Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If people accepted it wasn't murder (which is necessary), we can move on with discussing actual abortion.
If you would just shut up and stop whinging about all of us who say it is murder, we could move on discussing actual abortion. So what if people think it's murder? Is that stopping the discussion? No.
Originally posted by Makedde
If you would just shut up and stop whinging about all of us who say it is murder, we could move on discussing actual abortion. So what if people think it's murder? Is that stopping the discussion? No.
...and you moan when I call you stupid? This kind of comment is exactly why.
The reason it's disrupting the discussion is simple. How can we have a discussion on abortion, seriously, when there are some idiots who are still trying to refute a fact by saying "I think it is murder", when it factually isn't? It's been all laid out to you, you know it's not murder and it's a fact that it's not murder, so why do you continue the foolish pretence of "I think it is"? How can you expect to be seriously considered in this debate when you are debating with the base belief that is directly attempting to refute a fact (which cannot be refuted)? If you are debating with the belief that abortion is murder, then you have no valid debate. It's really that simple.
It's almost as though you think you're being rebellious for not caving in and admitting it isn't murder, despite it actually being.
-AC
Originally posted by FeceMan
By this logic, one could go through a maternity ward with a machete and be butchering animals rather committing murder.
Then it is a good thing society does not consider the Bible when determining when personhood begins.
Originally posted by FeceMan
There is a difference between taking a census and saying "Only count the kids that are older than a month" and saying "Eh, they don't count as people until they're a month old."
If one is taking a census, why would he not count children less than one month old unless they are not considered persons?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm going to say that this qualifies an abortion as destroying God's creation and, you know, being wrong.
You can say this, but Job is actually despairing over being treated unfairly by God.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Hmmm. It's almost as if Job is saying that he "came into being" in the womb. Maybe even at conception.
It is almost as if he is saying this, but Job is actually saying that he wishes that he had never been born.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...and you moan when I call you stupid? This kind of comment is exactly why.The reason it's disrupting the discussion is simple. How can we have a discussion on abortion, seriously, when there are some idiots who are still trying to refute a fact by saying "I think it is murder", when it factually isn't? It's been all laid out to you, you know it's not murder and it's a fact that it's not murder, so why do you continue the foolish pretence of "I think it is"? How can you expect to be seriously considered in this debate when you are debating with the base belief that is directly attempting to refute a fact (which cannot be refuted)? If you are debating with the belief that abortion is murder, then you have no valid debate. It's really that simple.
It's almost as though you think you're being rebellious for not caving in and admitting it isn't murder, despite it actually being.
-AC
It's because people disagree with your interpretation. Grow up and get used to that happening- there is no overarching authority saying that your opinion is the only one that can be right,. Again, yuor behaviour is very, very petulant and childish.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This is the point, murder is a [b]strict legal test. It doesn't just mean 'some killing that I think is really bad, therefore I will refer to it as murder, even though the term means something very specific'.. [/B]
Once again, no, that is NOT true. How many times? Murder is NOT only a legal term. There are plenty of definitions of murder that make NO legal reference at all.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
There is no 'moral murder' except in an informal sense. The term murder describes a legal crime with a strict definition.As the current UK law stands, it is indeed a fact that abortion can never be murder. This is the point I made, and like I said, it is a fact.
If people would like to alter what murder currently is to include abortions, that's their right, however it goes against what murder is, and has been, for over a hundred years.
Being a 'human' isn't relevant to UK murder law, and furthermore, it is a lawful procedure, so there is a double prevention on its being murder.
If this is changed, it might be: as we stand, it is [b]factually
never murder. The law is in a perfectly fine state at the moment, hence the last proper case on this point arising in about 1873. [/B]
Sorry, no, you are still wrong. There IS such a thing as moral murder (and 'informal' makes no difference- language is based on the use people make of it, unless you live in France or Iceland), and murder does have a definition outside of being a legal term. Just a casual look through a few dictionaries shows multiple definitions of the word murder without reference to law. Collins has it as a definition "to kill brutally" and Websters "To kill with premeditated malice".
All of you screaming so hard about this being a fact... you are making idiots of yourselves. It's not a fact. Murder is a term used in legal circles... but it is NOT exclusively a legal term. You are simply incorrect to say so.
The view from the Pro-Life camp is that DESPITE what the law says, abortion is murder.
And I will remind all again the pettiness of people who keep arguing this point- that first of all, this debate cannot be based on the laws of one nation alone, and that some places DO consider the attempt to kill a foetus murder, and in fact some people from these places are on these boards or in ths thread and telling them they are factually wrong is simply moronic by any standard.
And then I will go on to remind people that arguing about the exact definition of the word when it is the intent- immoral killing- behind it is identical anyway is schoolyard thinking., Utterly immature, and very pitiful. Even if you were right, which you are not, it would be like trying to destroy someone's argument based on a spelling error; the issue makes no difference to the fundamentals of the argument. It's just a cowardly way to avoid the actual issue.
Hence, those of you trying to base your arguments on this point are condemning yourselves to the dustbin. Each and everyone one of you trying to do so is arguing in a contemptible manner that deserves neither respect nor consideration.
Originally posted by UshgarakAnd I will remind all again the pettiness of people who keep arguing this point- that first of all, this debate cannot be based on the laws of one nation alone, and that some places DO consider the attempt to kill a foetus murder, and in fact some people from these places are on these boards or in ths thread and telling them they are factually wrong is simply moronic by any standard.
This is true and I got drawn into this aspect myself rather than focussing on the larger issue, good call Ush.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's because people disagree with your interpretation. Grow up and get used to that happening- there is no overarching authority saying that your opinion is the only one that can be right,. Again, yuor behaviour is very, very petulant and childish.
...and I will go on to remind you that it's not my definition, it's THE definition. Your inability to understand that any other definition is informal notwithstanding, that's what the definition is.
Murder is a legal term and only a legal term. Anything else is just "bad" or "immoral" killing, not murder. You not liking that isn't my fault, or anyone's fault, it's just the way it is.
Two huge posts and all you've managed to do is post this "I disagree Murder is just a legal term" but in slightly changed overtones, repeatedly and to convince some of the unwise that they still have a shot at refuting a fact, which you are now doing.
The fact being that abortion is not murder, it can't be, because murder is only a legal term non-applicable to abortion.
I'll also remind YOU to think before you charge in here like Captain Planet, telling everyone that their style deserves no respect JUST because you dislike it and making the extremely bold claim that we're making idiots of ourselves, do some thinking. Maybe in past incarnations of KMC there has been some kind of mass amounts who actually care what you think of them, well times have obviously changed. If you are going to pass judgement on what people say or do, then you should be right about that. Seeing as you're in here with them trying to refute the non-refutable, I would suggest you rethink whether you are the one who deserves consideration.
This thread is chock full of overly dramatic displays from you, many attempts to rally the majority in hopes that people debating against you would back down, not to mention the classic "The law agrees with me" schtick that you were "screaming", only to be undeniably wrong once again and not even admit to it. I also find it odd that instead of pulling up the behavior of the bible-bashing, insulting misogynist, you pull out the quotes from those who have disagreed with you, proved you wrong, and call us idiots. Don't throw comments around hypocritically if you're not willing to accept it right back. Your behaviour in here has been arguably more childish than any other.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...and I will go on to remind you that it's not my definition, it's THE definition. Your inability to understand that any other definition is informal notwithstanding, that's what the definition is.Murder is a legal term and only a legal term. Anything else is just "bad" or "immoral" killing, not murder. You not liking that isn't my fault, or anyone's fault, it's just the way it is.
Two huge posts and all you've managed to do is post this "I disagree Murder is just a legal term" but in slightly changed overtones, repeatedly and to convince some of the unwise that they still have a shot at refuting a fact, which you are now doing.
The fact being that abortion is not murder, it can't be, because murder is only a legal term non-applicable to abortion.
I'll also remind YOU to think before you charge in here like Captain Planet, telling everyone that their style deserves no respect JUST because you dislike it and making the extremely bold claim that we're making idiots of ourselves, do some thinking. Maybe in past incarnations of KMC there has been some kind of mass amounts who actually care what you think of them, well times have obviously changed. If you are going to pass judgement on what people say or do, then you should be right about that. Seeing as you're in here with them trying to refute the non-refutable, I would suggest you rethink whether you are the one who deserves consideration.
This thread is chock full of overly dramatic displays from you, many attempts to rally the majority in hopes that people debating against you would back down, not to mention the classic "The law agrees with me" schtick that you were "screaming", only to be undeniably wrong once again and not even admit to it. I also find it odd that instead of pulling up the behavior of the bible-bashing, insulting misogynist, you pull out the quotes from those who have disagreed with you, proved you wrong, and call us idiots. Don't throw comments around hypocritically if you're not willing to accept it right back. Your behaviour in here has been arguably more childish than any other.
-AC
You are right that murder is a legal term.
Ush is right that the menaing to most people extends beyond this.
He is right this has become a semantics debate rather than a moral debate.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, no, you are still wrong. There IS such a thing as moral murder (and 'informal' makes no difference- language is based on the use people make of it, unless you live in France or Iceland), and murder does have a definition outside of being a legal term. Just a casual look through a few dictionaries shows multiple definitions of the word murder without reference to law. Collins has it as a definition "to kill brutally" and Websters "To kill with premeditated malice".All of you screaming so hard about this being a fact... you are making idiots of yourselves. It's not a fact. Murder is a term used in legal circles... but it is NOT exclusively a legal term. You are simply incorrect to say so.
The view from the Pro-Life camp is that DESPITE what the law says, abortion is murder.
Such crap.
What difference do the multiple meanings of the word murder make? People are using it here to utilise the weight of the legality of the term, while using it in the stupid 'meat is murder' sense.
Take a dictionary to court next time someone steals all the crops from some land you own, and show the judge how your land has been raped.
See if we can get a nice long rape sentence for that.
If someone is making use of the other uses of the term, as you state- then it is still not legal murder. A pointless hyperbolic aside.
Basically what is being said is that in spite of the legal usage of the term not applying, I use the informal term murder to describe what is happening. That would be fine, but that's not what people are doing.
Hence why the debate is progressing like a snake eating its own tail.
Whirly- if it were simply semantics, that would mean there was a quibble over using the term murder in any sense. That's not being disputed.
To add to this, while we can sit here and evangelise over the merits of the pro-life side, we aren't actually hearing anything from that side in this specific thread. I am not replying to the ideal pro-life argument, but simply the feeble one being presented in here.
This is why murder not being relevant in every country is actually a detrimental point to the other side. You can't absolutely refute a fact that applies in some places. You can, however, point out that that 'opinion' is factually wrong in many cases.
8 "Your hands shaped me and made me.
Will you now turn and destroy me?
9 Remember that you molded me like clay.
Will you now turn me to dust again?
10 Did you not pour me out like milk
and curdle me like cheese,
11 clothe me with skin and flesh
and knit me together with bones and sinews?
I'm going to say that this qualifies an abortion as destroying God's creation and, you know, being wrong.
This could be interprteted in so many wasy, including abortion. This person is explaining that god brought them into the world and is now takinig them out. Nowhere does this person hint that they are being killed immediately after birth. The bible is filled with so many euphemisms and analogues that it is very difficult to make a correct interpretation. This person could just well be refering to God and not his mother. I could speculate even further and suggest that this preson was't evewn aborted at all. It sounds like when he or she came into the world this person suffered from the get go but lived and suffered throughout. Then expresses the sensation of dying. I could elaborate more if you'd like, verse by verse. My point is This is all analogue that can't be interpreted with any accuracy. It's just a poem and if you've ever been in a critical reading class where everyone expresses what they think of a poem, you'd recognize after a few people spoke that people see things from different perspectives. You can'tsay "because I interpret this this way, it's probably the way it was meant to be interpreted." Is the author here to back you up? Exactly.
quote:
Job 10:18-19
18 "Why then did you bring me out of the womb?
I wish I had died before any eye saw me.
19 If only I had never come into being,
or had been carried straight from the womb to the grave!
Hmmm. It's almost as if Job is saying that he "came into being" in the womb. Maybe even at conception.
No, it sounds like he wished he was aborted.
Originally posted by meep-meep
8 "Your hands shaped me and made me.
Will you now turn and destroy me?9 Remember that you molded me like clay.
Will you now turn me to dust again?10 Did you not pour me out like milk
and curdle me like cheese,11 clothe me with skin and flesh
and knit me together with bones and sinews?I'm going to say that this qualifies an abortion as destroying God's creation and, you know, being wrong.
This could be interprteted in so many wasy, including abortion. This person is explaining that god brought them into the world and is now takinig them out. Nowhere does this person hint that they are being killed immediately after birth. The bible is filled with so many euphemisms and analogues that it is very difficult to make a correct interpretation. This person could just well be refering to God and not his mother. I could speculate even further and suggest that this preson was't evewn aborted at all. It sounds like when he or she came into the world this person suffered from the get go but lived and suffered throughout. Then expresses the sensation of dying. I could elaborate more if you'd like, verse by verse. My point is This is all analogue that can't be interpreted with any accuracy. It's just a poem and if you've ever been in a critical reading class where everyone expresses what they think of a poem, you'd recognize after a few people spoke that people see things from different perspectives. You can'tsay "because I interpret this this way, it's probably the way it was meant to be interpreted." Is the author here to back you up? Exactly.
quote:
Job 10:18-1918 "Why then did you bring me out of the womb?
I wish I had died before any eye saw me.19 If only I had never come into being,
or had been carried straight from the womb to the grave!Hmmm. It's almost as if Job is saying that he "came into being" in the womb. Maybe even at conception.
No, it sounds like he wished he was aborted.
What was the crux of this post? I'm a little confused.
Originally posted by meep-meep
Just that it's probably not a good idea to use verses of the bible because they aren't easily, or sometimes possibly, decipherable.
Law is causing problems in here, so let's not start getting into textual interpretation of an ancient book. We'll be here until the Second Coming. Although I suppose that is the point- sadly, it won't be that succinct.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once again, no, that is NOT true. How many times? Murder is NOT only a legal term. There are plenty of definitions of murder that make NO legal reference at all.
Preferably that is the last time, seeing as it is a point of which everyone in here is aware.
We know there are other lax hyperbolic meanings being used and hiding behind the 'semantics' general defence.
A silly, tiresome technique.
Not to mention the fact that you simply reiterated what I said in the post. There are other ways 'murder' is used. Great. I could murder a sandwich. I got murdered on that computer game, and cetera.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then it is a good thing society does not consider the Bible when determining when personhood begins.
If one is taking a census, why would he not count children less than one month old unless they are not considered persons?
*Shrugs.*
You can say this, but Job is actually despairing over being tested by God.
It is almost as if he is saying this, but Job is actually saying that he wishes that he had never been born.