Wait... you haven't complained about abortions being homicides? And that there are way too many of them?
Is mass homicide better?
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Is mass homicide better?
That is more accurate, but you still shouldn't be complaining about people repeatedly saying things that they haven't said.
I think there's a bit of confusion here. You can acknowledge abortion is a killing (murder not so much, as that is more of a legal matter than a corporeal one) and that it is even perhaps morally dubious, without somehow wanting to ban it. Like, you know, how they still call Rittenhouse a killer (and not a self-defender, different nuance) despite being found not guilty in a court of law.
Something can be legally allowed but still rub you the wrong way and that doesn't have to necessarily mean you want to end the legal system or change any one particular law. It's just a sign of the inherent imperfections of our system. Noticing those imperfections and calling them out is how you improve the system, not how you negate it.
Also more importantly, life isn't perfect, you have rapes, you have incest, you have those rare cases of siblings separated at birth marrying eachother, you have hoes. So you can't really seek out a perfect system because the world it's gonna be implemented in is imperfect. You have to inherently accept things will be morally unsatisfying and keep trying your hardest to make the best out of it regardless.
Something can be legally allowed but still rub you the wrong way and that doesn't have to necessarily mean you want to end the legal system or change any one particular law. It's just a sign of the inherent imperfections of our system. Noticing those imperfections and calling them out is how you improve the system, not how you negate it.
Also more importantly, life isn't perfect, you have rapes, you have incest, you have those rare cases of siblings separated at birth marrying eachother, you have hoes. So you can't really seek out a perfect system because the world it's gonna be implemented in is imperfect. You have to inherently accept things will be morally unsatisfying and keep trying your hardest to make the best out of it regardless.
You have stated that abortionist are commiting mass homicide. (Which is somehow less offensive that mass murder.)
You have also claimed saying this about abortionists wasn't a deragorty
Ot did you not say these things
Well, technically, homicide is the killing of a person, with no distinction in motive or circumstances. So when a soldier shoots another soldier on the battlefield, that is a type of homicide. A prisoner sentenced to death and hanged by an executioner is homicide, or a doctor who euthanises a terminally ill patient, or a person who commits suicide has commited self-homicide.
The key word here is "person": because a fetus is not a person.
All of the legal statutes that I'm aware of, and certainly those that apply to me where I live, use the term "human being" when defining homicide. Not person.
I never said mass anything with regards to this topic, at least that I can recall. I don't like the idea that frequency of an occurrence should have bearing on the legality of it, at least in principle. While I appreciate that in a practical sense, there's not likely to be laws against something that doesn't happen often enough to care about, I think if you want something to be illegal you should be able to justify that in a single case without appealing to anything in mass as reasoning.
Other than the moot quip about the word "person", Agema pretty well covered the distinction between homicide and murder.
I'm pretty sure you said hundreds of thousands. I'm very sure you have said thousands of homicides
Is that not counted as mass?
You seem very sure of a lot of things, and very determined to pick a fight I don't care about.
I think it's more that you made some sweeping moral statements about other posters, people took issue with that (understandably), and this smacks of trying to weasel out of it through semantics.
I have been arguing, explicitly, that the abortion debate need not appeal to personal morality to treat abortion in parallel to existing laws on homicide.If people choose to take that as sweeping moral statements, they are missing the point entirely.
Alternatively, I presume you have read some of the direct, targeted condemnations people aim at me here on a regular basis... I am not calling people who support abortion rights monsters, but they are saying that about me.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,985
- 3,848
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
You only get slightly higher instances of defects from first gen incest, I think it takes aa few more before it starts really building up genetic abnormalities. It is weird how common separated siblings ending up together can be. Probably because they have so much similar, but since they didn't grow up together they don't have the marker of "family, do not fuck"
Empty deflection, coolsies.
A quick scan over a few pages turned up you referring to your opponents' arguments as "stupidity", "deranged", "hedonism", insinuating that they would cause the end of human society, and opining that in the future they'll be considered equivalent to murder.
In the future, abortion might be considered murder and barbaric.
But it won't be because of the religiously inspired beliefs like today, it'll be because we develop a different way of dealing with fetuses: for instance being able to remove them and store them or grow them in a tank (etc.). Today's practise of abortion at that future point will be viewed akin to our view of prehistoric infanticide: understandable for the general good given the technology and issues of the day.
The thing I called stupid is a viewpoint nobody here is going to defend.
The thing I called deranged was the suggestion that without abortion society might not exist. I don't believe I suggested anything about the end of human society, rather, I called a similar suggestion deranged.
Referencing hedonism is not an insult. The user I said that to understood that.
I don't opine about the future considering abortion equivalent to murder. I say it will be banned everywhere, and people will look back on us the way we look at historical infanticide. If you have any belief at all in the possibility of societal progress, it should not be an insult to say that things have gotten better and will continue to get better into the future. If you can empathize with people having abortion in the present, perhaps you can empathize with those who committed infanticide in the past, and understand that the main difference now is circumstance. If people in the past had the options of today, they wouldn't have killed their children. If people today had the options of the future, we wouldn't even consider abortion as a choice. I want to push for the future, and I think we're close to it. It's not that I think people are all just evil, I understand the motivation of abortion in the context it's taken place in, but I believe we are swiftly leaving that context behind. Homicide is not always murder, homicide can be justified, but the era of justifiable abortion is ending and few exceptions remain.
Uh-huh, and anybody who referred to your beliefs as "barbaric" will similarly have justifications that make sense to them and not to you.
Do you wanna poll the room real quick? See if anyone who called me things like "barbaric" would even pretend that they don't think I'm a bad person?
Some of them, possibly, though I imagine most would just say you're misguided or somesuch.
But that's not really the point. This isn't about imagining what others think of us as people. It's about tone.
I don't believe there is any combination of words I could say that rivals the implicit tone of badmouthing one user when responding to another, which happens to me here quite often. To be honest, I'm not innocent either in that regard, but I reserve that nonsense for one user in particular.