If life begins at conception, why doesn’t citizenship in the US begin at conception?

[redleghunter]

Is not the execution of a person for crime committed, the "premeditated killing of a human life?"

ARe you saying that it is valid to just call this murder instead of the name given to this act?

Is this a valid equivalency?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Actually he is pro abortion and believes only life is protected after birth.

He’s being clever to show people that since a human being in the womb is not a citizen we can do whatever we want with them.

If that is the case it would be just as fine to invoke the 14th Amendment to deny legal and illegal immigrants life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

He’s trying to catch folks in a quandary.

Whatever way the argument is used is equally irrelevant to the situation. People do not have the right to live only because they are citizens. The Constitutional human rights Americans claim to have come from their Creator not their citizenship. They are innate rights not granted rights. Some rights, like the right to vote for instance are granted rights and can be justifiably removed by the government that granted them however that government sees fit. Since the government granted those rights they remain the property of that government and the individual is only allowed to access them as long as the government desires. Human rights, or as some prefer to call them natural rights, like the right to life, free speech, property and self defense are innate and would exist in the absence of government and it takes some unjustifiable intrusion from an outside force to deny them to the individual. Government cannot justifiably remove them without doing so in response to an individual having deprived another individual of one or more of those rights.

 

[RaymondG]

Is this a valid equivalency?

Yes it is exactly the same. There is a legal name given to each of the described "premeditated killing of a human life"

For us to know the nature of the act, we must use the unique term given to each act....as opposed to changing the terms to try and subconsciously sway the opinions of readers.

If I man killed multiple people and showed no sign of changing.....and was executed......If I go to another and say he was murdered.....with no back story.....would this be an honest truthful statement?
Could some feel that you are likening his death to the death of his victims? Why would one want to cloud the murderers reason for death in this manner (by calling his death a murder as well)...when there is a clearly defined word that explained his actions and cause of death?

I raise the same questions when one tries to cloud the fact that an unborn child's life is ended, before taking a breath......by using terms other than the one created to clearly define their situation.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I have not met one person who was for abortion. Have you?

Who knows if one has met one or not? . I haven't personally met anyone that came out and said they were for abortion. I've read a few articles by people that w said they were but I wasn't around when people like Margaret Sanger were being honest about it.

 

[RaymondG]

Who knows if one has met one or not? . I haven't personally met anyone that came out and said they were for abortion. I've read a few articles by people that w said they were but I wasn't around when people like Margaret Sanger were being honest about it.

The point is, no one is for abortion. No one will advocate getting rid of fetus' just for the fun of it. No one. There are some, however, who wish the decision of whether or not to do so, be placed in the hands of the family involved, as opposed to being held to what someone outside of the situation believe is right.

 

[SPF]

What is the difference between killing and murder?

The difference is that all murder is wrong, and not all killing is wrong. This is why it is important to look at abortions and try to understand if they are a form of amoral killing, or if they are a form of immoral killing.

Why is it acceptable, to you, to differentiate between killing and murder

Because there is a difference, and recognizing when one human being terminating the life of another is killing or murder is important in understanding the moral implications behind the death.

Why are you asking me about murders and killings, when we are discussing the termination of innocent unborn life? Why do they not deserve to be the focus of attention and remain the focus for a full thread?

98.5% of abortions involve the intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human being. That's what abortion is. The issue that as Christians we should be concerned with is whether or not the intentional and purposeful killing of the 98.5% of convenience abortions is moral or immoral.

Given the number of abortions that occur across the globe per year, we should be very concerned with making sure we aren't actually engaging in what could ultimately be one of the most immoral and heinous acts against our own selves in the history of the world.

So the important question is whether or not abortion is a form of murder. Abortion is the killing of an unborn human. But as not all killing of human life is immoral, we need to take the time to understand whether abortion is an instance of immoral killing or not.

We also feel that moving without emotion is the best way to move. No help is given to the unborn by making women feel like murderer or potential murderers....This only help the ego of the ones stating the words.

I don't see you trying to give any help at all to the unborn. All I see is you wanting nobody to take pause and consider for a moment that abortion may in reality be immoral and a form of murder. Instead, you want to emotionally downplay the topic and remove all language from the subject that could cause the reality of how horrible it actually is to come to light.

So again, the heart and central issue for us as Christians with regards to abortion is whether or not it is immoral. I would say that the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons are immoral, a form of murder, and we should not support.

 

[RaymondG]

The difference is that all murder is wrong, and not all killing is wrong. This is why it is important to look at abortions and try to understand if they are a form of amoral killing, or if they are a form of immoral killing.

Because there is a difference, and recognizing when one human being terminating the life of another is killing or murder is important in understanding the moral implications behind the death.

98.5% of abortions involve the intentional and purposeful killing of an unborn human being. That's what abortion is. The issue that as Christians we should be concerned with is whether or not the intentional and purposeful killing of the 98.5% of convenience abortions is moral or immoral.

Given the number of abortions that occur across the globe per year, we should be very concerned with making sure we aren't actually engaging in what could ultimately be one of the most immoral and heinous acts against our own selves in the history of the world.

So the important question is whether or not abortion is a form of murder. Abortion is the killing of an unborn human. But as not all killing of human life is immoral, we need to take the time to understand whether abortion is an instance of immoral killing or not.

I don't see you trying to give any help at all to the unborn. All I see is you wanting nobody to take pause and consider for a moment that abortion may in reality be immoral and a form of murder. Instead, you want to emotionally downplay the topic and remove all language from the subject that could cause the reality of how horrible it actually is to come to light.

So again, the heart and central issue for us as Christians with regards to abortion is whether or not it is immoral. I would say that the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons are immoral, a form of murder, and we should not support.

This is the full questions that I wrote.....which you should have quoted and answered:

Why is it acceptable, to you, to differentiate between killing and murder....but when I avocation the use of legally defined causes of termination of life( so that we know which type is being discussed), you paint me in a negative light?

Instead, you cut it up to change the question into something easier for you to answer.

For this reason, I do not believe further dialogue would be fruitful.

 

[SPF]

This is the full questions that I wrote.....which you should have quoted and answered:



Instead, you cut it up to change the question into something easier for you to answer.

For this reason, I do not believe further dialogue would be fruitful.

I'm fully capable of answering any specific question you have, they're all extremely easy to address. I just try to keep things on topic as much as possible.

I understand though your reluctance to continue the discussion as you really are incapable of defending your position.

You asked: "Why is it acceptable, to you, to differentiate between killing and murder....but when I avocation the use of legally defined causes of termination of life( so that we know which type is being discussed), you paint me in a negative light?"

The answer to the first part, which is why it is important to differentiate between killing and murder is addressed above. Simple answer though is that there is a difference between the two, and therefore recognizing which is which is important in itself.

With regards to the second part, about you questioning why I'm painting you in a negative light for your insistence upon only using the term abortion, and refusing to even acknowledge that abortion is in fact the killing of an innocent unborn human child, is that I'm actually not attempting to paint you in a negative light. If my exposition of the truth of the situation reveals your position to be inadequate, then so be it. But I'm not trying to paint you personally in a negative light.

But anyway. 98.5% of all abortions are performed for convenience reasons. I believe these abortions are immoral and wrong. As Christians, we ought to be more unified in our stance against convenience abortions.

Raymond, out of curiosity, are you even capable of acknowledging that abortion is the intentional and purposeful killing of an innocent, unborn human being? That's just a statement of fact. Can you acknowledge that fact?

 

[The Liturgist]

Is this a valid equivalency?

No! It overlooks the vital components of murder and manslaughter in the Common Law tradition, which is relevant in a political sense. Unlawful killing creates manslaughter, and malice aforethought makes for murder.

Execution is lawful in Christianity under the Old Testament and in the opinions of the early Church fathers, although not mandatory.

Abortion however for any reason other than to save the life of the mother (such as an ectopic pregnancy) constitutes murder, as it is contrary to natural law, and has the element of malice aforethought. For example, aborting a baby for financial reasons is the same as killing an elderly relative who has become a burden.

Lastly, since we charge people who kill pregnant women with double homicide, there are no coherent grounds for not precluding abortion, since we have established that a baby in the womb can be the victim of murder. Objectively, therefore, legalized abortion is tantamount to the selective toleration of murder, by allowing it for a particular demographic. This is morally reprehensible, as I am sure you will agree.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes it is exactly the same.

No it is not. You have not established the equivalence other than two deaths. Please try again. I’ll wait.

 

[RaymondG]

No it is not. You have not established the equivalence other than two deaths. Please try again. I’ll wait.

You will only hear what you desire to hear. The only thing that will make sense to you is what is already in your head. Trying again would be pointless.

 

[redleghunter]

You will only hear what you desire to hear. The only thing that will make sense to you is what is already in your head. Trying again would be pointless.

The problem is you are creating false premises and limiting language to fit your views.

It should be simple. Are elective abortions where the mother is healthy and the child in the womb is healthy immoral?

 

[RaymondG]

No! It overlooks the vital components of murder and manslaughter in the Common Law tradition, which is relevant in a political sense. Unlawful killing creates manslaughter, and malice aforethought makes for murder.

Execution is lawful in Christianity under the Old Testament and in the opinions of the early Church fathers, although not mandatory.

Abortion however for any reason other than to save the life of the mother (such as an ectopic pregnancy) constitutes murder, as it is contrary to natural law, and has the element of malice aforethought. For example, aborting a baby for financial reasons is the same as killing an elderly relative who has become a burden.

Lastly, since we charge people who kill pregnant women with double homicide, there are no coherent grounds for not precluding abortion, since we have established that a baby in the womb can be the victim of murder. Objectively, therefore, legalized abortion is tantamount to the selective toleration of murder, by allowing it for a particular demographic. This is morally reprehensible, as I am sure you will agree.

Wrong again. You are led by emotions and not intellect....not facts.

No one is comparing abortion to execution by the state. If you can put your emotions aside, you would see that calling abortion, murder, is equivalent to calling an execution, murder.

One who is against the death penalty, wound call it murder when talking about it to sway your opinion about it subconsciously...... the same goes with those who use murder instead of abortion.

They desire for you to think and believe like them, so they say murder... not trusting that you can come to a valid conclusion (or their conclusions) with facts presented..... they work behind the scenes to try and change your thought process to theirs.

Those with truth, speak truth and the truth stands on its own.... without the need to sway the emotions or add fear.

 

[RaymondG]

The problem is you are creating false premises and limiting language to fit your views.

I am asking that you use the language given to the situation... . Not limit it. You are expanding the language because you do not feel the correct language is strong enough..... you want others to feel worse about it, some you appropriate different terminology, that you feel wound accomplish this task. And in the process, the unborn is affected, because now they are included in a group with adults and children, instead of remaining in the group created just for them.

It should be simple. Are elective abortions where the mother is healthy and the child in the womb is healthy immoral?

I would never have an abortion..... don't like it at all..... yet this is easy for me to say being a man.

Why is this not enough..... why would you only be satisfied, if I judge others? Will I be like God if I partake of this fruit and start seeing good and bad in others?

 

[Archivist]

No! It overlooks the vital components of murder and manslaughter in the Common Law tradition, which is relevant in a political sense. Unlawful killing creates manslaughter, and malice aforethought makes for murder.

Execution is lawful in Christianity under the Old Testament and in the opinions of the early Church fathers, although not mandatory.

Abortion however for any reason other than to save the life of the mother (such as an ectopic pregnancy) constitutes murder, as it is contrary to natural law, and has the element of malice aforethought. For example, aborting a baby for financial reasons is the same as killing an elderly relative who has become a burden.

Lastly, since we charge people who kill pregnant women with double homicide, there are no coherent grounds for not precluding abortion, since we have established that a baby in the womb can be the victim of murder. Objectively, therefore, legalized abortion is tantamount to the selective toleration of murder, by allowing it for a particular demographic. This is morally reprehensible, as I am sure you will agree.

You raise the Common Law in support of your claim, yet you ignore the fact that at Common Law abortion was permitted until the time of quickening, about the third trimester.

 

[SPF]

They desire for you to think and believe like them, so they say murder... not trusting that you can come to a valid conclusion (or their conclusions) with facts presented..... they work behind the scenes to try and change your thought process to theirs.

You do realize you’re doing precisely this. You don’t believe abortion is equivalent to murder, therefore you are trying to convince people of this and sway them into not using the word murder.

Definitions and terms matter. It isn’t actually an emotional discussion at all. You keep trying to muddy the waters by asserting and accusing anyone who uses any word other than abortion as emotional, and it’s just not true.

It’s a matter of fact that abortion is the intentional and purposeful killing of an innocent, unborn human being. Fact. No emotion in that statement, it’s simply what abortion is.

The question we must address is whether abortion, which is the intentional killing of an innocent human being is a moral or immoral action.

Raymond, how do you personally determine whether or not an abortion is an immoral action or not?

No emotions, just facts.

 

[Archivist]

You do realize you’re doing precisely this. You don’t believe abortion is equivalent to murder, therefore you are trying to convince people of this and sway them into not using the word murder.

Definitions and terms matter. It isn’t actually an emotional discussion at all. You keep trying to muddy the waters by asserting and accusing anyone who uses any word other than abortion as emotional, and it’s just not true.

It’s a matter of fact that abortion is the intentional and purposeful killing of an innocent, unborn human being. Fact. No emotion in that statement, it’s simply what abortion is.

The question we must address is whether abortion, which is the intentional killing of an innocent human being is a moral or immoral action.

Raymond, how do you personally determine whether or not an abortion is an immoral action or not?

No emotions, just facts.

Because abortion isn’t murder.

 

[SPF]

Because abortion isn’t murder.

The discussion of what constitute's murder and what doesn't is actually pretty interesting in itself. Certainly whatever principle we come to can be applied to both abortion and other forms of killing.

On the one hand, Archivist seems pretty adamant that the term murder is wholly determined and defined by the governing laws under which one lives. As a Christian, I personally find this position problematic, and I wonder if a distinction is necessary.

I find this problematic because Scripture speaks to the immorality of killing innocent human beings. I don't think Scripture is subjective in what it teaches. I think God is immutable in His Character, and if killing a human being is wrong in one instance, it would be wrong in the same instance even if secular law said otherwise.

Thus, I think for a Christian, Archivist's position that abortion is not murder because secular law says it isn't is problematic if we're looking at the discussion from the framework of Christianity.

This is easy to demonstrate. We all agree that if I killed my neighbor because he allowed his dog to poop in my yard, that this would be immoral and wrong. But let's say that one day a year the secular government lifted all killing laws. Thus, for a 24 hour period it would not be illegal to kill my neighbor, no matter my reasoning. If we followed Archivist's principle, then it would not be murder for me to kill my neighbor on this day. My question though, is - Would God agree? I don't think so.

If God would agree that what ultimately constitutes as murder is defined by secular law, then morality is reduced to subjectively, ever changing laws written by fallen, fallible men.

I don't know of any credible theologian or Christian who has ever prescribed to such a notion.

Pro-Abortion advocates like Archivist often like to cite that abortion isn't murder. But that's misleading, and for us Christians, we see through it and get it.

Abortion may be legal, but at the very least, for the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons - the act is immoral, and I think Biblically speaking, certainly is a form of murder.

 

[The Liturgist]

You raise the Common Law in support of your claim, yet you ignore the fact that at Common Law abortion was permitted until the time of quickening, about the third trimester.

I raise it in the context of the definition of murder. Statutes banning abortion are obviously required in order to ensure logical continuity, since the prosecution of people for killing the unborn is a recognition of their right to life; that which can be murdered logically could only be put to death following a trial and if convicted of a crime, of which infants are incapable. Ergo, the only case where abortion is acceptable is an ectopic pregnancy, which will not survive to term and will kill the mother, and certain related conditions.

I also feel abortoirs should be banned from using what I consider to be a deceptive euphemism: “reproductive health” and this phrase instead should be restricted to OB/GYNs and andrologists/urologists specializing in male and female fertility and the safe conduct of pregnancies from conception to delivery.

 

[coffee4u]

I think citizenship for any country has to be birth because before birth you can't 100% guarantee life, gender or number of babies. While normally twins are detected early, this isn't always the case and there has also been cases of a hidden triplet in a 'twin' pregnancy. There are still women who go into labour not even knowing they are pregnant. I think these things prevent any formal citizenship.

Here if you lose a baby from 21 weeks on you get a birth and death certificate and can hold a funeral. Before this it is not official although many hospitals will hold an informal memorial service at parent request.