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her wishes. A religious order might have a legitimate interest in that, but not the state. No harm comes to another member of society by virtue of a woman having an elective abortion, unless you arbitrarily endow the developing fetus with more rights than the mother in whose womb the fetus is developing. The right-to-life argument is an endlessly circular one based on an article of religious faith that one should either practice or not. It is the equivalent of accepting or rejecting God, something that cannot be legislated (at least not here). Religious freedom necessarily incorporates the right to be free of religion. None of us should have any objection to individuals following the dictates of their own conscience and practicing their religious beliefs as they see fit. We should all object to any religion forcing their beliefs on others via the state through legislation.

I suppose this is all by way of showing Myrrander that we're not all "Republican robots."

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is it strictly a religious matter? Are there no pro-Lifers that aren't Christian?


When is a child in a woman's body considered to actually be a child? I say that we deem it a human being when brain waves appear, but some would say that's much too early, and that only when the child is fully outside the woman is it considered to be a human being.

When one thinks about it, no harm comes to another member of society when a child is aborted even a few months after birth.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
You sort of confirm one of my points, Messy.

We've already largely reached consensus as a society that a child is a member of our society once it reaches the third trimester of gestation. That line of demarcation is as arbitrary as any, but is at least based on some common-sense & scientific notions. As medical science improves, the age of viability may well get pushed back earlier in gestation & our society will need to revisit the question (don't ask if I'm looking forward to that). But the point is a line must be chosen somehow. When I think about it, harm definitely comes to that few-month-old member of society, but logic requires accepting that there is period of time following conception where the woman retains the right to make a choice. I'm personally not prepared to tell a woman that from the instant of conception, she becomes an indentured servant to the embryo, devoid of any rights with respect to her pregnancy.

And you'll note the term Christian does not appear in my reply. That was intentional, because you are quite correct - it is not a strictly religious matter, in the sense of organized religious entities. I used the lower case religion, for lack of another term, to encompass any particular belief system. And when I said "accepting or rejecting God" I meant "any" God.

This topic is so subject to emotional extremes precisely because there is a religious component to it. We should by all means respect an individual's religious beliefs and assure freedom to adhere to chosen religious practices, as long as those practices do not harm, take advantage of or otherwise deny freedom of self-determination to other sovereign beings. Hopefully, adherents to both points of view will come to understand that neither point of view can possibly prevail absolutely and that we will forever live in some state of compromise, in the best case scenario one to which we have mutually agreed.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

We've already largely reached consensus as a society that a child is a member of our society once it reaches the third trimester of gestation. That line of demarcation is as arbitrary as any, but is at least based on some common-sense & scientific notions. As medical science improves, the age of viability may well get pushed back earlier in gestation & our society will need to revisit the question (don't ask if I'm looking forward to that). But the point is a line must be chosen somehow. When I think about it, harm definitely comes to that few-month-old member of society, but logic requires accepting that there is period of time following conception where the woman retains the right to make a choice.


Have we found that line yet? Who doesn't base their line on common sense? Personally, I think my line is a much better place to draw it, since it is the brain that determines whether one's living or dead. If the brain's dead, then the person's dead. If it's not, then the person's still alive.


I'm personally not prepared to tell a woman that from the instant of conception, she becomes an indentured servant to the embryo, devoid of any rights with respect to her pregnancy.


Isn't that what we're doing if we tell a woman that in the third trimester, she can't have an abortion?


And you'll note the term Christian does not appear in my reply. That was intentional, because you are quite correct - it is not a strictly religious matter, in the sense of organized religious entities. I used the lower case religion, for lack of another term, to encompass any particular belief system. And when I said "accepting or rejecting God" I meant "any" God.


Aren't there agnostics and atheists that are pro-Life?

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: sandy2 Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004
An unborn baby is not a human, as defined by law.


Neither were blacks at one time, does that make it right?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Messy -

Have we found that line yet?


I don't think we have, which is my point. Reasonable people can disagree about where the line should be but as a society we still have to choose one.


since it is the brain that determines whether one's living or dead.


We use a definition of brain death in determining when it's no longer reasonable to consider someone alive and continue to maintain artificial respiration and circulatory support, etc., but we've never determined brain activity alone to be the "definition" of life. Clearly brain activity occurs in the fetus long before the point of viability outside the womb.


Isn't that what we're doing if we tell a woman that in the third trimester, she can't have an abortion?


Exactly - we've arrived at a (contested) consensus about where to place the line, at least for now.


Aren't there agnostics and atheists that are pro-Life?


That's very possible, even likely. But agnosticism & atheism are still "belief systems" as I've intended the term.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
An unborn baby is not a human, as defined by law.


And laws are defined by humans. See above.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
But real people lead real lives and are autonomous beings, endowed by their creator with the ability & obligation to make choices for themselves.


I liked your post all besides for that one line as people dont start having that ability for months/years into there lives so if you say that it makes it seem like a 1 year old isnt really a person yet.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
QingJao -

I was referring to adult women. The whole issue of the "age of majority" is an altogether different discussion. Nothing I said should be interpreted as believing a 1 year old isn't a person. Quite the contrary.

And thanks for you kind comment.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
We use a definition of brain death in determining when it's no longer reasonable to consider someone alive and continue to maintain artificial respiration and circulatory support, etc., but we've never determined brain activity alone to be the "definition" of life. Clearly brain activity occurs in the fetus long before the point of viability outside the womb.


If somebody has a functioning brain, they're considered to be alive.

Exactly - we've arrived at a (contested) consensus about where to place the line, at least for now.


It's still burdening a woman to be an indentured servant to the embryo, devoid of any rights with respect to her pregnancy.

That's very possible, even likely. But agnosticism & atheism are still "belief systems" as I've intended the term.


Agnostics and atheists generally would have no religious beliefs on which to base their opposition to abortion. Therefore, to disregard the opinions of agnostics and atheists by regarding abortion as mainly a religious affair isn't fair to them. Besides, don't religious people also base many of their other beliefs on religion (i.e. murder, charity, etc.). That doesn't mean that being against murder is trying to force one's religion on another.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Messy -

Is it strictly a religious matter? Are there no pro-Lifers that aren't Christian?


Agnostics and atheists generally would have no religious beliefs on which to base their opposition to abortion.


Do you see the contradiction in the above quotes from you?

That doesn't mean that being against murder is trying to force one's religion on another.


I don't believe I said any such thing.

I believe I did say that it is an emotionally charged issue, one with such fundamental power that it can keep people from comprehending the words they are reading.

Cheers,
Daiwa