Mr Khan said:
osamanobama said:
Mr Khan said:
osamanobama said:
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:
how is it debatable?
why is it that a women (and her "doctor") can kill her unborn at any time she wants may it be 1 week or 38 weeks into pregnancy. but when another person does the same, its murder. taek scott perterson for example he drowned his pregnant wife, got charged for double murder, if the child isnt a child, why did he get charged for to murders.
|
What do you mean 'when another person does the same'? Only women can terminate pregnancies, and killing an actual human being is not the same as terminating a pregancy. Plus, there are actual situations when people murder others, and recieve no punishment. Soldiers are a prime example.
|
why does only a women get to choose, if she can terminate the pregnacy, and its not murder then neither is some other person terminating her pregnacy murder. you cant have it both ways, it cant be a non human when the mother does, and be a human when someone else does.
also assuming you are being serious (for a logical person, and non extremest person i would know they were joking, but knowing how radical you are..) killing in wars have been ruled time and time again to not be murder, if you think it is, then you need clinical help, and have a group of terrorist take over you country, and you better condemn anyone that tries to kill them.
also how could all those allied soldiers murder so many nazi, we should retroactively put everyone up on trial so justice can be served to those nazi families.
is it you goal to be the most extremist person in existance, you probably pretty close to you goal, likey in 2nd percentile
|
There are a hell of a lot of things people can do that if someone else does it it becomes a crime. A woman can choose to have sex with a man, and its legal, but the man can't just decide to have sex with her. I can choose to give my television away to someone, but someone else can't decide to just come and take it from me
The whole "war" analogy is apt. War and abortion are two things that sometimes are more practical to do than not to do, but are both things that should be avoided in all possible cases. Now sometimes the woman in the case of abortion may not be making the most prudent decision, but (to turn the tables on the righties that love to talk about this), when is it the government's job to tell people whether they're making the wisest possible decision or not?
It would be foolish to completely remove war as a recourse for action, but it is amoral to conduct war wantonly, and so it is with abortion.
|
thats a great comparison and all, but it still doesnt answer how the baby is a person when a 3rd party kills it, but not when the women kills it.
its either human or its not you cant have it both ways, if it nots human then the 3rd party could get charged with something like assault and battery of the women, and since abortion is legal has not ended any life therefore no murder took place.
|
I agree that that definition of personhood should be clarified, but that is a legal issue, and not a moral one, and the punishment for it should still be level, just classed as a different crime
|
yes that was just one of my many points in the hypocrasy of this stuff.
also i dont understand why people that advocate for the right to abortions, they say hey we all want to limit/decrease the number of abortions, we just feel they should be legal. why would you want ot limit something that is not bad, if it not ending a life, why limit it, its potentially really helping the would be mother by getting rid of a potential burden. no need to try to lower the number of abortions, if its not wrong/bad in the first place.
if abortions okay, then lets keep em rolling
edit: there may have been a misunderstanding i wasnt comparing war to abortion, it was a complete different argument
