Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[seer]

Or have no problem slaughtering indigenous people back "in the day" (the last officially sanctioned massacre in Australia for example was in 1928).

Well if it was legal it wasn't murder! Glad we settled that!

[Cow Poke]

Given the number of black celebrities who are stopped by the police (Chris Rock and others cite numerous occasions) it's a reasonable comment.

Oh, give me a break - somebody putting a TV into the back of their car from a smashed window is NOTHING like that.

No you were being evasive.

No, you were acting like some psysho prosecutor.

You need to stop being a nasty old man...how old were you exactly when you signed the SBC Resolution in 1971?

Nunya.

[Cow Poke]

Um, desegregation was already in effect in 1972. The problem with Roe had nothing to do with desegregation. If anything, Roe cracks open the legal door for a return to slavery (why it doesn't scare the blankity blank out of everyone else, I'll never know). Tass's source is less sane than usual.

Nobody said it had ANYTHING to do with Roe - it's just a typical Tassman "find ANYTHING I can to pretend to back up my claim even if it comes from a nutty source" thing.

[Tassman]

Nobody said it had ANYTHING to do with Roe - it's just a typical Tassman "find ANYTHING I can to pretend to back up my claim even if it comes from a nutty source" thing.

Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/go...hristian-right

[Tassman]

Yes, in my life time abortion was illegal. So obviously you would agree with the killing of Jews if it was lawful.

False equivalence! Society by and large does not consider non-viable fetus' are persons protected by law, whereas Jews obviously are viable persons who should be protected by law.

[seer]

False equivalence! Society by and large does not consider non-viable fetus' are persons protected by law, whereas Jews obviously are viable persons who should be protected by law.

Nonsense Tass, the Nazis did not think of Jews as persons, they equated them to rats for goodness sake. That is what happens when you use arbitrary definitions like personhood. Besides these are only cultural differences base on evolved instincts... No big deal...

[kiwimac]

Or have no problem slaughtering indigenous people back "in the day" (the last officially sanctioned massacre in Australia for example was in 1928).

Did you not bother reading?

"...murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. . ."

[seer]

Did you not bother reading?

Of course he did: The killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

And since the Coniston massacre was legally sanctioned, it was not murder.

[rogue06]

Nonsense Tass, the Nazis did not think of Jews as persons, they equated them to rats for goodness sake. That is what happens when you use arbitrary definitions like personhood. Besides these are only cultural differences base on evolved instincts... No big deal...

[One Bad Pig]

Did you not bother reading?

The key words are human being. In the case of aborigines or of the Jews, those being killed were considered subhuman - just like fetuses are considered subhuman by pro-abortionists.

[Tassman]

Or have no problem slaughtering indigenous people back "in the day" (the last officially sanctioned massacre in Australia for example was in 1928).

Prime Minister John Howard actually apologised formally in parliament to the indigenous people of Australia for the shocking treatment they received. Have the native Americans received a similar apology for the mass slaughter of their people at the hands of the colonialists?

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, the Nazis did not think of Jews as persons, they equated them to rats for goodness sake. That is what happens when you use arbitrary definitions like personhood. Besides these are only cultural differences base on evolved instincts... No big deal...

This is a false equivalence. There may be some dispute when the status of 'personhood' is attained in the womb, i.e. at conception or fetal viability, but there is no doubt whatsoever that a human being is a "person" once it has emerged from the womb. Hence there is no confusion between Jewish "persons" or any other "person".

[One Bad Pig]

Prime Minister John Howard actually apologised formally in parliament to the indigenous people of Australia for the shocking treatment they received. Have the native Americans received a similar apology for the mass slaughter of their people at the hands of the colonialists?

Native Americans by and large did not experience mass slaughter of their people at the hands of the colonialists, though they were often treated massively unfairly.

[Tassman]

Native Americans by and large did not experience mass slaughter of their people at the hands of the colonialists, though they were often treated massively unfairly.

True!

"Conservative definitions [of genocide] emphasize intentional actions and policies of governments that result in very large population losses, usually from direct killing. More liberal definitions call for less stringent criteria for intent, focusing more on outcomes. They do not necessarily require direct sanction by state authorities; rather, they identify societal forces and actors. They also allow for several intersecting forces of destruction, including dispossession and disease".

http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/...0199329175-e-3

Much the same can be said of the Australian treatment of aborigines as with the native Americans. Not something for which either nation can be proud.

[seer]

This is a false equivalence. There may be some dispute when the status of 'personhood' is attained in the womb, i.e. at conception or fetal viability, but there is no doubt whatsoever that a human being is a "person" once it has emerged from the womb. Hence there is no confusion between Jewish "persons" or any other "person".

Nonsense Tass, that thread I started about infanticide disputes your definition of personhood and you had NO RATIONAL response. You had no logical argument against those atheist philosophers. Like I said, these are only cultural differences base on evolved instincts... No big deal...