Which Religion is the One True Religion?

neologist wrote:

Abortion should be called what it actually is: Murder.

Well the one thing it most assuredly is NOT...is murder.

It is legal.

Murder is the illegal taking of a life.

It is not murder.

Quote:

If the government wants to make the murder of certain individuals legal, it should state so in no uncertain terms.

No government can make "murder" legal...because murder has a meaning...and its meaning is the illegal taking of a life.

Try to use your brain.

Quote:

It ain't mercy killing;
It ain't euthanasia;
It ain't pregnancy termination;
It wasn't a zygote;
It wasn't a fetus;
It wasn't a neonate;
It ain't infanticide;
It ain't pro choice and it ain't abortion;

"It is as it is." Edward III

Yes...it is as it is. AND IT AIN'T MURDER.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

neologist wrote:
Abortion should be called what it actually is: Murder. If the government wants to make the murder of certain individuals legal, it should state so in no uncertain terms.

It ain't mercy killing;
It ain't euthanasia;
It ain't pregnancy termination;
It wasn't a zygote;
It wasn't a fetus;
It wasn't a neonate;
It ain't infanticide;
It ain't pro choice and it ain't abortion;

"It is as it is." Edward III

So neo you do advocate that abortion be a capital crime, death penality?

No. We should just call it what it is. I'm not a lawmaker.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
Abortion should be called what it actually is: Murder.

Well the one thing it most assuredly is NOT...is murder.

It is legal.

Murder is the illegal taking of a life.

It is not murder.

Quote:
If the government wants to make the murder of certain individuals legal, it should state so in no uncertain terms.

No government can make "murder" legal...because murder has a meaning...and its meaning is the illegal taking of a life.

Try to use your brain.

Quote:
It ain't mercy killing;
It ain't euthanasia;
It ain't pregnancy termination;
It wasn't a zygote;
It wasn't a fetus;
It wasn't a neonate;
It ain't infanticide;
It ain't pro choice and it ain't abortion;

"It is as it is." Edward III

Yes...it is as it is. AND IT AIN'T MURDER.

OK, call it killing. It is still as it is; as far as the zygote is concerned, that is.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
neologist wrote:
Abortion should be called what it actually is: Murder. If the government wants to make the murder of certain individuals legal, it should state so in no uncertain terms.

It ain't mercy killing;
It ain't euthanasia;
It ain't pregnancy termination;
It wasn't a zygote;
It wasn't a fetus;
It wasn't a neonate;
It ain't infanticide;
It ain't pro choice and it ain't abortion;

"It is as it is." Edward III

So neo you do advocate that abortion be a capital crime, death penality?
No. We should just call it what it is. I'm not a lawmaker.

No problem.

Let us call it what it is.

But since it "ain't" murder....why are you insisting that it is?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
neologist wrote:
Abortion should be called what it actually is: Murder. If the government wants to make the murder of certain individuals legal, it should state so in no uncertain terms.

It ain't mercy killing;
It ain't euthanasia;
It ain't pregnancy termination;
It wasn't a zygote;
It wasn't a fetus;
It wasn't a neonate;
It ain't infanticide;
It ain't pro choice and it ain't abortion;

"It is as it is." Edward III

So neo you do advocate that abortion be a capital crime, death penality?
No. We should just call it what it is. I'm not a lawmaker.

No problem.

Let us call it what it is.

But since it "ain't" murder....why are you insisting that it is?

You win! Killing.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

OK, call it killing. It is still as it is; as far as the zygote is concerned, that is.

It certainly is terminating the growth of the "zygote"...or the embryo...or the fetus.

I honestly thing....and if you give this more consideration, you might eventually agree....that "killing" requires something more.

It is not life....merely potential life.

A tumor is not life. We stop the growth of tumors all the time. It really is not killing.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
OK, call it killing. It is still as it is; as far as the zygote is concerned, that is.

It certainly is terminating the growth of the "zygote"...or the embryo...or the fetus.

I honestly thing....and if you give this more consideration, you might eventually agree....that "killing" requires something more.

It is not life....merely potential life.

A tumor is not life. We stop the growth of tumors all the time. It really is not killing.

You had better not even play a doctor on TV, Frank. Not convincing at all.

Does a tumor have a heartbeat, Frank? (the baby does, day 9-20)

Does a tumor produce brain waves? (the baby does, day 30-40)

Does a tumor have it's own distinctive DNA pattern, showing it as a different biological entity than the mother? (the baby does, day 1)

The baby is a separate living person, Frank, as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg.

0 Replies

You cannot argue that murder is merely an action defined by the law and having no existence outside of the law. What justification would the law have for making it illegal? It could only presuppose itself. The law defines something as an illegal act of murder, but even before it states so, it must see it as immoral. Otherwise, the law only gives birth to itself and is circular: anything that we desire to be law is law. Law could never change if it was always assumed to be right by virtue of itself alone and could by the same light never even come into being.

By this point in philosophy it is very clear that relativism is incorrect. You cannot say "it is just for her to do so but not for someone else because they have different beliefs." What would you be basing your beliefs on in that case? It seems like so many people believe that the only objective thing is subjectivity.

0 Replies

What silliness . . . law defines murder as a clear harm to society--morality has nothing to do with it. Evidence can be offered in mitigation to lessen the penalties to a convicted criminal, but the standard applied is the extent to which society is harmed.

I'm sure it is comforting to the moralist to adopt such a position, but it is not axiomatic that law is based upon morality--some law may be, but not all law. The human experience strongly suggestst that laws with a "moral" basis are ineffective or more honored in the breach than the observance, such a laws criminalizing prostitution.

0 Replies

RealLife wrote:

Quote:

You had better not even play a doctor on TV, Frank. Not convincing at all.

Actually, I did play a doctor in a movie once. Professor Kleindeinst...physician and professor of gynecology. The movie was "Waitress"....a grade z flick. But you can rent it and see me...and my name in the credits. I actually had two lines to speak.

Quote:

Does a tumor have a heartbeat, Frank? (the baby does, day 9-20)

It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus. And what does a heartbeat have to do with it?

Quote:

Does a tumor produce brain waves? (the baby does, day 30-40)

It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus. And what do brain waves have to do with it?

Quote:

Does a tumor have it's own distinctive DNA pattern, showing it as a different biological entity than the mother? (the baby does, day 1)

It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus. And what does the DNA pattern have to do with it?

None of that stuff makes it murder.

Quote:

The baby is a separate living person, Frank, as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Oh yeah. Well try including it as a deduction on your income tax return....and see what happens.

An embryo is no more a living person than an egg is a chicken.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

You cannot argue that murder is merely an action defined by the law and having no existence outside of the law.

Of course I can....and it would make plenty of sense.

Murder has a definition. It is the illegal taking of a life.

If it is not illegal...it can be many things....but murder is not one of them.

Quote:

What justification would the law have for making it illegal?

I'll defer to Set's response on this....and the remainder of your post.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

RealLife wrote:

Quote:
You had better not even play a doctor on TV, Frank. Not convincing at all.

Actually, I did play a doctor in a movie once. Professor Kleindeinst...physician and professor of gynecology. The movie was "Waitress"....a grade z flick. But you can rent it and see me...and my name in the credits. I actually had two lines to speak.

Quote:
Does a tumor have a heartbeat, Frank? (the baby does, day 9-20)

It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus. And what does a heartbeat have to do with it?

Quote:
Does a tumor produce brain waves? (the baby does, day 30-40)

It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus. And what do brain waves have to do with it?

Quote:
Does a tumor have it's own distinctive DNA pattern, showing it as a different biological entity than the mother? (the baby does, day 1)

It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus. And what does the DNA pattern have to do with it?

None of that stuff makes it murder.

Quote:
The baby is a separate living person, Frank, as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Oh yeah. Well try including it as a deduction on your income tax return....and see what happens.

An embryo is no more a living person than an egg is a chicken.

Quote:

And what does a heartbeat have to do with it?
....And what do brain waves have to do with it?
....

What does a heartbeat or brainwaves have to do with whether one is alive or not? Hmmmmmmm let's see. If you come across an accident and the victim has heartbeat and brainwaves do you say, "Hmmmm only potential life here. Maybe no need to do anything at present. Let's see if he is truly viable. We'll wait and see."

Quote:

And what does the DNA pattern have to do with it?

Well Dr Kleindeinst, different DNA, different person. The baby is NOT part of the mother's body.

Quote:

Oh yeah. Well try including it as a deduction on your income tax return....and see what happens

Oh I see. The IRS is your standard of what is moral?

Quote:

An embryo is no more a living person than an egg is a chicken.

An chicken egg (like you buy at the store) is not fertilized. It is an egg (only).

You can go to jail for damaging eagle's eggs in this country but not for killing a child in the womb. If the eagle's egg is only potential life, why the penalty? And why are birds seen as more valuable than people?

Quote:

It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus.

An embryo or a fetus is a baby, Frank. Calling it something different due to the amount of growth it has attained does not make it more human (or less).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Quote:
And what does a heartbeat have to do with it?
....And what do brain waves have to do with it?
....

What does a heartbeat or brainwaves have to do with whether one is alive or not? Hmmmmmmm let's see. If you come across an accident and the victim has heartbeat and brainwaves do you say, "Hmmmm only potential life here.

No....but what does that have to do with whether or not an embryo is a "living human being"...or only a potential living human being?

Quote:

And what does the DNA pattern have to do with it?

Well Dr Kleindeinst, different DNA, different person. The baby is NOT part of the mother's body.[/quote]

It isn't a baby, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus.

And what if the science involved has the embryo or a fetus eventually becoming a living human being that is not just a part of the mother's body?

Quote:

Quote:
Oh yeah. Well try including it as a deduction on your income tax return....and see what happens

Oh I see. The IRS is your standard of what is moral?

We were not discussing whether or not anything was moral, Life...we were discussing your statement that an embryo is a "separate living person.

My remark stands.

Quote:

Quote:
An embryo is no more a living person than an egg is a chicken.

An chicken egg (like you buy at the store) is not fertilized. It is an egg (only).

And if it were fertilized....it would be a fertilized egg....not a goddam chicken.

Wake up!

Quote:

You can go to jail for damaging eagle's eggs in this country but not for killing a child in the womb. If the eagle's egg is only potential life, why the penalty? And why are birds seen as more valuable than people?

I guess it is because we've got plenty of people and not that many eagles.

Quote:

Quote:
It ain't a baby at that point, Life....it is an embryo or a fetus.

An embryo or a fetus is a baby, Frank.

No, Life...and embryo or a fetus is either an embryo or a fetus. A baby is a baby.

Try to wake up.

Quote:

Calling it something different due to the amount of growth it has attained does not make it more human (or less).

You are the one trying to call an embryo or a fetus a baby. You are the one trying to call these things something other than what they are.

Since you see that to be unreasonable...why don't you stop?

0 Replies

By the way....what was it that Jesus said about abortion?

Lemme think.

Oh yeah....now I remember.

!

0 Replies

Frank, That's part of the "secret" message from god that only believers can interpret correctly.

0 Replies

Borrowed the following from a web link, because it expresses my idea about a woman's right to choose.

"We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual."

0 Replies

OK, I used the wrong word again. Call it slaughter!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Borrowed the following from a web link, because it expresses my idea about a woman's right to choose.

"We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual."

To call a beating heart a "mass of undifferentiated cells" is ludicrous. A person could only make that statement by either being clueless themselves or trusting that their audience was.

The child has it's own distinctive DNA pattern from day 1. This is not true of any other part of the body.

Of course it is not "independently existing" and will not be for years. If you neglect a baby after it is born, it will die. It is not independent for a long time. But it is not "part" of another individual (the mother). It is a unique human being.
-------------------------------------
The barbaric methods by which these children are put to death are unbelievably cruel. Saddam Hussein ran people thru plastic shredders. Terrorists behead people. At least in these instances, death is fairly immediate.

Saline abortions may take considerable time to burn a child chemically to a sufficient degree to kill him, during which he undergoes horrific pain.

D&C abortions dismember a child little by little. Depending on the speed and skill of the white robed killer, the child may endure a protracted period of slicing, bleeding , pain and suffering.

Go ahead, Imposter. Speak up for these procedures. Give us your strong reasons why they must be allowed to continue without fail, or the Republic is endangered.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way....what was it that Jesus said about abortion?

Lemme think.

Oh yeah....now I remember.

!

Perhaps He might have said, if asked, "What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?"

0 Replies

Some people refuse to read what is posted, and assume their own interpretation. So, I repost a segment of my above post.

"That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person."

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know