Highest Kill Count

Stinicker

Pottler wrote: »

How many'd he kill?

Less than Mohammed

El Guapo!

Stinicker wrote: »

That Belgian scientest who invented aids has a massive kill count also.

I'm sorry what????

Those damn Belgians, can't trust 'em.

mawk

I understand it to be thomas Midgley Jr.

he invented Freon, synthesised the first CFC and created leaded petrol. put together he is responsible for the death of squillions

kowloon

MetalDog wrote: »

This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin
was the NKVD's chief executioner during Stalin's purges and WWII. "Blokhin is recorded as having personally executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including the notorious Katyn Massacre of 7,000 Polish officers "

I believe he had to take breaks to let the gun cool down. Burnt and blistered his hand. Prisoners would be led into a room where he was concealed behind the door wearing a butchers apron. He shot them in the back of the head and the body was lifted out on to a waiting truck.

I suspect there are plenty more who are capable of this type of thing but are never placed in a position to carry anything out.

Pottler

Some of Pol Pots cadres must have a lot of blood on their hands as well. You'd need to be fairly cruel to be amongst this crowd and have a severe lack of emotional empathy.

Whoever stood at the killing tree swinging babies at it like they were a baseball bat goes down as one of the sickest in history...

But as I'm oddly just after posting in another thread a second ago, "Alot of the Khymer Rouge are also considered to be victims in Cambodia.. There was no choice involved for most. Take this gun, kill or we kill you.

Their pictures and stories are documented next to the people they had to kill."

Paparazzo

Lisandro wrote: »

Nice try to covertly introduce the anti-abortion agenda. If you really want to apply that fallacious every-embryo-is-a-human-life argument, then you must also acknowledge the deaths of five hundred million sperm cells killed in every ****. Therefore, the biggest killers in history are young single males who can't get laid.

I'm on my second act of genocide already today

Kolido

Cain killed 1/4 of the worlds population in one go.;)

robp

Lisandro wrote: »

Nice try to covertly introduce the anti-abortion agenda. If you really want to apply that fallacious every-embryo-is-a-human-life argument, then you must also acknowledge the deaths of five hundred million sperm cells killed in every ****. Therefore, the biggest killers in history are young single males who can't get laid.

Perfect straw man argument there.

Dravokivich

drunkmonkey wrote: »

More people killed since the introduction of Abortion in the USA than in both world wars.
So American Doctors, biggest killers on earth. Second biggest Killers, the American Army, anyone seeing a pattern?

Nope.

saiint

world of warcraft has seemed to rack up a high kill count

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Concentration camps in Yugoslavia and Japanese in China both had competitions to see who could kill more people in one after another

Yea a camp like Jasenovac in Yugoslavia made Belsen look like Butlins. The butchery was unreal. Competitive mass throat slashings of men women and kids, live cremations, mass disembowelings thrown into the nearby river to die. Even hardened and fcuked up German Nazis who witnessed some of this were decidely "WTF!?". That part of the world seems to do a lovely line in pure cruelty.

As for right pricks who killed the most, I'd say Hitler and Stalin are at the top of the list, though old Joe was well ahead of Adolf. Through his direct policies he killed millions even before the Germans kicked off their European tour. Then when they invaded Russia they really ramped up the numbers, killing millions. The Russian/Stalin tactics - if you can call them that - against the German forces help to kill countless numbers. Human wave stuff against machine guns. Often armed only with sticks. IIRC the casualty ratio of German soldier to Russian was something daft like for every German that fell in combat the Russians lost 8(that said comparing the Germans to any other armies in WW2, they were nearly always inflicted higher casualties on the other side). The UK rightfully mention the Blitz and the tens of thousands killed because of it, but the Russian people often lost those kinda numbers over the course of a weekend. How they kept going mentally as a nation through those kind of losses beggars belief. They essentially won world war two(in Europe) though. Even if the UK, America and other allies hadn't been involved Russia would have eventually won through sheer force of numbers. If the USSR hadn't been in the war, the allies would have been in serious shít dealing with Nazi germany on their own. Russians, tough as fook.

On the other side of the globe at the time, what the Japanese did in China also beggars belief and few enough this side of the same globe know about it. I've read figures of near 20 million Chinese killed in circumstances of real bloody savagery. A good chunk if not most of the perpetrators of same died of old age in their beds unpunished.

Before mechanised war I seem to remember that Ghengis Khan was responsible for millions of deaths.

Humans can be right evil bastards.

jmayo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

judging by how far they missed the intersection of the bridges, it's more likely that it was actually aimed by radar

(The Bismark wasn't seen in a gap in the clouds, that was radar)

The reason I mentioned the Bockscar's bombardier and him sighting the target was becuase AFAIK they had to fly around taking fire because he was unders orders to visually sight the target.

Kokura had been the primary target but after three runs they could not find a break in the cloud.
Then Sweeney (Irish connections me thinks) decided to head for the alternate target Nagasaki.

The weapons expert on 'Bockscar' was Commander Ashworth. Sweeney had been ordered that only a visual run was allowed - not a run guided by radar. Ashworth told Sweeney that radar would have to be used if Nagasaki was covered in cloud - it was. Most of Sweeney's bombing run was done using radar but at the last minute a break in the cloud was found by the bomb aimer. He targeted a race track and at 28,900 feet, 'Fat Man' was dropped.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_nagasaki.htm

mawk wrote: »

I understand it to be thomas Midgley Jr.

he invented Freon, synthesised the first CFC and created leaded petrol. put together he is responsible for the death of squillions

Ahh a fan of QI me thinks.

Wibbs wrote: »

...
On the other side of the globe at the time, what the Japanese did in China also beggars belief and few enough this side of the same globe know about it. I've read figures of near 20 million Chinese killed in circumstances of real bloody savagery. A good chunk if not most of the perpetrators of same died of old age in their beds unpunished.

The sh** they did in places like Nanking is pure evil.
What is worse the fooking Japanese to this day have not owned up to the stuff they did.
They have airbrushed their history and Japanese kids are not taught the truth about their past.
No wonder some of ex POWS always refused to buy anything Japanese.

Wibbs wrote: »

Humans can be right evil bastards.

How true.

hawkwing

Genghis "Great" Khan did his bit of devilment too, http://pazhayathu.blogspot.ie/2010/11/mass-murderer-genghis-khan-he-took.html

SafeSurfer

If we are talking about personal responsibility for deaths then maybe submarine aces are up there in terms of death ratios.

Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière was the top submarine ace of all time sinking 194 ships.

Dravokivich

jmayo wrote: »

The sh** they did in places like Nanking is pure evil.
What is worse the fooking Japanese to this day have not owned up to the stuff they did.
They have airbrushed their history and Japanese kids are not taught the truth about their past.
No wonder some of ex POWS always refused to buy anything Japanese.

To be honest, I don't blame them for doing this. I've become acquinted with a lot of Germans who felt they inherited guilt because of the actions taken through out WW2.

Lisandro

robp wrote: »

Perfect straw man argument there.

Your point is?

Crooked Jack

People are killing this thread by not reading the OP

livinsane

in terms of individual murders, rather than dropping bombs and war related fatalities, Andrei Chikatilo was a frighteningly prolific serial killer with 56 confessed kills (charged for 52).

marcsignal

brummytom wrote: »

How many people did Harold Shipman kill? I'm sure it was into 100s

Dr. Shipman, the Old Dear Hunter :pac:

250+ it's believed.

robp

Lisandro wrote: »

Your point is?

The point is being unborn does not mean something is not human. People debate definitions, life beginning at implantation or conception. Others argue that legal protection comes from personhood but no one with any appreciation of biology would deny that anything prior to birth is human.

I can honestly say that there are many reasonable grounds to be pro-choice but denying a foetus is human is not one of them. If you really believe it, your head is in the sand.

You might consider the millions of abortion are performed in the USA as the lesser of two evils, fair enough but to deny it happened as you have essential done is ludicrous. After all if it was not human we would describe it as contraception not abortion.

Jester252

Colombia has a lot of the oul SK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_L%C3%B3pez_(serial_killer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Barbosa

Nothingbetter2d

the inventor of Domestos has the highest kill count... it does kill 99.9% of all known germs ya know :P


its pure and utter germocide

rgmmg

Wibbs wrote: »

Even if the UK, America and other allies hadn't been involved Russia would have eventually won through sheer force of numbers.

Would they? If Germany had concentrated all their resources on the Russian front would they not have made it to Moscow before winter set it?

Dravokivich

rgmmg wrote: »

Would they? If Germany had concentrated all their resources on the Russian front would they not have made it to Moscow before winter set it?

They still would of had the same problems after winter set with over stretching their supply lines even further, no?

Squ

Ever since i put up my "Trespassers will be neither reported nor found" sign on the gate, it has been slow going.. But before that i lost count of the shallow graves around the NCD area..



I'm probably not up to Blokhins' standard though. Yet.

rgmmg

Dravokivich wrote: »

They still would of had the same problems after winter set with over stretching their supply lines even further, no?

As they were only fighting on a single front their supply lines could have been strengthened earlier with the additional resources available? Am no expert in any case, just wondering why the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own.

joolsveer

Johann Reichhart, a German executioner killed a documented 3,165 people.

Johann Reichhart (29 April 1893 – 26 April 1972) was a German executioner. He kept detailed records of his work which amounted to 3,165 executions.[1]

Johann Reichhart was born in Wichenbach near Wörth an der Donau into a family of executioners going back eight generations[2] to the mid-eighteenth century which included his uncle Franz Xaver and his brother Michael. His career began in 1924 and spanned the time of the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Reichhart executed over 3,000 people, most of them during the period 1939 – 1945 when, according to his own records, 2,876[2] were put to death. In the latter years the executions were largely from heavy sentences handed down by the Volksgerichtshof (the People's Court) for political crimes such as treason, including Sophie and Hans Scholl of the German resistance movement White Rose. Most of these sentences were carried out by Fallbeil (meaning "drop hatchet", also known as the Fallschwert meaning "drop sword"), a shorter, largely metal re-designed German version of the French guillotine.

Despite the enormous workload he was asked to complete, Reichhart was very strict in his execution protocol, wearing the traditional German executioners’ attire of black coat, white shirt and gloves, black bow-tie and top-hat. His work took him to many parts of occupied Europe including Poland and Austria. His request to the German government for permission to exceed the national speed limit while on his way to executions was denied.

He claimed during questioning that, toward the end of the war, as the allied armies closed in, he disposed of his mobile Fallbeil in a river.

Following VE Day, Reichhart, who was a member of the Nazi Party, was arrested and imprisoned in Landsberg Prison for the purposes of denazification but not tried for carrying out his duty of judicial executioner. He was subsequently employed by the Occupation Authorities until the end of May 1946, to help execute 156 Nazi war criminals at Landsberg am Lech by hanging. He cooperated with Allied chief-executioner Master Sergeant John C. Woods in the preparations for further executions of those found guilty and sentenced to death at the Nuremberg Trials.[3][4]

Reichhart is stated by some sources[which?] to have carried out more executions than any other practitioner; however, Vasili Blokhin, a Soviet Major General, executed tens of thousands, including 7,000 prisoners in twenty-eight days during the Katyn Massacre.

Reichhart sought to reduce the time taken during an execution and to make the suffering of the condemned as short as possible. In view of this aim, he was instrumental in removing the tilting body board of the Fallbeil and relying on a fixed bench to which the condemned were physically restrained by two or three assistant executioners, thus removing the time-consuming act of buckling straps around the condemned’s body. This shortened the elapsed time of the decapitation to only three or four seconds.

Reichhart's office made him a lonely and disliked person, even after abolition of the death penalty in West Germany in 1949. His marriage failed, and one of his sons, Hans, committed suicide in 1950 due to his association with his father’s profession.

When, in 1963 there were public demands, during a series of taxi driver murders, for the re-introduction of the death penalty in West Germany, Reichhart was vocal in his support for this legislation. He also maintained that the preferred method should be the guillotine as it was the fastest and cleanest method of execution.

Reichhart died in Dorfen near Erding in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Reichhart

Dravokivich

rgmmg wrote: »

As they were only fighting on a single front their supply lines could have been strengthened earlier with the additional resources available? Am no expert in any case, just wondering why the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own.

Going by your premise that the only people standing up against him would be the Russians and there'd be no western front. I recon Hitler would of just thrown more of the available men at the front without any consideration for the support they'd need.

Border-Rat

Germany's entire reasoning for invading the USSR was that it was amassing so much men and armor (At its Western border) that it could only be interpreted as a planned invasion of Europe.

Germany would never have defeated the USSR. The USSR had 24,000 tanks in 1941. Germany had 3,700. The USSR had 6 million soldiers with logistical preparation for the immediate installment of 18 million reserves. It had more subs in its black sea fleet than the entire German navy. It had more amphibious tanks (An offensive weapon, state of the art) than the entire French army had tanks. There is of course the leftist/democratic/communist myth that the Red Army, though plentiful, was full of junk.

Which is of course lies. Their obsolete tanks (E.g. the T-28 from 1933) had double the armor of Germany's most advanced tank (PIV developed in 1937). The poor little peasant army had state of the art equipment. It had 470,000 airborne troops moved into the Ukraine in 1941. Of course that little development is conveniently airbrushed from history.

rgmmg

Dravokivich wrote: »

Going by your premise that the only people standing up against him would be the Russians and there'd be no western front. I recon Hitler would of just thrown more of the available men at the front without any consideration for the support they'd need.

I think throwing available men at the front without any consideration of support was more of a Russian trait. :pac:

Nothingbetter2d

Border-Rat wrote: »

Germany's entire reasoning for invading the USSR was that it was amassing so much men and armor (At its Western border) that it could only be interpreted as a planned invasion of Europe.

Germany would never have defeated the USSR. The USSR had 24,000 tanks in 1941. Germany had 3,700. The USSR had 6 million soldiers with logistical preparation for the immediate installment of 18 million reserves. It had more subs in its black sea fleet than the entire German navy. It had more amphibious tanks (An offensive weapon, state of the art) than the entire French army had tanks. There is of course the leftist/democratic/communist myth that the Red Army, though plentiful, was full of junk.

Which is of course lies. Their obsolete tanks (E.g. the T-28 from 1933) had double the armor of Germany's most advanced tank (PIV developed in 1937). The poor little peasant army had state of the art equipment. It had 470,000 airborne troops moved into the Ukraine in 1941. Of course that little development is conveniently airbrushed from history.

germans had superior weapons, dirty bombs, and were very very close to building an atomic bomb... the yanks found the research before the russians did.

Stiffler2

Easy - The Mexican cartel

Capt'n Midnight

Pottler wrote: »

Some of Pol Pots cadres must have a lot of blood on their hands as well. You'd need to be fairly cruel to be amongst this crowd and have a severe lack of emotional empathy.

Decimation was the Roman punishment of killing 1/10th of a legion to dehumanise them.

The USAF dropped more bombs over the South West of Cambodia than were dropped in WWII.

Lisandro

robp wrote: »

The point is being unborn does not mean something is not human. People debate definitions, life beginning at implantation or conception. Others argue that legal protection comes from personhood but no one with any appreciation of biology would deny that anything prior to birth is human. I can honestly say that there are many reasonable grounds to be pro-choice but denying a foetus is human is not one of them. If you really believe it, your head is in the sand.

It is human in the sense that it possesses human DNA and reacts to nutrition from the mother, thanks very much for pointing out that triviality. By "human life", I mean whether or not it is alive to the extent of being sentient, self-aware, conscious, etc., you know, the usual criteria we use when devising an ethical test as to whether or not it's moral to interfere with any life form.

robp wrote: »

You might consider the millions of abortion are performed in the USA as the lesser of two evils,

I don't consider it evil at all, no more evil than the thousands of skin cells that die every time I bash my hand off a wall.

robp wrote: »

fair enough but to deny it happened as you have essential done is ludicrous.

So it's ludicrous to debate whether or not we should have to apply the same moral criteria to a foetus as we do to a born human?

robp wrote: »

After all if it was not human we would describe it as contraception not abortion.

Since when has conception been the determinant of whether or not it's a moral act? If your premise were true, a single sperm cell would not be human, whereas an impregnated ovum cell would. Are you part of the absolutist school of anti-abortionists by any chance?

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Before mechanised war I seem to remember that Ghengis Khan was responsible for millions of deaths.

Humans can be right evil bastards.

The Mongols depopulated large areas of China. Down as far as the rice fields where their horses couldn't travel easily.

Mongols have been accused of killing half the population of China, Russia, Hungry and up to 90% of Persians

Dravokivich

rgmmg wrote: »

I think throwing available men at the front without any consideration of support was more of a Russian trait. :pac:

Ah, who needs support when your front line in 1500 men deep. :P

golden lane

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Decimation was the Roman punishment of killing 1/10th of a legion to dehumanise them.

The USAF dropped more bombs over the South West of Cambodia than were dropped in WWII.

decimation was carried out in one german unit.....after the battle of kursk.......

Sulla Felix

Blay wrote: »

Simo Häyhä, Finnish sniper killed 500+ men. There's probably some fighter pilot that sank a battleship in the Pacific during WW2 that has more kills but for a man using a rifle with iron sights it's impressive.

He had a scope. At least in Ny photo I've seen the mosin has one. Still fúcking impressive.

Paparazzo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

More people killed since the introduction of Abortion in the USA than in both world wars.
So American Doctors, biggest killers on earth. Second biggest Killers, the American Army, anyone seeing a pattern?

American Doctors and American Army? The names parents give kids these days are ridiculous

kowloon

Jester252 wrote: »

Colombia has a lot of the oul SK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garavito
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_L%C3%B3pez_(serial_killer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Barbosa

That country, and continent, seems to spawn a disproportionate amount of serial killers. I wonder if anyone will identify what it is that causes it.

Wibbs

rgmmg wrote: »

Would they? If Germany had concentrated all their resources on the Russian front would they not have made it to Moscow before winter set it?

Probably. However that would have only been a victory in propaganda more than anything else. After all Napoleon took Moscow. Didn't do him much good. The basic problem the Germans had was they quite simply didn't have the resources in materiel and indeed economically to prosecute a war like that from the get go. Best case they might have broken the nerve of the Russian leaders(IE Joe Stalin) enough to have them sue for peace in exchange for Germany taking "living space" in the west of Russia. Even then I can't see that lasting. The Germans were playing a very close run game by entering Poland, but pretty much wrote the Nazi death warrant when they stepped over the Russian border. Even on a food production front. Germany was many decades behind most of the rest of Europe in farming techniques at the time. They ran very low on grain in 1940(IIRC?) and relied on Russian imports to feed their own. One reason why Stalin(and even Germans) were shocked that Adolf kicked off at them. It made little sense. Russia would have always won because they had the numbers and more they had the huge industrial complex to back them numbers up. EG The German Tiger tank was one of the most effective tanks of the war. Real heavy hitter. The Russian T34 wasn't it's match in technology or firepower, but the Germans only produced just over a thousand tigers, the russians produced nearly 60 thousand T34's. The latter was more reliable too. Game over time.

Very similar to the daftness of the Japanese attacking America. That was a worse decision. They had zero(no pun) hope of winning and it beggars belief they thought this was a good plan. It made Hitlers notion of going for Russia look like a work of tactical genius

jmayo

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest, I don't blame them for doing this. I've become acquinted with a lot of Germans who felt they inherited guilt because of the actions taken through out WW2.

Oh FFS.
So lets have a bit of revisionism and airbrush the truth because it is inconvenient.
Fook that.
Peoples and nations need to account for their past or it shall be repeated.
The Turks are also engaged in this sh*** where they refuse to acknowledge what they did to the Armenians.

As one German said to me 20 odd years ago.
"I don't feel personnally guilty for any of the sutff that happened, although all my older relatives fought and God knows what they did, but I do think the German people need to remember what they did."

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

the inventor of Domestos has the highest kill count... it does kill 99.9% of all known germs ya know :P

its pure and utter germocide

Would domestos kill the good bacteria in Yakult ?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Mongols depopulated large areas of China. Down as far as the rice fields where their horses couldn't travel easily.

Mongols have been accused of killing half the population of China, Russia, Hungry and up to 90% of Persians

Ah are there any Mongol records of all these atrocities or is it only their enemies who got to write history ?

jmayo

rgmmg wrote: »

As they were only fighting on a single front their supply lines could have been strengthened earlier with the additional resources available? Am no expert in any case, just wondering why the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own.

The Russians had the manpower, didn't give a sh** about losing it, eventually had the means of production far removed and built some way more reliable stuff that could cope with their battlefield conditions.
The German army didn't alone suffer from poor overstretched supply lines, their equipment right down to their clothing could not coep with the conditions.

Border-Rat wrote: »

Germany would never have defeated the USSR. The USSR had 24,000 tanks in 1941. Germany had 3,700. The USSR had 6 million soldiers with logistical preparation for the immediate installment of 18 million reserves. It had more subs in its black sea fleet than the entire German navy. It had more amphibious tanks (An offensive weapon, state of the art) than the entire French army had tanks. There is of course the leftist/democratic/communist myth that the Red Army, though plentiful, was full of junk.

Which is of course lies. Their obsolete tanks (E.g. the T-28 from 1933) had double the armor of Germany's most advanced tank (PIV developed in 1937). The poor little peasant army had state of the art equipment. It had 470,000 airborne troops moved into the Ukraine in 1941. Of course that little development is conveniently airbrushed from history.

The Red Army's problem was not numbers but leadership.
Stalin had purged so much of it like in 1937/38.
Something like 7% of the office corp had been axed, the lucky ones got exile and eventually back.
The unlucky ones got executed.
The ability of the Red Army was shown by how disastrous the Finnish invasion turned out.

Wibbs wrote: »

Russia would have always won because they had the numbers and more they had the huge industrial complex to back them numbers up. EG The German Tiger tank was one of the most effective tanks of the war. Real heavy hitter. The Russian T34 wasn't it's match in technology or firepower, but the Germans only produced just over a thousand tigers, the russians produced nearly 60 thousand T34's. The latter was more reliable too. Game over time.

The T34 was one of the best tanks of WWII.
It wasn't just a matter of numbers, it was highly reliable and maneuverable in comparison to the Tiger or Panthers.

Also it wasn't just down to one side having a bigger industrial complex.
Russian equipment like the T34 or the PPSh submachine gun were more easily mass producable than some of the German equivalents.
Also they were designed and built with reliablity and ease of maintenance in mind.

LaVail

120 kills playing domination on nuketown

robp

Lisandro wrote: »

It is human in the sense that it possesses human DNA and reacts to nutrition from the mother, thanks very much for pointing out that triviality. By "human life", I mean whether or not it is alive to the extent of being sentient, self-aware, conscious, etc., you know, the usual criteria we use when devising an ethical test as to whether or not it's moral to interfere with any life form.

I don't consider it evil at all, no more evil than the thousands of skin cells that die every time I bash my hand off a wall.

So it's ludicrous to debate whether or not we should have to apply the same moral criteria to a foetus as we do to a born human?

Since when has conception been the determinant of whether or not it's a moral act? If your premise were true, a single sperm cell would not be human, whereas an impregnated ovum cell would.

You don’t think it deserves legal protection other people do, fine, but to compare a foetus to sperm or ovum/sperm is a mocking misrepresentation.

You are denying abortion happened if you imply biologically its equal to ovum/sperm. I am not sure if you mean that but it could be interpreted that way. Skin cells don’t have ‘significant moral value’ as do embryos according to the Irish council of Bioethics. Are each one of those academics wrong and you right? Anyway morals doesn’t really come into this.
You acknowledge its human and it’s a single entity so by that logic you can accept it earns a place on this thread even if plenty of people don’t feel its wrong. A lot of the examples on this thread aren’t necessarily wrong e.g. self-dense during war. End of story.

AnonoBoy

forfuxsake wrote: »

That is literally the second most retardest thing I have ever heard.

Yup. You totally get it alright.

sebastianlieken

Wow. This thread has gone slightly off topic. And when I say "slightly", I literally mean the exact opposite. :pac:

Still though, some posters have brought up some seriously dark parts of history and some unfathomably evil people I was never aware existed! I have a pretty good stomach for this kind of thing, but still, wow... some people actually are monsters!:(

Lisandro

robp wrote: »

You don’t think it deserves legal protection other people do, fine, but to compare a foetus to sperm or ovum/sperm is a mocking misrepresentation.

This is about the morality of ending a pregnancy. Moral and immoral acts don't take place without a moral framework with which to assess them. For interfering with life, that framework is assessed by the capability to be affected by harms, encompassing capabilities of self-consciousness, personhood, autonomy, sentience, temporal awareness and others, many of which a foetus lacks. An impregnated ovum and a foetus may not be physically the same, but that does little to change the moral situation.

robp wrote: »

You are denying abortion happened if you imply biologically its equal to ovum/sperm.

No I didn't. The determinant of whether or not abortion happens is its taking place after conception, not its status as a moral act or not.

robp wrote: »

Skin cells don’t have ‘significant moral value’ as do embryos according to the Irish council of Bioethics. Are each one of those academics wrong and you right?

Define "significant moral value" and explain the context in which it is used.

robp wrote: »

Anyway morals doesn’t really come into this

But you just brought morals into it in the previous sentence.

robp wrote: »

You acknowledge its human and it’s a single entity so by that logic you can accept it earns a place on this thread

A single collection of cells, yes. A single organism with personhood, no.

robp wrote: »

A lot of the examples on this thread aren’t necessarily wrong e.g. self-dense during war. End of story.

That's not what you're here to argue. See above.