Why are Leftists so Adamant about Killing Living Humans who have Committed No Crime?

[IB daMann]

This is stupid. This site's censors are requiring me to leave the empty quote blank without explaining that it is empty because it is empty (I've been warned about clarifying).

Airyman is clearly a leftist coward. I'm glad he so readily self-identifies as such.

 

[Bodi]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

Why don't you put your energy into saving born humans instead of trying to force women to do what you want?

 

[roguenuke]

That's fine but the government is interfering every day. They tax us, set our laws, overregulate everything. At least an abortion ban preserves life.

Not having stand your ground laws or castle doctrine laws would also preserve lives too, make people less likely to kill when they don't need to do so. Yet those laws exist.

 

[Noodlegawd]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

Being inside of another person's body without permission is a crime.

 

[Bodi]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

They have committed a crime... they have trespassed and refuse to vacate.... they are also stealing the woman's resources and harming her health.

 

[choiceone]

Why don't you put your energy into saving born humans instead of trying to force women to do what you want?

That's just because he's a frustrated would be rapist.

 

[Hari Seldon]

 

[collected]

My reply to the meme posted by Hari: As tragic as it is for a 12 year old to be pregnant, lacking maturity is not a justification for abortion. A 12 year old is not mature enough to give birth however that still does not justify the intentional killing of a human being. Bad things happen to children who haven't reached maturity. Children get cancer all the time. If a child's cancer could be cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest, nobody should be in favor of that.

Being inside of another person's body without permission is a crime.

Which statute would it violate? As far as a moral wrongdoing I would argue that it depends. The fetus did not intend to be inside another person's body.

They have committed a crime... they have trespassed and refuse to vacate.... they are also stealing the woman's resources and harming her health.

If one was starving to death and needed food to maintain sustenance during a disaster, no DA would charge that person with stealing if it was to get food to avoid dying. The fetus is in the same position as it must be given resources to survive. In addition, parents/guardians have the legal and moral obligation to provide food and shelter to their children if nobody else is. Parents who refuse to feed or shelter their children are typically charged with child neglect and society in general views it as a wrong for good reason.

If a newborn baby was in the care of one parent and that parent did not give milk to the baby and the infant ends up dying - that would be considered murder. Parents are forced by law to provide to their infants/babies.

 

[Bodi]

If one was starving to death and needed food to maintain sustenance during a disaster, no DA would charge that person with stealing if it was to get food to avoid dying. The fetus is in the same position as it must be given resources to survive.

Then you, or the state, can care for it when it is out of the woman's body.

In addition, parents/guardians have the legal and moral obligation to provide food and shelter to their children if nobody else is.

An embryo is not a child.

Parents who refuse to feed or shelter their children are typically charged with child neglect and society in general views it as a wrong for good reason.

The woman is not neglecting the child... she is removing it from her body.

If a newborn baby was in the care of one parent and that parent did not give milk to the baby and the infant ends up dying - that would be considered murder. Parents are forced by law to provide to their infants/babies.

A baby is a person. A fetus is not.

Your logic is flawed across the board.

 

[Bodi]

Which statute would it violate?

Trespassing
Squatting
Theft

I could probably think of some more...

 

[Gordy327]

My reply to the meme posted by Hari: As tragic as it is for a 12 year old to be pregnant, lacking maturity is not a justification for abortion. A 12 year old is not mature enough to give birth however that still does not justify the intentional killing of a human being. Bad things happen to children who haven't reached maturity. Children get cancer all the time. If a child's cancer could be cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest, nobody should be in favor of that.

That sounds rather callus to disregard the life of a 12 yo. Never mind she may not be physically or mentally ready to undergo gestation or birth without serious risk to both. Or that the rest of her life could be ruined. Cancer can be cured with chemo or radiation. Abortion can cure an unsafe or unwanted pregnancy. Who are you to decide if it's justified or not or good/bad for anyone else?

Which statute would it violate? As far as a moral wrongdoing I would argue that it depends. The fetus did not intend to be inside another person's body.

McFall v Shrimp (1978).

If one was starving to death and needed food to maintain sustenance during a disaster, no DA would charge that person with stealing if it was to get food to avoid dying.

But they're still stealing, which is still illegal and "morally" wrong, correct? Or is this more of a moral "gray area?"

In addition, parents/guardians have the legal and moral obligation to provide food and shelter to their children if nobody else is. Parents who refuse to feed or shelter their children are typically charged with child neglect and society in general views it as a wrong for good reason.

If a newborn baby was in the care of one parent and that parent did not give milk to the baby and the infant ends up dying - that would be considered murder. Parents are forced by law to provide to their infants/babies.

That's after birth, not before, which is the issue. Anyone can care for a neonate. But only 1, the pregnant woman herself, can support an embryo/fetus. But she is under no obligation to do so and is not legally required to have her body used for gestation.

 

[Gordy327]

Trespassing
Squatting
Theft

I could probably think of some more...

Threat of or actual harm, as pregnancy and birth inherently poses a risk to a woman's physical and/or mental health. Abortion is preventative medicine or self defense against harm.

 

[Lursa]

My reply to the meme posted by Hari: As tragic as it is for a 12 year old to be pregnant, lacking maturity is not a justification for abortion. A 12 year old is not mature enough to give birth however that still does not justify the intentional killing of a human being. Bad things happen to children who haven't reached maturity. Children get cancer all the time. If a child's cancer could be cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest, nobody should be in favor of that.

Why should the 12 yr old's heath and life be ruined, possibly even lost? Why should all that be risked for the unborn?

The entire life and health and future of the 12 yr old hang in the balance...why should that be sacrificed in order to give the unborn the exact same thing?

 

[Hari Seldon]

My reply to the meme posted by Hari: As tragic as it is for a 12 year old to be pregnant, lacking maturity is not a justification for abortion. A 12 year old is not mature enough to give birth however that still does not justify the intentional killing of a human being. Bad things happen to children who haven't reached maturity. Children get cancer all the time. If a child's cancer could be cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest, nobody should be in favor of that.


Which statute would it violate? As far as a moral wrongdoing I would argue that it depends. The fetus did not intend to be inside another person's body.


If one was starving to death and needed food to maintain sustenance during a disaster, no DA would charge that person with stealing if it was to get food to avoid dying. The fetus is in the same position as it must be given resources to survive. In addition, parents/guardians have the legal and moral obligation to provide food and shelter to their children if nobody else is. Parents who refuse to feed or shelter their children are typically charged with child neglect and society in general views it as a wrong for good reason.

If a newborn baby was in the care of one parent and that parent did not give milk to the baby and the infant ends up dying - that would be considered murder. Parents are forced by law to provide to their infants/babies.

Forcing a 12 year old girl to give birth after being raped of course is an amoral disgrace. A fetus is not a human and certainly not a hobo. Fortunately there are those of more rational than the pro fetus crowd who wouldn't think of forcing a raped 12 year old girl to give birth. No respect or empathy for the 12 year old girl, only the fetus. Boggles my mind.

 

[roguenuke]

My reply to the meme posted by Hari: As tragic as it is for a 12 year old to be pregnant, lacking maturity is not a justification for abortion. A 12 year old is not mature enough to give birth however that still does not justify the intentional killing of a human being. Bad things happen to children who haven't reached maturity. Children get cancer all the time. If a child's cancer could be cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest, nobody should be in favor of that.


Which statute would it violate? As far as a moral wrongdoing I would argue that it depends. The fetus did not intend to be inside another person's body.


If one was starving to death and needed food to maintain sustenance during a disaster, no DA would charge that person with stealing if it was to get food to avoid dying. The fetus is in the same position as it must be given resources to survive. In addition, parents/guardians have the legal and moral obligation to provide food and shelter to their children if nobody else is. Parents who refuse to feed or shelter their children are typically charged with child neglect and society in general views it as a wrong for good reason.

If a newborn baby was in the care of one parent and that parent did not give milk to the baby and the infant ends up dying - that would be considered murder. Parents are forced by law to provide to their infants/babies.

So there are some major issues with your premise in the first paragraph.

First, a twelve year old pregnant is a serious medical risk, going through labor even moreso. Her chances of having a child without any medical issues or dying are not nearly as high as an adult's. That risk itself is enough to justify abortion for most, as killing is allowed, legal, morally right to many when it comes to saving a life.

Cancer is able to be fought with medical means, like chemo, radiation, and likely other treatments.

As for you "cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest", I think you are very wrong to think that people wouldn't do that (if they knew it would work) and a lot of people for doing that. What do you think human sacrifice was all about? If people believed, really believed that killing one person would save one or many others, even if the person they were killing was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, not threatening anyone, especially if talking his life would save many others, I do believe that people would be morally more accepting of it, as long as they had evidence it worked in some form. Most people in developed countries believe it is morally wrong because there is no objective evidence that would actually work to save anyone's life.

The ironic thing about your scenario though is that the main reason that we wouldn't think it was morally right to do that is because we tend to hold a collective morality that says a person gets to decide whether to give their body, their life for others, and even if dead, can choose (through paperwork or a proxy) not to give their no longer needed bodily organs to save that child's life that may need it.

 

[roguenuke]

My reply to the meme posted by Hari: As tragic as it is for a 12 year old to be pregnant, lacking maturity is not a justification for abortion. A 12 year old is not mature enough to give birth however that still does not justify the intentional killing of a human being. Bad things happen to children who haven't reached maturity. Children get cancer all the time. If a child's cancer could be cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest, nobody should be in favor of that.


Which statute would it violate? As far as a moral wrongdoing I would argue that it depends. The fetus did not intend to be inside another person's body.


If one was starving to death and needed food to maintain sustenance during a disaster, no DA would charge that person with stealing if it was to get food to avoid dying. The fetus is in the same position as it must be given resources to survive. In addition, parents/guardians have the legal and moral obligation to provide food and shelter to their children if nobody else is. Parents who refuse to feed or shelter their children are typically charged with child neglect and society in general views it as a wrong for good reason.

If a newborn baby was in the care of one parent and that parent did not give milk to the baby and the infant ends up dying - that would be considered murder. Parents are forced by law to provide to their infants/babies.

You think that it would be morally okay to steal food from a person who needs that food during the disaster, whom themselves are starving? What if a fight over the food ensued? Who would be justified in killing the other either to gain or keep the food?

Parents/guardians have volunteered to provide for the child, otherwise they could give up their parental rights, give up for adoption, which takes away that responsibility. There are even laws that allow an infant (up to a certain age) to be "abandoned" at a safe space without any legal penalty.

Your scenarios are not equivalent to pregnancy, abortion, as there were other very reasonable choices available to allow for someone else to take on the responsibility of the child. There are many people who give up their children to others because they are unable to care for them.

 

[Fearandloathing]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

Opinion posing as fact.

The world is weary and bored with this christian bullshit.

Look, there NEVER was a Jesus. The whole ****ing story is stolen from the Greeks.....Hercules as born of a virgin AND rose from the dead!

THEY STOLE THE ORIGIN STORY!

DUH!

 

[Fearandloathing]

The right doesn't like abortion because it get in the way of their infanticide programs..

Yes I know but it makes just as much sense as their posts.

The right doesn't like anything interfering with their superstitions.

Somebody wrote some stuff. Somebody else compiled it and since then various con artists have been "interpreting' that book in order to control the behavior of others. It's called religion and it has no place in nature. In that book you will also find that god, as he is referred to, often engages in mass murders for sport, or to protect his favorite peoples, a collection of tribes originally from central Africa.

In the book 'god' destroys every living thing except a few he favors because he can. He toys with his most beloved worshiper, Job, in a bet with the devil and plays 'April Fool" with a man who is ordered to behead his own son.

After he killed his own son in a vicious and cruel manner he left and hasn't been seen since, although various sects and so forth report they and only they know what He wants. Since then man has invented a thousand ways to kill people, nuclear weapons and addictive drugs, so powerful that 20% of the entire world is hooked.

Yeah, let's follow this god....

 

[Noodlegawd]

Which statute would it violate? As far as a moral wrongdoing I would argue that it depends. The fetus did not intend to be inside another person's body.

I don't know off the top of my head, but feel free to try inserting any part of yourself into another person, and then see if they have the right to use deadly force in self defense.

If one was starving to death and needed food to maintain sustenance during a disaster, no DA would charge that person with stealing if it was to get food to avoid dying.

If a starving person breaks into your house in the middle of the night to steal food, you have every right to shoot them.

The fetus is in the same position as it must be given resources to survive. In addition, parents/guardians have the legal and moral obligation to provide food and shelter to their children if nobody else is. Parents who refuse to feed or shelter their children are typically charged with child neglect and society in general views it as a wrong for good reason.

If a newborn baby was in the care of one parent and that parent did not give milk to the baby and the infant ends up dying - that would be considered murder. Parents are forced by law to provide to their infants/babies.

Fetuses are not "children." Unwanted children can be given up for adoption, or dropped off at the local fire station. Unwanted fetuses can't be.

 

[watsup]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

What have you done recently and how much money have you donated to organizations that educate about and provide access to birth control for women, and for men? If you have not done so, then your words are empty because you are also contributing to unwanted pregnancies by not supporting such organizations. BTW, Planned Parenthood is probably the greatest provider of education about and access to birth control in the nation, especially for women of lower econimc means. The numbers of unwanted pregnancies is way lower thanks to Planned Parenthood., who walk the walk of birth control education and access, probably unlike yourself. All that you basicallly do is to whine.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Abortions are actually up even with the new draconian laws from the christian nationalist run states. If they actually helped women with birth control, education, housing, escape from abusive relationships, etc. the rates of abortion would decrease. But the pro fetus crown isn't really interested in reducing abortion. Its all about forcing others to obey their religious beliefs. Since religion is on the decline it does not bode well for the pro fetus fascist crowd.

 

[CaughtInThe]

What kind of society permits the killing of living humans who have committed no crime? Leftists, Marxists and Democrats (all flavors of the same thing) insist that it is necessary, because convenience demands it. That's just evil.

Let's all keep a woman's right to choose at the forefront leading up to the election.

That and Jan6th. And Social Security.

 

[Somerville]

You are rifling though meaningless words.


Nope. You suck at logic. I showed that abortion is morally reprehensible because it falls under the category of killing living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

You, on the other hand, are engaging in a "special pleading" fallacy. You lose.

Funny that YHWH ordered the death of infants and children on more than one occasion

New American Standard Bible
Exodus 12:29 Now it came about at midnight that the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.

Ezekiel 9:6 Utterly kill old men, young men, female virgins, little children, and women, but do not touch any person on whom is the mark; and you shall start from My sanctuary.” So they started with the elders who were before the temple.

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek and completely destroy everything that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately.
However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves.

 

[watsup]

However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves.

Sanctioning rape of virgins?

 

[Bodi]

My reply to the meme posted by Hari: As tragic as it is for a 12 year old to be pregnant, lacking maturity is not a justification for abortion. A 12 year old is not mature enough to give birth however that still does not justify the intentional killing of a human being. Bad things happen to children who haven't reached maturity. Children get cancer all the time. If a child's cancer could be cured by eliminating a hobo in the forest, nobody should be in favor of that.

Killing a random person in a forest is not analogous to aborting a zygote.

Which statute would it violate? As far as a moral wrongdoing I would argue that it depends. The fetus did not intend to be inside another person's body.

But it is... that is why there are laws like Involuntary Manslaughter. Didn't intend to run over nine 3 year-olds but it happened... intent is irrelevant.