- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is this a valid equivalency?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?
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.
Yes it is exactly the same. There is a legal name given to each of the described "premeditated killing of a human life"Is this a valid equivalency?
I have not met one person who was for abortion. Have you?
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.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 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.What is the difference 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 is it acceptable, to you, to differentiate between killing and murder
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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?
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.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.
Is this a valid equivalency?
No it is not. You have not established the equivalence other than two deaths. Please try again. I’ll wait.Yes it is exactly the same.
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.No it is not. You have not established the equivalence other than two deaths. Please try again. I’ll wait.
The problem is you are creating false premises and limiting language to fit your views.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.
Wrong again. You are led by emotions and not intellect....not facts.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.
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.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?
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.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 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.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.
Because abortion isn’t murder.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.
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.Because abortion isn’t murder.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?