Is Abortion actually murder?

[J Michael]

Update: J Michael was fully answered in the other thread. He was unable to reply and just called me names and said he was finished.

My post was reasonable and took an even tone. Therefore, it sounds like I won the debate with J Michael but if any one else wants to take a swing go to that thread and answer my post. I think it is a better place to debate since it is in the Politics section so there are fewer restrictions on what can be said.

 

Yes, you really should do stand-up comedy, Marc.

[Kerdy]

Marc, is abortion murder?  Simple yes or no question.  Please answer.  Thanks.

[J Michael]

Marc, is abortion murder?  Simple yes or no question.  Please answer.  Thanks.

Good luck, Kerdy!  

[Marc1152]

Marc, is abortion murder?  Simple yes or no question.  Please answer.  Thanks.

I gave a full and complete answer in the other thread..

CU there.. Do you need a link?

[Marc1152]

Marc, is abortion murder?  Simple yes or no question.  Please answer.  Thanks.

Good luck, Kerdy!  

I gave a full and complete answer in the other thread. It is dishonest of you to imply that the question has not been answered when you know it has.

[Kerdy]

Marc, is abortion murder?  Simple yes or no question.  Please answer.  Thanks.

I gave a full and complete answer in the other thread..

CU there.. Do you need a link?

I do not access the politics area.  Answer here, thanks.

[Kerdy]

Marc, is abortion murder?  Simple yes or no question.  Please answer.  Thanks.

Good luck, Kerdy!  

I gave a full and complete answer in the other thread. It is dishonest of you to imply that the question has not been answered when you know it has.

Dishonest?  Just answer the question or admit your refusal to do so.

[vamrat]

Marc, is abortion murder?  Simple yes or no question.  Please answer.  Thanks.

Good luck, Kerdy!  

I gave a full and complete answer in the other thread. It is dishonest of you to imply that the question has not been answered when you know it has.

But I, at least, found myself more confused after the answer than before.

The jist, as I read it, is that it has all the qualifications of first degree murder, but since it sounds mean it is best to not call it murder.  

My question then is, who cares if the murderers feel bad?!  THAT'S THE POINT!  There is no repentance without feeling bad first.  And there is no moving forward, as long as the little skeletons keep piling up.

The problem is, we shouldn't be trying to separate how we view the world religiously and politically.  The problem with abortion is, is that it could damn well affect everyone here, not just those taking an active role in the murders.  How long do you think God is going to stand by and just watch these children being murdered?  How long until He gets really ticked off, I mean Old Testament ticked off?  That's going to suck for everyone.  So it would be nice if at least Christians could agree that this murdering needs to stop.

[Marc1152]

It’s fine with me to do this again here if you insist on making an issue over which thread I answer in.I’ll just re phrase it a little so I am not violating any forum rules about cross posting.

If you define “Murder” as the deliberate taking of a human life then of course, I think that is what an abortion is, the deliberate taking of a human life.

I accept on faith, that life begins at fertilization.

But as I have said a couple dozen times here, it is a very bad idea to use the term. Within the context today’s American Culture and Laws the accusation of murder quickly hits a logical dead end and therefore does nothing but cause confusion and probably turns people away from any further Pro Life message.

Here is why. If you insist on using that sort of language people will rightly ask for clarification. If it is murder, then which kind of murder?

In what may have been the worst thought out post yet, J Michael said it was “Manslaughter” or as he put it “Voluntary Manslaughter”. No it isn’t. Manslaughter is when you intend to wound or physically hurt someone but unexpectedly the wounding kills him. For example, if you beat someone up in order to rob them but they have a heart attack and die, that is Manslaughter.

No one goes to an abortionist and tells him just to “rough up” the fetus but not kill it. If it wasn’t so dark, this would be funny. But it shows you how poorly thought through J Michaels arguments are.

When you think about it, if abortion is murder, then it would have to be first degree murder. Murder in the first degree is like when a man kills his wife to collect on her life insurance. Either he does it himself or hires someone to kill her. That is first degree murder.

Abortion has all of the elements of first degree murder. It is intentional, planned out, a human life is taken and someone is hired to do the deed.

However, no sane person is willing to apply the penalties for first degree murder to women who have an abortion. Therefore, there must logically be some difference and here it is.

Not everyone agrees that a human life has been taken, maybe half the population at least .J Michael has said several times that people who don’t think abortion is murder are stupid. That is a big mistake. People are not stupid. An ordinarily prudent person can disagree on when life begins and not be crazy or a Nazi or stupid. In fact, if you look at a picture of a zygote it is understandable how a person could conclude that it is not yet fully human and that no human life is being taken.

In order to accept that a zygote is a fully human person with a “soul” you must accept several rather complicated religious doctrines that are not readily discernible on the face of it. They cant be seen or measured. They must be taken on faith.

I don’t think it is productive to call people murders. Hypothetically, if it could be shown (with studies and focus groups etc.) that using that language turned people off to the extent that it increased the rate of abortion by 10% would you find another way talk about it? I hope you would. The goal should be to reduce the rate of abortion and not drive people away.  

Let me know if that is still not good enough..

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

It’s fine with me to do this again here if you insist on making an issue over which thread I answer in.I’ll just re phrase it a little so I am not violating any forum rules about cross posting.

If you define “Murder” as the deliberate taking of a human life then of course, I think that is what an abortion is, the deliberate taking of a human life.

I accept on faith, that life begins at fertilization.

But as I have said a couple dozen times here, it is a very bad idea to use the term. Within the context today’s American Culture and Laws the accusation of murder quickly hits a logical dead end and therefore does nothing but cause confusion and probably turns people away from any further Pro Life message.

Here is why. If you insist on using that sort of language people will rightly ask for clarification. If it is murder, then which kind of murder?

In what may have been the worst thought out post yet, J Michael said it was “Manslaughter” or as he put it “Voluntary Manslaughter”. No it isn’t. Manslaughter is when you intend to wound or physically hurt someone but unexpectedly the wounding kills him. For example, if you beat someone up in order to rob them but they have a heart attack and die, that is Manslaughter.

No one goes to an abortionist and tells him just to “rough up” the fetus but not kill it. If it wasn’t so dark, this would be funny. But it shows you how poorly thought through J Michaels arguments are.

When you think about it, if abortion is murder, then it would have to be first degree murder. Murder in the first degree is like when a man kills his wife to collect on her life insurance. Either he does it himself or hires someone to kill her. That is first degree murder.

Abortion has all of the elements of first degree murder. It is intentional, planned out, a human life is taken and someone is hired to do the deed.

However, no sane person is willing to apply the penalties for first degree murder to women who have an abortion. Therefore, there must logically be some difference and here it is.

Not everyone agrees that a human life has been taken, maybe half the population at least .J Michael has said several times that people who don’t think abortion is murder are stupid. That is a big mistake. People are not stupid. An ordinarily prudent person can disagree on when life begins and not be crazy or a Nazi or stupid. In fact, if you look at a picture of a zygote it is understandable how a person could conclude that it is not yet fully human and that no human life is being taken.

In order to accept that a zygote is a fully human person with a “soul” you must accept several rather complicated religious doctrines that are not readily discernible on the face of it. They cant be seen or measured. They must be taken on faith.

I don’t think it is productive to call people murders. Hypothetically, if it could be shown (with studies and focus groups etc.) that using that language turned people off to the extent that it increased the rate of abortion by 10% would you find another way talk about it? I hope you would. The goal should be to reduce the rate of abortion and not drive people away.  

Let me know if that is still not good enough..

I take your point--very well stated. Thanks.

[Marc1152]

It’s fine with me to do this again here if you insist on making an issue over which thread I answer in.I’ll just re phrase it a little so I am not violating any forum rules about cross posting.

If you define “Murder” as the deliberate taking of a human life then of course, I think that is what an abortion is, the deliberate taking of a human life.

I accept on faith, that life begins at fertilization.

But as I have said a couple dozen times here, it is a very bad idea to use the term. Within the context today’s American Culture and Laws the accusation of murder quickly hits a logical dead end and therefore does nothing but cause confusion and probably turns people away from any further Pro Life message.

Here is why. If you insist on using that sort of language people will rightly ask for clarification. If it is murder, then which kind of murder?

In what may have been the worst thought out post yet, J Michael said it was “Manslaughter” or as he put it “Voluntary Manslaughter”. No it isn’t. Manslaughter is when you intend to wound or physically hurt someone but unexpectedly the wounding kills him. For example, if you beat someone up in order to rob them but they have a heart attack and die, that is Manslaughter.

No one goes to an abortionist and tells him just to “rough up” the fetus but not kill it. If it wasn’t so dark, this would be funny. But it shows you how poorly thought through J Michaels arguments are.

When you think about it, if abortion is murder, then it would have to be first degree murder. Murder in the first degree is like when a man kills his wife to collect on her life insurance. Either he does it himself or hires someone to kill her. That is first degree murder.

Abortion has all of the elements of first degree murder. It is intentional, planned out, a human life is taken and someone is hired to do the deed.

However, no sane person is willing to apply the penalties for first degree murder to women who have an abortion. Therefore, there must logically be some difference and here it is.

Not everyone agrees that a human life has been taken, maybe half the population at least .J Michael has said several times that people who don’t think abortion is murder are stupid. That is a big mistake. People are not stupid. An ordinarily prudent person can disagree on when life begins and not be crazy or a Nazi or stupid. In fact, if you look at a picture of a zygote it is understandable how a person could conclude that it is not yet fully human and that no human life is being taken.

In order to accept that a zygote is a fully human person with a “soul” you must accept several rather complicated religious doctrines that are not readily discernible on the face of it. They cant be seen or measured. They must be taken on faith.

I don’t think it is productive to call people murders. Hypothetically, if it could be shown (with studies and focus groups etc.) that using that language turned people off to the extent that it increased the rate of abortion by 10% would you find another way talk about it? I hope you would. The goal should be to reduce the rate of abortion and not drive people away.  

Let me know if that is still not good enough..

I take your point--very well stated. Thanks.

YAY..Pascha miricle !

Thanks

[Kerdy]

It’s fine with me to do this again here if you insist on making an issue over which thread I answer in.I’ll just re phrase it a little so I am not violating any forum rules about cross posting.

If you define “Murder” as the deliberate taking of a human life then of course, I think that is what an abortion is, the deliberate taking of a human life.

I accept on faith, that life begins at fertilization.

But as I have said a couple dozen times here, it is a very bad idea to use the term. Within the context today’s American Culture and Laws the accusation of murder quickly hits a logical dead end and therefore does nothing but cause confusion and probably turns people away from any further Pro Life message.

Here is why. If you insist on using that sort of language people will rightly ask for clarification. If it is murder, then which kind of murder?

In what may have been the worst thought out post yet, J Michael said it was “Manslaughter” or as he put it “Voluntary Manslaughter”. No it isn’t. Manslaughter is when you intend to wound or physically hurt someone but unexpectedly the wounding kills him. For example, if you beat someone up in order to rob them but they have a heart attack and die, that is Manslaughter.

No one goes to an abortionist and tells him just to “rough up” the fetus but not kill it. If it wasn’t so dark, this would be funny. But it shows you how poorly thought through J Michaels arguments are.

When you think about it, if abortion is murder, then it would have to be first degree murder. Murder in the first degree is like when a man kills his wife to collect on her life insurance. Either he does it himself or hires someone to kill her. That is first degree murder.

Abortion has all of the elements of first degree murder. It is intentional, planned out, a human life is taken and someone is hired to do the deed.

However, no sane person is willing to apply the penalties for first degree murder to women who have an abortion. Therefore, there must logically be some difference and here it is.

Not everyone agrees that a human life has been taken, maybe half the population at least .J Michael has said several times that people who don’t think abortion is murder are stupid. That is a big mistake. People are not stupid. An ordinarily prudent person can disagree on when life begins and not be crazy or a Nazi or stupid. In fact, if you look at a picture of a zygote it is understandable how a person could conclude that it is not yet fully human and that no human life is being taken.

In order to accept that a zygote is a fully human person with a “soul” you must accept several rather complicated religious doctrines that are not readily discernible on the face of it. They cant be seen or measured. They must be taken on faith.

I don’t think it is productive to call people murders. Hypothetically, if it could be shown (with studies and focus groups etc.) that using that language turned people off to the extent that it increased the rate of abortion by 10% would you find another way talk about it? I hope you would. The goal should be to reduce the rate of abortion and not drive people away.  

Let me know if that is still not good enough..

Works for me.  Thank you!!!  Now that I understand your foundational belief on the matter I can better appreciate your other views.  Having said that, with the moderators permission I have no problem discussing the other issues you have mentioned, especially having found common ground with the original question.

[Dpaula]

I agree with Marc. Very very Good point.

So, what now? What's next? What can we do about it? Can we do anything about it?

[Kerdy]

I agree with Marc. Very very Good point.

So, what now? What's next? What can we do about it? Can we do anything about it?

Now that Marc has gotten over the big hill and how it's obvious he has put a lot of thought into this, I am genuinely curious to hear his thoughts about this.  There is a problem which needs to be worked on and I am sure he has a few ideas on how to begin and continue.

[montalban]

It’s fine with me to do this again here if you insist on making an issue over which thread I answer in.I’ll just re phrase it a little so I am not violating any forum rules about cross posting.

If you define “Murder” as the deliberate taking of a human life then of course, I think that is what an abortion is, the deliberate taking of a human life.

I accept on faith, that life begins at fertilization.

But as I have said a couple dozen times here, it is a very bad idea to use the term. Within the context today’s American Culture and Laws the accusation of murder quickly hits a logical dead end and therefore does nothing but cause confusion and probably turns people away from any further Pro Life message.

Here is why. If you insist on using that sort of language people will rightly ask for clarification. If it is murder, then which kind of murder?

In what may have been the worst thought out post yet, J Michael said it was “Manslaughter” or as he put it “Voluntary Manslaughter”. No it isn’t. Manslaughter is when you intend to wound or physically hurt someone but unexpectedly the wounding kills him. For example, if you beat someone up in order to rob them but they have a heart attack and die, that is Manslaughter.

No one goes to an abortionist and tells him just to “rough up” the fetus but not kill it. If it wasn’t so dark, this would be funny. But it shows you how poorly thought through J Michaels arguments are.

When you think about it, if abortion is murder, then it would have to be first degree murder. Murder in the first degree is like when a man kills his wife to collect on her life insurance. Either he does it himself or hires someone to kill her. That is first degree murder.

Abortion has all of the elements of first degree murder. It is intentional, planned out, a human life is taken and someone is hired to do the deed.

However, no sane person is willing to apply the penalties for first degree murder to women who have an abortion. Therefore, there must logically be some difference and here it is.

Not everyone agrees that a human life has been taken, maybe half the population at least .J Michael has said several times that people who don’t think abortion is murder are stupid. That is a big mistake. People are not stupid. An ordinarily prudent person can disagree on when life begins and not be crazy or a Nazi or stupid. In fact, if you look at a picture of a zygote it is understandable how a person could conclude that it is not yet fully human and that no human life is being taken.

In order to accept that a zygote is a fully human person with a “soul” you must accept several rather complicated religious doctrines that are not readily discernible on the face of it. They cant be seen or measured. They must be taken on faith.

I don’t think it is productive to call people murders. Hypothetically, if it could be shown (with studies and focus groups etc.) that using that language turned people off to the extent that it increased the rate of abortion by 10% would you find another way talk about it? I hope you would. The goal should be to reduce the rate of abortion and not drive people away.  

Let me know if that is still not good enough..

I'm even more confused by your stance. You have said people will ask 'what kind of murder' then logically set out why they wouldn't/couldn't call it anything but murder!

What then the reason for your objections? You seem to refute yoursself

[Marc1152]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

It turns out that the idea that the World is overpopulated is untrue. In fact, if we continue to depopulate there will be tremendous shifts in World power. The leading industrial countries are not replacing population fast enough to stay strong. Japan, much of Europe and  Russia are in deep trouble..The USA..not too bad. Our replacement rate is like 2.2. The Arab nations have an average age of 29. They are sitting pretty. Oh and dont worry about China too much, they have screwed themselves with their one child policy.

So I would give incentives to have large families. They are already considering this in Russia. One proposal is to let families live tax free after the third or fourth child.

If people are made to understand that it is their Patriotic duty to have lots of babies and if there is plenty of incentive to do so, it will swamp the incentive to have an abortion.

Here is a very good web site that lays out the whole case. The guy who runs it is a demographer and a devout Catholic and very Pro-Life. I had lunch with him a couple of years ago. He has seven kids

www.pop.org  

[montalban]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

As a socialist I would disagree with those that argue that there are too many people. People are not the problem. Distribution of resources is the problem.

Already in the US they over-produce food. There is already enough food being produced to feed everyone adequately.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

It turns out that the idea that the World is overpopulated is untrue. In fact, if we continue to depopulate there will be tremendous shifts in World power. The leading industrial countries are not replacing population fast enough to stay strong. Japan, much of Europe and  Russia are in deep trouble..The USA..not too bad. Our replacement rate is like 2.2. The Arab nations have an average age of 29. They are sitting pretty. Oh and dont worry about China too much, they have screwed themselves with their one child policy.

So I would give incentives to have large families. They are already considering this in Russia. One proposal is to let families live tax free after the third or fourth child.

If people are made to understand that it is their Patriotic duty to have lots of babies and if there is plenty of incentive to do so, it will swamp the incentive to have an abortion.

Here is a very good web site that lays out the whole case. The guy who runs it is a demographer and a devout Catholic and very Pro-Life. I had lunch with him a couple of years ago. He has seven kids

www.pop.org  

Welfare works in a similar way often times. In many poverty stricken urban areas, women will have more children simply in order to receive more government funds. I'm not necessarily against welfare or the incentives you suggest above, but I don't think that will solve the abortion issue. I'm uncomfortable with attaching financial incentives to having children. I don't think that will help to promote the sanctity of life, which is the root issue. Life in itself is a blessing, replete with incalculable spiritual, emotional, and tangible rewards. I support any policies that help to support and sustain both the sanctity and the quality of life at all levels. But if people don't fundamentally respect human life, then they will have abortions and abuse and neglect the children they do choose to have.


Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

As a socialist I would disagree with those that argue that there are too many people. People are not the problem. Distribution of resources is the problem.

Already in the US they over-produce food. There is already enough food being produced to feed everyone adequately.

+1


Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

It’s fine with me to do this again here if you insist on making an issue over which thread I answer in.I’ll just re phrase it a little so I am not violating any forum rules about cross posting.

If you define “Murder” as the deliberate taking of a human life then of course, I think that is what an abortion is, the deliberate taking of a human life.

I accept on faith, that life begins at fertilization.

But as I have said a couple dozen times here, it is a very bad idea to use the term. Within the context today’s American Culture and Laws the accusation of murder quickly hits a logical dead end and therefore does nothing but cause confusion and probably turns people away from any further Pro Life message.

Here is why. If you insist on using that sort of language people will rightly ask for clarification. If it is murder, then which kind of murder?

In what may have been the worst thought out post yet, J Michael said it was “Manslaughter” or as he put it “Voluntary Manslaughter”. No it isn’t. Manslaughter is when you intend to wound or physically hurt someone but unexpectedly the wounding kills him. For example, if you beat someone up in order to rob them but they have a heart attack and die, that is Manslaughter.

No one goes to an abortionist and tells him just to “rough up” the fetus but not kill it. If it wasn’t so dark, this would be funny. But it shows you how poorly thought through J Michaels arguments are.

When you think about it, if abortion is murder, then it would have to be first degree murder. Murder in the first degree is like when a man kills his wife to collect on her life insurance. Either he does it himself or hires someone to kill her. That is first degree murder.

Abortion has all of the elements of first degree murder. It is intentional, planned out, a human life is taken and someone is hired to do the deed.

However, no sane person is willing to apply the penalties for first degree murder to women who have an abortion. Therefore, there must logically be some difference and here it is.

Not everyone agrees that a human life has been taken, maybe half the population at least .J Michael has said several times that people who don’t think abortion is murder are stupid. That is a big mistake. People are not stupid. An ordinarily prudent person can disagree on when life begins and not be crazy or a Nazi or stupid. In fact, if you look at a picture of a zygote it is understandable how a person could conclude that it is not yet fully human and that no human life is being taken.

In order to accept that a zygote is a fully human person with a “soul” you must accept several rather complicated religious doctrines that are not readily discernible on the face of it. They cant be seen or measured. They must be taken on faith.

I don’t think it is productive to call people murders. Hypothetically, if it could be shown (with studies and focus groups etc.) that using that language turned people off to the extent that it increased the rate of abortion by 10% would you find another way talk about it? I hope you would. The goal should be to reduce the rate of abortion and not drive people away.  

Let me know if that is still not good enough..

Thanks for the explanation, which is sensible enough. However, as an Orthodox Christian I don't think we should equivocate the language of the apostles for strategic purposes. In fact, I would argue that shying away from the brutal realities of abortion has only served to boost the pro-abortion cause. If the apostles called it murder, then I think we should do the same.

Now, as I said elsewhere, I think that if abortion were outlawed then cases of illegal abortions should be tried like any other homicide. What was the motive, what was the state of mind of the individual or individuals who participated in the homicide? Were there accomplices? Who actually "pulled the trigger" so to speak? Was somebody coerced or forced against their will to commit the abortion? Etc.  


Selam

[montalban]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

It turns out that the idea that the World is overpopulated is untrue. In fact, if we continue to depopulate there will be tremendous shifts in World power. The leading industrial countries are not replacing population fast enough to stay strong. Japan, much of Europe and  Russia are in deep trouble..The USA..not too bad. Our replacement rate is like 2.2. The Arab nations have an average age of 29. They are sitting pretty. Oh and dont worry about China too much, they have screwed themselves with their one child policy.

So I would give incentives to have large families. They are already considering this in Russia. One proposal is to let families live tax free after the third or fourth child.

If people are made to understand that it is their Patriotic duty to have lots of babies and if there is plenty of incentive to do so, it will swamp the incentive to have an abortion.

Here is a very good web site that lays out the whole case. The guy who runs it is a demographer and a devout Catholic and very Pro-Life. I had lunch with him a couple of years ago. He has seven kids

www.pop.org  

Welfare works in a similar way often times. In many poverty stricken urban areas, women will have more children simply in order to receive more government funds. I'm not necessarily against welfare or the incentives you suggest above, but I don't think that will solve the abortion issue. I'm uncomfortable with attaching financial incentives to having children. I don't think that will help to promote the sanctity of life, which is the root issue. Life in itself is a blessing, replete with incalculable spiritual, emotional, and tangible rewards. I support any policies that help to support and sustain both the sanctity and the quality of life at all levels. But if people don't fundamentally respect human life, then they will have abortions and abuse and neglect the children they do choose to have.


Selam

It's a tough thing - mothers on welfare. If we take them off welfare we only end up punishing the children; who are inncoent.

Even the capitalist in people's heart should support welfare. In this country at least, we have decided that it is cheaper to pay out welfare and give kids a half-decent start to life than to have them grow up and be anti-social, with the resulting costs of policing, justice, prisons, etc.

[Kerdy]

It’s fine with me to do this again here if you insist on making an issue over which thread I answer in.I’ll just re phrase it a little so I am not violating any forum rules about cross posting.

If you define “Murder” as the deliberate taking of a human life then of course, I think that is what an abortion is, the deliberate taking of a human life.

I accept on faith, that life begins at fertilization.

But as I have said a couple dozen times here, it is a very bad idea to use the term. Within the context today’s American Culture and Laws the accusation of murder quickly hits a logical dead end and therefore does nothing but cause confusion and probably turns people away from any further Pro Life message.

Here is why. If you insist on using that sort of language people will rightly ask for clarification. If it is murder, then which kind of murder?

In what may have been the worst thought out post yet, J Michael said it was “Manslaughter” or as he put it “Voluntary Manslaughter”. No it isn’t. Manslaughter is when you intend to wound or physically hurt someone but unexpectedly the wounding kills him. For example, if you beat someone up in order to rob them but they have a heart attack and die, that is Manslaughter.

No one goes to an abortionist and tells him just to “rough up” the fetus but not kill it. If it wasn’t so dark, this would be funny. But it shows you how poorly thought through J Michaels arguments are.

When you think about it, if abortion is murder, then it would have to be first degree murder. Murder in the first degree is like when a man kills his wife to collect on her life insurance. Either he does it himself or hires someone to kill her. That is first degree murder.

Abortion has all of the elements of first degree murder. It is intentional, planned out, a human life is taken and someone is hired to do the deed.

However, no sane person is willing to apply the penalties for first degree murder to women who have an abortion. Therefore, there must logically be some difference and here it is.

Not everyone agrees that a human life has been taken, maybe half the population at least .J Michael has said several times that people who don’t think abortion is murder are stupid. That is a big mistake. People are not stupid. An ordinarily prudent person can disagree on when life begins and not be crazy or a Nazi or stupid. In fact, if you look at a picture of a zygote it is understandable how a person could conclude that it is not yet fully human and that no human life is being taken.

In order to accept that a zygote is a fully human person with a “soul” you must accept several rather complicated religious doctrines that are not readily discernible on the face of it. They cant be seen or measured. They must be taken on faith.

I don’t think it is productive to call people murders. Hypothetically, if it could be shown (with studies and focus groups etc.) that using that language turned people off to the extent that it increased the rate of abortion by 10% would you find another way talk about it? I hope you would. The goal should be to reduce the rate of abortion and not drive people away.  

Let me know if that is still not good enough..

Thanks for the explanation, which is sensible enough. However, as an Orthodox Christian I don't think we should equivocate the language of the apostles for strategic purposes. In fact, I would argue that shying away from the brutal realities of abortion has only served to boost the pro-abortion cause. If the apostles called it murder, then I think we should do the same.

Now, as I said elsewhere, I think that if abortion were outlawed then cases of illegal abortions should be tried like any other homicide. What was the motive, what was the state of mind of the individual or individuals who participated in the homicide? Were there accomplices? Who actually "pulled the trigger" so to speak? Was somebody coerced or forced against their will to commit the abortion? Etc.  


Selam

I also believe this to be the best approach.  I was happy to see Marc agree abortion is murder, so I didn't want to push it too much.  He seemed uncomfortable making that statement; however, as you stated, murder is murder and the elements of the crime come into play for prosecution and sentencing.

[Marc1152]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

As a socialist I would disagree with those that argue that there are too many people. People are not the problem. Distribution of resources is the problem.

Already in the US they over-produce food. There is already enough food being produced to feed everyone adequately.

The myth of over population has been a pernicious.. It really began with the publication of "The Population Bomb" by Paul Erlich in 1968.
The basic assumptions were wrong and most important the math was wrong.

This myth has led to all kinds of mistakes not the least of which it provides a moral excuse for abortion.

I think getting the truth out and providing support and cultural approval for large families is key not only to stem the tide of abortion but to survive economically. Ask any parents who have lots of kids how they are looked down on.

In China they fell for this hook line and sinker and as most people know, imposed a one child per family law. This has led to all kinds of horrors including forced abortions. They are in a fix. People opted for males and kept aborting until they had one. Now there is one male at the bottom of the family pyramid responsible for two or three or four generations older then him. It's a house of cards and unsustainable.

Steven Mosher from pop.org is an expert on what is going on in China demographically. He was also invited to Russia to advise them on how to understand population growth. As I said before the Russians are looking at big tax incentives to have large families.

[vamrat]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

As a socialist I would disagree with those that argue that there are too many people. People are not the problem. Distribution of resources is the problem.

Already in the US they over-produce food. There is already enough food being produced to feed everyone adequately.

The myth of over population has been a pernicious.. It really began with the publication of "The Population Bomb" by Paul Erlich in 1968.
The basic assumptions were wrong and most important the math was wrong.

This myth has led to all kinds of mistakes not the least of which it provides a moral excuse for abortion.

I think getting the truth out and providing support and cultural approval for large families is key not only to stem the tide of abortion but to survive economically. Ask any parents who have lots of kids how they are looked down on.

In China they fell for this hook line and sinker and as most people know, imposed a one child per family law. This has led to all kinds of horrors including forced abortions. They are in a fix. People opted for males and kept aborting until they had one. Now there is one male at the bottom of the family pyramid responsible for two or three or four generations older then him. It's a house of cards and unsustainable.

Steven Mosher from pop.org is an expert on what is going on in China demographically. He was also invited to Russia to advise them on how to understand population growth. As I said before the Russians are looking at big tax incentives to have large families.

Didn't China change the one-child rule from "keep aborting til you have a boy" to "keep making girls until you have a boy"?  I thought I heard that daughters can be kept now but once they've had a son they need to stop.  Could be wrong...

I guess the whole idea of population planning is very complex.  It is not really enough just to have large families, but they also need to be successful, stable families.  Culturally achieving this is easier said than done, but no less necessary. 

[Dpaula]

Marc,
I found very interesting something you just mentioned. Families with lots of children are looked down to.  I can add: Young mothers are looked down to. Advanced age mothers are looked down to. Children are viewed as problems, not as blessings.
I used to think just like this. I'm pretty sure that what changed is I started practicing my Faith. Really practice it, I mean.And I can see and feel the transformation, my mind changed over night almost. It was very easy to accept God's will once I found out what it is.
The last thing I want is to convince people it's good to have large families for other reasons than God's will. People need to understand WHY abortion is not ok, and WHY having children is. I don't think that by giving them other excuses or reasons to have or not have children will help. What matters is what God told us. Makes sense?

[Kerdy]

Responded to wrong post and deleted.

[Kerdy]

If you mean what I think would be a good strategy I only have one or two things to say.

I think the more convincing argument, one that is winnable, is based on the dire  need for greater Population Growth

It turns out that the idea that the World is overpopulated is untrue. In fact, if we continue to depopulate there will be tremendous shifts in World power. The leading industrial countries are not replacing population fast enough to stay strong. Japan, much of Europe and  Russia are in deep trouble..The USA..not too bad. Our replacement rate is like 2.2. The Arab nations have an average age of 29. They are sitting pretty. Oh and dont worry about China too much, they have screwed themselves with their one child policy.

So I would give incentives to have large families. They are already considering this in Russia. One proposal is to let families live tax free after the third or fourth child.

If people are made to understand that it is their Patriotic duty to have lots of babies and if there is plenty of incentive to do so, it will swamp the incentive to have an abortion.

Here is a very good web site that lays out the whole case. The guy who runs it is a demographer and a devout Catholic and very Pro-Life. I had lunch with him a couple of years ago. He has seven kids

www.pop.org  

Welfare works in a similar way often times. In many poverty stricken urban areas, women will have more children simply in order to receive more government funds. I'm not necessarily against welfare or the incentives you suggest above, but I don't think that will solve the abortion issue. I'm uncomfortable with attaching financial incentives to having children. I don't think that will help to promote the sanctity of life, which is the root issue. Life in itself is a blessing, replete with incalculable spiritual, emotional, and tangible rewards. I support any policies that help to support and sustain both the sanctity and the quality of life at all levels. But if people don't fundamentally respect human life, then they will have abortions and abuse and neglect the children they do choose to have.


Selam

It's a tough thing - mothers on welfare. If we take them off welfare we only end up punishing the children; who are inncoent.

Even the capitalist in people's heart should support welfare. In this country at least, we have decided that it is cheaper to pay out welfare and give kids a half-decent start to life than to have them grow up and be anti-social, with the resulting costs of policing, justice, prisons, etc.

Welfare is another issue, one which I disagree with you on, but that is a politics topic.

[Dpaula]

YaY! Moving in the right direction in Virginia.


RICHMOND, Va. - The Virginia Board of Health has given final approval to strict new regulations...

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/virginia/va-abortion-clinic-regs-get-final-okay

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Is Abortion actually murder?