How is it wrong to get an abortion?

[Das_boogus]

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

TrueLore

Das_boogus

TrueLore

Das_boogus

And if you still stand by your statement that "abortion is not murder" than you would have NO problem watching this video on it. WITHOUT the look of horror, WITHOUT turning it off, WITHOUT thinking about it later and WITHOUT feeling disgusted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPBZ2Q0mY7g&feature=related

^ this is what you say isn't murder. Every aspect of that from is a human..NOT just a blob.

Nope, not murder.

Let's say that it was disgusting, horrifying, etc. etc., still wouldn't make it murder. It's a very blatant irrelevant appeal to emotion that you are making here.

Got kids?

Not relevant. The only reason you would go down that route is to make an emotional appeal, which would be just as irrelevant and pointless as the argument you've made above. Irrelevant emotional appeals are fallacious modes of argument.

Is Relevant...I went down that route to show that it is murder of a human. Its not irrelevant nor pointless to my argument. It was aimed towards more of the mental appeal and morals than was of emotion. And if you don't have emotion about it...perhaps you would have to experience it. Abortion is murder...end of story

It isn't actually relevant to your argument whether he has kids. Your point is kids are valuable to the point where they should not be killed and, at least as far as your argument, a human foetus qualifies as a kid, meaning to kill the foetus is to kill a kid.

This would, assuming it is true, remain the case regardless of whether TureLore had kids or felt that foetuses were equivalent to kids would it not?

I would...but the case I am making is true. Look at the science behind it. If it wasn't "alive" wouldn't that mean the person is unable to reproduce? Anyways...TrueLore may have possible have NOT experience what it is like to lose his own kid.

[Das_boogus]

oHoN

zeffers

Why isn't abortion murder?

Murder is a legal term and abortion doesn't fit its definition.

It's ending of a unborn human...means to end a life. How is abortion not? is it because it has not lived a life outside of the womb?

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

TrueLore

Das_boogus

Got kids?

Not relevant. The only reason you would go down that route is to make an emotional appeal, which would be just as irrelevant and pointless as the argument you've made above. Irrelevant emotional appeals are fallacious modes of argument.

Is Relevant...I went down that route to show that it is murder of a human. Its not irrelevant nor pointless to my argument. It was aimed towards more of the mental appeal and morals than was of emotion. And if you don't have emotion about it...perhaps you would have to experience it. Abortion is murder...end of story

It isn't actually relevant to your argument whether he has kids. Your point is kids are valuable to the point where they should not be killed and, at least as far as your argument, a human foetus qualifies as a kid, meaning to kill the foetus is to kill a kid.

This would, assuming it is true, remain the case regardless of whether TureLore had kids or felt that foetuses were equivalent to kids would it not?

I would...but the case I am making is true. Look at the science behind it. If it wasn't "alive" wouldn't that mean the person is unable to reproduce? Anyways...TrueLore may have possible have NOT experience what it is like to lose his own kid.

Did TrueLore make the mistake of arguing that foetus were not alive? I'd have to look back to be sure, but I am pretty sure he didn't. The science is not in question here. I suspect that TrueLore's position is that it is moral permissible to terminate foetuses even though they are living and of the human species.

Sure, but that is irreverent to why TrueLore, if what you claim is true, is wrong. You are confusing a reason that might cause someone to come and take the position you do with it being relevant to why, under your position, abortion is wrong.

[Das_boogus]

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

TrueLore

Das_boogus

Got kids?

Not relevant. The only reason you would go down that route is to make an emotional appeal, which would be just as irrelevant and pointless as the argument you've made above. Irrelevant emotional appeals are fallacious modes of argument.

Is Relevant...I went down that route to show that it is murder of a human. Its not irrelevant nor pointless to my argument. It was aimed towards more of the mental appeal and morals than was of emotion. And if you don't have emotion about it...perhaps you would have to experience it. Abortion is murder...end of story

It isn't actually relevant to your argument whether he has kids. Your point is kids are valuable to the point where they should not be killed and, at least as far as your argument, a human foetus qualifies as a kid, meaning to kill the foetus is to kill a kid.

This would, assuming it is true, remain the case regardless of whether TureLore had kids or felt that foetuses were equivalent to kids would it not?

I would...but the case I am making is true. Look at the science behind it. If it wasn't "alive" wouldn't that mean the person is unable to reproduce? Anyways...TrueLore may have possible have NOT experience what it is like to lose his own kid.

Did TrueLore make the mistake of arguing that foetus were not alive? I'd have to look back to be sure, but I am pretty sure he didn't. The science is not in question here. I suspect that TrueLore's position is that it is moral permissible to terminate foetuses even though they are living and of the human species.

Sure, but that is irreverent to why TrueLore, if what you claim is true, is wrong. You are confusing a reason that might cause someone to come and take the position you do with it being relevant to why, under your position, abortion is wrong.

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

Is Relevant...I went down that route to show that it is murder of a human. Its not irrelevant nor pointless to my argument. It was aimed towards more of the mental appeal and morals than was of emotion. And if you don't have emotion about it...perhaps you would have to experience it. Abortion is murder...end of story

It isn't actually relevant to your argument whether he has kids. Your point is kids are valuable to the point where they should not be killed and, at least as far as your argument, a human foetus qualifies as a kid, meaning to kill the foetus is to kill a kid.

This would, assuming it is true, remain the case regardless of whether TureLore had kids or felt that foetuses were equivalent to kids would it not?

I would...but the case I am making is true. Look at the science behind it. If it wasn't "alive" wouldn't that mean the person is unable to reproduce? Anyways...TrueLore may have possible have NOT experience what it is like to lose his own kid.

Did TrueLore make the mistake of arguing that foetus were not alive? I'd have to look back to be sure, but I am pretty sure he didn't. The science is not in question here. I suspect that TrueLore's position is that it is moral permissible to terminate foetuses even though they are living and of the human species.

Sure, but that is irreverent to why TrueLore, if what you claim is true, is wrong. You are confusing a reason that might cause someone to come and take the position you do with it being relevant to why, under your position, abortion is wrong.

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

[Das_boogus]

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

Is Relevant...I went down that route to show that it is murder of a human. Its not irrelevant nor pointless to my argument. It was aimed towards more of the mental appeal and morals than was of emotion. And if you don't have emotion about it...perhaps you would have to experience it. Abortion is murder...end of story

It isn't actually relevant to your argument whether he has kids. Your point is kids are valuable to the point where they should not be killed and, at least as far as your argument, a human foetus qualifies as a kid, meaning to kill the foetus is to kill a kid.

This would, assuming it is true, remain the case regardless of whether TureLore had kids or felt that foetuses were equivalent to kids would it not?

I would...but the case I am making is true. Look at the science behind it. If it wasn't "alive" wouldn't that mean the person is unable to reproduce? Anyways...TrueLore may have possible have NOT experience what it is like to lose his own kid.

Did TrueLore make the mistake of arguing that foetus were not alive? I'd have to look back to be sure, but I am pretty sure he didn't. The science is not in question here. I suspect that TrueLore's position is that it is moral permissible to terminate foetuses even though they are living and of the human species.

Sure, but that is irreverent to why TrueLore, if what you claim is true, is wrong. You are confusing a reason that might cause someone to come and take the position you do with it being relevant to why, under your position, abortion is wrong.

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

I would...but the case I am making is true. Look at the science behind it. If it wasn't "alive" wouldn't that mean the person is unable to reproduce? Anyways...TrueLore may have possible have NOT experience what it is like to lose his own kid.

Did TrueLore make the mistake of arguing that foetus were not alive? I'd have to look back to be sure, but I am pretty sure he didn't. The science is not in question here. I suspect that TrueLore's position is that it is moral permissible to terminate foetuses even though they are living and of the human species.

Sure, but that is irreverent to why TrueLore, if what you claim is true, is wrong. You are confusing a reason that might cause someone to come and take the position you do with it being relevant to why, under your position, abortion is wrong.

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

[Das_boogus]

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

I would...but the case I am making is true. Look at the science behind it. If it wasn't "alive" wouldn't that mean the person is unable to reproduce? Anyways...TrueLore may have possible have NOT experience what it is like to lose his own kid.

Did TrueLore make the mistake of arguing that foetus were not alive? I'd have to look back to be sure, but I am pretty sure he didn't. The science is not in question here. I suspect that TrueLore's position is that it is moral permissible to terminate foetuses even though they are living and of the human species.

Sure, but that is irreverent to why TrueLore, if what you claim is true, is wrong. You are confusing a reason that might cause someone to come and take the position you do with it being relevant to why, under your position, abortion is wrong.

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

So the should have let their family die with their inaction?

That is the problem though: in this instance there are no other means.

[Das_boogus]

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

So the should have let their family die with their inaction?

That is the problem though: in this instance there are no other means.

Ah...than please specify more clearly. I still say no they shouldn't. Cause there is always a opposite and equal reaction.

[TrueLore]

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

Your definition of murder would include stepping on flowers and accidentally eating bugs, or would that be manslaughter?

Anyways, would it be correct to assume that you are opposed to abortion even if it would save the life of the woman? Even if the pregnancy has no chance of success?

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

So the should have let their family die with their inaction?

That is the problem though: in this instance there are no other means.

Ah...than please specify more clearly. I still say no they shouldn't. Cause there is always a opposite and equal reaction.

Alright, I was just clearing what you definition of murder was exactly. So something like: "Any instance of human killing is an unjustified action."

I suspect TureLore's postion is that this definition of murder is wrong and some killing of humans is justified in the appropriate circumstances.

[Das_boogus]

TrueLore

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

No TrueLore didn't say the fetus was alive. I did...and for something to be murdered would have to be alive first before pronounced dead. And many have most likely came and as it is wrong or it's pro choice. By definition the word Murder mean "to end a life". so back on track...abortion is murder ...but it isn't a survival kind of murder so don't use animals in your argument..they are only trying to survive. Which is what a unborn child would try to do to save it's own life.

Murder, in terms of the moral concept(as opposed to the legal term, is actually more like "intentional unjustified killing of a human."

Case in point, if a robber was about to kill my family member and I shot and killed the robber to prevent harm to my family, would I have murdered the robber?

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

Your definition of murder would include stepping on flowers and accidentally eating bugs, or would that be manslaughter?

Anyways, would it be correct to assume that you are opposed to abortion even if it would save the life of the woman? Even if the pregnancy has no chance of success?

I would be over all talking about manslaughter. In any case...I would oppose to an abortion cause there is always C- section and the child can be placed in a ICU. The only way I would be okay with it is if the child is already dead. Other than that...I say Let it grow.

[Das_boogus]

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

yes...does not matter if it was to protect your family or not...you ended a life of someone else's child.

Alright, so if, as you seem to be suggesting, that abortion should not occur because it is murder, does this mean that this person should have not killed the robber and prevented the death of their family?

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

So the should have let their family die with their inaction?

That is the problem though: in this instance there are no other means.

Ah...than please specify more clearly. I still say no they shouldn't. Cause there is always a opposite and equal reaction.

Alright, I was just clearing what you definition of murder was exactly. So something like: "Any instance of human killing is an unjustified action."

I suspect TureLore's postion is that this definition of murder is wrong and some killing of humans is justified in the appropriate circumstances.

I can respect that this would be his position. However people can be talked out of doing somethings. Taking a life that can be spared is something that can be spoken about.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

The Willow Of Darkness

Das_boogus

No they shouldn't have...cause that person's blood (so to say) would be on your hands. And blood can be very hard to clean off and will always be there. Besides...there are other means so no one is dead.

So the should have let their family die with their inaction?

That is the problem though: in this instance there are no other means.

Ah...than please specify more clearly. I still say no they shouldn't. Cause there is always a opposite and equal reaction.

Alright, I was just clearing what you definition of murder was exactly. So something like: "Any instance of human killing is an unjustified action."

I suspect TureLore's postion is that this definition of murder is wrong and some killing of humans is justified in the appropriate circumstances.

I can respect that this would be his position. However people can be talked out of doing somethings. Taking a life that can be spared is something that can be spoken about.

Oh yes, that is certainly true. I've help pull a few people into supporting abortion being available. I'm yet to see someone be pulled to disagreeing with abortion, but that is likely a result of this forum generally having people who support abortion.

The point I don't care much for is burying that he has a different idea about what murder is in a manner that suggested that it is non-existent.