Abortion ISN'T "murder"

User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
ok doser said:
Just as I can absolutely say that a miscarriage of justice occurred in the sentencing of Brock Allen Turner without being compelled to hunt him down and execute him.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The word "murder" has a particular meaning--"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." "Unlawful" is a key word there. Abortion is legal in the eyes of the law, therefore it is not murder. It may be wrong, immoral, sinful, etc., but it isn't murder. So those who claim that abortion is murder have no legal standing upon which to make such a claim.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
User Name said:
Wrong. The word "murder" has a particular meaning--"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." "Unlawful" is a key word there. Abortion is legal in the eyes of the law, therefore it is not murder. It may be wrong, immoral, sinful, etc., but it isn't murder. So those who claim that abortion is murder have no legal standing upon which to make such a claim.
Click to expand...

Whose "law" is being referred to in your "particular meaning" of the word "murder", you God-despising, bloodlusting Satanist?

And, ok doser clearly employed the term, "miscarriage of justice", above. Is whatever you refer to as "law" that which you would say is the determiner of what's just and of what's unjust--of what's against justice?

Would you say that aborting babies could go from being unjust, on Monday, to being just, on Friday, as the result of an alteration, on the intervening Wednesday, in what you call "law"?

In places where slaveholding has been called "lawful" for a period of time, would you say that it was just, in those places, at those times, for men to hold other men in captivity as slaves? And, when a slave escaped from his/her captor, would you say that that slave was acting unjustly? Would you say that justice was served by the escaped slave's former captor recapturing that escaped slave?
 
Last edited:
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
Arthur Brain said:
Well, the brute fact is that if your own parents had decided to abort you then you wouldn't be here to discuss the issue. So, where do you personally stand on abortion?
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't be here to discuss the issue.... a moot point.

I personally wouldn't advocate for someone to get an abortion else to save their life....at the same time, I wouldn't restrict their right to perform one otherwise.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
quip said:
Well, I wouldn't be here to discuss the issue.... a moot point.

I personally wouldn't advocate for someone to get an abortion else to save their life....at the same time, I wouldn't restrict their right to perform one otherwise.
Click to expand...

Okay, so, you only advocate abortion in order to save a life and yet you wouldn't restrict other options?

C'mon man. That's double speak.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Arthur Brain said:
Okay, so, you only advocate abortion in order to save a life and yet you wouldn't restrict other options?

C'mon man. That's double speak.
Click to expand...

He's talking about personal advocacy versus public policy. He wouldn't advocate for someone to get an abortion personally, but still thinks it should be legal.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
quip said:
Some just can't grasp the idea.
Click to expand...

But if you were a "pro-life" Republican politician who just knocked up his mistress, you'd say, "Hey babe, guess what? I'm taking you down to the clinic to get an abortion! And guess what else! I'll pay for half of it!"
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
User Name said:
But if you were a "pro-life" Republican politician who just knocked up his mistress, you'd say, "Hey babe, guess what? I'm taking you down to the clinic to get an abortion! And guess what else! I'll pay for half of it!"
Click to expand...

Wait....so you're agreeing that it is wrong for a "pro-life" (in other words, anti-life) Republican politician to be instrumental in the abortion of a baby?
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
User Name said:
But if you were a "pro-life" Republican politician who just knocked up his mistress, you'd say, "Hey babe, guess what? I'm taking you down to the clinic to get an abortion! And guess what else! I'll pay for half of it!"
Click to expand...

That's because nobody truly considers the fetus inherently equal to a human child....its a political stance veiled as a humanitarian one.

I may post my the scenario again which points this out when I get more time. Some here may be familiar with it.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
User Name said:
He's talking about personal advocacy versus public policy. He wouldn't advocate for someone to get an abortion personally, but still thinks it should be legal.
Click to expand...

You call baby-murder--abortion--"legal"; you say it is legal, no?
Do you also say that it should be legal?

Obviously, these are two, distinct questions: one, a question of what is, the other, a question of what should be.
  1. On what do you base your claim that abortion is legal?
  2. On what do you base your claim that abortion should be legal?
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
quip said:
That's because nobody truly considers the fetus inherently equal to a human child....its a political stance veiled as a humanitarian one.
Click to expand...

I like how you just aptly called yourself "nobody", you vicious, bloodthirsty cur.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
quip said:
That's because nobody truly considers the fetus inherently equal to a human child....its a political stance veiled as a humanitarian one.

I may post my the scenario again which points this out when I get more time. Some here may be familiar with it.
Click to expand...

Not inherently true and that's speaking as someone who isn't hardline on the issue in question...
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
quip said:
That's because nobody truly considers the fetus inherently equal to a human child....its a political stance veiled as a humanitarian one.
Click to expand...

There are a very few, mostly devoutly religious who do, and they walk the talk. But for most, who make the false pretense to be "pro-life," you hit the nail on the head--"its a political stance veiled as a humanitarian one."

quip said:
I may post my the scenario again which points this out when I get more time. Some here may be familiar with it.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to it.
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
User Name said:
There are a very few, mostly devoutly religious who do, and they walk the talk. But for most, who make the false pretense to be "pro-life," you hit the nail on the head--"its a political stance veiled as a humanitarian one."

Looking forward to it.
Click to expand...
https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...n-legal/page13 (post 188)

It was a simple scenario:

Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in an in-vitro lab and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular lab, on a table, held a depository of 100 viable zygotes within test tubes. Next to these test tubes though lies a 3 month-old, helpless infant. You only have time to rescue one or the other...which shall it be?

Invariably, the intuitive respone is to immediately save the single child over the - 100 fold - lives in test tubes. Why do you think that is?

It's easy to claim a zygote is equal to a child in an abstract argument....a much harder ideal to follow as a matter of pragmatics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top