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 4)

messybuu

on Oct 22, 2004

Technically, it can't determine when life begins. Neither can science, the government, you, or the psychic down the street. As such, how can you or anyone else for that matter, PRESUME to know when life begins when no one really knows? And since neither you or anyone else can REALLY know when a life begins, why do you and others assume that you do? And since you are only PRESUMING to know, how can you call a woman having an abortion a murderer? All you REALLY have then is an "OPINION" based on a variety of things that are far from being resounding fact. As such, neither you or anyone else have the right to impose your opinion(s) or your belief(s) on anyone else. While you have a right to THINK they are murderers and the right to express that "opinion," the government has no basis for TREATING them as criminals or for regulating what they do with their bodies.

Isn't saying that life doesn't begin at conception as much of an opinion and presumption as saying that life does?

QingJao

on Oct 22, 2004

"The woman got pregnant all on her own? No male participation required? Yet you claim that MEN have the right to tell her what to do about it? Astounding logic."

Actually according to a court ruling a couple years ago a man has no right to decide what happens to his baby so the male participation required is a mute point as according to our courts its all because of the woman.

messybuu

on Oct 22, 2004

Speaking of which, I find it funny how the father has no say whatsoever in the fate of his child, and they're entirely the property of the woman, except when it comes to supporting them. Then it's magically the responsibility of the father.

Reminds me of how a fetus isn't considered a human being unless somebody murders the pregnant woman. Then the fetus magically becomes a human child.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 22, 2004

That is because it is magic, didn't you know magic is all around you?

It's a kind of magic, oooo yeah!!

- Xreddy Grimercury

Mitch21

on Oct 22, 2004

The woman got pregnant all on her own? No male participation required? Yet you claim that MEN have the right to tell her what to do about it? Astounding logic.

Unless the woman in question was raped, she is completely responsable for having a child. A 17 year old girl with no way of supporting herself OR a baby should KNOW not to have sex. A mother of 6 barely getting by as it is should KNOW not to have sex. If they make the decision to have sex, they should bear the responsibility and either raise them as best they can, or give them to a foster parent/orphanage (the latter being prefferable to me).

Mitch21

on Oct 22, 2004

If you think killing is wrong, how can you support state-sponsored killing of "alleged" criminals when the system that hangs their life in the balance has been determined to be wrought with innaccuracies, flaws, and bigotry?

There is a difference between killing an innocent baby and killing a convicted child molesting murderer.

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 24, 2004

Messy Buu: "Isn't saying that life doesn't begin at conception as much of an opinion and presumption as saying that life does?"

I'm not saying that life does or does not begin at conception and if you accurately read my post, you will see that what I ACTUALLY said was that NO ONE knows when life does or doesn't begin. As such, all we have is speculation and certain religious beliefs on when it does or does not. Since it is merely speculation and/or religious beliefs, the government cannot PRESUME that it does know based on certain religious doctrines and then impose those doctrines on others. This violates the "establishment clause" to the U.S. Constitution which says (I"m paraphrasing) that the government shall not establish religion. When the goverment makes laws that are based primarily on particular religious doctrines and imposes them on the public at large, that is establishing a government sponsored religion.

QingJao: "Actually according to a court ruling a couple years ago a man has no right to decide what happens to his baby so the male participation required is a mute point as according to our courts its all because of the woman."

First of all, I was replying to an incideous comment by another blogger that the woman getting pregnant is EXCLUSIVELY at fault. The fact that this statement implies that it is ONLY the woman's fault is ridiculous and fails to acknowledge the participation of a male. I was referring to the actual unprotected sexual ACT itself that resulted in her subsequent pregnancy, not what rights a man has over the woman and her body after the sexual act is over. My point is that this blogger and possibly others, seem to think that if a woman has sex, she is the only one who engaged in the act and therefore, is the only one responsible for the subsequent pregnancy. Yes. The woman has the right to choose if she want to CONTINUE the pregnancy but she is not the only one responsible for it happening in the first place.

Mitch21: "Unless the woman in question was raped, she is completely responsable for having a child. A 17 year old girl with no way of supporting herself OR a baby should KNOW not to have sex. A mother of 6 barely getting by as it is should KNOW not to have sex. If they make the decision to have sex, they should bear the responsibility and either raise them as best they can, or give them to a foster parent/orphanage (the latter being prefferable to me). "

Oh, I see. In the absence of rape, the woman was the only one who chose to have unprotected sex with...HERSELF??? A 19 year old girl with no way of supporting herself OR the baby is the only one who should have KNOWN better than to have unprotected sex and not the 19 year old boy with no job and no condom who is looking to get lucky on a Saturday night? The FATHER of 6 illigitimate or legitimate chilren who is either NOT supporting those children or can't AFFORD to support them has no responsiblity to keep his zipper shut and not have sex? Yes. Only the woman is to be deprived of sex. Nice. It's only the woman's job to think before acting but it is the male's right to tell her she can't have an abortion? Only the 19 year old girl and the mother of 6 was at fault or lacking in their judgment, responsibilty, and moral fortitude? It also logically follows that the MALES who participated in these sexual acts should also have known better and should have had the means of supporting the MOTHER and the BABY before choosing to have unprotected sex or refrained from having sex in the first place. The FATHER, should also bear repsonsibility for the child if the mother chooses to keep the baby. Saying that a woman is the only person who made the mistake of choosing to have sex or unprotected sex, the woman is the only one at fault, the woman is the only one who should THINK before ACTING, the WOMAN is the only one who is morally or financially responsible, and yet the MEN get to decide that she HAS to keep the baby and that she CAN'T have an abortion has to be the most one-sided, double-standard I have EVER heard. I have heard a lot of hypocracy and flawed logic in my day but this has to rank up there in the top 10!

Messy Bu: "Speaking of which, I find it funny how the father has no say whatsoever in the fate of his child, and they're entirely the property of the woman, except when it comes to supporting them. Then it's magically the responsibility of the father."

Your whole line of argument is based upon the assumption that the fetus you are referring to is a "child." Again, I refer you to my previous statements in this post. Your belief that a fetus is a "child" is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you have no right to impose that opinion or your beliefs that are the basis of that opinion on others. End of story.

As for your other comment that "Reminds me of how a fetus isn't considered a human being unless somebody murders the pregnant woman. Then the fetus magically becomes a human child," is demonstrative that you don't fully understand what the law says on this subject.

Mitch21: "There is a difference between killing an innocent baby and killing a convicted child molesting murderer."

Again, thinking that a "child" exists from the moment of conception is based on your beliefs...I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Secondly, your other assumption is that everyone on death row is a convicted child molester and that all those convicted of a crime on death row are actually GUILTY of committing any crime at all. Just because someone has been convicted of a crime doesn't necessarily mean they are ACTUALLY guilty of doing anything. There are many innocent people on death row who were convicted by flawed evidence, jury biases and bigotry, and prosecutorial/judical misconduct. Many of these innocent people have only recenty been able to prove their innocence by means of our advancement in technology in the area of genetics and DNA. How many innocent people do you think have been MURDERED by the death penalty in this country as a result of not having the availability of this technology? Do you think it was ok to murder these innocent people so we could kill the ones who actually were guilty when the alternative was to have them all sitting in prison cells so that the guilty ones can never threaten society again and the innocent ones can continue to fight for their freedom? If you think it was ok to muder these innocent people in order to satisfy your need for revenge or your unwillingness to pay for their continued yet wrongful incarceration, then I want you to go to the families who had their innocent loved ones, who were wrongfully convicted and murdered by the state and explain to them how much you deeply believe in the value of innocent life.

Politically Active

on Oct 24, 2004

I am completely opposed to legalizing murder. I am not, however, opposed to keeping abortions legal.

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!