Anti abortion people-Should this woman have been allowed to have an abortion

[Greenway4Prez]

Not an attempt at a gotcha...an actual incident in a country that refuses abortions except when the mother's life is in danger. In that country, 684 girls between the ages of 10 and 14 are known to have given birth last year. So what's your rule here?

I'm not even sure how or why I got involved in this thread, as I'm not even an ardent pro-lifer. Judging by the lack of responses from certain posters who I think the OP was trying to elicit responses from, it appears I'm the idiot here.

I'm guessing not all of those 684 pregnancies were under the same circumstances, so I'm in no position to give a "rule". Is this a country where incest is rampant? Sex Ed is non-existent/primitive? A tribal culture that mutilates the genitals of young women?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm not even sure how or why I got involved in this thread, as I'm not even an ardent pro-lifer. Judging by the lack of responses from certain posters who I think the OP was trying to elicit responses from, it appears I'm the idiot here.

I'm guessing not all of those 684 pregnancies were under the same circumstances, so I'm in no position to give a "rule". Is this a country where incest is rampant? Sex Ed is non-existent/primitive? A tribal culture that mutilates the genitals of young women?

Why does any of that matter? If abortions are only allowed to protect the health of the mother, how do you handle ONE such circumstance here? Make an exception? Why?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

No. The point of the thread was to see how many posters were man enough to admit they would NOT make an exception in this case. Apparently, HROT is 100% pro choice on abortion as we have had no one say it for the record. I do commend you for at least discussing the issue and not hiding in the shadows.

Maybe you should use an instance to where there is an actual choice next time? Just a bit of advice.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

Why does any of that matter? If abortions are only allowed to protect the health of the mother, how do you handle ONE such circumstance here? Make an exception? Why?

I honestly don't care enough to go down this road. I really don't.

The only reason I posted in this thread in the first place was because I wasn't quite sure what the OP was getting to, and I felt like he was trying to bait posters. Looks like I was pretty much the only one baited.

Devil, I apologize if I took this thing off the rails.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How about a situation where a stepfather rapes his 10 year old stepdaughter? Neither the health of the mother or child are in jeopardy. Do you force a 10/11 year old through a pregnancy and birth?

Yes presuming that her life isn't in danger from it. (Big assumption if she's 10) Of course a quick adoption is in order. This is something that should get more federal funding but while Republicans talk a good game about it I don't see them doing anything about it.

I know it's a "radical" idea out there but killing the child doesn't do a dang thing to help her recover from her trauma.

Abortion isn't going to fix anything, it's a false panacea.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I agree.

But on the topic of abortion and 'life/health of the mother', where do you draw the line for risk? Does the government get to decide how much risk you and your wife must accept to get a 'legal' abortion?

Does it need to be 50/50? 60% chance of survival? 70? 90?

Different people will have different answers, and some religious folks will be ok with higher risks and 'putting it in God's hands'; others will say 'No, I don't even want a one-in-10 or one-in-20 chance my wife dies'. For others, it may be 1:100 or an even lower level of risk they are willing to accept.

So, if one of the 'outs' for getting a legal abortion is 'risk to the mother's health', what do we decide for other people as an acceptable risk level?

Easy: You don't, you have a Constitutional right to privacy.

You know, one of the main reasons that the Court didn't want to get involved with medical determinations...

 

[hawkifann]

I'm not anti-abortion in general, but this example puzzles me. It's an ectopic pregnancy, right? So a birth isn't possible, and the mother's life is threatened, right?

Correct. There were 2 options here: Treat the ectopic pregnancy and end the life of the fetus in the fallopian tube......or not treat and when the tube ruptures, fetus and mom both die. Those are literally the only two options. Using this as any argument for against abortion is moronic.

Reminds me of a co-worker back when I was in OKC who went on a massive rant about the D&C procedure (most common technique for first trimester abortions) and how doctors shouldn't even learn it because it's evil and should never be done. Well, clearly, she didn't realize that D&C is also how docs deal with cases where there's a miscarriage when the fetus has grown enough that medical intervention is necessary.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So it isn't, in fact, Murder? There are, in fact, degrees and limitations to this whole discussion?

Phew, finally.

 

[hawkifann]

Because there are a whole lot of people from the right side of the spectrum that are trying to ban abortions all together. They have been trying and are having success at this very moment.

I don't believe this would even be considered an "abortion". It's a completely different thing. For it to be considered an "abortion", there would have to be a chance of the baby surviving and then the decision made to end the pregnancy. There's no choice here -- there's no scenario where you end up with a living baby.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I don't believe this would even be considered an "abortion". It's a completely different thing. For it to be considered an "abortion", there would have to be a chance of the baby surviving and then the decision made to end the pregnancy. There's no choice here -- there's no scenario where you end up with a living baby.

Well that is an interesting definition of abortion.

Sounds a lot more like an exception wholly within abortion. That isn't a bad thing, but stop pretending it isn't abortion.

 

[hawkifann]

Well that is an interesting definition of abortion.

Sounds a lot more like an exception wholly within abortion. That isn't a bad thing, but stop pretending it isn't abortion.

I'm not sure it is. I think it's a category of emergent medical treatments where terminated pregnancy is the end result (or one of the end results). While there are a number of babies born each year to mothers who are effectively brain-dead for one reason or another, pretty much anything that puts the life of the mother in jeopardy (ectopic pregnancy, trauma from a car accident, metastasized cancer, etc.) is going to be a grave risk for the pregnancy. I don't see treatment of those conditions as abortions....they're not meaningfully in the same category.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Well that is an interesting definition of abortion.

Sounds a lot more like an exception wholly within abortion. That isn't a bad thing, but stop pretending it isn't abortion.

Considering that normal surgical doctors who save lives for a living and don't normally do "abortions" will treat an ectopic pregnancy I think there is a very good reason ti differentiate the two.

You don't go to an abortion clinic for an Ectopic Pregnancy. You see a surgeon for that. And you don't see a surgeon if you want to end your pregnancy because you don't feel like having a baby at this time, you go to an abortion clinic.

Considering they are handled by two completely different doctors in two completely different settings there is good reason to consider them different.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yes presuming that her life isn't in danger from it. (Big assumption if she's 10) Of course a quick adoption is in order. This is something that should get more federal funding but while Republicans talk a good game about it I don't see them doing anything about it.

I know it's a "radical" idea out there but killing the child doesn't do a dang thing to help her recover from her trauma.

Abortion isn't going to fix anything, it's a false panacea.

So you seriously advocate forcing a raped ten year girl carrying a pregnancy to term? That's demented. Seriously.

 

[86Hawkeye]

No. The point of the thread was to see how many posters were man enough to admit they would NOT make an exception in this case. Apparently, HROT is 100% pro choice on abortion as we have had no one say it for the record. I do commend you for at least discussing the issue and not hiding in the shadows.

In other words, it was a typically stupid Devil gotcha.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Considering that normal surgical doctors who save lives for a living and don't normally do "abortions" will treat an ectopic pregnancy I think there is a very good reason ti differentiate the two.

That is a terrible way to "differentiate" the two. You are saying, "Well these guys are good, and they do it, therefore......................." instead of looking at something medically, scientifically, and definitionally. You know, something doctor's do.

I'm just glad some of you are making baby steps. It isn't simply "MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!", but that there is degrees of this, and we need to figure out the line. Again, great, progress!

I'm sure I've asked for your line before Hoosier, but I forget. Maybe I need a SP-like database so I stop asking these questions.

Conception? Heart beat? Normal "brain" function? Wiggling toes?

 

[theIowaHawk]

So you seriously advocate forcing a raped ten year girl carrying a pregnancy to term? That's demented. Seriously.

No, it follows the logic of his stance.

It would be demented for *GASP*MURDER*GASP* to be ok simply because of the age of the mother. Especially when you find solace in such an old text, where females probably were having children at that age.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm not sure it is. I think it's a category of emergent medical treatments where terminated pregnancy is the end result (or one of the end results). While there are a number of babies born each year to mothers who are effectively brain-dead for one reason or another, pretty much anything that puts the life of the mother in jeopardy (ectopic pregnancy, trauma from a car accident, metastasized cancer, etc.) is going to be a grave risk for the pregnancy. I don't see treatment of those conditions as abortions....they're not meaningfully in the same category.

Ok I will play, define me abortion.

 

[coloradonoles]

I'm pretty far in the anti-abortion camp and I don't see this as an abortion at all...

Much like I don't consider a mastectomy and subsequent reconstruction, a "boob job".

 

[hawkifann]

Ok I will play, define me abortion.

For me, the definition of "abortion" would be to pursue a medical treatment that ends the pregnancy for the sake of ending the pregnancy. In this case, the woman would be seeking medical treatment to keep her fallopian tube from rupturing and ultimately killing her. That the answer is to end the pregnancy simply is what it is.

I am pro-choice, btw.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm not quite understanding your concept, but it is simple. In your example, though, the woman wants the pregnancy (well, A pregnancy, but not THIS pregnancy) therefore not abortion. She is still choosing (with medical advice) to specifically end the pregnancy.

Otherwise, I think we could similarly say that a woman (full disclosure, I am biology-ignorant) just wants to keep her bladder from being pressed on, her feet from swelling, etc., of which the "solution" is to end the pregnancy. In both situations she is specifically choosing to end the pregnancy.

But either way, I think you are recognizing and pointing out that there can be many different classifications of this. Whether it is all a subset of Abortion (as I was saying), or all classified separately (as you are).

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm pretty far in the anti-abortion camp and I don't see this as an abortion at all...

Much like I don't consider a mastectomy and subsequent reconstruction, a "boob job".

So should we simply hire you to determine all women's ability to have a private medical procedure?

I see no problems with that idea. Maybe an "Abortion Panel" to review?

 

[coloradonoles]

So should we simply hire you to determine all women's ability to have a private medical procedure?

I see no problems with that idea. Maybe an "Abortion Panel" to review?

You are trying too hard...

Plus I already have a job.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You are trying too hard...

Plus I already have a job.

Well, your post made it clear what YOU believed, and it appears to be based on the seat of your pants, so it seems best to have you in charge. I thought, maybe, we were going to figure out a way to define Abortion and what we will/won't allow.

I mean, shit, isn't that how we pass laws?

 

[coloradonoles]

Well, your post made it clear what YOU believed, and it appears to be based on the seat of your pants, so it seems best to have you in charge. I thought, maybe, we were going to figure out a way to define Abortion and what we will/won't allow.

I mean, shit, isn't that how we pass laws?

I was simply answering the OP... again you are forcing yourself into a dramatic situation so you can feign outrage.

You'll make a great wife one day...

And you clearly have no idea how the legislative process works in real life...

 

[theIowaHawk]

And you clearly have no idea how the legislative process works in real life...

This is quite ironic, but why do you say this?

 

[coloradonoles]

This is quite ironic, but why do you say this?

The way we "make laws" has been bastardized into back room deals and under the table agreements all the while 1 or 2 people on the Supreme Court try and decide what the Congress really meant irregardless of how it was actually written... and that is the cold hard truth about what this country has become.

But, by all means, continue to be upset at my opinion and my personal reasoning behind a silly and trolling question.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm not upset by your opinion. You just provided nothing substantive.

Even with your strange chatter about backroom deals, in order for laws to pass they must be written, and written specifically enough to provide notice to people on how to not violate the law. Your response was, basically, "I think this way...." so I proposed simply putting you and your opinions in charge.

Sounds like you would, in fact, prefer figuring out what is/isn't abortion and what should/shouldn't be allowed first. That is good.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

In other words, it was a typically stupid Devil gotcha.

I outlined in a prior post the reason I started this thread. If you read a "gotcha" into this, that's on you.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That is a terrible way to "differentiate" the two. You are saying, "Well these guys are good, and they do it, therefore......................." instead of looking at something medically, scientifically, and definitionally. You know, something doctor's do.

I'm just glad some of you are making baby steps. It isn't simply "MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!", but that there is degrees of this, and we need to figure out the line. Again, great, progress!

I'm sure I've asked for your line before Hoosier, but I forget. Maybe I need a SP-like database so I stop asking these questions.

Conception? Heart beat? Normal "brain" function? Wiggling toes?

In this situation it's closer to taking a person who is unable to recover off life support. That's not murder either, even though it's ending a life. The fetus would not be able to survive so it's quite simply not murder because of that.

But you are trying to compare a fetus that will never be able to survive and will take his/her mother as well to one that is fully healthy and won't hurt or kill his/her mother. That's quite frankly a dumb as rocks comparison.

It's like comparing taking someone off life support to shooting them in the back of the head while they out on a walk. It's not even close to the same thing no matter if you want to call it that or not.

And considering the medical community tends to specialize quite a bit I would say that it makes a difference as to who's doing it because it's a difference in how the medical community views the procedure.

 

[theIowaHawk]

In this situation it's closer to taking a person who is unable to recover off life support. That's not murder either, even though it's ending a life. The fetus would not be able to survive so it's quite simply not murder because of that.

But you are trying to compare a fetus that will never be able to survive and will take his/her mother as well to one that is fully healthy and won't hurt or kill his/her mother. That's quite frankly a dumb as rocks comparison.

It's like comparing taking someone off life support to shooting them in the back of the head while they out on a walk. It's not even close to the same thing no matter if you want to call it that or not.

And considering the medical community tends to specialize quite a bit I would say that it makes a difference as to who's doing it because it's a difference in how the medical community views the procedure.

I'm not sure that is much of a difference, situationally.

Murder is the illegal killing of another. So taking off life support being murder is simply based off being legal/illegal. If you follow that same logic, then you are admitting abortion isn't murder, because it is legal. That is fine and dandy, and I agree there is and should be a distinction, what we call that distinction doesn't really matter. But, using your life support matter, the argument is that you aren't killing that person, you are just removing the thing forcing it to survive. That same can be said about most abortions, remove the feeding tube (mother), and it won't survive.

I am not comparing a not-likely-to-survive fetus to one that is likely, I am saying that, definitionally they are purposefully ending the life of both. They are both abortion. What we need to figure out is what we will, and won't, allow under that category.

Clearly, all of HROT would allow this type of abortion (even if they refuse to call it such). Great, I applaud that.

It only matters who is doing it if you disagree with what they are doing. What I was trying to point out above is that saying it is OK just because a specific type of doctor does it is illogical, because that specific type of doctor could choose to do all abortions..........at which time you would stop calling them that specific type of doctor. Which renders his label meaningless, it is the acts that you care about, not the label.

For example: Saying you would approve all acts of an OBGYN ignores the fact that the OBGYN could perform an abortion.......and you wouldn't be ok with it. Again, your issue is with the act, not the doctor's title.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm not sure that is much of a difference, situationally.

Murder is the illegal killing of another. So taking off life support being murder is simply based off being legal/illegal. If you follow that same logic, then you are admitting abortion isn't murder, because it is legal. That is fine and dandy, and I agree there is and should be a distinction, what we call that distinction doesn't really matter. But, using your life support matter, the argument is that you aren't killing that person, you are just removing the thing forcing it to survive. That same can be said about most abortions, remove the feeding tube (mother), and it won't survive.

I am not comparing a not-likely-to-survive fetus to one that is likely, I am saying that, definitionally they are purposefully ending the life of both. They are both abortion. What we need to figure out is what we will, and won't, allow under that category.

Clearly, all of HROT would allow this type of abortion (even if they refuse to call it such). Great, I applaud that.

It only matters who is doing it if you disagree with what they are doing. What I was trying to point out above is that saying it is OK just because a specific type of doctor does it is illogical, because that specific type of doctor could choose to do all abortions..........at which time you would stop calling them that specific type of doctor. Which renders his label meaningless, it is the acts that you care about, not the label.

For example: Saying you would approve all acts of an OBGYN ignores the fact that the OBGYN could perform an abortion.......and you wouldn't be ok with it. Again, your issue is with the act, not the doctor's title.

There is a moral definition of murder and a legal definition of murder. It's silly to operate by the legal definition in this circumstance. It would be like looking at Stalin (Since Hitler is overused) and saying that he didn't murder anyone because it was completely legal for him to kill all those people. True he legally didn't murder anyone, but morally he murdered millions.

If you want to define abortion as just purposefully interfering to end a pregnancy that's fine. And if that's your definition then abortion isn't *always* murder. . . but most of them still are. Most abortions have nothing to do with saving people's lives and are performed on perfectly healthy babies that if given the chance to develop will be born alive and not experience imminent death.

Bringing up the few cases like this does nothing about the issue because they are not the issue. The issue is the millions of babies killed every year because they don't fit someone's plans.

 

[theIowaHawk]

There is a moral definition of murder and a legal definition of murder. It's silly to operate by the legal definition in this circumstance. It would be like looking at Stalin (Since Hitler is overused) and saying that he didn't murder anyone because it was completely legal for him to kill all those people. True he legally didn't murder anyone, but morally he murdered millions.

If you want to define abortion as just purposefully interfering to end a pregnancy that's fine. And if that's your definition then abortion isn't *always* murder. . . but most of them still are. Most abortions have nothing to do with saving people's lives and are performed on perfectly healthy babies that if given the chance to develop will be born alive and not experience imminent death.

Bringing up the few cases like this does nothing about the issue because they are not the issue. The issue is the millions of babies killed every year because they don't fit someone's plans.

What is your "moral" definition of murder? Murder is a legal term and has been for a very, very long time.

I see murder, as non-sanctioned killing. We kill cows and eat them, it isn't murder. Some people have killed goats as a sacrifice to their Christian god. It isn't murder, it is still, obviously, killing. If murder is only with, say, a depraved heart, then there are a lot of things that aren't murder that we still don't "sanction".

You reach my point: "And if that's your definition then abortion isn't *always* murder..."

Exactly. I don't care whether you want to call something Abortion and not abortion (as hawkifan did), or whether you want to call it all Abortion (as I have) and then decide within that context what is/isn't allowed.

The question in either strategy is where the line will be drawn.

You say that "most abortions" are done on "perfectly healthy babies that if given the chance to develop will be born alive", and ignore that you, earlier, compared this to removing someone from life support. There are many posters on this board who push for that exact correlation, just take the baby "off life support" and if it survives, great. That was your comparison, I was pointing out that you don't actually agree with it.

I completely agree with this line of yours: "Bringing up the few cases like this does nothing about the issue because they are not the issue." It does nothing for the issue because most people agree with this. It is important only for weeding out those with the unrealistic, unreasonable view that even this abortion is wrong, and there are definitely people who believe it.

I do think it shows that even you, Hoosier, agree that there are degrees to all of this. This is important only for future discussions. If you believe even this abortion is bad, there really is no point in discussing the issue with you.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

What is your "moral" definition of murder? Murder is a legal term and has been for a very, very long time.

I see murder, as non-sanctioned killing. We kill cows and eat them, it isn't murder. Some people have killed goats as a sacrifice to their Christian god. It isn't murder, it is still, obviously, killing. If murder is only with, say, a depraved heart, then there are a lot of things that aren't murder that we still don't "sanction".

You reach my point: "And if that's your definition then abortion isn't *always* murder..."

Exactly. I don't care whether you want to call something Abortion and not abortion (as hawkifan did), or whether you want to call it all Abortion (as I have) and then decide within that context what is/isn't allowed.

The question in either strategy is where the line will be drawn.

You say that "most abortions" are done on "perfectly healthy babies that if given the chance to develop will be born alive", and ignore that you, earlier, compared this to removing someone from life support. There are many posters on this board who push for that exact correlation, just take the baby "off life support" and if it survives, great. That was your comparison, I was pointing out that you don't actually agree with it.

I completely agree with this line of yours: "Bringing up the few cases like this does nothing about the issue because they are not the issue." It does nothing for the issue because most people agree with this. It is important only for weeding out those with the unrealistic, unreasonable view that even this abortion is wrong, and there are definitely people who believe it.

I do think it shows that even you, Hoosier, agree that there are degrees to all of this. This is important only for future discussions. If you believe even this abortion is bad, there really is no point in discussing the issue with you.

If the killing must only be sanctioned to not be murder then every genocidal dictator in history never murdered a single person because all their killings where sanctioned by the highest law in the land. . . which is them.

I would say it's the purposeful killing of another person who's not facing nearly guaranteed imminent death when not used in the legitimate defense of oneself or another person.

Your view on the life support thing is slightly off though. See we don't pull people from life support if the doctors believe they can survive. We certainly don't do it if they are expected to recover.

Say someone you are related to, be it your wife, or mom or kids gets in an accident and is in the hospital and the doctors tell you that they are on life support right now and seem to be improving to where in a couple days they expect to be able to remove them and everything will be fine. What do you think would happen if you said "I don't care, remove them from life support, I don't want to spend the money." Do you think the doctors would pull the life support off that person?

So that analogy doesn't work with at will abortions because we don't pull someone from life support when they are expected to be fine in the future.

Also worth pointing out although it doesn't change the situation in situations like the above where neither mother or fetus can survive but abortion actually involves going in and killing the fetus through action, not just pulling them off life support (that would be like forcing the mother to give birth early) Abortion is more akin to shooting someone in the head while they are on life support, not just simply pulling them off.

Again when the fetus nor mother can survive anyways, what's necessary is necessary. No reason to throw 2 lives away when one can be saved. But the analogy doesn't work with at will abortions. A living person is being killed not because it's going to die soon anyways but because it doesn't fit in with some other person's plans. And that makes no sense. I can't kill my son because he doesn't fit with my plans anymore.

 

[theIowaHawk]

What you bring up in all of this is your requirement that the government be allowed access to private medical consultations, decisions, and procedures.

Unlike you, I don't need to look within, and compare people's situations to my daughters *GASP, OH NO!* in order to form my opinion on this. I look at it objectively.

Also, since you seem to ask: I am a supporter of the ability to do assisted suicide/euthanasia/whatever you want to call it. I would not place that requirement you discuss, where the doc can't legally pull the plug if he thinks they might survive.

I'm not sure why you think "shooting them in the head" is the winner for you. What I was pointing at is the multiple posters who have brought up your very issue of "life support", and advocated for simply removing them from life support. In your comparison that would lead the fetus to struggle until death...not be shot in the head.

And, sigh, of course you feel compelled to bring it needlessly full circle: There are other options for you with your son, such as "safe haven" (or whatever it is now called), where you aren't required to sustain his life for him. Obviously the same cannot be said about a fetus. If you would simply admit that we could proceed without needlessly discussing the same things redundantly.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If the killing must only be sanctioned to not be murder then every genocidal dictator in history never murdered a single person because all their killings where sanctioned by the highest law in the land. . . which is them.
.

Specifically to this, you demonstrate the difference between your "moral" murder and "legal" murder. You are correct, a dictator's self-sanctioning removes it from legal murder, within that jurisdiction. Obviously other jurisdictions haven't sanctioned it, such as the Hague.

But looking at your "moral" murder, the identifying part of "murder" is still the sanctioning, but not simply by governmental fiat, but by society. Which is why "murder" is such a difficult, non-objective concept. I brought up cow-killing earlier as an example of sanctioned (societally) killing....except that are portions of society that refuse to sanction it, and do, in fact, deem it murder.

So my point is: Calling something murder only seeks to inflame, not inform the situation.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

What you bring up in all of this is your requirement that the government be allowed access to private medical consultations, decisions, and procedures.

Unlike you, I don't need to look within, and compare people's situations to my daughters *GASP, OH NO!* in order to form my opinion on this. I look at it objectively.

Also, since you seem to ask: I am a supporter of the ability to do assisted suicide/euthanasia/whatever you want to call it. I would not place that requirement you discuss, where the doc can't legally pull the plug if he thinks they might survive.

I'm not sure why you think "shooting them in the head" is the winner for you. What I was pointing at is the multiple posters who have brought up your very issue of "life support", and advocated for simply removing them from life support. In your comparison that would lead the fetus to struggle until death...not be shot in the head.

And, sigh, of course you feel compelled to bring it needlessly full circle: There are other options for you with your son, such as "safe haven" (or whatever it is now called), where you aren't required to sustain his life for him. Obviously the same cannot be said about a fetus. If you would simply admit that we could proceed without needlessly discussing the same things redundantly.

You can only use Safe Havens up to a certain point. 2 is too old for that.

As far as assisted suicide are you a supporter of someone being able to make that choice when they have no terminal illnesses??

Because I wouldn't call it murder morally if someone terminal and asks for a way out. I would if someone just says they feel like dying and you supply the poison to them. That's why I see imminent death as a requirement.

Besides a fetus can not ask for death and a person is by all existing law and precedent presumed to want to live unless they leave clear instructions to the contrary.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Specifically to this, you demonstrate the difference between your "moral" murder and "legal" murder. You are correct, a dictator's self-sanctioning removes it from legal murder, within that jurisdiction. Obviously other jurisdictions haven't sanctioned it, such as the Hague.

But looking at your "moral" murder, the identifying part of "murder" is still the sanctioning, but not simply by governmental fiat, but by society. Which is why "murder" is such a difficult, non-objective concept. I brought up cow-killing earlier as an example of sanctioned (societally) killing....except that are portions of society that refuse to sanction it, and do, in fact, deem it murder.

So my point is: Calling something murder only seeks to inflame, not inform the situation.

I don't recognize international law because international law by it's very nature can not be fair. The reason is that it can't go into a country and take down a guy for genocide. That guy has to lose a war either with another country or his own people to be taken down.

Money and power can help you in any judicial system on the planet so I recognize no system is completely fair, but even all the money and power in the world can't save you from the law if you start killing a bunch of people.

So I see the genocidal dictator as a murderer on a moral level and not necessarily on a legal one. He should be punished and I don't care if the Hague does it, but I don't view them as having a real true legal standing because their law is completely unenforceable on many people. However they are a lovely place to send the world's worst dictators after they lose their power.

Calling it murder seeks to inform as to the gravity of the situation. We're talking about human life here, not just some philosophical difference. Saying I shouldn't call it murder is like telling pro-choice people they should stop referencing the "right to chose", "private medical decisions" and "women's bodies" People tend to emphasize what's at stake.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I posted a poll that might interest you.

Of course YOU see the dictator as a murderer. YOU don't sanction his actions, therefore it is murder. ANYONE can think that about any killing. Which is why using Murder, a LEGAL definition, is such a pointless, subjective exercise.

It only "informs the gravity of the situation" using YOUR subjective viewpoint. That is why calling Pro-Choice people murderers doesn't sway them, because they disagree with your subjective term. Again, pointless, subjective exercise.

It is largely (always?) used to inflame and upset.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You can only use Safe Havens up to a certain point. 2 is too old for that.

Is that right? Regardless, we don't force you to sustain the life of your children. You are, in fact, allowed to abandon them.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Is that right? Regardless, we don't force you to sustain the life of your children. You are, in fact, allowed to abandon them.

Actually I'm not because only the mother for some reason can make that call. If she wants to keep the child I'm on the hook for support regardless. But for me personally I'm happy with having kids.

Also abandoning them with someone who will care for them is not the same as killing them.

Which is why there is NO reason for elective abortions. Can't take care of the child, leave it with a safe haven/hospital.