The abortion debate

[JBeukema]

The PETA crap doesn't work for me for several reasons anyway. One is that there just is no such thing as "animal rights" no matter how often those loons screech "ANIMAL RIGHTS" and demand we all eat cardboard

'Animal Rights' exist insomuch an any rights exist. That is to say that all recognition of any rights is personal, and that societal recognition, granting, or protection of 'rights' arises through social contract

Rights can only be claimed by members of a species with the demand those rights be recognized and respected by members of their OWN species.

How? Why? You imply that no two intelligent species could devlop any recongition or protection of one another's 'rights'?

Human rights exist for every member of the species, while societal rights are those claimed by members of a particular society that exist only for citizens of that society and not the members of another society.

Demonstrate that 'Human Rights' exist'

by 'societal rights', do you mean Positive rights?

The right to keep your life is a human right -not a right claimed by a particular society for just its own members.

Demonstrate

But if your right to keep your life is a human right

is it?
You would be wise to remain within the context of American LAw and the American 'social contract' that exists within our law

that same right exists for ALL owners of a human life and not just some of them.

What rights?

Even animals don't kill their own for reason of merely being inconvenienced today. So perhaps animals should be declaring rights for humans instead of expecting humans to do that, huh?

Stay on topic

"Rights" are NEVER granted by a totally different species,

There is no reason they could not be

But humans do have rights

Demonstrate

-it is our own species that claims these rights and have done so on behalf of ALL members and expect that right to be recognized by all members of the species.

'positive rights' and social contract. You seem to presume natural rights for no reason

To be honest, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post

 

[Father Time]

Thank you. Having long wondered if I'm an idiot, you have cleared this up for me.

No problem.

Do non-citizens have rights or do they have values. Rights, it seems to me are more easily defined.

only insomuch positive rights are either codified or subject to a clear social contract



I will not give a full list, but I have given relevant examples.



You are wise to listen to your intellectual superiors



personally, I've never fully understood that

[

It still reeks of the crappy PETA argument I've mentioned earlier, just replace animals with fetuses.

'slippery slope'; is not always a fallacy, just so you know

Unless you can prove that it will lead to the avocation of anarchy your argument remains a slippery slope fallacy.

The argument borrows wholesale anarchist rhetoric and philosophy- it is an anarchistic argument. The 'pro-choice' crowd centers around the argument that nobody should be 'burdened' with a child or be responsible for any other person (the details may vary, but the heart of the argument remains the same) and that it is morally reprehensible ('wrong' or 'unacceptable') for society to force them to care for another 9in this case a child). These are moral arguments at the heart of anarchistic thought, and to logically follow this logic leads to a rejection of social contract- and, in turn, of the very concept of 'society' or organized groupings of people and law. those are the sources and logical implications of the arguments you have raised. now, you have three options::
-Recant your arguments
-Defend anarchy
-Explain a philosophy or argument regarding why we should adhere to your moral position in this (for that is what it truly is), accept your definitions, and adopt your policies or proposed law AND explain how those arguments may be used while not following the reasoning into anarchy

Oh, and in the future, explain why his argument is qwrong instead of crying ';slipper slope' and expecting a free pass

I take it you haven't spoken to too many pro-choice or at least not the ones I've run into. Their argument goes like this

A human fetus is in some way insignificant (more or less) and not deserving of equal rights,

therefore their 'right to live' is less important than the right of Mom to disconnect herself from the fetus.

There's your answer and it doesn't go into anarchist territory of do whatever you want.

Speaking of which, like animals, fetuses can't engage in a social contract.

 

[JBeukema]

I take it you haven't spoken to too many pro-choice or at least not the ones I've run into. Their argument goes like this

A human fetus is in some way insignificant (more or less) and not deserving of equal rights,

-Define human significance
-demonstrate how to measure it
-demonstrate that there is a specific level of significance that allows one to qualify for the protection of their life
-demonstrate that below a certain level is 'insignificant'
-demonstrate how you fall above that level and
-demonstrate that an unborn child falls below that level
-demonstrate that the mother (not the father or both parties) is qualified- in every case mentally competent and otherwise qualified- to make that determination
-explain why I should not be able to kill you if i draw the line differently than you do and deem you 'insignificant' and 'not deserving of equal rights'
-demonstrate that it takes 'equal rights' to protect life

therefore their 'right to live' is less important than the right of Mom to disconnect herself from the fetus.

-demonstrate how a 'eight' to convenience and a happy social life is more important than the protection of human life

There's your answer and it doesn't go into anarchist territory of do whatever you want

.

nope. rather you have this time turned to Eugenics for your argument- a whole other can of worms

Speaking of which, like animals, fetuses can't engage in a social contract.

Doesn't matter. They need not do so. Society can have a law to protect non-members. We do just that by saying that to kill a non-citizen (including an illegal entrant) can be murder, per the ame law sand definitions applied to the killing of a citizen

 

[Father Time]

I take it you haven't spoken to too many pro-choice or at least not the ones I've run into. Their argument goes like this

A human fetus is in some way insignificant (more or less) and not deserving of equal rights,

-Define human significance
-demonstrate how to measure it
-demonstrate that there is a specific level of significance that allows one to qualify for the protection of their life
-demonstrate that below a certain level is 'insignificant'
-demonstrate how you fall above that level and
-demonstrate that an unborn child falls below that level
-demonstrate that the mother (not the father or both parties) is qualified- in every case mentally competent and otherwise qualified- to make that determination
-explain why I should not be able to kill you if i draw the line differently than you do and deem you 'insignificant' and 'not deserving of equal rights'
-demonstrate that it takes 'equal rights' to protect life

therefore their 'right to live' is less important than the right of Mom to disconnect herself from the fetus.

-demonstrate how a 'eight' to convenience and a happy social life is more important than the protection of human life

There's your answer and it doesn't go into anarchist territory of do whatever you want

.

nope. rather you have this time turned to Eugenics for your argument- a whole other can of worms

Speaking of which, like animals, fetuses can't engage in a social contract.

Doesn't matter. They need not do so. Society can have a law to protect non-members. We do just that by saying that to kill a non-citizen (including an illegal entrant) can be murder, per the ame law sand definitions applied to the killing of a citizen

I''m just laying out their arguments I'm not obliged to defend them since I'm not advocating them, go elsewhere if you wish for more info. I'm just the messenger (sort of).

 

[frazzledgear]

To suggest that killing a fetus at early stages is on par with killing a citizen, a born person is stupid. It says that thoughts, feelings, self-awareness, etc., things born people posses but fetuses don't are worthless and the only thing that gives human life value is the fact that it possesses the DNA to be called human.

Not worthless. Just irrelevant to the topic. It's all a bunch of straws you're grasping at in order to justify doing something heinous, because too many people got educated in basic science and you couldn't use the canard, "It's not really alive" anymore.

And you don't get it. Human life IS valuable precisely because it's human LIFE. So you don't consider a fetus to have thoughts. I don't consider YOU to have thoughts. Doesn't mean I get to kill you, because technically, you're still alive, so in the eyes of the law, you have value.

Hopefully, the eyes of the law don't see value. Hopefully they see rights. In this case, though, the unborn have no rights. This is probably the result of the phrase in the Constituion that defines a citizen as one who is "born" in the USA. Not born? No rights.

There are two kinds of rights though. There are human rights -universal rights recognized by the vast majority of the species to be the rights of all members of our species equally and without regard to any restrictions like race, religion, gender or age. The right of someone to their life is considered to be a universal human right. Universal human rights do not hinge upon citizenship but upon the fact the life someone has - is a human life. Having a human life entitles all humans to certain rights while citizenship entitles them to the additional rights as the citizens of a specific country.


Then there are societal rights -rights the members of a society have claimed for all members of that society but not necessarily rights for members of other societies. Societal rights are not human rights and they are not recognized or upheld in other societies unless that society has also adopted it anyway. No country is obligated to uphold the societal rights of another country. For example, our particular society has claimed the right of the individual to not testify against himself. We are one of the very few in the world that have claimed that societal right, it is an extremely rare one -and even the British do not have that right with most Brits believing that is a right that goes too far in protecting the bad guy.

Our founders considered the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be the universal human rights -which is why none of them are specified as rights in the Bill of Rights. Our Declaration of Independence cited the infringment of these universal rights as justification to declare our independence from Britian -justification for any people to throw off their government and create a new one. The founders believed our Constitution as they wrote it -would provide the best means of protecting those universal rights for us all - with the Bill of Rights, which are actually societal rights - as being necessary in order to best protect these God given rights of all mankind to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hard to pursue happiness if government is allowed to legally muzzle you and throw you in prison for expressing an opinion it didn't like. Hard to have a right of liberty if government isn't restricted from falsely arresting you and letting you rot in prison without having to prove to a jury of your peers why you should be forced to stay in prison. Our Bill of Rights exist as the best possible means of protecting our greater universal rights of life, liberty ande the pursuit of happiness -but those universal rights are not specifically listed in our Constitution. Only the ADDITIONAL, societal rights we have the founders believed were needed in order to fully protect those universal rights are listed.

But no right -either a human right or societal right -is ever absolute. If all rights were absolute, we would have anarchy and no enforcable rights at all since everyone and anyone could infringe upon them at will. As part of their own right to do so. Anarchy means no laws of any kind, no government control of anything and no role for government whatsoever. In order to equally preserve and protect everyone's rights equally, none are absolute for anyone -whether they are universal human rights or societal rights.

My right of free speech is not absolute. I may not yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. My right to life or my liberty may be legally forfeited if I choose to deliberately kill someone else or commit treason -these are acts that deprive others of their own life, therefore I may forfeit my own if I commit these acts. My right to pursue happiness cannot come at the expense of someone else's right to live or their liberty -or even at the expense of their societal rights listed in the Bill of Rights. I may not strip someone else of their human rights as the owner of a human life - or societal rights as a citizen on the grounds it is necessary so that I may enjoy my own rights. Our societal rights in the Bill of Rights exist in order to best protect our universal human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Pro-abortionists insist the right to pursue happiness can and should come at the expense of other human lives to continue to exist -as long as those being killed are the youngest and most immature of human lives -and whose mothers don't like them. In other words, they insist that pursuing happiness is even more important than the right of SOME owners of a human life -to even keep it. Nazis argued their right to exist as a "pure race", which they said was "necessary" for their own happiness - came before the right of owners of any "impure race" to exist at all. Neither is a legitimate argument because these can only happen by KILLING the owner of another human life who is guilty of nothing but EXISTING -but being permanently deprived of all rights entirely BECAUSE they exist. The existence of a human life is never justification for killing it -except to a pro-abortionist.

Our Constitution says I may lose my life only by acts that I CHOOSE TO DO -ones that deprive others of their own life or by betraying everyone in the nation through treason. Nothing about any obligation to first make sure my existence is convenient for any other person whatsoever at any time - or even that my own mother even likes me before having a right to keep my own life. Nobody's rights ever hinges on an obligation to first make sure someone else doesn't find their very existence a pain the neck and inconvenient for them to acknowledge! Which is why there is nothing in our Constitution about how the youngest of all human lives have this obligation to first make sure their own existence is even convenient for someone else - before they even have a right to keep their life which ALREADY EXISTS. If their life already exists, their right to keep it comes before how someone else feels about the existence of it, comes before someone else's desire to pursue happiness without the existence of that life. No one EVER has the obligation at any stage in their life to first make another human happy about their existence before they have a right to keep their life.

Hard to argue the founders ever once suggested or would ever agree with the notion that the owner of a human life only had a right to continue keeping it only as long as their own mother didn't want to kill them because she believed it would be easier for her to pursue her own happiness without their very existence! That unborn children were human lives was never in debate at the time of our founding -they were considered to be living human beings for centuries at that time -because they are. Had the founders known the day would come when some would claim a "right" to kill their own unborn child and deprive it of any of all its human rights -on the grounds that their very existence was somehow interfering with the right of the mother to pursue her happiness -I think they very likely would have gone further in not just spelling out what can cause someone to forfeit their right to their life -but specifically state that forfeiture of that right can only occur by the act of a person, not by their very existence -and specified that the right of any owner to keep their human life was not age restricted or dependant upon someone's mother LIKING them.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I personally do not believe in abortion BUT I don't think the government has any business telling somebody what they can and can't do with their uterus. You cannot legislate morality. The abortion issue has been an issue nearly all of my life. I'm 57 and soon to be 58. I believe the solution to the problem is for somebody - be it a selected committee or done by a vote within the general population - to make a legal determination as to when life actually begins. Does it begin at conception or does it begin when the baby is expelled at birth. Once a determination as to when life actually begins can be made, then sensable laws regarding abortion can be formulated and at that time laws should be made concerning the protection of a fetus. A great many people believe that actual life begins at conception. I'm not saying that this is wrongful thinking but maybe life begins at birth. I think this is why we need a legal determination as to when actual life begins. I think it is truly a shameful thing for somebody to use abortion strickly for birth control purposes. I believe that to be morally wrong. I know all the arguements from both sides of the fence. I also don't feel that the right to abort should solely be the woman's choice. It takes two to tango. I'm not speaking about rape or those other special circumstances. Abortion is truly a "hot" issue and it will be for a long time until we make the determination as to when life begins.

 

[Father Time]

That legal determination won't work.
Just like Roe vs. Wade those who disagree with it will challenge and fight bitterly to get it changed.
Also it should not ignore the possibility that new discoveries change our perceptions of life.

Oh and frazzledgear

 

[JBeukema]

There are two kinds of rights though.

Nope. My challenge stands until you defend your claims

There are human rights

-universal rights recognized by the vast majority of the species to be the rights of all members of our species equally and without regard to any restrictions like race, religion, gender or age.

Recognized and understood by the majority through social contract- ansd now largely codified within the U.N. These are positive rights

The right of someone to their life is considered to be a universal human right.

by those same contracts and laws...

Then there are societal rights -rights the members of a society have claimed for all members of that society

Again, positive rights..

but not necessarily rights for members of other societies

these are all positive rights, they are merely being awarded to different persons- that is, the 'we', 'us', or 'in-group' is warded more 'rights' and greater status than outsiders

Societal rights are not human rights

and they are not recognized or upheld in other societies unless that society has also adopted it anyway.

You need to educate yourself on this matter

No country is obligated to uphold the societal rights of another country

Because it is a separate contract to which outsiders are not party

Once again, you demonstrate that reading the remainder of your post is not worthwhile

 

[code1211]

It still reeks of the crappy PETA argument I've mentioned earlier, just replace animals with fetuses.

Unless you can prove that it will lead to the avocation of anarchy your argument remains a slippery slope fallacy.

Whoa, there, Big Fellow! I said nothing about a slippery slope and did not extend this beyond anything that I said. YOU are the one who said that this needed to result in anarchy.

Nice attempt at spin jack, you were the one who said it would imply anarchy not me.

By saying that this is justified by the "right to choice" assumes that the unborn is not a person and has no rights. Because Scott Peterson was convicted of a DOUBLE homocide when he was convicted of killing his pregnant wife, US Law recognizes that this other homocide conviction resulted from the murder of the unborn.

As I just said a moment ago (and which you conveniently ignored), U.S. law lets you kill and eat some animals but won't let you be cruel to others. Beyond that animals have absolutely no rights. Hell we inject them with diseases an untested concoctions in the name of medical research.

Now cut the desperate deflections and attempts to change subjects you said

"Arguing Freedom implies that all individuals should have freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others."

Now back up the ridiculous statement that treating fetuses different than born people will somehow result in "freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others."

In the context of this argument, arguing that freedom of choice allows the pregnant woman to abort the fetus steps over the entire question of whether or not the fetus is a human being. In by-passing this point, any morality is removed from the argument and it becomes only a question of freedom of the individual. Are you still with me?

By removing the question of morality and all of the ethical and responsibility questions along with it, the ONLY issue is freedom. The "Woman's right to choose".

If freedom is the only issue and if this issue trumps the consideration of any other issue in our legal system, then, you are right, it will lead to anarchy if extended to all other parts of our law, but that was not my point.

My point is that most of our laws limit individual freedom to avoid the infringement on the freedoms of others. The example I used was that while I can drive my car, I must stop for Red Lights. In this way, my right to drive does not infringe upon your right to live. If I ignor enough of the limitations, my right to drive is removed.

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide by killing his pregnant wife. If the fetus is a person, he murdered it. If the fetus is not a person, he only killed it.

In the Peterson Case, the morality of the issue is accounted for. In abortion, it is not. Abortion is legal because it is too inconvenient for the woman or for the society to care for an unwanted infant and raise that infant to adulthood.

Freedom is the placard in this part of the debate, but convenience is the issue. I am only saying that we should call a spade a spade and not try to misdirect the real ideas in favor of a dressed up PC version of the truth.

 

[DamnYankee]

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide by killing his pregnant wife. If the fetus is a person, he murdered it. If the fetus is not a person, he only killed it.

I'd be most interested in your interpretation of the distinction, since the 6th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."

 

[JBeukema]

In the context of this argument, arguing that freedom of choice allows the pregnant woman to abort the fetus steps over the entire question of whether or not the fetus is a human being. In by-passing this point, any morality is removed from the argument and it becomes only a question of freedom of the individual. Are you still with me?

Actually, liberty itself is a moral argument. Why is it 'good' to grant, recognize, or protects another's liberties or freedoms? Why is it 'bad' to infringe upon another's so-called 'rights'? If they have challenged tyou on moral grounds, then have two options:
-Defend your position on moral gorunds
-Claim no moral footing

By removing the question of morality

\
Which you have not done

and all of the ethical and responsibility questions along with it, the ONLY issue is freedom. The "Woman's right to choose".

Does a woman have the right to choose to end another's life for her own convenience? Why does not the man have the same rights?

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide

Meaning that the child is a person, per the definition of homicide

In the Peterson Case, the morality of the issue is accounted for. In abortion, it is not

Wrong. If it is murder, it is murder regardless of who commits the act. It is the nature of the act itself, not the individual committing it, that determines whether an act is murder

Abortion is legal because it is too inconvenient for the woman or for the society to care for an unwanted infant and raise that infant to adulthood.

actually, it's illegal because the abortion industry makes a lot of money and used outright lies to blind ans manipulate SCOTUS in a case that would have been overturned and rescheduled in any other court

Freedom is the placard in this part of the debate, but convenience is the issue.

That is the issue for the abortion industry and women who's pregnancy keeps them from prowling the clubs

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide by killing his pregnant wife. If the fetus is a person, he murdered it. If the fetus is not a person, he only killed it.

I'd be most interested in your interpretation of the distinction, since the 6th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."

I'm pretty sure that's more accurately translated as 'murder'

 

[code1211]

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide by killing his pregnant wife. If the fetus is a person, he murdered it. If the fetus is not a person, he only killed it.

I'd be most interested in your interpretation of the distinction, since the 6th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."

My interpretation makes abslutely no difference in a legal sense. I was simply pointing to the dichotomy in our laws. This is the result of the pragamatism that has given such gems as Dred Scott, Plessy and Roe.

However, the difference to me is that killing is something that ends a life. Murder is something that ends a human life. If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him. Is that an accurate understanding? I'm no lawyer, it's just what I think.

Under our law, if we stop the developement of a fetus and the Mother to be disagrees with that goal, we have murdered her baby to be.

If she does agree with it, we have ended the developement. Is that killing it? A whole new can of worms.

 

[Father Time]

[/COLOR]


Whoa, there, Big Fellow! I said nothing about a slippery slope and did not extend this beyond anything that I said. YOU are the one who said that this needed to result in anarchy.

Nice attempt at spin jack, you were the one who said it would imply anarchy not me.

By saying that this is justified by the "right to choice" assumes that the unborn is not a person and has no rights. Because Scott Peterson was convicted of a DOUBLE homocide when he was convicted of killing his pregnant wife, US Law recognizes that this other homocide conviction resulted from the murder of the unborn.

As I just said a moment ago (and which you conveniently ignored), U.S. law lets you kill and eat some animals but won't let you be cruel to others. Beyond that animals have absolutely no rights. Hell we inject them with diseases an untested concoctions in the name of medical research.

Now cut the desperate deflections and attempts to change subjects you said

"Arguing Freedom implies that all individuals should have freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others."

Now back up the ridiculous statement that treating fetuses different than born people will somehow result in "freedom to do anything regardless of the consequence to others."

In the context of this argument, arguing that freedom of choice allows the pregnant woman to abort the fetus steps over the entire question of whether or not the fetus is a human being. In by-passing this point, any morality is removed from the argument and it becomes only a question of freedom of the individual. Are you still with me?

By removing the question of morality and all of the ethical and responsibility questions along with it, the ONLY issue is freedom. The "Woman's right to choose".

If freedom is the only issue and if this issue trumps the consideration of any other issue in our legal system, then, you are right, it will lead to anarchy if extended to all other parts of our law, but that was not my point.

My point is that most of our laws limit individual freedom to avoid the infringement on the freedoms of others. The example I used was that while I can drive my car, I must stop for Red Lights. In this way, my right to drive does not infringe upon your right to live. If I ignor enough of the limitations, my right to drive is removed.

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide by killing his pregnant wife. If the fetus is a person, he murdered it. If the fetus is not a person, he only killed it.

In the Peterson Case, the morality of the issue is accounted for. In abortion, it is not. Abortion is legal because it is too inconvenient for the woman or for the society to care for an unwanted infant and raise that infant to adulthood.

Freedom is the placard in this part of the debate, but convenience is the issue. I am only saying that we should call a spade a spade and not try to misdirect the real ideas in favor of a dressed up PC version of the truth.

There are lots of contradictions in U.S. law but hey there are lots more abortions than there are cases like Peterson so why then do you use Peterson to determine that killing a fetus is murder instead of abortion to determine it isn't? Quite simply because you want to.

Also it wasn't legalized because of convenience, it was legalized due to privacy, amongst other things (seriously read the majority opinions in Roe v. Wade and tell me where it talks about convenience).

Traffic laws are made for the safety of individual drivers, they do not limit individual freedom though because the roads you drive on are not owned by you and thus you have no right to drive on them how you please (I don't know about you but here in CA you don't even need a license to drive on land that you own).

 

[Father Time]

actually, it's illegal because the abortion industry makes a lot of money and used outright lies to blind ans manipulate SCOTUS in a case that would have been overturned and rescheduled in any other court

Proof?

 

[9 Volt]

Actually, from both parties perspectives there is no REAL debate. This topic is one hell of a vote-generator, but the current condition of the abortion industry and all of it's effects is exactly the way both parties want it. The Repubs and Dems (and I'm not talking about you, the insignificant voter) both need the fetal termination status quo to survive.

 

[DamnYankee]

In abortion, the right to choose of the woman infringes on the right to live of the fetus IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON. In the Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide by killing his pregnant wife. If the fetus is a person, he murdered it. If the fetus is not a person, he only killed it.

I'd be most interested in your interpretation of the distinction, since the 6th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."

My interpretation makes abslutely no difference in a legal sense. I was simply pointing to the dichotomy in our laws. This is the result of the pragamatism that has given such gems as Dred Scott, Plessy and Roe.

However, the difference to me is that killing is something that ends a life. Murder is something that ends a human life. If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him. Is that an accurate understanding? I'm no lawyer, it's just what I think.

Under our law, if we stop the developement of a fetus and the Mother to be disagrees with that goal, we have murdered her baby to be.

If she does agree with it, we have ended the developement. Is that killing it? A whole new can of worms.

One might just as easily argue that you murdered your lawn. Every living thing that performs the 8 vital functions can be called an organism, grass is an organism, therefore grass is subject to the interpretation that killing is murder.

I'm not here, right now, to get into the can of worms. Been there, done that. It's amusing to me, though, how this particular argument/justification is used when attempting to make the point in the abortion debate. When there's a tendency to blur the lines in the interpretation of "kill", how on earth is the rest of the argument to be taken seriously?

 

[JBeukema]

However, the difference to me is that killing is something that ends a life. Murder is something that ends a human life.[/quote

homicide is the ending of another human life

If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him

Wrong. You committed homicide. It might or might not be murder

Is that an accurate understanding? I'm no lawyer, it's just what I think.

no, it is not. look up the definitions for homicide, murder, and manslaughter

used outright lies to blind ans manipulate SCOTUS in a case that would have been overturned and rescheduled in any other court

Proof?

Do any search for
'Roe Lied'
'Norma McCorvey lied'
'Norma McCorvey pro-life'
'Jane roe Pro-life'
'Jane Roe not raped'
'Norma McCorvey recant'

or anything along those lines. it's common lnowledge

 

[Father Time]

You said it was the abortion industry that lied, not the individual women.

 

[DamnYankee]

If I cause my lawn to die, I killed it. If I cause my neighbor to die, I murdered him

Wrong. You committed homicide. It might or might not be murder

Good point!

 

[JBeukema]

You said it was the abortion industry that lied, not the individual women.

At the behest of PP and others. Read her many statements on the matter