Political Crossfire Forums

skieeborn · Joined: 29 Aug 2006 Posts: 3

Well, im new to this forum (just signed up today) so some of this stuff couldve been said or not but im gonna say it anyway.

Who are we as americans to tell women they cant get abortions. People make mistakes no one is perfect, so instead of raising a kid in a horrible lifestyle of being poor and living in violent neighborhoods. With only a mom that has to work double shifts at 2 jobs is no way for a kid to be raised. On top of that the soon to be mom could not no who the dad is or no and not wanto have a baby with him, so before the fetus is devoloped , would be better then a life full of suffering and poverty.

I no i no some of you say its murder, but put urself in there position. Dont just say i would never get an abortion actually think about it.

Your 17, these are supposed to be the best years of your life, your school works stacking up youve got athletics everyday. And one morning you wake up feeling bloated and vomiting , the thought crosses your mind, but no uve been safe theres no way its happened to you.
But just to be safe you take a home pregnancy test
BOOM positive, your life stops all of a sudden you have this huge weight on your shoulders (or in ur belly) you dont no what to do you have a part time job at a fast food resturant theres no way you can pay for a baby.
You muster up all your courage and go up to ur parents, but ur parents are furious that u were sexually active and say your gonna have to take care of this baby alone.

So you have two options quit school, and ur future and work full time so u can give ur baby the bear minimum to live in poverty and suffering.

Or before it devolops to get an abortion and continue on with your life, mabe get a scholarship to the college u wanted to go to for athletics, and get a future for yourself. Then when your older and settled down have the baby you always wanted with your husband and live a good normal life with you and your sons/ daughters.

Which would you choose, you dont have to post anything just think to yourself in your mind what would you do.

CommiepinkoLefty · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 747 Location: Seattle

This is exactly how I feel on the matter. It's unconstitutional to tell a women what she can't do with her body. All a fetus is up till the very late stages of development is an extension of her body. She should always be allowed to remove that extension unless it is capable of surviving outside (in which case it is a human).

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

skieeborn wrote: Well, im new to this forum (just signed up today) so some of this stuff couldve been said or not but im gonna say it anyway.

Who are we as americans to tell women they cant get abortions. People make mistakes no one is perfect, so instead of raising a kid in a horrible lifestyle of being poor and living in violent neighborhoods. With only a mom that has to work double shifts at 2 jobs is no way for a kid to be raised. On top of that the soon to be mom could not no who the dad is or no and not wanto have a baby with him, so before the fetus is devoloped , would be better then a life full of suffering and poverty.

I no i no some of you say its murder, but put urself in there position. Dont just say i would never get an abortion actually think about it.

Your 17, these are supposed to be the best years of your life, your school works stacking up youve got athletics everyday. And one morning you wake up feeling bloated and vomiting , the thought crosses your mind, but no uve been safe theres no way its happened to you.
But just to be safe you take a home pregnancy test
BOOM positive, your life stops all of a sudden you have this huge weight on your shoulders (or in ur belly) you dont no what to do you have a part time job at a fast food resturant theres no way you can pay for a baby.
You muster up all your courage and go up to ur parents, but ur parents are furious that u were sexually active and say your gonna have to take care of this baby alone.

So you have two options quit school, and ur future and work full time so u can give ur baby the bear minimum to live in poverty and suffering.

Or before it devolops to get an abortion and continue on with your life, mabe get a scholarship to the college u wanted to go to for athletics, and get a future for yourself. Then when your older and settled down have the baby you always wanted with your husband and live a good normal life with you and your sons/ daughters.

Which would you choose, you dont have to post anything just think to yourself in your mind what would you do.

These are precisely the types of arguments I detest and are the primary reason the abortion debate has degenerated into such drivel. None of this post has any relevance whatsoever. Certainly, these situations are difficult and often traumatic for many women. I highly doubt you'd find any on the pro-life side to begin with a premise that teenage pregnancies are easy and painless affairs. Unfortunately, murder does not suddenly become morally permissable if it's use may prevent hardship. To the extent that ending another's life is ever permissable, abortion can only qualify if the value of human life is granted at birth. This is far from an accepted premise. And yet, 98% of pro-choice people present arguments of this sort. I find myself entirely unable to comprehend it.

Whether or not I believe pregnant teenagers to be facing difficult situations is morally and logically irrelevant. Putting myself in their shoes only obscures the issue. Indeed, he whole validity of morality, logic, ethics, and codes of law, rests in the fact that whole question of shoes is moot. The only relevant question concerns the point at which value is endowed in human life. Or, to put it more simply, whether abortion can be considered murder. I believe it is for various reasons. Therefore, nothing else is morally or logically pertinent.

Other pro-choice arguments which I'll now address in the vain hope that I'll never again be forced to read them, are in a similar vein. Firstly, the "we have too many people already so abortion is justifiable" argument. I'm not going to waste many words on this. Murder is not justifiable because of perceived population problems and thus abortion, to the extent that it is considered murder, can not be justified either.

Next, the "unwanted children are likely to lead desolate and miserable existences" argument. The objections to this argument are multi-tiered. First, murder laws do not make a distinction between lives which are miserable and desolate and those that are happy and fruitful. To suggest that abortion is morally justifiable on the basis of expected unhappiness future children are likely to enjoy, is to suggest that some lives have more inherent worth then others; that some are endowed with greater and lesser rights to life, something hardly consistent with standard liberal theory (though, wildly consistent with eugenics or utilitarian bioethics). The argument is so inherently faulty, it is not even relevant whether the question of life's genus has been addressed. Furthermore, this argument inscribes one's relative happiness to the circumstances of their birth, a remarkably hollow decision. It single-handledly invalidates the role of individual choice (a horribly ironic fact).

Finally, the "if you ban abortions, women will continue to get them, but will do so unsafely". This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument in the bunch. It is an argument not against abortion laws, but against all laws. No law in the history of time has entirely proscribed a behavior. We have murder laws and yet people still murder. We have rape laws and yet people still rape. Should we then abandon all laws, because they're bound to be broken by some members of our society? Pro-choicers might then point to, in attempt to rescue their shambles of an argument, the word unsafe in the thesis. Unfortunately, it has absolutely no relevance. Undoubtedly, were murderers freed from the possibility of being apprehended and fired upon by law enforcement officers as a result of their crime, their overall welfare would be increased. Luckily, we as a society aren't especially concerned with the welfare of murderers. We choose instead to promote laws which might deter them from joining this group in the first place.

Even arguments which consider the bodily rights of the women ultimately fail without considering the central question: Is abortion murder? Don't get me wrong, their are pro-life analogues to these arguments. As I said, the debate has degenerated into complete drivel. But the pro-choice movement particularly promotes such absurd arguments time and time again.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Obilisk18 wrote: skieeborn wrote: Well, im new to this forum (just signed up today) so some of this stuff couldve been said or not but im gonna say it anyway.

Who are we as americans to tell women they cant get abortions. People make mistakes no one is perfect, so instead of raising a kid in a horrible lifestyle of being poor and living in violent neighborhoods. With only a mom that has to work double shifts at 2 jobs is no way for a kid to be raised. On top of that the soon to be mom could not no who the dad is or no and not wanto have a baby with him, so before the fetus is devoloped , would be better then a life full of suffering and poverty.

I no i no some of you say its murder, but put urself in there position. Dont just say i would never get an abortion actually think about it.

Your 17, these are supposed to be the best years of your life, your school works stacking up youve got athletics everyday. And one morning you wake up feeling bloated and vomiting , the thought crosses your mind, but no uve been safe theres no way its happened to you.
But just to be safe you take a home pregnancy test
BOOM positive, your life stops all of a sudden you have this huge weight on your shoulders (or in ur belly) you dont no what to do you have a part time job at a fast food resturant theres no way you can pay for a baby.
You muster up all your courage and go up to ur parents, but ur parents are furious that u were sexually active and say your gonna have to take care of this baby alone.

So you have two options quit school, and ur future and work full time so u can give ur baby the bear minimum to live in poverty and suffering.

Or before it devolops to get an abortion and continue on with your life, mabe get a scholarship to the college u wanted to go to for athletics, and get a future for yourself. Then when your older and settled down have the baby you always wanted with your husband and live a good normal life with you and your sons/ daughters.

Which would you choose, you dont have to post anything just think to yourself in your mind what would you do.

These are precisely the types of arguments I detest and are the primary reason the abortion debate has degenerated into such drivel. None of this post has any relevance whatsoever. Certainly, these situations are difficult and often traumatic for many women. I highly doubt you'd find any on the pro-life side to begin with a premise that teenage pregnancies are easy and painless affairs. Unfortunately, murder does not suddenly become morally permissable if it's use may prevent hardship. To the extent that ending another's life is ever permissable, abortion can only qualify if the value of human life is granted at birth. This is far from an accepted premise. And yet, 98% of pro-choice people present arguments of this sort. I find myself entirely unable to comprehend it.

Whether or not I believe pregnant teenagers to be facing difficult situations is morally and logically irrelevant. Putting myself in their shoes only obscures the issue. Indeed, he whole validity of morality, logic, ethics, and codes of law, rests in the fact that whole question of shoes is moot. The only relevant question concerns the point at which value is endowed in human life. Or, to put it more simply, whether abortion can be considered murder. I believe it is for various reasons. Therefore, nothing else is morally or logically pertinent.

Other pro-choice arguments which I'll now address in the vain hope that I'll never again be forced to read them, are in a similar vein. Firstly, the "we have too many people already so abortion is justifiable" argument. I'm not going to waste many words on this. Murder is not justifiable because of perceived population problems and thus abortion, to the extent that it is considered murder, can not be justified either.

Next, the "unwanted children are likely to lead desolate and miserable existences" argument. The objections to this argument are multi-tiered. First, murder laws do not make a distinction between lives which are miserable and desolate and those that are happy and fruitful. To suggest that abortion is morally justifiable on the basis of expected unhappiness future children are likely to enjoy, is to suggest that some lives have more inherent worth then others; that some are endowed with greater and lesser rights to life, something hardly consistent with standard liberal theory (though, wildly consistent with eugenics or utilitarian bioethics). The argument is so inherently faulty, it is not even relevant whether the question of life's genus has been addressed. Furthermore, this argument inscribes one's relative happiness to the circumstances of their birth, a remarkably hollow decision. It single-handledly invalidates the role of individual choice (a horribly ironic fact).

Finally, the "if you ban abortions, women will continue to get them, but will do so unsafely". This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument in the bunch. It is an argument not against abortion laws, but against all laws. No law in the history of time has entirely proscribed a behavior. We have murder laws and yet people still murder. We have rape laws and yet people still rape. Should we then abandon all laws, because they're bound to be broken by some members of our society? Pro-choicers might then point to, in attempt to rescue their shambles of an argument, the word unsafe in the thesis. Unfortunately, it has absolutely no relevance. Undoubtedly, were murderers freed from the possibility of being apprehended and fired upon by law enforcement officers as a result of their crime, their overall welfare would be increased. Luckily, we as a society aren't especially concerned with the welfare of murderers. We choose instead to promote laws which might deter them from joining this group in the first place.

Even arguments which consider the bodily rights of the women ultimately fail without considering the central question: Is abortion murder? Don't get me wrong, their are pro-life analogues to these arguments. As I said, the debate has degenerated into complete drivel. But the pro-choice movement particularly promotes such absurd arguments time and time again.

I like your post but I am wondering what pro life arguments you consider to be comparable? Could you expand on them in an equally enlightening manner?

CommiepinkoLefty · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 747 Location: Seattle

Obilisk18 wrote:

Finally, the "if you ban abortions, women will continue to get them, but will do so unsafely". This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument in the bunch. It is an argument not against abortion laws, but against all laws. No law in the history of time has entirely proscribed a behavior. We have murder laws and yet people still murder. We have rape laws and yet people still rape. Should we then abandon all laws, because they're bound to be broken by some members of our society? Pro-choicers might then point to, in attempt to rescue their shambles of an argument, the word unsafe in the thesis. Unfortunately, it has absolutely no relevance. Undoubtedly, were murderers freed from the possibility of being apprehended and fired upon by law enforcement officers as a result of their crime, their overall welfare would be increased. Luckily, we as a society aren't especially concerned with the welfare of murderers. We choose instead to promote laws which might deter them from joining this group in the first place.

If you outlaw abortion, the rich will send their daughters to mexico or canada, while the poor will use coathangers. Regardless of legality, it will be done. Now, if you are comfortable with causing the deaths of thousands of unfortunate girls, what's wrong with killing non-human tissue?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Obilisk18 wrote: These are precisely the types of arguments I detest and are the primary reason the abortion debate has degenerated into such drivel. None of this post has any relevance whatsoever. Certainly, these situations are difficult and often traumatic for many women. I highly doubt you'd find any on the pro-life side to begin with a premise that teenage pregnancies are easy and painless affairs. Unfortunately, murder does not suddenly become morally permissable if it's use may prevent hardship. To the extent that ending another's life is ever permissable, abortion can only qualify if the value of human life is granted at birth. This is far from an accepted premise. And yet, 98% of pro-choice people present arguments of this sort. I find myself entirely unable to comprehend it.

Whether or not I believe pregnant teenagers to be facing difficult situations is morally and logically irrelevant. Putting myself in their shoes only obscures the issue. Indeed, he whole validity of morality, logic, ethics, and codes of law, rests in the fact that whole question of shoes is moot. The only relevant question concerns the point at which value is endowed in human life. Or, to put it more simply, whether abortion can be considered murder. I believe it is for various reasons. Therefore, nothing else is morally or logically pertinent.

Other pro-choice arguments which I'll now address in the vain hope that I'll never again be forced to read them, are in a similar vein. Firstly, the "we have too many people already so abortion is justifiable" argument. I'm not going to waste many words on this. Murder is not justifiable because of perceived population problems and thus abortion, to the extent that it is considered murder, can not be justified either.

Next, the "unwanted children are likely to lead desolate and miserable existences" argument. The objections to this argument are multi-tiered. First, murder laws do not make a distinction between lives which are miserable and desolate and those that are happy and fruitful. To suggest that abortion is morally justifiable on the basis of expected unhappiness future children are likely to enjoy, is to suggest that some lives have more inherent worth then others; that some are endowed with greater and lesser rights to life, something hardly consistent with standard liberal theory (though, wildly consistent with eugenics or utilitarian bioethics). The argument is so inherently faulty, it is not even relevant whether the question of life's genus has been addressed. Furthermore, this argument inscribes one's relative happiness to the circumstances of their birth, a remarkably hollow decision. It single-handledly invalidates the role of individual choice (a horribly ironic fact).

Finally, the "if you ban abortions, women will continue to get them, but will do so unsafely". This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument in the bunch. It is an argument not against abortion laws, but against all laws. No law in the history of time has entirely proscribed a behavior. We have murder laws and yet people still murder. We have rape laws and yet people still rape. Should we then abandon all laws, because they're bound to be broken by some members of our society? Pro-choicers might then point to, in attempt to rescue their shambles of an argument, the word unsafe in the thesis. Unfortunately, it has absolutely no relevance. Undoubtedly, were murderers freed from the possibility of being apprehended and fired upon by law enforcement officers as a result of their crime, their overall welfare would be increased. Luckily, we as a society aren't especially concerned with the welfare of murderers. We choose instead to promote laws which might deter them from joining this group in the first place.

Even arguments which consider the bodily rights of the women ultimately fail without considering the central question: Is abortion murder? Don't get me wrong, their are pro-life analogues to these arguments. As I said, the debate has degenerated into complete drivel. But the pro-choice movement particularly promotes such absurd arguments time and time again.
The debate becomes drivel when pro-life people use terms like murder and baby when neither are accurate.

JayDubya · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1894 Location: Texas

Obilisk18 wrote: These are precisely the types of arguments I detest...
... the pro-choice movement particularly promotes such absurd arguments time and time again.

Best. Post. Ever.

CommiepinkoLefty wrote:
If you outlaw abortion, the rich will send their daughters to mexico or canada, while the poor will use coathangers. Regardless of legality, it will be done. Now, if you are comfortable with causing the deaths of thousands of unfortunate girls, what's wrong with killing non-human tissue?

That is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Something either is or is not morally permissable. As we believe it to be murder, it certainly falls into the "not morally permissable" category.

If idiotic girls wish to break the law and do harm to themselves, that is of course their choice. And then they can expect possible prosecution as a consequence.

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: Obilisk18 wrote:

Finally, the "if you ban abortions, women will continue to get them, but will do so unsafely". This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument in the bunch. It is an argument not against abortion laws, but against all laws. No law in the history of time has entirely proscribed a behavior. We have murder laws and yet people still murder. We have rape laws and yet people still rape. Should we then abandon all laws, because they're bound to be broken by some members of our society? Pro-choicers might then point to, in attempt to rescue their shambles of an argument, the word unsafe in the thesis. Unfortunately, it has absolutely no relevance. Undoubtedly, were murderers freed from the possibility of being apprehended and fired upon by law enforcement officers as a result of their crime, their overall welfare would be increased. Luckily, we as a society aren't especially concerned with the welfare of murderers. We choose instead to promote laws which might deter them from joining this group in the first place.

If you outlaw abortion, the rich will send their daughters to mexico or canada, while the poor will use coathangers. Regardless of legality, it will be done.

Again, this is irrelevant. The potential for laws to be circumvented has no bearing on the validity or necessity of laws.

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: Now, if you are comfortable with causing the deaths of thousands of unfortunate girls

I cause nothing. I am responsible for my own actions. I bear no responsibility for the choices of others. As a citizen and an individual, I need only be concerned that the laws of our society reflect values which are consistent with our traditions, logic, and the dictates of morality. Legalized abortion meets none of those standards.

CommiepinkoLefty wrote: what's wrong with killing non-human tissue?

What in the world are you talking about? Fetuses are, by any definition, human tissue. Whether or not they are person's entitled to all the rights that personhood grants is the question. There is a fundamental difference between promoting a system which condones murder and creating laws which cause others to undertake unsafe courses. Again, should we legalize theft because the risk of apprehension makes theft more dangerous for thieves?

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

Selfish_Meme wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: These are precisely the types of arguments I detest and are the primary reason the abortion debate has degenerated into such drivel. None of this post has any relevance whatsoever. Certainly, these situations are difficult and often traumatic for many women. I highly doubt you'd find any on the pro-life side to begin with a premise that teenage pregnancies are easy and painless affairs. Unfortunately, murder does not suddenly become morally permissable if it's use may prevent hardship. To the extent that ending another's life is ever permissable, abortion can only qualify if the value of human life is granted at birth. This is far from an accepted premise. And yet, 98% of pro-choice people present arguments of this sort. I find myself entirely unable to comprehend it.

Whether or not I believe pregnant teenagers to be facing difficult situations is morally and logically irrelevant. Putting myself in their shoes only obscures the issue. Indeed, he whole validity of morality, logic, ethics, and codes of law, rests in the fact that whole question of shoes is moot. The only relevant question concerns the point at which value is endowed in human life. Or, to put it more simply, whether abortion can be considered murder. I believe it is for various reasons. Therefore, nothing else is morally or logically pertinent.

Other pro-choice arguments which I'll now address in the vain hope that I'll never again be forced to read them, are in a similar vein. Firstly, the "we have too many people already so abortion is justifiable" argument. I'm not going to waste many words on this. Murder is not justifiable because of perceived population problems and thus abortion, to the extent that it is considered murder, can not be justified either.

Next, the "unwanted children are likely to lead desolate and miserable existences" argument. The objections to this argument are multi-tiered. First, murder laws do not make a distinction between lives which are miserable and desolate and those that are happy and fruitful. To suggest that abortion is morally justifiable on the basis of expected unhappiness future children are likely to enjoy, is to suggest that some lives have more inherent worth then others; that some are endowed with greater and lesser rights to life, something hardly consistent with standard liberal theory (though, wildly consistent with eugenics or utilitarian bioethics). The argument is so inherently faulty, it is not even relevant whether the question of life's genus has been addressed. Furthermore, this argument inscribes one's relative happiness to the circumstances of their birth, a remarkably hollow decision. It single-handledly invalidates the role of individual choice (a horribly ironic fact).

Finally, the "if you ban abortions, women will continue to get them, but will do so unsafely". This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument in the bunch. It is an argument not against abortion laws, but against all laws. No law in the history of time has entirely proscribed a behavior. We have murder laws and yet people still murder. We have rape laws and yet people still rape. Should we then abandon all laws, because they're bound to be broken by some members of our society? Pro-choicers might then point to, in attempt to rescue their shambles of an argument, the word unsafe in the thesis. Unfortunately, it has absolutely no relevance. Undoubtedly, were murderers freed from the possibility of being apprehended and fired upon by law enforcement officers as a result of their crime, their overall welfare would be increased. Luckily, we as a society aren't especially concerned with the welfare of murderers. We choose instead to promote laws which might deter them from joining this group in the first place.

Even arguments which consider the bodily rights of the women ultimately fail without considering the central question: Is abortion murder? Don't get me wrong, their are pro-life analogues to these arguments. As I said, the debate has degenerated into complete drivel. But the pro-choice movement particularly promotes such absurd arguments time and time again.
The debate becomes drivel when pro-life people use terms like murder and baby when neither are accurate.

Absurd. Nonsense. Whether or not abortion constitutes murder is the entire debate. Your argument essentially amounts to saying "abortion isn't murder, because abortion isn't murder." It's absurdity of the highest order. Pro-life people often make a similar argument. I.e., "abortion is murder because abortion is murder." Hardly consistent with the dictates of legitimate debate.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Murder means illegality, so to describe it as murder is incorrect because at the moment it is legal, if you make it illegal 'then' you can call it murder.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5089 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: Murder means illegality, so to describe it as murder is incorrect because at the moment it is legal, if you make it illegal 'then' you can call it murder.

Murder is first and foremost defined morally NOT legally and the moral argument about abortion is not so cut and dried.

On the other hand as you know I do not agree with the practice labelling abortion as murder either.

However I do understand the reasoning behind why some do and if you do believe (as I do and as human embryology and medicine predominantly does) that individual human life is formed at conception, then induced medical abortion is at minimum the termination of a human life, if not categorized as murder.

You and I have agreed on as much in the past. We simply place a different value on the life in question.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Wikipedia wrote: Murder is the unlawful killing ....

As with most legal terms...
Sorry Gilbert but murder is strictly a legal term and by the definition at http://dictionary.law.com it is killing with no legal excuse.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5089 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: Wikipedia wrote: Murder is the unlawful killing ....

As with most legal terms...
Sorry Gilbert but murder is strictly a legal term and by the definition at http://dictionary.law.com it is killing with no legal excuse.

My source is much older.

"Thou shalt not murder" Ten Commandments

The moral outrage of "murder" or the sense of wrong if you prefer had to precede ANY law which made the act of unlawful killing distinguished from the act of lawful killing, how was that distinction made if laws did not exist to make it for us?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Sorry Gilbert but the commandment isn't a definition its an admonishment. Thou shalt not murder, does not define murder, it wasn't even written in english, thou shalt not kill, murder, dehumanise, release from existance, whose to say what word could have been chosen in its place, what does the original text say in its oldest form and language?

Then list the possible meanings in english providing for context, I don't think its cut and dried at all.

is there a definition of murder in the bible?

JayDubya · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1894 Location: Texas

Okay, I've seen a lot of stupid arguments in favor of abortion, but this isn't just stupid, it's absurdist.

We think it's the same thing as murder and that it should be illegal. You're telling us it can't be murder because it isn't illegal.

Essentially your argument supports the theorem that anything the government permits or supports is and should be legal, and everything it doesn't is not and should not be. This is not the case - governments are lead by rather imperfect people and can make mistakes.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Whats the difference between killing and murder? l e g a l i t y

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

hmm legal - a law says its Ok to do
illegal - a law says its not Ok to do

Who provides the laws? the government does? who decides what government wants? the people do or they should do in a good system.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5089 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sorry Gilbert but the commandment isn't a definition its an admonishment. Thou shalt not murder, does not define murder, it wasn't even written in english, thou shalt not kill, murder, dehumanise, release from existance, whose to say what word could have been chosen in its place, what does the original text say in its oldest form and language?

Then list the possible meanings in english providing for context, I don't think its cut and dried at all.

is there a definition of murder in the bible?

I was going for a little humor there, as you know I do not use the bible as a source in general within this arguement.

My point is that before there COULD be law and in fact before there was a word "murder" at all, the act of murder had to be seen as wrong. The word is created to describe something which was MADE illegal AFTER the immoral nature of the act itself was recognized. Laws are codified social morality that is why they differ from society to society.

It is impossible to argue that laws against murder or the word murder PRECEDED the recognition by individuals and then groups of individuals, that the act itself was clearly wrong or immoral.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

I'm not even sure what we are discussing any more Gilbert ;)

hmmm...the problem is, someone said 'we shouldn't kill each other it is immoral', someone else said 'is killing immoral in all situations?'. Someone else said, 'not if they are killing good people', so someone else said, 'OK it is not immoral to kill as long as they are killing good people'. Someone else said 'we need a new word to describe these good people killers'. Someone else said 'I don't like those murder people over the hill, lets call them murderers'.

So where does that leave us morally?

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

JayDubya wrote: Okay, I've seen a lot of stupid arguments in favor of abortion, but this isn't just stupid, it's absurdist.

We think it's the same thing as murder and that it should be illegal. You're telling us it can't be murder because it isn't illegal.

Essentially your argument supports the theorem that anything the government permits or supports is and should be legal, and everything it doesn't is not and should not be. This is not the case - governments are lead by rather imperfect people and can make mistakes.

Indeed. Furthermore, his argument tacitly invalidates the possibility of ever changing any laws. If an act's rightness is determined by it's legality, then there is no basis to ever promote change. Something which is against the law (Gay Marriage for instance), cannot justifiably be made legal, because the law has granted it de-facto weight that supercedes human thought, reason, or morality. The converse is also true. Hardly the type of philosophy one would expect a "progressive" to promote. Quite statist really.