Answering old threads thread

[Right Divider]

A genetically unique human life starts at conception, the first step of a process of development through embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, early childhood, late childhood, young adulthood, adulthood, elderly adulthood, extreme elderly adulthood and ultimately death.

At no point in that arc of development is that life anything other than human.

Exactly!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Based on what? Why should I understand something your way instead of someone else's way? What if my moral compass says it's ok to rape and pillage other people groups? Many, many people groups have believed so for thousands of years. Why is it wrong now? Was it wrong before? Is it because we're evolving better morals? Why is it that marriage is practiced in every people group? Are we now evolving out of marriage? These questions are not isolated from each other, as much as you want them to be.

Based on a basic respect for other people's personal autonomy and human rights. Would you like it if you were violated? Assaulted? Do you feel empathy and compassion for people who are victims of such or any other unenviable plight? Or are they just words to you?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The question is about agency of one's own body.

Not quite.

Murder is a very charged way of putting it

Just call a spade a spade.

Murder is when someone intentionally takes the life of a person without just cause or due process.

especially when the issue often involves a microscopic entity.

You were once a "microscopic entity," too, Skeeter. Yet you were still a human being.

I did not murder when I used mouth wash this morning in case you were wondering.

The difference between your mouth and a womb is that one of those microscopic entities, as you call them, is a human being. Perhaps you can figure out which is which.

A person impregnated by rape should be able to stop the developing embryo in early stages of development

No, they shouldn't, because it's a baby, and because it's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby, because the baby is innocent.

because the pregnancy was not the result of volitional intention of the woman

Irrelevant.

and women own their own bodies.

The babies in the womb own their own bodies.

Big government need not intervene.

It should when a crime is committed.

It should intervene to protect both the mother and her child, and to put the rapist to death, which deters future potential rapists from committing rape.

A biological process within someone's body is the domain of that individual.

The same applies to the baby that is conceived, even in rape.

In the case of pregnancy genetic material and resources are taken.

And guess what happens after that? An entirely new organism, with genes from both mother and father, is created, one who has completely autonomous rights from his or her mother and father.

That's how it works, Skeeter. That's biology.

The most basic right to property is ownership a person's actual body.

Which is equally applied to both the mother AND her child, the moment he or she is conceived.

It could possibly be more humane to swiftly remove life

It is NEVER humane to intentionally take the life of an innocent person.

That's called murder. Murder is never humane, and trying to make it so only sears the conscience.

rather than delicately when prolonging or reducing the period of pain is within the range of possibility.

What about the pain that comes from realizing that you have killed your child?

Physical pain lasts only a short period of time, and some pain can be worth it.

On the other hand, there is no easy way to get over emotional or mental pain, and such pain can even leave scars on one's conscience, permanently damaging them.

Is 9 months of discomfort, with a few hours of sharp pain at the end, really worth the lifetime of mental anguish that comes from killing your child?

The answer is no.

I do agree when considering an abortions, it is moral to consider the pain of the fetus.

National RTL's Misguided 2006 Fetal Pain Bill | American Right to Life

National Right To Life cannot be trusted. All abortion regulations, including the 2013 Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, are immoral and therefore, backfire (see how and why here). National Right To Life's 2006 attempt to require abortionists to administer anesthetics to the child prior...

americanrtl.org

It is not an easy scenario because there are two fully developed human beings involved here with identities, histories, memories, and communities.

Irrelevant.

A person would be expected to remain for a reasonable amount of time, but leaving that resulted in the other person's death would not be considered murder.

That was my point, Skeeter.

However, that's not what you're saying we should do.

You're saying that we should put a loaded gun to the person's head who can't escape and pull the trigger, and THEN rescue the other person.

Contrary to folk wisdom, you can be a little bit pregnant.

False.

In case you haven't seen it yet:

There is a flash of light at the moment of conception, which announces that a new human being has been created. prior to that flash, there was no human being, only a human egg from the mother, and a sperm cell from the father.

Abortion means a very different thing when it occurs in the first and most of the second trimester.

Murder is murder, no matter when it is done.

A case could be made that a fetus in late stage of pregnancy acquires the same rights to bodily agency.

Human life begins at conception. This is an established medical fact.

 

[Derf]

Based on a basic respect for other people's personal autonomy and human rights. Would you like it if you were violated? Assaulted? Do you feel empathy and compassion for people who are victims of such or any other unenviable plight? Or are they just words to you?

Then you agree that rape is so horrendous that it deserves the death penalty in order to express that empathy and compassion?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then you agree that rape is so horrendous that it deserves the death penalty in order to express that empathy and compassion?

I'd have no issue with rape being a capital crime provided 100% proof of guilt was ascertained as it is indeed so horrendous. It's inexcusable no matter what and with who. Do you agree with that or are you going to resort back to your feeble "something else" routine?

Oh, and are you going to answer my questions or are you just going to continually deflect with ones of your own? Do you feel empathy and compassion for victims of such, or at all in fact? Or are they just words to you?

 

[Idolater]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=duck+rape

 

[Idolater]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=duck+rape

Point is, it's about complaining and trying to get away. Whether it's a duck or a man or a wife. Complaining and trying to get away. The rape happens, objectively and obviously and observably, as the rapist persists in the face of complaining and trying to get away. That's rape. That's what rape is. That's biologically rape. Duck rape.

That's what a wife's absolute right against being raped means. If she complains and or tries to get away that's just rape.

The whole matter of grooming, and of statutory rape, which makes rape not look the same at all, is more complicated, but the above holds regardless.

 

[Rusha]

Then you agree that rape is so horrendous that it deserves the death penalty in order to express that empathy and compassion?

No, the DP is not to express compassion or empathy to the victim. It’s to rid the world of a dangerous predator so he/she can NEVER harm another human being. That would include murderers, child molesters and rapists (including married scumbags who rape their wives).

 

[glorydaz]

Why would that be relevant?

People are not punished because they are accused of a crime but because they've been convicted of one in a court of law. If a man murders his wife, is that relevant to whether he should be executed? No! Murderers, adulterers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, etc should be executed upon conviction - period.

It's relevant as to whether a husband has a right to rape his wife, and whether she has a right to refuse him sex.

That seems to be what is being discussed here.

Does a husband have the right to rape his wife? Either morally or legally? What say you.

 

[Idolater]

Point is, it's about complaining and trying to get away. Whether it's a duck or a man or a wife. Complaining and trying to get away. The rape happens, objectively and obviously and observably, as the rapist persists in the face of complaining and trying to get away. That's rape. That's what rape is. That's biologically rape. Duck rape.

There's also Thomas Jefferson rape.

That's what a wife's absolute right against being raped means. If she complains and or tries to get away that's just rape.

And in the case of Thomas Jefferson rape, when he "gains consent" from his human slave to have extra marital conjugal relations, that's also, just rape.

She's under duress. She is his legal property, if he insists, or even if he just requests, and she doesn't complain and she doesn't try to get away, that's just rape.

The whole matter of grooming, and of statutory rape, which makes rape not look the same at all, is more complicated, but the above holds regardless.

Another scary way to be raped is through intimidation, threatening and menacing. This too can make rape not look like duck rape, because the rape victim isn't complaining observably, and not obviously trying to get away. But again, the victim is under duress. That's just rape.

Any other time, grooming, threatening and intimidating and menacing, taking advantage of economic, political and other sorts of power, all to coerce, all to reward the rapist's morally disabled dopamine system, is all-ll-ll-ll rape. Just rape.

 

[ok doser]

There's also Thomas Jefferson rape.

And in the case of Thomas Jefferson rape, when he "gains consent" from his human slave to have extra marital conjugal relations, that's also, just rape.

She's under duress. She is his legal property, if he insists, or even if he just requests, and she doesn't complain and she doesn't try to get away, that's just rape.

Another scary way to be raped is through intimidation, threatening and menacing. This too can make rape not look like duck rape, because the rape victim isn't complaining observably, and not obviously trying to get away. But again, the victim is under duress. That's just rape.

Any other time, grooming, threatening and intimidating and menacing, taking advantage of economic, political and other sorts of power, all to coerce, all to reward the rapist's morally disabled dopamine system, is all-ll-ll-ll rape. Just rape.

Sally Hemings was three quarters White, and the half sister of Jefferson's deceased wife. By all accounts it appeared that their relationship was loving and consensual.

From wiki:

Sally reportedly (according to Abigail Adams letters) had a strong resemblance to Martha Jefferson and a certain naivete or childishness evidenced when she visited the Adamses in London before going on to France to bring Jefferson's daughter to him. At the time Sally would have been approximately fourteen years old, although Adams believed she was 15 or 16.

During the 26 months Sally Hemings lived with Jefferson in Paris, she was a free woman and a paid servant, slavery not being legal in France. During this time, under circumstances that are not well understood, she and Jefferson began having intimate relations.

 

[Skeeter]

Not quite.

It is exactly on point. The location of two human entities is relevant. A developing human inside a developed human is the dilemma. Bodily integrity less straightforward than usual.

Just call a spade a spade.

There are three other additional suits for each kind of card.

Murder is when someone intentionally takes the life of a person without just cause or due process.

Constitutional precedent defines a human being as starting at birth -- not prior. You cannot ignore that a developing human is a vastly different condition than a viable individual human being.

You were once a "microscopic entity," too, Skeeter. Yet you were still a human being.

Should burning a bag seeds be equivalent to starting a forest fire?

The difference between your mouth and a womb is that one of those microscopic entities, as you call them, is a human being. Perhaps you can figure out which is which.

All of my cells are human. The point is the very early stages of development cannot logically be compared to a human individual. It is more similar to the egg or sperm. I think some reverence should be afforded given the unique pairing of genes and the potentiality of human existence. Conception often naturally results in re-absorption instead of further development. Funerals are not held in regard to these microscopic events. This should mean something.

No, they shouldn't, because it's a baby, and because it's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby, because the baby is innocent.

Your use loose use of the term baby and murder have no impact on me. They are a ridiculous characterization of events.

The babies in the womb own their own bodies.

A fetus does eventually take on characteristics of a human individual and gain viability. Abortion at later stages would warrant considering some level of fetal rights.

It should intervene to protect both the mother and her child, and to put the rapist to death, which deters future potential rapists from committing rape.

Pregnancy, more often than we like to realize, damages the health of the mother and can be life threatening. It is no small thing to ask a woman to bear a child against her will.

Which is equally applied to both the mother AND her child, the moment he or she is conceived.

Currently it is the moment of birth where legal right's attach. I know you disagree with the state of the law, but do not pretend your point of view is currently codified.

It is NEVER humane to intentionally take the life of an innocent person.

That's called murder. Murder is never humane, and trying to make it so only sears the conscience.

Killing a human is never a virtue. Sometimes it is a necessary or mitigated evil, like in self-defense.

What about the pain that comes from realizing that you have killed your child?

It should always be considered as a possible consequence. It varies greatly. Many woman have little to no regrets at all especially when the abortion is early. Nor should they when it is early enough.

Human life begins at conception. This is an established medical fact.

A human individual starts at birth. This is an established legal fact. I actually think viability rather than birth is the more appropriate threshold.

 

[Right Divider]

It is exactly on point. The location of two human entities is relevant. A developing human inside a developed human is the dilemma. Bodily integrity less straightforward than usual.

There are three other additional suits for each kind of card.

You don't understand figures of speech? No wonder you have problems here.

A human individual starts at birth.

No, a human individual starts at conception.

This is an established legal fact.

A human at conception is a biological scientific facts.

I actually think viability rather than birth is the more appropriate threshold.

So what?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's relevant as to whether a husband has a right to rape his wife, and whether she has a right to refuse him sex.

That seems to be what is being discussed here.

Does a husband have the right to rape his wife? Either morally or legally? What say you.

Problem is, some folk on here don't recognize that a husband forcing himself on his wife is rape anyway. It's "something else" apparently, whatever that is...

 

[Skeeter]

You don't understand figures of speech? No wonder you have problems here.

You don't understand a play on words. That's why your posts are so dry. Judge plays with words a lot and sometimes its humorous. (Although his literal take on fallacies is very annoying.)

 

[Derf]

No, the DP is not to express compassion or empathy to the victim. It’s to rid the world of a dangerous predator so he/she can NEVER harm another human being. That would include murderers, child molesters and rapists (including married scumbags who rape their wives).

And abortionists, right? And men and women who ask for abortions--you know, those scumbags who harm other human beings?

 

[Rusha]

And abortionists, right?

Certainly. Don’t forget deadbeat parents. Time to LEGALLY slay … parents who don’t pay. And adulterers and those who physically abuse their children and spouses.

Do you have a problem with men or women who rape their spouses receiving the DP? Or would you favor forced sterilization with a life sentence behind bars?

 

[glorydaz]

Problem is, some folk on here don't recognize that a husband forcing himself on his wife is rape anyway. It's "something else" apparently, whatever that is...

Well, they're wrong.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, they're wrong.

For sure.

 

[Derf]

Certainly. Don’t forget deadbeat parents. Time to LEGALLY slay … parents who don’t pay. And adulterers and those who physically abuse their children and spouses.

Do you have a problem with men or women who rape their spouses receiving the DP? Or would you favor forced sterilization with a life sentence behind bars?

We'd have to apply the standard of 2 or 3 witnesses.