Is Abortion the same as murder?

[TheOldSchool]

I really am not that passionate about the issue of abortion. I don't agree with it but is abortion just as greivious of an offense as murder is in the eyes of the law. I'm not talking about in the eyes of God but in the eyes of the law. The law already has many kinds of rules against the taking of human life all ranging from different types. Manslaugher, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. etc. if abortion is the taking of human life then should it be treated in the same way as murder 1 or murder 2? Or should it get a different kind of classification all together.

You should carefully read Roe v. Wade.

That is what the law is.

Isn't it wonderful that we off-shored the legislative process to the judicial branch? Democracy is so cumbersome sometimes. How can we dare let the people decide what laws they should live by. Silly plebians....

So you are another in the long list of republicans that wants to do away with the SCOTUS?

I actually think the people should have control over what 'laws' should exist.

So you want to do away with the SCOTUS

 

[TheOldSchool]

In the eyes of the law no. In the eyes of God yes. Which is why any pro-lifers who have exemptions like for the 'safety of the mother' or 'in case of rape' are full of shit.

There is no mention of abortion in any of the holy books of any religion: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, nor Shinto.

Cool but it's certainly not secular people waging the war on abortion.

"Secular". That phrase tickles the shit out of me. And, no one is "waging war" on abortion. I figured this shit out years ago. If liberals love something - you KNOW it is bad. Welcome to the 21st Century.

You sure used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

 

[RandallFlagg]

In the eyes of the law no. In the eyes of God yes. Which is why any pro-lifers who have exemptions like for the 'safety of the mother' or 'in case of rape' are full of shit.

There is no mention of abortion in any of the holy books of any religion: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, nor Shinto.

That is because the idea of squeezing out your fetus before it was born was probably not imaginable in the stone age just like hacking into a computer wasn't either. Maybe we should make computer fraud legal since it isn't mentioned in one of the many holy books.

You might be right. Ask Snowden, or that asshole from Sweden, or the guys that have gotten away with bank robbery by computer....I get it. You don't care the the Word of God. But you know, I've been on this planet now for 73 years. The world sure seemed like a different place when FAMILIES got up on Sunday and went to Church. Maybe, in our "enlightened" secular humanist world - we forgot about the "simple" things?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I really am not that passionate about the issue of abortion. I don't agree with it but is abortion just as greivious of an offense as murder is in the eyes of the law. I'm not talking about in the eyes of God but in the eyes of the law. The law already has many kinds of rules against the taking of human life all ranging from different types. Manslaugher, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. etc. if abortion is the taking of human life then should it be treated in the same way as murder 1 or murder 2? Or should it get a different kind of classification all together.

no.

thanks for playing

if you don't think it should be considered the same crime as murder then why can't it be a different crime such as manslaugher or a whole new classification?

 

[RandallFlagg]

In the eyes of the law no. In the eyes of God yes. Which is why any pro-lifers who have exemptions like for the 'safety of the mother' or 'in case of rape' are full of shit.

There is no mention of abortion in any of the holy books of any religion: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, nor Shinto.

Cool but it's certainly not secular people waging the war on abortion.

"Secular". That phrase tickles the shit out of me. And, no one is "waging war" on abortion. I figured this shit out years ago. If liberals love something - you KNOW it is bad. Welcome to the 21st Century.

You sure used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

I proved one thing for damned sure - you liberals have killed 57 million babies since 1973. Jesus you people are actually monsters.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

In the eyes of the law no. In the eyes of God yes. Which is why any pro-lifers who have exemptions like for the 'safety of the mother' or 'in case of rape' are full of shit.

There is no mention of abortion in any of the holy books of any religion: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, nor Shinto.

That is because the idea of squeezing out your fetus before it was born was probably not imaginable in the stone age just like hacking into a computer wasn't either. Maybe we should make computer fraud legal since it isn't mentioned in one of the many holy books.

You might be right. Ask Snowden, or that asshole from Sweden, or the guys that have gotten away with bank robbery by computer....I get it. You don't care the the Word of God. But you know, I've been on this planet now for 73 years. The world sure seemed like a different place when FAMILIES got up on Sunday and went to Church. Maybe, in our "enlightened" secular humanist world - we forgot about the "simple" things?

I was pointing out that just because it isn't listed in the bible doesn'tmean it isn't unethical. We consider computer fraud dishonest yet their is no bible mentioning the word 'computer'.

 

[MikeK]

I really am not that passionate about the issue of abortion. I don't agree with it but is abortion just as greivious of an offense as murder is in the eyes of the law. I'm not talking about in the eyes of God but in the eyes of the law. The law already has many kinds of rules against the taking of human life all ranging from different types. Manslaugher, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. etc. if abortion is the taking of human life then should it be treated in the same way as murder 1 or murder 2? Or should it get a different kind of classification all together.

Does the Law specify at what exact point in the development of a zygote the human entity is produced? If not it must explain where its designation of "human life" comes from.

I stand with those who believe human life begins when a fetus is delivered from its host and the umbilicus is severed. Prior to that moment it is a well-developed, totally oblivious zygote with absolutely no human identity.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I really am not that passionate about the issue of abortion. I don't agree with it but is abortion just as greivious of an offense as murder is in the eyes of the law. I'm not talking about in the eyes of God but in the eyes of the law. The law already has many kinds of rules against the taking of human life all ranging from different types. Manslaugher, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. etc. if abortion is the taking of human life then should it be treated in the same way as murder 1 or murder 2? Or should it get a different kind of classification all together.

You should carefully read Roe v. Wade.

That is what the law is.

Isn't it wonderful that we off-shored the legislative process to the judicial branch? Democracy is so cumbersome sometimes. How can we dare let the people decide what laws they should live by. Silly plebians....

So you are another in the long list of republicans that wants to do away with the SCOTUS?

I actually think the people should have control over what 'laws' should exist.

So you want to do away with the SCOTUS

No. There are a lot of court decision that I agree with. I just think the people ought to have the final say over what is constitutional and what is not. Do you oppose the people being in control of the things their government does?

 

[WillowTree]

I really am not that passionate about the issue of abortion. I don't agree with it but is abortion just as greivious of an offense as murder is in the eyes of the law. I'm not talking about in the eyes of God but in the eyes of the law. The law already has many kinds of rules against the taking of human life all ranging from different types. Manslaugher, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. etc. if abortion is the taking of human life then should it be treated in the same way as murder 1 or murder 2? Or should it get a different kind of classification all together.

Well they put that Peterson man in prison with two life sentences for killing his wife and his unborn son. You tell us!



Excuse me! He is on death row.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I stand with those who believe human life begins when a fetus is delivered from its host and the umbilicus is severed. Prior to that moment it is a well-developed, totally oblivious zygote with absolutely no human identity.

And that is where we disagree...

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I really am not that passionate about the issue of abortion. I don't agree with it but is abortion just as greivious of an offense as murder is in the eyes of the law. I'm not talking about in the eyes of God but in the eyes of the law. The law already has many kinds of rules against the taking of human life all ranging from different types. Manslaugher, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. etc. if abortion is the taking of human life then should it be treated in the same way as murder 1 or murder 2? Or should it get a different kind of classification all together.

Does the Law specify at what exact point in the development of a zygote the human entity is produced? If not it must explain where its designation of "human life" comes from.

I stand with those who believe human life begins when a fetus is delivered from its host and the umbilicus is severed. Prior to that moment it is a well-developed, totally oblivious zygote with absolutely no human identity.

I fear the day when people start saying that human life doesn't begin until you move out of the house. That is when the host cuts off its parasitekids so life doesn't begin until then but if that was true millenials haven't yet earned the right to be classified as an independent life form.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You should carefully read Roe v. Wade.

That is what the law is.

Isn't it wonderful that we off-shored the legislative process to the judicial branch? Democracy is so cumbersome sometimes. How can we dare let the people decide what laws they should live by. Silly plebians....

So you are another in the long list of republicans that wants to do away with the SCOTUS?

I actually think the people should have control over what 'laws' should exist.

So you want to do away with the SCOTUS

No. There are a lot of court decision that I agree with. I just think the people ought to have the final say over what is constitutional and what is not. Do you oppose the people being in control of the things their government does?

Go to your local elementary school and ask for a copy of the 1st or 2nd grade history book, so you can find out why the SCOTUS was created in the first place.

 

[Preacher]

Abortion is murder. Next question

 

[WillowTree]

Without sperm meets egg will there be a baby? Dosen't life begin at conception? Without conception there is no life. Use a friggin condom.

 

[WillowTree]

I really am not that passionate about the issue of abortion. I don't agree with it but is abortion just as greivious of an offense as murder is in the eyes of the law. I'm not talking about in the eyes of God but in the eyes of the law. The law already has many kinds of rules against the taking of human life all ranging from different types. Manslaugher, Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. etc. if abortion is the taking of human life then should it be treated in the same way as murder 1 or murder 2? Or should it get a different kind of classification all together.

Does the Law specify at what exact point in the development of a zygote the human entity is produced? If not it must explain where its designation of "human life" comes from.

I stand with those who believe human life begins when a fetus is delivered from its host and the umbilicus is severed. Prior to that moment it is a well-developed, totally oblivious zygote with absolutely no human identity.

I fear the day when people start saying that human life doesn't begin until you move out of the house. That is when the host cuts off its parasitekids so life doesn't begin until then but if that was true millenials haven't yet earned the right to be classified as an independent life form.

What you should fear is libtards deciding your life is done at 70" they appoint themselves the power of God. Fear that.

 

[MikeK]

I stand with those who believe human life begins when a fetus is delivered from its host and the umbilicus is severed. Prior to that moment it is a well-developed, totally oblivious zygote with absolutely no human identity.

And that is where we disagree...

Does your disagreement consider the fact that before the advent of technological means of actually looking inside a pregnant woman there was no way of knowing if the thing growing inside her was an identifiable, or live, entity? So at what point did the Law decide that terminating a pregnancy is murder?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Does the Law specify at what exact point in the development of a zygote the human entity is produced? If not it must explain where its designation of "human life" comes from.

how about the moment of fireworks when the sperm meets the egg......?

Stunning video: Bright flash of light when life begins!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Isn't it wonderful that we off-shored the legislative process to the judicial branch? Democracy is so cumbersome sometimes. How can we dare let the people decide what laws they should live by. Silly plebians....

So you are another in the long list of republicans that wants to do away with the SCOTUS?

I actually think the people should have control over what 'laws' should exist.

So you want to do away with the SCOTUS

No. There are a lot of court decision that I agree with. I just think the people ought to have the final say over what is constitutional and what is not. Do you oppose the people being in control of the things their government does?

Go to your local elementary school and ask for a copy of the 1st or 2nd grade history book, so you can find out why the SCOTUS was created in the first place.

It was to preside over cases involving the laws of the united states and the constitution. Those were all written by the people's representatives so it makes sense the same people should have the final say on what the constitution means and doesn't mean.

 

[WillowTree]

I stand with those who believe human life begins when a fetus is delivered from its host and the umbilicus is severed. Prior to that moment it is a well-developed, totally oblivious zygote with absolutely no human identity.

And that is where we disagree...

Does your disagreement consider the fact that before the advent of technological means of actually looking inside a pregnant woman there was no way of knowing if the thing growing inside her was an identifiable, or live, entity? So at what point did the Law decide that terminating a pregnancy is murder?

So Gosnell is in prison why?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Isn't it wonderful that we off-shored the legislative process to the judicial branch? Democracy is so cumbersome sometimes. How can we dare let the people decide what laws they should live by. Silly plebians....

So you are another in the long list of republicans that wants to do away with the SCOTUS?

I actually think the people should have control over what 'laws' should exist.

So you want to do away with the SCOTUS

No. There are a lot of court decision that I agree with. I just think the people ought to have the final say over what is constitutional and what is not. Do you oppose the people being in control of the things their government does?

Go to your local elementary school and ask for a copy of the 1st or 2nd grade history book, so you can find out why the SCOTUS was created in the first place.

You should go to your local elementary school so you can finally complete the sixth grade.