Topic: Parents are murderers of their biological children. (Read 1286 times)

I don't need to prove you wrong - I just need to beat you over the head with a dictionary. Sheesh, the shit people will put their name to to get to 5 posts.

You can't kill someone that doesn't exist. If someone doesn't exist, does that make them dead (No)? But if you are dead, do you exist? Presumably no. I don't think murder is as plain a definition as it seems.

On a side note though, the majority of parents give their children tons of terrible influences.

Ok.



There's an invisible fairy on your nose, prove me wrong. You can't, just like I cannot prove you wrong. However, I can provide pretty sound refutes to your argument.



Murder:

"Law. the killing of another human being...."

Killing:
"the act of a person or thing that kills."

Kills:
"to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay. "

Deprive: to remove or withhold something from the enjoyment or possession of (a person or persons): to deprive a man of life; to deprive a baby of candy.

Life:
"the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

What I understand from your argument:

Parents, by having sex give life which inevitably leads to death thus making them murderers.




Yes, you can argue that all life leads to death. However, when you state that parents are murderers you debunk your argument. Your argument assumes that the action of dying is what deprives someone from living. That is false. Death, like darkness to light, is the absence of life. It is the term used to describe the cessation of living. By having sex and conceiving parents give their children life BUT just because that child's life leads to death does not mean that parents are murderers of the child. In order for parents to "kill/murder" their child the life of the child has to be deprived; it must be removed or withheld. Death, is not the action of removing or withholding life. It is the result of a removed or withheld life.

I noticed you used lots of loaded words like "life" meaning both daily life and living in itself, as well as "leads to" when you really meant "happens alongside but has no direct association whatsoever with". Still, I'll bite but only if you fix your sloppy English:

True, and it is always taken by force of some kind (although it's a stretch in English to call a microbe, germ, deterioration or even a disease a "murderer" anymore than you can call gravity and a rock "murderers" when in combination they happen to kill someone. Guns don't murder people...).

This is fundamentally backwards. Life leads to birth. In no point in history has birth ever not been preceded by life.

Life existed before conception in different forms. You'll really need to define this "life" thing further.

This is simply not true. Test-tube babies, fabricated DNA, rape anyone? You'll need to define "parents" a bit better too.

Parents are responsible for their children, it is true to a logical extent, but only in the event that they are aware of said responsibilities. If your parents birthed you on Mars, knowing you would not survive, that's pretty screwed up of them I'd say and that's basically the same thing as murdering you purposely. If they birthed you in the Garden of Eden and you happen to trip on a rock and break your neck, well that's the rock that murdered you then, ain't it? 


It's hard to prove something wrong that can also not be proven right in the language it was written in, ergo please keep your acid trips to non-internet connected rooms in the future.

No doctor has ever saved anybody's life.  The best any doctor has every done is delay a patient's death.  Occasionally this includes altering the cause of death.

And now you've switched from "pure logic" to your opinion. My opinion is that no living thing has the right to live at the expense of the bodily integrity of a conscious being.

Say a stranger needs your kidney and your house (to sell to pay for the kidney transplant) to live. They will die without them, and you can live with one kidney and no house. If you don't give them your kidney and your house, have you wrongfully killed them?

It's called "original sin".

I see why there will always be an argument between pro-life and pro-choice

Why not let people figure it out on their own terms?  What's this fetish with telling everyone how to live and act?  Pro-lifers can vow to always have their children, pro-choicers can vow to decide whether or not they want abortions based on whether or not it's an optimal point of time in their life to have children.

So the only two options are either "death" or "not living."

But if no one procreates there will be no one left to kill. What would the government do with all its time?

Curse of the newbie board

And how is this relevant to Bitcoin? 

Nature gives humans the urge to copulate. Nature sows as it reaps. Life lives on life. Murder is something else.

"Murder" is a human concept, a moral judgement, to describe when humans kill each other...
( i.e. when humans go against their nature to preserve and protect members of their own species, or at least
members of their own tribe or family ) not when they allow life to arise from their natural attractions and matings.  
You've got the definition of "murder" wrong, it seems to me.  

But you are perhaps trying to make some point about the inadequacy of language and logic to describe reality.
i.e. life is what happens outside of the prison of your own thoughts. Life is often irrational... which says more
about the limits of human intellectualization than it does life and nature.  

Why don't you now tell us what point you are trying to make?  

The sperm and egg cells are alive and will die if fertilization is not accomplished. So is a woman who refuses to have sex with me a murderer?

I chose not to be a doctor. Maybe if I had been a doctor I would have saved hundreds of lives. Does that make me a murderer?

What you're missing is that the term "murder" doesn't mean someone who took any action that results in someone's death. It means *wrongful* killing -- it doesn't include decisions within a person's legitimate scope of moral authority, such as my choice to be a doctor, because they are not wrongful.

Ha!  Good point   Most fluid argument against pro-life I've ever heard.

I got an idea you guys.  Lets take all the pro-lifers and make them pay the tab for orphanages. 

You said specifically that birth leads to death, not conception. Males cannot give birth. Check AND mate!

I'm about to have a conniption this is so awful

Parents don't give birth, women do. Therefor.... women lead to death? Am I doing this right? I don't normally do "crazy."

Explain me how does making the human specie continue matter for you.

You're right lets just stop having babies. Thats better right? Letting the human species go extinct? Right? Thats a better option. Right?... Guys? Right?