Abortion

Actually, your answer is incorrect Beukema.
The law is invalid, and has no legitimacy in Truth. What society claims, what legal classifications it makes, etc. are of zero importance.

His question is perfectly clear. Linguistics aside, the topic is clear.

The correct answer to the question is "yes", abortion is murder.

Beukema, although you are correct in stating that abortion is murder, and abortion should not be allowable, but some of your reasoning is seriously flawed.

Most societies worldwide support the legal murder of children. WHY? It is important to understand that ALL societies are malevolent and evil.

Societies are all based upon children being worthless abuse slaves, to be used by thier parent slave-owners as poison-containers. Societal leaders have given permission to female citizen-slaves to outright murder children under certain exact conditions. They realise that there are many, many adult female slaves who, without an outlet of for thier rage, would direct thier rage against targets that the socital leaders hold to have some limited value to them.

"as a rule those who are sane and rational do not want to be killed."
Only insane humans want to die. Whether they are killed by others or so-called "suicide" does not matter.

"Society defines unlawful homicide as 'murder' ".
Total non-sense.
A) What society tells you is of no Truth-based value. All socities are based on LIES. The Superior thinker, like Myself, NEVER takes any value, dictate or claim from a society or culture as having any legitimate value.

B) Your logic (borrowed from society) is circular. It just says murder=murder.

"We define 'murder' as the intentional ending of human life by another individual (willful homicide) when not done
--during war
--in self-defense
--as an 'assisted suicide'*
--as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it**
--by the State, as capital punishment for grievous crimes in order to maintain a lawful and just society
--in occordance with the will of the individual or as determined to be the best or only course of actuion by competent and impartial medical professionals to end suffering or halt the delaying or xtension of the dying process (as with the braindead)"

I do not define murder this way. Your definition is demented. Don't worry, there are millions of fellow humans like you, who have fallen for the lies of thier society.

The idea that certain murders can somehow not be murders is insane. Sorry, but that's the Truth. It's like saying certain grains of sand at the beach are "grains of sand", but grains that get into the shoes of politians and irritate them are somehow "grains of [whatever crzy invented word here]".

Wars, "assisted suicide", "efforts to save other lives via murder", capital punishment murders are ALL MURDERS! It does not matter who orders them. It does not matter what reasons they gave for the murders. They are still murders.

See, the actions in all of your examples are ALL EXACTLY THE SAME actions. The consequence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all the the targets of the murders. What is more, societally-sponsered murders such as murders of womb-trapped children or serial-killers are actually much, much more malevolent, wrong and unjust than any other form of murder.

"-We therefore call for the legal protection of all human life, save for the aforementioned exceptions."
This argument is insane. To suggest that some actions of murder should be allowable and legal, and other should be stopped is inconsistant and stupid.

It makes no sense at all. By your logic, why can't the abortionists simply add abortion to the list and say that same thing as you just did?

"This has led to a social condemnation of murder (the individual moral reasoning of the people is not important to this examination"
This is no examination. It is simply a mindless repeating of what society taught you. Your definition of murder is invalid.

"(B)" -SNIP-
Yes, that argument is sound. They only argument that you make in this post that is sound, however.

"One cannot condemn murder and simultaneously condoning the killing of an unborn child (save for the noted exceptions), for that would be logically contradictory"
Yet, you make exactly the same mistake as the abortionist child-murders do. You just have a different set of illogical conclusions.

"Before any of the libs call a baby a 'tumor'
-A tumor has the same genetic code as the host, and is therefore their body
-A child has a different genetic code from with parent, therefore a child is not a part of a woman's body. Since the child is by definition alive, is genetically human, and is not a part of the woman's body, it is- by definition- a separate human life."

This is 100% correct.

Quote : "I realize that unbelievers don't know that a pregnant woman is carrying another human being inside of her, but some government legislatures now do. I was in Bismarck last Spring where they passed a law that requires that the staff at abortion clinics tell their clients that they are carrying a separate, unique, human being inside of them. That is now law."

Some law. It allows the murder of an innocent child, as long as the person ordering it to be murdered (and thus being a murderer herself) KNOWS that it is murdering a seperate life. Madness!

The system is cunning. It is pretending to move against abortions. It could have made the law to be that abortions are illegal, or at least stopped abortion in the interim.
My prediction : After several years of abortions, the "debate" will end with some kind of split decision, and legal child-murders will continue just as before.

That's not circular reasoning, it's just redundant.

1=1, is self-evident.

You're ******* stupid. Murder is, by definition, a legal term for illegal homicide.

Abortion is homicide. The question is whether it is unjustifiable (and should be illegal). So long as you refuse to know what you're talking about and use the words correctly, nobody will take you seriously.

Mate you need to reign in the pesonal attacks, calling people Effin stupid because they don't agree with you is not acceptable. It's called conflicting Views for a reason, however personal attacks are forbidden.

Read and digest:

http://www.conflictingviews.com/website-forum/site-news/forum-rules-revised-9-12-07-a-1757.html

Quote : Beukema "You're ***ing stupid."

Getting in a stir, are we? Perhaps rather than let emotion control you, you could actually present some reason why you incorrectly think I am stupid.

All your reply does is highlight the Superiority of My answers.

"Murder is, by definition, a legal term for illegal homicide."

The problem is that murder and illegal homicide are exactly the same thing. As I already told you, the various terms society deploys for the act of murder is solely because society wants to both:

A) Do murders itself when it suits the societal leadership.
B) Threaten and terroise others into not doing murders that do not conform to the societal doctorines/dictates of society.

You do not even attempt to answer to this (I suspect because you do not know what to say).

"Abortion is homicide."
No, abortionis murder. Homicide term has no legitimacy in Truth. The thing is homicide is legally defined as "unlawful murder" anyway....and abortion is lawful in a lot of states/countries. So even if we ignore the illegitimacy of legal jargon, it STILL does not make sense why you use the term "homicide" over murder when refering to abortion.

Why do you insist on this pointless game of linguistics? We all KNOW what the guy meant when he made this thread.

"The question is whether it is unjustifiable (and should be illegal)."
Errr....then why do you go to length to define this "homicide" thing?

"So long as you refuse to know what you're talking about and use the words correctly, nobody will take you seriously."
But that's what YOU did, look :

"Abortion is homicide."
No, abortion is murder. Homicide term has no legitimacy in Truth. The thing is homicide is legally defined as "unlawful murder" anyway....and abortion is lawful in a lot of states/countries. So even if we ignore the illegitimacy of legal jargon, it STILL does not make sense why you use the term "homicide" over murder when refering to abortion.

What I am trying to tell you is your definition of words does not match mine. Abortions are legalised murders. OK? We do not need tp make a side-debate over whether to call them murder, homicides, infancides, or what have you.

I have repeatedly shown how you are wrong


*facepalm*

Noun

* S: (n) homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)


Noun

* S: (n) murder, slaying, execution ([SIZE="6"]unlawful [/SIZE]premeditated killing of a human being by a human being)


Princeton

:withstupid:


By definition, abortion is homicide. Not all homicide and not all abortion = murder under the law.

What I have done is to start with a descriptive model of how society has defined unjustifiable homicide and criminalized it. Then I have followed to logical implications of that. Try to pull your head out of your ass, go back to post 80, and follow along.


No, it is not, you ignorant twit



law.com Law Dictionary



:withstupid:

Before one can determine whether a homicide is justifiable or whether it should be criminalized, one must define homicide.


Not always, under the current law. Are you always this dense?



WTF is this 'Truth' bullshit?


No, it's not you stupid ****- go open a legal dictionary you ignorant, uneducated, moronic twit. You have it completely backwards, you ******* waste of life. Murder and manslaughter are both unlawful homicide, not the other way around.



-because you're stupid and illiterate and you don't know what the words mean.



That's not accurate, you moron. Many abortions are criminalized. Also, something is only 'legalized' if it was once illegal and is then the law is revoked. Law is restrictive, not permissive in nature. To say anything is 'legalized murder' is to use antonyms to describe something and highlight the breadth of your ignorance. You might as well speak of circular squares or the point where two parallel lines intersect in Euclidean geometry.

MIMIDAMNIT

"I had an eptopic pregnancy before my two boys.. in my tubes.. i was in severe pain when i went to the emergency room.. and found out what the problem was.. that to me is

not an abortion. because as far as i know.. there is no moving the egg from the tubes to the uterus.. at least not without some lasting effects.. i do believe that would have

been my only daughter.. but i dont feel i had an abortion. yes it was convenient for me.. cause it kept me from dying.. so saith the doctor lol."

You actually DID have an abortion, just a at an earlier stage than a lot of other people.

Your abortion is 100% compatible with the Truth, and is justifiable. This is because another life, your life, was in jeopardy. In your case, there is no reason to suggest that

you aborted the child due to any form of rage, desire to kill (subconscious or otherwise). Putting your life first is a Superior thing to do in any situation.

"I have repeatedly shown how you are wrong"

No, you have not. You simply call Me names and resort to abuse. I am going to report it if you continue. I dont like rude people hiding behind thier computer screens.


I said "The problem is that murder and illegal homicide are exactly the same thing."

You reply :

"Noun* S: (n) homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)
Noun * S: (n) murder, slaying, execution (unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being) - Princeton"

Wrong. The dictionary was written under soicety, and is incorrect. I repeat for the LAST TIME : I do not use the dictionary definition of the word "murder".

NOW, do you comprehend or not?

You said : "Abortion is homicide."
I said : "No, abortionis murder."

You reply : "By definition, abortion is homicide. Not all homicide and not all abortion = murder under the law."

Your are right about the definitions according to your books. BUT I also said that My definition of murder is based on the Truth that all murders are actions, and all the various labels (war, abortion death penalty) are all the exact same actions.

I also said that the law has no legitimacy in Truth and is invalid.

Now, you might disagree. However, I am NOT wrong. You are presuming that I use the same definitions for those words that you do. I have already told you otherwise. Thats where you went wrong.

You said "What I have done is to start with a descriptive model of how society has defined unjustifiable homicide and criminalized it. Then I have followed to logical implications of that. Try to pull your head out of your ass, go back to post 80, and follow along."

Watch your mouth, coward. You are wrong. What does it take? Your logical premise is based on the word of the law and definition of legal jargon. Right?
I told you already : I dont accept the law and those definitions because they are arbitrary, false, and incorrect. So your logic is fine. Your answer regarding abortion is correct. Your information is not, as it came from a lie-based society. Since ALL your aguments are based on the law, and I say the law is wrong, then I cannot agree with your arguments and reasons for your conclusion.

It is not that I do not understand them. It is not because I do not follow them. Your presumption is the law is always right. Yet, you argue that the law against abortion might nor be correct, and you also argue that death penalty is ok. See where I am at?


Quote:
"Homicide term has no legitimacy in Truth. The thing is homicide is legally defined as "unlawful murder" anyway... " [You chopped the rest out to take out the meaning, I see.]

You said : "No, it is not, you ignorant twit"
Ok, you are going to be reported now. You do not answer, you just abuse.
Pathetic. I am trying to tell you that homicide, murder and abortion are all just murder actions, they are the exact same actions. The effect on the target of these actions is always the same : Death.

The law is a load of arbitraty and contradictioary nonsense.

You say (for some unknown reason) : "Quote: homicide
n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.
See also: justifiable homicide manslaughter murder self-defense suicide "

Look, I keep trying to tell you, I do NOT accept the legal and jargon-based insane and arbitrary legal term definitions. It's NOT the technical meaning I am arguing about. It is the practicle, sane and real-wrod fact that they are still all murders. The law has absolutely no Truth-based legitimacy.


U said "The question is whether it is unjustifiable (and should be illegal)."
I replied : "Errr....then why do you go to length to define this "homicide" thing? "

You say : "Before one can determine whether a homicide is justifiable or whether it should be criminalized, one must define homicide."

Wrong. I don't have to define homicide because I do not accept the legal and jargon-based hypocritical official definitions of the words you use. Understand? It does not matter what number of needless and pointless labels you invent. They are all murders.

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. OR
A murder by any other name is still murder, regardless of the ridiculous technical and invalid legal jargon used.

The reason why society uses different terms for certain murders simply is that society wants to murder people itself, and still (falsely) maintain moral superiority by claiming that it's exact same actions are somehow different because of the label used. Very shallow trick.

{Snip}

WTF is this 'Truth' bull****?
If you dont get it by now, you never will.

I say : "The thing is homicide is legally defined as "unlawful murder" anyway.... "

You say "No, it's not you stupid ***- go open a legal dictionary you ignorant, uneducated, moronic twit."

Get off the forum if you can't control yourself. You are making a fool of yourself. Perhaps the exact wording is different in your country, consider that. BUT My point is the same.

You say "You have it completely backwards, you ***ing waste of life. Murder and manslaughter are both unlawful homicide, not the other way around."

Thats your claim, not mine. I am going to ask your posts to remain, but you be banned. You just can;t go around using language like that.


I say "What I am trying to tell you is your definition of words does not match mine. "

U reply : "because you're stupid and illiterate and you don't know what the words mean."

Oh no.......
Can't you see by NOW that I reject the definition of the legal/official words because I think they are false (i.e. by thier very existance those terms inherently claim that some murders are better or different from others.) ??????


I say "Abortions are legalised murders. OK? "

You say : "That's not accurate, you moron. Many abortions are criminalized. Also, something is only 'legalized' if it was once illegal and is then the law is revoked. Law is restrictive, not permissive in nature. To say anything is 'legalized murder' is to use antonyms to describe something and highlight the breadth of your ignorance. You might as well speak of circular squares or the point where two parallel lines intersect in Euclidean geometry."

Look, are you a professional linguist or something? You understand full well what I am saying to you. My use of language may differ from yours, but that alone does not make it wrong.

What makes your terminology wrong is that it contradicts the very core arguent of what you are trying to promote.

If you're going to be this obtuse, dishonest, and disingenuous, I'm not going to waste any more time with an idiot like you. There is no reason to even read the rest of your post, as I can guarantee it contains nothing intelligent.

We at last agree on something, Numpty.

I think he should be banned, at least if he continues to abuse Me like that. Being a bodybuilder.strongman and a MMA/CQC fighter....I wonder if he has the guts to talk like that in real life....probably why he does so behind the protection of his computer screen. Not that I am offended, I actually think he helps My arguments by lowering himself like that.

Can you understand what I am trying to tell him regarding My rejection of his term definitions and use of My own, Numpty?

More like you realise your mistake and can't put your ego aside.
We all make them, you know.

Exactly how am I dishonest? Well? Presuming you are trying to now claim that I changed My definition/word use adlib:

PAGE 10 : (My first reply series to you that started the argument)

QUOTE :
You say : "Society defines unlawful homicide as 'murder' ".
I replied : "Total non-sense.
A) What society tells you is of no Truth-based value. All socities are based on LIES. The Superior thinker, like Myself, NEVER takes any value, dictate or claim from a society or culture as having any legitimate value.

B) Your logic (borrowed from society) is circular. It just says murder=murder."

You say : "We define 'murder' as the intentional ending of human life by another individual (willful homicide) when not done" -SNIP-

I say : "I do not define murder this way. Your definition is demented. Don't worry, there are millions of fellow humans like you, who have fallen for the lies of thier society."

I told you time and time again My position : all homicides, murders, death penalty, abortions etc are ALL murders in My book. You were told. And you were told why. Its through-out all My posts to you.

*Addition by edit: (I can't resist this one)*
Pointlessly posted by JBeukemia due to its irrelevancyto My previous arguments:
"homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)
murder, slaying, execution (unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being) "
OK, so they are BOTH the exact same actions.

Well, whats the difference then? One is just unlawful and the other is not! How can there be any legitimate way to catalog which murders go in which catagory based on the legal definition above?
Its like saying to a psychiatrist :
How can you decide who is sane and insane?
PSY answers : Oh, I just stamp the insane ones with a read ink-stamp, so I know which one is which!


By the way, that guarantee you make on something you have never seen. Are you going to honor it somehow? Hehehhe.

No they are not. You're too obtuse and dishonest to waste any further time with. All you have attempted to do is redefine 'murder' as homicide in order to attempt an emotional response and an argument based purely on emotional responses to the word 'murder'. Come back when you've grown up, tyou're more honest, and you're ready to have a real discussion.

QUOTE=Beukema (in blue)

I proposed (regarding to his definitions of murder and homicide):
Seer Travis : "OK, so they are BOTH the exact same actions."

"No they are not."
No? The actions committed in your homicide and murder examples are not the same? Are you serious?

"You're too obtuse and dishonest to waste any further time with. All you have attempted to do is redefine 'murder' as homicide in order to attempt an emotional response and an argument based purely on emotional responses to the word 'murder'. Come back when you've grown up, tyou're more honest, and you're ready to have a real discussion."

*SIGH*. It is you who is doing this, by splitting the exact same actions into two ridiculous and flawed catagories.
Perhaps this example will finally convince you :

From page 9, post 80 (Beukema) :
QUOTE :
"I oppose needless homicide. Homicide is only to be allowed in instances of self-defense (extending this to soldiers who kill in war to defend themselves and/o others), capital punishment...."

So you oppose abortion. Your grounds are that you oppose needless homicide. You support the death penalty. Wow. England does not have the death penalty, not does australia. Are they infected with rapists/serial killers to the extent of the US? No.

According to Beukemia :

homicide = the killing of a human being by another human being

murder = (unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being)

Well, all abortions are pre-meditated. Therefore, according to your definitions, they should fit into catagory (B), not homicide (A) as you suggest.

Also, abortions are unlawful in some states and in many countries. Again, that places abortions in catagory (B) .... murder.

WAIT...Some abortions (depending on location) are lawful, and premeditated. What do we do then?

How can you universally define which one is which? You can't. So your reasoning if faulty. Besides, both sides can claim to you the abortion should be in either catagory, because you claim excecutions of criminals (needless murders) are acceptable.

I completely disagree. I believe that abortion is murder and should be taken seriously 100%. I do believe that an abortion is the woman's choice but it is still murder. Even if the foetus is not an independent person it's still a life. It becomes a life as soon as it's fertilised. More and more people are deciding to have abortions- especially teenagers under the age of 16. Even though abortion can be the most difficult decision of a woman's life, it can also be seen as an easy way out of becoming a mother and bringing up a child. Some women who have abortions need to research and understand the methods of abortion and what it exactly does to their child. They need to understand that abortion isn't something you can do all the time. I appreciate that not all women who have had an abortion have more than one but some people do. I have read from an article that some people are having more than seven abortions. I think this is not acceptable and should be sorted before it gets out of hand.

Do you have a link to this article? I'd like to read it.

I agree fully with the article, I believe that abortion can not be seen as murder as in many surcumstances it can be the best opption for both the parents and the child. I a child was known to have a disability that could seriously affect the quality of life for the child so it could be the best thing to do. I believe that it should just be down to the parents to decide whether to use an abortion and i do not believe that it is right to judge people on it as it may have happend due to unfortunate sircumstances.

So you think women should have the option to be murderers?

A Christian believer would disagree on abortion because they believe in the sanctity of life (life is precious life is holy and life is sacred and only God has the authority to take life away. They would also disagree with abortion because one of the Ten Commandments is ‘Thou shall not kill’ God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
A Jewish believer would disagree also because they believe in the sanctity of life, and the torah states “Whoever destroys one life is as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever preserves a life is as if he preserved the whole world”. Also Jews would believe that everyone is made in the image of God and only God has the authority to take life away.
I believe that abortion is right and wrong. I believe that it is right because if you got raped by someone then it is not really your fault and you shouldn’t keep the baby. However i also think it is wrong because you are practically taking away someone’s life for no reason.