Patient attacks pregnant nurse, attack kills baby, Manslaughter charge

BMS

Well-known member
I could accept that. "Abortion is as bad as murder" is a coherent, if in my personal view a mistaken, point of view. "Abortion Is murder" is not just stupid nonsense, but also devalues any real mileage in the pro-life position. There is a real debate to be had around abortion, with strongly held and valid views on both sides. "Abortion is murder" just signals that the speaker is not worth engaging with seriously.
The only consequence of whether you believe it or not is whether people will believe observable reality or not. Pro-choice abortion is murder where it is illegal by definition.
The problem is for someone like yourself who doesnt recognise observable quantifiable reality such as a man being a man, life beginning at conception and logical definitions, you arent communicating and cant communicate with others who dont share your imagination. Its not a case of 'not worth' engaging, you cant engage.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Since the definition of murder is unlawful pre-meditated killing, and pro-choice abortion is pre-meditated killing, then where its illegal it meets all the criteria of the definition.
I already agreed to this.

Do you accept the fact that, where abortion is legal, it fails to meet the definition of murder?

Yes or no, please.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Since the definition of murder is unlawful pre-meditated killing, and pro-choice abortion is pre-meditated killing, then where its illegal it meets all the criteria of the definition.
Obviously not. Murder involves the killing of a person. The unborn child is not a person. Which is why the vast majority of states where abortion is illegal, do not classify it as murder but as a separate offence. Your insistence on using dictionaries as legal statute is ridiculous. Your statement that illegal abortion is murder by definition is untrue. You have been shown why it is untrue. You can produce no evidence to back it up, because it is untrue. In your own lifetime, abortion was illegal in your own country, yet was never classed as murder. Why was that? Can you even admit that?
 

BMS

Well-known member
I already agreed to this.
Ok good.


Do you accept the fact that, where abortion is legal, it fails to meet the definition of murder?

Yes or no, please.
Yes. it meets the definition given.
That begs the question then which of the laws are correct. Since pro-choice abortion is premeditated killing, it should not be legal.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Yes. it meets the definition given.
Fantastic. So abortion is sometimes murder, and sometimes not, depending on the jurisdiction.
That begs the question then which of the laws are correct.
And how would we - between us - determine whether or not a law is correct?
What standard do we - that we agree upon - use?
Since pro-choice abortion is premeditated killing, it should not be legal.
Executions, police use of lethal force, and battlefield killings in legally-declared wars are all premeditated.
Should those all be illegal as well?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Obviously not.
Obviously does since it meets the criteria.
Murder involves the killing of a person.
Yep thats the definition you dont accept
The unborn child is not a person.
Irrelevant because its not in the definition you don't accept and the unborn child is a person.
Which is why the vast majority of states where abortion is illegal, do not classify it as murder but as a separate offence.
Which is not in the definition and therefore irrelevant.
Your insistence on using dictionaries as legal statute is ridiculous.
I am using the dictionary definition and the Florida law. You are unable to converse with people, you are just talking to yourself.
Your statement that illegal abortion is murder by definition is untrue. You have been shown why it is untrue.
Cut the crap! Your untrue claims are unproven. Since pro-choice abortion is premeditated killing, where it is illegal it meets the dictionary definitions of murder.
And you have just proved it.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Fantastic. So abortion is sometimes murder, and sometimes not, depending on the jurisdiction.
Yes according to the dictionary definition, yes.

And how would we - between us - determine whether or not a law is correct?
What standard do we - that we agree upon - use?

Executions, police use of lethal force, and battlefield killings in legally-declared wars are all premeditated.
Should those all be illegal as well?
Now we are in the debate.:) You need to convince Temujin of this.

So I would say to enforce the law where lives are threatened the police may need to use lethal force, and also in cases of self defence that may also be necessary, and in war where one country tries to use force against another.
However pro-choice abortion meets none of those criteria. Indeed the life of the unborn human being is threatened, so perhaps we need intervention to prevent it.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Yes according to the dictionary definition, yes.
Is there some other definition of murder?
So I would say to enforce the law where lives are threatened the police may need to use lethal force, and also in cases of self defence that may also be necessary, and in war where one country tries to use force against another.
However pro-choice abortion meets none of those criteria. Indeed the life of the unborn human being is threatened, so perhaps we need intervention to prevent it.
If your non-vital organs are stolen in a foreign country and given to an unwitting party that will die without them, would you want the right to reclaim those organs, even though it would mean the death of the recipient?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Obviously does since it meets the criteria.
Yep thats the definition you dont accept
Irrelevant because its not in the definition you don't accept and the unborn child is a person. Which is not in the definition and therefore irrelevant.
I am using the dictionary definition and the Florida law. You are unable to converse with people, you are just talking to yourself.
Cut the crap! Your untrue claims are unproven. Since pro-choice abortion is premeditated killing, where it is illegal it meets the dictionary definitions of murder.
And you have just proved it.
Cut the crap yourself. You state "illegal abortion meets the definition of murder and hence is murder by definition"
The reality is that it dies not meet the legal definition of murder, here, in Florida or in any place in the world I know of, with the possible exception of Nicaragua. The reality is that illegal abortion is not classed as murder. There are two simple practical reasons for this. Firstly, no prosecution would find it easy to show that abortion meets the legal definition of murder, because it doesnt. The legal definition could be changed of course, but that would make murderers out of completely innocent people whose jobs entail the destruction of human embryos. The second reason is that juries are very reluctant to convict a woman for murder on this basis.

Face the facts. Abortion, illegal or not, is not classed as murder in any but a few rogue states. Your pathetic insistence, based on a partial (in every sense) and distorted view of lay definitions of a legal term, is just false. That's it. You are factually wrong. This is not a matter of opinion about what SHOULD be the case. It is reality, what actually is the case. You are wrong.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Cut the crap yourself.
Cut the crap.
You state "illegal abortion meets the definition of murder and hence is murder by definition"
Correct it does. See the discussion between Eightcrackers and myself.

The reality is that it dies not meet the legal definition of murder,
We weren't talking about the legal definition, we were talking about the dictionary definition. You cant follow a conversation without your prejudice interfering. According to the dictionary definition of murder, to use Eightcrackers words "So abortion is sometimes murder, and sometimes not, depending on the jurisdiction. "
here, in Florida or in any place in the world I know of, with the possible exception of Nicaragua.
So as far as the dictionary and legal definitions go, it would then. You have just said it wouldn't, and you stated it as reality.
Also in Andorra Aruba Congo (Brazzaville) Curaçao Dominican Republic Egypt El Salvador Gabon Haiti Honduras Iraq Jamaica Laos Madagascar Malta Marshall Islands: Mauritania Nicaragua Palau: Philippines San Marino Senegal Sierra Leone Suriname Tonga West Bank & Gaza Strip.

The reality is that illegal abortion is not classed as murder.
We are saying it should do because according to the dictionary definition and common logic it is murder. That is how bad the world has become that it doesnt even consider the intentional killing by the parents of their offspring.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Cut the crap.

Correct it does. See the discussion between Eightcrackers and myself.


We weren't talking about the legal definition, we were talking about the dictionary definition. You cant follow a conversation without your prejudice interfering. According to the dictionary definition of murder, to use Eightcrackers words "So abortion is sometimes murder, and sometimes not, depending on the jurisdiction. "

So as far as the dictionary and legal definitions go, it would then. You have just said it wouldn't, and you stated it as reality.
Also in Andorra Aruba Congo (Brazzaville) Curaçao Dominican Republic Egypt El Salvador Gabon Haiti Honduras Iraq Jamaica Laos Madagascar Malta Marshall Islands: Mauritania Nicaragua Palau: Philippines San Marino Senegal Sierra Leone Suriname Tonga West Bank & Gaza Strip.
Thank you. I really couldn't be bothered to Google this. As I thought, a few small nations, all incidentally condemned in the international community for their stance on abortion. Sadly there are no posters from any of these states to tell us what the reality of the situation is there.

We are saying it should do because according to the dictionary definition and common logic it is murder. That is how bad the world has become that it doesnt even consider the intentional killing by the parents of their offspring.
Finally. "We are saying it SHOULD do" . That is an opinion. We can discuss opinions about what should be the case.

Still the Royal we, I see.[/QUOTE]
 

BMS

Well-known member
Thank you. I really couldn't be bothered to Google this. As I thought, a few small nations, all incidentally condemned in the international community for their stance on abortion. Sadly there are no posters from any of these states to tell us what the reality of the situation is there.
So my point was we weren't talking about legal definitions but dictionary definitions. You cant follow a conversation without your prejudice interfering.

Finally. "We are saying it SHOULD do" . That is an opinion. We can discuss opinions about what should be the case.

Still the Royal we, I see.

We are saying as opposed to you. We are saying there is a higher calling and you are saying there isnt. We are saying the law should be reflecting the dictionary definition as murder and you are saying 'who is we?'

You cannot follow a conversation without your prejudice interfering
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So my point was we weren't talking about legal definitions but dictionary definitions. You cant follow a conversation without your prejudice interfering.
It is nothing to do with prejudice. Murder is a precise legal term. We are discussing people being accused of or convicted of a very serious criminal offence. This isn't a metaphor like "These tight shoes are murder". You are claiming that the only thing stopping abortion being classed as murder is when it is legal. That isn't true. Abortion doesn't meet the full criteria for murder even when it is illegal.
We are saying as opposed to you. We are saying there is a higher calling and you are saying there isnt. We are saying the law should be reflecting the dictionary definition as murder and you are saying 'who is we?'
I am indeed saying "who is we?" for the simple reason that I don't see hordes of other people chipping in to agree with you. You are apparently assuming that you speak for the entire Christian community. You are not the Pope. There are many Christians who disagree with you on abortion, just as there are many atheists who disagree with me. If you want to claim a collective opinion, then you need to show evidence that other people agree with what you are saying, not that this makes any difference. What is wrong with saying "I think" rather than "We think"? The latter just seems so pretentious.

The law does reflect the legal definition of murder. There is no good reason why it should reflect the definition in A Child's First Dictionary. Dictionaries reflect popular usage. Their definitions change according to fashion. Are you really suggesting that criminal law should be subject to the whims of fashion?
 

BMS

Well-known member
It is nothing to do with prejudice.
Everything to do with your prejudice because we were discussing dictionary definitions and not legal ones.
Murder is a precise legal term.
That is what you were informed of. Even in UK law, Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide. What is your point?

We are discussing people being accused of or convicted of a very serious criminal offence.
[ Yes we know that, what is your point?
This isn't a metaphor like "These tight shoes are murder".
Yes we know that because we know that this is a very serious criminal offense and murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide.
You are claiming that the only thing stopping abortion being classed as murder is when it is legal.
Yes according to the dictionary definition. Eightcrackers laid that out and I agreed. Why do you say otherwise?
That isn't true. Abortion doesn't meet the full criteria for murder even when it is illegal.
It does as we have seen because the dictionary definition is illegal pre-meditated killing. Furthermore in Florida we see that where an unborn child was killed it was manslaughter. Had the patient attacker intended to kill the unborn child it could only have been murder because in law murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide

I am indeed saying "who is we?" for the simple reason that I don't see hordes of other people chipping in to agree with you.
Or hordes chipping in to disagree with me or hordes chipping in to agree with you. So ..
You are apparently assuming that you speak for the entire Christian community.
you are assuming that this discussion on abortion and murder is me speaking for the Christian community. Instead of focusing on debating the precise issues you are more interested in bringing your group identity ideology to bear and try and use these prejudices to rant and divert from addressing the issues.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Everything to do with your prejudice because we were discussing dictionary definitions and not legal ones.
You clearly don't know what "prejudice" means either.
That is what you were informed of. Even in UK law, Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide. What is your point?
My point, as you have been told several times, is that legal terms are not determined by high Street dictionary definitions. Abortion could be classed as homicide (like execution) or as illegal homicide (like manslaughter or child destruction) without being murder. If you want to use murder in a legal sense, then use it accurately, which hitherto you have failed to do.
Yes according to the dictionary definition. Eightcrackers laid that out and I agreed. Why do you say otherwise?
Because according to the legal definition, rather than the ad hoc dictionary definition, it isn't true. It doesn't matter who agrees with you unless they have the power to alter the legal definition.
It does as we have seen because the dictionary definition is illegal pre-meditated killing.
Which is irrelevant to the actual legal definition. Law is not decided by what something is defined as in high Street dictionaries but by the legal definitions found in statute or case law.
Furthermore in Florida we see that where an unborn child was killed it was manslaughter. Had the patient attacker intended to kill the unborn child it could only have been murder because in law murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide
So what has this got to do with abortion?
Or hordes chipping in to disagree with me or hordes chipping in to agree with you. So ..
you are assuming that this discussion on abortion and murder is me speaking for the Christian community. Instead of focusing on debating the precise issues you are more interested in bringing your group identity ideology to bear and try and use these prejudices to rant and divert from addressing the issues.
So you are saying "we" without saying who "we" are in an apparent attempt to make your loony views appear more prevalent than they are. It is pretentious and puerile. Continue to do so if you wish, on the understanding of how it makes you and your arguments appear.
 

BMS

Well-known member
You clearly don't know what "prejudice" means either.
My point, as you have been told several times, is that legal terms are not determined by high Street dictionary definitions. Abortion could be classed as homicide (like execution) or as illegal homicide (like manslaughter or child destruction) without being murder. If you want to use murder in a legal sense, then use it accurately, which hitherto you have failed to do.
Because according to the legal definition, rather than the ad hoc dictionary definition, it isn't true. It doesn't matter who agrees with you unless they have the power to alter the legal definition. Which is irrelevant to the actual legal definition. Law is not decided by what something is defined as in high Street dictionaries but by the legal definitions found in statute or case law. So what has this got to do with abortion?

So you are saying "we" without saying who "we" are in an apparent attempt to make your loony views appear more prevalent than they are. It is pretentious and puerile. Continue to do so if you wish, on the understanding of how it makes you and your arguments appear.
Firstly. You dont accept dictionary definitions and then accuse me of not knowing what words mean. Hello?
Secondly, why are you telling me legal terms are not determined by dictionaries??? I have given you a Florida legal statement and you didnt like that either so who cares but you?

We know the woke ideology you subscribe to is mentally deficient so it is no surprise that you might see reality as looney.
Someone like yourself who couldnt tell us whether a man who calls himself a transwoman is a man or a woman is not going to be able to converse with people grounded in reality.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Firstly. You dont accept dictionary definitions and then accuse me of not knowing what words mean. Hello?
Secondly, why are you telling me legal terms are not determined by dictionaries??? I have given you a Florida legal statement and you didnt like that either so who cares but you?

We know the woke ideology you subscribe to is mentally deficient so it is no surprise that you might see reality as looney.
Someone like yourself who couldnt tell us whether a man who calls himself a transwoman is a man or a woman is not going to be able to converse with people grounded in reality.
Tap dancing and dodging. You are more shifty than Slippery Sam the snake oil salesman.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Tap dancing and dodging. You are more shifty than Slippery Sam the snake oil salesman.
So dont bother giving us your dictionary and legal defintion crap then.

Though I dont know why I expect someone who cant tell the difference between a man and a woman to be able too see any reality.
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
So dont bother giving us your dictionary and legal defintion crap then.

Though I dont know why I expect someone who cant tell the difference between a man and a woman to be able too see any reality.
More shifting and dodging. You don't have any concept of staying on subject, do you. Running scared.
 
Top