ABORTION.......

MY POINT IS THAT............it is a living human being!!

IT IS NOTHING BUT THAT!!

It is a human. Aren't all humans protected by the legal system? All humans are constantly developing.

Why do you have so much trouble with that?

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

MY POINT IS THAT............it is a living human being!!

IT IS NOTHING BUT THAT!!

It is a human. Aren't all humans protected by the legal system? All humans are constantly developing.

Why do you have so much trouble with that?

Because it is incorrect, Thunder.

A fetus is a fetus...according the definition you furnished, no less...and it will not be a living human being until it is born.

Try to get over this!

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

It's very easy to tear at another person's position without putting your own arse on the line, squirrel. At what point will you honour us with your stance rather than henpecking?!

1.) I was not "tearing at your position", but rather trying to get some clarification of your own considering those views seemed rather inconsistent what with the definition you provided.

2.) I have no problem about putting my "arse on the line." But that was not what the discussion was about. It was originally about the consistency of logic within your views, and then became a defense against your unfounded claims that I "twisted" your words.

Quote:

You don't want to know what I have to say - you have only shown an interest to dissect it. Boring.

You think it's boring to attempt to achieve clarity and consistency. I think it's important. We can agree to disagree here.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case...if Flushed did agree that a living human being is present in a fetus...Flushed was incorrect. A fetus is not a living human being...it is a fetus.

Exactly my point, Mr. Apisa. flushd's definition of a fetus was not logically consistent with the rest of his opinion on abortion-- thus the reason I, how did he put it, "henpecked" him to help clarify his position in case he actually had a way to make his claims logically consistent.

Quote:

And an abortion is not murder...no matter how much you attempt to torture logic in order to try to make it such.

Abortion is murder if the fetus is considered a living being. Abortion is not murder if the fetus is not considered a living being.

That much I think we can agree on. You happen to hold the latter opinion, and while I'm sure you have your own logical (and, hopefully, consistent) reasons for holding said opinion, that's not the issue at hand with my discussion with flushd. Because flushd stated, pretty bluntly, that he believed that the fetus "deserves respect and to be recognized as a living being", yet he also said that abortion is not murder (three times, to be exact). Thus the only torturer of logic was flushd.

Quote:

Oh, I see. All that "in your face" nonsense was just an attempt at "healthy comments" intended to "spark discussion."

A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.

Quote:

Well, you've certainly done that...but the essense of my comment still holds. If you are going to attempt logical rebuttals to comments made in a public forum...shouldn't you attempt to put some logic in your logic?

I think I proved my point in the breakdown above. flushd's logic (Fetus = living being, but Abortion =/= murder) was inconsistent, and I was only attempting to get some further elaboration on it, as well as (in my second post) defend my original analysis from claims of "twisting words" (considering it was direct, literal analysis to begin with).

Quote:

A fetus is a fetus...according the definition you furnished, no less...and it will not be a living human being until it is born.

Maybe look at the definitions again, genius. They make a distinction between "embryo" and "developing human" (fetus). Thus, by said definitions, a fetus is a post-embryonic living human being (from 8 weeks-3 months after conception).

[insert "Why do you have so much trouble with that?"/"Try to get over this!" analog phrase here]

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case...if Flushed did agree that a living human being is present in a fetus...Flushed was incorrect. A fetus is not a living human being...it is a fetus.

Exactly my point, Mr. Apisa. flushd's definition of a fetus was not logically consistent with the rest of his opinion on abortion-- thus the reason I, how did he put it, "henpecked" him to help clarify his position in case he actually had a way to make his claims logically consistent.

Sure you did. You sound like a heck of a humanitarian.

You were trying to look logical, Rex...in a post laced with sarcasm and scorn for Flushed's position. You came up considerably short in that attempt. When I called that to your attention...you changed your comments...and pretended it something other than a significant change.

If you want to play here with adults, grow up.

Quote:

Quote:
And an abortion is not murder...no matter how much you attempt to torture logic in order to try to make it such.

Abortion is murder if the fetus is considered a living being. Abortion is not murder if the fetus is not considered a living being.

That much I think we can agree on.

I don't agree with that at all.

Take another look at the definition of murder...and then get someone to help you with the logic.

Quote:

You happen to hold the latter opinion, and while I'm sure you have your own logical (and, hopefully, consistent) reasons for holding said opinion, that's not the issue at hand with my discussion with flushd. Because flushd stated, pretty bluntly, that he believed that the fetus "deserves respect and to be recognized as a living being", yet he also said that abortion is not murder (three times, to be exact). Thus the only torturer of logic was flushd.

Flushed has pretty much established that he said it was not murder because he was using the notion of murder being the "unlawful" killing of another human being.

That is the only definition of "murder" that should apply in this situation...and since abortion is not unlawful...IT IS NOT MURDER.

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, I see. All that "in your face" nonsense was just an attempt at "healthy comments" intended to "spark discussion."

A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.

You should not be speaking for the "wisest men."

Quote:

Quote:
Well, you've certainly done that...but the essense of my comment still holds. If you are going to attempt logical rebuttals to comments made in a public forum...shouldn't you attempt to put some logic in your logic?

I think I proved my point in the breakdown above. flushd's logic (Fetus = living being, but Abortion =/= murder) was inconsistent, and I was only attempting to get some further elaboration on it, as well as (in my second post) defend my original analysis from claims of "twisting words" (considering it was direct, literal analysis to begin with).

You would have done much better if you had found a face saving way of acknowledging that you had indeed presented an argument laced with logical inconsistencies in your attempt to show Flushed as having flawed logic. Instead you tried to brazen it out.

You still are...

...much to the enjoyment of some of us.

Quote:

Quote:
A fetus is a fetus...according the definition you furnished, no less...and it will not be a living human being until it is born.

Maybe look at the definitions again, genius. They make a distinction between "embryo" and "developing human" (fetus). Thus, by said definitions, a fetus is a post-embryonic living human being (from 8 weeks-3 months after conception).

That contains even less logic than your first illogical error.

Take another look.

If you want to insist...I will be happy to continue to point out the lack of logic in what you post here.

0 Replies

Quote:

You were trying to look logical, Rex...in a post laced with sarcasm and scorn for Flushed's position. You came up considerably short in that attempt.

1.) I enjoy sarcasm. Look at the few other times I've posted here. Again laced with sarcasm. I do so hope you are not the sarcasm police.

2.) I did not come up short. My analysis was valid, and there was no "twisting" of words involved.

Quote:

When I called that to your attention...you changed your comments...and pretended it something other than a significant change.

It was not a change. I used definitions to breakdown the original argument, and when you challenged said argument I gave further definition to clarify beyond your own original noting of "unlawful".

Quote:

If you want to play here with adults, grow up.

I must not have received the memo about an age requisite regarding the discussion of ethics. I'll be sure to bug Plato to get me another copy.

Quote:

I don't agree with that at all. Take another look at the definition of murder...and then get someone to help you with the logic.

Well then, my assumption was wrong. But I'll make another assumption here and go with the idea that I should throw the word "unlawful" in there to make it more agreeable to you.

Quote:

Flushed has pretty much established that he said it was not murder because he was using the notion of murder being the "unlawful" killing of another human being.

In which post? The one where he banged his head on the wall, or the one where he said dissection was boring?

In fact, the only one who has said anything about the notion of murder being the "unlawful" killing of another human being has been you, Mr. Apisa. And I'm afraid that this portion of the discussion is not an analysis about your stance, Mr. Apisa, both because you're using different logic than flushd and because I frankly don't care about your stance outside of the whole fetus definition I mentioned in my last post.

Quote:

You should not be speaking for the "wisest men."

You should not be an authority on the wisdom of men.

Quote:

You would have done much better if you had found a face saving way of acknowledging that you had indeed presented an argument laced with logical inconsistencies in your attempt to show Flushed as having flawed logic. Instead you tried to brazen it out.

I refer you to my explanation in my last post. If you can't figure it out for yourself, get a friend to help you. Or just give up. Whatever.

Quote:

You still are...

...much to the enjoyment of some of us.

I'm glad you're getting so much enjoyment off a message board. I wonder how excited you get when you see a pretty girl. Or maybe you're gay?

Quote:

That contains even less logic than your first illogical error.

Take another look.

If you want to insist...I will be happy to continue to point out the lack of logic in what you post here.

I've got a better idea. Let's all get together, each get a woman pregnant, and see how many want an abortion afterward. It'll be a case study, and certainly more fun than listening to your dreary unfounded rambling.

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Quote:
You were trying to look logical, Rex...in a post laced with sarcasm and scorn for Flushed's position. You came up considerably short in that attempt.

1.) I enjoy sarcasm. Look at the few other times I've posted here. Again laced with sarcasm. I do so hope you are not the sarcasm police.

2.) I did not come up short. My analysis was valid, and there was no "twisting" of words involved.

Quote:
When I called that to your attention...you changed your comments...and pretended it something other than a significant change.

It was not a change. I used definitions to breakdown the original argument, and when you challenged said argument I gave further definition to clarify beyond your own original noting of "unlawful".

I was a change...and a significant one. You tried to exclude the term "unlawful" because I called to your attention that using that word made your argument completely illogical.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. Take another look at the definition of murder...and then get someone to help you with the logic.

Well then, my assumption was wrong. But I'll make another assumption here and go with the idea that I should throw the word "unlawful" in there to make it more agreeable to you.

Whatever that means....do it or don't do it. It will not change the fact that you screwed up the logic in your first response to Flushed.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Flushed has pretty much established that he said it was not murder because he was using the notion of murder being the "unlawful" killing of another human being.

In which post? The one where he banged his head on the wall, or the one where he said dissection was boring?

In fact, the only one who has said anything about the notion of murder being the "unlawful" killing of another human being has been you, Mr. Apisa.

No, Mr. Sqrirrel...that is not correct. You introduced the term in your definition.

Quote:

And I'm afraid that this portion of the discussion is not an analysis about your stance, Mr. Apisa, both because you're using different logic than flushd and because I frankly don't care about your stance outside of the whole fetus definition I mentioned in my last post.

Gosh, Mr. Squirrel...you sound angry. Try to stay under control...or you will look even more foolish than you already look.

Quote:

Quote:
You should not be speaking for the "wisest men."

You should not be an authority on the wisdom of men.

This is much more lame than I want to handle, Mr. Squirrel.

Quote:

Quote:
You would have done much better if you had found a face saving way of acknowledging that you had indeed presented an argument laced with logical inconsistencies in your attempt to show Flushed as having flawed logic. Instead you tried to brazen it out.

I refer you to my explanation in my last post. If you can't figure it out for yourself, get a friend to help you. Or just give up. Whatever.

Ahhh...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I love you, Mr. Squirrel.

Quote:

Quote:
You still are...

...much to the enjoyment of some of us.

I'm glad you're getting so much enjoyment off a message board. I wonder how excited you get when you see a pretty girl. Or maybe you're gay?

Oh, no. Straight arrow. And I get very excited with I see a pretty girl. But then again...they often react nicely to me. Maybe that's why I've got the guts to post my own picture as an avatar...not that of a movie star.

Quote:

Quote:
That contains even less logic than your first illogical error.

Take another look.

If you want to insist...I will be happy to continue to point out the lack of logic in what you post here.

I've got a better idea. Let's all get together, each get a woman pregnant, and see how many want an abortion afterward. It'll be a case study, and certainly more fun than listening to your dreary unfounded rambling.

Yeah...you sound angry. Oh well...you've pretty much had your doors blown off... so I can understand it.

Question: Have you ever actually gotten any?

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

MY POINT IS THAT............it is a living human being!!

IT IS NOTHING BUT THAT!!

It is a human. Aren't all humans protected by the legal system? All humans are constantly developing.

Why do you have so much trouble with that?

You can go back to almost the beginning of these 135+ pages and find the same arguments that you make having been dismissed and actually laughed at. You can even read that a baby can be aborted up until it actually leaves the birth canal completely. Sick, but true according to Mr. A. I wonder what the position on a cesarean would be under these circumstances....would the emerging baby still be considered a fetus?

A man can be convicted of murder for kicking his wife in the stomach and killing the baby, but abortion is ok. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:
MY POINT IS THAT............it is a living human being!!

IT IS NOTHING BUT THAT!!

It is a human. Aren't all humans protected by the legal system? All humans are constantly developing.

Why do you have so much trouble with that?

You can go back to almost the beginning of these 135+ pages and find the same arguments that you make having been dismissed and actually laughed at. You can even read that a baby can be aborted up until it actually leaves the birth canal completely. Sick, but true according to Mr. A. I wonder what the position on a cesarean would be under these circumstances....would the emerging baby still be considered a fetus?

A man can be convicted of murder for kicking his wife in the stomach and killing the baby, but abortion is ok.

Yeah...abortion is legal.

I feel sorry for you if you do not see the difference between a woman decided to end a pregnancy...and a man decided to end it by kicking a woman in the stomach.

But...your side has so many bizarre notions and arguments...I guess something like this has to be read and snickered at.

0 Replies

Frank,

I see no difference other than it is legal for a woman to do it and not the man (in the instance of him kicking a woman in the stomach). The same end is achieved. The child is killed.

0 Replies

Frank,

I have a question for you. You are sticking to the defintion of murder as defined in the dictionary. You are sticking to the defintion of fetus as described in the dictionary.

Now, why can you stick to your definitions of these and yet you would discount my definition of know in the dictionary?

This feels like a double standard to me. Can you please tell me why I shouldn't see it that way?

I mean, you are sticking to the strictest of definitions here.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

I see no difference other than it is legal for a woman to do it and not the man (in the instance of him kicking a woman in the stomach).

One is a woman exercising rights over her own body...the other isn't.

If you cannot see a difference...you've got serious troubles.

Quote:

The same end is achieved.

No it isn't. One "end" is to exercise the right to have control over one's body...the other isn't.

Quote:

The child is killed.

There is no "child" to kill. But in both cases...a fetus is destroyed. I've already explained the difference.

0 Replies

Frank,

Of course in one case the woman is deciding and in the other case the man is deciding. But, the same end is still achieved. The child dies. Or if you will, (to you), the fetus dies. Death in both cases.

Death is death. The child, the growing human being is killed. You cannot get around that. No matter what words you put to it, Frank. It doesn't change the fact that the growing human being is killed.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

I have a question for you. You are sticking to the defintion of murder as defined in the dictionary. You are sticking to the defintion of fetus as described in the dictionary.

Correct.

Quote:

Now, why can you stick to your definitions of these and yet you would discount my definition of know in the dictionary?

Because you are misusing the supposed other definitions.

Your arguments do not hold up...but you simply will not understand the reasons they do not. JUST AS YOU REFUSE TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WOMAN OBTAINING AN ABORTION...AND SOMEONE KICKING HER IN THE STOMACH.

You are obstinately blind.

You are a decent human being...but your are obstinately blind.

Quote:

This feels like a double standard to me. Can you please tell me why I shouldn't see it that way?

It is not...but I do not relish chasing my tail with you on these issues.

[quoe]I mean, you are sticking to the strictest of definitions here.[/quote]

And I am doing the same in the other thread. They are not similar.

I'll try to come over there to explain...but I can just see the obstinate blindness kicking in.

0 Replies

Frank,

Don't bother.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

Of course in one case the woman is deciding and in the other case the man is deciding. But, the same end is still achieved.

No...the same end is not acheived.

In one case...the end was to exercise a right to terminate a pregnancy by the pregnant woman. In the second...the end was to do harm to another person.

Think!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

The child dies. Or if you will, (to you), the fetus dies. Death in both cases.

MA....THINK!

If scenario one has a man giving $10,000 to the poor....an scenario two has a poor person putting a gun to someone's head and stealing $10,000...

...YES, you could argue that the same result occurred.

But are you honestly telling me you cannot see any difference between those two scenarios????????????

Quote:

Death is death. The child, the growing human being is killed. You cannot get around that.

The fetus does not have any rights that take away the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

Sorry you cannot see that...but it is a failure in you, not in me.

Quote:

No matter what words you put to it, Frank. It doesn't change the fact that the growing human being is killed.

I am not even going to argue this anymore...because the bottom line is that a fetus....WHATEVER IT IS OR ISN'T....does not have any rights that take away the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

You wrote:

Quote:

Frank,

Don't bother.

Fine by me.

0 Replies

Frank,

Whatever the intent, the end result is the same. Something dies.

You may feel that the child (fetus, in your word) doesn't have any rights. I disagree with you.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean it is a failure in me.

I think the real problem here is you feel you have to be right no matter what. You don't seem to care about what other people think or feel.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I was a change...and a significant one.

You were a change? That's cool. Whatever floats your boat.

Quote:

You tried to exclude the term "unlawful" because I called to your attention that using that word made your argument completely illogical.

1.) Tried? I "tried" to exclude the term "unlawful"? Either I did or I didn't. It's pretty hard to not exclude something and yet fail to include it.

2.) I didn't exclude the term unlawful-- what I did was add on with two other definitions. You'll notice I did not repeat myself from the second post I made, and thus there was no correction, no opportunity for a retcon. All I did was add on to help clarify my main point.

3.) If you maybe read some texts on ethics, you'll quickly realize that concepts like "murder" are hardly subjective in nature to things like "law", thus providing the possibility that calling said term to attention does not make anything logically inconsistent.

Quote:

Whatever that means....do it or don't do it. It will not change the fact that you screwed up the logic in your first response to Flushed.

1.) I screwed up no logic in my first response. You'll realize I didn't even use any definitions (and thus, didn't use anything regarding "unlawful") in my original analysis.

2.) Flushed = flushd. Just because it's nonsense. And you know who relishes a little nonsense now and then...

Quote:

No, Mr. Sqrirrel...that is not correct. You introduced the term in your definition.

1.) What I meant in saying "the only one who has said anything about the notion of murder being the 'unlawful' killing of another human being" was that you were the only one-- not flushd, who you said "pretty much established [it]"-- who pointed out the "unlawful" term in my definition breakdown. I apologize if that was not clear enough.

2.) It's Mr. Squirrel. Thank you.

Quote:

Gosh, Mr. Squirrel...you sound angry. Try to stay under control...or you will look even more foolish than you already look.

Angry? There is no cause for me to be angry. I submit that you are confusing the state of "anger" with the use of sarcasm, Mr. Apisa. In conjunction, of course, with the fact that your own stance on abortion has little bearing on the logical inconsistency of flushd's proclamation of his view(s) and my subsequent analysis.

Quote:

This is much more lame than I want to handle, Mr. Squirrel.

Then fail to handle it.

Quote:

Ahhh...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Then I should feel flattered by your adopting of the "Mister" title in reference to others. Glad you caught that sly bit of sarcasm in that response, though.

Quote:

I love you, Mr. Squirrel.

I know.

Quote:

Oh, no. Straight arrow. And I get very excited with I see a pretty girl.

Cool beans.

Quote:

But then again...they often react nicely to me.

You'll forgive me if I don't totally believe you.

Quote:

Maybe that's why I've got the guts to post my own picture as an avatar...not that of a movie star.

Oh, so now "guts" is directly related to one's avatar? I must've missed that memo as well. I could, of course, switch my avatar to a 90x90 of myself in response, but I'm a rather lazy chap.

Besides, I could actually be Doc Holliday. You never know.

Quote:

Yeah...you sound angry.

Again with the anger accusation. Rest assured, Mr. Apisa, that I am hardly angry. Rather, I am having quite a bit of fun pressing people's buttons. It gives me something to do inbetween all the pizza parties and surfing. Rock on, dude!

Quote:

Oh well...you've pretty much had your doors blown off... so I can understand it.

Should I start calling you Katrina, then?

Quote:

Question: Have you ever actually gotten any?

Yo momma! [/end_cool_hip_slang]

0 Replies

Here is the development of the issue between Mr. Squirrel and me:

Mr. Squirrel posted:

Quote:

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:
flushd wrote:
A child that is within a woman's body deserves respect and to be recognized as a living being.

So am I correct in assuming that you then admit that abortion is murder?

To which Flushd took exception and correctly said:

Quote:
Why do people twist my words?! Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not murder. If I thought abortion was murder why in the world would I support the option?!

Mr. Squirrel then posted:

Quote:
Quote:
Twist your words? Let's take a look at what you said...

"A child that is within a woman's body deserves respect and to be recognized as a living being."

So, said child = a living being, according to your definition (which leaves little room for interpretation, so spare me a rant saying I twisted your words here).

And, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, murder is (as a noun):

"unlawful premeditated killing of a living being [syn: homicide, slaying]"

Considering by your definition a child that is within a woman's body = a living being, we can substitute the phrase in accordingly...

"unlawful premeditated killing of a child that is within a woman's body"

There you have it. Direct, literal analysis with no "twisting". I'd ask for an apology, but it seems as if you're a little busy pounding your head against a wall.

So...Mr. Squirrel was attempting to show that Flushd had admitted that "abortion was murder"...

...by citing a dictionary definition stating that murder is "...the unlawful premeditated killing of a living being."

I then stepped into the discussion and pointed out the absurdity of the squirrel's logic and reasoning...because the definition HE SUPPLIED requires that the killings be unlawful in order to be considered murderand abortion is not unlawful.

Mr. Squirrel couldn't work his way around thisand apparently didn't have what it takes to simply acknowledge that he had screwed up. What he did, instead, was to change the definition he was using from "the unlawful premeditated killing of a living being"...to..."to kill a human being intentionally and with premeditation."

As I said...he eliminated the "unlawful" aspect.

A problem arises:

I don't know if this new definition actually exists in a dictionary or not...but if it does, that dictionary...and of course our friend, the squirrel, have managed to define all of the killing done by our military personnel in the various wars in which our country has engaged...as murders.

Just about all the killing done in war is done intentionally...and with premeditation.

And although it needn't be mentioned, that would make all our military personnel who engaged in war...murderers.
Hummm!

Ya know...I just wonder if the definition the squirrel offered is actually there.

If it is...it is a shame, because it is a preposterous definition of the word...and it does a disservice to people who serve in the military.

If it isn't...well...we all know what it means if it isn't.

0 Replies

>>>Abortion is murder if the fetus is considered a living being. Abortion is not murder if the fetus is not considered a living being.
That much I think we can agree on.

I don't agree with that at all.
Take another look at the definition of murder...and then get someone to help you with the logic.<<<

Ditto. I don't agree that abortion is murder simply because a fetus is a living being.

A developing child is a living being (which if you would have read my post correctly I stated is PART of the mother - not an individual sentient being). A virus is also a living being. A mushroom is a living being.
However, a mushroom does not have the same legal rights in soceity as a born human being. A developing child does not either.

Murder is unlawful killing.
To abort is to kill a part of yourself which is developing into it's own being. Yes, kill. Still, it is a woman's choice. It is her body.
Very simple. IT IS A WOMAN'S CHOICE.

For the example of a man kicking a woman in the belly when she is pregnant: he is hurting the woman and what is within her. Not just the developing child. That is a little different.

0 Replies

If you'll allow me to respond to your arisen problem, Mr. Apisa...

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't know if this new definition actually exists in a dictionary or not...

[...]

Ya know...I just wonder if the definition the squirrel offered is actually there.

First of all, you do well to target the source of my information. Yes, the definition does indeed exist in Webster's.

Not only does it exist, but it is hardly a "new definition". In fact, I cross-referenced that definition with Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary published in 1913, as well as Easton's 1897 Dictionary (which is old enough to actually cite biblical passages underneath of its definitions, including one of its definitions for murder if you could believe it).

Quote:

but if it does, that dictionary...and of course our friend, the squirrel, have managed to define all of the killing done by our military personnel in the various wars in which our country has engaged...as murders.

[...]

Just about all the killing done in war is done intentionally...and with premeditation.

[...]

And although it needn't be mentioned, that would make all our military personnel who engaged in war...murderers.
Hummm!

If it is...it is a shame, because it is a preposterous definition of the word...and it does a disservice to people who serve in the military.

Here is where you make the mistake between justified and unjustified murder, an issue which comes heavily into play in regards to such actions as military personnel. An argument could be made about the innocence of the victims, but that's another issue.

Now before you go off and say "Well, abortion can be justified too-- so what's the difference between abortion and killing in wartime?", let me clarify something.

When it comes to the justification of the morality of a certain action, everything is subjective. I may think shooting you in the face for stealing my parking space (yes, that rhymed) is justified, but of course you may think otherwise.

So, whose opinion is correct? There's no way to tell. Without some supernatural entity (take as much liberty with that as you wish) to definitively be the basis of "right" and "wrong", there really is no basis for "right" and "wrong" outside of each person's own opinion.

Sure, we could go in circles all day long about how a supernatural entity is not needed to set definitive law for the benefit of the majority regarding ethics, but that doesn't prove anything right or wrong-- just the most pragmatic for the time.

Thus the impasse we come to as two different people with two different views-- I personally believing in a supernatural entity that defines the basis of what is right and wrong, and thus the murder of unborn living human beings (by certain definitions which I have adopted as truth through my own logical testing and reasoning) is wrong. And while I do not know the specifics of your own views, I think I can gather that you believe that abortion is not murder (by certain definitions which you have adopted as truth through your own logical testing and reasoning) but rather a lawful practice that, in some cases, is actually very pragmatic.

In other words, our worldviews stand in constrast to each other, and thus I can agree to disagree with on this matter, our personal beliefs not subsiding.

flushd wrote:

Murder is unlawful killing.

So if I have an abortion in a country where it is legal, it is not murder. But if I have an abortion in a country where it is illegal, it is murder. Totally subjective to law, with nothing to do with ethics whatsoever.

You, sir, should read some actual texts on what law is all about. I suggest starting with Plato's Republic to help you on your journey.

0 Replies

ABORTION.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know