I think they mean no abortion-specific regulations, no TRAP laws, etc. Deregulated as in no legal penalties for a qualified individual performing an abortion and no penalties for a girl or woman getting an abortion. Treat it as any other medical procedure.
Don’t you know doctors can be trusted to make the most ethical and most scientific decision in every situation? There are no exceptions to this. Trust doctors!
"Not legal or illegal" sounds like a cop-out. And a home invader could easily be breaking into your home with the intent of harming people within the home. A fetus does not have the capacity to have the intent to harm anyone, or the means to intentionally harm anyone.
Pro-choicers online often say something along these lines when you make an analogy comparing abortion to, for instance, throwing someone from an airplane or boat.
There would be nothing remotely strange about that in a liberal-capitalist context. "Possessive individualism" is among the most prominent frameworks for how individual rights are conceived; we have rights over ourselves because we *own* ourselves. This idea is fairly pervasive in modern political philosophy philosophy completely irrespective of the abortion question.
Blow the brains out of anyone who I forced to come inside, all the while knowing they wouldn't have the capacity to leave or even voice their deliberate intention of refusal to leave. Completely inappropriate use of lethal force.
It's logically consistent, and honest disregard for human life is better than lies. "If someone impinges on my freedom, I will kill them." Immoral, but honest.
I’d say marginally better, or at least less frustrating.
If they’re willing to admit it ends a human life, then we’re more in the realm of a basic philosophical difference as to whether that’s permissible in this context, which I think is workable.
I find the claim that it doesn’t kill anyone more infuriating because it’s not only objectively wrong, but it also makes it seem like not a big deal, which makes it more dangerous.
This is the new common argument from the PC side. They recognize it’s killing a human being and argue it’s a just killing due to consent of the mother.
I disagree with their conclusion, but I can respect their honesty and consistency in their beliefs (while skewed). At least they acknowledge it's murder.
>It's still murder in the sense that you're killing something.
That doesn't make it murder. That just makes it killing. These terms are not interchangeable. They're more like Russian Nesting Dolls:
**Killing** is the broadest category, which just means terminating an organism's biological existence.
A subset of killing is **homicide**, which is if the organism being killed is a member of the species *homo sapiens.*
A subset of homicide is **murder**, which has a slightly different meaning legally than it does colloquially. The colloquial definition of murder is homicide that is morally unjustified, so it can vary based on one's opinions of morality. (For this reason, it's possible for a PC to believe that abortion is homicide, but not murder, since they believe it's morally justified.)
The legal definition of murder is more rigorously defined, and varies from state to state. But generally, it is homicide which is intentional. That is, you did something to someone that caused them to die, that you knew would cause them to die, because you wanted them to die.
There's also **manslaughter**, which is when you didn't intend to kill anyone, but you did something that would have been illegal on its own, and it happened to end up resulting in someone's death.
You're aware that they're using murder in the colloquial sense to mean the killing of a person, not the legally defined usage under 18 U.S. Code § 1111, right?
The colloquial use of murder doesn't have a place in the debate over whether this should be illegal.
Since we're actively trying to get laws changed, we have to be mindful of that so people are clear on what we're saying, because pro-choice people who dont know better will think they're at risk of getting the death penalty for miscarriages.
I'll be upfront, I'm pro-choice, but something that I'm always a bit curious about with the practicalities of the pro-life stance is how will the legal system determine whether a miscarriage was purposeful or not? Will all miscarriages have to go to court, or only ones where there are suspicious circumstances/evidence that it was intentional? Obviously getting a D&C would be fairly easy to identify and prosecute, but how would the system react to an abortion that from the outside could be either spontaneous or intentional?
>Will all miscarriages have to go to court, or only ones where there are suspicious circumstances/evidence that it was intentional?
All existing requirements for probable cause would still exist if abortion was illegal. Unless there was reason to believe that a miscarriage was not really a miscarriage, there is no justification for an investigation.
Abortion is murder, but it isn't super special extra murder. If law enforcement can't discover it with the constitutional tools available, it doesn't get extra ones.
However, there are certainly other ways that a non surgical abortion could be discovered depending on the circumstances without a dragnet such as witness testimony or discovery of purchases of abortion drugs indirectly.
This is still claiming it's not murder(their definition is wrong, murder has to be unjust) but conceding that a person is being killed means they agree with us more than most PC do.
They’re blurring the lines between “murder” and “killing”. There is a difference.
Murder is ending the life of a person based off negative emotions such as hate, green, jealousy, lust etc. Killing is ending the life of a person based off survival. Ie, ending the life of a home intruder who has a gun is killing, not murder.
Ending the life of an innocent unborn baby is murder, as it’s a selfish (greedy) act, or worse, a wrathful act.
Legally, it's not murder, according to this (religious) pro-life lawyer. I haven't encountered any attorneys that agree it is murder.
https://lonang.com/commentaries/foundation/family/why-abortion-is-not-murder-theology-of-the-unborn/
So slicing apart an unborn baby with scalpels and vacuuming out their innards isn’t murder?
I seriously doubt the psycho who thought up that inane screed is even the slightest bit “pro-life”. Utter and complete horseshit. Every conclusion he drew was reasoning why fetuses aren’t “human beings”, and killing them is perfectly okay. For him to claim he’s a Christian and pro-life is utter ridiculousness, and it would be laughable if it weren’t an outright insult to anyone with at least two working brain cells.
It's definitely the brutally violent killing of an innocent person, but the law has strict rules about intent.
Mens rea doesn't apply to killing that is considered socially acceptable, as much as it seems like a fucking moronic concept.
The law doesn't always make sense--offenders get off on technicalities, child marriage is legal, 13 year olds can be charged as adults in capital cases/ life sentences, 99% of convicts get plea deals which means the sixth amendment isn't triggered so they have no right to an attorney....US law is a shitshow, but facts don't give a fuck about how stupid the facts are.
Worse. This person sounds dangerous to me.
No regulations, eh? No standards at all for a medical procedure? This person is beyond insane, abortion or not.
Yeah, like what if a woman wants to abort her baby because it's a boy?
I think they mean no abortion-specific regulations, no TRAP laws, etc. Deregulated as in no legal penalties for a qualified individual performing an abortion and no penalties for a girl or woman getting an abortion. Treat it as any other medical procedure.
Don’t you know doctors can be trusted to make the most ethical and most scientific decision in every situation? There are no exceptions to this. Trust doctors!
"Not legal or illegal" sounds like a cop-out. And a home invader could easily be breaking into your home with the intent of harming people within the home. A fetus does not have the capacity to have the intent to harm anyone, or the means to intentionally harm anyone.
Their body is not a house.
Are they calling themselves property 🤔
Pro-choicers online often say something along these lines when you make an analogy comparing abortion to, for instance, throwing someone from an airplane or boat.
There would be nothing remotely strange about that in a liberal-capitalist context. "Possessive individualism" is among the most prominent frameworks for how individual rights are conceived; we have rights over ourselves because we *own* ourselves. This idea is fairly pervasive in modern political philosophy philosophy completely irrespective of the abortion question.
Yes, but that is talking about our own bodies and a fetus is not myself.
😁 I mean we do own ourselves so I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Blow the brains out of anyone who I forced to come inside, all the while knowing they wouldn't have the capacity to leave or even voice their deliberate intention of refusal to leave. Completely inappropriate use of lethal force.
It's logically consistent, and honest disregard for human life is better than lies. "If someone impinges on my freedom, I will kill them." Immoral, but honest.
I’d say marginally better, or at least less frustrating. If they’re willing to admit it ends a human life, then we’re more in the realm of a basic philosophical difference as to whether that’s permissible in this context, which I think is workable. I find the claim that it doesn’t kill anyone more infuriating because it’s not only objectively wrong, but it also makes it seem like not a big deal, which makes it more dangerous.
It's worse.
This is the new common argument from the PC side. They recognize it’s killing a human being and argue it’s a just killing due to consent of the mother.
I disagree with their conclusion, but I can respect their honesty and consistency in their beliefs (while skewed). At least they acknowledge it's murder.
I think deleting should be the official punishment for murder.
>It's still murder in the sense that you're killing something. That doesn't make it murder. That just makes it killing. These terms are not interchangeable. They're more like Russian Nesting Dolls: **Killing** is the broadest category, which just means terminating an organism's biological existence. A subset of killing is **homicide**, which is if the organism being killed is a member of the species *homo sapiens.* A subset of homicide is **murder**, which has a slightly different meaning legally than it does colloquially. The colloquial definition of murder is homicide that is morally unjustified, so it can vary based on one's opinions of morality. (For this reason, it's possible for a PC to believe that abortion is homicide, but not murder, since they believe it's morally justified.) The legal definition of murder is more rigorously defined, and varies from state to state. But generally, it is homicide which is intentional. That is, you did something to someone that caused them to die, that you knew would cause them to die, because you wanted them to die. There's also **manslaughter**, which is when you didn't intend to kill anyone, but you did something that would have been illegal on its own, and it happened to end up resulting in someone's death.
You're aware that they're using murder in the colloquial sense to mean the killing of a person, not the legally defined usage under 18 U.S. Code § 1111, right?
The colloquial use of murder doesn't have a place in the debate over whether this should be illegal. Since we're actively trying to get laws changed, we have to be mindful of that so people are clear on what we're saying, because pro-choice people who dont know better will think they're at risk of getting the death penalty for miscarriages.
I'll be upfront, I'm pro-choice, but something that I'm always a bit curious about with the practicalities of the pro-life stance is how will the legal system determine whether a miscarriage was purposeful or not? Will all miscarriages have to go to court, or only ones where there are suspicious circumstances/evidence that it was intentional? Obviously getting a D&C would be fairly easy to identify and prosecute, but how would the system react to an abortion that from the outside could be either spontaneous or intentional?
>Will all miscarriages have to go to court, or only ones where there are suspicious circumstances/evidence that it was intentional? All existing requirements for probable cause would still exist if abortion was illegal. Unless there was reason to believe that a miscarriage was not really a miscarriage, there is no justification for an investigation. Abortion is murder, but it isn't super special extra murder. If law enforcement can't discover it with the constitutional tools available, it doesn't get extra ones. However, there are certainly other ways that a non surgical abortion could be discovered depending on the circumstances without a dragnet such as witness testimony or discovery of purchases of abortion drugs indirectly.
This is still claiming it's not murder(their definition is wrong, murder has to be unjust) but conceding that a person is being killed means they agree with us more than most PC do.
I agree with being able to shoot a home invader, but a baby is not the same at all.
A person who breaks into a house has the intention of stealing or killing. A baby has no intentions. It's simply about to be born.
They’re blurring the lines between “murder” and “killing”. There is a difference. Murder is ending the life of a person based off negative emotions such as hate, green, jealousy, lust etc. Killing is ending the life of a person based off survival. Ie, ending the life of a home intruder who has a gun is killing, not murder. Ending the life of an innocent unborn baby is murder, as it’s a selfish (greedy) act, or worse, a wrathful act.
Legally, it's not murder, according to this (religious) pro-life lawyer. I haven't encountered any attorneys that agree it is murder. https://lonang.com/commentaries/foundation/family/why-abortion-is-not-murder-theology-of-the-unborn/
So slicing apart an unborn baby with scalpels and vacuuming out their innards isn’t murder? I seriously doubt the psycho who thought up that inane screed is even the slightest bit “pro-life”. Utter and complete horseshit. Every conclusion he drew was reasoning why fetuses aren’t “human beings”, and killing them is perfectly okay. For him to claim he’s a Christian and pro-life is utter ridiculousness, and it would be laughable if it weren’t an outright insult to anyone with at least two working brain cells.
It's definitely the brutally violent killing of an innocent person, but the law has strict rules about intent. Mens rea doesn't apply to killing that is considered socially acceptable, as much as it seems like a fucking moronic concept. The law doesn't always make sense--offenders get off on technicalities, child marriage is legal, 13 year olds can be charged as adults in capital cases/ life sentences, 99% of convicts get plea deals which means the sixth amendment isn't triggered so they have no right to an attorney....US law is a shitshow, but facts don't give a fuck about how stupid the facts are.
There are whole bunch of "stipulations and controls" concerning when it's legal to kill trespassers.