@Thucy - your labeling judge and jury as murderers... Does this then mean soldiers who kill in the enemy or police officers who kill armed criminals in the line of duty are murderers too? The judge and jury were doing their duty, just as the soldier and the police officer were.

DJ

You are obfuscation incarnate.

One exception of 21 one weeks does not make the rule, though it does make for a miracle. In Canada 20 weeks is the medical guideline, 24 is the legal. Take it up with them.

Me thinks life support was involved or did he breath on his own? So there's some medical technology is advancing enough to allow a 21 old fetus to survive for parents who wanted it and there's a medical technology that allows a woman to abort the fetus she cannot/does not want to give birth to. Choice in a technological world. How cool is that?

Wow, who'd a thought choices were made in the absence of contradiction and paradox?

Keep in mind: (from the article you linked)
"Babies born before 37 weeks make up as much as 10 percent of all births and those born before 32 weeks typically suffer brain damage, respiratory disease and blindness."

Just the feature's I signed up for before I dropped myself into my mother's womb.

Draug.

The two examples you cited are only not murderers if they themselves were being attacked by the people they killed.

As this wasn't answered (but i was putting forward dependancy as a good way of determining whether an abortion should be allowed):

"Until a baby develops through all the womb stages long enough for the basic fuel system lungs and breath to function outside, which not all do by the way, it is not life, it is a life in potential. Is this just too profound for you to understand? "

So I guess when my lungs begin to degenerate and I am forced to rely on assistance to breathe then I will cease to be human? Your argument here is just scary..."

Yes, as it happens there are too very different pocesses going on, which have one thing in common. They are both blurry.

One dying, starts with a life which is deteriorating, and ends with a corpse which is dealt with in a manner proscribed by cultural values or the last will of the individual who died.

The second is birth, which begins with two adult humans and ends with a third human being born.

Where life begins or starts is unclear. I do not choose to draw a line.

in the question raised: "when my lungs begin to degenerate" you are dying, alive but dying. Technically when your heart stops beating you are clinically dead. Sometimes they can bring you back, but the decision to do so rests with a doctor. (those people trained to do so)

In the case of abortion it is a thing which isn't a life of it's own to begin with (and therefore not entitled to human rights, especially the right to life, but it's not able to exercise the right to choose yet because it's choice organ hasn't developed yet... ) Until it has developed to the point where i can survive it is dependant on the mother's body.

This is a fact. Until it is no longer dependant on it's mothers body to survive it can not exercise the right to life.

No-where in the universal declaration of human rights is there a guarentee to life whether it depends on the actions of others. On the other hand it does declare the right to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being. (source:wikipedia)

If a woman does not feel she can guarentee this to her child then she shouldn't continue with the process, and it should be her choice.

At some point in the process it is too late to change your mind. I don't claim to know what that point is, but I do dispute any claims that a fertilised egg is entitled to the right to life.

(oh, and to those who have joined this conversation late: this is the essence of this discussion; disputing what counts as human life: Thucy against limiting the right to life from any group - which lead to the holocause? and Giapeep arguing for more responcibility to be placed into the hands of women - which may lead to better mothers, or less bad mothers.

HOWEVER processes (and life is a process, always changing) are not described by such simple language as has been used here. To reach some kind of understanding of each other we should all first agree at least this much.

Oh, and religion hasn't had any part in the discussion of what is and isn't a 'life'.

@Thucy - so a marine or SWAT sniper who picks off a target is a murderer? The marine target is no threat to the sniper and may not be an immediate threat to another individual. He/she may be a target for strategic reasons. And the SWAT sniper is taking someone out who is usually holding someone else hostage, but that person is still no threat to them. The judge and jury chooses to esecute a person because they are a threat to society and other individuals should they ever get out (and life without parole is not a guarantee they won't escape).

@Draugnar: Execution is, by the same measure, not guarentee that the individual is guilty, just that the current evidence proves something beyond reasonable doubt. There have been numerous cases of mistakes which were overturned later due to DNA evidence, but too late to release the prisoner.

I believe society is wrong to execute prisoners. Whatever the crime, but then i would agree with Thucy that human rights should not be removed from individuals for whatever reason. (notwithstanding that i believe self-defence is morale)

not a guarentee, even.

Life in prison is what a murderer deserves. Not execution.

The only time I support execution is for a dictator. Like Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin.

Even that, honestly is a bit hypocritical, but these people are SO loathsome that I don't think they even deserve their human rights.

However just a simple murderer does. And I don't agree with war either Draugnar unless its a war of self-defense. So if the Marine shoots a target who is invading his country, then ok. But in Iraq? Not justified in my view.

However I understand that I'll never be able to change society's mind about war so it's not like I'm going to go around yelling at soldiers saying they're murderers. They're good people. So are a lot of judges, and so are a lot of criminal murderers.

Topic humour:

http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF208-Eggnancy.jpg

Thucy,
Thankfully our armed forces usually understand that unless its a gross violation of the Geneva Convention, their job is to put their politics aside and follow the orders of the commander in chief.

And there in lies the space between the rock and the hard place. Thousands of soldiers followed Hitler's orders....

And the vast majority of those soldiers weren't prosecuted, with good reason. Those who were aware of and participated in the intentional killing of civilians frequently were. To suggest a marine shooting an armed target in Iraq is more prosecutable than shooting an armed target in this country is dubious at best.

orathaic-Oh, and religion hasn't had any part in the discussion of what is and isn't a 'life'.

Which is precisely why pro-choice wins the argument every time. Government needs to look to God before there is to be a change in abortion laws.

Yo Yo, the US was not founded on Christian principles, let alone religious.

Don't you guys remember what stared this country? Escape from religious persecution.

It's the Gov't's job to run society, by taking into consideration all points of view, not by adhering to one point of view, for that way lies madness and global war.

good god

Haha ok

No, they're not prosecutable, and that's ok with me. I equate them morally though.

"They're good people. So are a lot of judges, and so are a lot of criminal murderers."

Do you mean by 'Criminal Murderers' the very people who execute those convicted of murder or murderers themselves? I ask because until i know i cant vent at that comment :)

That last was @ Thucy.

Murders themselves.
The very people who execute murderers are a part of the institution which murders murderers and the institution of which judges are a figurehead.

Of course I'm not saying those people should be prosecuted, they're currently obeying the law, I just have a moral problem with it, and I hope one day we don't do capital punishment.

I return to the marine sniper... Let's say the old USSR had invaded the US at some point. Would a marine sniper tasked with terminating the colonel of some major advanced force be a murderer? This colonel is the head of the snake, so to speak, but does not immediately threaten the sniper or any other soldier, yet he is still part of a military occupational force. I ask again, is the marine sniper a murderer in your view, Thucy?

Thucy,
Intent matters. Equating a judge or jury condemning someone to die and a 'classic' murderer? Intent is different.

Only if they had invaded. If we had launched a preemptive strike on them you can think of it as collective murder.

lol, and this relates to abortion, how?

Thucy, I could see you making a case of collective murder against the commander in chief. Not against the individual solider.

Thucy - read again. I said if "the old USSR had invaded." So, you are saying it isn't murder if it is in defense of your country from a foreign invader? Odd how hypocritical that sounds...

LEt's go to the cops. Bank robbery now. Roof SWAT snipers all have clear views of the bank robbers with solid shots, they time them, and kill all X number of bank robbers saving every hostages' life. Were they murderers?

I'be tired to be nice about this:
You guys, do you get how disrespectful it is, to the subject at hand to change it into one on murder and killing.

The irony.

Please start a new thread.

The U.S.A was founded by firmly devout Christians. Under God...The pledge of allegiance?

I am not saying non-believers aren't capable of running the government. I just wish to God that they have Godly morals and don't think only 'politically correct' like most politicians.