Let's make murder legal

Published on October 18, 2004 By d3adz0mbie In Politics

Let's get together and make murder legal. After all, when someone takes a human life, they are only making a choice for themselves. Shouldn't that be a persons right?
Think of the man robbing a store, shooting a clerk dead. The poor robber needed the money because of Americas economic unfairness. That robber is entitled to the same nice things other people have, and should not have to worry that someone else might turn them in.
Feel for the woman that murders her cheating husband. He hurt her feelings, wounded her emotionally. Shes just making a choice to live a more positive, empowered life.
Think of serial killers that murder multiple of women. These guys can't help themselves, and it's unfair for society to judge them. They didn't choose to be serial killers, either nature or nuture made them who they are, and we should understand.

Let's legalize murder.

Think of the woman that kills her unborn child because she cant afford it. The poor woman needs to remain childless because of Americas economic unfairness. She is entitled to the same nice things other people have, and should not have to worry about the burden of a child. Nevermind that the child has an active brain, can respond to it's enviroment and perhaps live outside the womb. It is that womans right.
Feel for the woman that kills her baby as it is being born. Through some medical complication she may be at risk, she is just making a choice to increase her chances to live.
Think of the women that have repeated abortions. It's unfair for society to judge them. They didn't choose to get pregnant, they just wanted to have sex. We should understand

Let's keep murder legal.

Comments (Page 2)

messybuu

on Oct 19, 2004

Is it strictly a religious matter? Are there no pro-Lifers that aren't Christian?

When is a child in a woman's body considered to actually be a child? I say that we deem it a human being when brain waves appear, but some would say that's much too early, and that only when the child is fully outside the woman is it considered to be a human being.

When one thinks about it, no harm comes to another member of society when a child is aborted even a few months after birth.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

You sort of confirm one of my points, Messy.

We've already largely reached consensus as a society that a child is a member of our society once it reaches the third trimester of gestation. That line of demarcation is as arbitrary as any, but is at least based on some common-sense & scientific notions. As medical science improves, the age of viability may well get pushed back earlier in gestation & our society will need to revisit the question (don't ask if I'm looking forward to that). But the point is a line must be chosen somehow. When I think about it, harm definitely comes to that few-month-old member of society, but logic requires accepting that there is period of time following conception where the woman retains the right to make a choice. I'm personally not prepared to tell a woman that from the instant of conception, she becomes an indentured servant to the embryo, devoid of any rights with respect to her pregnancy.

And you'll note the term Christian does not appear in my reply. That was intentional, because you are quite correct - it is not a strictly religious matter, in the sense of organized religious entities. I used the lower case religion, for lack of another term, to encompass any particular belief system. And when I said "accepting or rejecting God" I meant "any" God.

This topic is so subject to emotional extremes precisely because there is a religious component to it. We should by all means respect an individual's religious beliefs and assure freedom to adhere to chosen religious practices, as long as those practices do not harm, take advantage of or otherwise deny freedom of self-determination to other sovereign beings. Hopefully, adherents to both points of view will come to understand that neither point of view can possibly prevail absolutely and that we will forever live in some state of compromise, in the best case scenario one to which we have mutually agreed.

Cheers,
Daiwa

messybuu

on Oct 19, 2004

We've already largely reached consensus as a society that a child is a member of our society once it reaches the third trimester of gestation. That line of demarcation is as arbitrary as any, but is at least based on some common-sense & scientific notions. As medical science improves, the age of viability may well get pushed back earlier in gestation & our society will need to revisit the question (don't ask if I'm looking forward to that). But the point is a line must be chosen somehow. When I think about it, harm definitely comes to that few-month-old member of society, but logic requires accepting that there is period of time following conception where the woman retains the right to make a choice.

Have we found that line yet? Who doesn't base their line on common sense? Personally, I think my line is a much better place to draw it, since it is the brain that determines whether one's living or dead. If the brain's dead, then the person's dead. If it's not, then the person's still alive.

I'm personally not prepared to tell a woman that from the instant of conception, she becomes an indentured servant to the embryo, devoid of any rights with respect to her pregnancy.

Isn't that what we're doing if we tell a woman that in the third trimester, she can't have an abortion?

And you'll note the term Christian does not appear in my reply. That was intentional, because you are quite correct - it is not a strictly religious matter, in the sense of organized religious entities. I used the lower case religion, for lack of another term, to encompass any particular belief system. And when I said "accepting or rejecting God" I meant "any" God.

Aren't there agnostics and atheists that are pro-Life?

Dr Guy

on Oct 19, 2004

Reply By: sandy2 Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004
An unborn baby is not a human, as defined by law.

Neither were blacks at one time, does that make it right?

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

Messy -

Have we found that line yet?

I don't think we have, which is my point. Reasonable people can disagree about where the line should be but as a society we still have to choose one.

since it is the brain that determines whether one's living or dead.

We use a definition of brain death in determining when it's no longer reasonable to consider someone alive and continue to maintain artificial respiration and circulatory support, etc., but we've never determined brain activity alone to be the "definition" of life. Clearly brain activity occurs in the fetus long before the point of viability outside the womb.

Isn't that what we're doing if we tell a woman that in the third trimester, she can't have an abortion?

Exactly - we've arrived at a (contested) consensus about where to place the line, at least for now.

Aren't there agnostics and atheists that are pro-Life?

That's very possible, even likely. But agnosticism & atheism are still "belief systems" as I've intended the term.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

An unborn baby is not a human, as defined by law.

And laws are defined by humans. See above.

Cheers,
Daiwa

QingJao

on Oct 19, 2004

But real people lead real lives and are autonomous beings, endowed by their creator with the ability & obligation to make choices for themselves.

I liked your post all besides for that one line as people dont start having that ability for months/years into there lives so if you say that it makes it seem like a 1 year old isnt really a person yet.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

QingJao -

I was referring to adult women. The whole issue of the "age of majority" is an altogether different discussion. Nothing I said should be interpreted as believing a 1 year old isn't a person. Quite the contrary.

And thanks for you kind comment.

Cheers,
Daiwa

messybuu

on Oct 19, 2004

If somebody has a functioning brain, they're considered to be alive.

Exactly - we've arrived at a (contested) consensus about where to place the line, at least for now.

It's still burdening a woman to be an indentured servant to the embryo, devoid of any rights with respect to her pregnancy.

That's very possible, even likely. But agnosticism & atheism are still "belief systems" as I've intended the term.

Agnostics and atheists generally would have no religious beliefs on which to base their opposition to abortion. Therefore, to disregard the opinions of agnostics and atheists by regarding abortion as mainly a religious affair isn't fair to them. Besides, don't religious people also base many of their other beliefs on religion (i.e. murder, charity, etc.). That doesn't mean that being against murder is trying to force one's religion on another.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

Messy -

Is it strictly a religious matter? Are there no pro-Lifers that aren't Christian?

Agnostics and atheists generally would have no religious beliefs on which to base their opposition to abortion.

Do you see the contradiction in the above quotes from you?

That doesn't mean that being against murder is trying to force one's religion on another.

I don't believe I said any such thing.

I believe I did say that it is an emotionally charged issue, one with such fundamental power that it can keep people from comprehending the words they are reading.

Cheers,
Daiwa

messybuu

on Oct 19, 2004

Do you see the contradiction in the above quotes from you?

No. My point is that treating it like a religious matter ignores the reasons that atheists and agnostics have for being pro-Lifers.

I don't believe I said any such thing.

It's what I interpreted from this paragraph:

The right-to-life argument is an endlessly circular one based on an article of religious faith that one should either practice or not. It is the equivalent of accepting or rejecting God, something that cannot be legislated (at least not here). Religious freedom necessarily incorporates the right to be free of religion. None of us should have any objection to individuals following the dictates of their own conscience and practicing their religious beliefs as they see fit. We should all object to any religion forcing their beliefs on others via the state through legislation.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

Somehow you're not seeing that we agree that it should not be treated only as a "religious" matter.

And passing a law against murder is not "forcing someone's religious belief" on society. There is necessarily a third party involved - the victim - and the law cares not what the religious beliefs of the victim were. If murder of unbelievers was a fundamental tenet of someone's religion, would it be OK to let them kill people so as not to infringe on their religious beliefs? I don't think so. Individuals should be free to adhere to religious principles of their choice, or not, as long as doing so does not infringe the rights of others to do the same.

Cheers,
Daiwa

messybuu

on Oct 19, 2004

Somehow you're not seeing that we agree that it should not be treated only as a "religious" matter.

I understand what you mean now.

And passing a law against murder is not "forcing someone's religious belief" on society. There is necessarily a third party involved - the victim - and the law cares not what the religious beliefs of the victim were. If murder of unbelievers was a fundamental tenet of someone's religion, would it be OK to let them kill people so as not to infringe on their religious beliefs? I don't think so. Individuals should be free to adhere to religious principles of their choice, or not, as long as doing so does not infringe the rights of others to do the same.

In abortion, the unborn child is considered the victim.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

I understand what you mean now.

Good.

In abortion, the unborn child is considered the victim.

Therein lies the whole point of contention. And your statement brings us all the way back to the beginning of this discussion. See what I mean by circular?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 19, 2004

Same reason I think murder, child pornography, and sex with children should be legal. If they were legal, they'd happen in safer situations. For example, if child pornography were legal, the children would be able to form a union and protect their rights.

Hey Messy check this out: Link

Apparently if you are a kid you can't post nude pictures of yourself.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!