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

[columbus]

When someone says "killing an unborn child it is killing an unborn child," (X is X), it amounts to a tautology. But if this still confounds you let's take a look at what metis said.

SENTENCE 1

"'Murder' is a legal term, thus here in the States, since abortion is legal, it simply cannot be classified as 'murder.'"

To paraphrase a bit

Part 1) Murder is a legal term. Okay

Part 2) Therefore, abortion cannot be classified as "murder" because it's legal. Okay. But just to note; while the conclusion is true, it doesn't follow from the premise.​

SENTENCE 2

"OTOH, killing an unborn child it is."

Inspection

1) "OTOH," acronym for "on the other hand."

"used when you are comparing two different facts or two opposite ways of thinking about a situation:"
Source: Cambridge Dictionary ​

So the question is; just what is killing an unborn child different from? It can't be murder because this was already made clear when Metis said "since abortion is legal, it simply cannot be classified as "murder". Hence my question, " Killing an unborn child it is what?" Murder was already been ruled out, and, as I've pointed out, killing an unborn child is an unborn child amounts to a tautology. So what else does metis have in mind?

From your post this is evidently quite apparent to you, so please share.

I await.

.

I answered it in post #856.
That's the answer, whether you insist on not seeing it or not.

Metis' grammar was unimpressive. But his meaning was quite clear to readers who were trying to understand and not obfuscate.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

I answered it in post #856.
That's the answer, whether you insist on not seeing it or not.

Forgot about your interpenetration of metis's meaning because he answered right after you.

And because all children belonging to the class, human beings, your interpretation, "Destroying a human being" is just another tautology:

Metis' grammar was unimpressive. But his meaning was quite clear to readers who were trying to understand and not obfuscate.
Tom

While tautologies are usually quite clear they're devoid of information. "X is X" tells us nothing about X.


.

 

[columbus]

While tautologies are usually quite clear they're devoid of information. "X is X" tells us nothing about X.

Which is why your tautology was such a fail.
And it was yours. You asked @metis to explain what he meant by a word. He referred to the post. If you can't understand that, you are the problem. Not Metis.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I've clarified and explained this numerous times now.

It's quite simple:

Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children.
Some pedophiles rape children.
Some pedophiles do not rape children.

So then all those times you equated pedophilia with raping children - you "misspoke" or what?

It's just confusing because what you say now contradicts what you said then.

And I have clarified and explained that numerous times now.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Except that it is.

So

All human history disagrees with you.

So...

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Those aren't even true statements, much less facts.

Both are your personal opinions about what should be. But it's not.
Tom

You claiming that they are no true statements or facts does not make them so.

Fortunately for me I have all of human history, science and reason on my side.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

"Murder" is a legal term, thus here in the States, since abortion is legal, it simply cannot be classified as "murder".

A black slave was also once legally recognized as only three-fifths of a person.

So - yeah - something being "legal" doesn't make it "right".

A fetus is recognized as a "legal victim" if they are injured or killed as a result of a crime.

However - a mother can decide to have them killed if their existence is an inconvenience?

Basically - an unborn child has infinite value if the mother wants to keep it.

However - it should be considered worthless if the mother doesn't want it?

Since when has murder been considered arbitrary?

OTOH, killing an unborn child it is.

"Murder" is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Again - something being "legal" or "lawful" doesn't make it "right".

A woman can be a victim of domestic abuse even if she decides not to press charges.

An unborn child can be murdered even if their mother's decision to kill them is considered legal.

Also, in the OT, one causing a woman to miscarry is also not considered "murder" because the maximum penalty for causing a miscarriage is a heavy fine, not stoning.

I am assuming that you are referring to Exodus 21 - since you didn't quote the source.

If that is what you were referencing - those verses refer to a pregnant woman who gives birth prematurely due to being injured in a conflict. Not a miscarriage.

Basically - a premature birth caused by an accident of some kind.

These verses claim that as long as there is no damage or "mischief" - judges will determine a punishment for the offender based on the charges made by the father of the child.

If there is damage or "mischief" - such as serious injury or death (miscarriage) - the record claims that,

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:23-25)

There is some ambiguity there - because this is a reference to accidental injury or death - but the "maximum penalty" is not a simple fine.

Language is used to communicate, but it's hard to do that if everyone just invents their own language and word-meanings.

Are you claiming that no one can ever disagree with the definition of a legal term or word?

 

[metis]

So - yeah - something being "legal" doesn't make it "right".

I never said it was "right", so you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I never said it was "right", so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Murder is a moral issue. Is it not?

You claimed that I cannot claim that "abortion" is murder due to a legal classification.

You are arguing that something being legal determines whether or not it is moral or "right".

 

[metis]

You claimed that I cannot claim that "abortion" is murder due to a legal classification.

Correct, as it's a legal term for illegal killings.

You are arguing that something being legal determines whether or not it is moral or "right".

Only as far as the state is concerned, but not with our religious beliefs, such as with mine and yours.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Correct, as it's a legal term for illegal killings.

What makes a killing "legal"?

Only as far as the state is concerned, but not with our religious beliefs, such as with mine and yours.

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

Legal = Right?

It being legal to own slaves made it right?

It being legal to sterilize the mentally ill made it right?

It being legal to employee children made child labor right?

I understand you aren't saying it is "right" according to religious beliefs - but they are "right" according to all other metrics?

 

[epronovost]

What makes a killing "legal"?

The law. It's what makes things legal or illegal; but the law isn't morality or ethic. It's just a set of enforced rules by a governmental power. In that sense, you can say that abortion is "wrong" or should be considered "murder", but abortion isn't a form of murder in most jurisdiction of the planet. A murder is a illegal form of killing set accoding to thhe law.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The law. It's what makes things legal or illegal; but the law isn't morality or ethic. It's just a set of enforced rules by a governmental power. In that sense, you can say that abortion is "wrong" or should be considered "murder", but abortion isn't a form of murder in most jurisdiction of the planet.

Can governments ever be wrong?

 

[epronovost]

Can governments ever be wrong?

About the definition of the law, absolutely not; about it's wisdom, absolutely.

 

[columbus]

What makes a killing "legal"?

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

Legal = Right?

It being legal to own slaves made it right?

It being legal to sterilize the mentally ill made it right?

It being legal to employee children made child labor right?

I understand you aren't saying it is "right" according to religious beliefs - but they are "right" according to all other metrics?

No.
What he's saying is that there's an objective meaning for the word "murder". That's "extralegal killing of a human being". By that standard, virtually no abortions are murder in the USA because of the laws passed by our representative government.
If what you mean by "murder" is "killing of a human being that I do not approve"(which it appears you mean), then murder becomes an extremely subjective term. The folks who lynched black guys for smiling at white women were not, by their subjective standards, committing murder because they approved of the killing.

This is why I avoid the word murder in the context of a feticide rights debate. It's unhelpfully vague and subjective.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

This is why I avoid the word murder in the context of a feticide rights debate. It's unhelpfully vague and subjective.
Tom

Even feticide isn't a perfectly correct term since about a quarter of all abortions performed are done before the fetal stage (8 weeks).

 

[columbus]

Even feticide isn't a perfectly correct term since about a quarter of all abortions performed are done before the fetal stage (8 weeks).

You have your definition of "fetal".
What word do you prefer for "unborn human individual"? I use fetal child. If you want, suggest a different word that means the same thing.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

You have your definition of "fetal".
What word do you prefer for "unborn human individual"? I use fetal child. If you want, suggest a different word that means the same thing.
Tom

Well before 8 weeks of gestation, it's what we call a zygote or an embryo depending on it's level of development. The correct term to describe the medical procedure of interupting a pregnancy and thus killing the zygote, embryo or fetus is called "abortion". It's useless to try to redefine the term abortion into "murder" or "feticide" or "killing of an unborn human individual" since there is a perfectly good neutral term to describe the procedure and the process. The general term for any unborn animal is "embryo" which is a bit confusing though, because embryo is also used to describe a specific development stage, but the word itself has two commonly used and known definitions.

That's without going into the problem of terms like "unborn human individual" or "fetal child". If you are a fetus you cannot be a child. It would be like an adult child. You can't be, medically speaking, be both an adult and a child or a fetus and a child. These are two different stage of development. Of couse, one could argue that "child" in that sense means "a son or daughter of someone", but in the case of abortion that would be incorrect too since they are rejected they thus have no parents, but only a sire, they are thus not "a son or daughter of someone" they are the scion of someone. So technically the best term would be "embryonic scion" or simply the embryo to describe the zygote, embryo or fetus being aborted.

 

[columbus]

Well before 8 weeks of gestation, it's what we call a zygote or an embryo depending on it's level of development. The correct term to describe the medical procedure of interupting a pregnancy and thus killing the zygote, embryo or fetus is called "abortion". It's useless to try to redefine the term abortion into "murder" or "feticide" or "killing of an unborn human individual" since there is a perfectly good neutral term to describe the procedure and the process. The general term for any unborn animal is "embryo" which is a bit confusing though, because embryo is also used to describe a specific development stage, but the word itself has two commonly used and known definitions.

That's without going into the problem of terms like "unborn human individual" or "fetal child". If you are a fetus you cannot be a child. It would be like an adult child. You can't be, medically speaking, be both an adult and a child or a fetus and a child. These are two different stage of development. Of couse, one could argue that "child" in that sense means "a son or daughter of someone", but in the case of abortion that would be incorrect too since they are rejected they thus have no parents, but only a sire, they are thus not "a son or daughter of someone" they are the scion of someone. So technically the best term would be "embryonic scion" or simply the embryo to describe the zygote, embryo or fetus being aborted.

You're doing the same thing @JesusKnowsYou was doing.
Redefining words to suit your agenda. Trying to define concepts you prefer weren't discussed out of existence.

Sorry.
I had an unborn child, who didn't survive the first few weeks of pregnancy. And I am now, at 61, still my mom's baby.
You can try to define away the issues, pretending that because you don't accept the meaning of a word that the reality goes away. But it doesn't.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

Sorry.
I had an unborn child, who didn't survive the first few weeks of pregnancy. And I am now, at 61, still my mom's baby.

These are medically inaccurate definitions. You are your mom's child (as in son's or daughter) not as a physical child even less a baby; you are an adult person. You had an embryonic child (as in son or daughter not actual child) who didn't survive pregnancy. The fact that you don't like the correct term because they do not carry your preferred emotional attachment is pointless in our current discussion. Your emotions are your own. They are useful if we are to discuss your particular experience and your feelings, but not that of others and not the subject in general.

You can try to define away the issues, pretending that because you don't accept the meaning of a word that the reality goes away. But it doesn't.
Tom

Precisely. No matter how much you might have loved and longed for that embryo that unfortunately did not survive pregnancy (you have my sympathy for that), it wasn't a child in the medical sense of the term. The fact that you desired it made it your son or daughter.