"Abortion is murder"

[DivineOb]

It is widely stated that "abortion is murder." Are those who have gotten abortions murderers? Should they not be similarly shunned?

If they are not murderers could they not be accurately described as baby killers?

[Cow Poke]

It is widely stated that "abortion is murder."

We've been here before.

Are those who have gotten abortions murderers?

The question would be to what degree are they complicit in the "murder" performed by the abortionist.

Should they not be similarly shunned?

Shunned?

If they are not murderers could they not be accurately described as baby killers?

Same as above.

And, let's quickly add that the "murder" tag is disputed because it is not "the unlawful taking of human life", as legally described, but is, to many of us, the immoral taking of a human life.

[DivineOb]

The question would be to what degree are they complicit in the "murder" performed by the abortionist.

Wouldn't they be 100% complicit? That much seems obvious.

Shunned?

Don't we generally shun those guilty of murder and other crimes?

Same as above.

And, let's quickly add that the "murder" tag is disputed because it is not "the unlawful taking of human life", as legally described, but is, to many of us, the immoral taking of a human life.

So how about "baby killer"? Isn't that a valid label?

[Sparko]

This is not a debate area. If you would like us to move it elsewhere, please let us know.

[Cow Poke]

Wouldn't they be 100% complicit? That much seems obvious.

Many times it's very young girls who don't get both sides of the story, and make a bad uninformed choice.

Don't we generally shun those guilty of murder and other crimes?

"Shun" is an odd word, and you're maybe asking the wrong guy (yeah, I know, I stumbled willingly into your little trap ) because I'm drawn to those types - including murderers.

So how about "baby killer"? Isn't that a valid label?

For the abortionist, sure.

[Cow Poke]

This is not a debate area. If you would like us to move it elsewhere, please let us know.

I shoulda looked!

[Cow Poke]

Moderated By: CP

Moved to Civics - please look at forum descriptors before starting a thread - Pro-Live Activism is not a Debate Area
Thanks

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Whateverman]

The question would be to what degree are they complicit in the "murder" performed by the abortionist.

To what degree is someone who hires a killer to murder someone else - complicit in the murder?

Pretty complicit, wouldn't you say?

The implication is that the women getting the abortions are murderers. Right?

let's quickly add that the "murder" tag is disputed because it is not "the unlawful taking of human life", as legally described, but is, to many of us, the immoral taking of a human life.

Duly noted and welcomed. Yet if you're not talking about an illegal killing, the word "murder" isn't appropriate. Why not just call it an "immoral killing", rather than going for the low-hanging and emotionally-charged "murder"?

Does the state murder prisoners on death row if someone disputes the justification for the killing? People interested in hyperbole will say so, yes, but the rest of us know that "no" is the correct answer.

[Cow Poke]

To what degree is someone who hires a killer to murder someone else - complicit in the murder?

Pretty complicit, wouldn't you say?

That's being unduly harsh, but I understand why this is necessary for you to portray it in those terms.

The implication is that the women getting the abortions are murderers. Right?

It's always fun when somebody is trying to stuff words in my mouth. But, again, I can see why.

Duly noted and welcomed. Yet if you're not talking about an illegal killing, the word "murder" isn't appropriate.

That's the argument, yes.

Why not just call it an "immoral killing", rather than going for the low-hanging and emotionally-charged "murder"?

Feel free to use that term if you'd like.

Does the state murder prisoners on death row if someone disputes the justification for the killing?

The state is authorized to take the life by law - or not.

People interested in hyperbole will say so, yes, but the rest of us know that "no" is the correct answer.[/COLOR]

Trying to figure out why there's a color tag there, yet I see no color.

So, bottom line - it appears this whole argument is to object to the Christian right calling it murder, yes?

[Cow Poke]

To what degree is someone who hires a killer to murder someone else - complicit in the murder?

Pretty complicit, wouldn't you say?

The implication is that the women getting the abortions are murderers. Right?

Lest somebody go all nuts and accuse me of avoiding the questions....

Many times it's a desperate girl in a desperate situation who has been led (or taken) to a "clinic" to deal with her "problem".
The "experts" give her the guidance she "needs", and "protect" her from the notion that she may be doing anything immoral.
She is advised it's "just tissue", and she is most likely NOT shown any sonogram or any sign that it's a human life, and the whole con is to convince her she is NOT "taking a human life".

How SHAMEFUL is it to imply, then, that she should be considered complicit in a "murder" when she was convinced it was "just tissue"?

So, no, it's not an automatic "she hired the murderer" scenario at all.

This really is one of the sorriest approaches to mocking the pro-life position, but it's not the first time I've seen it.

[Leonhard]

It is widely stated that "abortion is murder."

Abortion is murder.

Are those who have gotten abortions murderers?

Most of them didn't see what they were doing as murder, almost all of them were motivated by what they experienced as dire circumstances.

Should they not be similarly shunned?

I don't think murderers should be shunned. I believe they should be punished appropriately according to what they did in the context of their time. We do this for many reasons, first and foremost to preserve order in society, secondly to uphold justice and finally we also seek the reform of someone.

If abortion was ever to be made fully illegal, I do not think we should retroactively punish those who had an abortion or those who carried them out. In an ideal world we would probably do what was done at the end of Apartheid, where a commission was put down to record all the stories. We'd focus our energy on the beliefs and systems that allowed abortion to be institutionalized in society. Perhaps even correct some wrongs that caused people to be motivated to seek it out to begin with.

If they are not murderers could they not be accurately described as baby killers?

A fetus technically speaking isn't a baby. A slur like this would not be completely inaccurate, but I don't think it is useful.

[Cow Poke]

Let's try this.....

You hand a loaded gun to a teenager, who has no experience with guns.
Across the room, there is a screen, behind which a man is standing.
You assure the teen that it's only a projected image - it's not a real person at all.
Regardless of how the teen questions or expresses caution, you repeatedly assure the teen it's not a real person.

The teen fires the gun at "the image", and a body falls to the floor.
Did a murder occur? Yes. The unlawful taking of a human life.
Should the teen go to prison for life? No court in the land would find the teen guilty of murder under those circumstances.
Should the person who convinced the teen to "shoot the not real person" go to jail?
Absolutely.

[mossrose]

Lest somebody go all nuts and accuse me of avoiding the questions....

Many times it's a desperate girl in a desperate situation who has been led (or taken) to a "clinic" to deal with her "problem".
The "experts" give her the guidance she "needs", and "protect" her from the notion that she may be doing anything immoral.
She is advised it's "just tissue", and she is most likely NOT shown any sonogram or any sign that it's a human life, and the whole con is to convince her she is NOT "taking a human life".

How SHAMEFUL is it to imply, then, that she should be considered complicit in a "murder" when she was convinced it was "just tissue"?

So, no, it's not an automatic "she hired the murderer" scenario at all.

This really is one of the sorriest approaches to mocking the pro-life position, but it's not the first time I've seen it.

And there is a massive difference between the young girl described in your scenario and the serial, older women who use abortion as birth control and have more than one.

[Cow Poke]

And there is a massive difference between the young girl described in your scenario and the serial, older women who use abortion as birth control and have more than one.

Yes, it's certainly not a "one size fits all".

[Whateverman]

To what degree is someone who hires a killer to murder someone else - complicit in the murder?

Pretty complicit, wouldn't you say?

That's being unduly harsh, but I understand why this is necessary for you to portray it in those terms.

Why it's "necessary" is because it's the law. In many states, murder in the first degree includes anyone who intends to cause the death of a (potential) victim. That means if you take out a contract on a person, and a hit man kills him/her, you're guilty of murder. For example, here's a link to NY state penal code stating this.

If you're consistent, then the mother who aborts her fetus is just as guilty of murder as is the doctor who performs the abortion.

If that's unduly harsh, then your complaint is with the law, not me.