|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 8, 2010 14:58:06 GMT -8
So can I please choose to slay my 4 year old because my boyfriend doesn’t want him anymore and I need to go back to school and I just don’t have time for him. I have the right to choose. Also, you CANNOT call this murder AND say it’s a “fact” because that is just your “angle”. I see this act as something necessary for me and my freedom so I choose to suction my 4 year old into bloody pieces. That is not in fact murder….it is freedom. When I deliberately stop my son’s heart from beating, even when he is healthy and growing, I am not committing murder…..let me keep my blind glasses on. So much about keeping things to the matter…  Come on Carry, you can do better than that!  Do you really don’t understand the point I was making? Or do you not want to understand it? I never said that people should be allowed to do everything they like. Some choices are obviously or less obviously mistakes. But I prefer having a choice over having no choice. Whenever I speak with Christians, sooner or later they will say that the entire story of the love of God is about free will. With that they don’t mean that everything is allowed, but that it’s important to have a choice and cognitively make the right decisions by yourself. Christians are usually decidedly pro-choice. But they can’t call it that way because the term is occupied by an ideological group advocating something diametrically opposed to the Christian understanding of what is right. So please spare yourself and me the sarcasm that won’t lead us anywhere. By the way: you are indeed free to slay whoever you want to slay. But you have to live with the consequences. As for your remark about subjectivity: Everything that goes on in your brain is the result of the impulses of your nervous system. Your worldview is your own unique construction. That’s a neuro-biological fact (you like facts, don’t you?  ) I’m afraid you will have to accept that other persons perceive the same thing they observe differently. Jokes aside, I have nothing against facts. But not everything people label as facts are really facts. Hence I advocate caution with that term. I can say: God doesn't exist and that's a fact... does that settle the matter for you? You get the idea! (note: If you want to play the card that a fetus is not a human, can you explain to me scientifically what a heartbeat means? And then tell me that science hasn't proven over and over again that a fetus has a heartbeat around 5 weeks......and then tell me that all the statistics are wrong that show the majority of abortions are performed after the heartbeat has started beating) Scientifically speaking, a heartbeat is a muscular contraction. What point are you trying to make? A beating heart alone is not definitional for a human being. Animals have heartbeats too. A beating heart alone isn’t sufficient to keep an organism alive either. So what’s the worth of this point? You are saying a fetus is a human because it has a beating heart. That's random. I don't find it convincing. We will have to agree to disagree. If you don't think it's human, what do you think the thing is with a heartbeat? A frog? Come on! Not a frog, a fetus. A human fetus to be more precise. Not yet a human. In my opinion, a fetus isn’t a human until it is so far developed, that it can be disconnected from its mother without dying. You don’t have to agree. To me, a fetus is something precious even though it’s not a human. I wouldn’t want to kill it. It's human and thus it's murder No it’s not a human. And hence it can’t be murder. And now? We have one person’s word against another person’s word. A classic stalemate. But even if it was a human, the word murder only applies if the killing was “motivated by greed, lust for murdering, sexual desires or other base motives and executed insidiously or atrociously with means which are dangerous to public safety or in order to conceal or a allow another criminal act.” That’s how the term murder is defined by German criminal law. Each of the terms in this definition has another definition of its own. To determine whether we are dealing with murder or another form of killing, each case has to be examined individually by the legal experts. You don’t have to agree with the German juridical definition. I’m only telling you all this to make you understand that it’s problematic when you throw out terms like murder recklessly and decide on your own without the proper knowledge that it's a fact. That’s why we have to be careful with our choice of words. By the way, what do you make of all the unwanted miscarriages that happen without any ado of the mother? I just read a statistic that the proportion of miscarriages and normal births is 1:1*. That means for every woman who gives birth to a living child, there is one whose embryo/fetus dies in the womb. I’m wondering, is God murdering those babies? can you please allow me to terminate the heartbeat in my 4 year old (and my 5 week gestation fetus) because they are inconveniences? Shall I call the cops? Or the youth welfare office? Carry, quite frankly, I'm not interested in debating against your sarcasm. I've had my share of this type of discussion. But I'm weary of it. I understand that this is an upsetting topic. But if we can't keep it to the matter, I'll drop the ball right here. * Source: www.urbia.de/topics/article/?id=5654&c=0 it's in German though. |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 8, 2010 17:12:19 GMT -8
Mortiz wrote: I think my point was keeping to the matter. Moritz wrote: Yes choice is good, but some choices hold consequences…like the choice of taking a life. Moritz wrote: MY POINT IS just this! There are NO consequences for killing a child in the womb unless it is so many weeks or the mother ACTUALLY wants the baby. We are actually erecting buildings to welcome the stopping of healthy fetus' (which is a growing human--just like a tadpole is a growing frog) for the sake of convenience and schedule. Come on! I said a heartbeat means life and obviously humans produce humans, not animals so my point is well proven. I think most people can’t deny a heartbeat signals life, even if it can’t sustain itself outside of the mother (that’s why the baby is in the mother at that point and is not supposed to come out). Maureen L. Condic, PhD, who is a Senior Fellow at the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person and Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine wrote an article entitled, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective. In it she wrote: “Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined "moment of conception." This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos." ( searchwarp.com/swa502418-When-Does-Life-Really-Begin-A-Perspective-On-Science-Religion-And-Abortion-P2.htm ) This means a “human” has started to develop and will not die unless something stops it from living or it dies on it’s own. If we stop someone from living that’s pretty much murder because it harmed that human’s safety and life. So whatever “name” you want to give it, you know it is alive and is precious and needs to be protected. Killing it by choice is wrong. Just because something can't talk or live on its own doesn’t mean it can be eliminated by someone else’s choice, especially if it did nothing wrong. Abortion most definitely is dangerous to public safety in that the person growing in the woman is being terminated. They have rights. You are I are lucky we weren't "chosen" to be aborted! So many abortions occur when a human form is already detectible (to the naked eye through ultrasound) and many fetus’ flinch when the abortion tool is coming at them. This life is being taken by choice and it’s harming the public’s safety….no matter how small the public may be. Is the big issue for you the word murder? I mean what's the difference between that wording and 'the killing of babies' wording? Okay, maybe the person who killed the baby won't go to jail, but I think the institutions who allowed the killing to go on should definately be charged with murder. And honestly I think many of the women know full well what they are doing, but soothe their conscience (for awhile) with some excuse. We cannot survive as grown humans on water alone. We also need food, oxygen, etc. If someone takes one of those from us, we will die. Let’s say a species can only survive in one environment in order to grow and live. Are we not murdering it if we deliberating remove it from their environment on purpose, knowing it won’t survive? This is what we are doing to that human living organism (we are deliberately taking it’s source of food, it's environment of survival, etc. from it and saying, “if you can’t live—too bad”). It’s like us removing all foods from a 2 month old child and saying, “well if he/she can’t survive without food then he/she can’t survive and it’s not murder”. You might say, “Well there is someone there who is supposed to feed the 2 month old child and if they don’t, that’s bad”. The aborting mother is doing just that to the fetus. |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 8, 2010 17:34:27 GMT -8
And honestly, the sad sad thing about today is that even if people finally confess that after conception, life has begun, I don't think many will even care or change the abortion rates much. Many people today are scared and don't believe in a God who will take care of them and some are freaking out that there are too many people on earth....and so the less people, the better.....just let abortion continue even if it is killing.....this world is too crowded and polluted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 8, 2010 20:27:21 GMT -8
Playing catch-up here. Carebear: I thought your original post on abortion (transferred from the other thread) was great. It sounds like you've practiced your argumentation on the topic- some good stuff there. Only one thing to possibly refine: When you said, "every knowledgeable conscious person knows deep down that life is being destroyed in abortion, and life destroyed is murder", be careful with that last italicized phrase because not all killing is murder (at least from a Christian perspective), right? The point is that abortion is murder not because it's killing per se, but because it is immoral killing. Moritz, I agree with you that in debates on this topic pro-lifers shouldn't assume that it's obvious that abortion is murder (even though it really is to sane people  ). That is definitely a premise that needs to be supported. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 8, 2010 20:31:48 GMT -8
moritz wrote:
That's not true. For instance, ideas are not something produced only by the closed system of our nervous system. Ideas are a synthesis of our brain/ nervous system and our interaction with the real, objective, autonomous outside world.
moritz wrote:
From my perspective your definition is much more random than defining a human by conception, birth, or even heartbeat, as I believe we've discussed elsewhere. The logic in the quote by Dr. Condic that Carrie cited is the most scientific definition by virtue of the fact that conception is the "fountain head" of a completely new mode of existence infinitely more so than any later developmental stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 9, 2010 7:36:52 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
So I should say all life destroyed through abortion is murder when it’s plainly for birth control and nothing else? (I thought most people would understand that train of thought, but I should have clarified for my broader argument).
I also think my viability argument is pretty good ;D I'm interested how that one can be spun.
And let's not forget God is soooo forgiving and full of love and is willing to forgive anyone who has been involved in an abortion and there's total restoration for those who repent! No condemnation in Christ Jesus!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 9, 2010 12:26:45 GMT -8
No, I'd argue that all abortion is murder except possibly in the case of saving the mother's life.
The point is that abortion isn't murder just because it's killing because killing isn't always murder. Abortion is murder because it is unjust killing.
|
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 9, 2010 14:45:29 GMT -8
Okay, man you guys are technical I assumed all people knew when we are talking about the killing of babies in the womb, it is almost always for an unjust reason. Thanks for your help in clarifying. I really think people need to rethink their viability argument as well. I mean for the 21st century, people have so much science to prove life. |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 9, 2010 14:56:36 GMT -8
Thought this article was an interesting topic comparing it to abortion: Read the rest at: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_adopted_boy We are furious over people "giving back" their adopted children to their home country because they were "too hard" but we don't blink an eye when we "give back" our children by the thousands through abortion. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 11, 2010 10:34:08 GMT -8
I think my point was keeping to the matter. Maybe I made a mistake with the expression I chose. With “to the matter” I meant keeping concentrated on the substantial parts without using stylistic devices such as sarcasm or capitalized letters (which, as I learned from Americans on this board, express yelling) which have a tendency of distracting from the core of the argument by leading to the emotional trail. Anyway. I think your reply was more helpful, especially in pointing out to me where we misunderstand each other. Let’s go through it step by step. Yes choice is good, but some choices hold consequences…like the choice of taking a life. That’s exactly the point I was making, when I said you have to live with the consequences. Thank you. MY POINT IS just this! There are NO consequences for killing a child in the womb When I spoke about the consequences of choices, I didn’t limit the term to legal consequences. I’ve seen anti-abortionists carrying signs saying “I regret my abortion”. Bad consciences, regrets, feelings of guilt and the like are heavy consequences in my opinion. They sure can weigh heavier than jail terms. We are actually erecting buildings to welcome the stopping of healthy fetus' (which is a growing human--just like a tadpole is a growing frog) for the sake of convenience and schedule. Come on! The “come on!” seems to insinuate that I welcome abortions. I don’t. We are in the same boat (but for different reasons). I said a heartbeat means life and obviously humans produce humans, not animals so my point is well proven. Now I got ya. You thought I denied that fetuses are alive! Well, you are preaching to the choir here. Of course fetuses are living things, what else would they be? A fetus is as alive as a plant, an animal or a born human. This is bringing us to the core of our disagreement: What’s the worth of life? Life is a very broad term which is covering a lot of different kinds of cellular beings. In my personal opinion, life even begins before the conception because sperms are – quite obviously I would say – alive until they die. It goes without saying that not all kinds of life are or should be of the same importance to us. I for one enjoy juicy steaks and I never hesitate to kill a mosquito in my room, pick a flower for my girlfriend or battle bacterial infections with antibiotica. Who could possibly count the number of lives I – and you – have already destroyed in our lives? But are we murderers? No. Because the term murder only applies to the killing of humans, no matter how often militant vegans will call farmers and hunters murderers. The important question is not whether a fetus is alive or not, but whether it is to be considered a human! That’s the crux of it all. If a fetus is a human, then the deliberate killing of it can be called murder. If it isn’t a human, then it can’t be murder - by definition. So there we are at the wording of things and by now it should dawn on you, that the wording of things indeed is important because words are the carriers of information and meaning! “The human world is essentially a network of meanings and therefore, nothing in this world can be adequately understood without understanding of these meanings ‘from within’”*. Words have meanings but not every individual perceives the meaning of a word identically. So, what does human mean and when does a human start to exist? Here is my perception of it: Life in general starts before the conception. Human-life starts at the conception. Hence, an embryo is a human living form but not a human yet (however, a human embryo is precious – more precious than any other embryo – and worth of protection). The fetus becomes a human in the full worth of the word, in the moment in which his development has advanced so far, that it is viable without the organs of the mother. To me, this is the most compelling logic and thus far, I haven’t heard any objective reasoning why an embryo should be on par with a fully developed human before that time. We can quarrel about the semantics until our tongues are dragging on the floor, the decisive part of my statement is this: No matter how we want to call the living thing at different stages of its development, to me there is an obvious qualitative difference between the cluster of cells an embryo is at the beginning and the baby that is ready to be born. An example can illustrate what I mean: Let’s say I was a doctor and there was a car accident and I was the only present medic and there are two injured beings and I could only save one: a born human (for instance a child of four) or a three month old fetus – there would be no dilemma for me. I would save the four-year-old without hesitation. And I can’t see why anyone would decide differently. Maureen L. Condic, PhD, who is a Senior Fellow at the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person and Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine wrote an article entitled, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective. In it she wrote: (…) Please note how Ms Condic speaks of “a human organism” instead of “a human”. I have no disagreement with her conclusion that the life of a human being begins at the conception (see above). If we stop someone from living that’s pretty much murder because it harmed that human’s safety and life. Harming someone’s safety and life is not “pretty much murder”. If you accidently kill someone in a car crash, you harmed both that person’s safety and life but you didn’t murder that person. Murder is a juridically defined term that doesn’t apply to every kind of killing. So whatever “name” you want to give it, you know it is alive and is precious and needs to be protected. Yes, yes and yes. Killing it by choice is wrong. So what do you make of the numerous killings your God did by choice (for example at the flood or at Sodom and Gomorrha)? It’s not the choice that makes killing right or wrong, it is the motivation behind it. If you choose to switch off the breathing machine of an old relative who has cancer and has been unconscious for weeks and isn’t able to either breath or eat or – in short – live if it wasn’t for the machine that is keeping him alive, noone in his right mind could say that this act of “killing” is wrong in my opinion. I’m sorry if I have to be so nitpickerish but it is important to raise awareness for the fine details that come with our wording. Abortion most definitely is dangerous to public safety in that the person growing in the woman is being terminated. Teehee, that’s not how “dangerous to public safety” is defined. ;D Guns are dangerous to public safety, for instance. If you kill someone with a gun, this aspect of the various characteristics of murder applies. But it was a nice try. Is the big issue for you the word murder? I mean what's the difference between that wording and 'the killing of babies' wording? The difference reaches from the verdict of not guilty to the death penalty. Murder and killing are two different pairs of shoes. By the way, I wouldn’t agree on the term “baby” either. Sure, we call that thing inside the belly a baby from the word go, but that isn’t correct. At least in my native language Baby refers to a suckling in the first year of his life (after the birth ) Let’s say a species can only survive in one environment in order to grow and live. Are we not murdering it if we deliberating remove it from their environment on purpose, knowing it won’t survive? This is what we are doing to that human living organism (we are deliberately taking it’s source of food, it's environment of survival, etc. from it and saying, “if you can’t live—too bad”). It’s like us removing all foods from a 2 month old child and saying, “well if he/she can’t survive without food then he/she can’t survive and it’s not murder”. You might say, “Well there is someone there who is supposed to feed the 2 month old child and if they don’t, that’s bad”. The aborting mother is doing just that to the fetus. At the risk of being redundant: I think the force of this last paragraph depends on the definition of the word human or, to be more precise, the meaning we attribute to the fetus. And since we fundamentally disagree on the premisse, we won’t agree on the conclusion. No, abortion is not murder from everything I can tell, but it is very lamentable. And honestly, the sad sad thing about today is that even if people finally confess that after conception, life has begun, I don't think many will even care or change the abortion rates much. Many people today are scared and don't believe in a God who will take care of them and some are freaking out that there are too many people on earth....and so the less people, the better.....just let abortion continue even if it is killing.....this world is too crowded and polluted. The premise that life begins with conception has little to do with the value one is attributing to a fetus as I tried to point out above. By the way, the world indeed is too crowded and polluted. That doesn't justify the killing of humans or fetusses though. There seems to be no need to either: According to a study I just read, the population of the world will reach it's peak around 2030 and will start to fall from then on. Let's see what happens. *Peter L. Berger |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 11, 2010 11:16:26 GMT -8
Moritz, I agree with you that in debates on this topic pro-lifers shouldn't assume that it's obvious that abortion is murder (even though it really is to sane people ). But abortion isn't murder. Only to insane people it is moritz wrote: That's not true. For instance, ideas are not something produced only by the closed system of our nervous system. Ideas are a synthesis of our brain/ nervous system and our interaction with the real, objective, autonomous outside world. I’m afraid you are mistaken, my friend: 1) The brain already is part of the central nervous system (my statement was somewhat tautological / unsharp in that respect). 2) Interaction with the real, objective, autonomous world outside is only possible through our senses, which work through the nervous system. Our senses are, so to speak the window through which we have access to the world and every impulse that is transferred by the nervous system is ultimately interpreted by our brain (the interpretation of our brain doesn’t have to resemble the real objective truth in any way. We are literally incapable of telling what the objective truth looks like. All we can do is detect the way our brain is “fooling” us: optical illusions are very instructive in that respect). If none of your senses, really none of them works, if everything is numb and you don’t see, hear, taste, smell, or feel anything (neither outside impulses, like the touch of somebody else, nor inside impulses like the own heartbeat), there can be no interaction with the outside world that could lead to consciousness let alone an idea. But that’s another debate. From my perspective your definition is much more random than defining a human by conception, birth, or even heartbeat, as I believe we've discussed elsewhere. The logic in the quote by Dr. Condic that Carrie cited is the most scientific definition by virtue of the fact that conception is the "fountain head" of a completely new mode of existence infinitely more so than any later developmental stage. Read my reply to Carry and you’ll see that the fact that conception marks the beginning of a new mode of existence is not the decisive question for me. Rather at what point in time the developing life can be seen as something of the same worth as a born human. Conception is one legitimate opinion but barely more than that: an opinion. It’s as random as any other point in time. By the way: I vaguely remember that you wanted to provide the Bible passages that deal with abortion. My guess is Deuteronomy… |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 11, 2010 14:31:47 GMT -8
Good talking to you Mo....can I call you Mo now? Lol.
I see your point, but then the baby is already gone. If we stop the legalization of abortion, then we’ll have less baby deaths. If women have to have abortions in their bathrooms (if it’s illegal), I think they’ll rethink their decision and less abortions will happen. They need more education and love for themselves and for others.
I believe a fetus is a growing human and I believe what the scientist explained in my previous post. So I would say it’s murder most of the time.
Both in my opinion would be mourned over equally if both died. Both had a chance to live no matter what (in the womb continuing to grow or out of the womb--4 yr old--continuing to grow). I don’t think this was such a great point....no hard feelings..... Do people not value small, incapable humans that are growing into capable humans? It's the same and we are not supposed to be destroyng these fetus' source of life.
I was referring to abortion and almost always people having abortions know a baby is growing inside of them.
I don’t think these two situations relate too much. I see what you’re trying to point out, but with the old person with cancer, they are dying of something and medical care is trying hard to cure them and medical care can only do so much. With abortion, 95% of the time nothing is wrong with this growing person and the “medical procedure” of abortion is not helping that growing person AT ALL.
How is a suction vacuum utilized for the purpose of ripping a growing human into pieces not the same as a gun? Because the doctor is “authorized” to use that weapon?
Plain and simple, humans are created with sperm and egg combining, etc. Humans grow in the womb of a woman just fine unless someone stops it from growing. Just as we can stop a 2 month old from growing by not giving him food, so too we can stop a fetus from growing by removing it from its food source. Plain and simple. Humans are humans from conception. If we remove a fetus from its environment of growth and nutrition for the sake of birth control, we are murdering.
i have a question, if a pregnant woman who was 9 weeks along in her pregnancy got murdered, would you allow her husband to charge the murderer with double homicide?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 13, 2010 7:00:45 GMT -8
Good talking to you Mo....can I call you Mo now? Lol. Ditto. Of course you can call me Mo. I think this discussion worked out the subjectivity of the perspectives well and revealed the main disagreement: our discordance is not about whether the fetus is alive but about the value of the fetus, no matter what name we want to give it. Followup questions such as if it's legitimate to equate abortion with murder, are being answered differently by either of us because of the different premisses we start with. I think we both elaborated our viewpoints well enough so there is not much more to add and then every individual has to decide where he stands and which reasoning he finds more compelling. You don't find my argument compelling (and I didn't expect you to) and I don't find yours compelling. But I can respectfully accept your different view. How is a suction vacuum utilized for the purpose of ripping a growing human into pieces not the same as a gun? A gun can kill you and anyone else from a distance. Guns are designed to kill born life. i have a question, if a pregnant woman who was 9 weeks along in her pregnancy got murdered, would you allow her husband to charge the murderer with double homicide? I don't see the use of this question as you already know my answer: Murder only applies to the killing of humans, not the killing of to-be-humans. Hence it's a single homicide. But it's not like the fetus counts nothing: Germany for instance distinguishes between different shades of severity of murder. That means shooting someone with a gun is not as severe as shooting someone and then stabbing the dying person 30 times with a screwdriver. Both murders will be sentenced with life imprisonment. But additionally, the court will declare the special severity of the latter case with the legal consequence that this person has no chance of being released preterm. In the case of your question I would also declare special severity of the murder. I think that's all there is to say. If I forgot to answer a question or something remains unclear, go ahead and tell me. Otherwise I thank you for the discussion and I'll see you around. |
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Apr 13, 2010 8:01:36 GMT -8
I've breezed through a bit of this long thread, but not all of it.
Not sure if this has been addressed much...
What should be done about abortion in the United States?
|
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 14, 2010 7:28:54 GMT -8
I see we are coming to a pause in this discussion which is fine... Not to be weird, but just to clarify the answer you gave to the above ques., if the woman in the scenario was your girlfriend who was pregnant with your first son (and obviously his heart was already beating at 22 days....which is way before 9 weeks), you still wouldn't go for double homicide? Your son had no signs of dying if this murderer didn't interfere in his life.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 15, 2010 7:23:30 GMT -8
Not to be weird, but just to clarify the answer you gave to the above ques., if the woman in the scenario was your girlfriend who was pregnant with your first son (and obviously his heart was already beating at 22 days....which is way before 9 weeks), you still wouldn't go for double homicide? Your son had no signs of dying if this murderer didn't interfere in his life. In what way is the principle of my argument depending on the question of whether the fetus is my own to-be child or someone elses? The answer I gave you above applies 1:1: The murder of a pregnant woman is single homicide of special severity in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 16, 2010 11:44:50 GMT -8
Not to be weird, but just to clarify the answer you gave to the above ques., if the woman in the scenario was your girlfriend who was pregnant with your first son (and obviously his heart was already beating at 22 days....which is way before 9 weeks), you still wouldn't go for double homicide? Your son had no signs of dying if this murderer didn't interfere in his life. In what way is the principle of my argument depending on the question of whether the fetus is my own to-be child or someone elses? The answer I gave you above applies 1:1: The murder of a pregnant woman is single homicide of special severity in my opinion. And what if the woman is not killed? What if it were a woman who had been carrying a baby only to have to baby killed through some vicious means by another person. What if the woman was stabbed, kicked in the stomach killing only the child? Would that be murder or assault? |
|
) I’m afraid you will have to accept that other persons perceive the same thing they observe differently.
