Kay17: 1. But in the case of self defence, the killing is premeditated and consciously executed but for a legitimate purpose. Isn't it therefore the same with murder. A worse case is putative self defence. Same with voluntary manslaughter.

2. Amongst all the qualities, you picked only consciousness and forgot the remainder.

MrAnony1:
1. Actually you are wrong, neither of them is a premeditated killing by definition.

The moment you take the time to plan to kill someone who has done you no wrong and then go ahead and do it, it neither falls into the category of manslaughter nor can it be called killing in self-defence.


2. If you can show me memory and the capability of suffering in an unconscious human being then please go right ahead and do so. Don't neglect to explain how he/she is able to remember stuff and experience suffering while unconscious.

Kay17:

1. Pls take the time to explain how self defence and manslaughter are different from murder.

And cases for murder, there need not be an elaborate plan, just malice aforethought.

Simply full knowledge of the consequences of your action.

So if you point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger, you ought to have known the results.

Same with cases of self defence, you already know the consequences of shooting a person, but achieving a lawful purpose.

2. People in temporary coma don't lose memory nor cease to suffer. As long as the brain isn't dead, these capabilities still work.

MrAnony1:
The difference between self-defence/manslaughter and murder is that murder is premeditated while self-defence/manslaughter isn't.


I never said that there needs to be an "elaborate" plan.


This is an oversimplistic rendering of what malice aforethought is.

Here's a much richer definition.

"malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought."

There is no malice aforethought in self-defence.


Not necessarily.


This is a misrepresentation of what self-defence is. If a person attacks you and you are fully able to stop him from harming you without killing him but you opt to kill him instead, then you have not killed in self-defence.

I'll give you a scenario, let's assume that you a a well trained marksman and someone is 100 yards away rushing at you with a knife and you are in your car and could have easily escaped him with your car or shot him in the leg to slow him down but instead you chose to shoot him in the head with the intent of killing him, you have not killed in self-defence, you have commited murder as malice aforethought/premeditation can be established here.

If on the other hand, you were walking down the street and someone jumped upon you with a knife but in the struggle, you managed to pull out your gun and shoot him dead, then you have acted in self defence as there is no evidence of premeditation or malice aforethought

Now in the case of abortion, when a mother chooses to go and kill her unborn child to further her own purposes; totally disregarding the value of another human life, this is killing with malice aforethought. She has committed murder by definition.


Lol, seriously so you are saying that unconscious people can consciously remember things and experience suffering? In what sense then are they unconscious if they are consciously aware? Or are you saying that you can recall past events without being consciously aware of recalling them? That's like saying that you can think without thinking. It is terribly self-contradictory.

Now to try and make some sense of what you are saying and also test if you can be consistent with your argument without going too far down the rabbit hole: You hold that as long as the brain is alive, your "qualities of personhood" are in play. Well, most fetuses develop a brain at week six. Would this be the point at which it becomes a human being? i.e. any abortion before week 6 of gestation is acceptable to you while you condemn any abortion after six weeks of gestation?

Kay17:
1. Read all what you have written and digest it. Then ask yourself if you ever indicated self defence was accidental and if not, ask yourself if you were confronted with an imminent danger on your life with limited options, do you at all conceive of an idea to meet such danger with similar force?

2. Medical experts and patients who have gone through a coma, explain that a brain activity effects trance, visions, dreams etc.

MrAnony1:
Please read all that I have written again and address the main issue which is that malice aforethought/premeditation can be shown in the case of an abortion but not in the case of self-defence. I refuse to chase the "self-defence" red herring.


You have not answered my question. I am here to discuss the issue of abortion with you and how it may or may not be murder. It seems that you are unwilling to do so judging by how you only selectively respond to the parts of my statement that are least related to the nature of the foetus and the morality of abortion.

If you want us to continue, please stay on topic.

MrAnony1:
1. Please read all that I have written again and address the main issue which is that malice aforethought/premeditation can be shown in the case of an abortion but not in the case of self-defence. I refuse to chase the "self-defence" red herring.


2. You have not answered my question. I am here to discuss the issue of abortion with you and how it may or may not be murder. It seems that you are unwilling to do so judging by how you only selectively respond to the parts of my statement that are least related to the nature of the foetus and the morality of abortion.

If you want us to continue, please stay on topic.

Kay17:

You dragged us this far with a non legal and misleading definition of murder to unfortunately cover abortion and self defence. Didn't know you were in the Red Herring Yellers Club.

Scyllapatron:

Hi Bro, if the development of a fetus poses a threat to the life of the mother, what does common sense say?? it's needles to ask. savvy?

MrAnony1:
1. Please point out this misleading definition of murder that I used and be sure to tell us what the correct definition of murder is.

2. Show how this correct definition of murder that you have provided specifically excludes abortion in the general sense and killing in self-defence.

You cannot claim that someone is using a poor definition of a term if you don't provide the accurate definition

Busybody2:

This rarely hardly happens contrary to how it is parroted ad nauseum...

Abortion done legally is a major operation that requires the woman's blood pressure and heartrate to be monitored and stabilised at least an hour after the deed has been done to avert potential resulting fatal consequences...

The last thing a real Doctor wants is to perform such intrusive operation as abortion on a woman at the brink of life and death, AND that is why any Doctor worth his salt's first and only priority and preference would be keeping baby and Mum stable until baby can be birthed close to full-term and/or naturally...

Kay17:

Sorry, I have been away.

If I indulge you in this quest, I'm very sure you would turn round and accuse me of derailing the thread OR Red herring arguments. I stand by strict legal definitions of both murder and abortion AND I am not going to depart from same.

You can go on with your true grouse against abortion.

Murder is unlawful premeditated killing.

phabulous88: for those of you in support of abortion, I'm sure you must have heard of babies born prematurely (say 20 weeks) who lived. I'm also sure you must have heard of pregnant ladies attest to the fact that their babies kick in their womb, voluntarily. This shows that though they ain't born yet, they still have life and do things on their own: they eat, breath, move, grow (in size & height) and excrete just like you do. What other proof do you need to believe they the exhibit characteristics like you do? And don't forget MR NIGER D from elementary school.
Now imagine an unborn baby living his life jejely in his mother's womb and all of a sudden feels some sharp surgical equipment tearing, cutting and pulling at his body. Imagine the excruciating, grave and intense pains they feel when these instruments are used in tearing their delicate bodies, and they are helpless. Can you really live with that?
Abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and at the risk of sounding religiously biased, it is a sin. Every living being, insofar as they breathe and move, shouldn't be denied the right to life.

Kay17:

A zygote, spermcell, ovum and other body cells are life too. Recognizably human too.

Kay17:

A zygote, spermcell, ovum and other body cells are life too. Recognizably human too.

This has to be one of...if not the DUMBEST POST I have EVER read on NL.
Zygote,Ovum,Spermcell human?? SMH

Xsolutions: This has to be one of...if not the DUMBEST POST I have EVER read on NL.
Zygote,Ovum,Spermcell human?? SMH

Busybody2:

This rarely hardly happens contrary to how it is parroted ad nauseum...

Abortion done legally is a major operation that requires the woman's blood pressure and heartrate to be monitored and stabilised at least an hour after the deed has been done to avert potential resulting fatal consequences...

The last thing a real Doctor wants is to perform such intrusive operation as abortion on a woman at the brink of life and death, AND that is why any Doctor worth his salt's first and only priority and preference would be keeping baby and Mum stable until baby can be birthed close to full-term and/or naturally...

EvilBrain1:

Not true. There are plenty of ways in which pregnancy can endanger the life of the mother and its a fairly common problem. Bleeding, pre-eclampsia and sepsis are all common problems. Plus virtually any chronic illness coinciding with pregnancy significantly increases the risk of the mother dying. Just being a pregnant woman in Nigeria on its own carries a risk of death (1 in 13) that is unacceptable in any other context. Almost 40,000 Nigerian women die due to pregnancy every year. And don't forget that even if she doesn't die, there are plenty of other bad things that can happen to her. Some things are worse than death, other things aren't quite as bad but are still pretty terrible.

If the mother wants to risk her life, her health or her mental stability for her baby, that is fine. But it is a horribly wicked thing to force anyone to do so. And that is what "pro-life" are really doing.



I'm a doctor and I can tell you categorically that this is definitely not true. Legal abortion done properly is an extremely safe procedure. Even in first world countries with very low maternal mortality rates, having an abortion is several times less dangerous that having a baby. Most legal abortions take place in the first trimester or early in the second and almost all women go home the same day with no complications. In 2012, there were over 185,000 abortions in England and Wales, 278 complications (1 in 700) and zero (0!) deaths.

The reason why abortions are so dangerous in many places is that they are illegal so women tend to have them late in the pregnancy, or to patronize unqualified illegal abortionists, or to attempt them themselves. That problem goes away as soon as you legalize it. In places where it is legal, its exceedingly rare for a woman to die after an abortion.

Also legalizing abortion means that women can get proper sex education and be offered family planning immediately after the procedure (its a requirement in most countries where abortion is legal). Legalizing abortions actually prevents abortions by stopping women from coming back with another unwanted pregnancy. If you consider all the facts, any reasonable person can see that legalization is the only rational option. Its only religious people that refuse to face reality that insist on laws that actually make the problem worse.

And before you start accusing me: No I don't perform abortions. Never have and don't plan to. But I still think it should be legal.

temigracie:
Thanks for the comment, sir...You have enlighten us about some things...But i dont think abortion should be legalised in Nigeria...People will mis-use it

Most parent dont even give their kids proper sex education anylonger...Even bF the legalisation of abortion, our teenagers use postinor 1 and 2 already..and other dubious ways to terminate their unwanted pregenancy...

Dont you think if this is legalised...rate of abortions will increase..the level of pre-marital sex and pregnancy ll increase