(February 24, 2012 at 12:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote: @Rev Rye: The word you ignored in your semantic argument was "tantamount". Legal or not, abortion is tantamount to murder in that it is a human being killing another human being.

"murder" is a legal terminology. Killing a cow is not murder in that killing cows are legal. In astate that makes abortion illegal, then yes, it can be considered murder. In states where abortin is LEGAL, then no, it is NOT murder.

Killing is killing. MURDER is killing unlawfully.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:51 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(February 24, 2012 at 8:46 am)Tiberius Wrote: I'll be condescending when I see people favour certain types of death penalty over others, especially when they defend murderers yet condemn innocents.

But condemning women to be mothers against their will is no problem for you.

Worse for our "libertarian" he is not above having the government ( gasp!) do the dirty deed for him.

When you start speaking about inconsistency, boss, you ought to look in a mirror.

Here here Min

(February 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: "murder" is a legal terminology. Killing a cow is not murder in that killing cows are legal. In astate that makes abortion illegal, then yes, it can be considered murder. In states where abortin is LEGAL, then no, it is NOT murder.

Killing is killing. MURDER is killing unlawfully.

I never said it was murder. I argued it was tantamount to murder, which is true enough; the only difference between abortion and murder is that abortion is legal. Killing a cow is not murder because a cow is not a human; the definition of murder we are using here was already given by Rev Rye.

(February 24, 2012 at 12:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Worse for our "libertarian" he is not above having the government ( gasp!) do the dirty deed for him.

When you start speaking about inconsistency, boss, you ought to look in a mirror.

Libertarianism does not call for the abandonment of the government, it calls for the limitation of the government to the protection of people's rights. This isn't an inconsistent position to have, since the right to life is ranked higher than the right to choose what you do with your body (when those rights come into conflict). Thus, the government should protect the right to life of the unborn child.

I could have sworn somebody just said they can't believe this thread hadn't become a flame war

Let's not start on ideologies, its irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

EDIT: The inconsistencies of Libertarianism really don't apply to the case in hand. Make a new thread to dissect Libertarianism if you must, I'd hate to see this thread descend into an ideology dispute. This is a very interesting thread in terms of content, and that discussion will only detract from the actual points being made.

(February 24, 2012 at 1:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I never said it was murder. I argued it was tantamount to murder, which is true enough; the only difference between abortion and murder is that abortion is legal. Killing a cow is not murder because a cow is not a human; the definition of murder we are using here was already given by Rev Rye.

No, its not true enough. If you consider legal abortion "tantamount to murder", then you should also see farms as institutions that are tantamount to a continual holocaust.

The definition of murder is not human specific. If you travel to Hindu lands, such as India, then surely it is murder to kill the sacred cow, as it is illegal.

Putting the word "human" into the mix does not change or water down the actual definitions.

Quote:Libertarianism does not call for the abandonment of the government, it calls for the limitation of the government to the protection of people's rights.

And your libertarian pals get to decide WHICH people's rights are limited.

I've said it before and I will repeat it now, you are very naive.

(February 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I've said it before and I will repeat it now, you are very naive.

I have often wondered in naive people are naive because they drink Evian backwards.

Quote:I have often wondered in naive people are naive because they drink Evian backwards.

I think naive people are naive because they'll spend an excessive amount of money on water because it has a label stuck on it.

(February 24, 2012 at 1:07 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: No, its not true enough. If you consider legal abortion "tantamount to murder", then you should also see farms as institutions that are tantamount to a continual holocaust.

The definition of murder is not human specific. If you travel to Hindu lands, such as India, then surely it is murder to kill the sacred cow, as it is illegal.

Putting the word "human" into the mix does not change or water down the actual definitions.

As I said before, and as you are now continually ignoring, we are using the definition that Rev Rye posted. It also happens to be the definition used by Google, Merriam Webster, and probably other dictionaries. Bringing India into this is pointless; we aren't talking about India.

(February 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And your libertarian pals get to decide WHICH people's rights are limited.

I've said it before and I will repeat it now, you are very naive.

You don't understand Libertarianism; you continually refer to it as "republicolibterianazism". There is no point even discussing things with you if you are going to constantly break Godwin's law.