Abortion is not murder.

[AngelDragon]

I was having a discussion with a pro-choice friend of mine, and he provided a very interesting proof.

Murder is defined as the unlawful (or illegal) killing of another human being.

(Now, at this point, you're probably seeing the good ol' "It's not human!" excuse. But I was surprised to find this. . .)

Abortion is not illegal.

Therefore, abortion is not murder.




This proof makes perfects sense. Abortion is not murder, and we need to stop calling it that.

Instead, let's call it what it is: Heartless infanticide.:smile:

[brother vinny]

I was having a discussion with a pro-choice friend of mine, and he provided a very interesting proof.

Murder is defined as the unlawful (or illegal) killing of another human being.

(Now, at this point, you're probably seeing the good ol' "It's not human!" excuse. But I was surprised to find this. . .)

Abortion is not illegal.

Therefore, abortion is not murder.




This proof makes perfects sense. Abortion is not murder, and we need to stop calling it that.

Instead, let's call it what it is: Heartless infanticide.:smile:

Using this logic, we can eliminate crime altogether by legalizing everything. :no:

[rogue06]

Is infanticide legal??

[AngelDragon]

Using this logic, we can eliminate crime altogether by legalizing everything. :no:

That was my response as well.:ahem:

[AngelDragon]

Is infanticide legal??

Well, let's take a look-see:

Abortion is the killing of an unborn baby.

Infanticide is defined as the unlawful killing of a baby.

Therefore, abortion is legal infanticide.

:noid: :huh: :juggle:

[AngelDragon]

Just in case you couldn't tell, I'm addressing the semantics of his point. Okay, it isn't murder, but you're still killing a baby. Something's wrong here.

[Sparko]

LIke I said i another thread, so since Hitler was in charge of germany as de facto dictator, he was the law there. That means that it was legal to kill all those jews. It wasn't murder in germany. Do you think that makes what he did not murder? Just because he said it wasn't? Of course not. And neither did the world when they tried the Nazi's at Nuremburg.

You can claim something is not murder and even legalize it, but when it goes against intrinsic moral law, then it is still wrong.

besides, there are many cased where terminating a pregnancy IS murder, like in the Scott Peterson trial where he was charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child.

[Johnny MacManky]

Does continuing to call it murder do anything whatsoever to prevent it happening?

If it makes the pro life people feel "good" to call it murder, but it does nothing to bring about a change in legislation, then it smacks to me of self satisfying piety. What's the saying? "All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." In political debate, a "pious motion" is one which is full of good soundbites, but is completely ineffective. Is this the kind of piety we should be pursuing?

It is my firm opinion that continuing to call abortion "murder" only serves to further polarise the pro life and pro choice movements, which will, imo, delay indefinately any chance of bringing about legislitive change.

Every time I see this "Hitler" argument I get more and more riled. Okay... If the American pro life right want to go comparing their own government's laws to that of the Third Reich, so be it.

Bush... the "Christian President" has been in power for almost 7 years. How many baby murders has he, as Head of State, presided over? The BlackGenocide website gives statistics in the region of 1200 black babies out of 4000 abortions every day. That amounts to something like TEN MILLION ABORTIONS!

Shall we keep bringing up the ludicrous "Hitler" argument? Fine... let's have Bush and the American legislature tried for crimes against humanity. Will any court, legal or moral dare to charge the American nation of genocide? And let's have those who support Bush and have supported his failure to deliver branded as co-conspirators, both before and after the fact. You do know that when Allied troops liberated the concentration camps the German populace living nearby claimed they didn't know what was happening on their doorstep. The American populace has no such excuse.

On the other hand, the pro life movement, and specifically the Christian Right element in that movement, must ask if their continued support for the Republican Party's Policies and practices concerning abortion is really contributing what needs to be achieved. When you vote in 2008, will you vote for a candidate who will actually act to prevent the American genocide?

Note... Yes, I've posted this partly in anger because I'm getting just a tad frustrated at Pro-Life polemic coupled with Republican impotence.

[Sparko]

just a reminder, this is NOT a debate area. we can discuss things as pro-lifers, but if we start debating this issue we need to move this thread somewhere else.

Johnny, the reason I used Hitler is purely because of its shock value. It makes a person really think about what murder is and how easy it is to just handwave away atrocities by making killing "legal" - I could have used other examples where governments made killing "legal" to get rid of unwanted people, but most people are familar with hitler.

Abortion is government sanctioned murder of unwanted people. Its that simple. And yes much of the American people are complaisant in it.

To avoid using the M word does nothing to bring the sides together. We dont WANT to find a compromise. We want to end abortion. To not call it murder gives the prochoice a further step towards defeating prolife. We need to make sure that the people know that killing the unborn IS MURDER and IMMORAL. No matter what the government calls it.

The republicans impotence is because of the American constitution. The judicial branch has been running roughshod over the legislative branch for years. They were supposed to be a check and balance to keep the government from becoming a tyranny and instead the judicial branch HAS become the tyranny. The supreme court has the presidents hands tied. All he can do is try to get justices elected who will vote on issues in a pro life way. The rest is up to the supreme court.

[Hamster]

It's a stupid semantic game when everyone knows people are talking about murder (the unjust killing of a human being) in an ethical sense, not a legal sense.

[mossrose]

The use of the word "murder" serves to humanize the preborn child.

In our throw-away society, we dehumanize unborn children, (and do not doubt it is coming......the elderly and the disabled) in order to assuage any guilt we might have over decisions made to end the life of an "inconvenience".

My usage of the word "murder" is to always remind people that the unborn child is in fact, a child. Not a lump of cells, not a "cancer" to be removed and the removal rejoiced over.

And the blood of millions and millions of babies worldwide cries out to God for justice, and I have no doubt that judgment will come upon nations that allow the murder of their children. The leaders that allowed it to begin with, and the leaders who continue to allow it will be judged.

I have mentioned in other threads, that my husband said once, and it is true.......we sacrifice our children on the altar of the god "sex".

[CptJSparrow]

LIke I said i another thread, so since Hitler was in charge of germany as de facto dictator, he was the law there. That means that it was legal to kill all those jews. It wasn't murder in germany. Do you think that makes what he did not murder? Just because he said it wasn't? Of course not. And neither did the world when they tried the Nazi's at Nuremburg.

You can claim something is not murder and even legalize it, but when it goes against intrinsic moral law, then it is still wrong.

besides, there are many cased where terminating a pregnancy IS murder, like in the Scott Peterson trial where he was charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child.
A wrong--only in relation to a moral law being asserted; to another, it is not wrong. The Nazis were convicted by international law.

[Ægōthǔlian]

Anyone ever heard of the "future of value" argument against abortion? It goes like this: murder is wrong because it deprives a person of their "future of value", abortion deprives a fetus of its "future of value" and is thus murder. I don't really agree with that argument but I find it elegant none the less.

[historic salve]

Anyone ever heard of the "future of value" argument against abortion? It goes like this: murder is wrong because it deprives a person of their "future of value", abortion deprives a fetus of its "future of value" and is thus murder. I don't really agree with that argument but I find it elegant none the less.
I think it's misplaced and a bit of a non sequitur. It's hard to see how my depriving you of future enjoyment or opportunity is wrong if you yourself don't have any intrinsic value, or won't in the future.

[Lazarus]

It seems to me that a killing may be legal and still be murder. The executions of Socrates and Jesus, plus the mass execution of 6 million Jews in Europe by the Nazis, may be examples of this. Besides, isn't the legal term for an unlawful killing called homicide? It seems to me that the term "murder" is more of a moral term. Still, whatever term is used, it doesn't detract one iota from the hideous and grotesque act that abortion is.

[Ægōthǔlian]

I think it's misplaced and a bit of a non sequitur. It's hard to see how my depriving you of future enjoyment or opportunity is wrong if you yourself don't have any intrinsic value, or won't in the future.

Like I said i don't really agree with that argument so I'm playing the devils advocate when I defend it: I think its imply that human life is generally enjoyful life filled with at least some accomplishments, this being the "future of value" thus a fetus deprived of the opportunity to live said "future of value" equates to murder of a person deprives of a continuation of said life. The "future of value" argument is a popular secular/philosophical argument against abortion: http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Marquis_abortion_outline.htm

[joel]

Besides, isn't the legal term for an unlawful killing called homicide?
I think it's the other way around. Murder is the immoral/unlawful killing of another human being. Homicide is simply the killing of one human being by another.
So, if one wants to avoid the stupid argument that the OP complains about, then I think the word "homicide" is a good substitute for "murder".

On a related note, I read an article on l4l.org that talked about a pro-choice article called "Nine Reasons Why Abortions Are Legal." They then made this interesting comment: "If abortion choicers could disprove that abortion is homicide — to the satisfaction of their side at least — would they not advertise instead, "Nine Reasons Why Abortion Is Not Homicide?" They do not, because they lack even one good reason."
http://l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

[Spacefoetus]

So then....abortion SHOULD be murder?

[joel]

So then....abortion SHOULD be murder?
I think the point is that that is an equivocal question. If murder is immoral/unlawful/wrongful killing, then abortion is not murder in the legal-code-of-the-civil-government sense, but it is murder in the moral (e.g., Natural Law) sense. As long as we know which sense is intended, we can have a rational discussion. If a debate (or single argument) is using one of the senses, then it would be dishonest (a logical fallacy) to try to undermine your opponent's argument by applying a different definition to the terms.

So, if I say, "Abortion is murder, therefore it should be made illegal." Then it ought to be clear that I mean "murder" in the moral sense. It would be much less reasonable to assume that I mean, "Abortion is illegal, therefore it should be made illegal."

[Amy Collins]

I was having a discussion with a pro-choice friend of mine, and he provided a very interesting proof.

Murder is defined as the unlawful (or illegal) killing of another human being.

(Now, at this point, you're probably seeing the good ol' "It's not human!" excuse. But I was surprised to find this. . .)

Abortion is not illegal.

Therefore, abortion is not murder.




This proof makes perfects sense. Abortion is not murder, and we need to stop calling it that.

Instead, let's call it what it is: Heartless infanticide.:smile:

Do you honestly call your self a Christian?
In what stage of the womb were you made in the image of G-d
Murder.

[fritleyfrisp]

Do you honestly call your self a Christian?
In what stage of the womb were you made in the image of G-d
Murder.

I think you've missed the point there. :wink:

[Giorno Giovanna]

Do you honestly call your self a Christian?
In what stage of the womb were you made in the image of G-d
Murder.

PS: AngelDragon was being sarcastic:wink:

[Amy Collins]

Oh OH what a relief.
I just get so upset at the death of babies after I had my kid..

[RumTumTugger]

Abortion is murder just like masturbation is murder. Does that make me a serial killer?

this is not the forum to debate Abortion if you want to debate abortion please take it to Civics.

[Binkster]

I was having a discussion with a pro-choice friend of mine, and he provided a very interesting proof.

Murder is defined as the unlawful (or illegal) killing of another human being.

(Now, at this point, you're probably seeing the good ol' "It's not human!" excuse. But I was surprised to find this. . .)

Abortion is not illegal.

Therefore, abortion is not murder.




This proof makes perfects sense. Abortion is not murder, and we need to stop calling it that.

Instead, let's call it what it is: Heartless infanticide.:smile:

You're right, by the worlds standards. In the bible IT IS murder.

Not that it is of any surprise, but definitions in the dictionary are based on a worldly view (or whatever you wanna call it)

For example, look at the definition of Love.

Even the definition of Christian in the dictionary, doesn't do justice to what being a Christian really is.