Is Murdering Another Human Wrong?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gggilll

No, that was your logical fallacy of shifting the goal posts trying to move off topic.

My argument was and is ...

At conception do we have a unique living organism? (I cited multiple sources proving we do)

Is this a human organism? (I cited multiple sources proving it is)

If it's a unique, living, human organism, what justifies the ending of it's life?

Since when murder is defined as "ending the life of a human organism"?

It's funny how you accuse me of moving the goal posts or to move off topic.

Actually it's been funny to watch you project all along




As to "what justifies the ending of its life"? Well you have to ask the mother since it's her decision.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll
Now let me ask you a question:

Is a family asking to unplug their terminally ill relative who has been in a coma for 10 years, a murder?

It's taking a human life.

I think what should be asked is why animals and humans are treated with completely different levels of compassion at death/euthanasia. Keeping a terminal,comatose animal plugged in for a decade would generate thunderous cries of abuse & inhumane treatment. Yet, that's fine to do to people. Why?

I second that!!!

The minute our pet suffers (dog/cat) we put them down out of compassion

Yet because that is a person, we keep them alive and suffering, and people literally freak out when someone wants to "pull the plug" or help someone die on their own
Usually that is due to one's selfishness of not wanting to let go of their loved one

And I am all for Dr.Kevorkian and his work with terminally ill patients, helping them with suicide (his past work that is)


I have seen 2 of my loved ones suffer immensely when I was younger
Now that I am grown, I often wondered why the hell they had to suffer as they did, when we put our pets down for less pain


Selfishness often over-rides Compassion and understanding
People fear losing their loved ones, even if it means making them suffer, just to hang on to them



Apologies, just something I feel strongly about



Now back to our regularly schedule program......sperm, chromosomes, DNA, organisms

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not attacking you lol. Look at the title of your post. Murder and Human - your words, not mine. You are arguing that abortions are murders because they end a human life. I'm saying that if you want to call an abortion murder, your not being very precise with your language because there is a big difference between the "murder" that occurs with an abortion and a murder of something already born. I don't feel uncomfortable or threatened by your "facts." I just think you are wrong in your thinking. I can tell I'm not going to get through to you.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gggilll

No, that was your logical fallacy of shifting the goal posts trying to move off topic.

My argument was and is ...

At conception do we have a unique living organism? (I cited multiple sources proving we do)

Is this a human organism? (I cited multiple sources proving it is)

If it's a unique, living, human organism, what justifies the ending of it's life?

Since when murder is defined as "ending the life of a human organism"?

It's funny how you accuse me of moving the goal posts or to move off topic.

Actually it's been funny to watch you project all along

Can you show where in the post you quoted I talk about murder, or what ending a human life should be called? My post was pretty easy to follow. Can you reply again and actually reply to what I wrote rather than post another logical fallacy?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Can you show where in the post you quoted I talk about murder

Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were still discussing the topic of the thread which is

"Is Murdering Another Human Wrong? (talking about abortions).

Silly me

And to reply your question, again:

As to "what justifies the ending of its life"? Well you have to ask the mother since it's her decision.

originally posted by: Squidleepie
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not attacking you lol. Look at the title of your post. Murder and Human - your words, not mine. You are arguing that abortions are murders because they end a human life. I'm saying that if you want to call an abortion murder, your not being very precise with your language because there is a big difference between the "murder" that occurs with an abortion and a murder of something already born. I don't feel uncomfortable or threatened by your "facts." I just think you are wrong in your thinking. I can tell I'm not going to get through to you.

You are confused. Those are not my words. I am not the OP.

Not being the OP, I fully agree with you the words the OP chose, and the argument as he laid it out, well let's just say it was not the most well thought out post.

That does not mean the entire premise of his post, the idea behind it, can not be debated using more eloquent terms, rather than dismissing the idea due to semantics.

originally posted by: gggilll
And to reply your question, again:

As to "what justifies the ending of its life"? Well you have to ask the mother since it's her decision.

So a 10 year old child, the mother has that decision?

You seem unable to form an opinion of your own, and when unable to answer, you simply regurgitate a meaningless talking point as if you are some void of thought talking head.

Maybe you can try again, and tell me what YOU think justifies it.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Can you show where in the post you quoted I talk about murder

Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were still discussing the topic of the thread which is

"Is Murdering Another Human Wrong? (talking about abortions).

Silly me

We are. If you do not realize that it's because rather than use your mind for thought you have used it to think of various talking points others have come up with to regurgitate some tired old diatribe.

a reply to: gggilll

Well a heart beat starts 3 weeks after conception. Most people would agree that if someone has a heartbeat, that they're alive.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll
And to reply your question, again:

As to "what justifies the ending of its life"? Well you have to ask the mother since it's her decision.

So a 10 year old child, the mother has that decision?

A 10 years old is a fully formed and independent human being so you are comparing apples and oranges (and you accuse me of fallacies, lol)

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You seem unable to for an opinion of your own.

I did, you just don't like it.

IMHO a fetus is "human organism" you are correct.
IMHO a fetus isn't a "human being" until a certain development point which is hard to pinpoint.
IMHO abortion under circumstances isn't murder.
IMHO abortion is justified to avoid suffering or death of the mother/the child or both.


It's all my opinion of course.

Now what else do you want to know again?

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: gggilll

Well a heart beat starts 3 weeks after conception. Most people would agree that if someone has a heartbeat, that they're alive.

Factually speaking, I have proven and sourced life starts at conception. If we use heart beat as a qualifier for "human", then what if someone's heart stops, are they no longer human?

originally posted by: gggilll
I did, you just don't like it.

IMHO a fetus is "human organism" you are correct.
IMHO a fetus isn't a "human being" until a certain development point which is hard to pinpoint.
IMHO abortion under circumstances isn't murder.
IMHO abortion is justified to avoid suffering or death of the mother/the child or both.


It's all my opinion of course.

Now what else do you want to know again?

It's hard to pinpoint because it's a made up distinction with no scientific basis. Until you can tell me exactly what makes a human organism turn into a human being, it's a dishonest distinction.

The distinction is created to justify the ending of a human life when there is no justification. Much like blacks not being "really human" was created to justify the treatment of them when there was no justification for it. Neither is rooted in science/biology.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: gggilll

Well a heart beat starts 3 weeks after conception. Most people would agree that if someone has a heartbeat, that they're alive.

No one ever denied a fetus is alive. Your point is moot.

The crux of the matter is:

"what is a human being"
"what is murder"

Yes I was confused.

You are right, the idea behind the premise can absolutely be debated. It ought to be debated in a form that seeks accurate language. I think it is extremely hard to determine where to draw the line with regard to abortion - but a line should be drawn and is with our current laws. A lot of things need to be taken into account, and a lot of those things cannot really be calculated. For instance, how do you calculate the value of the life you are aborting when its value has yet to be realized? How do you calculate the total consequences of forcing women to see their pregnancies through (socio-economic and ethical/political consequences)? How do you calculate the total consequences of allowing abortion?

In my opinion those are the kinds of questions we ought to ask, rather than toying with rhetorical devices for the sake of making an illogical and assumptive conclusion that is totally wrong. You however seem to have a finer handle of things
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The distinction is created to justify the ending of a human life when there is no justification.

Thanks for your opinion.

It has been noted you believe that doctors and biologists and philosophers trying to discuss "what constitutes a human being" are making things unclear to justify the killings of baby.

Now if you don't mind, I noted your opinion, you noted mine, so there's no reason you keep being insulting or obtuse claiming I'm not capable of forming my own opinions or that nothing can justify an abortion.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: gggilll

Well a heart beat starts 3 weeks after conception. Most people would agree that if someone has a heartbeat, that they're alive.

No one ever denied a fetus is alive. Your point is moot.

The crux of the matter is:

"what is a human being"
"what is murder"

Actually they did. If you want I will go back and quote it, otherwise I will assume you agree people did and we can move on.

Let's start with 1. "What is a human being?" Why is a year old baby "human" and a new fetus is not? Some people believe a 9 month old fetus ready to be birthed is not a human.

My contention is rooted in science. All unique human organisms are human beings. What's yours?

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The distinction is created to justify the ending of a human life when there is no justification.

Thanks for your opinion.

It has been noted you believe that doctors and biologists and philosophers trying to discuss "what constitutes a human being" are making things unclear to justify the killings of baby.

Now if you don't mind, I noted your opinion, you noted mine, so there's no reason you keep being insulting or obtuse claiming I'm not capable of forming my own opinions or that nothing can justify an abortion.

I claim it because every time I ask for your opinion you refuse to give me one and instead rely on talking points that do not answer the question, such as, "it's the mother's decision", when asked for examples of what justifies the ending of the life.

Your last post was an actual reply, I appreciate it.

People murder animals and plant life all the time and could care less, we have very little morality in our current civilizations when it comes to killing anything.

a reply to: Squidleepie

I try to stay away from telling others what is right and wrong, and merely stick to the facts. People tend to refuse to talk about the facts, because they are much less able to be twisted, and what most people know on the subject is what they have been told they should believe with very little if any of their own thought involved. My aim is to make people think.