Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

Murder rate in Londonstan surges 40%:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05 ... ous-crime/

No word on the racial demographics. I am sure "Asian" men have something to do with it. Not sure how you can make black sound ambiguous, but I am sure the state-controlled media will think of something. They have to defend multiculturalism somehow!

Traditionally ethnic.

Tropical Britons.

As British as Saddiq Khan.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Never ever defended any sort of criminalization of miscarriage. Stop moving the goalposts. This was the question of yours I replied to:



And now you're on from that, to the totally unrelated "so, what you're saying is you want to hold murder trials for miscarriages"? Teen mother drinks her 8 month old baby in the womb to death, then absolutely she is guilty of manslaughter (not murder, unless one can prove intent somehow). A three week year old fetus, otoh? Irresponsible if she wanted the child, otherwise not a crime.

Btw, about your earlier reply to me pointing out that the Bible only mentions children being considered alive when they first "draw breath"... I ignored because I simply didn't understand what you meant. You do understand that babies/fetuses inside the womb, don't actually breathe on their own, right? "Drawing breath"

Sorry, I assumed that you would follow your string of logic.

Now a teen mother has an accidental miscarriage. Are you having her arrested and sent to trial for manslaughter? Do you want to imagine what it looks like with government monitoring all pregnancies?

Miscarriage is still common enough that it would overwhelm the legal system.

That is not an sane and logical next step for my string of logic that you've just deduced. Drinking a massive quantity of a substance that EVERYONE knows can kill or severely damage a fetus when you're pregnant is not an "accidental miscarriage". And government doesn't have to "monitor" anything. Hospital staff, if they have good reason to believe a crime has been committed, can call the cops if they suspect a crime.

Stop it with this pathetic "but you want to outlaw miscarriages" bullshit. I never said that. If a woman was FORCED to drink alcohol and that induced a miscarriage, then I wouldn't want her charged for killing a fetus after twelve weeks (the limit in Denmark). But if she CHOSE to drink, she should also be charged with killing a child past the legal abortion limit.

A teen mother who simply miscarriages because of some natural occurance, disease, etc., in other words not as an action of her own choices, then of course there should be no trial. There should only be help and support.

Should. Could.

Heroin addicts SHOULD stop using heroin. Cops SHOULD pursue the law blindly. Hispanics SHOULD integrate into society.

But we aren’t discussing what “should” be done. We are discussing how you’d like to enforce it.

And if you make intentional miscarriage prosecutable, then all miscarriage is, by necessity, prosecutable.

The only way that this could be enforced would be through constant government monitoring of every pregnancy - the nutrition, care, blood testing, and family environment would be potential evidence in the case, and need to be collected as such.

Not only that, but now the precedent is set for ALL medical information to be monitored, lest another crime be committed.

Follow. Your. Own. Logic.

You and Okee are doing exactly what you bitch about liberals doing on other topics - blindly flailing for the state to stop something that you disagree with, with no thought to what that would actually look like.

I honestly didn’t think I’d even have to explain this point to you.

[BjornP]

You’re proposing that we consider a fetus as a citizen, with all rights implied.

I’m saying that that view is a luxury granted by the latest advances in medicine. There was never a time before that a severely premature baby had even the faintest hope of survival.

I’m also trying to give you the perspective on how incredibly new and unusual that is. And it still isn’t an option in less developed parts of the world.

Not fetuses, definite article, not everyone. Twelve weeks and beyond that. What you do is your business. My country has a law against abortions past twelve weeks, but no law against women who endanger or kill their children in the womb because of irresponsible drinking or drug use.

And yeah, that's why the Jews had no problem with abortion, considering a child only to be alive when it first "draws breath", i.e. exits the womb, umbellical cord cut, and breathes for itself. The only other story mention pre-born children, considers fetuses property and subject to the paying of damages over, not murder.

Even if it's true, why the hell would/should anyone care if it is, or isn't, an option in less developed parts of the world? Explain that part.

[Speaker to Animals]

The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, not any of the hypothetical circumstances you keep trying to drag in.

Democrat says you can kill a baby at 40 weeks, and then asks why you don't support the freedom of the individual. Sad.

I dream of a day when democrats don't have to be told that murder is wrong.

It's a failure to recognize simple right and wrong. This is what happens when people make up their own morality.

My suspicion is that most of them know right from wrong fairly well. Their motivation is their opposition to God.

I used to think the reason they constantly resort to turning moral debates into religious flame wars was to create a smokescreen after they get their asses licked in a debate, but now I realize they do it for another reason. You constantly hear them talking about how they don't believe in God, but their incessant need to make every one of these discussions about God indicate they do in fact believe in God at some level. I think to be human is to know there must be a God of some kind, at some level in your psyche. What really differentiates them from the rest of us is not belief or disbelief, but their lack of fear. It's not that they truly disbelieve in God, but that they don't fear him, and all of these debates are really about their raging against God. I don't think many of them are conscious of it.

And, really, think about the arrogance of it. Even the demons fear God.

It's just an observation, though. Your mileage may vary.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You’re proposing that we consider a fetus as a citizen, with all rights implied.

I’m saying that that view is a luxury granted by the latest advances in medicine. There was never a time before that a severely premature baby had even the faintest hope of survival.

I’m also trying to give you the perspective on how incredibly new and unusual that is. And it still isn’t an option in less developed parts of the world.

Not fetuses, definite article, not everyone. Twelve weeks and beyond that. What you do is your business. My country has a law against abortions past twelve weeks, but no law against women who endanger or kill their children in the womb because of irresponsible drinking or drug use.

And yeah, that's why the Jews had no problem with abortion, considering a child only to be alive when it first "draws breath", i.e. exits the womb, umbellical cord cut, and breathes for itself. The only other story mention pre-born children, considers fetuses property and subject to the paying of damages over, not murder.

Even if it's true, why the hell would/should anyone care if it is, or isn't, an option in less developed parts of the world? Explain that part.

Because you can’t determine an absolute moral standard based on the current circumstances. We exist in a thin soap bubble of “civilization”, hanging by a thread over the void. To assume that modern convenience will always exist and improve is folly.

If you want to get closest to an objective morality, you need to consider other possible states of development and civilization - not just 21st century Europe and America.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I dream of a day when democrats don't have to be told that murder is wrong.

It's a failure to recognize simple right and wrong. This is what happens when people make up their own morality.

My suspicion is that most of them know right from wrong fairly well. Their motivation is their opposition to God.

I used to think the reason they constantly resort to turning moral debates into religious flame wars was to create a smokescreen after they get their asses licked in a debate, but now I realize they do it for another reason. You constantly hear them talking about how they don't believe in God, but their incessant need to make every one of these discussions about God indicate they do in fact believe in God at some level. I think to be human is to know there must be a God of some kind, at some level in your psyche. What really differentiates them from the rest of us is not belief or disbelief, but their lack of fear. It's not that they truly disbelieve in God, but that they don't fear him, and all of these debates are really about their raging against God. I don't think many of them are conscious of it. It's just an observation, though. Your mileage may vary.

It’s more that we know the opponent is basing their argument on their personal views of God, therefore we have to argue against their God.

[Okeefenokee]

Look at the Democrat bending over backwards to justify murder. He's trying really hard isn't he?

[BjornP]

Should. Could.

Heroin addicts SHOULD stop using heroin. Cops SHOULD pursue the law blindly. Hispanics SHOULD integrate into society.

But we aren’t discussing what “should” be done. We are discussing how you’d like to enforce it.

And if you make intentional miscarriage prosecutable, then all miscarriage is, by necessity, prosecutable.

The only way that this could be enforced would be through constant government monitoring of every pregnancy - the nutrition, care, blood testing, and family environment would be potential evidence in the case, and need to be collected as such.

Not only that, but now the precedent is set for ALL medical information to be monitored, lest another crime be committed.

Follow. Your. Own. Logic.

You and Okee are doing exactly what you bitch about liberals doing on other topics - blindly flailing for the state to stop something that you disagree with, with no thought to what that would actually look like.

I honestly didn’t think I’d even have to explain this point to you.

We are? Oh, you mean you are? Ok, I'll play along.

How the fuck do you arrive at doctors being able to tell if a woman is drink/drugged enough to have caused harm or death to her infant, to government needing to "monitor" ALL medical information? The only thing you'd need, as I already told you, is doctors being able to judge if the miscarriage was caused by a drug/alcohol overdose, then call the cops, end of story. No "monitoring" at all required. It's similar to how anyone ELSE's dead body gets decided to be either a natural or intentional death. That state overreach, too, dumbass? If a doctor upon inspecting a dead woman's headwound comes to the conclusion that she died because someone killed her, is that also setting the precedent for government "monitoring" all medical data?

[Okeefenokee]

Now the Democrat is arguing with God about murdering children? Ballsy move.

/popcorn

[Speaker to Animals]

I told you. It's all about God with them.

Anybody can argue against murder without approaching it from a religious basis. We try to do that all the time, and they just turn it into arguing against God. This is about them and God more than anything else.