5 ms·

Not sure what your point is here. There are all sorts of gradations of one person killing another person and while I think ethical arguments can be made to rest

Not sure what your point is here. There are all sorts of gradations of one person killing another person and while I think ethical arguments can be made to restrict access to abortifacients I also think it's different from abortion morally and should be legally as well. No state as far as I'm aware is outlawing abortion in the case of emergencies in the health of the mother, this is a common misunderstanding people have about anti-abortion legislation. More on IVF tomorrow if I have time :)

SigmundA 4y ago
>Not sure what your point is here. There are all sorts of gradations of one person killing another person and while I think ethical arguments can be made to restrict access to abortifacients I also think it's different from abortion morally and should be legally as well. Abortifacient - a substance that induces abortion. How is this different from abortion, that makes no sense logically or grammatically. If a zygote is a person, then any action by another person which kills it is a homicide. If taking a birth control pill prevents implantation then you have committed homicide. My point is you define abortion as a conscious choice, but that is not the definition of abortion, that is specifically induced abortion. You said just like manslaughter is not murder they are different, however manslaughter is a crime as is murder. Are you saying manslaughter should not be punishable or that abortion that comes from non-copious choice is not manslaughter even though a zygote is a person and the law would normally define that as manslaughter? >No state as far as I'm aware is outlawing abortion in the case of emergencies in the health of the mother, this is a common misunderstanding people have about anti-abortion legislation. Louisiana had a trigger law on the books since 2006 that did not have exceptions for ectopic pregnancies, luckily a democratic senator helped push a revision in the law very recently to make the exception [1]. The point being the is left up to the states and is also homicide if the fetus is a person. Hopefully it will be a justifiable homicide in all states. [1] https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/3727 https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/3727
- f154hfds 4y ago
  I've been explaining why an abortifacient (as birth control) is different from getting an abortion knowing your pregnant. Homicide? Yes. Murder? I don't think so. I don't even think these should be illegal. There are wrongs we commit all the time that logically can only go on our conscience. I use manslaughter as an analogy to explain gradations of homicide in terms of intent. I've been very clear that I don't think abortifacients as birth control make sense to be prosecuted at all, they aren't manslaughter in the legal sense because there's no way of knowing if anyone was killed or not! It looks like your Louisiana case fixed a law that didn't make those important exceptions explicit (probably because it was a useless law anyway, only to signal a pro-life stance with no legal weight to it, but who knows?). This is good, the exceptions mentioned are just and necessary. Not all homicides are illegal, all weigh on the conscience though - whether they be a soldier in war or a doctor performing euthanasia. Certain classes of homicide should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law to provide a just society and minimize the repercussions of injustice by penalizing perpetrators. In the case of a person making a conscious choice to end the life of an unborn baby they are making a decision that humans have no right to make in a way that leaves clear evidence and can be prosecuted. By the way, I personally think that doctors performing abortions should be prosecuted and not mothers. Christians believe that all human beings are corrupt to the core. We take every aspect of the technological progress we've made and twist it to evil purposes, that's just what we do as humans. This is related to our dignity, our capacity for doing things gives us a unique capacity for evil. Some evil we do has terrible repercussions on the world at large and abortion is one of these evils. It unnaturally shapes our demographics in this country and in every country where it is allowed unrestricted. For example the black population of America is unnaturally small in proportion to the white population because of Roe, and there are more men than women in India and China because of abortion. Anti-abortion legislation doesn't help get those millions of lives back, it doesn't give them justice either. In my mind its primary purpose is to curb the wrongdoing in the future.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    >I've been explaining why an abortifacient (as birth control) is different from getting an abortion knowing your pregnant. Homicide? Yes. Murder? I don't think so. I don't even think these should be illegal. There are wrongs we commit all the time that logically can only go on our conscience. Your stance is a zygote is a person, yet you believe that killing one should not be prosecuted in the same manner as killing a born human it seems. Manslaughter does not require intent and is still a crime, either you believe the zygote is a person or you don't, if a person then the laws regarding killing a person should be the same. If you are ok with different laws between a zygote and born human then you must believe the zygote is less than human. >This is good, the exceptions mentioned are just and necessary. Something as serious as homicide should be codified at the federal level right? Why would you leave something like that for interpretations between states? >Christians believe that all human beings are corrupt to the core. Christians also believe god created everything including designing humans and their corruption correct? Where did evil come from? Did god create evil or is evil bigger than god and was not created by him? Again where did evil come from?

SigmundA 4y ago

>Not sure what your point is here. There are all sorts of gradations of one person killing another person and while I think ethical arguments can be made to restrict access to abortifacients I also think it's different from abortion morally and should be legally as well. Abortifacient - a substance that induces abortion. How is this different from abortion, that makes no sense logically or grammatically. If a zygote is a person, then any action by another person which kills it is a homicide. If taking a birth control pill prevents implantation then you have committed homicide. My point is you define abortion as a conscious choice, but that is not the definition of abortion, that is specifically induced abortion. You said just like manslaughter is not murder they are different, however manslaughter is a crime as is murder. Are you saying manslaughter should not be punishable or that abortion that comes from non-copious choice is not manslaughter even though a zygote is a person and the law would normally define that as manslaughter? >No state as far as I'm aware is outlawing abortion in the case of emergencies in the health of the mother, this is a common misunderstanding people have about anti-abortion legislation. Louisiana had a trigger law on the books since 2006 that did not have exceptions for ectopic pregnancies, luckily a democratic senator helped push a revision in the law very recently to make the exception [1]. The point being the is left up to the states and is also homicide if the fetus is a person. Hopefully it will be a justifiable homicide in all states. [1] https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/3727 https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/3727

f154hfds 4y ago
I've been explaining why an abortifacient (as birth control) is different from getting an abortion knowing your pregnant. Homicide? Yes. Murder? I don't think so. I don't even think these should be illegal. There are wrongs we commit all the time that logically can only go on our conscience. I use manslaughter as an analogy to explain gradations of homicide in terms of intent. I've been very clear that I don't think abortifacients as birth control make sense to be prosecuted at all, they aren't manslaughter in the legal sense because there's no way of knowing if anyone was killed or not! It looks like your Louisiana case fixed a law that didn't make those important exceptions explicit (probably because it was a useless law anyway, only to signal a pro-life stance with no legal weight to it, but who knows?). This is good, the exceptions mentioned are just and necessary. Not all homicides are illegal, all weigh on the conscience though - whether they be a soldier in war or a doctor performing euthanasia. Certain classes of homicide should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law to provide a just society and minimize the repercussions of injustice by penalizing perpetrators. In the case of a person making a conscious choice to end the life of an unborn baby they are making a decision that humans have no right to make in a way that leaves clear evidence and can be prosecuted. By the way, I personally think that doctors performing abortions should be prosecuted and not mothers. Christians believe that all human beings are corrupt to the core. We take every aspect of the technological progress we've made and twist it to evil purposes, that's just what we do as humans. This is related to our dignity, our capacity for doing things gives us a unique capacity for evil. Some evil we do has terrible repercussions on the world at large and abortion is one of these evils. It unnaturally shapes our demographics in this country and in every country where it is allowed unrestricted. For example the black population of America is unnaturally small in proportion to the white population because of Roe, and there are more men than women in India and China because of abortion. Anti-abortion legislation doesn't help get those millions of lives back, it doesn't give them justice either. In my mind its primary purpose is to curb the wrongdoing in the future.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  >I've been explaining why an abortifacient (as birth control) is different from getting an abortion knowing your pregnant. Homicide? Yes. Murder? I don't think so. I don't even think these should be illegal. There are wrongs we commit all the time that logically can only go on our conscience. Your stance is a zygote is a person, yet you believe that killing one should not be prosecuted in the same manner as killing a born human it seems. Manslaughter does not require intent and is still a crime, either you believe the zygote is a person or you don't, if a person then the laws regarding killing a person should be the same. If you are ok with different laws between a zygote and born human then you must believe the zygote is less than human. >This is good, the exceptions mentioned are just and necessary. Something as serious as homicide should be codified at the federal level right? Why would you leave something like that for interpretations between states? >Christians believe that all human beings are corrupt to the core. Christians also believe god created everything including designing humans and their corruption correct? Where did evil come from? Did god create evil or is evil bigger than god and was not created by him? Again where did evil come from?