US Becoming Pro-Life

[PLC1]

I told you about this before... The word "Murder" has specific legal meanings and you jumped from "killing" to "murder" in your supposition. Perhaps you should rephrase that question with the original phraseology to which Pale responded.

You have stated your position, and Palerider has stated his. Maybe the real debate is between the two of you.

If you prefer not to use the term "murder," what would you use for the deliberate killing of a human being?

 

[GenSeneca]

You have stated your position, and Palerider has stated his. Maybe the real debate is between the two of you.

If you prefer not to use the term "murder," what would you use for the deliberate killing of a human being?

I cannot argue with Pale's position. It is rational, logical, consistent and based entirely on scientific fact.

He has bested everyone, including myself.

As for your question to him, I was merely suggesting you rephrase it:

According to your philosophy, then, taking a so called "abortion pill" within a couple of weeks of conception [kills the unborn child].

How do you think such a crime could be prevented, or punished?

Or perhaps you should have asked him directly if he thought the killing of the unborn through "abortion pills" constituted murder and then followed up with the question you posted.

I don't understand how you cannot understand the point I was making in your jump from "killing" to "murder"... Perhaps Pale thinks it is murder, we will have to wait to see his response.

 

[PLC1]

I cannot argue with Pale's position. It is rational, logical, consistent and based entirely on scientific fact.

He has bested everyone, including myself.

As for your question to him, I was merely suggesting you rephrase it:



Or perhaps you should have asked him directly if he thought the killing of the unborn through "abortion pills" constituted murder and then followed up with the question you posted.

I don't understand how you cannot understand the point I was making in your jump from "killing" to "murder"... Perhaps Pale thinks it is murder, we will have to wait to see his response.

I agree that Palerider's position is totally consistent. If life begins at conception, then there is no difference between killing a human soon after conception, soon after birth, or as an adult. That is a consistent position.

What I don't understand is your objection to the term "murder." What word do you use for the deliberate killing of a human being? I don't see how any other word could be substituted.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree that Palerider's position is totally consistent. If life begins at conception, then there is no difference between killing a human soon after conception, soon after birth, or as an adult. That is a consistent position.

Beyond consistency, have you found his argument to be rational, logical and scientifically sound?

What I don't understand is your objection to the term "murder." What word do you use for the deliberate killing of a human being? I don't see how any other word could be substituted.

Murder implies malicious intent. Do you think those who have abortions do so out of malice? I don't. Certainly its premeditated but the act of having an abortion is not done out of malice.

Also, there are 3 legal degrees of "Murder", first, second and third degree. Which one are you suggesting applies to abortion?

Additionally, there is the matter of birth control "creating a hostile environment" that ensures the death of any zygotes (fertilized eggs), could the act of making, selling or taking birth control be construed as Conspiracy to commit murder?

 

[PLC1]

Beyond consistency, have you found his argument to be rational, logical and scientifically sound?

It is scientifically sound so long as you define human life in biological terms only. It is not if you believe that a human is a sentient being, or that the soul has entered the body. I believe you and I discussed that concept at some length.

Murder implies malicious intent. Do you think those who have abortions do so out of malice? I don't. Certainly its premeditated but the act of having an abortion is not done out of malice.

Still, it is the deliberate taking of a life. What would you call it? It isn't (usually anyway) self defense, nor is it a legal execution. If the zygote is a human, it is innocent and not threatening anyone's life, then killing it has to be murder. What other term could apply?

A deranged person who kills a child because of a belief that he/she harbors an evil spirit is not malicious intent, is it? Is it still murder?

Also, there are 3 legal degrees of "Murder", first, second and third degree. Which one are you suggesting applies to abortion?

Logically, having an abortion involves planning and carrying out the taking of an innocent life. Isn't that first degree? I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that is the definition of first degree.

If someone planned and carried out the killing of a child who had already been born, wouldn't that be first degree murder?

Additionally, there is the matter of birth control "creating a hostile environment" that ensures the death of any zygotes (fertilized eggs), could the act of making, selling or taking birth control be construed as Conspiracy to commit murder?

If those zygotes are human beings with the same rights as anyone who has already been born, then yes.

Wouldn't poisoning someone's environment in some way, say for example introducing a toxin into their food supply, be a similar thing? Surely, the law would call that murder. As for conspiracy, the suppliers of said toxin, if they realized the purpose for which it was to be used, would be guilty of conspiracy.

As for birth control, if it is to prevent conception i.e., the pill or a condom, then that isn't killing anything. The so called "abortion pill", on the other hand might be considered tantamount to putting poison in someone's food.

That is, if you buy into the idea that life begins at conception, and therefore, a zygote is already a human being. That is the crux of the question.

 

[GenSeneca]

It is scientifically sound so long as you define human life in biological terms only. It is not if you believe that a human is a sentient being, or that the soul has entered the body. I believe you and I discussed that concept at some length.

We did discuss this and until you can empirically prove the existence of a soul or determine when a human becomes sentient, its purely academic and of no practical value.

Still, it is the deliberate taking of a life.

Yes it is.

What would you call it?

I'm not a legal scholar, I don't know.

Logically, having an abortion involves planning and carrying out the taking of an innocent life.

This would mean that conspiracy to commit murder would also apply.

Isn't that first degree? I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that is the definition of first degree.

Lets look:

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

I could see where either one would apply but certainly a lawyer would know better than either of us.

If those zygotes are human beings with the same rights as anyone who has already been born, then yes.

Depends on whether or not you agree with the principles that founded our nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Perhaps you would like to offer your opinion as to when we are "created" and thereby deserving of our unalienable rights.

That is, if you buy into the idea that life begins at conception, and therefore, a zygote is already a human being. That is the crux of the question.

Its certainly not simply an "idea", its scientific fact and empirically provable... as Pale has repeatedly shown.

 

[PLC1]

Perhaps you would like to offer your opinion as to when we are "created" and thereby deserving of our unalienable rights.

I have already offered said opinion, and found you don't agree with it.

Its certainly not simply an "idea", its scientific fact and empirically provable... as Pale has repeatedly shown.

Which makes Pale's opinions consistent, while yours are not.

Life begins at conception, therefore, killing a human at any time during the life cycle is the taking of an innocent life, i.e. murder, and should be outlawed just like any murder. That's consistent.


Life begins at conception, but killing a zygote or even a fetus is not the same as killing a child or an adult, and therefore not murder. That is not consistent.

Life begins when the human being becomes conscious of being human, and not at conception. Therefore, killing a zygote or a young fetus is only ending a potential human life and is not, therefore murder.

That is consistent also.

It is your syllogism that is not consistent.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree my position is inconsistent, pale has proven that. My only reluctance in changing my position can be found in the legal implications of holding a consistent position. Its something I've not given thought to and therefore have not resolved.

Life begins when the human being becomes conscious of being human, and not at conception. Therefore, killing a zygote or a young fetus is only ending a potential human life and is not, therefore murder.

Exactly what point in life do humans become sentient?
How do you empirically prove when sentience takes place?
As for your use of the word "potential", Pale has repeatedly shown that such qualifiers are a denial of the scientifically accepted definition of human life. Therefore, your position is only consistent in its rejection of science.

 

[palerider]

I think you're the first one whose position is consistent on this issue. According to your philosophy, then, taking a so called "abortion pill" within a couple of weeks of conception is an act of murder.

How do you think such a crime could be prevented, or punished?

How do we prevent any murder? We don't. The law isn't about preventing a crime, the law is about providing a means of punishment for those who do it anyway. Will some people get away with it? Of course, just as some people have gotten away with all crimes. The fact is that the majority of people will obey the law and the rest, like all criminals, take the risk of being caught and punished.

As to how I believe they should be punished? There are already laws on the books dealing with punishment for murder. What is there to consider?

 

[palerider]

Murder implies malicious intent. Do you think those who have abortions do so out of malice? I don't. Certainly its premeditated but the act of having an abortion is not done out of malice.

You posed an interesting point of view that caused me to pause and possibly tweak my position. The particular definition of murder that I have always used is killing with intent. I have never considered the word malice. I wen't to several legal dictionaries and looked up malice to learn what malice legally implies.

malice - malice
n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.

As a result of that quick bit of research, I have concluded that women who have abortions do so out of malice as they are conserned with their own wants and do, in fact, have a complete disregard for the wellbeing of their child and certainly have the intention of doing harm to the child.

Thanks for giving me cause to reconsider, but things being what they are, I will stick to abortion being an act of murder.

Additionally, there is the matter of birth control "creating a hostile environment" that ensures the death of any zygotes (fertilized eggs), could the act of making, selling or taking birth control be construed as Conspiracy to commit murder?

If I deliberately create a series of circumstances and conditions that cause your death, have I, in fact, murdered you?

 

[palerider]

Life begins when the human being becomes conscious of being human, and not at conception. Therefore, killing a zygote or a young fetus is only ending a potential human life and is not, therefore murder.

That is consistent also.

It may be consistent, but it is consistently wrong. It is founded in a logical fallacy. You must beg the question and assume that we only become human beings when we are conscious of being human in order to make it work. I dare say that you can't even begin to substantiate that and so it is a completely irrational line of thought. It is your own fabrication and has no resemblence whatsoever to reality.

Tell me, if it were your life on the line in a court of law, would you permit the prosecution to enter such an unprovable line of thinking into evidence against you?

 

[GenSeneca]

I have concluded that women who have abortions do so out of malice as they are conserned with their own wants and do, in fact, have a complete disregard for the wellbeing of their child and certainly have the intention of doing harm to the child.

I admit I did not look up the term in a legal dictionary before commenting and was looking at malice as being based simply on ill-will or hatred toward the victim.

 

[PLC1]

It may be consistent, but it is consistently wrong. It is founded in a logical fallacy. You must beg the question and assume that we only become human beings when we are conscious of being human in order to make it work. I dare say that you can't even begin to substantiate that and so it is a completely irrational line of thought. It is your own fabrication and has no resemblence whatsoever to reality.

Tell me, if it were your life on the line in a court of law, would you permit the prosecution to enter such an unprovable line of thinking into evidence against you?

That is quite simple, really, as I'm an adult, have self awareness, consciousness, and am living a human life by any definition.

A blob of a few dozen cells has none of that.

 

[palerider]

That is quite simple, really, as I'm an adult, have self awareness, consciousness, and am living a human life by any definition.

A blob of a few dozen cells has none of that.

Again, your logic is flawed. You must beg the question and assume that self awareness and consciousness is what made you a human being. Consider children born with ancepthaly. They are born with no brain or nothing more than the most primative part of the brain that keeps the organs functioning. They will never have self awareness, they will never achieve consciousness and will never have a single thought. At best, they will live for only a few days and yet, by any definition, they are human beings and they are, in fact, protected by the law.

Your definition is one of your own fabrication and means nothing and in order to hold it, you must disregard an ocean of credible science that states explicitly, that unborns at any stage of development are human beings. The facts being what they are, how, exactly, do you conclude in your mind that yours is a rational argument.

 

[PLC1]

Again, your logic is flawed. You must beg the question and assume that self awareness and consciousness is what made you a human being. Consider children born with ancepthaly. They are born with no brain or nothing more than the most primative part of the brain that keeps the organs functioning. They will never have self awareness, they will never achieve consciousness and will never have a single thought. At best, they will live for only a few days and yet, by any definition, they are human beings and they are, in fact, protected by the law.

Your definition is one of your own fabrication and means nothing and in order to hold it, you must disregard an ocean of credible science that states explicitly, that unborns at any stage of development are human beings. The facts being what they are, how, exactly, do you conclude in your mind that yours is a rational argument.

Getting back to the original question of life beginning at conception, just what is the definition of life?

The argument keeps going in circles, "life begins at conception because that is the beginning of a human body."

"No, life requires a mind as well as a body."

"Here is scientific proof that a human being begins when the unique DNA results from fertilization of an egg."

"No, the human mind does not start to function at that point, but at a later point."

The debate keeps going on, and keeps coming up against the same point of definition:

Is a human being just a body, or is it a mind as well?

You say that a human is just a body. I say no, it requires a mind as well.

That ancepthalic body your bring up is not alive in any real sense. There is no awareness, no functioning mind. It is simply a body that failed to develop, no different from a tubal pregnancy that has no chance of ever having a functional mind and must be expelled.

You have made a good case that the human body begins when the sperm meets the egg. You haven't shown that the resulting cell has a mind.