Abortion Denied

[New Libertarian States]

Fixed.

Now aren't you a sick person

Vindex Nation used ad hominem!
It had no effect.......

[The Tovian Way]

How many people use the incorrect definition are irrelevant.
Infanticide is not illegal by definition, it is an act which is also illegal. Killing an infant would still be infanticide even if there were no legal prohibition against killing infants. The term is descriptive, not normative. So too for murder.
Infanticide is indeed legal in certain cases, namely abortion. That's why I continue to oppose abortion and push at every opportunity, for changing the laws until infanticide is illegal in every case, absent the necessity of self defense.

No infanticide is illegal because the definition if infanticide includes the fact that it is the illegal killing of an infant, thus by definition it is illegal. The legal killing of an infant (for instance in a car crash where the infant dies) is not infanticide because it is no illegal. The term is not descriptive, especially as we are dealing with a legal definition.

The term is indeed descriptive. All instances of killing of infants throughout history were infanticide. Some of those instances were also illegal.

[Vindex Nation]

Now aren't you a sick person

Because they're accurate?

Because what is accurate?

[Neutraligon]

No infanticide is illegal because the definition if infanticide includes the fact that it is the illegal killing of an infant, thus by definition it is illegal. The legal killing of an infant (for instance in a car crash where the infant dies) is not infanticide because it is no illegal. The term is not descriptive, especially as we are dealing with a legal definition.

The term is indeed descriptive. All instances of killing of infants throughout history were infanticide. Some of those instances were also illegal.

No, in the legal use of the term, not all killings of an infant are infanticide.

med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)
2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433.
3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.

Notice that it uses the term murder. Ok so here is the legal definition of murder
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
So again, in order for infanticide to be infanticide in needs to be the murder (ie unlawful killing) of an infant, which is a born human. Now that I have provided the legal and medical definition of infant, murder and infanticide, please provide support for why your definitions should be used.

[Liriena]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

lolnope, but nice try.

Pro-choice defends the right of people to choose that to do with their own bodies, and whatever being exists within.

[Liriena]

Fixed.

Now aren't you a sick person

Keep your name calling to yourself.

[The Tovian Way]

The term is indeed descriptive. All instances of killing of infants throughout history were infanticide. Some of those instances were also illegal.

No, in the legal use of the term, not all killings of an infant are infanticide.

med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)
2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433.
3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.

Notice that it uses the term murder. Ok so here is the legal definition of murder
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
So again, in order for infanticide to be infanticide in needs to be the murder (ie unlawful killing) of an infant, which is a born human. Now that I have provided the legal and medical definition of infant, murder and infanticide, please provide support for why your definitions should be used.

I am unconcerned with the way in which it is currently defined in the legal code. I freely admit that some forms of infanticide are legal. That's the very problem.
That merely indicates that the legal code should be changed, until what the law recognizes as infanticide, and therefore illegal, is in keeping with the descriptive term, namely taking the life of any infant.

[Hurdegaryp]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

lolnope, but nice try.

Pro-choice defends the right of people to choose that to do with their own bodies, and whatever being exists within.

And yes, in this case people are males and females. I found it necessary to point this out, since some here seem to have trouble grasping the concept of gender equality.

[Vindex Nation]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

lolnope, but nice try.

Pro-choice defends the right of people to choose that to do with their own bodies, and whatever being exists within.

So what? Are you saying that a fetus who you know will turn into a human Is property?

[Liriena]

So, what? What do you propose? Don't sugar-coat your bullshit.

1. I don't propose any positive action, that is not my place.
2. All rights are negative, and specify only what may not be done to you.
3. The right to life prevents others from taking yours.
4. As for positive actions, I defer to the right to self-autonomy. A person may exercise their rights as they will, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

1. Then you see nothing wrong with terminally ill newborns suffering for days or even weeks, without any possibility of putting them out of their misery?
2. Bullshit. Seriously, it's as if you lived in a universe with no Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. Sure it does... but only to a certain point. All rights are open to certain reasonable restrictions or exceptions.
4. Unbelievable bullshit. Some rights blatantly require positive action, specially from the state.

[Neutraligon]

No, in the legal use of the term, not all killings of an infant are infanticide.

med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)
2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433.
3. When this crime is to be proved from circumstances, it is proper to consider whether the child had attained that size and maturity by which it would have been enabled to maintain an independent existence; whether it was born alive; and, if born alive, by what means it came to its death. 1 Beck's Med. Jur. 331 to 428, where these several questions are learnedly considered. See also 1 Briand, Med Leg. prem. part. c. 8 Cooper's Med. Jur. h.t. Vide Ryan's Med. Jur. 137; Med. Jur. 145, 194; Dr. Cummin's Proof of Infanticide considered Lecieux, Considerations Medico-legales sur l'Infanticide; Duvergie, Medicine Legale, art. Infanticide.

Notice that it uses the term murder. Ok so here is the legal definition of murder
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
So again, in order for infanticide to be infanticide in needs to be the murder (ie unlawful killing) of an infant, which is a born human. Now that I have provided the legal and medical definition of infant, murder and infanticide, please provide support for why your definitions should be used.

I am unconcerned with the way in which it is currently defined in the legal code. I freely admit that some forms of infanticide are legal. That's the very problem.
That merely indicates that the legal code should be changed, until what the law recognizes as infanticide, and therefore illegal, is in keeping with the descriptive term, namely taking the life of any infant.

Again you are using a term in a way in which it cannot be used, as it does not fulfill the definition of that term. We are dealing with a legal and medical problem, thus we are using the legal and medical definitions. You must back up your claim that your definitions can indeed be used, considering your definitions are not the common definitions used by most of society. Your claim that it is descriptive rather than normative also needs to be backed up given, the fact that we are dealing with a medical and legal case. The definitions you are using have no standing due to the fact that they cannot be used in a court of law, which is what we are dealing with.
Please explain to me then, why we should use your definitions considering these cases, if you continue to refuse to do so (I have asked repeatedly), I feel that continuing this discussion with you would be an utter waste of my time.

[Caecuser]

lolnope, but nice try.

Pro-choice defends the right of people to choose that to do with their own bodies, and whatever being exists within.

So what? Are you saying that a fetus who you know will turn into a human Is property?

Seeing as he didn't mention the words fetus or property once there I would assume not.

[Liriena]

lolnope, but nice try.

Pro-choice defends the right of people to choose that to do with their own bodies, and whatever being exists within.

So what? Are you saying that a fetus who you know will turn into a human Is property?

The law does not grant rights to "potential people", only to existing people. Furthermore, no pregnancy is 100% certain to be carried to term. Miscarriages are awfully common. Anything that is within my body is mine to preserve or remove, whatever its origin or potential outcome may be. I can remove a worm or an appendix if I choose to, so why not fetuses that are not even remotely viable?

[The Tovian Way]

1. I don't propose any positive action, that is not my place.
2. All rights are negative, and specify only what may not be done to you.
3. The right to life prevents others from taking yours.
4. As for positive actions, I defer to the right to self-autonomy. A person may exercise their rights as they will, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

1. Then you see nothing wrong with terminally ill newborns suffering for days or even weeks, without any possibility of putting them out of their misery?
2. Bullshit. Seriously, it's as if you lived in a universe with no Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. Sure it does... but only to a certain point. All rights are open to certain reasonable restrictions or exceptions.
4. Unbelievable bullshit. Some rights blatantly require positive action, specially from the state.

1. I see nothing wrong with not killing terminally ill newborns, despite their suffering for days or even weeks without any possibility of putting them out of their misery, because to kill such a newborn would infringe upon its right to life.
2. I deny that the United Nations has any authority to declare what is or is not a human right.
3. I deny that there are any reasonable restrictions or exceptions to natural human rights.
4. I deny that any positive rights exist.

[Vindex Nation]

So what? Are you saying that a fetus who you know will turn into a human Is property?

Seeing as he didn't mention the words fetus or property once there I would assume not.

READ THE POST. They say "the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, and whatever being exists within." Do you not know what this is saying?

[The Tovian Way]

I am unconcerned with the way in which it is currently defined in the legal code. I freely admit that some forms of infanticide are legal. That's the very problem.
That merely indicates that the legal code should be changed, until what the law recognizes as infanticide, and therefore illegal, is in keeping with the descriptive term, namely taking the life of any infant.

Again you are using a term in a way in which it cannot be used, as it does not fulfill the definition of that term. We are dealing with a legal and medical problem, thus we are using the legal and medical definitions. You must back up your claim that your definitions can indeed be used, considering your definitions are not the common definitions used by most of society. Your claim that it is descriptive rather than normative also needs to be backed up given, the fact that we are dealing with a medical and legal case. The definitions you are using have no standing due to the fact that they cannot be used in a court of law, which is what we are dealing with.
Please explain to me then, why we should use your definitions considering these cases, if you continue to refuse to do so (I have asked repeatedly), I feel that continuing this discussion with you would be an utter waste of my time.

We are indeed dealing with a legal problem. And the source of that problem is that the legal definition of infanticide is incorrect.
My solution to this is to change the legal definition of infanticide - and therefore the law - to remove any conditional statement requiring that the victim must have first been born.

[Caecuser]

1. Then you see nothing wrong with terminally ill newborns suffering for days or even weeks, without any possibility of putting them out of their misery?
2. Bullshit. Seriously, it's as if you lived in a universe with no Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. Sure it does... but only to a certain point. All rights are open to certain reasonable restrictions or exceptions.
4. Unbelievable bullshit. Some rights blatantly require positive action, specially from the state.

1. I see nothing wrong with not killing terminally ill newborns, despite their suffering for days or even weeks without any possibility of putting them out of their misery, because to kill such a newborn would infringe upon its right to life.
2. I deny that the United Nations has any authority to declare what is or is not a human right.
3. I deny that there are any reasonable restrictions or exceptions to natural human rights.
4. I deny that any positive rights exist.

You're free to have an opinion - just as you're equally free to have the choice about what to do with your own body.

Don't go against other people's opinions though.

Your denials don't exactly have a lot of bearing to them unless you can support them.

[Zottistan]

lolnope, but nice try.

Pro-choice defends the right of people to choose that to do with their own bodies, and whatever being exists within.

So what? Are you saying that a fetus who you know will turn into a human Is property?

Legally, no. But they should be, really.


Basically, if you exist at the expense of another human being, you exist at the mercy of another human being. Nobody should be obliged to have their bodily sanctity violated and their biological resources taken by another.

[The Tovian Way]

1. I see nothing wrong with not killing terminally ill newborns, despite their suffering for days or even weeks without any possibility of putting them out of their misery, because to kill such a newborn would infringe upon its right to life.
2. I deny that the United Nations has any authority to declare what is or is not a human right.
3. I deny that there are any reasonable restrictions or exceptions to natural human rights.
4. I deny that any positive rights exist.

You're free to have an opinion - just as you're equally free to have the choice about what to do with your own body.

Don't go against other people's opinions though.

Your denials don't exactly have a lot of bearing to them unless you can support them.

Fortunately I live in a society which allows me to act to bring about my opinions through the democratic process. This I do regularly, and vote in every instance I am capable of restricting the access to and the legality of abortion, and will continue to do so until abortion is fully prohibited.

[Caecuser]

You're free to have an opinion - just as you're equally free to have the choice about what to do with your own body.

Don't go against other people's opinions though.

Your denials don't exactly have a lot of bearing to them unless you can support them.

Fortunately I live in a society which allows me to act to bring about my opinions through the democratic process. This I do regularly, and vote in every instance I am capable of restricting access to and legality of abortion, and will continue to do so until abortion is fully prohibited.

Well, good for you - continue to exercise your democratic right. Don't be surprised if other people will vote alternately to you.

[Vindex Nation]

So what? Are you saying that a fetus who you know will turn into a human Is property?

The law does not grant rights to "potential people", only to existing people. Furthermore, no pregnancy is 100% certain to be carried to term. Miscarriages are awfully common. Anything that is within my body is mine to preserve or remove, whatever its origin or potential outcome may be. I can remove a worm or an appendix if I choose to, so why not fetuses that are not even remotely viable?

You don't seem to understand that birth doesn't just happen you need to choose to have the child in the first place.

[Enadail]

You're free to have an opinion - just as you're equally free to have the choice about what to do with your own body.

Don't go against other people's opinions though.

Your denials don't exactly have a lot of bearing to them unless you can support them.

Fortunately I live in a society which allows me to act to bring about my opinions through the democratic process. This I do regularly, and vote in every instance I am capable of restricting the access to and the legality of abortion, and will continue to do so until abortion is fully prohibited.

And the same society does not allow you to restrict the rights of other people, which is what you're trying to do.

[Liriena]

1. Then you see nothing wrong with terminally ill newborns suffering for days or even weeks, without any possibility of putting them out of their misery?
2. Bullshit. Seriously, it's as if you lived in a universe with no Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. Sure it does... but only to a certain point. All rights are open to certain reasonable restrictions or exceptions.
4. Unbelievable bullshit. Some rights blatantly require positive action, specially from the state.

1. I see nothing wrong with not killing terminally ill newborns, despite their suffering for days or even weeks without any possibility of putting them out of their misery, because to kill such a newborn would infringe upon its right to life.
2. I deny that the United Nations has any authority to declare what is or is not a human right.
3. I deny that there are any reasonable restrictions or exceptions to natural human rights.
4. I deny that any positive rights exist.

1. All human rights require that someone, either the person in question or its legal guardian, are there to act on it. A newborn cannot act on its own rights, which is why the law provides it with legal guardians and professionals tasked with making decisions in its best interests.
2. Well, the United Nations' conventions on human rights are legally binding. Your opinions, on the other hand, are not.
3. Never set a single foot in law school, then. The staff and students will tear you to pieces of that arrogant denial of reality.
4. Again with this arrogant denial of reality?

[Enadail]

The law does not grant rights to "potential people", only to existing people. Furthermore, no pregnancy is 100% certain to be carried to term. Miscarriages are awfully common. Anything that is within my body is mine to preserve or remove, whatever its origin or potential outcome may be. I can remove a worm or an appendix if I choose to, so why not fetuses that are not even remotely viable?

You don't seem to understand that birth doesn't just happen you need to choose to have the child in the first place.

And if you get pregnant without your consent, without abortions, you don't have a choice on having the child.

[The Tovian Way]

Fortunately I live in a society which allows me to act to bring about my opinions through the democratic process. This I do regularly, and vote in every instance I am capable of restricting access to and legality of abortion, and will continue to do so until abortion is fully prohibited.

Well, good for you - continue to exercise your democratic right. Don't be surprised if other people will vote alternately to you.

I fully expect they will. There have always been people throughout history who advocate infringing on others' rights because they do not consider members of that group to be fully human.
Being from the American South, I'm quite acquainted with those espousing such bigotry.