11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

  • Total voters
    63
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
CatholicCrusader said:
Well, let me go back to my slavery comparison. If a slave owner killed a slave, it probably was not legally called murder since the slave was the slaveowner's property, right? But in reality, you and I know it is - or was - murder, correct? A man kills another man for no good reason, thats murder, and damn the law if it says it isn't.
Click to expand...

No, there would be other terms for that, such as property destruction, manslaughter, a variety of homicide, for example. Murder has an etymology that has it as a deliberate and heinous crime for at least 7-800 years.
 
C

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
WizardofOz said:
:nono: Libertarian does not = anarchist.

Murder transgresses the liberty of another. A consistent libertarian would have no problems with homicide laws.

This is exactly why there is not necessarily a conflict when someone is a pro-life libertarian. They may feel the liberty of a human (albeit unborn) is being impeded by elective abortion.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

You obviously didn't check what I was responding to.

I don't disagree with you. In fact, what you said is exactly what I was saying with that rhetorical question.

If it is inconsistent for a libertarian to support anti-abortion laws, it is also inconsistent for a libertarian to support homicide laws. Therefore, it is not inconsistent for a libertarian to support anti-abortion laws.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
RandPaulfor2016 said:
:rolleyes:

You obviously didn't check what I was responding to.

I don't disagree with you. In fact, what you said is exactly what I was saying with that rhetorical question.

If it is inconsistent for a libertarian to support anti-abortion laws, it is also inconsistent for a libertarian to support homicide laws. Therefore, it is not inconsistent for a libertarian to support anti-abortion laws.
Click to expand...

If that's what you meant we are in agreement. I guess my sarcasm meter was turned off. ;)
 
C

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
WizardofOz said:
If that's what you meant we are in agreement. I guess my sarcasm meter was turned off. ;)
Click to expand...

Its alright, I miss sarcasm all the time. I guess you just missed Granite's post to which I am referring:p

Regarding libertarianism and anarchism, its possible to be both, but its also possible to be either one without being the other. Not all libertarians are anarchists, nor are all anarchists libertarians. Some people are both.
 
Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
keypurr said:
Comes right back to defining personhood.

Not everyone thinks a fetis is a person yet.
Click to expand...

I should think that most people would agree that a child should be safe it it's mother's arms - No one could question that, I shouldn't think...

Nor would they think that there should be any other place where a child should be MORE safe than in it's mother's arms...

Yet there IS such a place...

It is in it's mother's womb...

And we have turned the mother's womb in the United States of America into THE most dangerous place for a child to be...

May God have mercy on us...

Arsenios
 
Doormat

Doormat

New member
keypurr said:
Comes right back to defining personhood.

Not everyone thinks a fetis is a person yet.
Click to expand...

I already addressed that. The law of the United States recognizes a fetus as a person. Abortion is de facto murder.

Doormat said:
Abortion is de facto murder according to the language in the Roe v. Wade decision.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.​

Since Roe v. Wade, Federal law has defined the unborn child at any stage of development as a person:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".​

Abortion can be rightfully called murder under U.S. law at this time, and the Roe decision is void under U.S. law at this time, whether or not people want to concede that blatantly obvious fact.
Click to expand...

Doormat said:
See Marbury v. Madison:

...the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.​
Click to expand...

Doormat said:
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Click to expand...
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
gcthomas said:
That would make the Commandment unnecessary. Murder specifically means unlawful killing with premeditation and malice. Why would you need a commandment telling you to avoid unlawful killing? No other commandment tells you to follow the law on some issue.
Click to expand...
:doh:

The commandment was the law at that time for Israel. There was no other law in place that defined murder, except the commandments.

And if you want to compare to now, there are commandments in the Decalogue that were once against the law of the land in the US, and other places, I'm sure.

But even so the current definition of murder is legal positivism and not God's command. The commandment in question did not define murder as unlawful killing, it defined it as unethical and immoral killing that was not accidental. And even today's definition of premeditation is flawed, because crimes of passion and/or manslaughter with intent that all happen in the heat of the moment are not considered to be premeditation, according to the law. However, they are murder under the commandment.

Deut 4:42 uses the word ratsasch for an unintentional killing, for example, so it is likely there is not an exact one to one translation of the work, so while it may mean 'murder' often, it is not obvious that is the precise meaning in the Commandment.
Click to expand...

  1. See above.
  2. Why would there be a commandment against accidental/unintentional killing?
 
C

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Lighthouse said:
:doh:

The commandment was the law at that time for Israel. There was no other law in place that defined murder, except the commandments.

And if you want to compare to now, there are commandments in the Decalogue that were once against the law of the land in the US, and other places, I'm sure.

But even so the current definition of murder is legal positivism and not God's command. The commandment in question did not define murder as unlawful killing, it defined it as unethical and immoral killing that was not accidental. And even today's definition of premeditation is flawed, because crimes of passion and/or manslaughter with intent that all happen in the heat of the moment are not considered to be premeditation, according to the law. However, they are murder under the commandment.



  1. See above.
  2. Why would there be a commandment against accidental/unintentional killing?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure killing without malice falls under "Cities of Refuge" although I admit that "Without malice" is relatively broad.
 
C

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Lighthouse said:
Yeah, we should just call it "unintentional."
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you that that's what it means, but it seems a little unclear. I can see how someone could gather from that that intentional but spontaneous killing would apply.

I also believe that deliberately killing anyone who has committed murder but somehow was able to do it legally should be declared to not be a crime. And if I were on a jury, I would vote to acquit such a person. That applies to abortion doctors and politicians who vote for war.
 
Catholic Crusader

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
keypurr said:
......Not everyone thinks a fetis is a person yet.
Click to expand...
That's a legalism that flies in the face of scientific fact.

And besides, there are a lot of idiots out there who think a lot of stupid things. So, to say "Not everyone thinks a fetus is a person yet" means absolutely nothing.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
RandPaulfor2016 said:
I tend to agree with you that that's what it means, but it seems a little unclear. I can see how someone could gather from that that intentional but spontaneous killing would apply.
Click to expand...
Yeah, some people aren't very bright.

I also believe that deliberately killing anyone who has committed murder but somehow was able to do it legally should be declared to not be a crime.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense.

And if I were on a jury, I would vote to acquit such a person. That applies to abortion doctors and politicians who vote for war.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Lighthouse said:
:doh:

The commandment was the law at that time for Israel. There was no other law in place that defined murder, except the commandments.

And if you want to compare to now, there are commandments in the Decalogue that were once against the law of the land in the US, and other places, I'm sure.

But even so the current definition of murder is legal positivism and not God's command. The commandment in question did not define murder as unlawful killing, it defined it as unethical and immoral killing that was not accidental. And even today's definition of premeditation is flawed, because crimes of passion and/or manslaughter with intent that all happen in the heat of the moment are not considered to be premeditation, according to the law. However, they are murder under the commandment.
Click to expand...

Ta for that.

  1. See above.
  2. Why would there be a commandment against accidental/unintentional killing?
Click to expand...

Because negligence that causes someone to lose their life is morally wrong. Simple as that.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
RandPaulfor2016 said:
I also believe that deliberately killing anyone who has committed murder but somehow was able to do it legally should be declared to not be a crime.
Click to expand...

So you want to be able to legally murder anyone who has legally murdered someone? Wouldn't that put your own life at risk? :kookoo:

And if I were on a jury, I would vote to acquit such a person. That applies to abortion doctors and politicians who vote for war.
Click to expand...

A juror's duty is to apply the law as it is, not as you'd like it to be. You would be a menace in the jury room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top