Why do women have abortions?

[fix]

Sorry, you seemed to have missed this.

Main Entry: slav·ery
Pronunciation: \ˈslā-v(ə-)rē\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
1: drudgery, toil
2: submission to a dominating influence
3 a: **the state of a person who is a chattel of another **b: the practice of slaveholdingmerriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery

Notice the lack of reliance on legal recognition.

Remember to read and correct your mistakes as they are pointed out to you.

Again, you think slavery cannot be made good because of a dictionary definition, yet murder can be made into nonmurder by the same dictionary?

IOW, a dictionary gives a brief statement about some word. The totality of the concept must be understood so that folks may have an intelligent conversation.

Murder is wrong. This is self evident. The dictionary you choose to use claims murder is an unlawful act. You take that to mean that if the state claims it is lawful then it magically is no longer murder.

The problem is the state is not the author of life. Any law that is unjust is no real law. Thus, claiming it is lawful to murder because the state says so is no law at all.

 

[st_lucy]

Check the definition I posted

" the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

Abortion is not murder if its allowed in a country.

So with your definition when the Nazi’s, were killing innocent Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped, etc they were not committing murder because it was the law of the land?

And this can be said of all genocides, such as Comboida, Rwanda, Darfar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nanking, Ukraine, Turkey and yes in abortion.

All of these genocides have one thing in common, get rid of the those who oppose you or are a hindrance to you in any way which usually involve torture and death.

Are we not suppose to learn from history instead of repeating it, but unfortunately we humans cannot seem to get these lessons learned and so the murders go on. And YOU can lie to yourself all you want but abortion is MURDER and no law of the land can ever change that very fact.

 

[fix]

So with your definition when the Nazi’s, were killing innocent Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped, etc they were not committing murder because it was the law of the land?

And this can be said of all genocides, such as Comboida, Rwanda, Darfar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nanking, Ukraine, Turkey and yes in abortion.

All of these genocides have one thing in common, get rid of the those who oppose you or are a hindrance to you in any way which usually involve torture and death.

Are we not suppose to learn from history instead of repeating it, but unfortunately we humans cannot seem to get these lessons learned and so the murders go on. And YOU can lie to yourself all you want but abortion is MURDER and no law of the land can ever change that very fact.

Yes, it is as if by simply changing the name of some action we change what the action is. That is just absurd. Or, if the state says gravity does not exist then suddnly it no longer exists. Silly.

 

[st_lucy]

Yes, it is as if by simply changing the name of some action we change what the action is. That is just absurd. Or, if the state says gravity does not exist then suddnly it no longer exists. Silly.

IT would be silly if it wasn’t so scary. I wonder how many went along with it is not murder to kill Tutsi in Rwanda, because of the law of the land.

 

[Isambard]

Again, you think slavery cannot be made good because of a dictionary definition,

I dont remember giving a normative opinion on slavery. I merely said it was a non-sequiter.

yet murder can be made into nonmurder by the same dictionary?

This makes no sense. Murder means a very specific thing. Stop trying to re-define words.

IOW, a dictionary gives a brief statement about some word. The totality of the concept must be understood so that folks may have an intelligent conversation.

Murder, like theft, is a legal concept. Always has been.

Murder is wrong. This is self evident.

According to the law, not necessarily to individuals

The dictionary you choose to use claims murder is an unlawful act. You take that to mean that if the state claims it is lawful then it magically is no longer murder.

No duh. Murder is a legal concept. Again, use a dictionary.

The problem is the state is not the author of life. Any law that is unjust is no real law.

So your saying we should ignore laws if we dont like them? Such logic is perfectly, no bad can come of it

Thus, claiming it is lawful to murder because the state says so is no law at all.

If its lawful, its not murder. Get it thru your head. And again, your advocating relativism.

 

[Isambard]

So with your definition when the Nazi’s, were killing innocent Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped, etc they were not committing murder because it was the law of the land?

Nope. Thou some laymen do love to use mordern legal concepts retroactively.

And this can be said of all genocides, such as Comboida, Rwanda, Darfar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nanking, Ukraine, Turkey and yes in abortion.

Non-sequiter. Abortion isnt genocide, and it isnt about snuffing the life of an independant person, but a dependant organism.

All of these genocides have one thing in common, get rid of the those who oppose you or are a hindrance to you in any way which usually involve torture and death.

Just like God in the OT “murdering” in the millions, am I right?

Are we not suppose to learn from history instead of repeating it, but unfortunately we humans cannot seem to get these lessons learned and so the murders go on.

How does linking together completely unrelated concepts constitute as learning from history?

And YOU can lie to yourself all you want but abortion is MURDER and no law of the land can ever change that very fact.

Shame dictionaries, courts, encyclopedias etc. all disagree with you. Claiming you are correct in the face of a mountain of evidence is usually a sign of insanity.

 

[Isambard]

Yes, it is as if by simply changing the name of some action we change what the action is. That is just absurd. Or, if the state says gravity does not exist then suddnly it no longer exists. Silly.

Gravity isnt a legal concept. How many times do I need to explain definitions to you?

 

[fix]

I dont remember giving a normative opinion on slavery. I merely said it was a non-sequiter.

So, slavery is niether good or bad. The law decides for you.

This makes no sense. Murder means a very specific thing. Stop trying to re-define words.

Yes, it is the intentional killing of an innocent person. It trangresses the eternal moral law. We agree.

Murder, like theft, is a legal concept. Always has been.

It is not* exclusively* a civil legal concept. It is known from the natural moral law and right reason.

According to the law, not necessarily to individuals

According to right reason and those with a properly formed conscience.

No duh. Murder is a legal concept. Again, use a dictionary.

I have used it. How does it contradict my position?

So your saying we should ignore laws if we dont like them? Such logic is perfectly, no bad can come of it

No we should ignore laws that are unjust. Especially ones that allow for murder.

If its lawful, its not murder. Get it thru your head. And again, your advocating relativism.

It is murder no matter what the civil law says. Get it thru your head. And, again you are advocating relativism.

 

[fix]

Gravity isnt a legal concept. How many times do I need to explain definitions to you?

Murder is not exclusively a legal concept. The state abuses its authority all the time. How many times do I need to explain logic and morality to you?

 

[fix]

Nope. Thou some laymen do love to use mordern legal concepts retroactively.

Non-sequiter. Abortion isnt genocide, and it isnt about snuffing the life of an independant person, but a dependant organism.

Just like God in the OT “murdering” in the millions, am I right?

How does linking together completely unrelated concepts constitute as learning from history?

Shame dictionaries, courts, encyclopedias etc. all disagree with you. Claiming you are correct in the face of a mountain of evidence is usually a sign of insanity.

As I said it is simply changing the name of some action and then claiming the action magically changes too. Relativism.

 

[Isambard]

So, slavery is niether good or bad. The law decides for you.

a. I never linked slavery to legalistic concepts, you did
b. I never said I had no opinion

Stop being deceptive.

Yes, it is the intentional killing of an innocent person. It trangresses the eternal moral law. We agree.

Again with the deception. Its the unlawful killing of a person, as I quoted for you twice.

It is not* exclusively* a civil legal concept. It is known from the natural moral law and right reason.

No, its always been a legal concept. Stop lying, or show some evidence.

According to right reason and those with a properly formed conscience.

Right reason? Who exactly is the judge of this?

I have used it. How does it contradict my position?

It says something completely different.

No we should ignore laws that are unjust. Especially ones that allow for murder.

Murder is a legal concept. Get it thru your head. As per ignoring “unjust laws”, who exactly is the judge of that?

It is murder no matter what the civil law says. Get it thru your head. And, again you are advocating relativism.

No its not. Stop lying.

 

[Isambard]

Murder is not exclusively a legal concept.

According to every single dictionary and encylopedia, it is.

The state abuses its authority all the time.

Red herring

How many times do I need to explain logic and morality to you?

Zero, as you understand neither.

 

[Isambard]

As I said it is simply changing the name of some action and then claiming the action magically changes too. Relativism.

Nice failure to address the points.

 

[NTOT]

Nice failure to address the points.

Stumbled across this thread and happened upon a goading goat kid. You can’t possibly think anyone here is actually taking you seriously do you?
Maturity can be a difficult thing to grasp for some.

 

[Isambard]

Stumbled across this thread and happened upon a goading goat kid. You can’t possibly think anyone here is actually taking you seriously do you?

You’ve bothered to post a response, so you have

Maturity can be a difficult thing to grasp for some.

That it is. Like for those who contribute nothing to a thread except an attempt at character assassination.

 

[st_lucy]

Nope. Thou some laymen do love to use mordern legal concepts retroactively.

Those layman where the ones making the laws, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.

Non-sequiter. Abortion isnt genocide, and it isnt about snuffing the life of an independant person, but a dependant organism.

Oh if abortion (definition - to terminate - in this case to terminate a human fetus) is not genocide than please tell us what it is. A fetus is an independent person, you are right that he needs some help him just as you did and I did. Just as my seven year old son does or just as my 85 year old grandmother does, just as the comatose person does.

Just like God in the OT “murdering” in the millions, am I right?

God is the author of life and so He can do as he pleases with His creatures.

How does linking together completely unrelated concepts constitute as learning from history?

Like I pointed out before terminating - aborting an independent life one that is not like any other is murder and doing it in mass is a genocide and we should look at history to see the deviation it causes.

Shame dictionaries, courts, encyclopedias etc. all disagree with you. Claiming you are correct in the face of a mountain of evidence is usually a sign of insanity.

The same dictionaries, courts, encyclopedia etc, all agreed with you at on time, until justice finally pulled through and put a stop to the killing. Claiming it wasn’t murder in the face of a mountain of evidence (and died bodies) is evidence of insanity.

 

[NTOT]

You’ve bothered to post a response, so you have

That it is. Like for those who contribute nothing to a thread except an attempt at character assassination.

Wah, Wah, Wah. Go tell mommy!

 

[fix]

a. I never linked slavery to legalistic concepts, you did
b. I never said I had no opinion

Stop being deceptive.

Again with the deception. Its the unlawful killing of a person, as I quoted for you twice.

No, its always been a legal concept. Stop lying, or show some evidence.

Right reason? Who exactly is the judge of this?

It says something completely different.

Murder is a legal concept. Get it thru your head. As per ignoring “unjust laws”, who exactly is the judge of that?

No its not. Stop lying.

Murder is objectively wrong. This is self evident. Murder is unlawful by any civilized society. That some laws in society do not reflect justice and reason does not mean murder is authentically lawful. It means society is acting unjustly.

 

[fix]

According to every single dictionary and encylopedia, it is.

No, not every single dictionary or encyclopedia. And those sources are not the arbiter of morality or truth.

Red herring

Nonesense.

Zero, as you understand neither.

Zero, as you understand neither.

 

[fix]

Nice failure to address the points.

Your points are not based in reality. You assert murder is not murder because the state does not proscribe it in some circumstances. That is nonsense.

Murder is an objectively wrong action regardless of how the state classifies it or not.