A couple of short points:

1. Even for a person who kills in self defence, killing is not the only viable option.

2. At law, what is being listed as "malice aforethought" is simply the same as 'predetermined killing' i.e. a choice/decision to kill. Thus even a person who kills in self-defence may have "malice aforethought".

striktlymi:

Lol!!!


Guy I know about Ectopic pregnancies and I KNOW for sure that abortion is NOT the only option.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

The most common presentation of ectopic pregnancy is as an emergency when the woman suddenly starts bleeding to death. The only effective treatment is immediate surgery and the removal of whatever place the baby has abnormally implanted in (usually the fallopian tube, sometimes the whole womb). In these cases, the baby has zero chance of survival. and if you waste even a few hours looking for a "biblical way" to deal with the situation, the mother WILL die.

The second most common presentation is the subacute type where the mother bleeds slowly first before the torrential bleeding that will kill her starts. If you catch the disease at this stage, you have the option of killing the baby with cytotoxic drugs and thus preserving the woman's fallopian tube. Again, the baby has zero chance of survivial.

The only type of ectopic pregnancy where the baby has any chance is the extremely rare case where it implants completely outside the reproductive tract like on the abdominal wall or liver. Even then, the mother is more likely to die than survive.

You religious types thrive on ignorance. It allows you to maintain your deluded dogmatic world view completely oblivious to what happens in real life. If you weren't all trying to screw things up for everybodybelse, I would have felt bad for you.

Evil Brain:

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Instead of the Ad hominem and the lectures I am already aware of, why not start by telling us what is incorrect in what I have been saying?

striktlymi:

Lol!!!


Guy I know about Ectopic pregnancies and I KNOW for sure that abortion is NOT the only option.

I believe what is happening here is mistaking abortion for something else. Just like every killing cannot be categorized as murder, every procedure that ends with the death of the baby cannot be considered as abortion.

Before a killing would be considered to be murder the following must be present:

1) Premeditation.
2) Unlawful (Wrong).
3) Malicious intent.
4) Death must result.

Similarly, for abortion (the one I am talking about) to take place, the following must be present:

1) Deliberate.
2) Malicious Intent.
3) Wrong.
4) Death.

If these are not present in a procedure that the mother undertakes then we cannot conclude that she had an abortion.

Good not malicious intent is involved in abortion to save the mum's life. If you won't accept this, then you should follow the ligic and concede the death sentences and euthanasia are wrong, no ? As I said earlier, read Wikipedia (or even Google it) to get a better prognosis of the disorder. I believe Evil Brain's reply is also worth considering.

striktlymi:

You want me to give an answer to a question that is based on fallacy? Do you consider this fair game?

Fair game indeed. The reason I presented is good enough: I wanna know whose life you'll prioritize.

Uyi Iredia:

Good not malicious intent is involved in abortion to save the mum's life.

Abortion as I have defined ALWAYS involves malicious intent.

Uyi Iredia:
If you won't accept this, then you should follow the ligic and concede the death sentences and euthanasia are wrong, no ?

I am not a fan of the death penalty and euthanasia!

Uyi Iredia:
As I said earlier, read Wikipedia (or even Google it) to get a better prognosis of the disorder. I believe Evil Brain's reply is also worth considering.

Nah, his input is not worth the consideration cause I already know about the info and his Ad hominem gave away his intentions.

Uyi Iredia:

Fair game indeed. The reason I presented is good enough: I wanna know whose life you'll prioritize.

Since you are bent on arm-twisting me to give an answer to your question despite the obvious fallacy then my answer is thus:

I will leave the decision to my spouse to make. I can't obviously make that decision for her. This involves two lives that I love very much...asking me to choose between them is something I will not do.

striktlymi:

Instead of the Ad hominem and the lectures I am already aware of, why not start by telling us what is incorrect in what I have been saying?

I like the way you cleverly edited out the part where I pointed out exactly what was incorrect about what you've been saying.

Maybe you could enlighten us on how you would treat a case of ruptured ectopic pregnancy (the most common type) without terminating the pregnancy.

If your technique works, you could revolutionize the field of gynecology! You'd be a shoo in for the Nobel prize!

Evil Brain:

I like the way you cleverly edited out the part where I pointed out exactly what was incorrect about what you've been saying.

I left only what is relevant...

I actually read what you put up and NOTHING there contradicts what I have been saying thus far. If there is, do demonstrate it...when I say demonstrate it, I don't mean you should make claims...

Evil Brain:
Maybe you enlighten us on how you would treat a case of ruptured ectopic pregnancy (the most common type) without terminating the pregnancy.

I NEVER made the claim above...if I did, feel free to embarrass me with a quote from one of my posts....

The claim I did make is that, even with ectopic pregnancies, there is an option that does not include abortion...I already defined my usage of the term 'abortion'.

striktlymi:

Since you are bent on arm-twisting me to give an answer to your question despite the obvious fallacy then my answer is thus:

I will leave the decision to my spouse to make. I can't obviously make that decision for her. This involves two lives that I love very much...asking me to choose between them is something I will not do.

Loool ! Please let's further assume she's unconscious and on the brink of death. Pleaaaaase ! Be the man and tell me what your decision will be.

striktlymi:

Abortion as I have defined ALWAYS involves malicious intent.

Do you think intently killing someone in order to save another is malicious, no matter the context ?

striktlymi:
I am not a fan of the death penalty and euthanasia!

I'm a fan of both.

striktlymi:
Nah, his input is not worth the consideration cause I already know about the info and his Ad hominem gave away his intentions.

I'm considering the part where he detailed about the nature of ectopic pregnancy and the resulting compromise of the child and mother's life.

striktlymi:

I actually read what you put up and NOTHING there contradicts what I have been saying thus far. If there is, do demonstrate it...when I say demonstrate it, I don't mean you should make claims...



I NEVER made the claim above...if I did, feel free to embarrass me with a quote from one of my posts....

The claim I did make is that, even with ectopic pregnancies, there is an option that does not include abortion...I already defined my usage of the term 'abortion'.

Again I ask, how would you manage a case of ruptured ectopic pregnancy without aborting the pregnancy?

And please try and answer without resorting to semantic bullshït.

Uyi Iredia:

Loool ! Please let's further assume she's unconscious and on the brink of death. Pleaaaaase ! Be the man and tell me what your decision will be.

You are getting it all wrong...you want a real life scenario but you present a case that is not close to real life in terms of the choices one has.

I believe what Evil B, put up might help you see the difference between abortion and a procedure that is meant to save the life of the mother...

Evil Brain:
The most common presentation of ectopic pregnancy is as an emergency when the woman suddenly starts bleeding to death. The only effective treatment is immediate surgery and the removal of whatever place the baby has abnormally implanted in (usually the fallopian tube, sometimes the whole womb). In these cases, the baby has zero chance of survival. and if you waste even a few hours looking for a "biblical way" to deal with the situation, the mother WILL die.

Apart from the Ad hominem in bold...the rest pretty much sums up what I have been trying to pass across for a while now. The case above is an example of a procedure that intends to save the life of the mother. The intention is not to kill the child.

Though the child died but no one can blame the mother for it. Do note that what the docs were after the root of the mother's problem which if solved, sadly will kill the child...again the intent here is not to kill the child.

If there was a chance of saving the child, an attempt would have been made but sadly there was none.

Evil Brain:
The second most common presentation is the subacute type where the mother bleeds slowly first before the torrential bleeding that will kill her starts. If you catch the disease at this stage, you have the option of killing the baby with cytotoxic drugs and thus preserving the woman's fallopian tube. Again, the baby has zero chance of survivial.

Now here, this is a clear case of abortion. The intent in this example is meant to kill the child without considering the cause of the problem. It is not the child's fault that it was lodged in the mother's fallopian tube in the first place.

Though the procedure that might be directed at the cause of this 'lodgement' might ultimately kill the child but this would leave the mother blameless.

I am sure Evil B will not appreciate what I have done with his post but I hope you understand my point now...another good example would be found in the web page I directed David to.

Evil Brain:

Again I ask, how would you manage a case of ruptured ectopic pregnancy without aborting the pregnancy?

And please try and answer without resorting to semantic bullshït.

See my response to Uyi.

...and EvilB, I don't do BS.

Uyi Iredia:

Do you think intently killing someone in order to save another is malicious, no matter the context ?

If one has a chance at saving both but prefers to kill...it is malicious...

If one can only save one but still intends to kill...it is still malicious because with or without the opportunity of saving both he would still prefer to kill.

Uyi Iredia:
I'm a fan of both.

Then you should have no ish with hellfire

Uyi Iredia:
I'm considering the part where he detailed about the nature of ectopic pregnancy and the resulting compromise of the child and mother's life.

You see...I have been saying one thing over and over but you turned a deaf ear but now that the same thing is said by someone else you are now considering it...

No mind me...I guess I might not have presented my case in an understandable way...

striktlymi:


You are getting it all wrong...you want a real life scenario but you present a case that is not close to real life in terms of the choices one has.

I believe what Evil B, put up might help you see the difference between abortion and a procedure that is meant to save the life of the mother...




Apart from the Ad hominem in bold...the rest pretty much sums up what I have been trying to pass across for a while now. The case above is an example of a procedure that intends to save the life of the mother. The intention is not to kill the child.

Though the child died but no one can blame the mother for it. Do note that what the docs were after the root of the mother's problem which if solved, sadly will kill the child..again the intent here is not to kill the child.

If there was a chance of saving the child, an attempt would have been made but sadly there was none.

The bolded is wrong. The intention is exactly that, to kill the child. The problem with ectopic pregnancy is, if left alone, the baby will kill the mother. The choice is either to kill the baby, or do nothing and allow both of them to die. Any woman who decides to undergo surgery for an ectopic pregnancy has explicitly decided to kill her baby in order to save her own life. You can argue about whether such a woman is an evil witch or not, but don't try and sugercoat what is a very serious and painful decision for any woman to make.

Now here, this is a clear case of abortion. The intent in this example is meant to kill the child without considering the cause of the problem. It is not the child's fault that it was lodged in the mother's fallopian tube in the first place.

In slow leaking ectopics, the choices are as follows:
a. Kill the baby immediately using surgery or drugs while the mother is still in reasonably good condition.
b. Waste time scratching your ynash until the heavy bleeding starts and kill the baby then by subjecting the (now very ill) mother to major surgery which she has no guarantee of surviving.
c. Do nothing. Sit down and eat popcorn while watching the poor woman (with her doomed baby) die needlessly.
By your logic, option a is "clear cut abortion" which you've repeatedly claimed is murder. At this point I'd like to ask that you post your real name and photo so I can make sure you're not my sister's boyfriend.

I'm really fond of my sister.

Though the procedure that might be directed at the cause of this 'lodgement' might ultimately kill the child but this would leave the mother blameless.

Again I ask: What is this wonderful procedure you speak of? Teach us master! Show us your secret medical wisdom! The Nobel prize is within your grasp.

I am sure Evil B will not appreciate what I have done with his post but I hope you understand my point now...another good example would be found in the web page I directed David to.

That's one way of looking at it.The evil brain can't possibly appreciate the brilliant way you handled his post. He's just too stůpid to comprehend your genius. Only elite minds like you can understand.

Another explanation is that you're talking complete nonsense and you don't have a clue about the subject matter.

striktlymi:


You are getting it all wrong...you want a real life scenario but you present a case that is not close to real life in terms of the choices one has.

I believe what Evil B, put up might help you see the difference between abortion and a procedure that is meant to save the life of the mother...




Apart from the Ad hominem in bold...the rest pretty much sums up what I have been trying to pass across for a while now. The case above is an example of a procedure that intends to save the life of the mother. The intention is not to kill the child.

Though the child died but no one can blame the mother for it. Do note that what the docs were after the root of the mother's problem which if solved, sadly will kill the child...again the intent here is not to kill the child.

If there was a chance of saving the child, an attempt would have been made but sadly there was none.



Now here, this is a clear case of abortion. The intent in this example is meant to kill the child without considering the cause of the problem. It is not the child's fault that it was lodged in the mother's fallopian tube in the first place.

Though the procedure that might be directed at the cause of this 'lodgement' might ultimately kill the child but this would leave the mother blameless.

I am sure Evil B will not appreciate what I have done with his post but I hope you understand my point now...another good example would be found in the web page I directed David to.

Read here and here. Those are cases in which the baby had to be aborted to save the woman. I really don't like that you refuse to answer the question. I think I should go with Evil Brain. You'll eat popcorn and leave your wife to her fate.

striktlymi:

I believe I answered you clearly when I said that the lady has every right to choose to save her life without being guilty, if and only if, the procedure is meant to save her life and not cause harm to the child.

I also followed up with a situation where the child MAY die in the process but this death should NOT be DELIBERATE.

The above answers your question.

In summary:

Abortion is deliberate just like the murder of one not in the womb....Murder has NO excuse!

The procedure to be chosen should not have the intent to kill the child even though the child may die in the process.

In such circumstances, it is difficult to maintain there is no intent to kill the child, when it is clearly foreseeable. Intent is calculated cover the inescapable possibilities.

Uyi Iredia:

Read here and here. Those are cases in which the baby had to be aborted to save the woman. I really don't like that you refuse to answer the question. I think I should go with Evil Brain. You'll eat popcorn and leave your wife to her fate.

Never mind!

striktlymi:

If one has a chance at saving both but prefers to kill...it is malicious...

If one can only save one but still intends to kill...it is still malicious because with or without the opportunity of saving both he would still prefer to kill.

Okay. By your logic, God was malicious for killing Jesus to save mankind.

striktlymi: Then you should have no ish with hellfire

Lol. Nice one ! Actually, euthanasia is usually requested for during or before extremely painful or paralytic conditions. Hell fire contravenes the notion of an all-loving God.

striktlymi: You see...I have been saying one thing over and over but you turned a deaf ear but now that the same thing is said by someone else you are now considering it...

No mind me...I guess I might not have presented my case in an understandable way...

EB (and I) noted that abortions are needful in saving a woman from dangers associated with EP's - that's my consideration. You OTOH are insisting everything should be done to save the child.

Kay 17:

In such circumstances, it is difficult to maintain there is no intent to kill the child, when it is clearly foreseeable. Intent is calculated cover the inescapable possibilities.

At least you demonstrated some understanding of my post...

Yes, you are right...it's difficult to tell what the intent is in some situations but still everyone knows when he or she is sincere and what they want deep down.

In the link I put up in the post I addressed to Uyi, at least we can tell relatively that the lady, ordinarily would have loved her baby to survive.

@strik

Women definitely must have control over their bodies and in practical situations debates like this are reduced to one issue:

Whether the State or a woman has the decision over abortion.

And I believe that by giving the State more power, we lose more and more reproductive rights. Very soon, the State will be regulating masturbation.

Kay 17: @strik

Women definitely must have control over their bodies and in practical situations debates like this are reduced to one issue:

Whether the State or a woman has the decision over abortion.

And I believe that by giving the State more power, we lose more and more reproductive rights. Very soon, the State will be regulating masturbation.

I respect the above as your opinion on the matter and I quite agree that there are things that the state should not dabble into for respect of individual freedom.

But my ish with this individual freedom is that the right of the unborn to life should also be respected as their individual freedom.

If the state can intervene when we talk about murder and some other crimes then I don't see any reason why they can't intervene in this matter too.

davidylan:

Unfortunately i am not on the road to joining you. Sorry.

A woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in cases where pregnancy has arisen out of forcible rape. Any other case outside of that is murder and against the scriptures.

If you believe the above then would you also claim that a mother has a right to shoot any of her children in the head just in case she gets bored of raising them?

I think your positions here are inconsistent if you really think that abortion is murder.

You're saying an abortion is permissible if:
1. The mother's life is in danger e.g an ectopic pregnancy
2. The fetus is the product of rape. (Your use of the phrase "forcible rape" I think is just ridiculous.)

In the case of 1, are you fine with shooting a 2 year old child who is pointing a gun at you?
In 2, are you fine with shooting a 2 year old child who was the product of rape?

According to you guys, the zygotes have as much rights as the mother does.

striktlymi:

I respect the above as your opinion on the matter and I quite agree that there are things that the state should not dabble into for respect of individual freedom.

But my ish with this individual freedom is that the right of the unborn to life should also be respected as their individual freedom.

If the state can intervene when we talk about murder and some other crimes then I don't see any reason why they can't intervene in this matter too.

The mother has sovereignty over her body. If she doesn't want the baby in it, then the baby has to go. If the baby is able to survive outside, then fine. If not, then tough. The baby cannot strip the mother of her fundamental rights. The baby can't force her to risk her life, or damage her body unless she does so willingly. The baby's rights end where the mother's begin.

In other words, If you live in someone else's house rent free, you play by his rules. If the landlord wants you out, you get out. It doesn't matter if you'll freeze to death outside. It doesn't matter if the landlord is being wicked. All that matters us that it's his house and he doesn't want you there. End of story.

Also, I noticed that you've backed away from the ectopic pregnancy argument. That was wise.

Evil Brain:

The mother has sovereignty over her body. If she doesn't want the baby in it, then the baby has to go. If the baby is able to survive outside, then fine. If not, then tough. The baby cannot strip the mother of her fundamental rights. The baby can't force her to risk her life, or damage her body unless she does so willingly. The baby's rights end where the mother's begin.

We have demonstrated how flawed that argument is...

'The mother has sovereignty over her home. If she doesn't want her day old baby to be in it, then the baby has to go...if the day old baby is able to survive on the streets then fine. If not, tough luck...'

Evil Brain:
In other words, If you live in someone else's house rent free, you play by his rules. If the landlord wants you out, you get out. It doesn't matter if you'll freeze to death outside. It doesn't matter if the landlord is being wicked. All that matters us that it's his house and he doesn't want you there. End of story.

This argument too has been revealed to be flawed...

If that landlord happens to be the mother of a two year old and she threw the poor lad out of the house...what do you think would be the fate of the landlord?

Evil Brain:
Also, I noticed that you've backed away from the ectopic pregnancy argument. That was wise.

I did not...only tired of repeating myself and was wondering why Kay was able to understand my point while you and Uyi were not...I figured that the ish is not with my delivery but with what you guys choose to make out of my post.

striktlymi:

We have demonstrated how flawed that argument is...

'The mother has sovereignty over her home. If she doesn't want her day old baby to be in it, then the baby has to go...if the day old baby is able to survive on the streets then fine. If not, tough luck...'



This argument too has been revealed to be flawed...

If that landlord happens to be the mother of a two year old and she threw the poor lad out of the house...what do you think would be the fate of the landlord?



I did not...only tired of repeating myself and was wondering why Kay was able to understand my point while you and Uyi were not...I figured that the ish is not with my delivery but with what you guys choose to make out of my post.

in other words you were misunderstood?

striktlymi:

I respect the above as your opinion on the matter and I quite agree that there are things that the state should not dabble into for respect of individual freedom.

But my ish with this individual freedom is that the right of the unborn to life should also be respected as their individual freedom.

If the state can intervene when we talk about murder and some other crimes then I don't see any reason why they can't intervene in this matter too.

Do you think zygotes which could become humans have a right to life ? If yes, do you think embryonic stem-cell research should be stopped ?

Mr Troll: in other words you were misunderstood?

Musky don't let me get on your case.

Uyi Iredia:

Do you think zygotes which could become humans have a right to life ?

What determines who or what should be called a person? For me, anything with human life...does a zygote possess human life? The answer is yes. Thus my answer is yes, a zygote has a right to life and they are not just potential humans.

Uyi Iredia:
If yes, do you think embryonic stem-cell research should be stopped ?

Yes it should be...I don't accept a situation where kids are used as lab experiments for whatever reason, hence my bias against this research.

striktlymi:

We have demonstrated how flawed that argument is...

'The mother has sovereignty over her home. If she doesn't want her day old baby to be in it, then the baby has to go...if the day old baby is able to survive on the streets then fine. If not, tough luck...'

I already addressed this argument long ago. If the mother doesn't want to take care of a full term baby, there are plenty of other options for that. Her parents, the father and his family, adoption, orphanages, the government, etc. She can even leave the baby in front of a hospital or orphanage. All she has to do is wrap the baby warmly and leave it somewhere reasonably safe where it can be discovered quickly. Doing that doesn't endanger her life or health, so she has no excuse. Dumping your baby in such a manner is not even illegal in many countries. And in those where it is, even mothers who throw their babies into pit latrines rarely get prosecuted. In many European countries, government hospitals have designated areas where people can safely and anonymously leave their unwanted babies so they can be taken care of by the state.

This is not an option for aborted fetuses unfortunately, hence the problem.

If that landlord happens to be the mother of a two year old and she threw the poor lad out of the house...what do you think would be the fate of the landlord?

If taking care of the child endangers the mother's health or well-being, then nobody can compel her to do so. If you know of any cases where this has happened, please poInt us in their direction.

striktlymi:

What determines who or what should be called a person? For me, anything with human life...does a zygote possess human life? The answer is yes. Thus my answer is yes, a zygote has a right to life and they are not just potential humans.



Yes it should be...I don't accept a situation where kids are used as lab experiments for whatever reason, hence my bias against this research.

Okay. I disagree with the 2nd reply.