• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man accused of killing abortion doc says he's being 'treated like a criminal'

TheNextEra said:
Again, what makes an animal less than a human. I'm not arguing on the side of PETA only saying that they believe the animal has a right to life as well.

You don't agree with that, but again, legal doesn't mean right or moral.

You think the animal less than human.

Pro-choice thinks the rights of the woman > fetus.

These are choices that we make. What makes your choice right and theirs wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't see your point? An animal is not a human, so your comparison is bunk. Would you eat a human fetus? We don't need go down the moral justifications for carnivorous behaviour to see that.
 
Wessexman said:
I don't see your point? An animal is not a human, so your comparison is bunk. Would you eat a human fetus? We don't need go down the moral justifications for carnivorous behaviour to see that.
Click to expand...

Humans are animals but yeah it's off topic. Humans killing humans is not comparable to humans killing non-humans.
 
Wessexman said:
I don't see your point? An animal is not a human, so your comparison is bunk. Would you eat a human fetus? We don't need go down the moral justifications for carnivorous behaviour to see that.
Click to expand...

You think an animal's life is not the same as a human's. What makes YOUR point of view right and theirs wrong?
 
talloulou said:
Humans are animals but yeah it's off topic. Humans killing humans is not comparable to humans killing non-humans.
Click to expand...

To PETA it is. What makes YOUR point right and theirs wrong. you can't use Legality because something being legal, doesn't mean it is right or moral, remember?
 
TheNextEra said:
To PETA it is. What makes YOUR point right and theirs wrong. you can't use Legality because something being legal, doesn't mean it is right or moral, remember?
Click to expand...

Unless you are suggesting that we should as a society make laws about killing each other the same as laws about killing non-humans I have no idea why you insist on being off topic.
 
jallman said:
I would let it go to 18 weeks without questioning the woman at all. After that, I would make it a capital offense if it were not done with a doctor's orders and matching orders from a doctor completely unaffiliated with the first.
Click to expand...
Well apart from the time limit(and the punishment.) we pretty much agree. I'd make it only possible to get one if the mother was i serious danger after about the 12-15 week period, unless perhaps she was raped which I'd extend to perhaps around 20-22 weeks. The doctor's permission before the limit would not be too onerous but it wouldn't be completely on demand; you'd be denied say if you were going back for the 4th time because you hadn't worked out how contraception worked. Pretty much how it is in Britain(minus the fact you can just try a different doctor if you get refused now.).
 
jallman said:
My digestive system.
Click to expand...

Mine to, but that doesn't make it right or moral.

Bottom line is that WE (as people) and in control have made it legal. Much like we as people right now have made abortion legal.

You can't say something is right or moral by legality alone, but the fact of the matter is, it is allowed.

Much like our founding fathers allowed slavery, women to viewed as property, etc.

Right and moral are subjective terms put on by the majority of the times.

Pro-life folks will argue that killing a fetus is immoral.

Pro-Choice folks will argue it is the right of the woman.

This argument will not go away and it will go back and forth.

It was moral and right (at the time of our founding fathers) to allow slavery and women to be treated as property.

This is proof that rights and morals are subjective.
 
TheNextEra said:
You think an animal's life is not the same as a human's. What makes YOUR point of view right and theirs wrong?
Click to expand...
That might be an interesting(or not discussion.) but it isn't the point. Seeing as you are avoiding the question I take it roast fetus is not a delicacy you crave, and seeing as it is very different situation your comparison has no meaning. It is irrelevant.
 
talloulou said:
Unless you are suggesting that we should as a society make laws about killing each other the same as laws about killing non-humans I have no idea why you insist on being off topic.
Click to expand...

It's not offtopic and if you think it is report me. However, I don't think my post is going away. Its about what is rights, morals, and what is legal.

These are ALL subjective. You claim it is immoral to kill a fetus, the pro-choice crowd says it isn't. PETA says it isn't right or moral to kill animals in slaughter houses, most people disagree.

Abortion is legal, slaughter houses are legal.

Rights, morals, and what is legal are ALWAYS subjective.
 
TheNextEra said:
Again, what makes an animal less than a human. I'm not arguing on the side of PETA only saying that they believe the animal has a right to life as well.

You don't agree with that, but again, legal doesn't mean right or moral.

You think the animal less than human.

Pro-choice thinks the rights of the woman > fetus.

These are choices that we make. What makes your choice right and theirs wrong?
Click to expand...

All the talk about animal human equality and such aside, our laws don't govern an animal's right to life. They govern human right to life. And the question, past 22 weeks isn't a matter of fetus over mother or mother over fetus. It is a question of deciding person over person. By the time Tiller was doing these late term abortions, you have to consider what that fetus went through...and science tells us that a 22 week old fetus does go through the experience. It may not consciously "know" what is happening to it, but by that time, not knowing is merely a lack of experience for comparison. Its one and only experience is having a foreign object invade it's only place of safety, gripping it by the head with something cold and abrasive, yanking it's body into position and then a sharp stab in the head as it's skull is deflated and it dies.

That's not right. I don't care how you look at it...whether it be a fetus or a baby, that isn't right if it's not absolutely necessary. It's barbaric, cruel, and evil.
 
Wessexman said:
That might be an interesting(or not discussion.) but it isn't the point. Seeing as you are avoiding the question I take it roast fetus is not a delicacy you crave, and seeing as it is very different situation your comparison has no meaning. It is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Again that is your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Rights, Morals, and legality are all subjective.

You cannot point and say this is legal, so it is right and moral, just as you cannot point and say this is illegal, so it's not right and immoral.

It's all subjective and society decides.

Right now society has decided it is LEGAL for abortions to remain illegal (with restrictions) and that killing animals is legal.

Neither makes it right or moral.
 
TheNextEra said:
This is proof that rights and morals are subjective.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, perhaps not. And you mean social as much as subjective.

It doesn't however prove that killing 7 month old fetuses is the same in our current moral climate as killing a pig humanely for food.

They are clearly very different. We prefer humans and tend to wish to protect innocent ones and we eat animals whatever the ultimate metaphysical justification for this.
 
Wessexman said:
So? that does not mean he wasn't a monster.

Do you support late-term abortions when the mother is not in serious danger
Click to expand...
?

No. All abortions are a private sadness IMP

Now, on to your point which is really at the heart of all these thread

I cannot see how they could be anything but monstrous. This does not excuse his murder but it does mean he was a monster if he was doing this.
Click to expand...

Then what does it do?


(not you but others on these threads)
What is the point of posting the gory details of an abortion? What is the point of posting every pro-life accusation thrown at Tiller, truthful or otherwise? Why do this excetp to excuse his murder?

(to you)
Why call him a monster? In our society, he is not a monster. He was a Doctor performing a medical procedure. Why use that type of extreme language when discussing his murder? The only reason I can think of is to excuse, in some way, his murder. We are all for the doing away with of 'monsters'. Right. Serial killers? Mass murders? All Monsters that we would be better off without, right? However, in the state of Kansas, Tiller was only controversial doctor. Extreme, hyperbolic language is not fact. Facts are fact. Tiller was innocent of any crime against our society and he was murdered. That's the fact, jack.
 
jallman said:
All the talk about animal human equality and such aside, our laws don't govern an animal's right to life.
Click to expand...

Kill your neighbors dog and find out what happens to you.

Yes, our government has decided that animals have a right to life, if we choose it.
 
TheNextEra said:
Kill your neighbors dog and find out what happens to you.

Yes, our government has decided that animals have a right to life, if we choose it.
Click to expand...

That's a property issue. But you are correct, we do set limits on animal cruelty.

Why gloss over the cruelty I described?
 
TheNextEra said:
Again that is your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Rights, Morals, and legality are all subjective.

You cannot point and say this is legal, so it is right and moral, just as you cannot point and say this is illegal, so it's not right and immoral.

It's all subjective and society decides.

Right now society has decided it is LEGAL for abortions to remain illegal (with restrictions) and that killing animals is legal.

Neither makes it right or moral.
Click to expand...
Firstly you are confusing the subjective and social and secondly you seem to be agreeing with our point. You seem to be arguing about irrelevancies and grasping to connect them for some strange attempt to justify late-term abortions.
 
Wessexman said:
Perhaps, perhaps not. And you mean social as much as subjective.

It doesn't however prove that killing 7 month old fetuses is the same in our current moral climate as killing a pig humanely for food.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't prove that it isn't the same either.

Again, our society decides this. There was a time in Egyptian culture that killing cats of the pharaohs was punishable by death. Of course the exception was if the pharaoh died, then it was ok.

It is all subjective. Our laws, morals, rights and wrongs.
 
Wessexman said:
Firstly you are confusing the subjective and social and secondly you seem to be agreeing with our point. You seem to be arguing about irrelevancies and grasping to connect them for some strange attempt to justify late-term abortions.
Click to expand...

Not at all, it is LEGAL right now for abortions to happen. It is LEGAL for slaughter houses to exist. Neither one of them are moral or right by them being legal.
 
hazlnut said:
?

No. All abortions are a private sadness IMP[
Click to expand...
Would you allow the above to legal.

Then what does it do?
Click to expand...
Comment on Tiller.

I would not have wanted Ted Bundy murdered the night before his execution but that doesn't mean he wasn't a murderer.

(not you but others on these threads)
What is the point of posting the gory details of an abortion? What is the point of posting every pro-life accusation thrown at Tiller, truthful or otherwise? Why do this excetp to excuse his murder?
Click to expand...
Show he may have been a monster.
(to you)
Why call him a monster? In our society, he is not a monster. He was a Doctor performing a medical procedure. Why use that type of extreme language when discussing his murder? The only reason I can think of is to excuse, in some way, his murder. We are all for the doing away with of 'monsters'. Right. Serial killers? Mass murders? All Monsters that we would be better off without, right? However, in the state of Kansas, Tiller was only controversial doctor. Extreme, hyperbolic language is not fact. Facts are fact. Tiller was innocent of any crime against our society and he was murdered. That's the fact, jack.
Click to expand...
If he was killing late-term festuses when the mother was not in serious danger he is a monster.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's not offtopic and if you think it is report me. However, I don't think my post is going away. Its about what is rights, morals, and what is legal.

These are ALL subjective. You claim it is immoral to kill a fetus, the pro-choice crowd says it isn't. PETA says it isn't right or moral to kill animals in slaughter houses, most people disagree.

Abortion is legal, slaughter houses are legal.

Rights, morals, and what is legal are ALWAYS subjective.
Click to expand...

We as a society come up with rules. Not all animals are treated the same. You may freely be allowed to hunt deer during a certain season but never be allowed to hunt sea turtles. It may be fine to kill a 100 mosquitoes a night while killing a gorilla is a no no. It's all about worth. We give various animals different values and these values may change over time.

However our society is built on a doctrine of all men being created equal. The very foundation of our system of justice and law is that no one human is to ever be given a greater or lesser value or worth in the eyes of the law. Slavery was a gross perversion of that; as is abortion.
 
jallman said:
That's a property issue. But you are correct, we do set limits on animal cruelty.

Why gloss over the cruelty I described?
Click to expand...

I didn't, my point is that rights, wrongs, morals, and rights are all subjective to the society.

You claim that something being legal doesn't make it right or moral.

So then you also claim that this abortion doctor being kllled was a right thing to do.

So since morals and rights aren't defined by legality why would a PETA operative be wrong in killing someone that kills at a slaughter house?

You would think it is wrong, because you would access YOUR morals.

What makes your morals right and PETA members wrong?
 
TheNextEra said:
And it doesn't prove that it isn't the same either.
Click to expand...
In the moral climate of our society it does which is good enough for this discussion. We need not go into metaphysics or metaethics for that.

It is all subjective. Our laws, morals, rights and wrongs.
Click to expand...
So if I decide I don't think there is a law on murder I won't be arrested for killing? You mean social far more than subjective. The individual subjective few only a has a minimal effect on it.
 
talloulou said:
We as a society come up with rules.
Click to expand...

Yes, our society has come up with rules stating those BORN have those rights.

What makes YOUR morals right and everyone else's wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom