Roe vs Wade benefits everybody

[BMS]

Murder may or not be defined by God, but as there is no credible evidence of such a definition, or indeed of a God to give it, it can be discounted. Particularly in a society which is not run by God but by human beings.

Humans define murder. In our particular tradition of law, the definition is ancient. Murder is one of very few offences that have not been redefined in statute in the UK since the first codification of the Common Law in the 12 century. The definition then as now, does not and cannot include abortion. For two distinct and separate reasons, either one of which is sufficient to blow the claim that abortion is murder out of the water.

Now, if course you can invent a different definition, and even claim that it was drawn up by God. Sadly, the one that is used in the courts is not yours, or God's. You are looking at a red car and declaring that God has defined this colour to be blue, so that the car should be called a blue car. It is self-evident why this argument is not working.
In your opinion. In my opinion, only a morally bankrupt society would ban easily available and legal abortion on demand in early stages of pregnancy. Only an additionally vindictive and discriminatory society would try to define abortion as murder.

As all that either of us have is opinion, we will need to wait and see what the legislative and the legislature do, if anything to change the current situation. In which abortion is not murder.

Waffle
.useless waffle

Look, the colour blue is recognised by most people. Its a particular refraction of light. If someone chooses to identify the colour blue as red, and identify the car as a dustbin, then who is going to know what it is?

 

[BMS]

Murder may or not be defined by God, but as there is no credible evidence of such a definition, or indeed of a God to give it, it can be discounted. Particularly in a society which is not run by God but by human beings.

Humans define murder. In our particular tradition of law, the definition is ancient. Murder is one of very few offences that have not been redefined in statute in the UK since the first codification of the Common Law in the 12 century. The definition then as now, does not and cannot include abortion. For two distinct and separate reasons, either one of which is sufficient to blow the claim that abortion is murder out of the water.

Now, if course you can invent a different definition, and even claim that it was drawn up by God. Sadly, the one that is used in the courts is not yours, or God's. You are looking at a red car and declaring that God has defined this colour to be blue, so that the car should be called a blue car. It is self-evident why this argument is not working.
In your opinion. In my opinion, only a morally bankrupt society would ban easily available and legal abortion on demand in early stages of pregnancy. Only an additionally vindictive and discriminatory society would try to define abortion as murder.

As all that either of us have is opinion, we will need to wait and see what the legislative and the legislature do, if anything to change the current situation. In which abortion is not murder.

People with your opinion then are going to be disappointed with the legal changes in red states.

 

[kiwimacnz]

Thanks for your secular opinion.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1


You got that completely wrong. God is the AUTHOR and about 3 dozen scribes were writers.

I don't see you finding it as useful.

John 1 refers to Jesus not the Bible. God used humans to write the bible, it did not come down from heaven in printed form, you're confusing it with the Qu'ran.

 

[BMS]

John 1 refers to Jesus not the Bible. God used humans to write the bible, it did not come down from heaven in printed form, you're confusing it with the Qu'ran.

He was quoting what John 1 in the Bible says about Jesus, so you are correct that John 1 in the Bible refers to Jesus and not the Bible.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Well, it's good to see we have some common ground. Thanks for explaining your position.

I lean somewhat libertarian, in that I think states deserve to set some restrictions/details. In general though, my pro-choice position revolves around gestation. I have no problem with "on demand" abortion in the first trimester; I get uncomfortable with the procedure in the second trimester, and I'm for severe limitations on abortion in the third (aka. physical threat to the mother only, not for rape, etc).

That glosses over a lot of the complexity, but I'm aiming for succinctness (here) to avoid a wall of text.

But this is just the point:

Aside from arbitrariness, on what basis do you decide that abortion in the first trimester is fine, sort or maybe kind of possibly fine in the second, while limiting in the third?

What happens between the first, second and third trimester that makes abortion fine in the first, maybe not maybe so in the second, restrictions in the third? I mean what--does the fetus become a person in the third trimester? If so, what makes it a person? When in the third trimester does this happen?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Arguments for banning abortion on demand are laughable and sophomoric. These arguments depend heavily on emotion, or silly platitudes that have nothing to do with abortion--like "stopping baby murders" "responsible sex lives" and "taking responsibility."

That's just it, sir. They have EVERYTHING to do with it. What do you think an abortion IS if not the murder of a baby? I mean what--do you think the abortion doctor waves his magic fairy wand while a unicorn emerges from the woman and prances about the room, while rainbows appear and everyone in the room gets to make three wishes? Is that what you think happens?

As if pro-choice supporters are against those. I have yet to hear meaningful or substantive arguments from any abortion opponent for why abortion on demand should be illegal. They simply cannot defend banning abortion on demand and so of necessity have to resort to arguments from emotion or silly irrelevant platitudes. What else do they have?

I just gave you one: abortion murders children. If that argument doesn't convince you that we should not have legal abortion, nothing will. I mean--if you do not care about murdering children---what argument could I possibly offer that will convince you?

If you want to see what else WE have, you could try reading and taking in the arguments that are all over these boards in why accessible, cheap, legal abortion, free from stigma or penalty, is so important in a civilised society. Alternatively you could try and promote an argument against such provision that doesn't depend on outright falsehood (abortion is murder) appeals to emotion, (How can you kill a poor innocent baby?) or both ((Abortion rips babies apart in the womb hours before birth).

But my arguments do not appeal to falsehood sir. If abortion didn't murder a child--I wouldn't care whether abortion was legal. No one would.

Again, if not the murder of a child, just what do you think is going on when a doctor performs an abortion?

 

[Temujin]

That's just it, sir. They have EVERYTHING to do with it. What do you think an abortion IS if not the murder of a baby?

Not the murder of a baby. No baby, and no murder.

I mean what--do you think the abortion doctor waves his magic fairy wand while a unicorn emerges from the woman and prances about the room, while rainbows appear and everyone in the room gets to make three wishes? Is that what you think happens?

Usually the woman takes a course of pills in her own home over 24 hours. The foetus dies and the abortion ends. I leave the fantasy descriptions to you.

I just gave you one: abortion murders children. If that argument doesn't convince you that we should not have legal abortion, nothing will.

Then nothing will, since abortion doesn't murder children. If you cannot even tell the truth about what happens, why should I believe anything else that you say?

mean--if you do not care about murdering children---what argument could I possibly offer that will convince you?

Of course I care about murdered children. Which is why I refuse to dilute that horror with ludicrous comparisons with abortion.

But my arguments do not appeal to falsehood sir. If abortion didn't murder a child--I wouldn't care whether abortion was legal. No one would.

Sorry, but you contradicted yourself there. Abortion doesn't murder a child.

Again, if not the murder of a child, just what do you think is going on when a doctor performs an abortion?

See above. After a legal medical procedure, which may or may not be a doctor, the embryo or foetus dies and the pregnancy ends. No murder. No baby.

Once you come to terms with the fact that abortion, however dreadful and immoral you think it, is not murder, then we can discuss what it actually is, how the immorality and dreadfulness can be addressed. As long as you cannot see past this falsehood, there is really no point in talking to you.

 

[mikeT]

But this is just the point:

Aside from arbitrariness, on what basis do you decide that abortion in the first trimester is fine, sort or maybe kind of possibly fine in the second, while limiting in the third?

What happens between the first, second and third trimester that makes abortion fine in the first, maybe not maybe so in the second, restrictions in the third? I mean what--does the fetus become a person in the third trimester? If so, what makes it a person? When in the third trimester does this happen?

To be perfectly clear, your religious faith is just as "arbitrary". I don't say this to be insulting, but to point to the fact that the standards you have for reaching your conclusion on this subject were chosen by you, just as mine were chosen by me. You choose to interpret the bible in a manner which produces your position on abortion, and I choose to interpret the scientific/medical information I've encountered to reach my position. Both of us use the exact same methodology - so if you call mine "arbitrary", you're in exactly the same boat.

Still, my basis is that the longer gestation continues, the more the fetus turns into a human being. An acorn isn't an oak tree; it takes time to become one. Analogously, a fetus eventually becomes something that is for all intents and purposes - a human being - and it reaches this stage some time during the third trimester (according to my own research/reading on the subject).

If the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother autonomously, it's not a human being yet. Medical technology which improves and allows fetal survival at younger ages is something which complicates my position. If tomorrow an invention allowed 4 month old fetuses to survive outside of their mothers, I'd start to push my boundaries (as to the acceptability of abortion) backwards somewhat.

---

The issue - at its core - is that there is no clear line between a lump of flesh and a human being. Fetal gestation is a process of continual change, rather than discrete steps. We can point to a fetus which looks like like a miniature human being, but we cannot point to a moment in time when it started looking that way. This is why there's no easy way to decide when and how we should be treating it like one.

 

[BMS]

Not the murder of a baby. No baby, and no murder. Usually the woman takes a course of pills in her own home over 24 hours. The foetus dies and the abortion ends. I leave the fantasy descriptions to you.

Then nothing will, since abortion doesn't murder children. If you cannot even tell the truth about what happens, why should I believe anything else that you say? Of course I care about murdered children. Which is why I refuse to dilute that horror with ludicrous comparisons with abortion.

Sorry, but you contradicted yourself there. Abortion doesn't murder a child.


See above. After a legal medical procedure, which may or may not be a doctor, the embryo or foetus dies and the pregnancy ends. No murder. No baby.

Once you come to terms with the fact that abortion, however dreadful and immoral you think it, is not murder, then we can discuss what it actually is, how the immorality and dreadfulness can be addressed. As long as you cannot see past this falsehood, there is really no point in talking to you.

Essentially though its the unborn human being in womb yet you are arguing about whether you call it the fetus, seemingly forgetting the embryo stage, and we call it the baby. Whats the point?

 

[BMS]

To be perfectly clear, your religious faith is just as "arbitrary". I don't say this to be insulting, but to point to the fact that the standards you have for reaching your conclusion on this subject were chosen by you, just as mine were chosen by me. You choose to interpret the bible in a manner which produces your position on abortion, and I choose to interpret the scientific/medical information I've encountered to reach my position. Both of us use the exact same methodology - so if you call mine "arbitrary", you're in exactly the same boat.

Still, my basis is that the longer gestation continues, the more the fetus turns into a human being. An acorn isn't an oak tree; it takes time to become one. Analogously, a fetus eventually becomes something that is for all intents and purposes - a human being - and it reaches this stage some time during the third trimester (according to my own research/reading on the subject).

If the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother autonomously, it's not a human being yet. Medical technology which improves and allows fetal survival at younger ages is something which complicates my position. If tomorrow an invention allowed 4 month old fetuses to survive outside of their mothers, I'd start to push my boundaries (as to the acceptability of abortion) backwards somewhat.

---

The issue - at its core - is that there is no clear line between a lump of flesh and a human being. Fetal gestation is a process of continual change, rather than discrete steps. We can point to a fetus which looks like like a miniature human being, but we cannot point to a moment in time when it started looking that way. This is why there's no easy way to decide when and how we should be treating it like one.

It is a human being. Thats just unhinged
What do you mean by all the words you use?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Murder is defined by God. It simply means taking the life of another person without cause or moral justification.
Only a morally bankrupt society approves of such merciless and morally unjust killings

'Murder', like all English language words, is defined by common usage. That definition is shown in the dictionary. No god has anything to do with it.

In the English language the word 'murder' is defined as being an illegal activity. A legal activity cannot, by definition, be murder.

 

[Eightcrackers]

That's just it, sir. They have EVERYTHING to do with it. What do you think an abortion IS if not the murder of a baby?

The legal killing of an unborn baby.

I mean what--do you think the abortion doctor waves his magic fairy wand while a unicorn emerges from the woman and prances about the room, while rainbows appear and everyone in the room gets to make three wishes? Is that what you think happens?

No.
I just don't think it's murder because murder is illegal and abortion is not.

I just gave you one: abortion murders children.

Abortion is legal.
Murder is illegal.
Therefore, abortion is not murder.

But my arguments do not appeal to falsehood sir.

But they do - they appeal to the falsehood that abortion is murder (which, because abortion is legal, is not true by definition).

 

[DaGeo]

'Murder', like all English language words, is defined by common usage. That definition is shown in the dictionary. No god has anything to do with it.

In the English language the word 'murder' is defined as being an illegal activity. A legal activity cannot, by definition, be murder.

Electric short circuited skeptic ???
Still trying to assuage your guilty conscience via equivocal channeling. Keep trying???

 

[BMS]

'Murder', like all English language words, is defined by common usage. That definition is shown in the dictionary. No god has anything to do with it.

In the English language the word 'murder' is defined as being an illegal activity. A legal activity cannot, by definition, be murder.

And as we saw, when abortion is illegal it fits the definition of murder. So what is your point?

 

[BMS]

The legal killing of an unborn baby.

No.
I just don't think it's murder because murder is illegal and abortion is not.

Abortion is legal.
Murder is illegal.
Therefore, abortion is not murder.

But they do - they appeal to the falsehood that abortion is murder (which, because abortion is legal, is not true by definition).

Abortion isnt legal everywhere.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Electric short circuited skeptic ???
Still trying to assuage your guilty conscience via equivocal channeling. Keep trying???

Has nothing to do with anybody's conscience, guilty or otherwise. It has to do with the meaning of English language words.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

And as we saw, when abortion is illegal it fits the definition of murder. So what is your point?

No, we have not seen that. The point is, as it always is, that those who claim that abortion is murder are wrong by definition.

 

[BMS]

Not the murder of a baby. No baby, and no murder. Usually the woman takes a course of pills in her own home over 24 hours. The foetus dies and the abortion ends. I leave the fantasy descriptions to you.

Then nothing will, since abortion doesn't murder children. If you cannot even tell the truth about what happens, why should I believe anything else that you say? Of course I care about murdered children. Which is why I refuse to dilute that horror with ludicrous comparisons with abortion.

Sorry, but you contradicted yourself there. Abortion doesn't murder a child.


See above. After a legal medical procedure, which may or may not be a doctor, the embryo or foetus dies and the pregnancy ends. No murder. No baby.

Once you come to terms with the fact that abortion, however dreadful and immoral you think it, is not murder, then we can discuss what it actually is, how the immorality and dreadfulness can be addressed. As long as you cannot see past this falsehood, there is really no point in talking to you.

Its a baby and its murder.

BTW well done for referring to embryo and foetus as I corrected you. Now all you have to do is come to terms with with reality

 

[BMS]

No, we have not seen that. The point is, as it always is, that those who claim that abortion is murder are wrong by definition.

We have, how come you cant see reality?

oh I remember, your woke ideology is feelings based

Look the definition we saw, even used by your fellow ideologue compatriot Temujin, was
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Temujin was saying its not murder because its legal, although it is illegal in some places, so you are now saying its not a human being. Since when are the offspring of human beings not human beings.

Be honest and face up to the reality.

 

[BMS]

I feel I need to jump in as you are not telling the truth about what I have said about the definition of murder. When you reference another person, Protocol dictates that you do so thus: @Electric Skeptic. This alerts that person to what is being said about them so that they can respond. I have you on ignore, so it is only by chance that I picked up this false statement by you: "Temujin was saying its not murder because its legal,". The fact is that I have consistently said, on this thread and others, that abortion is not murder on at least two grounds, either one of which is sufficient to disqualify the idea. Firstly, as you say is the fact that murder is always illegal and legal abortion, by definition, is always legal. Secondly, what you fail to mention is that in an abortion the nature of the "victim" is such that no charge of murder can be brought. The unborn child is not a person in being at the time it dies, hence not murder. The truth of this is seen by looking at jurisdictions where abortion is not legal. It isn't classed as murder there either. Your notion that abortion becomes murder if it is made illegal is false, and it is dishonest of you to imply that I support that idea. It is even more dishonest of you to do so without letting me know that you were twisting my words.

Back to ignore for you.

Seeing as you have me on ignore, on a debating forum, then tough luck mate.
The fact is you said its not murder because its legal and continually ignored the fact it is illegal in some countries. You could have said it doesnt fit the definition WHERE it is legal.
The fact that you have also said the offspring is not a person, but the definition we discussed does not say person, its says
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
You had previously admitted the unborn offspring is a human being.

You are tap dancing around your own imagination