The Golden Miller wrote: » I'm aware of that. The debate running is effectively about how abortion should be legal due to the horrendous ordeal all these women have to/may have to go through
The Golden Miller wrote: » Sorry, but you're saying I'm mean spirited?
The Golden Miller wrote: » I'm not the one advocating ending the existence of the defenseless because it's an inconvenience to me.
The Golden Miller wrote: » Maybe people should start calling abortion what it actual is instead of pussyfooting around the issue, it's murder plain and simple.
The Golden Miller wrote: » And why do they cry? Because they done something which is morally wrong. It's call your conscience kicking in.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » Yes. I never said they couldn't. I just said in my opinion what I believe the best option is.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Yes. That is what I wrote. I know you're not. But nobody else is either, Strawman. Nothing is plain and simple. You want it to be, so badly. But nothing is. Sorry. That's just slave morality. Real morality is about making hard choices. You'll cry sometimes because the lesser of two pains is still painful. Let me try to put it in terms you might understand. In the days before anaesthetic, you'd scream your lungs out, cry and shake when the dentist pulled out your rotten molar. Was it the wrong choice because it hurt? Come on.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Not even close.
The Golden Miller wrote: » Well if you advocate abortion then you do advocate the ending of an unborn babies existence if the mother see's it fit.
The Golden Miller wrote: » So you were talking about physical pain only? If not then it's a weak analogy
The Golden Miller wrote: » It's the basic gist of it. Maybe not word for word. Or do you want to enlighten me on what the basic point of the discussion was?
Penny Tration wrote: » It's not murder, not in the eyes of even our archaic laws.
Cupcake_Crisis wrote: » I think it'd be close because those it actually matters to would come out to vote when they wouldn't normally. But in the end... no I don't think it would because people would still think that they're voting for free abortions for everybody. Which breaks my heart.
The Golden Miller wrote: » It's the killing of a living being, so it's for me and many others it's murder.
The Golden Miller wrote: » I couldn't really care what wording others want to place on it to help reassure themselves of their actions
Little CuChulainn wrote: » If the eight amendment was repealed, what rules do you think would automatically come into force?
AtomicHorror wrote: » Murder is the malicious killing of a human without extenuating circumstances. Killing a man trying to kill you is not murder, for example. Nor is killing someone by accident. Your definition makes both of these scenarios murder. So it's a fairly useless definition. Then why should we care about yours? Is this a discussion or are you hear to preach?
The Golden Miller wrote: » Well it's not manslaughter as they aren't aborting by accident. Murder refers to the killing of someone without a valid excuse, especially with malice.
The Golden Miller wrote: » If a man attempts to kill someone, the victim then has a valid excuse, so no, that ain't murder. So yes, it can refer to someone aborting their baby if there is no malice intended, as there is no valid excuse if everything is healthy.
The Golden Miller wrote: » Well I came on originally to debate, buy since it's a pointless exercise debating with some I may aswell just preach at this point.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Then we have no issue at all, except for your earlier assertion that the father should get to make the choice too.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Yes, you probably should have looked up that Wikipedia entry before you mutilated the meaning of the word, but I guess this is progress. And if everything is not healthy? You opened with the position that there were no excuses and that the motive for abortion was selfishness, and rounded it out by straw manning the pro-choice position. Then moved on to redefine murder and announce you didn't care about anyone else's opinion, but NOW you're no longer interested in debate? You came here to preach and vent and judge, from the start.
The Golden Miller wrote: » At least it's not another mutilated unborn baby, eh. I don't see how you can pull any definition of murder up where it's not applicable to the killing of an unborn baby. But I'm all ears if you can. If the situation is not healthy then it would depend on the circumstance imo. Let's not let the exceptions distract from the real point here though, which is usually what the "pro-choice" crowd spend all their time doing. I was on the thread earlier
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: » "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." If it is legal it cannot be unlawful. Hence legal abortion can't be murder. There we go, I googled murder and used the definition to show it isn't applicable if it is legal.
The Golden Miller wrote: » It's not legal in Ireland, so by our standards it can be considered murder if one chooses to view it as such
Itzy wrote: » Are we still discussing Abortion or Murder? State sanctioned murder (Execution) was legal in Ireland until 2000 - 2001. "Murder of an unborn Child" (Abortion) up until 24 weeks is legal in the UK. By definition, in either Ireland or the UK, neither fit the legal definition of an unlawful killing of one person by another, but we're not discussing anything other than Abortion.
eviltwin wrote: » This is ridiculous. Abortion is not murder. Even in little old Ireland where abortion is illegal its not considered murder. There may be the issue of 14 years in prison for destroying the unborn or however it's phrased but it's well known that is aimed at those would be abortionists rather than women themselves. No Irish woman will be jailed for having an abortion, the public wouldn't stand for it. To compare it to killing a member of the public is nothing more than trying to reinforce a stigma that is thankfully on the decline.
The Golden Miller wrote: » We weren't talking about the legal definition, but the definition of murder in general. I never said it fit within the framework of the current legal definition, but by the standards of the original meaning.
Itzy wrote: » How does that fit within this thread and the discussion on Abortion?
The Golden Miller wrote: » Ah so social standards are the be all and end all. Glad we cleared that up
The Golden Miller wrote: » Because I used the word murder in relation to abortion, which isn't wrong by it's definition, and got pulled up on it
eviltwin wrote: » Society changes all the time. It wasn't too long ago gay people were put in mental homes and husbands could rape their wives. You are free to see it as murder if you want but the world has moved on.
