| SitePoint Sponsor |
Unlawful killing = murder.Originally posted by Elledan
Is a knife slicing through someone's throat murder? No.
Is a person slicing a knife through someone's throat against their will murder? Yes.
Is a person breaking someones skull and sucking them up in a glorified vacuum cleaner against their will murder? - you decide.
Bingo. Sorry, Elledan, but I really don't see what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that there are exceptions to things? That sometimes, slitting someones throat (self-defense, for example) is perfectly justified? Is this an argument for legalized abortion, or against it?
The point I was trying to make is that everything we create, everything which we can in some way use to modify (change) something else, every technology we develop is just a tool.
A knife does not equal murder. A knife which slices through someone's throat still isn't the same as murder. The person who uses the knife, this person's thoughts equal murder. The tool is just what it seems like: a tool.
Abortion is a tool. Depending on the motives of the people who use it, it can be a good or 'bad' (relatively speaking) thing. Does this change anything about the tool itself? No, it still is just something which can be used for many purposes.
Take a hammer. You can use it to create a hut with it. You can use it to smash someone's skull with it as well. What do we call a hammer? Indeed, a tool.
Even though a hammer is an extremely lethal and dangerous weapon, there are very few murders commited with them. Why?
Tools can not commit a murder (guns don't kill people, people kill people). Before a tool can be used for a murder, there are three necessary things:
- a tool
- a person
- the desire or urge to kill
normally the third one misses. In that case the tool is used for good purposes (or 'good' as seen by that person). When adding the third option, the tool will be used for something else, namely committing a murder.
Notice the words 'will be used' in the previous sentence.
The only way a murder can be committed is by this third thing, the urge or desire to kill.
Even when the only tools we have are our bare hands, this urge or desire to kill still leads to a murder. Are our hands murder?
With the invention of new technologies (tools), we have the possibility to create greater, bigger and stronger things with them and to do things we previously weren't able to.
However, this desire, this urge to kill is still there. When a person becomes obsessed with it, a tool will be used which seems to be the most effective at that moment.
Now take this reasoning a bit further, to abortion:
When a pregnancy is aborted, does any of those persons involved in it (the doctor, the nurses, the mother) feel this urge to kill, the desire to kill?
They don't, which is exactly why abortion is not murder.
Remember that tools are not important, people and their motives are important.
www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.
Well technically they do, well the Mother does - I can't speak for the doctors but I am guessing they get paid well for doing it, so I guess that makes them contract killlers!?Originally posted by Elledan
When a pregnancy is aborted, does any of those persons involved in it (the doctor, the nurses, the mother) feel this urge to kill, the desire to kill?
The Mother desires to stop life (for whatever reason), which in my book = killing/murder/destroying life/whatever way you want to paint it.
But I realise some people look at things like this differently.
They do not want to commit a murder. They do not want to kill the child for their own pleasure. Many women who have had an abortion will suffer from mental problems for a while. I wouldn't call that a pleasure.Originally posted by z7
Well technically they do, well the Mother does - I can't speak for the doctors but I am guessing they get paid well for doing it, so I guess that makes them contract killlers!?
The Mother desires to stop life (for whatever reason), which in my book = killing/murder/destroying life/whatever way you want to paint it.
But I realise some people look at things like this differently.
Last edited by Elledan; Aug 16, 2001 at 11:09.
www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.
Oh - I agreeOriginally posted by Elledan
They do do want to commit a murder.
Freedom from responsibilty = pleasure.
Mental Problems = path of the course (sin has consequences)
Last edited by z7; Aug 16, 2001 at 12:38.
This is not about whether or not they want to commit murder. They want to kill the child.
Your analogy breaks down, however. Yes, a knife does not equal murder, but abortion does. The doctor who performs the abortion does not equal abortion, and the tube used in some abortions does not equal abortion, but the act of abortion certainly equals abortion. So, in short, abortion is not a tool -- abortion is the result. The tube and the doctor and the other medical instruments involved are the tools.
Of course they do. They desire to kill that life. Maybe they don't consider it to be killing, but they do desire to in fact end that life -- whether you consider it human or not, the mother/parents/doctor WANT IT DEAD. It's obviously alive (though we cannot agree on whether or not that makes it human), and they obviously want it dead.When a pregnancy is aborted, does any of those persons involved in it (the doctor, the nurses, the mother) feel this urge to kill, the desire to kill?
They don't, which is exactly why abortion is not murder.
How are you coming to the conclusion that they don't have an urge to kill? Just because they're not specifically thinking "I want to kill this baby", it doesn't mean they're not doing so. The problem with abortion is that it's a kind of killing that people think is okay. They think that you can kill that life form, and that there's nothing wrong with it.
So? You don't have to take pleasure in a killing/murder for it to be a killing/murder. And besides: if they kill an "inconvienent" child so that they don't have to bother with raising it, and paying for it (in terms of money, time, and emotional responsibility), then yeah, it is, in a sense, for their own pleasure, or benefit.They do not want to kill the child for their own pleasure.
TWTCommish, one word: motivation.
Even killing doesn't have to be done because someone wanted it, it just depends on the motivations of the person who did it. Killing out of ignorance, for example. A bunch of children playing with some metal objects and an outlet. They wonder what purpose those funny holes have. One of the children asks another child what would happen if he would stick something in such a hole. The other child answers 'Why not try it?'.
Is this child a murderer? No, his motivation was curiosity. If the same happens with adults and none of them has the faintest idea what purpose such an outlet has, curiosity is the only motivation.
If the birth of a child will almost certainly endanger the mother's life, abortion is not murder. It's used to save the mother's life.
If it is discovered that a 6-month old embryo is handicapped in such a way that it can't live outside the womb, abortion is a good option because it'll save the mother from another 3 months of pregnancy, which will be useless anyway, because the child will die within an hour after birth.
The motivation in those cases is not the desire to kill, but respectively to save a life and showing mercy against a child which otherwise will slowly die after being born, thereby saving the mother much grief.
So you see, abortion is just a tool which can be used for many purposes, but like with all other tools, it depends on the motivation of the person(s) who use(s) them whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' purpose.
www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.
I'd agree with that but what about people like darlene who had un-protected sex with her old boyfriend billy-bob when drunk, and is now pregnant with a child she didn't plan and doesn't want? (hypothetical story)Originally posted by Elledan
If the birth of a child will almost certainly endanger the mother's life, abortion is not murder. It's used to save the mother's life.
If it is discovered that a 6-month old embryo is handicapped in such a way that it can't live outside the womb, abortion is a good option because it'll save the mother from another 3 months of pregnancy, which will be useless anyway, because the child will die within an hour after birth.
The motivation in those cases is not the desire to kill, but respectively to save a life and showing mercy against a child which otherwise will slowly die after being born, thereby saving the mother much grief.
Then Darlene, like so many other people, is a f*****g idiot. Is it really that difficult to use some form of birth control???
Personally I've never had unprotected sex, and I always make sure I've got a condom. Right now the last thing I want is a little Moonman running around.
Well we can't be too judgemental because genuine accidents do happen BUT this is where, I think, the Law should protect the rights of the unborn child.
I know accidents happen. And for people that are generally carefull, and just unlucky, then abortion could be an option. For people that aren't careful, they should be stuck with the consequences of their own stupidity.
Elledan: would you think it fair to define murder (at least in this setting), as the UNJUSTIFIED killing of another human?
Killing one life to save another. Quite a predicament. Like I said, though, your logic is flawed: YES, they want to kill the child. You said this:If the birth of a child will almost certainly endanger the mother's life, abortion is not murder. It's used to save the mother's life.
...which I think is untrue. Yes, they have the desire to kill. The desire to kill that life form. Do they have the desire to kill another human being? Well, in one sense, yes, because they do willingly kill it...they simply fail to acknowledge it as a person at the time.When a pregnancy is aborted, does any of those persons involved in it (the doctor, the nurses, the mother) feel this urge to kill, the desire to kill?
They don't, which is exactly why abortion is not murder.
Will it? I think we all know there have been miracle cases before. And besides: what about other, less serious, birth defects? Are we going to turn into Nazis, who only allow children to be born if they're physically perfect?If it is discovered that a 6-month old embryo is handicapped in such a way that it can't live outside the womb, abortion is a good option because it'll save the mother from another 3 months of pregnancy, which will be useless anyway, because the child will die within an hour after birth.
I've already replied to this. I'll copy and paste it for you:So you see, abortion is just a tool which can be used for many purposes, but like with all other tools, it depends on the motivation of the person(s) who use(s) them whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' purpose.
Your analogy breaks down, however. Yes, a knife does not equal murder, but abortion does. The doctor who performs the abortion does not equal abortion, and the tube used in some abortions does not equal abortion, but the act of abortion certainly equals abortion. So, in short, abortion is not a tool -- abortion is the result. The tube and the doctor and the other medical instruments involved are the tools.
Any person who (barring rape, and other such things) ends up stuck with a child they never meant to have in the first place has made a mistake that they should be responsible for. Seems like a perfectly reasonable line to me: everyone knows a child can result from sex...it's only through little workarounds that we can sometimes prevent it. Sex's natural result is a child, and if a child comes from it, then d*mnitt, grow up, and either raise it well, or give it to someone who did, but I think of it was fairly selfish (in most cases) to simply kill it, when there are others who can't conceive at all.Originally posted by Shin Ma
And just where do you draw the line between an accident and stupidity ? It's so easy to judge...
Exactemonde!Originally posted by TWTCommish
...but I think of it was fairly selfish (in most cases) to simply kill it, when there are others who can't conceive at all.
You've obviously not the faintest idea what this 'urge to kill' is.Yes, they have the desire to kill. The desire to kill that life form. Do they have the desire to kill another human being? Well, in one sense, yes, because they do willingly kill it...they simply fail to acknowledge it as a person at the time.
This urge, this desire, it's wanting to slice someone's threat, strangle him, crush his body, rip him apart, sticking something sharp through his body, crush him skull with something heavy, wanting to see him suffer, wanting to see him bleed.
The mother and doctors don't feel this urge.
There's a huge difference between the desire to kill and to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Even you should be able to understand this.
BTW, just curious, are you pro-life?
www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.
...and you've obviously chosen to use words in a less than technical way here.You've obviously not the faintest idea what this 'urge to kill' is.
If you WANT to abort a child, and you do so by killing it, then you have the urge to kill it. Now, if by "urge to kill," you mean the desire to murder another human being, then yeah, abortion isn't usually about the urge to kill. I have suspected you meant that, but if that is indeed what you meant, I don't think it was phrased particularly well.
Look, it's this simple: killing is killing regardless of intent and regardless of whether or not a person has any clue as to whether or not they're doing it. Ignorance (or apathy, in some cases) isn't much of an excuse when it comes to killing a child.
Is figure skating boring?BTW, just curious, are you pro-life?
I have met many people in the past that should have been aborted. I think those who want children should be tested both mentally and physically to see if they are capable of producing healthy and mentally sound children.
Many people should not be allowed to breed. I know many of you are disagreeing with me by now. However the fact is in all probability most of our parents should not have been allowed to produce offspring.
The reason all societies are becoming less and less glorious. The weak of body and mind are being allowed to breed. The old and the sickly are being cared for and allowed to produce offspring. This retards the evolutionary process and the natural order of survival of the fittest.
Not only do I think abortions are ok I believe in many cases they should be mandatory.
Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.
Sickening, to say the least. This "superman" nonsense is why Hitler is cursed and Nietzsche (or however his name is spelled) was insane.
All of you are buying into the liberal nonsense that all life is valuable. Truth is it is not. Some people are not worth saving. Some people should not procreate. It is a hard fact for those of you brainwashed by the liberal media to swallow. And im sure it is exceptionally hard for those of you in europe to understand.
Im sure I am not making friends with the liberals and treehuggers amongst us. However truth is if you dont agree with me you are naive at best and I really dont value your oppinion. I have become quite comfortable with stating my oppinion as of late. However I notice it conflicts with the majority. I must admit this pleases me a great deal as I consider most of you mindless sheep who accept whatever you are told to accept.
How insulting and blatant is that?
Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.
Uh, very blatant -- although highly incorrect. Sanctity of life is a conservative concept, not a liberal one, unless you're talking about the death penalty.I don't consider myself to be a liberal person, and I think life is very valuable.
It's still vague. What do you mean by rape ? Personally, I consider a drunk girl who accepts a sexual relation only because she's drunk, is being raped. I consider a girl who wouldn't oppose her boyfriend's will to have sex even if she doesn't want to, is raped. There are lots of "rape, and other such things" happening. And there are a lot more which aren't reported. Think about it.Originally posted by TWTCommish
Any person who (barring rape, and other such things) ends up stuck with a child they never meant to have in the first place has made a mistake that they should be responsible for.
Lots? Compared to what? I mentioned those as exceptions because, as we've all talked about many times (in various threads, but several times in this one, I believe), the main issue here lies with people who simply do not want the child. There are, admittedly, many gray areas, but that's why I'm not taking any firm stance on those...those are tougher issue.
Is it a Republican value? Not by definition...but it sure seems that way most of the time.Oh puh-lease, sanctity of life or whatever you meant is not something you can put with any political affiliation. It's common sense. Is common sense a republican value ? Give me a breakOh, and I said conservative. I hate to nitpick, but I think there's a bit of a difference.
Sanctity of Life is a phrase - not just three words in a sentence. It's sort of a mantra, usually used by pro-lifers, which is why I used it in that context. Pro-lifers (mostly conservatives, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge) want to be incredibly careful with all the life out there. Pro-choicers (mostly liberals) take a more...well...liberal approach to things. I see a general attitude among them, which says: until you can prove to me it's a human child, it should be perfectly legal to abort it.
So, in this issue (the one in which this entire thread is based upon), the conservative side of things is placing a higher value on life (no matter whether you consider it human life or not when it's in the womb)...I simply wanted to tell Hellbent that this "life has value" stuff is not some liberal thing.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks