Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[Jon Miller]

Please provide absolute proof that it's murder. (without using the phrase, I believe)

If the child in the womb is a person then it is murder.

The only time that killing a person is not murder is if it is done by the state in war or as punishment (and people argue about that).

The only sane and reasonable discussion is if the child in the womb is a person or not. I think it is obvious that once there is brainwaves, a heart, and all the other things that humans have (just not independent breath, and there could be indepdent breath if it was brought outside of the womb) then it is a person.

This is based off of the scientific materialistic argument, if the physicalities exist then existence.

Some fringe people like Che will say that humanity depends on social, not purely material, existence. Religious people (a good deal less fringe) say that it depends on the existence of a soul (a spiritual dependence). Neither of these are the commonly held position of scientific materialism.

The fact that we are do not follow the precepts of scientific materialism here is due to some sort of common insanity/psychopathy/irrationality.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Scientific materialism can justify non-personhood until LONG after those properties emerge.

Though, not all the way until birth.

[Kuciwalker]

dp

[Jon Miller]

If carrying the baby to term is a constant reminder of the violation that it drives her to suicide. Yes I know that women that have abbortions have a higher percentage of suicides. That's why I think it's important that woman have the choice. It's great that you wouldn't, and if your wife agreed fine. I wouldn't do it either, but I refuse to tell someone else they can't.

Again if comes down to, if you don't believe it's murder you should have the choice.
By telling them they have no choice you're saying that You're right and it's murder and their opinion is not valid. You have no proof that it's murder, so why are you FORCING that opinion on women that have already been made victims? IT's cruel. I see you as the psycho in this example. Because you are all knowing, and everyone else is wrong.

So if someone doesn't believe it is murder to take the kidney of one of their kidneys, then they have the choice to take their kids kidney? And by telling them that they have no choice, I am telling them their opinion is not valid?

We don't have proof it is murder, by every identifier of life there is no difference between a child 1 hour after it was born and 1 hour before. There is that small connection, but that could be severed and the child would still be born.

We cruely force people not to murder others all the time. Why aren't you up in arms and changing the law so as not to be cruel to those people?

I happily tell others that murder is wrong, and support it being illegal, just like every other sane person. The only sane people who are prochoice are those who don't beleive it is murder.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Scientific materialism can justify non-personhood until LONG after those properties emerge.

Though, not all the way until birth.

Give it a go.

Although I didn't necessarily list all properties that should be present (it isn't something I give a lot of thought to, as I am not the one who makes laws/choices/etc... I just vote once every two to four years).

JM

[Lorizael]

I hope you never have a wife that get's raped. You might change your tune or end up divorced. Oh right, you don't believe in divorce either. And no, I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but your attitude that you know what's best for women who have been raped is so patronizing that it make me ill.

And I love how you used the word "choice" twice in your post...., like you give them one.
You're right. If the woman believes that an early term abortion isn't murder then she should have the choice. It isn't your decision. What, are you as bad as the Muslims that treat their women like Chattel who get no decision in procreation matters. No contraceptives, no abortions, obey your husband. This is starting to sound a bit familiar.

First of all, I'm not Ben Kenobi. Second of all, if you'll notice, my post began with, "For those that believe..." because that's not my belief.

Third of all, abortions have nothing to do with women's choices. It's a pretty simple matter of whether or not you choose to place value on the organism in a woman's uterus.

If you do not place value on it, then clearly, the man and woman that created it should be free to do with it whatever they wish.

If you do place value on it, however, and it is to be accorded the same rights as a human being, then the desires of the man and woman that created it cannot be taken into consideration, because a right to life trumps pretty much all other rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, since you believe that way, every women that has been raped and thinks differently is wrong.

Yes, I believe it's wrong to kill your child. I can understand why a woman would want to, but that doesn't change the fact that I believe it's wrong.

Can't you see how patronizing that sounds. Of course you can't because you believe. That's sick.

Patronizing to say that women who choose to have their baby are generally happier and they have something positive come out of it? Hardly. There are many women who have been through this who have said this was the case.

Since there is ample testimony that supports both sides I guess you're saying there should be choice.

Yeah, that would make killing someone right, just because there is testimony from some people saying they felt nothing...

All I'm saying rah is that my observations are not just my own.

[Ben Kenobi]

Please provide absolute proof that it's murder. (without using the phrase, I believe)

Ok.

1. Living things do not come from non-living things.
2. Human beings beget human beings.
3. It is wrong to kill human beings.

If we assume 3 is there, that it is wrong to kill human beings, than it is wrong to kill unborn children too.

1. Living things come from other living things. We have living (sperm + egg), living (embryo), living (infant). It does not go: living (sperm+egg), dead (embryo), living (infant).

Therefore we know that an embryo is alive.

The next question is what is the embryo? Is it human? All species beget after their own kind. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats. Human beings have human beings. Therefore we know that the embryo is a living human being.

The next question is that of personhood. Here we make an assumption. 1, all living human beings ought to be considered persons. This is the same principle which slavery denies. If you assert that not all human beings ought to be considered persons, this opens the door to say that people of a different religion, skin colour, those with disabilities, are unqualified and unfit to be 'fully persons'.

As for abortion to be considered murder, we look at what the principles behind the term. Is it an accidental death? No. Are people paid good money to kill babies? Yes. Do they do so consistantly and frequently? Yes. Is it done in the heat of the moment? No. If unborn children are persons than abortion is murder.

[Wezil]

Hogwash. Our SC ruled over 20 years ago that the fetus was not a "person".

Cite one case since that applies to the slippery slope you predict. Just one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hogwash. Our SC ruled over 20 years ago that the fetus was not a "person".

And the Dred Scott decision said the same. Your point?

[BlackCat]

The only sane and reasonable discussion is if the child in the womb is a person or not. I think it is obvious that once there is brainwaves, a heart, and all the other things that humans have (just not independent breath, and there could be indepdent breath if it was brought outside of the womb) then it is a person.

JM

Brainwaves isn't exactly a proof of personality - that can be measured on any mammal child. Developing a personality for a human child takes at least a year or two - until that, it's pure instinct.

[Ben Kenobi]

And that is Peter Singer's argument, and the reason why I'm arguing the same.

4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

[Wezil]

And the Dred Scott decision said the same. Your point?

Answer the question.

[Ben Kenobi]

I cite these laws.

ARTICLE 1. (1) A subject of the state is one who belongs to the
protective union of the German Reich, and who, therefore, has
specific obligations to the Reich.
(2) The status of subject is to be acquired in accordance with
the provisions of the Reich and the state Citizenship Law.
ARTICLE 2. (1) A citizen of the Reich may be only one who is of
German or kindred blood, and who, through his behavior, shows
that he is both desirous and personally fit to serve loyally the
German people and the Reich.
(2) The right to citizenship is obtained by the grant of Reich
citizenship papers.
(3) Only the citizen of the Reich may enjoy full political
rights in consonance with the provisions of the laws.

I cite historical precedent.

[Wezil]

You are hopeless.

You claimed a slippery slope. Show some evidence. Or is this just a Ben Kenobi hunch about what will happen?

Contrary to your unsupported belief that the Court will start stripping "person" status from people if the fetus isn't considered a person, the Court has since ruled against assisted suicide. Shouldn't they have gone the other way?