Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
GhostWriter16
Deity
The bold shows why that doesn't matter. I would reject the argument as invalid, so it doesn't matter what other people think. I think its murder.
As for killing people who are "100% human." Same reason I am against kidnapping but I support the use of prisons. Executing someone for their crimes is justice. Killing an innocent person is murder. I'm against the taking of INNOCENT life. Get the difference?
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
Someone may deserve to die, it may be justice, but should it be carried out by any person? I think that someone who commits murder looses the right to their own life, but at the same time I don't think it is the job of the justice system to take lives but to protect the lives of citizens. Life imprisonment without parole seems the best solution to me.
Zack
99% hot gas
For the millionth time, your definition of "murder" is absolutely, positively incorrect. "Murder" is a strictly legal definition for the "unlawful killing of another person." It is NOT a term to describe immoral killing, as you so like to throw it around as meaning; the term for immoral killing is immoral killing.
Frankly, I cannot take you seriously as long as you utterly refuse to use proper definitions of words no matter how many times I, and others, inform you of the proper definition. Just like I wouldn't take you seriously in a discussion on sex positions if you insistently claimed "doggy style" was having sex with a hairy, smelly, panting person.
Also, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an extremely outdated system of justice.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I assume you consider abortion to be murder, and I assume you believe in the death penalty for murder.
Does that mean you believe women who get abortions and abortion clinic workers should be executed?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I do think that state has that right, in the same way that it can lock people up without it being kidnapping. That said, we could debate the particulars of whether the death penalty is appropriate in a capital punishment based thread. I'd be more than happy if we locked up abortionists for life. Instead, few people want to ban it, and those that do rarely advocate any sort of penalty. That does bother me. My point in mentioning the death penalty in these threads is more to emphasize that there is no difference between an abortion and a murder, morally speaking. And to defend it against critics who think its "Hypocritical" to be pro-innocent life and against guilty life.
Ask yourself, would you rather see a fetus that you believe has human rights (Wherever you draw that line) killed, or a convicted murderer? Then you'll see why its not inconsistent.
Technically it is a legal definition, but it has come to mean more in the real world. I'm not sure of another word that emphasizes the point. I know Civ_King uses "Slaughter of the unborn" but if we do that I'll get accused of propaganda
More importantly, I reject the authority of the state to decide when it is and is not OK to kill outside of the normal areas when a state is allowed to do so (War and "Using the sword" (Referring to Capital punishment.)) But I reject the notion that a state could legalize murder and it wouldn't still be the exact same thing.
That said, legally its not murder. Neither was the Holocaust. Yet few would object to calling Hitler a murderer. Technically, by the legal definition, Hitler did not murder anyone. Nor did Stalin. Would you object if someone called Stalin a murderer? I freely admit I use the connotative definition.
But so do liberals when they call the death penalty murder. The connotative definition is UNLAWFUL killing. Few people would actually think of a person who defends his home in castle-doctrine style a murderer in a state with the beyond-******** duty to retreat (And if they do, I don't trust their judgment on any issue whatsoever.) Yet LEGALLY he would be. Oh, and "Homophobia." Is another one. Technically you can't even use that word to describe Fred Phelps, since he hates gays, not afraid of them.
But we use connotative definitions for all sorts of things. Either that is universally OK, or that is universally not OK. There's no middle ground.
Zack
99% hot gas
First of all, I don't understand why you suddenly made a strawman of "liberals." I never accused all conservatives of a blatant disregard for dictionaries, only you.Technically it is a legal definition, but it has come to mean more in the real world. I'm not sure of another word that emphasizes the point. I know Civ_King uses "Slaughter of the unborn" but if we do that I'll get accused of propaganda
More importantly, I reject the authority of the state to decide when it is and is not OK to kill outside of the normal areas when a state is allowed to do so (War and "Using the sword" (Referring to Capital punishment.)) But I reject the notion that a state could legalize murder and it wouldn't still be the exact same thing.
That said, legally its not murder. Neither was the Holocaust. Yet few would object to calling Hitler a murderer. Technically, by the legal definition, Hitler did not murder anyone. Nor did Stalin. Would you object if someone called Stalin a murderer? I freely admit I use the connotative definition.
But so do liberals when they call the death penalty murder. The connotative definition is UNLAWFUL killing. Few people would actually think of a person who defends his home in castle-doctrine style a murderer in a state with the beyond-******** duty to retreat (And if they do, I don't trust their judgment on any issue whatsoever.) Yet LEGALLY he would be. Oh, and "Homophobia." Is another one. Technically you can't even use that word to describe Fred Phelps, since he hates gays, not afraid of them.
But we use connotative definitions for all sorts of things. Either that is universally OK, or that is universally not OK. There's no middle ground.
Secondly, "tu quoque" is a logical fallacy, anyways.
Thirdly, I don't resort to trying to label practices I disagree with in sensationalist terms in an effort to make people who disagree with me feel guilty about their beliefs. I don't agree with trickle-down economics, but I also don't accuse supporters of it of "murdering the economy." Likewise, I think capital punishment is a disgusting, immoral practice; however, I call it what it is -- killing people -- instead of falsely labeling it as "murder."
Fourthly, how the hell does Hitler relate to an abortion argument?
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Well, the most obvious argument is that that point doesn't exist. It might exist at genocide, but even then I am hesitant to say so.
Yes, those sound like efforts that would practically reduce the number of abortions - not only that, but it would potentially improve the lives of lots and lots of people. It IS a good question as to why pro-life people don't spend some of their time trying to help their cause from this front.
I think it's because it's easier to tear down something than to build something. It's also easier to complain than to construct.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
He always, always, always violates Godwin. I'm surprised it took this long.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, fair enough, that's a valid opinion, but then, what point does someone lose their right to liberty, even for a period of time? Certainly you believe there's a point where prison has to be used? Yet if I locked someone in my closet for a perceived breech of morality, I'm a kidnapper. Obviously the state has some sort of special authority to restrict certain rights as punishment for crimes. You think life is the one right that can never be taken away, fine, but its still not "Murder" anymore than prisons are kidnapping.
What I really don't get is how anyone can say death penalty is morally equivalent to murder. I can see how it might be undesirable to some, but to morally compare it to murder seems crazy to me. Unless you think the state has no authority at all, and I know you'd reject that premise.
I follow God, but when you add "win" to it it just doesn't work for me
Can I get an answer on this GW?
Zack
99% hot gas
Are you going to address my post?
GhostWriter16
Deity
It's only been a couple of hours, goodness
Assuming it was a deliberate abortion, under a legal system that includes such penalties (Like they should) yes. I haven't been shy about admitting this
Do I want to include such laws ex post facto? No, I don't. I do believe that at least some women who have abortions right now are ignorant of what they are really doing. I can't say the same for abortion doctors. I would honestly love to see them face the death penalty for their crimes. But ex post facto laws are still wrong for obvious reasons.
You made several, some of which I've already addressed.
You are right that "Liberals" is something of a strawman. I was addressing the specific liberals who made the arguments I mentioned from the other thread. I was not addressing every liberal on the face of the planet, I apologize if this was unclear. Obviously there are some liberals who never made the arguments I was addressing and so clearly would not apply.
Second of all, comparing calling abortion murder to calling trickle-down economics murdering the economy is absurd. Even still, you could say that as a figure of speech and potentially get a pass if the people you were talking to agreed with your negative opinion of it.
That said, connotatively, "Murder" has come to take a moral definition. Few people would object to calling Hitler's Holocaust "Murder." I mentioned Hitler to illustrate the point that connotative definitions are not always looked down upon. So I don't think you are really addressing the idea that we should always use and only use denotative definitions. Would you object if I called Hitler a mass-murderer? Technically its inaccurate because he was the law in Nazi Germany and so was doing something that was technically legal.
The difference is abortion is actually disputed, as opposed to every sane person agreeing that it is murder. OK, I might even dispute that
but its an issue that the population is somewhere close to evenly divided upon. So you object to me calling abortion murder because you think its OK, or at least not equivalent to murder, not because its not technically legally murder. Hitler technically didn't murder anyone either, but everyone says he did, because he did murder over ten million people by the connotative definition.For me, abortion IS morally equivalent to murder, and thus IS murder. I could use another term, but then, do I really need to use a different term to describe Hitler? If I use "Murderer" instead of "Genocidal" to describe Hitler, am I going to get bashed over it.
My point isn't to break Godwin's Law, but to illustrate that the connotative definition for "Murder" is "Morally equivalent to Murder" and that this is generally accepted in everyday talk. You are objecting because you disagree with my application, not because you really object to connotative definitions for everything.
And if only society gets to decide what connotative definitions are OK, I call bull on that.
Zack
99% hot gas
Fine. I'm applying my own connotation to the word "buttsex," then. To me, "buttsex" means "having faith in Jesus Christ and accepting him as your Savior."You made several, some of which I've already addressed.
You are right that "Liberals" is something of a strawman. I was addressing the specific liberals who made the arguments I mentioned from the other thread. I was not addressing every liberal on the face of the planet, I apologize if this was unclear. Obviously there are some liberals who never made the arguments I was addressing and so clearly would not apply.
Second of all, comparing calling abortion murder to calling trickle-down economics murdering the economy is absurd. Even still, you could say that as a figure of speech and potentially get a pass if the people you were talking to agreed with your negative opinion of it.
That said, connotatively, "Murder" has come to take a moral definition. Few people would object to calling Hitler's Holocaust "Murder." I mentioned Hitler to illustrate the point that connotative definitions are not always looked down upon. So I don't think you are really addressing the idea that we should always use and only use denotative definitions. Would you object if I called Hitler a mass-murderer? Technically its inaccurate because he was the law in Nazi Germany and so was doing something that was technically legal.
The difference is abortion is actually disputed, as opposed to every sane person agreeing that it is murder. OK, I might even dispute that
For me, abortion IS morally equivalent to murder, and thus IS murder. I could use another term, but then, do I really need to use a different term to describe Hitler? If I use "Murderer" instead of "Genocidal" to describe Hitler, am I going to get bashed over it.
My point isn't to break Godwin's Law, but to illustrate that the connotative definition for "Murder" is "Morally equivalent to Murder" and that this is generally accepted in everyday talk. You are objecting because you disagree with my application, not because you really object to connotative definitions for everything.
And if only society gets to decide what connotative definitions are OK, I call bull on that.
According to that connotation, the only requirement for entering Heaven is buttsex. I will now use this connotation in everything I say from now on when talking to you, no matter whether or not you point out that is not what "buttsex" actually is, because it's my own moral definition of it.
Assuming it was a deliberate abortion, under a legal system that includes such penalties (Like they should) yes. I haven't been shy about admitting this
I do believe that at least some women who have abortions right now are ignorant of what they are really doing. I can't say the same for abortion doctors. I would honestly love to see them face the death penalty for their crimes.
How much biology have you studied?
Zack
99% hot gas
Sounds sadistic, no?
