d3adz0mbie d3adz0mbie

Let's make murder legal

▼

Let's make murder legal

from JoeUser Forums
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.
politics
21,335 views 55 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
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
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
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
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
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.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Grim, I can see why they could nail him for "dealing in child pornography" but the possession charge is absurd.  It is a picture of himself for crying out flavin'!
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder if any of the pro-abortion folks would change their minds if a law were passed allowing for retroactive abortions. Say, when the child is 20, or 30, or 40 the mother has the right to decide to abort that child retroactively. Might solve a lot of problems.
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
That is what I am talking about!!

POST BIRTH ABORTIONS!!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey Messy check this out: Link

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


Grim. it is not the first time. A 16 year old girl got nailed for the same crime for soing basically the same thing. I dont think they should be arrested, but a good paddling and restriction is definitely in order.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder if any of the pro-abortion folks would change their minds if a law were passed allowing for retroactive abortions. Say, when the child is 20, or 30, or 40 the mother has the right to decide to abort that child retroactively. Might solve a lot of problems.


Actually, they are called post partum abortions, and South Park had a hilarious episode about them.
Reply #36 from PolMach Forums Top
Actually, they are called post partum abortions, and South Park had a hilarious episode about them.


Damn I must have missed that one, do you know what season it was in?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
*grin*

I've been wanting to post on this thread for a few days.

While I am very pro-choice, I certainly see the merit of your argument.

But my own feeling is that if my wife's life was in danger, I'd choose her life over the life a little person I've never met. That would be selfish, I admit. Actually, my wife and I had the potential to be in that situation, so instead of risking a potential abortion, my wife had a tubal ligation. We may never have biological children -- but we won't ever have to abort a child, either.

Good post.
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
If abor tion is made illegal we will again have coat hanger abortions and it still will occur. You want to be a nazi and regulate what a women can do with her body. Fine elect an all female house and senate and let all women decide on what they an do with their own bodies . Personally I am pro choice but would not have one if I had the opiton. But damn me all to hell since im not a fundamental christain sheep I am a baby killer.

Flame on
Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top
If abor tion is made illegal we will again have coat hanger abortions and it still will occur.


Murder occurs whether it is legal or not, but we still make it illegal for one very good reason: so that we may prosecute those who commit it in a court of law.

You want to be a nazi and regulate what a women can do with her body.


If we are speaking about an unborn child, that is not the "woman's body," now, is it? Certainly, it depends upon the mother to live, but it is still a separate being. Nazis never regulated that, by the way.

Fine elect an all female house and senate and let all women decide on what they an do with their own bodies


What are you talking about?

Personally I am pro choice but would not have one if I had the opiton. But damn me all to hell since im not a fundamental christain sheep I am a baby killer.


Typical liberalism; attacking those who may hold a different religion than you, and, in fact, insulting that religion. How terribly pathetic and utterly childish that action is. Though, yes, I do feel that abortion is the killing of babies. If I felt otherwise, I would not have jumped into this discussion.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
"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."

This completely misses the point. First, up until the 3rd trimester, the fetus is not deemed a "human life" as it cannot survive on its own outside of the womb. I know that there are varying opinions on this subject, much of them grounded in religious beliefs (etc...), but it is not what science, the majority of the American public, nor the Supreme Court (that relied on science), determined. A woman cannot have an abortion after the reaching her third trimester absent extenuating circumstances such as the mother's life being in danger. As such, you cannot compare apples with oranges...meaning you cannot equate a viable human life (EX. the store clerk you mentioned) and an unborn fetus. I think one would be hard pressed to compare, for the sake of argument, a small clump of cells in the first few weeks of pregnancy with the store clerk working in your local 7-11. I struggled with this issue for a very long time and was very torn about a very personal and complex issue. For myself, I think having an abortion is a very difficult and tramatic decision made by individual women as to what to do with their own bodies. If it is a sin, as some have suggested, then that is between the woman in question and her God. I am not in a postition to make that judgment. Not everyone subscribes to the same faith or beliefs as you and while I respect your views and your faith, your views should not be imposed upon others who may not share them with you. Since the government nor science can know with absolute certainty, precisely the moment a few cells actually transforms into a human life, I do not think it is the government's place to presume that they do know and tell a woman what to do with her body. If we want the government off our backs, as conservatives like to say, then we certainly want them out of a woman's womb and out of our bedrooms.

As a final thought, we have already legalized the right to murder because a few individuals sitting in a jury box can decide the state can take the life of a living human being as punishment for various crimes. 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? Have these people committed horrible acts? For those who are ACTUALLY guilty, yes. Does that give us the right to murder them...I think not. Do we have the right to kill the countless INNOCENT people who are falsely accused and mistakenly convicted and still call that justice? Absolutely not. For do so is to confuse justice with murderous tyranny. It is better that the guilty sit in a cell for the rest of their lives (where they will no longer pose a threat to society) so that the innocent, who have committed no crime, at least have a chance to rightfully obtain their freedom in lieu of lying murdered in a grave.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mitch21:
"how can a law define life??"

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.

"and nevermind the damn woman cant keep her legs shut..."

Oh, I see. 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.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
MasonM -

"I wonder if any of the pro-abortion folks would change their minds if a law were passed allowing for retroactive abortions. Say, when the child is 20, or 30, or 40 the mother has the right to decide to abort that child retroactively. Might solve a lot of problems."

The first problem with this line of reasoning is that the government cannot "retroactively" apply a law which imposes death on anyone after they are born because it's unconstitutional. I refer you to the "expost facto" clause to the U.S. constitution.

Secondly, I refer you to my previous posts.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa, "We will never be able to parse the nanosecond that divides "pre-life" from "life", at least never to the satisfaction of those who would preserve every egg & every sperm cell as potential human beings."

good post. I added more to the theme of your argument above.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


Just the point I was about to make! Thank you - I can't believe this one slipped by.

This issue is never going to be resolved to everyone's approval but people who can argue as fairly and intelligently as Daiwa are the sort of people who can help. I am in awe of how even handed you have been in your responses even whilst everyone else has been getting agro. I'm very impressed.

Nice article. It is well writen and even though I share a differing view point I can appreciate your position.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Floozie, I'm not sure if your entire post was directed towards me or the discussion in general. I have tried to apply some sound logic to this discussion without being offensive or arrogant. In any event, thanks for the compliment regarding my statement: "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."
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?

Reply #47 from PolMach Forums Top
"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.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
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
Reply #50 from PolMach Forums Top
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).