Homicide is the killing of one human being by another.
Homicide is a general term and may refer to either a noncriminal act or the criminal act of murder.

#30 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

A fertilized egg, zygote, gamete, embryo and fetus are NOT human beings.

"They are nonviable organisms which are still developing into a human being."
Care to explain to us at what point these organisms change species?
You're just as much of an anti-science fool as faux Conservatives you call out.

#44 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Human being isn't a species

Being independently "viable" has nothing to with whether one meets the definition of a human being. If that were the case, none of the other ones I mentioned would qualify as human beings, nor would disabled people who used to be called "invalids".

#45 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

The state should have zero input into the necessary medical procedures a woman chooses to do with her body or are required for their health except to the extent that they assure that medical professionals are proficient in their skills.

Considering a fertilized egg, a zygote, gamete or fetus worthy of rights is a dangerous path to take and an unjust burden to put on a woman based on another's and prejudiced religious beliefs.

To the extent that I have "strongly held religious beliefs", they are or would be that abortion (or more broadly reproductive freedom) is a sacred act for a woman. It is a sacred act because it is an act that allows a woman to affirmatively express her humanity. Nothing is more divine, to me, than for a woman to make a choice as to what she will do with her body-whether to bring life into the world, whether to sacrifice herself to achieve that end or to choose not to bring life into the world. That choice is a sacred duty and burden.

But, hey, my religious beliefs don't matter, it's only the cannibals' beliefs that matter.

If you are to extend an inalienable right to all entities of ---- Sapiens, which is a species of primate, the logical extension would be that all primates are entitled to this inalienable right. Now, while I agree that all apes, monkeys etc., are entitled to inalienable rights, I don't believe that our society is nearly ready to make that commitment.

They said the exact same thing about considering children, infants and even women worthy of rights being a dangerous path to take and an unjust burden to put on a man based on another's and prejudiced religious beliefs.
Karma identifies as a female dog.

#53 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

No they didn't.

They did consider separate human beings, outside of the body of another to be the property of men.

They did justify those property rights by prejudiced religious beliefs.

They also recognized in different ways at different times, a woman's right to bodily autonomy when it came to varying degrees of a developing potential human. In fact, some religions were and are prejudiced in favor of the woman over the thing growing inside of them.

But of course, Jewish religious beliefs, Islam religious beliefs, Buddhists religious beliefs, Taoist religious beliefs, athiest's moral code, my personal beliefs all must bow to the cannibal's beliefs.

Nope, it doesn't follow at all. All ---- Sapiens are human beings, regardless of their stage of development or capacities. You just don't want to acknowledge you believe some human beings have fewer inalienable rights than others.

#58 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

nonsense, I firmly believe some things you consider human beings have zero rights. Specifically, those being fertilized eggs, embryos, zygotes, gametes and fetuses should have zero rights and the state should not be enforcing any right upon them. I firmly believe that while that entity lives within a woman that woman has the sole discretion on whether or not to bring that entity to term and if and only if that entity is born does it obtain rights.

And I will further state that I believe anyone that has a counter-belief is wrong and intends to oppress women. That exalting the potential human is an obscenity, and when that exaltation comes at the cost of the living breathing woman it is an abomination.

But, hey, I love and trust women. I loved and trusted my mother. I love and trust my sister. I love and trust the mother of my children. I love and trust my daughter.

Others? I can't speak to.

As an aside, when I refer to women in this context, I am referring to those people who are able to bear children and I recognize that may include trans-men or non-binary people,

You just don't want to acknowledge you believe some human beings have fewer inalienable rights than others.

#58 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

I know this is a trip into the absurd, but please define inalienable rights.

To me, we are solely discussing the privileges occasionally recognized by the state.

How about you?

I suspect you and I have different opinions on what infanticide is.

Do you consider abortion to be infanticide?

As we all know the bible has a recipe for abortion, so..........

Can we PLEASE stop using the patently absurd term-inalienable right? PLEASE.

It is a fiction used by the cannibals to oppress their authoritarian nonsense on the rest of us.

You know what, you're right, mea culpa!

True so it is our duty to minimize pain and suffering in this world

That was the rationale behind infanticide.

#77 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

The rationale behind abortion restrictions is to increase the amount of suffering in the world.

As much as "the rationale behind infanticide and involuntary euthanasia restrictions is to increase the amount of suffering in the world."
#82 | POSTED BY SENTINE

Nonsense, we have evolved on infanticide where, get this, it is not legal. Same with involuntary euthanasia, you might have heard we call that murder.

Forced birth? NAH, that causes suffering.