RE: Who here is pro abortion?
Nobody is forced to not kill babies, man. People do it all the time, but hopefully society enforces justice. Governments can only threaten force before a crime happens and apply force after. A threat is really coercion, not force. It appears from your profile picture that you are in the military, so here's a real world example for you:
-A threat is when you point a gun at someone and tell them to surrender or be shot. Force is when you shoot them.
Calling abortion murder is also problematic. If a person doesn't believe the baby is a person, but just a part of their body, then at best abortion is manslaughter. In order for it to be murder, they would have to know it was a person, plan, and execute the murder. By your logic we could charge women who get pregnant but have a miscarriage due to poor diet with manslaughter.
In my opinion "Murder" throughout history has been considered a moral absolute. The taking of ones life whom did not threaten or attack another. "Manslaughter" on the other hand is merely a legal term in explaining varying forms of murder. Same with with "first degree murder" which seems to be what you were defining.
But a baby or a fetus regardless of the name you choose to give it is in fact separate from the mothers body. Although it is dependent upon the mothers body for survival. Again these are my opinions only.
I think you may be right that I'm making a distinction from first degree murder, but I think I had second degree murder in mind. Manslaughter is killing someone when you didn't mean to, like in a car wreck or through some other negligence... Hunter accidentally shoots his buddy because he walked in front of him.
I definitely agree with you that a baby fetus is another life, and should be protected. I'm just saying, some people don't. I think that complicates the morality a little, because if you don't know what you are doing is wrong you can't really be guilty, merely ignorant. For instance, some say George Washington was bled to death by his doctors because they thought it would make him feel better. Did they murder him?
In ancient times if one accidentally murdered another, they would have to flee to a sanctuary city. For if the family of the slain person found and killed the murderer prior to them finding sanctuary, they would be guiltless. Because he did in fact take the others life without cause. Intentions didn't play a role in this. But, if he found sanctuary and then they killed him they would be guilty of murder themselves. There was no sanctuary for those to willfully murdered.
I don't think that ignorance is an excuse, nor a justification in the grand scheme of things. Ignorance does not lessen the effects of said death. But it certainly can allow for a greater measure of mercy, if one is so inclined to grant it.
"George Washington was bled to death by his doctors because they thought it would make him feel better. Did they murder him?"
My answer would be, Yes. But, do to their ignorance I would not seek to see them suffer for it. Because I choose to show mercy. Likewise I would not seek to see a women suffer more than she naturally will, for allowing the murder of their unborn baby. The doctor or true Murderer, on the other hand is not ignorant of this. But I would rather the government not mandate morality. In the end we all eat of our own labors. Does that Make sense?
My point is I guess I like to call a spade a spade, regardless of what the law, gov, or society says it is. Again these are my thoughts on the matter and everyone is free to think otherwise.
I think the main disagreement we are having is with the definition of the word "murder." I'm using the word in the sense it is commonly used and defined. You seem to be saying that any killing of a person is murder, which is a re-interpretation of the word. It's kind of hard to see that kind of thing coming in a discussion.
I understand from the Bible that there were sanctuary cities in the ancient Kingdom of Israel but was unaware it was more widespread than that. However, if you look at the Bible as a guide to how the practice was carried out, there is a clear distinction between murder and manslaughter. The point of the sanctuary cities was to protect the killer from revenge killings on the part of the killed person's family. They're culture demanded blood for blood, and in the Old Testament God puts restraints on the people to ensure some level of justice.
I don't think that ignorance is an excuse or justification. I do think it changes things from a moral perspective. Sure, you can't bring George back from the dead, but if you ascribe guilt to the doctors who were trying to help him then you make murderers out of every doctor, nurse, EMT, and firemen who ever made a bad call while trying to save a person's life. Further, any doctors who have made a bad choice of prescription drugs, and the pharmacists who filled the orders are guilty. Any Lawyer, police officer, judge, or jury member who has been involved in a case where they convicted the wrong person is a kidnapper and if they die in prison, murderer. Anyone who causes a car wreck because they were inattentive, killed a guy in a boxing match, hit a golf ball into traffic causing a wreck, tripped and knocked someone into oncoming traffic, etc.
As for the government not legislating morality, that's a naive idea, IMO. The government is always legislating morality by necessity. There is no other way around it, it's just a matter of whose morality they are legislating. There is no separating morality from the act of pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they do what you want, and pay them money, or they will throw you in a cage and murder you if you resist.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Spot on response. You are correct, it us unfair for me to go around redefining common used words. For that I'm sorry. In day to day life I would not use murder to describe those circumstances.
I still think if in the examples you described people did view their negligent actions as resulting in a slaying, with some sense of "personal" guilt, there would be very few of them. For example when I drive I assume people are idiots and have no sense of self preservation. Therefor I slow down around blind corners and when people are to busy looking at their phones to notice they are walking into traffic. I would feel bad if I was to kill them, so I do everything in my power to prevent this. It seems to piss off the people behind me who know that legally there would be no consequences of a said death, so they don't care. Some even seem eager to run down said phone stare-er.
This is also the reason I could never be a prosecutor, judge, or jury member. I would feel responsible for destroying an innocents life.
I know that I have gone way off of the original topic. I suppose what I dislike most is people hide behind laws and court decisions, to remove their own "personal" responsibility for things and therefor act hastily with others lives.
Thank you for this dialog, I very much enjoyed it. These sort of things are much more efficiently hashed out in speech when instant clarifications can be made.
I see where you are coming from. I also think it's a shame how people these days have no sense of personal responsibility. Good dialog.