toldailytopic: Killing vs. murder what's the difference? Is it always wrong to kill?

[Nick M]

I support killing in defense of another person

I support a woman's right to an abortion if she is a rape victim, under 18, or if the child's father can't be reached/tries to abandon her.

Unless that person is unborn.

I do not support abortion as a form of birth control if no other methods are used.

Why? Why do you say this murder is wrong, and the one above is ok?

As for the definition, murder is the shedding of innocent blood. Very simple. You are a sick and twisted individual who would murder babies and elderly so you don't have to care fro them.

 

[Buzzword]

You are a sick and twisted individual who would murder babies and elderly so you don't have to care fro them.

And a very happy Lord's Day to you too.

Unlike most of the screechers here, I've actually tried to form a BALANCED opinion that would be somewhat workable if used in a proposed bill to become law.

I have done so because just yelling back and forth between the "baby killers" (pro-choice) and the "nazis" (anti-abortion) has done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE.

Abortion is still legal, and will likely remain so.
If you find the act of abortion offensive, yelling at other people isn't going to get the law changed.
And any changes to the law will likely only offend you more.

Thus it behooves you to look for a COMPROMISE, to keep your consciences clear AND keep coat-hangers from becoming the preferred tool for abortion.

What I personally find offensive can only dictate MY actions, so I can say with complete certainty that I don't want my wife to ever have an abortion.
Mostly because her condition creates such a high chance of infertility that ANY pregnancy could either be her last, or result in a miscarriage/stillbirth.
Thus we have taken every precaution short of sacrificing our sex life to ensure that we are financially able to care for a child before taking our sex life into overdrive ("trying to have a baby").

What I find offensive is IRRELEVANT when considering the issue from a national standpoint.
From that point of view, I have to concede that Americans who WANT abortions are going to get them regardless of legality.
So rather than trying to wipe the procedure out a la the Apocalypse, I'd prefer a gradual winnowing down of availability, to individuals in certain circumstances, and only once or twice a year for the general populace.
Make it STILL available, so that the radicals on the pro-choice side of it don't get their panties in a wad, but LESS available, so the radicals on the anti-abortion side don't break out the artillery.

As for the elderly, I'm not sure if you even found something in my post to base that from, or if your overall slander just decided to include it for the fun of it.

 

[MaryContrary]

Thus it behooves you to look for a COMPROMISE, to keep your consciences clear...

Uh...that compromise being your supporting the murder of a select group of babies under specific circumstances? And that keeps your conscience clear?

:squint:

What I personally find offensive can only dictate MY actions, so I can say with complete certainty that I don't want my wife to ever have an abortion.

And by that logic you cannot support criminalizing murder of any sort. Or criminalizing anything at all.

 

[Buzzword]

Uh...that compromise being your supporting the murder of a select group of babies under specific circumstances? And that keeps your conscience clear?

:squint:


And by that logic you cannot support criminalizing murder of any sort. Or criminalizing anything at all.

You apparently didn't read the rest of my post.

From a NATIONAL STANDPOINT, i.e. trying to write a law, compromise is NECESSARY, because (obviously) not everyone wants abortion wiped out, and not everyone wants it available.

Last time I checked, there was no debate on whether or not stealing, rape, check fraud, etc etc should be illegal or not.

Try not to cloud the issue. The issue is ABORTION, that thing which has been debated on since before Roe v. Wade.

 

[Nick M]

You advocate murdering elderly, sick, retarded, etc. Shame on you. You are a disgusting pervert, and I hope everybody you know, knows what an animal you are.

 

[MaryContrary]

You apparently didn't read the rest of my post.

From a NATIONAL STANDPOINT, i.e. trying to write a law, compromise is NECESSARY, because (obviously) not everyone wants abortion wiped out, and not everyone wants it available.

Last time I checked, there was no debate on whether or not stealing, rape, check fraud, etc etc should be illegal or not.

Try not to cloud the issue. The issue is ABORTION, that thing which has been debated on since before Roe v. Wade.

Excuse me but what's the difference? How can you do one thing personally and another nationally without compromising principle? If you would not personally murder a baby, why would you not object to someone else doing so? And if you would object to someone else murdering a baby, why would supporting a law specifically allowing them to?

What I personally find offensive can only dictate MY actions, so I can say with complete certainty that I don't want my wife to ever have an abortion...What I find offensive is IRRELEVANT when considering the issue from a national standpoint.

Please clarify here. What you find offensive is irrelevant? Or what you believe concerning morality is irrelevant? On what do you base any decision to support something politically?

From that point of view, I have to concede that Americans who WANT abortions are going to get them regardless of legality.

That's no reason not to support a law. You really don't see that? Why do you support any law? People break the law all the time. Every single one of them. Why aren't you offering compromises on every other law then?

 

[Rusha]

What I find offensive is IRRELEVANT when considering the issue from a national standpoint.
From that point of view, I have to concede that Americans who WANT abortions are going to get them regardless of legality.
So rather than trying to wipe the procedure out a la the Apocalypse, I'd prefer a gradual winnowing down of availability, to individuals in certain circumstances, and only once or twice a year for the general populace.
Make it STILL available, so that the radicals on the pro-choice side of it don't get their panties in a wad, but LESS available, so the radicals on the anti-abortion side don't break out the artillery.

Why should it matter if American's want abortion? IF unborn babies are innocent human beings, then *wanting* it shouldn't matter.

As far as those who want abortions getting them illegally, I don't understand why that should matter. Murder is illegal, and murderers still murder. Banning abortion would just make abortions less safe, much harder to obtain and prosecutable. I want that.

Again, if someone feels that the unborn are innocent and worthy of protection, then we should strive to make abortion a criminal offense.

 

[Buzzword]

You advocate murdering elderly, sick, retarded, etc. Shame on you. You are a disgusting pervert, and I hope everybody you know, knows what an animal you are.

Was there a counter argument somewhere in there?

Excuse me but what's the difference? How can you do one thing personally and another nationally without compromising principle? If you would not personally murder a baby, why would you not object to someone else doing so? And if you would object to someone else murdering a baby, why would supporting a law specifically allowing them to?

Please clarify here. What you find offensive is irrelevant? Or what you believe concerning morality is irrelevant? On what do you base any decision to support something politically?
That's no reason not to support a law. You really don't see that? Why do you support any law? People break the law all the time. Every single one of them. Why aren't you offering compromises on every other law then?

I can do one thing personally and another nationally, and what I believe concerning morality is irrelevant, both because I'm not in a position to change national policy.

If I were, then realistically, both pro-choice and anti-abortion constituents elected me.
Would I not have a responsibility to BOTH GROUPS to find a condition both could at least live with?

I've never been in a situation where I had even a remote need to have an abortion, so personally I'm not qualified to make the call regarding others' choice to do so.

However, I know there are circumstances when a woman could NEED to have an abortion, either physically or psychologically.

I have yet to make a political decision, at least since I have reached what I believe to be a well-informed state of citizenship.
Since reaching that level, I've either been apathetic or cynical regarding pretty much everything the federal and state governments do.

Why should it matter if American's want abortion? IF unborn babies are innocent human beings, then *wanting* it shouldn't matter.

As far as those who want abortions getting them illegally, I don't understand why that should matter. Murder is illegal, and murderers still murder. Banning abortion would just make abortions less safe, much harder to obtain and prosecutable. I want that.

Again, if someone feels that the unborn are innocent and worthy of protection, then we should strive to make abortion a criminal offense.

Good luck with that.

Making federal policy requires an unemotional, objective outlook and response.
Laws should not be made by individuals who are emotionally tied to a particular issue.
They should be made by individuals whose focus is doing what is best for the nation as a whole, OR representing their constituents (ALL their constituents) in their decisions.

This is why it is NECESSARY to separate personal morality from national policy.

The beliefs of a few do not necessarily indicate what is best for the country as a whole.

 

[MaryContrary]

I can do one thing personally and another nationally, and what I believe concerning morality is irrelevant, both because I'm not in a position to change national policy.

If I were, then realistically, both pro-choice and anti-abortion constituents elected me.
Would I not have a responsibility to BOTH GROUPS to find a condition both could at least live with?

I've never been in a situation where I had even a remote need to have an abortion, so personally I'm not qualified to make the call regarding others' choice to do so.

However, I know there are circumstances when a woman could NEED to have an abortion, either physically or psychologically.

I have yet to make a political decision, at least since I have reached what I believe to be a well-informed state of citizenship.
Since reaching that level, I've either been apathetic or cynical regarding pretty much everything the federal and state governments do.

You know what? Never mind. I've had conversations with schizophrenics that were more productive than our last few posts.

 

[Nick M]

Was there a counter argument somewhere in there?

No. It is called rebuke. You were already shown to be a hypocrite in your reasoning, and haven't changed your stance. You have no intention to do so. You are wicked and evil in your heart.

You know what? Never mind. I've had conversations with schizophrenics that were more productive than our last few posts.

That is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Sheila B]

Murder is unlawful killing. Not all killing is against the law, but is permissible. Murder is always sinful.

For many sins, the Hebrew Law demands that the community kill sinners - typically by stoning. Naturally, then, these would be instances where killing is permissible.

Agreed. "A time to kill and a time to heal" Ecclesiastes 3:3

Murder is never lawful; the unlawful taking of life.

 

[Rusha]

Good luck with that.

Making federal policy requires an unemotional, objective outlook and response. Laws should not be made by individuals who are emotionally tied to a particular issue. They should be made by individuals whose focus is doing what is best for the nation as a whole, OR representing their constituents (ALL their constituents) in their decisions.

Abortion is not doing what is doing best for all. It is doing what is *convenient* for some of the female gender.

This is why it is NECESSARY to separate personal morality from national policy.

The beliefs of a few do not necessarily indicate what is best for the country as a whole.

So let me get this straight. Are you claiming that allowing AOD is better for our country as a whole?

From my view, advocating abortion is no different than allowing children and caregivers to utilize euthanasia for the elderly and disabled. After all, what's a life compared to selfish people being inconvenienced?