Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[carpedm9587]

Aw, heck - go ahead! Verbosity counts!

[Cow Poke]

You are making a basic logic error Starlight. Kill is a superset of murder. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. When I use the word kill to describe both acts, I am using a generic term that encompasses both acts. When you use a specific term (murder) to cover both acts when both acts do NOT meet the specific definition of the word, then you obfuscate the real distinctions that required there to be two words in the first place

Excellent distinction.

You would think that of all the Ten Commandments the one that needs the least explaining is the sixth, because it seems so clear. It is the one that the King James Bible, the most widely used English translation of the Bible, translates as, “Thou shall not kill.”

Yet, the truth is the quite the opposite. This is probably the least well understood of the Ten Commandments. The reason is that the Hebrew original does not say, “Do not kill.” It says, “Do not murder.” Both Hebrew and English have two words for taking a life — one is “kill” (harag, in Hebrew) and the other is “murder” (ratzach in Hebrew).

The difference between the two is enormous. Kill means:

1) Taking any life — whether of a human being or an animal.

2) Taking a human life deliberately or by accident.

3) Taking a human life legally or illegally, morally or immorally.

On the other hand, murder can only mean one thing: The illegal or immoral taking of a human life. That’s why we say, “I killed a mosquito,” not, “I murdered a mosquito.” And that’s why we would say that “the worker was accidentally killed,” not that “the worker was accidentally murdered.”

[oxmixmudd]

It is human life that if allowed to develop as God and nature intended will emerge into the world as a fully functioning human person.

It is physically a cell, a very special sort of cell We would agree, but it is not a functioning human being. A fetus 1 week out from birth is a fully functioning human being and can be removed from the womb with almost 100% chance of survival.

This is the sort of distinction that has to be made when looking at a secular legal construct applied to abortion.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Smart aliens?

Most of the 7 billion humans on this planet?

That isn’t how your logic follows. If you arrange things based on intelligence it follows that some human lives are worth more than others.

[lilpixieofterror]

No file, just memory and use of the search function.

If you provide some extra details that you think show how I misrepresented you, I'll respond.

If you keep providing nothing but spittle and bile, I probably won't.

It’s entertaining that you have the memory to remember a sound bite from years ago, but seem to have forgotten how the last time you played this game you were called out when the context showed your interpretation was wrong. Keep flaming out and trying to desperately distract from the death cult you don’t support, but defend at every turn. It’s wonderful when you prove the premise of the OP. Troll harder.

[Cow Poke]

It is physically a cell, a very special sort of cell We would agree, but it is not a functioning human being.

And I assume you would not dispute that it is, indeed, a human cell -- containing all the DNA information....

[lilpixieofterror]

You anti-abortionists are creating your own lexicon if you speak of abortion as 'murder', since it is clearly not unlawful if the law allows abortion, and thus does not meet your provided dictionary definition of murder. You're trying to accuse me of doing the very thing you yourselves are doing. At least I have the valid excuse that I live in a different country with a different culture that does use words a bit differently, whereas you guys have no excuse because you live in the country that produced the dictionary and you're the ones citing its listing.

By that logic the Nazi’s were not committing mass murder because they were doing it with the full approval of the government. Keep defending your death cult at every turn.

[oxmixmudd]

Thanks - I disagree, but I wasn't looking for an argument. Just wanted to know where you stood on that, so we're good!

Yep we're good. However, I'd like to point out that even the Bible makes the sort of distinction I'm talking about:

Source: Exodus 21:22

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely [in this time, that mean this causes the baby in the womb to die(sic)], he shall surely be fined as the wonman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury [to the woman (sic)] then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise

© Copyright Original Source

IOW, the law of God itself does not equate the killing of that unborn and non viable child with murder.


Something to think about.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

...it is not a functioning human being.

But it is a functioning human life!

This is the sort of distinction that has to be made when looking at a secular legal construct applied to abortion.

I don't give a crap about the "secular legal construct" because as we have seen, secularists are perfectly fine with killing a baby literally up to moments before the mother gives birth, and in some cases even after a living child has been delivered.

Frankly, discussing abortion with liberals gives me some idea of what it might have been like to discuss the Holocaust with Hitler. You'd explain to him how it's wrong to kill another innocent human being, and he'd look at you blankly and say, "But Jews are subhuman."

[lilpixieofterror]

Yep we're good. However, I'd like to point out that even the Bible makes the sort of distinction I'm talking about:

Source: Exodus 21:22

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely [in this time, that mean this causes the baby in the womb to die(sic)], he shall surely be fined as the wonman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury [to the woman (sic)] then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise

© Copyright Original Source

IOW, the law of God itself does not equate the killing of that unborn, non viable child with murder.


Something to think about.


Jim

I don’t think it supports your claim at all because it sounds like the intention was never to cause harm to the unborn child.

[oxmixmudd]

But it is a functioning human life!


I don't give a crap about the "secular legal construct" because as we have seen, secularists are perfectly fine with killing a baby up literally moments before the mother gives birth, and in some cases even after a living child has been delivered.

Frankly, discussing abortion with liberals gives me some idea of what it might have been like to discuss the Holocaust with Hitler. You'd explain to him how it's wrong to kill another innocent human being, and he'd look at you blankly and say, "But Jews are subhuman."

While I understand and mostly agree with your point, you should 'give a crap' about a distinction the Bible itself makes. See the post above or read Exodus 21:22

Jim

[Christianbookworm]

No one gets in trouble for accidentally killing a human. If the baby dies, then they probably didn't even realize they were fighting near a pregnant woman in the first place!

[oxmixmudd]

I don’t think it supports your claim at all because it sounds like the intention was never to cause harm to the unborn child.

The point is that it doesn't treat the killing of the unborn, inviable child as murder. If they accidentally kill the mother, it is life for a life, even though it was accidental. So the distinction is not it being accidental (And why I also quoted vs 23), but it being an inviable child in the womb.

Jim

[Christianbookworm]

The point is that it doesn't treat the killing of the unborn, inviable child as murder. If they accidentally kill the mother, it is life for a life, even though it was accidental. So the distinction is not it being accidental (And why I also quoted vs 23), but it being an inviable child in the womb.

Jim

Well, mom is a lot more obvious. Voluntary manslaughter vs. involuntary manslaughter.

[oxmixmudd]

No one gets in trouble for accidentally killing a human. If the baby dies, then they probably didn't even realize they were fighting near a pregnant woman in the first place!

Read the entire text CBW. If they kill the pregnant women accidentally, they pay with their life.

Jim