Abortion is murder, or is it?

[Immanuel Can]

I am embarrassed and I apologize.

Hey, a man of honour! People today are all afraid of apologizing, for some reason, as if everybody has to be perfect. But I'm thinking someone who can do that has some integrity. Say no more.

But you seem to forget that sex is an overpowering urge and sometimes people tend to choose to ignore the contraceptive for pleasure. That does not mean that they CHOOSE to have a baby. They just HOPE that it does not happen. And that is the reality.

Maybe. Some people have an overpowering urge to drink, and then they drive. But we're not okay with that, are we? If a life is in the balance (as it MAY be in the case of drinking and driving, but most certainly is, in the case of abortion), we realize that that relativizes choices of that particular sort.

Or to take another example, if a man has a terminal sexual disease and refuses to tell his partner because his "overpowering urge" makes him disinclined to lose the opportunity for sex even if he kills his partner, we' don't say, "Oh well...that's sex."

The question is, is the "choice" to kill a child one of the good choices, particularly when one's choice-making has produced the child in the first place.

No. The question is actually why is it so important to you?

Why would the life-and-death of other human beings be unimportant to anyone?

It is not yet conclusively proven that abortion is a killing.

What my earlier story conclusively shows is this: the burden of proof is not on someone who is against killing -- the whole obligation falls on the responsibility of the killer to show that his or her action is permissible and moral killing, not murder. The one side is contemplating killing; and the other is not. Until we know, the only moral option is not to kill.

So why do you feel that it is so important that you have the right to decide what is wrong and right on someone else's behalf?

"Right" and "wrong" are always analytically about what I do to others, and about what others do to me. Ethics are about social relations: that's fundamental. So that's a starting point.

But should a moral person NOT have a perspective on the (at least potential) murder of innocents? That seems a strange moral perspective...

Why is it so important to tell a woman what to do?

It's not. I've never said I want to tell only a woman to do anything about it. It's everybody's issue. The man contributes half the genetic material, the baby suffers the death, and society at large pays the price for the individual's choice, in this case. So it's not about women exclusively at all.

Till there is a law that prohibits abortion, a woman has a fundamental right to abort just as you have a fundamental right to carry a gun.

Heh. Well, that's a bit of a strained analogy, isn't it? Other than the definite presence of a death in the first case, and the possibility of some sort of wounding or death involved in the second, I can't see any point of connection.

To paraphrase: "Until we have laws to guarantee mortgages, nobody has the right to spit on the sidewalk."

[sthitapragya]

Some people have an overpowering urge to drink, and then they drive. But we're not okay with that, are we? If a life is in the balance (as it MAY be in the case of drinking and driving, but most certainly is, in the case of abortion), we realize that that relativizes choices of that particular sort.

Drinking and driving is illegal for that very reason. Abortion is not. You and a lot of other people have CONCLUDED that a life is in the balance. A lot of other people have not. The law of your country has not.

Or to take another example, if a man has a terminal sexual disease and refuses to tell his partner because his "overpowering urge" makes him disinclined to lose the opportunity for sex even if he kills his partner, we' don't say, "Oh well...that's sex."

That is a completely out of context example. A woman and a man have sex. Both know the consequences. Here someone is hiding something from someone. If you think that is the same thing, well, too bad. It's just a bad and wrong example and has no correlation whatsoever with the discussion at hand.

The question is, is the "choice" to kill a child one of the good choices, particularly when one's choice-making has produced the child in the first place.

Again, you and a lot of people have concluded that abortion is the killing of a child. A lot of other people and the law of your land have not.

What my earlier story conclusively shows is this: the burden of proof is not on someone who is against killing -- the whole obligation falls on the responsibility of the killer to show that his or her action is permissible and moral killing, not murder. The one side is contemplating killing; and the other is not. Until we know, the only moral option is not to kill.

Again, your whole argument is based on your conclusion that it is a killing. If it were, your law would have made it illegal. Obviously there is some doubt about that subject. And that is why it is not illegal

So why do you feel that it is so important that you have the right to decide what is wrong and right on someone else's behalf?
"Right" and "wrong" are always analytically about what I do to others, and about what others do to me. Ethics are about social relations: that's fundamental. So that's a starting point.

But should a moral person NOT have a perspective on the (at least potential) murder of innocents? That seems a strange moral perspective...

Again the same argument. Your whole argument is based on a conclusion which your law does not seem to accept.

[quote="sthitapragya"}Till there is a law that prohibits abortion, a woman has a fundamental right to abort just as you have a fundamental right to carry a gun.

Heh. Well, that's a bit of a strained analogy, isn't it? Other than the definite presence of a death in the first case, and the possibility of some sort of wounding or death involved in the second, I can't see any point of connection.

To paraphrase: "Until we have laws to guarantee mortgages, nobody has the right to spit on the sidewalk." [/quote]

Not strained at all. There is no law against people possessing guns including potential terrorists. They have a fundamental right to it. There is no law against abortion because your law does not recognize it as killing. Whatever your moral perspective might be, you owe it to your country to protect the fundamental rights of your countrymen. In this case, it is the fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion.

And you need to compare your country's deaths in schools due to guns with other countries. You will realize that the second is more real than the first. You just have to look at the statistics. You know how many deaths in schools due to gun violence we have had in India in the last decade? Check it out. Hint: it's a number less than 1.

Its a shame that to protect your fundamental rights you and a lot of other people are willing to overlook the death of real living breathing children. But to protect what you have concluded is a child which even the law of your land does not agree with, you are insisting that the fundamental right of someone else should be taken away.

[Immanuel Can]

The question is, is the "choice" to kill a child one of the good choices, particularly when one's choice-making has produced the child in the first place.

Again, you and a lot of people have concluded that abortion is the killing of a child. A lot of other people and the law of your land have not...

Again, your whole argument is based on your conclusion that it is a killing.

No, no...it's not. Not a bit!

The analogy does not require that we establish that Henry is in the thicket...all we need to establish is that neither of us knows whether or not he is. Once we have that realization, it is my moral obligation not to shoot until we do know; and in preventing me from shooting, Tom bears no responsibility to show whether or not Henry is there, but only to remind we that I don't know.

As for the law, perhaps authoritarians always insist without reasons and drones obey without them; but for everyone else, we are allowed to question the law as to its rational justification. There have been unjust laws in many places -- segregation America, WWII Germany, and Soviet Russia, just to name a few. No doubt there are even a few laws wherever you live that are also bad laws...or at least insufficiently justified ones. Thus, to say, "Well, there's a law..." tells us nothing about its justification.

Whatever your moral perspective might be, you owe it to your country to protect the fundamental rights of your countrymen. In this case, it is the fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion.

No, it's not anyone's "right" to have an abortion. You don't get to pull rank like that. You have to prove that such a "right" is both real and compulsory.

You can certainly say that that "right" is certainly loudly claimed by the Leftists and Feminists; but there's absolutely no reason to believe it exists at all -- at least, not in the sense of warranted existence, rather than merely being a contingent quirk of a particular government.

But "rights" aren't available to be called into being just because someone wants to: or as my first ethics professor put it, "they're not trumps." You owe it to prove that such a right should exist, for rational and moral causes.

So your argument above is "fine" for legalists and authoritarians (since they don't question law), but no good for philosophers and free-thinkers, who can. And it's no good for here, on a philosophy board.

P.S. -- Gun violence is not the present topic: and its relationship by analogy to this one has not been demonstrated yet. If I ever tell you what my view is on that, it will be on a different strand.

[sthitapragya]

The analogy does not require that we establish that Henry is in the thicket...all we need to establish is that neither of us knows whether or not he is. Once we have that realization, it is my moral obligation not to shoot until we do know; and in preventing me from shooting, Tom bears no responsibility to show whether or not Henry is there, but only to remind we that I don't know.

Your analogy does not work here. First of all, you are talking about the possible danger of shooting a person and possibly injuring or killing him. Also it is very easy to choose not to shoot a gun. In the case of sex, first of all the probability of sex resulting in a pregnancy is not guaranteed in any way. In fact, even during ovulation, the chances of getting pregnant are only 30%. secondly, it is not easy to say no to sex as has been shown by reality. The problem here is something I have noticed as a particular trait of humans. We tend to hold OTHER people to a much higher standard than our own. This is a particularly apt example. You actually expect people to refrain from having sex when probably given a certain set of circumstances, you will not be able to stop yourself either. Your expectation is set in ideals which are not in consistence with reality. People simply cannot do it.

As for the law, perhaps authoritarians always insist without reasons and drones obey without them; but for everyone else, we are allowed to question the law as to its rational justification. There have been unjust laws in many places -- segregation America, WWII Germany, and Soviet Russia, just to name a few. No doubt there are even a few laws wherever you live that are also bad laws...or at least insufficiently justified ones. Thus, to say, "Well, there's a law..." tells us nothing about its justification.

Well, unrestricted gun access is bad law. Allowing potential terrorists, criminals, psychologically unfit people to own guns is not even bad law, it is ridiculously bad law.

Abortion is the result of sexual urge over which no one has control. No one. (unless you are asexual, in which case you have to think in terms of sexually active people), What you are suggesting is something you yourself cannot control. You might have not been presented with the circumstances, but if you were, you know that you have no ability to say no to sex.

No, it's not anyone's "right" to have an abortion. You don't get to pull rank like that. You have to prove that such a "right" is both real and compulsory.

Okay, I will give you that one.

P.S. -- Gun violence is not the present topic: and its relationship by analogy to this one has not been demonstrated yet. If I ever tell you what my view is on that, it will be on a different strand.

Gun violence absolutely IS the present topic because it deals with your primary concern here. Saving lives of children. Statistics alone show that no other country loses as many children to gun violence as the US does. Allowing access of guns to criminals, potential terrorists and the mentally unstable is simply bad law, which is another one of your concerns.

I will say that Americans should willingly sacrifice their fundamental right to protect children. Kind of like put your money where your mouth is. Then talk about abortion. If you are not willing to do so, then do not claim you have any kind of love for children's lives. You don't.

If you insist that lives of children must be saved, then your anti-abortion stand cannot be called honest unless you insist that gun laws should be modified to restrict access. No one is going to take your gun away if you are mentally stable and a law abiding citizen. If you agree, then your anti-abortion stand is honest. I will disagree with you, but I will admit that it is an honest stand.

But the primary issue here is something people will not readily admit. When I am inconvenienced, everything is bad, when you are inconvenienced, everything is fine. Also the fact that everyone holds other people to a higher standard than their own.

[Greta]

Umm, yes. Women are free to have their baby adopted, IF THEY CHOOSE TO. Again, it's none of your damn business.

Greta thinks everyone should adopt. I too think that would be a nice thing if people choose to. I have a right to think, they can't take that away from me ... yet.

No, I think you should adopt, since you are the one wanting to interfere with the lives of women you don't know. IMO it's a tad hypocritical for someone to claim to be anti abortion and yet has never adopted. It's akin to being an environmentalist who doesn't ever recycle or donate to the cause.

I am glad many women have the right to terminate their foetuses early to mid term embryos and foetuses when they are lesser in sentience, understanding and, especially, sensation than the mammals we so routinely objectify.

It's been a long time but some years ago I remember seeing statistics about the link between abortion rules and crime because unwanted children are more many times more likely to be wards of the state and to go on to a life of crime. Such a result is more likely for children who are unwanted and unloved.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem here is something I have noticed as a particular trait of humans. We tend to hold OTHER people to a much higher standard than our own. This is a particularly apt example. You actually expect people to refrain from having sex when probably given a certain set of circumstances, you will not be able to stop yourself either. Your expectation is set in ideals which are not in consistence with reality. People simply cannot do it.

So you say.

My standards, you don't know.

However, I'm finding it interesting that you actually assert that people are so sexually out of control that they can't take a pill, put on a condom, get a vasectomy or take any responsibility if they fail to do one of the above. And as an exchange, if they fail to behave responsibly, you're willing to let them (potentially) kill another human being. For you do not know that they are not doing that: in fact, all the evidence quite clearly shows that they are -- certainly in the case of late-third-trimester abortions; moreover, admitting that, you have no line previous to which you are able to point to show that what you are contemplating is not murder.

I'm starting to wonder what this conversation is really about for you. It's very clearly not about me, or about women in general. But that's your business, not mine; so I won't pry.

As for the law, perhaps authoritarians always insist without reasons and drones obey without them; but for everyone else, we are allowed to question the law as to its rational justification. There have been unjust laws in many places...

Well, unrestricted gun access is bad law.

You've just conceded my point.

Abortion is the result of sexual urge over which no one has control.

No, it is a morally corrupt attempt to compensate for failure to behave in a way that is quite expectable of any minimally responsible and moral adult human being. You act like it's the first option...but it's really, at the very best, the resort to an abortion is a confession that the perpetrator has messed up so many ways and so badly that he/she is now willing to (at least potentially) murder another human being in order to escape a 9 month responsibility.

If I'm right about a child being a human life, then what you're considering does not make bad people good. It makes bad people (potential) murderers. Even if I were not right, then "potential murderers" are still what they would be, even by your own account -- until you prove definitively that they're not...(or, to put it analogically, that Henry's not in the bush).



P.S. -- Gun violence is wildly off topic. I'll give you a few reasons.

1. You have no idea what I think of guns, because I've deliberately not followed you down that irrelevant rabbit trail. It's a false analogy...nothing more. You've not shown otherwise; you've just grown more impassioned and reasserted the same fallacy. That's not reasoning, and it doesn't improve your case. It's just a deflection. I know it, and I'm sure you know it too.
2. You don't know what I think of children, except that I am morally against killing them in the womb. Your assertions to the contrary are improper.
3. You don't know what the real solution to gun violence is. Nobody seems to. In areas where gun laws are much tighter, gun crime is often higher. Check the statistics, and you'll see it's true. Not only that, but most gun crimes in countries with tight gun laws are committed with weapons that are already illegal.
4. You don't know if I live in America; and if I don't, then the gun laws elsewhere are different. So you don't know if I have any view of the right to bear arms.
5. This issue is your obsession, but no interest of mine at the moment; the header of this strand is not about it, so forget it. It's boring and off topic. I'm not interested in chasing the false analogy.
6. This is the absolute last I'll say on that matter.

[sthitapragya]

However, I'm finding it interesting that you actually assert that people are so sexually out of control that they can't take a pill, put on a condom, get a vasectomy or take any responsibility if they fail to do one of the above.

Unfortunately people are that out of control. Also most of those who fail to take any contraceptive measures are ignorant of them mainly because most schools in many countries choose not to teach sex education and instead focus on abstinence.

And as an exchange, if they fail to behave responsibly, you're willing to let them (potentially) kill another human being. For you do not know that they are not doing that: in fact, all the evidence quite clearly shows that they are -- certainly in the case of late-third-trimester abortions; moreover, admitting that, you have no line previous to which you are able to point to show that what you are contemplating is not murder.

I think most countries have laws against aborting a viable fetus. So this argument is invalid.

It is not a murder because (1) It is not a murder as defined by law and (2) By your standards, every act of masturbation is a crime too because you are killing a potential child. Any one of those sperms could have been a Michelangelo. Also any woman who does not try have a child when she is ovulating should be punished for it. If you have the right not to produce a child at every opportunity, why is aborting a non-sentient being any different?

Suppose you make abortion illegal.You would be forcing women to bear a child every time irrespective of whether she wants it, has the ability to raise it or not. What kind of a life is that for a child? You will say put it up for adoption. Is that really a great option? As Greta says, if you are so much against abortion, would you adopt a child?

Abortion is the result of sexual urge over which no one has control.

No, it is a morally corrupt attempt to compensate for failure to behave in a way that is quite expectable of any minimally responsible and moral adult human being. [/quote]
Sorry but it is your expectation of any minimally responsible and moral adult along with the expectation of a lot of other people. It is not an absolute. I don't expect it of adults and a lot of people agree with me.

You act like it's the first option...but it's really, at the very best, the resort to an abortion is a confession that the perpetrator has messed up so many ways and so badly that he/she is now willing to (at least potentially) murder another human being in order to escape a 9 month responsibility.

First of all it is not a 9 month responsibility. It is a life long one. If you have kids, you know that. One never stops feeling responsible for their children. And again, you just keep pointing out your conclusion that it is a murder. It is one only if masturbation is murder too. Sperms are alive too. So are eggs so every ovum which is not attempted to be fertilized is a murder too. The ovum is alive.

If I'm right about a child being a human life, then what you're considering does not make bad people good. It makes bad people (potential) murderers. Even if I were not right, then "potential murderers" are still what they would be, even by your own account -- until you prove definitively that they're not...(or, to put it analogically, that Henry's not in the bush).

Bad people? Seriously? I think this is some how more personal to you than you let out.

I have never conceded that it is a murder by any account. I maintain that a non-viable fetus is not a sentient being and is therefore alive and not a child. Just like a sperm and an ovary.

P.S. -- Gun violence is wildly off topic. I'll give you a few reasons.

Gun violence is not off topic because there are two simultaneous discussions going on here. One is about whether abortion is murder. The other is about whether people who claim this are hypocrites or not.

The root of objection against abortion is killing children. You are prepared to let some woman face the consequences of her actions because you believe it is for protecting children. If you really loved children so much that you were willing to judge other people for it, then you would do two things to prove your love for children and put your money where your mouth is. 1) support gun control. 2) adopt a child. Unless you do these things, it simply points out that you are just willing to sit on judgement on others and not willing to lead by example.

And no, I have no idea what country you are from or what your stand on gun control is. You need to clarify the latter. The first is unimportant as long as you support gun control which you need to clarify too. Also whether you have adopted a child.

Before arguing about whether abortion is murder or not, I need you to show that you really love children so much that you can ask such a question.

[uwot]

I am embarrassed and I apologize.

Hey, a man of honour! People today are all afraid of apologizing, for some reason...

You should know, Immanuel Can. How many times were you told that atheists do not all insist that god does not exist? You completely ignored that and kept calling us irrational for believing something we don't believe. Unless I have missed it, there has been no apology from you.

...as if everybody has to be perfect. But I'm thinking someone who can do that has some integrity.

Imagine how that must feel.

[Immanuel Can]

And as an exchange, if they fail to behave responsibly, you're willing to let them (potentially) kill another human being. For you do not know that they are not doing that: in fact, all the evidence quite clearly shows that they are -- certainly in the case of late-third-trimester abortions; moreover, admitting that, you have no line previous to which you are able to point to show that what you are contemplating is not murder.

I think most countries have laws against aborting a viable fetus. So this argument is invalid.

You are quite incorrect. Check, for example, the "laws" in Canada, which permit abortion anytime in the pregnancy -- and this not because it's a moral precept known to be right, but because the pro-abortion side has so perplexed the public debate that they have successfully undermined any reasonable law.

Even when a place has laws to protect viable children, the government is reluctant to enforce even the worst abuses. Look up the Kermit Gosnell Case in the US, and you'll get the picture in graphic detail.

You're wrong.

It is not a murder...

Prove it. The burden of proof is on the person who is willing to kill, not the one who is not contemplating killing.

Suppose you make abortion illegal. You would be forcing women to bear a child every time irrespective of whether she wants it, has the ability to raise it or not. What kind of a life is that for a child? You will say put it up for adoption. Is that really a great option? As Greta says, if you are so much against abortion, would you adopt a child?

Absolutely. No question. Meanwhile, "Kill it" is never in the interest of the child. Pretending it is, is merely rationalization of evil.

You act like it's the first option...but it's really, at the very best, the resort to an abortion is a confession that the perpetrator has messed up so many ways and so badly that he/she is now willing to (at least potentially) murder another human being in order to escape a 9 month responsibility.

First of all it is not a 9 month responsibility. It is a life long one.

You forgot adoption. The truth is that people who opt for abortion want to avoid the situation where they have a child "out there" in the world, being cared for by other people. And to avoid their own psychological discomfort, they'll murder their child. However, many women who've had the procedure afterward realize they only transmuted the problem. Now, instead of the anxiety of a child "out there," they realize they are murderers of their own children, and spend the rest of their lives fighting that misery.

They'd have been better to have exercised their "choice" at the moment of conception. It's better for them, and its tons better for their victims.

If you have kids, you know that. One never stops feeling responsible for their children.

Don't create them if you aren't adult enough to face the responsibility. It's that simple.

...The ovum is alive.

You're skipping the burden of proof. I'm not on the pro-kill side. You are.

If I'm right about a child being a human life, then what you're considering does not make bad people good. It makes bad people (potential) murderers. Even if I were not right, then "potential murderers" are still what they would be, even by your own account -- until you prove definitively that they're not...(or, to put it analogically, that Henry's not in the bush).

Bad people? Seriously? I think this is some how more personal to you than you let out.

No. But I do believe in objective good and evil. Abortion is objectively evil. Moreover, I'm really sure everyone knows that. They just want to live in denial.

I have never conceded that it is a murder by any account.

It doesn't matter. Burden of proof is on the one who could even potentially commit murder. I'm not on that side. My advice won't kill anyone. Yours most certainly will; and whether it constitutes murder or not is the thing you have to prove before you can justify trying it.

[Walker]

No, I think you should adopt, since you are the one wanting to interfere with the lives of women you don't know. IMO it's a tad hypocritical for someone to claim to be anti abortion and yet has never adopted. It's akin to being an environmentalist who doesn't ever recycle or donate to the cause.

I am glad many women have the right to terminate their foetuses early to mid term embryos and foetuses when they are lesser in sentience, understanding and, especially, sensation than the mammals we so routinely objectify.

It's been a long time but some years ago I remember seeing statistics about the link between abortion rules and crime because unwanted children are more many times more likely to be wards of the state and to go on to a life of crime. Such a result is more likely for children who are unwanted and unloved.

You’re committing the fundamental error of static analysis by assuming that the rate of unwanted pregancies would continue unabated should abortion-for-lifestyle-convenience end.

Of course, static analysis eliminates the real-world effect of other variables changing. More than abortion would be affected. Out of necessity other variables would subsequently change in the causal chain, causing more changes.

With life-intent rather than death at the wheel of society’s limo, when there is no other option but to accept life into the world and integrate it into what already is, then other variables change.

For instance, as was previously illustrated by me, and ignored by you, out of necessity the public consciousness would shift to making adoption the way of life … but only if the intent is life.

In a culture that has become desensitized and numbed to untimely death and lesser unnatural acts of pain and suffering, death becomes subsidized through simple acceptance of the status quo that has been conditioned into the mind.

And you always get more of what gets subsidized.

Abortion does nothing to eliminate the identified problem of: unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion is subsidized by societal acceptance of a law that was created by only five folks.

Obviously what does eliminate the identified problem is: wanted pregnancies.

All it takes to end unwanted pregnancies at the source is a shift in cultural apprehension of reality, a shift which takes decades.

Savvy?

[sthitapragya]

It is not a murder...

Prove it. The burden of proof is on the person who is willing to kill, not the one who is not contemplating killing.[/quote]

This is the second time you have brought it up. I ignored it the first time, thinking you will realize your mistake and not bring it up again. But you did. So I will have to remind you of the most basic law. The burden of proof is on the person making the allegation. There is always a presumption of innocence. So you have the burden to prove that it is murder. Tomorrow you could come and say that plucking an apple from a tree is murder. Well, you have to prove it. Not me. That's how the law works.

Suppose you make abortion illegal. You would be forcing women to bear a child every time irrespective of whether she wants it, has the ability to raise it or not. What kind of a life is that for a child? You will say put it up for adoption. Is that really a great option? As Greta says, if you are so much against abortion, would you adopt a child?

Absolutely. No question. Meanwhile, "Kill it" is never in the interest of the child. Pretending it is, is merely rationalization of evil.

Have you adopted a child?

You forgot adoption. The truth is that people who opt for abortion want to avoid the situation where they have a child "out there" in the world, being cared for by other people. And to avoid their own psychological discomfort, they'll murder their child. However, many women who've had the procedure afterward realize they only transmuted the problem. Now, instead of the anxiety of a child "out there," they realize they are murderers of their own children, and spend the rest of their lives fighting that misery.

They'd have been better to have exercised their "choice" at the moment of conception. It's better for them, and its tons better for their victims.

Again, have you adopted a child? Adopt one and then we will talk about it. Also, the burden of proof is on you. It is up to you to show that it is murder.

You're skipping the burden of proof. I'm not on the pro-kill side. You are.

sorry. The burden of proof is on you. Look it up. Basic law.

No. But I do believe in objective good and evil. Abortion is objectively evil. Moreover, I'm really sure everyone knows that. They just want to live in denial.

Well, what you believe does not necessarily constitute the truth. A lot of people and your country's laws seem to think so. So your your belief in objective good is of no relevance here.

I have never conceded that it is a murder by any account.

It doesn't matter. Burden of proof is on the one who could even potentially commit murder. I'm not on that side. My advice won't kill anyone. Yours most certainly will; and whether it constitutes murder or not is the thing you have to prove before you can justify trying it.

Again, the presumption is of innocence. The burden of proof is on you.

And you have completely ignored my point that if you feel so strongly about lives of children, you should adopt a child and support gun control.

[Immanuel Can]

So I will have to remind you of the most basic law. The burden of proof is on the person making the allegation. There is always a presumption of innocence. So you have the burden to prove that it is murder.

Nope, you're wrong. The person who is NOT committing an action has no burden to prove anything. It's the person who IS contemplating the action that has to justify it.

You're mistaking a criminal proceeding, in which an action has already taken place and blame is being assigned ex post facto for a justificatory situation, in which the person who wants permission to perform a possibly-immoral action must show that his or her action is not immoral. So unless you're conceding that a crime has taken place, you're simply wrong. Sorry.

No. But I do believe in objective good and evil. Abortion is objectively evil. Moreover, I'm really sure everyone knows that. They just want to live in denial.

Well, what you believe does not necessarily constitute the truth. A lot of people and your country's laws seem to think so. So your your belief in objective good is of no relevance here.

You're right. My opinion doesn't matter. Now. let's see what God thinks...And let's see how that works out for everybody who has perpetrated abortion. Or, better, let's get this right and repent now, so the Ultimate Judge does not come in and rule on this one. And if you care about the women in question, or their abortion doctors, that's what you should want too.

gun control

Obscurantism. Go back a couple of exchanges, to the last time I addressed the subject. You've got all on that you need right there.

But now, let's see what you really think.

If you bothered to read about Kermit Gosnell, we have a starting point. Let's see if we can find the point at which we agree.

Here's the Washington Post on the subject:

"Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them," the report said. "He didn’t call it that. He called it 'ensuring fetal demise.' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord."

My question to you is simple: was what Gosnell did murder? Yes, or no. And we'll go from there.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So I will have to remind you of the most basic law. The burden of proof is on the person making the allegation. There is always a presumption of innocence. So you have the burden to prove that it is murder.

Nope, you're wrong. The person who is NOT committing an action has no burden to prove anything. It's the person who IS contemplating the action that has to justify it.

You're mistaking a criminal proceeding, in which an action has already taken place and blame is being assigned ex post facto for a justificatory situation, in which the person who wants permission to perform a possibly-immoral action must show that his or her action is not immoral. So unless you're conceding that a crime has taken place, you're simply wrong. Sorry.

No. But I do believe in objective good and evil. Abortion is objectively evil. Moreover, I'm really sure everyone knows that. They just want to live in denial.

Well, what you believe does not necessarily constitute the truth. A lot of people and your country's laws seem to think so. So your your belief in objective good is of no relevance here.

You're right. My opinion doesn't matter. Now. let's see what God thinks...And let's see how that works out for everybody who has perpetrated abortion. Or, better, let's get this right and repent now, so the Ultimate Judge does not come in and rule on this one. And if you care about the women in question, or their abortion doctors, that's what you should want too.

gun control

Obscurantism. Go back a couple of exchanges, to the last time I addressed the subject. You've got all on that you need right there.

But now, let's see what you really think.

If you bothered to read about Kermit Gosnell, we have a starting point. Let's see if we can find the point at which we agree.

Here's the Washington Post on the subject:

"Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them," the report said. "He didn’t call it that. He called it 'ensuring fetal demise.' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord."

My question to you is simple: was what Gosnell did murder? Yes, or no. And we'll go from there.

He was performing illegal late-term 'abortions' when the baby could have been viable. That's induction, not abortion.
You have also unwittingly given a very good argument for legal, freely-available abortion-on-request in well-monitored facilities:

''In 2011, he was reported to be well known in Philadelphia for providing abortions to poor minority and immigrant women.[20] It was also claimed that Gosnell charged $1,600–$3,000 for each late-term abortion.[21] Dr. Gosnell was also associated with clinics in Delaware and Louisiana. Atlantic Women’s Services in Wilmington, Delaware, was Dr. Gosnell's place of work one day a week. The owner of Atlantic Women's Services, Leroy Brinkley, also owned Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and facilitated the hiring of staff from there for Gosnell's operation in Philadelphia.[22]''
''When the team members entered the clinic, they were appalled, describing it to the Grand Jury as 'filthy,' 'deplorable,' 'disgusting,' 'very unsanitary, very outdated, horrendous,' and 'by far, the worst' that these experienced investigators had ever encountered. There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff – long before Gosnell arrived at the clinic – and staff members could not accurately state what medications or dosages they had administered to the waiting patients. Many of the medications in inventory were past their expiration dates… surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitary… resembling 'a bad gas station restroom.' Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was needed…"[32]

[Greta]

Walker, let's agree to disagree. I think you are profoundly wrong on every count in this debate.

Elevating potential humans to humanhood status makes no sense. Foetuses are not humans yet. They are only potential humans, just as a seed is a potential tree and an egg is a potential chicken.

Trouble is, I am yet to find a single right-to-lifer online to speak strongly on inequality. It's all about the embryo and foetus. Once the baby is born, it seems, there is suddenly zero care for the child's welfare. What kind of logic would generate more passionate about relatively undormed blobs of protoplasm than children? People's logic on this topic have been skewed by superstition.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It looks like the Kermit Gosnell case is a case of murder and not a case of abortion.
Including him on this thread is a fallacy of category.
This does not advance an argument that abortion is murder. It does advance a case that stabbing babies is murder.