McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
That is one mighty strawman army you got there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Correct.
correct
I agree.
Good thing that murder is defined as an illegal killing.
claiming that the killing of the unborn is not murder is simply the truth of it.
Your dislike of the fact is completely irrelevant.
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
I guess I just look at this - and other issues and concepts - much differently than you do.
When I look at this issue I don't regard the State or the Law as the "end-all be-all".
Murder has existed long before the first government or legal system ever did.
And it will exist for as long as there are people willing to do it - long after all governments crumble to dust.
Now - I think you might be hung up on the "legal" aspects of murder because you may be thinking that I am trying to advocate prosecuting mothers who "abort" their unborn children.
I'm not advocating that. I believe these women are as much victims as their "aborted" children are. Maybe even more so.
Whenever I analyze a rule or a situation or pretty much anything I always try to see if it makes sense and if it is consistent.
I believe I mentioned something like this in a thread we spoke in before.
So - every argument I have heard to justify "aborting" an unborn child could be used to kill full-grown human beings - if the arguer was being consistent.
Whether or not you believe in capital punishment - the fact remains that no one on death row is there simply for being an inconvenience to their mothers - are they?
If a man were killed by their mother because she considered his life inconvenient to her - wouldn't that be murder?
Does someone have value only when they are wanted?
Now I know this may spark discussions about whether or not the not-yet-born should be considered "human" or "people" - but I also haven't seen anyone willing to consistently argue those points out either.
Anything you could argue to prove that the unborn child is not a "human" or a "person" could also be applied to already born people - if you apply the argument consistently.
Sorry - I'm rambling - so to get back to the point - murder predates any government or legal system.
Sure - they could come up with an agreed upon definition of murder - to help in terms of prosecution - but the concept of murder is beyond anything they could define.
I mean - it's not like the concept of murder is going to disappear the moment the government collapses.
I did not know that.
I use the word murder because it is most accurate.
Killing a baby is killing a baby.
It makes no sense to use a different word depending on whether the mother wanted the baby or not.
I agree with this - which is why I don't pander - I present what I believe to be the truth.
I don't know anything about this.
They were making money before abortion became mainstream.
Don't worry about them.
I like the first one - although it can easily become teachers encouraging sex - which I don't like.
I believe parents should take the lead on sex education for the children.
In my version of sex education - schools would send home materials for parents to go over with their children and then have the students tested at a later time.
Only those students who fail the sex education test should have to take a sex education class to make up the difference.
I basically have no issue with students receiving this information - I just believe there is a lot of indoctrination involved with this and other subjects.
I don't think Planned Parenthood should exist. At least not as a government subsidized entity.
Birth control is cheap and widely available.
I also am against the deeply racist origin and practices of Planned Parenthood.
I am also against "social safety nets" generally because people need to hit rock bottom in order to learn how not to fall next time.
I also don't like the idea of government replacing fathers.
Cool.
Now if only you consistently applied that "don't mess with their bodies" mentality to the unborn as well.
We'd be swimming in high fives.
Last edited:
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
This thing blew way out of proportion.
I honestly don't think either of these opposing sides did anything wrong.
Hallmark has every right to pick which commercials they want to air and anyone has the right to protest their decision.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You simply do not know what you're talking about as you are continually misrepresenting my position, which should be abundantly clear by now since I've explained it numerous times.
Either you're struggling with basic reading comprehension or you just prefer dishonesty over telling the truth. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life...", and yet what you post violates the "truth" as your continually have misrepresented what I believe in and have poster here. I am pro-life, and yet you just can't seem to understand that simple position I have repeated in several posts here.
Thus, I have no desire to discuss this or anything else with you, and right after this post I'll make certain that we will have no further discussions.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Wrong. Murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of another.” You left out the unlawful part.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nope.
Pedophilia can include the rape of children.
Or not.
I'm not sure what's confusing you here.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No it does not.
Including the human history we are currently living through at the moment.
I suggest you get out and read some more about human history, if that's what you truly think.
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
Then you are arguing that dictators have never had anyone murdered because their will is the law?
I'm trying to respond to your post #923. It'll take awhile, because it's dense with claims and ideas and concepts.
But this one is easy.
You don't have to limit government killings to "dictator", whatever that means. Yes, there are government sanctioned killings that don't qualify as murder, in an objective sense. Heck, the Holocaust doesn't qualify. That was all legal.
But if we're going to abandon objective meaning for your subjective meaning, then every USA president is guilty of murder. Oftentimes, mass murder.
Invading another country, like Vietnam or Iran or Iraq, and killing civilians is murder. From LBJ and Eisenhower to Reagan and the two Bushes, preemptive war has been a regular US policy. Innocent people die for the political purposes of USA presidents.
The Bushes were particularly heinous mass murderers. But they weren't "dictators", they were the product of a democratic process. Which puts blood on every American's hands.
Whether you voted for those murderers, or just failed to effectively oppose them, you are a murderer as well. All Americans, of a certain age, are.
That's how I, subjectively, define murder. Killing innocent people for one's own purposes.
Maybe you still want to defend the subjective meaning for the word murder, which makes you one. Maybe not. But that's the problem with subjective meaning for words like murder. My opinion is just as objective as yours, and also as subjective.
So I try to stick to more objective meanings when it's important to be clear and get something done. Virtue signaling doesn't help anything.
Tom
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
This leads me to ask - What do you mean by “mind”?
Do you mean a “brain”? Because an unborn child’s brain forms and begins to develop at five weeks.
Do you mean “awareness of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought”?
Because a newborn doesn’t have that. They say babies don’t develop this until they are 18 months old. Up to that point it’s all “pre-programmed” reactions to stimuli.
To you - newborns have less intrinsic value than an 18-month old baby? Than an adult?
Better tell that to all those mothers willing to die for their babies. They didn’t get that memo.
Oh - I get it now.
People who are ugly, sleeping, White, stupid and small are less valubale than pretty, awake, Black, smart and big people.
It’s their characteristics that determine their value. Gotcha.
Please note that all of this is sarcasm.
I do not believe that someone’s characteristics determine their value or whether or not it is acceptable to murder them.
Considering that newborns lack “awareness” and that mothers to newborns tend to be “miserable” due to exhaustion and lifestyle changes - then new mothers - especially single mothers - should be able to murder their newborn babies?
A person can murder someone depending on how they feel about that person and the characteristcs of the victim?
Our feelings do not determine someone’s value. We cannot kill someone simply because their existence is inconvenient to us.
Someone’s ability to suffer also does not determine their value.
And not-yet-born people want to die? Have you checked with them?
It's not like they are a guy in a coma and you never know whether they will ever wake.
Maybe wait the nine months until they can give you answer before deciding for them.
The unconsciousness experienced by the unborn is also temporary. Everyone knows they will wake at nine months.
Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is in a coma when you know that they will awaken in nine months?
Or are they SOL if they don’t have a living will that explains that they would want to continue to live when everyone knows that they will wake up in nine months?
At the moment of conception an entirely new and unique DNA sequence is generated that records who the parents are as well as the sex of the unborn child.
Mother, father, son, daughter - these are social bonds with expectant roles which are all decided at the moment of conception.
It does not matter that the unborn child is asleep and underdeveloped. It still has parents and is still someone’s child.
Alexithymia. It occurs in approximately 10% of the population.
OK. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I don’t believe that people should murder their unborn children.
You said that it is okay to murder the not-yet-born because they don’t experience pain or suffering.
So - it’s okay to murder these people you mentioned because they wouldn’t feel it?
Or does the fact that they can feel other emotions - like joy - cause you to stop murdering them?
What if the not-yet-born could experience joy?
Sensations and will do not a human being make.
Don’t be “anti-science” and ignore the genetics at play.
Everyone “senses” things differently and isn’t it impossible to prove that we even have free will?
This line of thinking is what leads people to justify genocide and slavery.
“They look/act/think/feel differently than I do so it’s okay to murder them or put them in chains.”
Let’s ditch the abstract and focus on concrete facts.
But - according to you - a “shut-in” would be less valuable than those with more social bonding abilities?
Someone with more expressive will is more valuable than others?
Someone who experiences the “right” emotions are more valuable than others?
Since - as you said - our value changes depending on our characteristics.
So - it’s okay to murder people as long as you don’t know them personally?
An abandoned child is worth less than a child with loving parents?
We all need to make sure that we have meaningful relationships with people - develop “bonds” - or else it is acceptable for others to murder us!
Yet - their brains form at 5 weeks.
The age - or development - of a human being or person does not determine their value.
Otherwise - newborns and those with mental impairments would be considered less valuable than others.
So it is society - and our level of involvement with it - that determines our value? Whether it is acceptable to murder someone or not?
Those “off-the-grid” people better look out because it is “open season” on anyone who doesn’t “produce or participate in any active way in society”.
An embryo is simply someone’s baby that hasn’t been born yet.
Kind of like the guy who will wake from his coma in nine months - don’t make any decisions for him.
I went through each of your comments above and I somehow missed that demonstration.
How does us not treating children and adults the same give us license to murder anyone?
Not being able to feed chia seeds a dog biscuit wouldn’t give anyone the right to kill the not-yet-born dogs - would it?
None of these things determine anyone’s value.
You know - you should really begin with the “demonstration” you mentioned before making claims like this.
I have nothing to say to this other than I think that it is disgusting and I hope you don’t have children.
"Hey kids! Let me tell you the story about the time when you weren't special, unique or valuable!"
And a full-grown adult is so much more complex and aware than a newborn baby.
All the arguments you have shared to justify murdering the unborn can be used to justify murdering a newborn and even adults.
The quality of someone’s life - their characteristics - their level of development - none of these things determine someone’s value and whether or not we can justify murdering them.
I am truly disgusted and horrified that you believe that they should.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
The ability to possess a will, sensation, emotions and create social bonds. I have repeated this several times now. I'm surprise and irritated you haven't accepted that this was what I mean by "mind" yet. It's like you aren't trying to understand me, but more busy trying to prove something.
These capacities do not arise until the brain develops the neo-cortex, where those processes happen, which happens at the 24-28 week of gestation, well after elective abortions are done. If you do not accept this simple fact you are being obtuse and ignorant or the human mental development.
This is simply false. Newborn do have awareness, they have will, can learn and they have emotions. Late term fetuses have been found to able of such thing albeit to a lesser extand than newborn since the structures were already there and studies have found that newborn already recognise the voice of their mother. Of course they do not have the higher function of awareness like self-awareness, insight, etc, but these aren't necessary for the possession of a mind.
Intrinsic value no, value period, obviously. If you are faced with the terrible and sadistic choice between saving a baby or an adult in period of horrible crisis, the rationnal choice would be to save the adult as the adult can actually help save more people in turn, is more independant and possesses skills that can takes a long time to acquire, but these are extreme and hypothetical scenario up there with "if you were lost on top of a mountain without food, would you eat human cadavres?". I don't think the debates should go there (unless you are a fan of morality debates in extreme situation)
Do not thing that your antics and frustration are an excuse to strawman willingly. It's dishonest, insulting and doesn't constitute an argument. Refrein from it in the future.
No, newborn are capable of awereness and will. When they are affraid they cry, when they are hungry they scream, when they are frustrated they sreach and growl, when they are happy they smile, when they are curious they touch, grap and taste. These are all controlled actions and feelings. That they do not have capacity for self abstraction yet is irrelevent. They have a mind not unlike that of thousands of species of animal, but uniquely human in its process.
Enemy combattant, attempted murderer are characteristics and you can absolutely kill those people under the right circumstances and not be a murderer.
They don't have wants at all. The question is not even wrong. I might as well ask you if you were bored during the billions of years before your birth.
You are right, the guy in a coma had a will, he had emotions and he has social bonds, friends, familly, etc that still think and care about him. That's a lot more than a 12 weeks old fetus which doesn't and never had anything like that. A man in a temporary coma is just like a man sleeping. I already answered that question, but will do so again, no because a lapse in consciousness doesn't eliminate or cancels someone's will. An embryo having no will cannot make the same claim. It's also important to note that the man in a coma doesn't actively harm anybody while an embryo can.
Sexual development is a bit more complex than that and so does DNA interraction. Please refer to the field of epigenetics.
No, they aren't decided at conception since children can be abandonned or die at birth (or even prior to death in case of sibblings and fathers). A sire isn't a parent and sire isn't a social bond, it's a genetical fact, a bond would imply an emotional connection and reciprocal rapport. Parenthood is more than just producing a child, it's taking care of it, raising it, educating it.
I already answered this question too. I'll say it once again. No, you cannot kill someone who doesn't feel pain because they have a will and emotions. Embryo who are selectively aborted are incapable of ALL those characteristics: will, emotions, sensation and social bonds.
A human being as in a person is a philosophical concept that is composite of both a mind, a mental identity and a body. I refer to you to the famous " two captain Kirk" philosophical thought experiement on identity and you are absolutely right that genetics and epigenetics have a roll, they produce the mind which an emergent property. The mind as a special value, but the body not so much. That's why people who no longer have any significant brain activity are considered dead. A human being as a member of the homo sapiens species of animal is a taxonomical category based on a variety of common characteristics and genetical traits. Taxonomical category are ontological, thus also philosophical concept. All science derives from philosophy up to a certain point.
You can also consider the idea of body transplantation. If I lose a kidney and receives one from Gerald, it's no longer Gerald's kidney, it' mine even though it has Gerald's DNA.
Imagine that I am very unlucky and lucky at the same time and basically am reconstructed from the bottom up following accidents: new heart, new spleen, new kidneys, new liver, new skin, new arms and legs, new heart, etc. I would still be me even though my body is completely different and contains a variety of different people's DNA and perhapse even some animal ones (xenotransplantation is considered a promising field in the future and human organ transplant in animals have been successful).
When did I used the term: free will?
I disagree. Yours do. Your definition of human can exclude some people like people with severe generical defect for example or members of a certain ethinicity based on a phenotype or a genetical varience. That's what neo-nazi and hereditarian groups do today. They class human values based on genetical traits and characteristics.
You do realise I had adressed all those points and disagree with these statements? I'll try to reformulate the argument in more simple terms so you can understand it more easily since it seems to be so difficult for you.
The things that give special value to humans compared to other life forms or things in the cosmos is our will, our emotions, our sensations our social bonds. While all animals possess these characteristics humans experiment them slightly differently than other animals and in turn each human experiment them slightly differently than each others making us all individuals. Embryo before the 24th to 28th week of gestation do not possess will, sensation, emotions and social bonds. They do not have what gives humans a special value compared to other life forms and things in the cosmos. They have yet to develop what makes human uniquely valuable; they will not before the embryo reaches the point where it develops the neo-cortex, the portion of the brain that regulate and produce all the things mentionned above. They have none. If you have none you cannot be considered as having a special value. If you have at least one of those things you can make a claim to having a special value.
Why do you believe humans have a special value and should have a right to live that other creature do not?
Last edited:
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
Thank you for actually providing relevant sources.
That already makes you a cut above the rest.
Most of that definition is describing the original uses of the word "abortion" which was a reference to "miscarriages", "stillbirths", "untimely births" or "expulsion before viability".
None of these had to do with how we use the word "abortion" today - i.e. a premeditated abortion with the intent of killing the unborn child.
Your resource claims that “deliberate” or “intentional” abortions were classified as "criminal abortions" and "feticide" or "foeticide".
It then defines "foeticide" as a "deliberate premature fatal expulsion of the fetus" and that it was comparable to “prolicide” which is defined as, "the killing of one's child".
So - your source claims that "deliberate” or “intentional” abortions were "criminal" (i.e. unlawful) and "the killing of one's child".
Now - back to the first source - it doesn't really disagree with what I said about murder.
I admit that it might - but that would depend on what these various systems of law and culture consider "lawful killings" and "innocence".
For example - if Nordic culture does not consider any man to be "innocent" - then their whole understanding of the difference between "secret slaughter" and "slaying" would make more sense.
It would also be irrelevant to my claim about murder - which involves the concept of innocence.
So - unless you find examples of "deliberate” or “intentional” abortions being classified as "lawful killings" - this source not only does not support your argument - but it hurts it.
Then when you consider that your other link described "deliberate” or “intentional” abortions as "criminal abortions" and as feticide/prolicide - your argument becomes even weaker - possibly nonexistent.
Especially when your first link also described "murder" as “mortal sin, crime” and to “kill criminally”.
I’d really appreciate it because I wouldn’t want to knowingly erect strawmen.
I believe that people use this argument when they want to avoid critically examining the practice of “abortion”.
I’m sure that during times of slavery and Jim Crow people often emplyed this argument so they wouldn’t have to think about those unpleasant things.
Also - there are still countries that outlaw abortion - so I don’t think concepts like “murder” should change depending on which country you happen to be in.
Something being legal doesn’t make it right and murder has existed before and will continue to exist after all world governments crumble.
Putting qualifiers like “unlawful” and “lawful” in front of a “killing” instantly makes the word subjective.
Killing should be subjective - but not murder.
That already makes you a cut above the rest.
I'm going to tackle the second definition first.
Most of that definition is describing the original uses of the word "abortion" which was a reference to "miscarriages", "stillbirths", "untimely births" or "expulsion before viability".
None of these had to do with how we use the word "abortion" today - i.e. a premeditated abortion with the intent of killing the unborn child.
Your resource claims that “deliberate” or “intentional” abortions were classified as "criminal abortions" and "feticide" or "foeticide".
It then defines "foeticide" as a "deliberate premature fatal expulsion of the fetus" and that it was comparable to “prolicide” which is defined as, "the killing of one's child".
So - your source claims that "deliberate” or “intentional” abortions were "criminal" (i.e. unlawful) and "the killing of one's child".
Now - back to the first source - it doesn't really disagree with what I said about murder.
I admit that it might - but that would depend on what these various systems of law and culture consider "lawful killings" and "innocence".
For example - if Nordic culture does not consider any man to be "innocent" - then their whole understanding of the difference between "secret slaughter" and "slaying" would make more sense.
It would also be irrelevant to my claim about murder - which involves the concept of innocence.
So - unless you find examples of "deliberate” or “intentional” abortions being classified as "lawful killings" - this source not only does not support your argument - but it hurts it.
Then when you consider that your other link described "deliberate” or “intentional” abortions as "criminal abortions" and as feticide/prolicide - your argument becomes even weaker - possibly nonexistent.
Especially when your first link also described "murder" as “mortal sin, crime” and to “kill criminally”.
Would you mind explaining exactly how I misrepresented what was said?
I’d really appreciate it because I wouldn’t want to knowingly erect strawmen.
I consider this to be a “cop out”.
I believe that people use this argument when they want to avoid critically examining the practice of “abortion”.
I’m sure that during times of slavery and Jim Crow people often emplyed this argument so they wouldn’t have to think about those unpleasant things.
Also - there are still countries that outlaw abortion - so I don’t think concepts like “murder” should change depending on which country you happen to be in.
Something being legal doesn’t make it right and murder has existed before and will continue to exist after all world governments crumble.
No - truth is not subjective and should not be subject to change by crossing a border.
Putting qualifiers like “unlawful” and “lawful” in front of a “killing” instantly makes the word subjective.
Killing should be subjective - but not murder.
My argument does not stem from a “dislike” of abortion - but rather a “dislike” of inconsistency and lack of reason.
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
Rather than attack me and my religious convictions - you should point out how I was misrepresenting you.
I had no intention of doing so and I still do not believe that I did.
It is not reasonable for you to assume malice on my part.
A reasonable person would have explained how I had misrepresented them and given me a chance to amend - if I had actually done so - not post an ad hominem attack, ran away and I'm assuming placed some kind of ban or mute on me?
That doesn't sound like someone who is confident about their argument.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
The links clearly show that your claim "Murder has always been defined as the taking of innocent human life." is just flat out wrong.
Interesting that you have not acknowledged that fact.
You make assumptions about the assumptions you claim are being made of others.
I would suggest you stop trying to "read between the lines" and instead flat out ask for clarification.
Feel free to consider it what ever you like.
Your consideration does not change the fact.
Of course you do.
I mean, it is not even remotely possible that people dislike your misuse of the word "murder", could it?
No idea that Jim Crow was about the misuse of the word murder when talking about abortion.
Perhaps you can provide some links?
The concept of murder does not change depending on which country you are in.
However, laws can and do differ from country to country.
Nor does something being illegal mean it is wrong.
But since we are talking about the definition of murder, which is a legal term, the legality of it is relevant.
Ah, here are getting to the meat of you "argument".
Your personal feeling concerning the meaning of the word murder is irrelevant to the definition of the word murder.
Except that it is.
No it doesn't.
Dead is dead.
does not matter if the death was legal or justified, or murder, or self defence, etc.
Dead is dead.
So killing is not subjective.
Murder is not subjective.
It is an unlawful killing.
ah, so your dislike of abortion does not hold sway in your opinion that abortion is murder even though the very definition of the word murder means it is not murder?
Seems you ahve not thought this through very well.
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
That's what you are saying now but that's not what you said then.
You earlier claimed that pedophilia = raping children.
Do you want me to quote you doing that for the umpteenth time?
I'm wondering what the "magic number" of re-posts it will take for you to be accountable for what you said and did?
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
Yet - that is the decision I'm arguing against.
How can you not see how that makes no sense?
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
This has turned into an - interesting - conversation to say the least.
Considering Watchman’s insistence that a killing being “unlawful” was what made it “murder” - I asked him if dictators were ever able to commit murder - since their will is the law.
Are you arguing that a dictator could never commit “murder”?
I know that you are not defending Hitler and the Nazis - but this comes pretty close.
I can confidently state that - objectively - that the Holocaust was murder.
Looking back - I see that I did not include words like “premeditated” or “willful” - because I thought they were obviously implied.
I'll try to be more clear in the future.
She would not be guilty of murder because it was not her intention to murder her unborn child - but to destroy the cancer. It is all about intent.
Unless you have evidence that proves that the goals of these various U.S. Presidents was to murder innocent people - rather than destroy a perceived threat to their national security - then according to my “subjective” definition of “murder” - they would not be guilty.
You are free to believe that - but if you do I just hope that you are spreading the good stuff around to every American citizen too.
I disagree with you - but I’m not about to tell you that you can’t share your opinion or try to convince others to agree with you.
If you really believe this - why not share it?
My "subjective" definition of "murder" does not make me a murderer - because it is predicated upon reason and consistency.
So - just to clarify - in your mind - objectively - Hitler and the Nazis are not murderers - while subjectively - I am a murderer?
I’m sorry - I can’t imagine what it must be like to be backed into a corner by such a flawed premise that you’d have to make these kinds of claims.
If I were you - I’d find another premise to bet on because you aren’t sounding too good right now.
I mean - according to yours people who actively kill innocent people are not murderers while me voting for my elected official somehow makes me one.
This strikes me as funny because you are unwilling to claim that abortion is murder - but you are willing to claim that me filling out a ballot is?
Some wires got crossed somewhere and I don’t think it’s on my end honestly.
You could never share - or argue for - the definition you would prefer?
I have been arguing from a position of reason and consistency.
If you believe that is “virtue signaling” - so be it - but I don’t think you are in a position to make that kind of determination considering the ridiculous things you have said in this post.
I never made that claim.
Considering Watchman’s insistence that a killing being “unlawful” was what made it “murder” - I asked him if dictators were ever able to commit murder - since their will is the law.
Are you arguing that a dictator could never commit “murder”?
Sure - such as the execution of criminals or the killing of enemy troops in combat.
I understand what you are trying to say here - but it is my opinion that your premise is flawed if it requires you to try and claim that the multitudes of war crimes committed by Hitler and the Nazis were “legal”.
I know that you are not defending Hitler and the Nazis - but this comes pretty close.
I can confidently state that - objectively - that the Holocaust was murder.
No. Not at all. My “subjective” definition of “murder” requires intent to commit murder.
Looking back - I see that I did not include words like “premeditated” or “willful” - because I thought they were obviously implied.
I'll try to be more clear in the future.
To steer this conversation back to the topic - abortion - according to my “subjective” definition of “murder” a pregnant woman who’s unborn child dies as a result of her decision to receive chemotherapy to destroy her life-threatening cancer - is not guilty of murder.
She would not be guilty of murder because it was not her intention to murder her unborn child - but to destroy the cancer. It is all about intent.
Unless you have evidence that proves that the goals of these various U.S. Presidents was to murder innocent people - rather than destroy a perceived threat to their national security - then according to my “subjective” definition of “murder” - they would not be guilty.
Not only do the Bushes not qualify as “murderers” according to my “subjective” definition of “murder” - but I consider the idea that all American citizens bear a collective burden depending on the actions of their elected officials is ridiculous.
You are free to believe that - but if you do I just hope that you are spreading the good stuff around to every American citizen too.
That’s great.
I disagree with you - but I’m not about to tell you that you can’t share your opinion or try to convince others to agree with you.
If you really believe this - why not share it?
No - I’m not going to defend your subjective definition of murder.
My "subjective" definition of "murder" does not make me a murderer - because it is predicated upon reason and consistency.
So - just to clarify - in your mind - objectively - Hitler and the Nazis are not murderers - while subjectively - I am a murderer?
I’m sorry - I can’t imagine what it must be like to be backed into a corner by such a flawed premise that you’d have to make these kinds of claims.
If I were you - I’d find another premise to bet on because you aren’t sounding too good right now.
I’d argue that my “subjective” definition is more reasonable and consistent than yours.
I mean - according to yours people who actively kill innocent people are not murderers while me voting for my elected official somehow makes me one.
This strikes me as funny because you are unwilling to claim that abortion is murder - but you are willing to claim that me filling out a ballot is?
Some wires got crossed somewhere and I don’t think it’s on my end honestly.
What if the “something” you want to “get done” is changing the legal definition of a word?
You could never share - or argue for - the definition you would prefer?
Wow. Just wow. You were all over the place in this post.
I have been arguing from a position of reason and consistency.
If you believe that is “virtue signaling” - so be it - but I don’t think you are in a position to make that kind of determination considering the ridiculous things you have said in this post.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
I agree that your position is consistent and predictable which is a good thing, but I don't think it's solidly based on reason or at least you have not made that demonstration yet.