ABORTION.......

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.

....... 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..........

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.

A mushroom is a living being. However, a mushroom does not have the same legal rights in soceity as a born human being.

'Shroom abuse is no laughing matter, MA!

If this is not the case, then at what magic moment do you propose that the unborn is no longer 'a part of the mother' and becomes an individual and worthy of protection? At the moment of birth? Sometime before? Sometime after?

Many will tell you straight up that they would support 'a woman's {moral} right to an abortion' even if it was illegal.

So where it is legal, abortion fans hide behind the law; and where it is not they are eager and willing to violate it.

real life wrote:

If this is not the case, then at what magic moment do you propose that the unborn is no longer 'a part of the mother' and becomes an individual and worthy of protection? At the moment of birth? Sometime before? Sometime after?

Quickening... generally considered by most to be a reasonable time. I assume from your discussion topics, flushD, that you are approaching the idea that there is a real person there from the moment the penis leaves the vagina. That means that not even the Morning After Pill is moral. (OF course, anybody having sex for any reason other than babies might be immoral in your books, who knows?)

When you get to that level, then... spilling the seed ought to be illegal. And then, let's see, maybe... masturbation?

You are on a seriously slippery slope, sir. My opinion, and it is as conservative as they come IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, is that anybody not directly and personally associated with a pregnancy ought to keep their minds, their noses and their laws seriously away from a woman and her own body.

Your morality is for you... let others have their own. If a woman chooses not to have a child, it is probably for a very, very good reason. Why MEN have the right to say anything about pregnancy at all is nearly beyond me and certainly no man ought to have anything to say UNLESS he has had an active part in the conception.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Quote:

Many will tell you straight up that they would support 'a woman's {moral} right to an abortion' even if it was illegal.

So where it is legal, abortion fans hide behind the law; and where it is not they are eager and willing to violate it.

And amazingly, people like you who have nothing to do with the lives of either or with the pregancy itself feel it is absolutely necessary to shove their morality down the throats of others. Do you ever see that as an amazingly gross violation of privacy?

Apparently, you wouldn't know the Constitution if it stood up and bit you.

anybody not directly and personally associated with a pregnancy ought to keep their minds, their noses and their laws seriously away from a woman and her own body.

flushd wrote:

A mushroom is a living being. However, a mushroom does not have the same legal rights in soceity as a born human being.

In our town, a family of morels recently picketed city hall for 'shroom rights.

It soon became ugly. A squad of jack booted olives descended on the hapless mushrooms wildly swinging whips of linguini and recklessly spraying marinara sauce. The heated battle soon melted the nearby stand of mozzarella trees.

The polizza, thinking dinner was being served, sprinkled aged parmesan. Soon it was over. Many of the townsfolk were shocked at the feasting; but not me and not Joe Sixpack.

Who did those 'shrooms think they were, anyway?

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.

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.

You, squirrely, should stop being so pompous and arrogant…and you should probably stop making assumptions about what debate opponents have and have not read.

In undergraduate school, I had a major in Philosophy and Religion…and I have read Plato's Republic.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!

You've gone over the edge, Intrepid.

Have your morning shot of booze...and things will clear up.

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.

Frank Apisa wrote:

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!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, Frank. In the second...the end was to do harm to another person - the growing baby. Maybe you understand after all.