Is Nebraska really considering giving immunity to anyone who kills doctors. . .

Yeah, like how you might use "cat" to mean "truck". Sorry, a woman is not a fetus.

 

No, its is not. Like I said, it will set the precedent where people will just kill anyone for a cause they feel is in the name of self defence. So someone could kill every Republican on the basis they might start an unjust war.

 

How is the doctor murderous? Murder is a legal term. The law saws abortion is ok and that killing doctors is wrong so by any serious description you should say "the murderer you want to kill is using lethal force to stop an innocent doctor?" My answer to which is an affirmative YES, if I use your logic of killing anyone in the name of self defence.

Now you've lost me. I dont know what you are talking about here.

LOL The evidence is the fetus has no feelings at all aside from physical ones. That's the whole point! If you dont have a mind, you clearly have no interest in being alive. If you have no interest in being alive you have no opinion about being killed - because you dont even know you are alive or that you even exist!

Wrong. You need a mind to have an interest in being alive. A fetus has no mind thus no interest in being alive. No matter how you try to phrase it you cant avoid this fact.

Indeed, I dont mind repeating myself. I've done about three times in just about every comment I've responded to you with.

 

Sorry, but i used the term woman in that sense, and the guy who was talking about unborn woman was using it in that sense and it is a viable definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/woman

 

No they wont. Back ally abortions and illegal cases of infanticide have been very common in societies that legalize abortion and most of these incidents go untouched by the police - nor can the police stop their continuation. Read a book mate. Abortions have been conducted since mankind started having offspring.

No, they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing morons.

 

Which makes you ignorant about how to use the English language.

No its a stupid attempt to, as a usual lifer tactic, stifle debate with emotionalist and misleading descriptions.

Do you not agree that a fetus is different to a woman? There is no such thing as an unborn woman, just as there is no such thing as a born woman. There is only a woman, or something that isnt. A fetus is not a woman. It is a fetus.

 

This is a language barrier issue.

I'm explaining how you would stop a person from defending the fetus from the doctor and thus you would also be responsible for the death of the fetus.

This is not true, one of the most basic instincts is survival and every living being has by default an interest in being alive until it decides otherwise.

No you don't. You can express interest by action.

Because you're dodging the issues.

 

Because society has been lenient towards these woman. Don't we value the life of the young more then the old?

That wont excuse them from being responsible for their actions.

 

You're being very dishonest. A word can have more meanings and i used that word in exactly the meaning i described.

There is no fundamental difference. The word woman meaning a member of the female sex can be used in the way i used it.

 

No, its simply about correct English usage. Murder is a legal term which aptly defines what you endorse - not what doctors do.

Correct but that would be neither murder nor immoral - it would be the oppose.

Man you are slow at this. Let me put it to you this way. Does a man who has no brain, literally nothing to think with, have an interest in being alive? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Please define interest because its obviously a very strange conceptualization of the word you have - one that is entirely different to the general understanding of it.

Name one.

 

No, it can't. A woman is an adult. From Oxford:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/woman?region=us&q=woman

 

No, because humans have generally placed little value on the unborn and infants.

Depends who "we" is.

So what? The fact is abortions will continue, and infanticide will increase as an alternative means to abortion, no matter how many doctors you kill. Look at US history in the 19th century and it will tell you as much. Thus you need to ask yourself, since the outcome will if anything be worse than it already is, what is the point? In this day and age, more so than any other, you will just create a black market and do more damage than good by putting many woman's lives as risk.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You and the others used it to mislead and demonize abortion. It is completely nonsensical English. Whatever, abortion kills "unborn woman" - what of it?

I'm tired of this. So what if abortion kills "unborn woman" - what's bad about it?

 

I provided a link.
"the female human being"
I admit it's not often used in that way but the definition exists.

 

Give me the appropriate word to describe the action of involuntarily ending another humans life and i will use it.

No

I recognized this problem and defined it in the debates thread.

You fail to acknowledge that consciousness is not required to have "interest in".

 

I don't care if it is woman or man, i don't need to demonize abortion. It is a indisputable fact that abortion violently ends the life of an innocent human being. The innocence and humanity part is not an opinion. How i now described abortion can safely go into a dictionary.

 

Kill/Killing.

Right, so if another human were to be evidenced as having the same lack of a mind in the full sense of the word, that is, lacking mental characteristics such as consciousness, self-awareness etc, why would you suddenly say that human has an interest in being alive when the interest is contingent upon having a mind which they do not posses?

Where did you do this? Doesnt matter, we'll determine a workable definition of the word tomorrow on the other thread and then export here to use also.

That's because IT IS REQUIRED. You just admitted this above with the recognition of the presence of mental capacity as required to have an interest.

 

No kidding.. Has Nebraska gone nuts?

 

Fine

I must point out to you that the fetus has a brain although that's not particularly important at the moment. If in your example that human without a brain was in the process of acquiring a brain i would say it had an interest to live.

I did not! But we'll find a common ground with the word interest tomorrow.

 

99 % of all abortion does not "kill an innocent human being," it stops the development od a cluster of cells that have the POTENTIAL to develop into a human being. . .

 

You misinterpreted your definition, and you are assuming that the unborn are human beings. That has never been established.

 

You said " no you don't. You can express interest by action."

One acts based on emotions and thinking, not through cellular multiplication. If the only element to judge the presence of human life was cells multiplying, it would soon become a crime (in some people's mind!) to remoce a wart from someone's nose, to have an ejaculation, or to have menstruation.

And even if you consider that an early stage fetus express interest by just being. . . .the fact that it doesn't continue to develop outside a woman's body, without the "action" of the carrier's body, would determine through the "absence of action" that occurs when it is ejected from the carrier's body that it has no interest in life since it obviously, as you put it, "doesn't have the most basic instinct of survival."

 

Nonsense, don't you two know anything about biology?
http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

 

Far from it. What do you think reproduction is for? When a sperm cell meets an egg cells what happens?

The woman's body is an environment that humans in their early stage of development need to survive and grow. If it is ejected it still want's to live, it just doesn't have the necessary environment.

 

Most of these so-called 'pro-lifers' are laughable. The same people who claim that life is so precious are the same people who support the death penalty and the elimination of various social programs which help people live (medical, welfare for the needy, etc).

Now you've got some wack-job politician in Nebraska trying to legalize murder!! Talk about being a hypocrite.