Stupid things religious people say

[The Architect Of Fate]

(Insert witty snap-back about your ignorance of the English language or something, idk)

Ad homs out of the way, yes - arguing that children should not be murdered *is* an appeal to emotion, but to call that a fallacy is... something? I don't know if it's irrational, but certainly on the edge of unwittingly immoral.

Women  exercising bodily autonomy is not child murder and this is indeed an appeal to emotion 

If you want a logical reason as to why murder of children is wrong I'm gladly willing to cite the depression rates, drug abuse, poverty levels, and other issues amongst women who have had abortions vs. those who haven't.

Ah, so pretty much fiction then (Because studies that try to prove abortion as the cause fail to successfully rule prior causes or cofounding causes prior to or at the same time as the abortion and there is plenty of literature that shows no link at all and there is plenty of literature that shows denying women access causes psychological harm) also none of that would demonstrate Abortion is wrong.

[TheWhiteMarten]

Women  exercising bodily autonomy is not child murder and this is indeed an appeal to emotion

Right; women who engage in the act of abortion however are however engaged in an act of murder.

I have sympathy for them; I am personally opposed to eugenics against African Americans and the poor that the American abortion program was built to enable.

I have as well as have seen the damage abortion does to a woman - if it was my preference then only the doctor would be charged with murder and support for the woman would be provided, because she cannot be blamed for an agenda imprinted to her by evil people (unless she herself gleefully engaged in the evil.)

As I said before - I know, and if the murder of children is something you don't believe should be emotionally appealed to then I really have to question your ethics.

Ah, so pretty much fiction then...

I suppose from your delusional little world where citations are not required and whatever is pulled out of your ass is the golden truth, sure - I get how you can see that and wouldn't argue against it.

[Angrboda]

Women  exercising bodily autonomy is not child murder and this is indeed an appeal to emotion

Right; women who engage in the act of abortion however are however engaged in an act of murder.

The word murder, especially if moral opprobrium is implied, refers to extra-legal killing. Some abortion qualifies, some does not. It's not clear exactly what you're trying to say, but using words correctly might get us closer.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Right; women who engage in the act of abortion however are however engaged in an act of murder.

Nope merely exercising their bodily autonomy that's not murder. 

I have sympathy for them; I am personally opposed to eugenics against African Americans and the poor that the American abortion program was built to enable.

Modern abortion is in no way shape or form eugenics and this is simply an origin fallacy 

I have as well as have seen the damage abortion does to a woman - if it was my preference then only the doctor would be charged with murder and support for the woman would be provided, because she cannot be blamed for an agenda imprinted to her by evil people (unless she herself gleefully engaged in the evil.)

Nah there is no murder here these women are simply exercising their bodily autonomy and the doctor is simply performing a medical procedure and your fish tales mean fuck all

As I said before - I know, and if the murder of children is something you don't believe should be emotionally appealed to then I really have to question your ethics.

It shouldn't be emotionally appealed to and my ethics are fine thank you ( Also it's not murder it's exercising  bodily autonomy)

I suppose from your delusional little world where citations are not required and whatever is pulled out of your ass is the golden truth, sure - I get how you can see that and wouldn't argue against it.

Says your delusional ass buddy

[TheWhiteMarten]

Right; women who engage in the act of abortion however are however engaged in an act of murder.

The word murder, especially if moral opprobrium is implied,  refers to extra-legal killing.  Some abortion qualifies, some does not.  It's not clear exactly what you're trying to say, but using words correctly might get us closer.

Murder is also a colloquial term for taking the life of another human; particularly in an unjust fashion. This can be found in both the OED and Britannica if you do not believe me, and it's why I originally said that I believe only the doctors are guilty of murder in most situations.


I was arguing from a a moral/ethical standpoint as the legal standpoint should derive from there and assuming people could use context clues and common sense, but if that's causing confusing then I will change "murder" (the ethical statement) to "homicide" (the legalistic statement.)

I think that we have to argue over these words in the first place shows the ridiculousness of the anti-life stance; the nitpicking to avoid any meat and gravy.

[Angrboda]

The word murder, especially if moral opprobrium is implied,  refers to extra-legal killing.  Some abortion qualifies, some does not.  It's not clear exactly what you're trying to say, but using words correctly might get us closer.

Murder is also a colloquial term for taking the life of another human; particularly in an unjust fashion. This can be found in both the OED and Britannica if you do not believe me, and it's why I originally said that I believe only the doctors are guilty of murder in most situations.


I was arguing from a a moral/ethical standpoint as the legal standpoint should derive from there and assuming people could use context clues and common sense, but if that's causing confusing then I will change "murder" (the ethical statement) to "homicide" (the legalistic statement.)

I think that we have to argue over these words in the first place shows the ridiculousness of the anti-life stance; the nitpicking to avoid any meat and gravy.

Your attempt to poison the well is noted. In that taking a life without justification is immoral killing, it applies to things that are already born. In that taking a life of something that is not yet born, it is unlike the clear case of unjustified killing of those already born. As Hume stated the point, the further away from the thing being analogized, the less force an argument has. Thus the further you get from the clarity of unjust killing of someone already born, the more your claim that it is murder becomes an exercise in propaganda and conflating unlike things. When you apply it across the entire spectrum of those not yet born, you transition into what is basically an ipse dixit declaration to wit that "these unlike things deserve the same treatment because I say so." I don't recognize that as a valid argument. Your use of loaded language obscures that quandary, which is why you use it.

[TheWhiteMarten]

In that taking a life without justification is immoral killing, it applies to things that are already born. In that taking a life of something that is not yet born, it is unlike the clear case of unjustified killing of those already born.

Note for any gun-ho mods; this is *not* my position but rather the mirror of what is stated above - I do not, nor believe any one here, holds these positions.

"In that taking a life without justification is immoral killing, it applies to those that we deem human. In that taking the life of the black I own and work in my fields, it is unlike the clear case of unjustified killing of those who are fully human and not of the lesser genotypes."

Again - I *do not* believe that to be the tone or stab of your argument; however from the perspective that all human life is inherently granted the right to human rights that is how incredulous that argument sounds. My position is fundamentally that *all* humans - regardless of age, gender, color, or any other physical trait - are guaranteed the same equal rights, so to begin to make exceptions based on the location of the life is just a non-starter.

Your use of loaded language obscures that quandary, which is why you use it.

I contend that my use of my language is nothing more than the logical conclusion of my belief that *all* humans deserve rights; and to call that violently and unjustly taking away the right to life "murder" is in truth as far from loaded language as I can get - my real opinions on the practice being *far* more colorful and murder being amongst the most polite and tame descriptions for the single most devastating and blood thirsty institution this country has ever engaged in by a mile.

[Angrboda]

In that taking a life without justification is immoral killing, it applies to things that are already born. In that taking a life of something that is not yet born, it is unlike the clear case of unjustified killing of those already born.

Note for any gun-ho mods; this is *not* my position but rather the mirror of what is stated above - I do not, nor believe any one here, holds these positions.

"In that taking a life without justification is immoral killing, it applies to those that we deem human. In that taking the life of the black man I own, it is unlike the clear case of unjustified killing of those who are fully human and not of the lesser genotypes."

Again - I *do not* believe that to be the tone or stab of your argument; however from the perspective that all human life is inherently granted the right to human rights that is how incredulous that argument sounds. My position is fundamentally that *all* humans - regardless of age, gender, color, or any other physical trait - are guaranteed the same equal rights, so to begin to make exceptions based on the location of the life is just a non-starter.

Well, that's the $64,000 question, if you include things that aren't fully human in the usual sense the word is used, do they still possess that right?

You only get to that position, usually, by ignoring actual differences that exist in a pretense that a zygote is no different from a 36 year old person.

Beyond that, I defy you to show me how your statement is anything but ipse dixit? As a starter, note that we do not object to killing animals that have more in common with the 36 year old than does the zygote. Why is that moral if some characteristic or set of characteristics is the bar for acquiring the right you want to liberally apply? To peek ahead, the usual answer is that some set of characteristics count as human, and that is what makes one eligible, at which point it becomes basically an example of the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy in that you want to give certain things a right, and to justify doing so, you explicitly draw a bullseye around those things that you want to have that right. At that point, it's clear that you're not making a moral argument, but a political one.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The humanity of the fetus or lack of is of no consequence. Abortion is not murder it's simply it's exercising  bodily autonomy nothing more nothing less. 

[TheWhiteMarten]

Well, that's the $64,000 question, if you include things that aren't fully human in the usual sense the word is used, do they still possess that right?

You only get to that position, usually, by ignoring actual differences that exist in a pretense that a zygote is no different from a 36 year old person.

Yes; "human rights" should belong to all who fall under the category of "human" - by any scientific metric a fetus would fall under that category.

In that regard there is no meaningful difference between a zygote and a 36 year old individual; their rights are not dependent on their physical traits or accomplishments but rather the innate act of being human.

Again, it would be asking me what the difference is between an Ethiopian and a German in the attempt to explain why the Ethiopian deserves less rights; I don't care about the physical difference but their innate humanity.

As a starter, note that we do not object to killing animals that have more in common with the 36 year old than does the zygote. Why is that moral if some characteristic or set of characteristics is the bar for acquiring the right you want to liberally apply?

We absolutely object to animal abuse, with all states in America and - to the best of my knowledge - all our allied nations having fairly strong animal abuse legislation.

That said - animals are not humans, therefor they don't have an inherent right to human rights. It seems logical to limit the rights to human rights to those who meet the characteristics of being a human.