Please Vote... for life and liberty!

[Free]

Doesn't matter what you want to call it. If 3rd degree MURDER might get you 5-10 years in prison, or if 2nd degree MURDER might get a stiffer punishment of 10 to 25 years in prison, while 1st degree MURDER would get the stiffest penalty under the law, that being up to multiple life sentences in prison, or even the ultimate payment in death.

Now being that all these degrees of MURDER have varying degrees of punishment for the said crimes, and also seeing that you are unable to define any sort of penal measures for the act of an abortion, then rightly, how can you justify calling it murder? Perhaps that argument would best be made by the avenger of the blood.

Murder itself is not defined by the degree of punishment. As I posted earlier, from Merriam-Webster:

: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

Your arguments are deeply flawed. So, for the third time, are you arguing that because there is no law against abortion that therefore it isn’t murder?

Oh, come on now. I know you now the story in the bible, about the mob of people running after the adulterous women seeking to stone her to death; when Jesus stepped in and said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You are akin to those of the mob running after the adulterous women with stones in their hands, ready to judge the harlot with child, with no penal measure under the law, carrying with them only the threat of God's judgement.

Paul himself was a murderer, yet he became chief among the Apostles. I suppose there is room for redemption for those who have had an abortion. But what of those who worship at the alter of the unborn fetus? Do they require yet another sacrifice for redemption?

None of this is relevant.

 

[ezrider]

Your arguments are deeply flawed. So, for the third time, are you arguing that because there is no law against abortion that therefore it isn’t murder?

By your faith you call abortion murder, so for you it is murder. Do not commit murder. But for those who are not of your faith, or those of a different faith, or those with no faith at all, they don't consider abortion to be murder. As jaybo has pointed out, it is considered a medical procedure. When do you consider it murder? At conception? At 9 weeks? 15 weeks?

You have done nothing but stand on your soapbox crying abortion is murder, abortion is murder..... And yet for all you wailing and bemoaning, you can not name any such laws that have criminalized the act of an abortion, nor are you willing to declare any criminal punishment for having an abortion. Murder is declared under our laws to be a criminal offense. Abortion has not been declared under our laws to be a criminal offense. Therefore as a criminal offense under our laws, abortion is NOT murder.

In a nation governed by laws and democracy, where the majority of the peoples do not see abortion as murder, or otherwise as a matter of choices, then how do you suppose the laws might get passed in a democratic society that would then criminalize the act of abortion as is the act of murder? My that's why the anti abortion, abortion is murder, type of people are so often fond of the immoral authoritarian type of leader.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

Everything is getting too personal. People just can't help themselves but interfere with other peoples private property and private business and private lives these days.

You walk your own talk and set your own good example for people to see. Forcing things on others doesn't work. You can only give advice and education or wipe the dust off your feet.

 

[jaybo]

You are arguing, as all pro-abortionists do, that because fetuses at a certain stage in development cannot survive outside the womb, that they are not fully human. One reason this is a poor argument is that viability is getting earlier and earlier, due to the technology available. It could be that one day viability will be right up to the point of conception.

Another reason this is a poor argument is because it argues that humans are only human once they are capable of surviving on their own outside the womb. An obvious problem with this is the logical conclusion that when born persons cease to be able to survive outside the womb on their own, or never become able to survive outside the womb on their own, then we could terminate them as well. And we are seeing that occur more and more around the world with euthanasia, so we know the logic I presented is sound. But another similar conclusion can also be seen--infants are incapable of surviving without help, so we should be able to end their lives as well.

Of course, another main reason the argument is poor is that some aborted fetuses would have been able to survive.

The superior view is the substance view, since it is not subject to such disturbing and irrational conclusions. Fetuses are fully human because they are made of the same stuff all humans are made of. They are simply at the earliest stages of development, vulnerable, and deserving of all the protections afforded born persons.


But it is, since human fetuses are human.


Calling it a medical procedure doesn't change a thing. It's a medical procedure for the sole purpose of intentionally and, in the vast majority of cases, unjustifiably ending a human life.


It was not I who was doing the personal attacks, but let's just keep them stopped.

I'm not going to debate this any further. Your logic is what it is and, IMHO, wrong. A fetus is not a fully-formed human, capable of surviving on its own. It is a complex organism, developing the organs needed to survive, such as brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. Some of these organs don't develop properly, making survival impossible. There is no reasonable alternative but to terminate the pregnancy, unless you prefer that an agonizing death.

You can rationalize all you want, but those are the facts. The rest of your post, including changing the subject to include euthanasia, is reductio ad absurdum. Unlike yourself, I have stated the facts.

 

[Free]

By your faith you call abortion murder, so for you it is murder. Do not commit murder. But for those who are not of your faith, or those of a different faith, or those with no faith at all, they don't consider abortion to be murder.

Not by the Bible only, but by science and reason. This is why there are those who are atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians who also believe abortion is murder.

As jaybo has pointed out, it is considered a medical procedure. When do you consider it murder? At conception? At 9 weeks? 15 weeks?

At conception. A human life is a human life regardless of what level of development.

You have done nothing but stand on your soapbox crying abortion is murder, abortion is murder..... And yet for all you wailing and bemoaning, you can not name any such laws that have criminalized the act of an abortion, nor are you willing to declare any criminal punishment for having an abortion. Murder is declared under our laws to be a criminal offense. Abortion has not been declared under our laws to be a criminal offense. Therefore as a criminal offense under our laws, abortion is NOT murder.

This is fallaciously begging the question. That there are no laws declaring abortion a criminal offense is irrelevant as to whether or not it is. That I will not declare any punishment for those having an abortion is also irrelevant as to whether or not it is murder.

Do you believe abortion is immoral, that it is wrong in God's eyes?

In a nation governed by laws and democracy, where the majority of the peoples do not see abortion as murder, or otherwise as a matter of choices, then how do you suppose the laws might get passed in a democratic society that would then criminalize the act of abortion as is the act of murder? My that's why the anti abortion, abortion is murder, type of people are so often fond of the immoral authoritarian type of leader.

At one time, the majority of people in England thought that slavery was okay, perhaps in the U.S. as well. In fact, it had been a fairly normal part of life in much of the world for millennia. Using your reasoning, slavery wasn't criminal. The way you get laws passed is to change people's hearts and minds through the use of reason, just as Wilberforce did.

It's interesting, and very telling, that you believe those who are anti-abortion, who believe abortion is murder, "are so often fond of the immoral authoritarian type of leader." Not only is that a fallacious generalization, your use of "immoral" suggests that you think abortion is a moral good. But that, too, is begging the question. Your reasoning on this issue is deeply flawed.

 

[Free]

I'm not going to debate this any further. Your logic is what it is and, IMHO, wrong

So, I prove you wrong, through sound logic and reasoning, and then you want to back out, claiming that my logic is wrong.

. A fetus is not a fully-formed human, capable of surviving on its own. It is a complex organism, developing the organs needed to survive, such as brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.

As I pointed out, this is a seriously flawed argument because of the logical conclusions that can be drawn, in which we could kill anyone, including infants, those with severe disabilities, and those relying on life support, since none of them could survive on their own. Again, this is

Some of these organs don't develop properly, making survival impossible. There is no reasonable alternative but to terminate the pregnancy, unless you prefer that an agonizing death.

You have made similar claims but I proved they were incorrect. You also ignore the fact that there are failed abortions in which a baby is simply left alone to die.

You can rationalize all you want, but those are the facts.

It is you that is rationalizing; I am showing with reason that your arguments are significantly flawed, that even some of your previously stated "facts" are contradictory to reality.

The rest of your post, including changing the subject to include euthanasia, is reductio ad absurdum.

Not at all. There is nothing absurd about my conclusions, as euthanasia proves. Even if euthanasia didn't prove the logic of my arguments, it still wouldn't be a case of reductio, becuase such conclusions are logically possible.

These are examples of reductio:

• If that’s so, then I’m a monkey’s uncle.
• If that is true, then pigs can fly.
• If he did that, then I’m the Shah of Persia.

https://iep.utm.edu/reductio/

Unlike yourself, I have stated the facts.

I disagree. Anyone reading through our posts can see where I provided several links that proved your facts to be incorrect.

 

[hawkman]

The arguments of anti-abortionists are both fallacious and poor, The unborn are not "fully human". They are in the fetal development stage are incapable of surviving outside the womb. Abortion is not the intentional, unjustified killing of a human! That is propaganda! It is a medical procedure that, for a variety of reasons, terminates a pregnancy.

Then you said this.

A fetus is not a fully-formed human, capable of surviving on its own.

jaybo are the unborn fully human ?

I had a question for you , did you miss it ? https://christianforums.net/threads/please-vote-for-life-and-liberty.93048/page-9#post-1713816

 

[ezrider]

This is fallaciously begging the question. That there are no laws declaring abortion a criminal offense is irrelevant as to whether or not it is. That I will not declare any punishment for those having an abortion is also irrelevant as to whether or not it is murder.

Why won't you tell us what the criminal penalty should be for an abortion? Because legally it is not considered to be murder?

Do you believe abortion is immoral, that it is wrong in God's eyes?

Ah, now you're asking a moral question. That is different than the legal question.

Your reasoning on this issue is deeply flawed.

This seems to be a common response of yours that you deliver to many with quite ease from your superiority throne. But honestly, it really only demonstrates your inability to understand the reasoning of another. I haven't called your reasoning flawed, I just understand it only comes from your position of faith.

 

[Free]

Why won't you tell us what the criminal penalty should be for an abortion? Because legally it is not considered to be murder?



Ah, now you're asking a moral question. That is different than the legal question.



This seems to be a common response of yours that you deliver to many with quite ease from your superiority throne. But honestly, it really only demonstrates your inability to understand the reasoning of another. I haven't called your reasoning flawed, I just understand it only comes from your position of faith.

I have proven that your arguments are flawed, but you have ignored those responses. If you can’t recognize the errors in your reasoning, that’s not on me.

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[ezrider]

Are you going to answer my question?

Just as soon as you tell me what you think the criminal penalty for an abortion should be.

 

[jaybo]

At the moment Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb what was he ?

I say he was fully human and fully God .

Even thought this is off-topic, I believe that Jesus gave up His divinity and was fully human throughout His life. To discuss this further, you should start another thread.

 

[hawkman]

Even thought this is off-topic, I believe that Jesus gave up His divinity and was fully human throughout His life. To discuss this further, you should start another thread.

We are talking about life at conception in the womb and what the status of the human life is . Off topic , really ? But it has you considering things in a different light .

Back on topic .

jaybo you can not remove the humanity from the union of the cell of a man and cell of a woman in the womb .

The question I asked here https://christianforums.net/threads/please-vote-for-life-and-liberty.93048/page-10#post-1713996 is not off topic . Can you answer it ? If you don't I will have my answer .

 

[Free]

Just as soon as you tell me what you think the criminal penalty for an abortion should be.

As I stated earlier in response to your question, it isn't nearly so simple.

Ah, now you're asking a moral question. That is different than the legal question.

I should have addressed this separately before. They are essentially the same question in this case. Many things which are illegal, such as those covered under the Criminal Code of Canada, are also immoral--theft, kidnapping, arson, rape, abuse, murder, etc.

The whole point is that abortion is the unjustified killing of a human life, which is precisely why it is immoral, and as such, there should be laws against it.

 

[ezrider]

As I stated earlier in response to your question, it isn't nearly so simple.


I should have addressed this separately before. They are essentially the same question in this case. Many things which are illegal, such as those covered under the Criminal Code of Canada, are also immoral--theft, kidnapping, arson, rape, abuse, murder, etc.

The whole point is that abortion is the unjustified killing of a human life, which is precisely why it is immoral, and as such, there should be laws against it.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html


Watch this news story and then get back to me? Was their cause unjustified? Look what happens you pass general laws banning abortion. Look what happens when your fetal worship blinds you to the unintended consequences of the laws wish to enforce. You can't seem to find it within you to tell us what criminal penalty you would assign for an abortion, even though you call it murder, which actually does come with criminal penalties. But, you are right, it is not that simply; and neither is the application of laws banning abortion.