"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[columbus]

I am not trying to "redefine" any words.

Sure you are, so is @epronovost .
You are changing the meaning of murder from "illegal killing" to "killing I think should be illegal".
Epronovost is changing the meaning of the term "human being" to "people I think are important".
Tom

 

[epronovost]

Sure you are, so is @epronovost .
You are changing the meaning of murder from "illegal killing" to "killing I think should be illegal".
Epronovost is changing the meaning of the term "human being" to "people I think are important".
Tom

I'm not changing the definition of human being. You are incapable of accepting someone who uses a different moral framework than you. You think killing or harming human being is wrong; I believe killing or harming a person (AKA a human being with a will, emotions, sensations and social roles, connections and bonds) is wrong. These are two different ontological categories. Your category includes human embryo, but excludes all other animals and potential alien species while mine excludes human embryo, but includes some animals and potential alien species (for human in cerebral death, I'm not sure of your opinion on the subject, but I personnaly consider them dead and gone).

 

[epronovost]

I still find it odd why you would compare "aborting" unborn human beings with killing animals than other human beings.

I find it odd you would compare the killing of an adult or a child to that of an embryo. An embryo doesn't have consciousness, emotions, will or any sort of social contact, bond or role. It's a bit like if you compared a chia pet to a dog. There is a capital difference between the two, but you are right that comparing abortion to hunting or husbandry is a fallacious comparison. The two things are indeed different. Abortions should be in their own category of legal killing, seperate from hunting or husbandry which kills conscious if non-human animals and self-defense, war and legal execution which kills persons.

 

[Skwim]

From a planetary perspective and even more so from a cosmic perspective, the difference between the various animals on the planet are dwarfed by their similarities.

Really? As I look at them there's an overabundance of differences.

And there are about 1,470,000 species in the animal kingdom alone, each of which differs from the others in some significant way.


Moreover, the animal kingdom is just one among five other kingdoms:

.​

 

[epronovost]

Really? As I look at them there's an overabundance of differences.

And the animal kingdom is just one among five other kingdoms:

.​

And all of these fleeting things are made of the same stuff and come from the same common ancestor and all of this basically happened "two days ago" in cosmic time. Every snowflake in a snow storm is unique and so are every speck of dust, yet to our eyes they are pretty much all the same things. We didn't even care to categorised them and give them unique names. It's not always the number of differences that is important, often it's their quality.

 

[Skwim]

And all of these fleeting things are made of the same stuff and come from the same common ancestor and all of this basically happened "two days ago" in cosmic time.

So what? They're still different, which is what we're talking about.

Every snowflake in a snow storm is unique

Not true at all.

"A common-used statement about snow is that two snowflakes are never alike. However, in 1988 Nancy Knight (USA), a scientist at the National Center for Atmosphere Research in Boulder, Colorado, USA, found two identical examples while studying snow crystals from a storm in Wisconsin, using a microscope."
source

And since then more snowflakes have been discovered to have an identical twin, OR MORE.

and so are every speck of dust,

Your evidence please.

"We didn't even care to categorised them and give them unique names.

Because there wasn't a meaningful reason to do so.

It's not always the number of differences that is important, often it's their quality.

So, just what is it that comprises this "quality"?

.

 

[epronovost]

Because there wasn't a meaningful reason to do so.

Precisely, why would a cosmic being care about naming and seeing the differences in animals?

PS: nice to know that not all snowflakes aren't all unique, but still rather irrelevent to the point. There is enough diversity in them to create dozens of different categories of them should we want to.

And just what is it that comprises their "quality"?
.

This question is "not even wrong". "Qualities" aren't intrinsict properties, it's a value-based judgement that is completely subjective. In the example of the three sets of embryo, you considered the differences in morphology and DNA to be trivial details compared to their massive resemblance because you made a value-based judgement on those differences, but these aren't universal. That was the core of my point.

 

[Skwim]

Precisely, why would a cosmic being care about naming and seeing the differences in animals?

Why are you caring that a cosmic being names things or not, or considers differences?

PS: nice to know that not all snowflakes aren't all unique, but still rather irrelevent to the point.

Gee, let's see who brought the subject up. Hmmm.

This question is "not even wrong". "Qualities" aren't intrinsict properties, it's a value-based judgement that is completely subjective. In the example of the three sets of embryo, you considered the differences in morphology and DNA to be trivial details compared to their massive resemblance because you made a value-based judgement on those differences, but these aren't universal. That was the core of my point.

I give up.

Have a nice day.

.

 

[metis]

So - you are going back on what you said before?

Legal = Right?

Absolutely false, and if you can't understand this, then that's simply too bad. "Murder" is a legal concept and term, but "right" is a moral concept and term, thus a legal concept is not intrinsically a moral concept.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I can't believe this thread is still going. 45 pages about a troll group angry at a company following free market forces.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Sure you are, so is @epronovost .
You are changing the meaning of murder from "illegal killing" to "killing I think should be illegal".
Epronovost is changing the meaning of the term "human being" to "people I think are important".
Tom

Murder has always been defined as the taking of innocent human life.

It was only recently that the murder of the unborn was redefined as "abortion".

I am speaking out against that new redefinition.

You're whole "legal definition" argument is inconsistent.

 

[columbus]

Murder has always been defined as the taking of innocent human life.

No, really it hasn't.

If it were, Bush II would be guilty of mass murder after the "Shock and Awe" campaign against Iraqi civilians. But it wasn't illegal, so he isn't.

Murder is still killings that are illegal, not just disapproved of. Or a vague term that's so subjective it's nearly useless when talking with someone who doesn't agree with you about which killings to disapprove of.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I find it odd you would compare the killing of an adult or a child to that of an embryo. An embryo doesn't have consciousness, emotions, will or any sort of social contact, bond or role.

This is dangerous territory.

First off - you are assuming that unborn human beings have no intrinsic value.

Even if you do not agree that they are "human" or "a person" - they are still alive and have value.

Second - not all adult human beings are "conscious" all the time - does that mean I can legally kill them when they are unconscious?

There are some adults who do not experience emotion - I can kill them too?

I can kill any and all "shut-ins" or "hermits" because they lack "social contact"?

Don't expectant parents "bond" with their unborn children?

I can tell you from experience that they do. My wife and I mourned for our son when she miscarried.

Unborn children have no "social role" to play? They don't affect anyone's lives? Alter the decisions they make?

Basically - any excuse you use to justify the murder of the unborn can be used against the already born.

It's a bit like if you compared a chia pet to a dog.

Only if chia seeds eventually turned into dogs.

Abortions should be in their own category of legal killing, seperate from hunting or husbandry which kills conscious if non-human animals and self-defense, war and legal execution which kills persons.

If a woman wants to have her unborn child - it has infinite value.

If a woman does not want her unborn child - it should have no value?

Abortion is murder. It makes no sense any other way.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Absolutely false, and if you can't understand this, then that's simply too bad. "Murder" is a legal concept and term, but "right" is a moral concept and term, thus a legal concept is not intrinsically a moral concept.

Legally - an unborn child can be "murdered" if the expectant mother wanted to have that child.

However - if the mother does not the child - it's not considered murder to kill it?

It makes no sense to define "murder" on whether the human life is wanted or convenient.

Claiming that the killing of the unborn is not murder is a very new concept and should be revisited by anyone with any honesty.

 

[columbus]

Abortion is murder. It makes no sense any other way.

I disapprove of state sponsored killings under virtually all circumstances, from environmental degradation to capital punishment to preemptive war.
But they aren't illegal, so I don't refer to them as murder.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

No, really it hasn't.

If it were, Bush II would be guilty of mass murder after the "Shock and Awe" campaign against Iraqi civilians. But it wasn't illegal, so he isn't.

Murder is still killings that are illegal, not just disapproved of. Or a vague term that's so subjective it's nearly useless when talking with someone who doesn't agree with you about which killings to disapprove of.
Tom

A man - intent on killing a pregnant woman's unborn child - stabs her in the uterus and kills the unborn child - murder or not?

Now we learn that the woman didn't really want to have that baby anyway. Murder or not?

What if she hired the man to stab her uterus. Murder or not?

What if she hired a doctor to suck out the unborn child's brain and remove it's limbs with forceps? Murder or not?

If a woman wants her baby - it has infinite value - but if she doesn't want it - it has no value?

I disapprove of state sponsored killings under virtually all circumstances, from environmental degradation to capital punishment to preemptive war.
But they aren't illegal, so I don't refer to them as murder.
Tom

All the examples you gave are based on the actions of others.

The unborn child made no choices or actions.

 

[columbus]

All the examples you gave are based on the actions of others.

The examples I gave are examples of the subjectivity concerning which killings are murder, unless you've got an objective standard like "extralegal killing" to define the word.
That's why I avoid the word murder in this discussion.

The unborn child made no choices or actions.

You do realize that I strongly oppose elective abortions, right? I commonly identify as "hardcore Prolifer". I just don't think that using the word murder is useful, and usually it's a counterproductive appeal to emotion.

I'd rather see things improved than just whip people up into a frenzy.

And, frankly, I get angry with the so called Right To Life people who seem to love abortion. It gives them a way to punish and feel superior to those miserable no'count sinners they love to hate.

And without abortion, how would all those "conservative Christian" leaders(religious and political) rake in the money and power they get by pretending to fight it?

There are evidence based methods of reducing abortions. Top ones are:

-Comprehensive sex ed starting early.

-Planned Parenthood or similar providing access to information and birth control

-Solid social safety net supporting expectant mothers

I have found that faux Prolifers consistently oppose those things. I see that as gigantic hypocrisy.
Tom

P.s. I agree with you about the child trans thing. I don't think anybody that young really knows what they want and oppose messing with their psyche and body.

 

[epronovost]

This is dangerous territory.

First off - you are assuming that unborn human beings have no intrinsic value.

You are correct. Something without a mind doesnt have an intrinsic value nearly as high as something which does. Everything has some value, but that value changes depending on its characteristics. If I have to chose between making a woman miserable or killing an embryo without will, feelings, sensations, emotions and social bonds, the choice is easy. One can be harmed, can suffer while the other cannot.

Second - not all adult human beings are "conscious" all the time - does that mean I can legally kill them when they are unconscious?

No, because it goes against their will. The will of a person extand beyond temporary lapses in consciousness. Unconcousciousness doesn't suspend social bonds and roles either and often doesn't even suspend all sensations and feelings. The Prime Minister of Britain is Prime Minister even when asleep (or emergency care as he is right now).

There are some adults who do not experience emotion - I can kill them too?

Citation for that. I don't believe there are humans without emotions. There are humans without empathy or feeling of pain for example, but they have emotions still, not just all of them.

And no, even if there were such people, you could not kill them because they still have sensations and will.

I can kill any and all "shut-ins" or "hermits" because they lack "social contact"?

There are no absolute "shut-ins" without any social bonding abilities and they still have will and emotions so they have value and a right to security.

Don't expectant parents "bond" with their unborn children?

In most cases yes, but not in the case where those embryos are aborted. It's also a parasocial relationship too since embryos do not gain consciousness of their surrounding until the 24-28 weeks period, well after the point where embryos are electively aborted (that means without medical reasons).

Unborn children have no "social role" to play? They don't affect anyone's lives? Alter the decisions they make?

They don't have a social impact, but not a social role. They do not produce anything or participate in any active way in society. Even babies participate to our social lives and society if only in very limited ways, but embryo don't.

Basically - any excuse you use to justify the murder of the unborn can be used against the already born.

As I have demonstrated above, this is a false statement.

Only if chia seeds eventually turned into dogs.

Until the chia seeds turn into a dog, it shouldn't be treated or viewed as a dog. Just like children should not have the right to vote because one day they will be adults. Embryo shouldn't have individual rights and personhood until they actually start to display personality, will, emotions, sensitivity and consciousness which is, at the earliest, around 24 week of gestation when the neo cortex develops.

If a woman wants to have her unborn child - it has infinite value.

If a woman does not want her unborn child - it should have no value?

In an overly simplistic and caricatural way this is fairly correct. If a embryo isn't conscious, doesn't feel, doesn't think, doesn't have will, doesn't have social contact, doesn't have independant metabollic capacities, it should not be viewed as a person and doesn't have anything that makes life truly special, unique and valuable. It's only value is thus granted by those who carry those embryo. If they aren't desired, they can be killed just like any weed. If they are desired they are given a value by the social attachment of the mother. It's the a bit the same thing for any object taking an abandonned sock isn't theft, but taking the sock of someone is.

Abortion is murder. It makes no sense any other way.

It makes no sense, in my opinion, to qualify of "murder" the killing of something with an awareness and emotional development comparable to a grass. A newborn baby is so far more complex and aware than a 12 week old fetus that trying to compare one to another is an insult to a baby's capacities.

 

[McBell]

I can't believe this thread is still going. 45 pages about a troll group angry at a company following free market forces.

and it isn't even a group.
It is one woman claiming to speak for a million others...

 

[McBell]

Murder has always been defined as the taking of innocent human life.

No it hasn't

murder | Origin and meaning of murder by Online Etymology Dictionary​

It was only recently that the murder of the unborn was redefined as "abortion".

Depending on what you mean by "recent"...

abortion | Search Online Etymology Dictionary​