yeah, I will agree with thatyerded wrote:
I would sight the sorry allowance of abortion as contraception as one instance of legal murder.Marconius wrote:
Murder is never legal...
It is certainly acceptable to take the like of a lunatic to save somebody.
Acceptable to kill in a just war.
Acceptable to kill in a situation of revolution to defend a country where the entrenched powers can ONLY be displaced by their deaths.
Acceptable to kill in a just war.
Acceptable to kill in a situation of revolution to defend a country where the entrenched powers can ONLY be displaced by their deaths.
Abortion is only murder if you can prove that the fetus is indeed a "person" while inside the mother. Difficulty: No religion allowed for this proof.
Why not speak with specifity then? I think the term "Bushite" would fit your aim quite well.the_heart_attack wrote:
here is what i think on the matter. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=432314#p432314Xietsu wrote:
By relation, Americans are part of America. By relation, is hatred unfound against "unwarranted attacks"?
LawL. Knew you would say it.
by America i mean the government. which by large from what iv seen by the recent approval ratings the majority of the people there don't agree with anyway.
A revolution (in this context) is a just war, no?yerded wrote:
It is certainly acceptable to take the like of a lunatic to save somebody.
Acceptable to kill in a just war.
Acceptable to kill in a situation of revolution to defend a country where the entrenched powers can ONLY be displaced by their deaths.
Well, the only guiding factor for differing man from beast is the ability to conceptualize...and that basically justifies baby-killing and DD-killing (developmentally disabled). It's definitely more complex than that. I dunno', I've always been in support of abortion as long as it is before the brain has been formed. Before that point, it's (embryonic growth I speak of here) just a mindless leech.Marconius wrote:
Abortion is only murder if you can prove that the fetus is indeed a "person" while inside the mother. Difficulty: No religion allowed for this proof.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-08 19:12:09)
As others have said, murder is never legal...
I do not think killing someone in self-defense is murder, because the killer doesn't really have a choice. It's a kill-or-be-killed situation.
I also do not think killing the enemy in a war is murder, either, for pretty much the same reason. Kill-or-be-killed type of thing.
I do not think killing someone in self-defense is murder, because the killer doesn't really have a choice. It's a kill-or-be-killed situation.
I also do not think killing the enemy in a war is murder, either, for pretty much the same reason. Kill-or-be-killed type of thing.
I think yerded covered the bases pretty well.
The question is confusing. Do you mean taking life, or actual murder?
Murder is pre-meditated killing. That's exactly how it's defined in law, if you killed someone and that was your intention before the incident, it's murder.
Manslaughter is when it's in self-defence, or "hot blood". You accidently kill someone during a fight or argument, or by accident. Self-defence comes under this definition too.
Killing is when a soldier kills an enemy during war, but this only applies to the side that did the killing. For the other side the soldier has committed murder and could be charged.
Murder is pre-meditated killing. That's exactly how it's defined in law, if you killed someone and that was your intention before the incident, it's murder.
Manslaughter is when it's in self-defence, or "hot blood". You accidently kill someone during a fight or argument, or by accident. Self-defence comes under this definition too.
Killing is when a soldier kills an enemy during war, but this only applies to the side that did the killing. For the other side the soldier has committed murder and could be charged.
Last edited by rh27 (2006-06-09 05:07:45)
When the country in which the citizens reside, has large quantities of oil under ground.RicardoBlanco wrote:
At what point is it legal for a soldier to kill another country's citizens?
It is acceptable to kill someone if they are REALLY REALLY annoying you.
You don't go to jail for killing someone out of self defense. Self defense and manslaughter are two different things.rh27 wrote:
The question is confusing. Do you mean taking life, or actual murder?
Manslaughter is when it's in self-defence, or "hot blood". You accidently kill someone during a fight or argument, or by accident. Self-defence comes under this definition too.
Don’t understand your question? It really never is legal for any person to kill, unless your life has been threatened in some kind of way, witch will cause you to react in that kind of manner than maybe I would say that’s legal [instead state a situation were you could ask a question like that]
Soldiers may kill in war ... my opinion ...
As for the topic, "when is murder legal?" the simple answer is "never."
When can killing be justified? The only thing I would add to what other people have said is assisted suicide. When someone is so ill that they cannot think for themselves, cannot move, are basically vegetables in human form and they have previously made a living will that says "kill me if/when I get to vegetable-state", I would say administering a lethal dose of something or turning off a ventilator or withdrawing the food pipe - that would be acceptable.
Why do I think that? My grandfather had Parkinson's disease and the last time I saw him, he was pretty close to the state I described. He was bed-ridden, couldn't open his eyes, could barely talk and when he did, he wasn't living in the present, he was talking as though it was the 1940s again and that people who died 50 years ago were still alive. Apparently that was a good day for him. He died about two months later.
Nobody should go through that. I've made a living will to say that if I get to that stage, I don't want to be a burden to family and the state, so please kill me.
When can killing be justified? The only thing I would add to what other people have said is assisted suicide. When someone is so ill that they cannot think for themselves, cannot move, are basically vegetables in human form and they have previously made a living will that says "kill me if/when I get to vegetable-state", I would say administering a lethal dose of something or turning off a ventilator or withdrawing the food pipe - that would be acceptable.
Why do I think that? My grandfather had Parkinson's disease and the last time I saw him, he was pretty close to the state I described. He was bed-ridden, couldn't open his eyes, could barely talk and when he did, he wasn't living in the present, he was talking as though it was the 1940s again and that people who died 50 years ago were still alive. Apparently that was a good day for him. He died about two months later.
Nobody should go through that. I've made a living will to say that if I get to that stage, I don't want to be a burden to family and the state, so please kill me.
I'm not sure that it's ever "legal" to kill another country's "citizens". During armed conflict it is legal to kill other nation's armed forces, it's legal to defend yourself if under attack by conventional or unconventional forces. But it's never legal to simply indescriminantly kill non-combatants.RicardoBlanco wrote:
At what point is it legal for a soldier to kill another country's citizens?
Yes, non-combatant citizens of other nations do expire in combat which is simply a fact of life. If soldiers from one force deliberately bypass opprotunities to spare non-combatants or intentionally kill non-combatants, then it becomes murder.
Not sure what the point of this is. If this is in response to Habbitha (sp?) than it's best to wait out the investigation. Beyond the basic legality issue there's hardly ever been an Army that has succeeded by murdering the citizens of an opposing nation.
Marconius wrote:
Abortion is only murder if you can prove that the fetus is indeed a "person" while inside the mother. Difficulty: No religion allowed for this proof.
Dude,
when I saw my son on the ultra sound at 6 weeks old he was flopping and flipping about, like he was playing.
How he seemed then at 6 weeks is how he seems now at 4 years; full of a joy for living.
Case closed.
ps
As a young man I was a party to two abortions. I had a different attitude then; it was all about me and what was best for my life at the moment. I also didn't anticipate my dead children visiting me in my dreams demanding to know why I did it.
It's murder, deal with it. I am guilty, hence better qualified to judge than some.
Last edited by yerded (2006-06-09 08:32:40)
You can't. Murder is a legal term.lowing wrote:
yeah, I will agree with thatyerded wrote:
I would sight the sorry allowance of abortion as contraception as one instance of legal murder.
Uh-huh. How do you figure that?yerded wrote:
I am guilty, hence better qualified to judge than some.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-09 08:36:48)
The fetus in the womb is still connected to the mother, and is inside the mother, and any action taken against the mother's wishes is a gross breach of privacy. The fetus does not exist as a separate legal entity from the mother until birth, so no matter what paternal/religious feeling you have about the fetus, it is still a fetus and part of the mother until it is out of the womb. Therefore, an abortion is by all means Not a legal murder.
Murder is legal if someone breaks into your house and you believe that person is a threat to you or others. In Louisiana it's legal to kill someone on your property that you believe is threatening you or others.
YOUR NOT WHO YOU THINK YOU AREMarconius wrote:
The fetus in the womb is still connected to the mother, and is inside the mother, and any action taken against the mother's wishes is a gross breach of privacy. The fetus does not exist as a separate legal entity from the mother until birth, so no matter what paternal/religious feeling you have about the fetus, it is still a fetus and part of the mother until it is out of the womb. Therefore, an abortion is by all means Not a legal murder.
That thing between your legs isn't just a spigot and joystik, it floods your brain with testosterone which is pr oven to make people insane until they reach maturity. Notice I didn't say adulthood (18), I said maturity (35). You may think you've got it all figured out at 19 but, should you survive you will be surprised at how foolish you are now. Some of the "axioms" you claim now may seems fallacy later.
Sorry Marconius, but legality doesn't define morality.
Bubbalo said "Uh-huh. How do you figure that?"
You can only be a hypocrit if you have strong opinions without the life experience to test them. I've been a socialist liberal. I got older, and experience warped some of my opinions I felt pretty cocksure about when I was young.
Don't you dare bring up the age debate with me. Darth_Fleder has already tried and failed quite succinctly at that. If you can't bring up any argument other than what Churchill said over 50 years ago (based on the ideas of liberalism and conservativism at the time, both which have grossly changed since, especially in this country), then just don't bother. I choose to not remain ignorant of the world's affairs until I'm 40. If you have a problem with that, then so be it. Seriously, what type of world are you trying to create by trying to impress on people only one form of thought due to age differences?
Again, as with what is being discussed in the "Secular" thread at the moment, Morality is based on reason, common sense, and adapting social agreement. You may not particularly feel that aborting a fetus is morally right, but others, including the one responsible for making that ultimate decision (the mother) is in charge of delineating her own morality while understanding the practicality of the situation. Now will you actually respond to my post? Or are you going to go on another "What the fuck is this 21 year old thinking?! And who is He to tell me what's what here?!" rant?
Again, as with what is being discussed in the "Secular" thread at the moment, Morality is based on reason, common sense, and adapting social agreement. You may not particularly feel that aborting a fetus is morally right, but others, including the one responsible for making that ultimate decision (the mother) is in charge of delineating her own morality while understanding the practicality of the situation. Now will you actually respond to my post? Or are you going to go on another "What the fuck is this 21 year old thinking?! And who is He to tell me what's what here?!" rant?
Marconius, I will not change your opinion.
Let's compromise;
I would support first trimester abortion as being legal, if you
will support the death penalty for mothers and doctors who engage in partial birth abortion, except in dire medical emergencies.
And Churchill has been falsely credited with that quote. He didn't say it and liberal and conservative didn't mean then what it means now.
Your not ignorant, your just wrong about abortion.
As a obviously smart person I expect your opinions to evolve, not so much to match mine, but they will evolve.
Let's compromise;
I would support first trimester abortion as being legal, if you
will support the death penalty for mothers and doctors who engage in partial birth abortion, except in dire medical emergencies.
And Churchill has been falsely credited with that quote. He didn't say it and liberal and conservative didn't mean then what it means now.
Your not ignorant, your just wrong about abortion.
As a obviously smart person I expect your opinions to evolve, not so much to match mine, but they will evolve.
If a soldier goes on holiday, he s on leave and he doesn't have any rights to kill anyone of course. If he does, he ll be prosecuted in military court and over here that means double the punishment compared to civilian court.RicardoBlanco wrote:
If a soldier goes on holiday and kills someone that's murder right? At what point is it legal for a soldier to kill another country's citizens? Do you have to legally declare war?
By the way I'm not implying anything. Could be any country, nationality or army.
If you carry live ammo on duty, you ll have some kind of rules of engagement, even if you re on guard duty on a base there's a roe. As a soldier, you are authorized so kill/murder(whatever you wanna call it) but only under certain conditions.
Theres a town in Scotland where you can still legally kill a Russian.
Can't remember the name of the town, but its on the border between England and Scotlands I think.
Because this town was on the border, when then declaration of war was signed it was signed by the English Scots and a representative from that town.
When the peace treaty was signed only representatives from Russia England and Scotland signed the treaty - no-one from the town signed the treaty, and as a result that town is still at war with Russia and it is therefore legal to kill a Russian in that town.
Can't for the life of me remember the name of that town, but I'll Karma anyone who can tell me as it's gonna bug all night if I dont find out.
Can't remember the name of the town, but its on the border between England and Scotlands I think.
Because this town was on the border, when then declaration of war was signed it was signed by the English Scots and a representative from that town.
When the peace treaty was signed only representatives from Russia England and Scotland signed the treaty - no-one from the town signed the treaty, and as a result that town is still at war with Russia and it is therefore legal to kill a Russian in that town.
Can't for the life of me remember the name of that town, but I'll Karma anyone who can tell me as it's gonna bug all night if I dont find out.
W00t Pro-choice!
I've always wondered... if a fetus is "alive" at conception, why is it that we choose to celebrate the date of birth instead of the date of conception? Wouldn't that seem more logical if a baby is alive at that time?
I've always wondered... if a fetus is "alive" at conception, why is it that we choose to celebrate the date of birth instead of the date of conception? Wouldn't that seem more logical if a baby is alive at that time?
Maybe because some parents don't want their kids thinking about what they were up to 9 months before their kids were born?