buckeyes_rock
Great day to be a Buckeye
BuckeyeRyn;1131658; said:
Especially too, when you read stuff like this:
1 in 50 infants suffers abuse, government finds - Kids and parenting - MSNBC.com
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter t_BuckeyeScott
- Start date
Especially too, when you read stuff like this:
1 in 50 infants suffers abuse, government finds - Kids and parenting - MSNBC.com
t_BuckeyeScott
Hall of Fame
Right, but murder and abortion can be defined outside the law which is what anyone with said bumper sticker is saying. So what you're saying is that murder is only defined in the law? That the government couldn't declare murder legal (hypothetically speaking of course). Did we not have murder before there were laws against it?
Upvote
0
t_BuckeyeScott;1131890; said:
If they "declared murder legal" it wouldn't be murder anymore... see... because you can't lawfully kill something unlawfully.
I'm not saying murder can only be defined in the law. I'm saying "murder" ---and pay close attention--- when used as a noun... means "unlawful killing."
I'm not defining what the law says about murder and abortion... or defining them within or without the "law." I'm telling you what the words mean.
Someone brought up the Ten Commandments....
Is it
Thou shalt not kill?
or
Thou shalt not murder?
Upvote
0
t_BuckeyeScott
Hall of Fame
Okay, I believe we're getting somewhere. Since I do not believe our government is the only source of law for mankind, that it is in fact a secondary source, I believe that the US government can declare something lawful that is unlawful. It just means our government is wrong. So what I am saying that by a set of laws outside and above US government laws abortion is unlawful killing so it is murder and that our definition of abortion in US law is incorrect.
On the 10 commandments issue search BGrad's posts for a sufficient answer. On this issue we have the same take.
On the 10 commandments issue search BGrad's posts for a sufficient answer. On this issue we have the same take.
Upvote
0
I have this habit of going off on tangents, often in directions unhelpful to the conversation at hand. So this isn't necessarily meant to deal directly with abortion, and the right to have it or the right to not be aborted, but here it is:
I am perplexed and intrigued by the thought of a fetus, at whatever age, as human. Some questions are simple and obvious: Should we mourn all the fetuses that die before birth-- half of all of them do abort naturally; but if they are human, shouldn't we have funerals? Shouldn't fertility clinics be outlawed to the extent that they freeze zygotes, or in other words, very young humans?
Another scenario is more fun, and the reason for my post: Let's say that I have a will, and in that will I leave all of my assets to my sister and my friend Bob, to be distributed evenly. However, a clause in my will states that if Bob or my sister have any children, that child will share equally with Bob and my sister. Furthermore, should any assigns die, their share would go to their heirs/assigns.
Okay, so my sister is one month pregnant and I die. Two days later she has a miscarriage. Does she get 2/3 of my assets, as her human baby, her child, leaves its possessions to her? Why should it have to be born to claim its rights if it is human and has other rights in the womb? Can it legally have property as well?
What if the fetus lives, and the property is distributed, and Bob doesn't believe it was done fairly, with the fetus getting too much. Can Bob sue the fetus?
So, I am VERY sick today, and cloudy, and this will probably seem sooooo stupid tomorrow, but I just keep thinking of fetus/human scenarios. Most of them could probably just be covered by the fetus being considered a minor, with the parent as its representative, anyway. It just sounds funny though. . .
I am perplexed and intrigued by the thought of a fetus, at whatever age, as human. Some questions are simple and obvious: Should we mourn all the fetuses that die before birth-- half of all of them do abort naturally; but if they are human, shouldn't we have funerals? Shouldn't fertility clinics be outlawed to the extent that they freeze zygotes, or in other words, very young humans?
Another scenario is more fun, and the reason for my post: Let's say that I have a will, and in that will I leave all of my assets to my sister and my friend Bob, to be distributed evenly. However, a clause in my will states that if Bob or my sister have any children, that child will share equally with Bob and my sister. Furthermore, should any assigns die, their share would go to their heirs/assigns.
Okay, so my sister is one month pregnant and I die. Two days later she has a miscarriage. Does she get 2/3 of my assets, as her human baby, her child, leaves its possessions to her? Why should it have to be born to claim its rights if it is human and has other rights in the womb? Can it legally have property as well?
What if the fetus lives, and the property is distributed, and Bob doesn't believe it was done fairly, with the fetus getting too much. Can Bob sue the fetus?
So, I am VERY sick today, and cloudy, and this will probably seem sooooo stupid tomorrow, but I just keep thinking of fetus/human scenarios. Most of them could probably just be covered by the fetus being considered a minor, with the parent as its representative, anyway. It just sounds funny though. . .
Upvote
0
Interesting quandries, Kinch. Still, there's no reason a fetus wouldn't enjoy some rights while not enjoying others (such as property).
Upvote
0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1131994; said:
I assume you mean because the fetus is a minor? I seriously can't see denying rights to a fetus ("human") for any other reason, unless you want to create a new subclass of humans. Imagine the fetuses marching on Washington D.C.!
Upvote
0
Being a minor seems to fit well enough without a creation of subclasses. That does leave open issues of inheritance and your 2/3rds hypo remians valid.kinch;1132003; said:
If I freeze sperm, for example, can I put money in trust to it in case a child is ever born of it? (In Scott's theory, if I understand him correctly, this isn't an issue because one wouldn't be freezing sperm for later use in the first place)
Upvote
0
BuckeyeRyn
Calling all friends & people I met on the way down
I have an idea.... instead of a woman aborting a fetus during the 1st trimester let's just give her an ample dose of pitocin... inducing labor, have her deliver the fetus at say, 10 weeks of gestation and give the fetus a chance to survive... that way it wouldn't be an "abortion" but rather a premature birth.... would that be ok with you? it isn't murder by your definition but I assure you, death will be the outcome for one simple reason and one simple reason only... a fetus at 11 weeks of development can't live outside of the womb.
Upvote
0
Hmmm... interesting counter. Not to speak for Scott, but it seems to me he's backed in to a corner of answering that inducing labor is perfectly reasonable - it indeed gives the baby a "chance" to live in the world in ways similar to how "breaking" people is still leaving them a "chance" to git r done.BuckeyeRyn;1132033; said:
Anxious to see his response.
Upvote
0
t_BuckeyeScott
Hall of Fame
So under that same set of principles. My baby is born at 9 months naturally. One month later I decide my baby should be able to survive on its own. I leave my baby in the woods to fend for itself. Baby dies. Can anybody tell me what I would be charged with. Much like development, needing a proper environment doesn't rob one of one's humanity.
Edit: Another example throw an adult in the middle of the pacific ocean with no flotation, food, or water. Person dies. My excuse is well I gave him a chance didn't I. Wouldn't I still be charged with murder?
Upvote
0
endangering?t_BuckeyeScott;1132041; said:
Edit: In Ryn's example, she's saying survival is a physical impossibility. In your counter-hypo, the abandonment is the crime because it leads to the consequence... the difference being death isn't assured on account of the abandonment. Death IS assure on account of pre-mature birth at such a stage of pregnancy.
Likewise, and in accord with Kinch's post above... shouldn't we have funerals for babies which abort naturally? Etc.
Upvote
0
t_BuckeyeScott
Hall of Fame
I'm guessing you know that is not all I would be charged with?endangering?
Upvote
0
As with my edit, death is a likely but not assured consequence. Dude might as well be picked up by a passing Cruise ship a day after you leave.t_BuckeyeScott;1132041; said:
Upvote
0
t_BuckeyeScott
Hall of Fame
The difference is the Baby has no choice in matter while in an overwhelming majority of cases the parents knew the consequences of their decision. Baby is completely innocent not with the parents.
Upvote
0