abortion

Lemming · 30-01-2004 11:03am

Originally posted by newband

i, and others i believe, think it is a sensible question, yet u STILL have not answered it

*sigh*
It's not a sensible question. It's an extrordinarily pedantic and insanely obscure scenario question. As I've already, see my references to your "good" self and pedantiscm.

answer the questinon, answer the question, i also think it is quite a reasonable scenario that happens in every day life, maybe not someone punching one in the belly, but maybe a car crash etc...

you STILL have answered the question, why is that??

I ALREADY ANSWERED THE F*CKING QUESTION YOU MUPPET!!!!

It's not my fault that you can't abstract an answer from the third person. Like amp mentioned, I'm getting really sick of your repeated mantra when I've already obliged you newband.

let me recap for those who are a bit slow on the uptake:

posted by Lemming

You would not be tried for murder or manslaughter, since you have not killed a citizen of the state. You would no doubt get a stiffer sentence of assault (and rightly so) if you did such an act knowingly.

There's my answer. That WAS my answer, it IS my answer and it WILL still be my answer in 5 minutes time.

Comprende?

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 1:28pm

Originally posted by Lemming
I ALREADY ANSWERED THE F*CKING QUESTION YOU MUPPET!!!!

carefull now, that can get u banned

Originally posted by Lemming
let me recap for those who are a bit slow on the uptake:

You would not be tried for murder or manslaughter, since you have not killed a citizen of the state. You would no doubt get a stiffer sentence of assault (and rightly so) if you did such an act knowingly.

There's my answer. That WAS my answer, it IS my answer and it WILL still be my answer in 5 minutes time.

Comprende?

taken from www.unison.ie

Bid to extend jail for baby killer

JUDGMENT has been reserved in an Appeal Court bid to have a 22-year sentence extended to life for a man who tried to murder his partner and caused the destruction of her unborn baby. in ireland

now, as you were saying

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 1:31pm

Originally posted by ixoy
that's the point I assume newband is talking about.

yes thank you ixoy

amp · 30-01-2004 1:37pm

Please answer my questions newband. I'll repost them in case you missed them:

At what stage does the fusion of sperm and egg become a baby?
At the exact moment the sperm penetrates the outer shell of and egg, is that a human being at that exact stage?
Do those two cells have the same rights as new born baby?
Given that if they do have the same rights, and that if we slip time back a little before they fused, does that mean sperm and eggs should have rights too?
If they do, are you not commiting murder when you take a piss?

Lemming · 30-01-2004 1:39pm

Originally posted by newband
carefull now, that can get u banned

Just stating the truth newband. You harp on like a parrot and fail to actually read what others have posted in relation to what you say and keep demanding of them.

Grow.
Up.

taken from www.unison.ie

Bid to extend jail for baby killer

JUDGMENT has been reserved in an Appeal Court bid to have a 22-year sentence extended to life for a man who tried to murder his partner and caused the destruction of her unborn baby. in ireland

now, as you were saying

Ummm .. I'm pretty sure the reason why he's up on a murder charge in the first place is because he tried to murder his partner :rolleyes:

Did he know she was pregnant? Was he thinking about the fact that he might kill the unborn too when he contemplated it? Did he say he was deliberately trying to kill the unborn? Did he set out to stop the pregnancy through extreme measures (by killing his partner). If he knew he was killing a pregnant woman then he should no doubt get a stiffer sentence for attacking such a vulnerable member of society. But does that mean that a pregnant person is more valuable than anyone else? That if someone else gets killed that it means any less?

You [and the likes of Y.D.] give so much of a rats ass for the unborn, yet couldn't give two f*cks about the LIVING. Your hypocrasy is astounding newband.

Your post proves nothing. Other than show that a man tried to kill his partner. The fact that she was pregnant may or may not be coincidental to the issue. I followed the link but where's the article. Can I have a FULL link and quoted post please since you have to register to unison.

uberwolf · 30-01-2004 1:54pm

Sat, Oct 06 01

"JUDGMENT has been reserved in an Appeal Court bid to have a 22-year sentence extended to life for a man who tried to murder his partner and caused the destruction of her unborn baby.

Colin McDonald (35) was led handcuffed to and from the dock to hear a lawyer for the attorney general argue that in the interest of public safety he should face an indeterminate "protective sentence".

McDonald's counsel, Andrew Donaldson, countered by saying his client had "greatly improved" his behaviour while in jail and was now "a model prisoner" with a much reduced life expectancy because of his diabetic condition.

"There is no evidence to show this man is likely to cause serious harm," claimed Mr Anderson.

He argued that a protective sentence must be based on accurate evidence about whether the defendant was likely to commit further violent or sexual offences in the conditions which prevailed at his time of release. But the attorney general's counsel, Terence Mooney, said: "There is a sense of uniqueness about this particular case - and that is that an unborn child was destroyed during the offence.

McDonald's victim, Michelle Kerr, now 23, was not in court yesterday.

She survived being stabbed 47 times with a screwdriver and knife.

Her baby was delivered stillborn as she lay in intensive care the day after the 1997 attack which took place in a flat above McDonald's chip shop in Bangor, Co Down."

Rock Climber · 30-01-2004 2:02pm

Originally posted by amp
At what stage does the fusion of sperm and egg become a baby?
At the exact moment the sperm penetrates the outer shell of and egg, is that a human being at that exact stage?
Do those two cells have the same rights as new born baby?
Given that if they do have the same rights, and that if we slip time back a little before they fused, does that mean sperm and eggs should have rights too?
If they do, are you not commiting murder when you take a piss?
[/B]

I don't want to get into the whole newband v lemming and occasionally v amp thing.

However I have a clear answer in my own mind to your questions.

Sperms and eggs before they meet have no rights at all and shouldn't.
Their owners have rights of possesion thats all, in the case of frozen sperm or eggs for instance.

As I said before introducing the argument that if you want to treat a foetus as having rights, then you must treat the sperm and the egg as having rights is the same as saying my thoughts have rights.
In other words,I see a beautiful girl, I want to have her babies, that thought has the potential to get me mating with her and possibly, a baby will be born.

It's ridiculous and unrealistic to take the argument back to that level, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.
A foetus in it's mothers womb will in all likelyhood develop into a fully grown adult like you and me , if its left alone.
A sperm and an egg if left alone will never develop into a baby if they never meet.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, I know where my line, is and you know where yours is, as I suspect most people on this thread do aswell.
Once we are at that stage, the discussion moves on to the justification of peoples positions on the subject.

Lemming · 30-01-2004 2:04pm

Originally posted by uberwolf
Sat, Oct 06 01

"JUDGMENT has been reserved in an Appeal Court bid to have a 22-year sentence extended to life for a man who tried to murder his partner and caused the destruction of her unborn baby.

Colin McDonald (35) was led handcuffed to and from the dock to hear a lawyer for the attorney general argue that in the interest of public safety he should face an indeterminate "protective sentence".

McDonald's counsel, Andrew Donaldson, countered by saying his client had "greatly improved" his behaviour while in jail and was now "a model prisoner" with a much reduced life expectancy because of his diabetic condition.

"There is no evidence to show this man is likely to cause serious harm," claimed Mr Anderson.

He argued that a protective sentence must be based on accurate evidence about whether the defendant was likely to commit further violent or sexual offences in the conditions which prevailed at his time of release. But the attorney general's counsel, Terence Mooney, said: "There is a sense of uniqueness about this particular case - and that is that an unborn child was destroyed during the offence.

McDonald's victim, Michelle Kerr, now 23, was not in court yesterday.

She survived being stabbed 47 times with a screwdriver and knife.

Her baby was delivered stillborn as she lay in intensive care the day after the 1997 attack which took place in a flat above McDonald's chip shop in Bangor, Co Down."

cheers uberwolf

interesting case. The consel want him jailed for life specifically on case that the baby was _DELIVERED_ stillborn the following day.

There is still a lot of information that we are missing, such as the stage of pregnancy at the time of the attack, and whether or not he stabbed her anywhere aruond the womb region repeatedly (which would indicate a possible intent to cause harm to the unborn child).

I would like to further point out the sensationalist hysteria this is bringing forth. Similar to the thread on known sex offenders in Humanities. The Corinthian made a wonderful point that crimes against children are not looked at rationally.

The guy got a 22 year sentence for attempted murder. That's a fairly stiff sentence (given that people are walking away with 10/15 these days anyway). The call for a life-sentence is borne from the hysteria of the case.

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 2:06pm

At what stage does the fusion of sperm and egg become a baby?
At the exact moment the sperm penetrates the outer shell of and egg, is that a human being at that exact stage?

not at that exact stage no, but that is when the development of a human being starts and from that point on it is continuously developing into a human being

Do those two cells have the same rights as new born baby?

yes... as to my oiriginal question, would the victim care if she was 2 weeks pregnant or 2 months pregnant, no..

Given that if they do have the same rights, and that if we slip time back a little before they fused, does that mean sperm and eggs should have rights too?

no, a sperm and egg dont have the same rights, as they are not developing into a potential life on their own, when they come together and fertilize is when they they have the same rights... i dont see the point in goin over points already made by ixoy

uberwolf · 30-01-2004 2:07pm

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Once we are at that stage, the discussion moves on to the justification of peoples positions on the subject.

can't say fairer than that. Ixoy and myself have commented on same. People, being forced to defend their position, are surely considering and redefining their thoughts, however slightly

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 2:14pm

Originally posted by Lemming
interesting case. The consel want him jailed for life specifically on case that the baby was _DELIVERED_ stillborn the following day.

still born means born dead,,, it makes no difference if the baby was delivered or not, and the reason it was still born was because of the attack on the mother

Originally posted by Lemming
(which would indicate a possible intent to cause harm to the unborn child).

if i killed someone today and i didnt intend to do it, should it make a difference as to weather i am innocent or not, no... i killed someone, simple as

Originally posted by Lemming
The guy got a 22 year sentence for attempted murder. That's a fairly stiff sentence

do u think his sentence is too long or somethin,, maybe it was double murder, look at the heading of the story

Bid to extend jail for baby killer

uberwolf · 30-01-2004 2:18pm

Originally posted by newband

if i killed someone today and i didnt intend to do it, should it make a difference as to weather i am innocent or not, no... i killed someone, simple as

to be fair thats what the point of bringing up this article was, to determine if it is as simple as that...

oscarBravo · 30-01-2004 2:24pm

Originally posted by Rock Climber
A line has to be drawn somewhere, I know where my line, is and you know where yours is, as I suspect most people on this thread do aswell.

I'm not so sure. A few have expressed the opinion (à la newband) that it's at the moment of conception. One or two have suggested that it's the moment of birth (with one delightful suggestion that it's shortly before a child's first birthday). Most people seem content to avoid the issue - as evidenced by Embee's failure to answer a question I asked twice.

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 2:29pm

Originally posted by uberwolf
to be fair thats what the point of bringing up this article was, to determine if it is as simple as that...

but isn't that why different people who kill are put into certain catagories

ie, murder - killing someone in cold blood
manslaughter - killing someone without intent

amp · 30-01-2004 2:34pm

Well newband has pretty much stated that any human has the same rights as a fertilized egg. An interesting thought as this means that, according to his logic the taking of a morning after pill is murder.

Also, abortion is just one method of denying the potential state a fertilized egg could reach. Using a condom also (in most cases) prevents a sperm pentretating an egg. If the condom wasn't used then it's possible that a sperm would have fertilized the egg.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Why is a fertilized egg more important than a seperate egg and sperm? Because they fused? Because a human could come from this fertilized egg?

oscarBravo · 30-01-2004 2:35pm

Originally posted by newband
if i killed someone today and i didnt intend to do it, should it make a difference as to weather i am innocent or not, no... i killed someone, simple as

[...]

ie, murder - killing someone in cold blood
manslaughter - killing someone without intent

What was it I said earlier about the futility of consistency?

uberwolf · 30-01-2004 2:37pm

I think it is more important to skip those different kinds of killings because they cloud the issue. Most important thing to assess is whether or not the life of an unborn child is afforded the same protection and merits the same punishment as post birth person by the law. I.E if a person sees pregnant stomach and stabs it, is he assaulting mother or murdering unborn & assaulting mother?

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 2:51pm

Originally posted by amp
Well newband has pretty much stated that any human has the same rights as a fertilized egg. An interesting thought as this means that, according to his logic the taking of a morning after pill is murder.

the morning after pill is used to prevent pregnancy

Originally posted by amp
Also, abortion is just one method of denying the potential state a fertilized egg could reach. Using a condom also (in most cases) prevents a sperm pentretating an egg. If the condom wasn't used then it's possible that a sperm would have fertilized the egg.

are u just sayin this to continue the argment or do u actually believe it,,, abortion is denying a fertilized egg the right to develop and evetually become a human being... a condom is used to prevent a pregnancy from begining, not to stop a pregnancy from continuing,,,do u use comdoms??

Originally posted by amp
Why is a fertilized egg more important than a seperate egg and sperm? Because they fused? Because a human could come from this fertilized egg?

yes

Rock Climber · 30-01-2004 2:58pm

Originally posted by amp

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Why is a fertilized egg more important than a seperate egg and sperm? Because they fused? Because a human could come from this fertilized egg?

Well yes, once you have had a positive pregnancy test.
I have a particular problem as stated earlier with peoples right to choose who has the potential to become adult and who has not.
One couple would be cracking out the champagne at the positive pregnancy test because they are now expecting their child.
Whereas another would be rushing off to kill the same entity. It doesn't seem fair to me.
both are the same except one is given permission to exist, the other isn't.

An interesting thought as this means that, according to his logic the taking of a morning after pill is murder.

Not according to my logic though.
If you are taking the morning after pill, the day after sex or thereabouts, it's prevention ie a contraceptive as you have no way of knowing you are pregnant and you may not be.

But in my view , once you are pregnant, and you have a deliberate abortion you are killing an unborn child

uberwolf · 30-01-2004 3:01pm

morning after prevents implantation afaik. but it still fusion of man and woman egg thingys. so where does that leave us?

Lemming · 30-01-2004 3:04pm

Originally posted by Rock Climber

Not according to my logic though.
If you are taking the morning after pill, the day after sex or thereabouts, it's prevention ie a contraceptive as you have no way of knowing you are pregnant and you may not be.

But in my view , once you are pregnant, and you have a deliberate abortion you are killing an unborn child

Here's a fundamental line. Abortion, deliberate or not, is ultimately the same thing. So why is one murder and one not?

So to keep with newband's utterly _PEDANTIC_ scenario - what if a man assaults a woman (or knifes in the case of the article quoted) when neither knows that she is pregnant? Is it still murder?

Rock Climber · 30-01-2004 3:18pm

Originally posted by Lemming
Here's a fundamental line. Abortion, deliberate or not, is ultimately the same thing. So why is one murder and one not?

Un deliberate abortion is a mis carriage.
Elective abortion is a deliberate killing of the unborn child.

If I slip, fall, hit my head and die as a result, no body has murdered/killed me.
If you slip because I spoke to you, distracted you and you didn't see the rock you tripped on and died as a result, thats an unfortunate accident.
I didn't kill you , you should have been looking where you were going.
If I die of a brain tumor, there is no act on my part that has caused this deliberately.

And if an un-born baby dies in it's mothers womb due to a medical condition or as a result of the mother falling or whatever, that is classed as a mis carriage not elective/deliberate abortion.
Of course if the mother knowingly fell down a stairs with a miscarriage in mind, then thats a deliberate killing.
Not too much of that though, I'd imagine.

Beruthiel · 30-01-2004 3:31pm

Originally posted by newband
the morning after pill is used to prevent pregnancy

the morning after pill is used to kill a fertilized egg

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 3:37pm

Originally posted by Beruthiel
the morning after pill is used to kill a fertilized egg

the morning after pill prevents ovulation, meaning that the egg will not be released

Lafortezza · 30-01-2004 3:43pm

Originally posted by newband
the morning after pill prevents ovulation, meaning that the egg will not be released

isn't that just the regular pill? newband you're more and more starting to sound like someone who has no definite ideas about the subject, just picked one and are now defending it to the hilt because its *yours*
no offence like

Rock Climber · 30-01-2004 3:45pm

Originally posted by Beruthiel
the morning after pill is used to kill a fertilized egg

At the risk of being wrongfully accused of being pedantic.
It is used up to 72 hours after sex, but it could not be known at the time if there had been a sucessfull fertilisation, or indeed if a fertilised egg would have made it's way to the womb.

My understanding is that they cause a period within two weeks or so, which would flush out an egg or eggs fertilised or not.

Strictly speaking, that would make newband incorrect.

As stated earlier, this doesn't create a problem for me, it's when everything is present and correct in the womb so to speak and the pregnancy is confirmed , that my conscience would kick in and the duty of care would arise.

uberwolf · 30-01-2004 3:45pm

regular pill prevents ovulation.

Morning after prevents implantation in the womb.
I already said this.

D!ve^Bomb! · 30-01-2004 3:48pm

Originally posted by lafortezza
isn't that just the regular pill? newband you're more and more starting to sound like someone who has no definite ideas about the subject,

err, the morning after pill is the same thing as the birth control pill but used at higher dosages, think before u post good sir, no offence like

Beruthiel · 30-01-2004 3:50pm

Originally posted by newband
the morning after pill prevents ovulation, meaning that the egg will not be released

How to Use It: Pills are available by prescription. Take the first dose of pills (usually 2-4 pills) and after twelve hours take the second dose of the same amount. The pills cause a period within two weeks, which flushes out the possible fertilized egg

http://sexuality.about.com/cs/contraception/p/morningafter.htm

Lemming · 30-01-2004 3:54pm

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Un deliberate abortion is a mis carriage.
Elective abortion is a deliberate killing of the unborn child.

AH, my bad. Sorry. I didn't make it clear what I was aluding to.

I mean, delibrate as in the willful and knowledgable, as opposed to popping the morning-after pill or getting hit/car-crash/attack/etc

abortion

Comments