do gooders! or good doers?

[Spirit]

I didn't ask you to define between medicinal and operational abortion, my question related to the age at which the abortion is carried out and not the method used, and as such if it is still murder if it is does on the very first day of what will become a foetus's existance? So you believe that someone taking the morning after pill, one day after they had sex, to remove the joined sperm and egg from their body is murder? So is it murder using a condom and killing sperm before they meet the egg too? Or every time you flick one off the wrist are you committing genocide? Cos those sperm can think for themselves to a certain extent, so I guess using your argument their brain is already partially formed and therefore it truly is genocide!! Or is there a magical moment when the sperm swims inside the egg when those cells are suddenly a person and too remove them is murder? Sorry I find that pov ridiculous, just because the sperm and egg have joined together they are suddenly a living entity? They become a living entity when the very first part of their body starts to function independently of the mothers commands, ie electrical transmissions in the central nervous system.

On the point of animals, I do believe killing an animal is murder because they are a true living entity in every way and therefore to end that life is murder, however killing animals lower in the food chain for the sake of food is part of nature and not something to be looked down on imo. I do eat meat and thoroughly enjoy it, but then I also have pets and am very caring towards animals. I do, however, try hard to only eat meat / products of animals that have been treated reasonably before being killed, ie free range eggs, don't eat veal etc. Killing other animals for food is natural, but locking em up in a tiny cage and feeding them crap for their life previous to doing so is not.

 

[Hector]

there's no possible way at all to hold that statement whatsoever...don't try and defend the christian belief because you can't

I'm not, I was countering a pointless remark about god's involvement with the pointless story behind it, thus hopefully negating it/nipping it in the bud. I'm certainly not defending it.

I've made it clear that I'm pro choice to the nth degree. I share your views on an overcrowded world and the pointlessness of introducing an unwanted child into it- in fact I said it earlier J00 flaknoob ! ("If I was being harsh I would say it's a shitty overpopulated world that still discriminates against the disabled, so do what you gotta do. If anyone gets to choose though it should be the parents").

I also agree with dog in that the rules dictating what constitute life aren't set in stone/might be erroneous.

In conclusion, I think it's the mother's choice of action that is important here, and the fact that we're murdering an unborn child may be the kindest cut; but don't dress it up as anything less than that with euphemisms and sophistry disguising the reality of what we are doing along the lines of "It's ok, it's still a sausage". Let's take responsibility for our actions because through accepting them we acknowledge that responsibility and maybe we'll learn to exercise some restraint in populating this chunk of rock.

 

[Hector]

@ Hector, my arguement doesnt depend on whether an entity can survive by itself or not, but whether it has any form of conciousness at all. Of course a quadriplegic has human rights too, but he also has infinitely more capabilities than a foetus that has neither a functioning brain or body, but is merely a mass of cells fed by it's hosts body...

I understand that that's the crux of your argument. I simply don't accept it myself. It's definitely an "agree-to-differ" thing.

I notice no-one has answered my question about the morning after pill yet, I'm still interested to hear your views on that. Is it murder too, killing a foetus that is just one day old and essentially just a sperm and egg joined together?

Yes, it's murder imo, but with mitigating circumstances. In my view you can call it what you want: murder, termination, egg salad, it doesn't matter. It's the ending of a life, and sometimes that the best thing to do, as per my slightly earlier post. End it, kill it, mark it with B, do whatever. Just know what you're doing and why you're doing it.

 

[dog]

laugh as much as you see fit spirit, it doesn't change the fact that in my eyes you are simply trying to paints things nicer so as not to confront urself with the reality, terminating life is murder, period. Or are you now saying its not alive? You are imo desperately looking for some cut off point which nicely borders off the distinction between right and wrong, I say there is no such border. The more you look at these things, the more you realize this, try talking to any proffesional about the subject, and you will find in most cases their view on the thing is a lot less categorical than yours and the avg. layman(sp?), wonder why?

And don't bring sperms into the picture, because thats just your vague attempt to turn the debate into something entirely else, I already stated I see nothing morally wrong in murder, it can sometimes be justified... in my eyes there is nothing absolutely morally wrong about murder, it all depends on the circumstances...

 

[Penny]

Just know what you're doing and why you're doing it.

This sums up what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

 

[Cutter]

laugh as much as you see fit spirit, it doesn't change the fact that in my eyes you are simply trying to paints things nicer so as not to confront urself with the reality, terminating life is murder, period. Or are you now saying its not alive? You are imo desperately looking for some cut off point which nicely borders off the distinction between right and wrong, I say there is no such border. The more you look at these things, the more you realize this, try talking to any proffesional about the subject, and you will find in most cases their view on the thing is a lot less categorical than yours and the avg. layman(sp?), wonder why?

And don't bring sperms into the picture, because thats just your vague attempt to turn the debate into something entirely else, I already stated I see nothing morally wrong in murder, it can sometimes be justified... in my eyes there is nothing absolutely morally wrong about murder, it all depends on the circumstances...

Starting with your second paragraph first, what you have said doesn't make any sense, and basically shows that you are amoral. Murder is never justified. Murder is the unjustified killing of someone/thing else. I think you are confusing "killing" with "murder". There can be justifications for killing, such as self defence, the need to eat, etc. Killing in those circumstances is not murder, and reading any legal textbook, or applying basic common sense would show you that.

From your first paragraph, I am getting some idea of why you are the way you are dog. I mean, your soul must be burdened with guilt at the sheer weight of living things you kill just going about your daily life. Plants die to keep you fed, small insects and bacteria die under your feet as you move about etc.

I think people here need to define clearly what they are actually talking about when they speak of abortion, because as I see it, you've all divided into two seperate camps:

Camp A: Are talking about whether or not a human being is being killed during the abortion process. The law in most countries is quite clear as to when a bundle of cells becomes a human being, with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto.

Camp B: Are getting confused between life in general and human beings in particular.

I think we can all accept that sperm, eggs, and the foetus at whatever stage in its development are "alive". But to define any of those as a human being is arbitrary and simply wrong. They can/may become a human being, but spirit is quite right to point out that until development reaches a certain stage, you may be terminating "life", but it is by no stretch of the imagination a "human being".

Flour, margarine and sugar can become a cake, but to call flour a cake is just ridiculous. In certain circumstances, when mixed with other things, in a certain environment it becomes a cake. Not before.

The law defines "human being" and the legal context within which certain things can be done, because the alternative is a society within which people like some of those posting in this forum have far too much control over the lives of others, and, given their stated views on many matters, would lead to a world of quite orwellian levels of repression.

What certain people here are quite obviously forgetting is that like everything else in life, abortion becomes a very personal matter which an individual proceeds with or not for reasons of their own. With choice comes (or should come) responsibility. With a few exceptions, I would imagine most women who go through with an abortion realise the full enormity of what they are about to do. Frankly, there is no way that any religio-political power structure concerned only with its own perpetuation should be allowed to dictate to someone whether or not they should have an abortion, especially not when most of those power structures have a very black/white view on the matter which can be wholly inappropriate in individual circumstances.

There can be sound medical or legal cases for abortion, and to deny any woman the right to an abortion, and thereby deny her control over her own body is to deny someone a basic human right.

 

[dog]

Yeh go on then thur, deduce my amorality from a few paragraphs, and while you're at it please define a universally accepted interpretation of what constitutes justified / unjustified killing? Please?

 

[Cutter]

Yeh go on then thur, deduce my amorality from a few paragraphs, and while you're at it please define a universally accepted interpretation of what constitutes justified / unjustified killing? Please?

Naw, I've based that on my observation of you over the last 2 years.

As to a universally accepted definition of justified killing, well, killing in self defence is the one which is good enough for most people.

 

[Apoc]

Killing in self defence is not justified. atleast not by danish law.

As for the topic I think that the perants and mainly the mother should deside if they want an abortion, with guideance of doctors and perhaps others who have been trough the process.

 

[Cutter]

Killing in self defence is not justified. atleast not by danish law.

In UK law it is, but it needs to be proportional:

eg: You can't kill someone in "self defence" by stabbing them with a knife if they just attacked you with their fists.

Issues of law aside, no-where I know of will imprison someone who kills someone else if the alternative was to be killed themself.

 

[dog]

Thats nice love, please do tell me, what else have you deduced after your 2 years of scrutinizing my person then?

 

[Apoc]

In UK law it is, but it needs to be proportional:

eg: You can't kill someone in "self defence" by stabbing them with a knife if they just attacked you with their fists.

Issues of law aside, no-where I know of will imprison someone who kills someone else if the alternative was to be killed themself.

Well in denmark you may only use as much force as it takes to keep yourself from harm, so you may not hurt someone attacking you. So basicaly the only thing you can do is run away

And if what you say is true its ok to stab someone pulling a knife and threathen you ? or force the knife away from her and stab him ?

 

[Spirit]

Well take this situation for an example:

You have a licensed gun in your house. Someone breaks in in the night, also armed. You confront them, they fire a shot and miss you. You run off with them shooting after you, and they chase you back to the room in which you have the gun. As you pull the gun out and warn them to stop or you'll shoot - they shoot at you again and miss.

Surely then you have the right to shoot back at them without breaking the law? I know sure as fuck that I would I can't see that a court in any reasonably governed country would put you in prison for doing so....

 

[Mughi]

Nope ... Tony Martin and other such cases show that if you injure someone breaking into your home you can and will be charged with assault or GBH or whatever. I *think* but am not sure that the idea is ... you can use reasonable force to defend yourself but IF you have a baseball bat near the door or under the bed to defend yourself with you will be charged as you are demonstrating intent to injure.

 

[Spirit]

Big difference though was that Tony Martin wasn't being personally threatened in any way, so it wasn't classed as self defence. If those kids he killed had been shooting at him or charging at him with a large knife then it would of been a whole different story.

I'm not talking about protecting your home, but about defending yourself from a personal physical attack

 

[Cutter]

Big difference though was that Tony Martin wasn't being personally threatened in any way, so it wasn't classed as self defence. If those kids he killed had been shooting at him or charging at him with a large knife then it would of been a whole different story.

I'm not talking about protecting your home, but about defending yourself from a personal physical attack

Yep, Tony Martin's problem was that he shot someone in the back as they were leaving from what I read in the news reports...

 

[Mughi]

Yeah, wrote that from memory, having had a quick search, yeah, he shot them in the back as they were trying to escape out of the window. Dont know if I would react any different I have to say (he had been practically terrorised for some time and subject to a few burglarys before hand).

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/lawnav.htm

A British guide to Self Defense Law. (Guessing its English Law, dont know if there is any difference in Scots Law)

 

[Rich]

okidoki

if we want to get onto Tony Martin and the rights and wrongs of that case ...
Start another thread please "what constitutes selfdefence, murder and killing" or somthing like that

Thur and Dog put your clothes back on and stop touching willies in here .. lets not make it a personal Thur and Dog show

and lets stay on topic

cheers

 

[Twonko]

a ceft palet is a pointer to other far more serious abnormalities and due to the severity of this one it was thought best to terminate ..

Three problems with this.

1. It isn't a pointer. It just can be. Same as the initial Downs test doesn't say how serious the Downs will be.
2. The vicar had a cleft palate herself which was corrected when she was 17 (I think). Don't see a problem with her now. Perhaps her life should have been ended without asking her opinion before she was born.
3. You have criticised the vicar for her involvement about a case about which she allegedly knows nothing and you seem to know the severity of this particular one? I don't think so.

And while I'm here. What say did the unborn child have in this? I'm not especially anti-abortion, but what I do know is that if I was knowingly going to father a child with physical or mental abnormalities, they would have to be well fucking serious before I agreed with a termination.

The vicar is contesting the fact that the baby was aborted later than 24 weeks into the pregnancy and not just the fact of the abortion. People should be accountable for their actions. I agree with that.

I despair with the world. So much hate. So little wisdom.

Good topic though. If the gobby shites can be kept away.

 

[Twonko]

What I think is beyond her right is to launch a civil legal case against a woman who has obviously just been through an incredibly traumatic experience and thus will only cause her a great deal more trauma, when she not only felt this was the best thing for her child-to-be, but also had the backing of the medical proffesion and the police.

How the fuck do you know this? Maybe she is some council estate slapper who couldn't be arsed to have another child before she was fifteen. No one knows. Because no one's been told. Maybe the medical profession closed ranks about the guilty. Happened at Alder Hay. Happened at first with Harold Shipman. etc etc.

The vicars argument is not only with the termination. It is with the lack of accountability for a termination which was carried out late on a potentially non- life threatening condition.

All power to her. Let a jury decide.