Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prochoice is proabortion: Proof.

Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:13:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:03:04 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:58:56 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Okay

You're on fire tonight.

Might as well leave on a high. Goodnight, everybody!

http://i.imgur.com...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 7:49:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A dictionary - to settle moral disputes.
There ya go, who knew it was that easy.

No need to stop there.
Abortion is not murder, since it is not a crime.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now we can all rest a little easier.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:21:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Aren't converts the most zealous?
Born again Christians seem to be the most passionate ones. I attribute this to making the choice to convert, which means it is more than just "that's how I was raised".
My work here is, finally, done.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:22:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it is evident that pro-choice is pro-abortion. Just as someone who supports one's choice to own a slave is pro-slavery.

At 4/5/2015 7:49:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A dictionary - to settle moral disputes.
There ya go, who knew it was that easy.

No need to stop there.
Abortion is not murder, since it is not a crime.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Legality =/= morality.

It is possible for something to be both legal and immoral.

Now we can all rest a little easier.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:29:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:22:24 AM, Philocat wrote:
I think it is evident that pro-choice is pro-abortion. Just as someone who supports one's choice to own a slave is pro-slavery.

Do you not make a distinction between letting others have a choice to do something, and exercising said choice?

Well, I see you say support. Do you mean I support your decision directly and intimately, or do you mean support the freedom for you to make a choice? The former I may agree there is a distinction, but not a large enough one to matter, while the latter I do not agree that one is pro-X.
My work here is, finally, done.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:46:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:22:24 AM, Philocat wrote:
I think it is evident that pro-choice is pro-abortion. Just as someone who supports one's choice to own a slave is pro-slavery.


At 4/5/2015 7:49:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A dictionary - to settle moral disputes.
There ya go, who knew it was that easy.

No need to stop there.
Abortion is not murder, since it is not a crime.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Legality =/= morality.

It is possible for something to be both legal and immoral.

Well, the OP says nothing about that, but I agree.
For example, I would say a law making all abortions illegal, would be immoral.

But you miss the point.
The OP makes an argument based on a particular dictionary definition.
Using the same dictionary, I show why (legal) abortions are not murder.
You are free to say, for example, eating shellfish is immoral, even though it is legal.
You are free to say that abortions are immoral, even though they are legal.
However, using the standards set by the OP, no one is free to say abortions are murder.
Do you disagree with this? I do not see that you do.

Now we can all rest a little easier.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:53:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:21:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Aren't converts the most zealous?
Born again Christians seem to be the most passionate ones. I attribute this to making the choice to convert, which means it is more than just "that's how I was raised".

I believe you are off base here.
"Born again" Christians are not necessarily converts, because all Christians are born again. The meaning of this varies, but the concept does not.
Most have merely codified a preexisting condition.
Many shun the label "born again", because of the baggage it carries, but none would deny being 'born again', as they mean it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:56:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:53:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:21:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Aren't converts the most zealous?
Born again Christians seem to be the most passionate ones. I attribute this to making the choice to convert, which means it is more than just "that's how I was raised".

I believe you are off base here.
"Born again" Christians are not necessarily converts, because all Christians are born again. The meaning of this varies, but the concept does not.
Most have merely codified a preexisting condition.
Many shun the label "born again", because of the baggage it carries, but none would deny being 'born again', as they mean it.

When I say born again, since the definition varies, I mean people who lost their way, and now "found Jesus" as an adult. These people, in my experience, are usually ex-con or drug users, and their faith is the only thing keeping them "straight". As such, they are disturbingly passionate.
My work here is, finally, done.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:07:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:56:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:53:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:21:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Aren't converts the most zealous?
Born again Christians seem to be the most passionate ones. I attribute this to making the choice to convert, which means it is more than just "that's how I was raised".

I believe you are off base here.
"Born again" Christians are not necessarily converts, because all Christians are born again. The meaning of this varies, but the concept does not.
Most have merely codified a preexisting condition.
Many shun the label "born again", because of the baggage it carries, but none would deny being 'born again', as they mean it.

When I say born again, since the definition varies, I mean people who lost their way, and now "found Jesus" as an adult. These people, in my experience, are usually ex-con or drug users, and their faith is the only thing keeping them "straight". As such, they are disturbingly passionate.

Honestly, most of the 'disturbingly passionate' 'born agains' that you are talking about, never left the flock.
I agree that those who did stray from the path, (cons, addicts, etc) are sure to be disturbingly passionate, but those who do embrace the label, never left the flock, will say for example that Catholics (and many other denominations) are not Christians.
In general, any sect that recognizes infant baptism is likely to be 'not really Christian' by their standards.
I find that to be a mark of a disturbingly passionate Christian, and it is a very common attitude among born again Evangelicals.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:12:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 9:07:43 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:56:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:53:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:21:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Aren't converts the most zealous?
Born again Christians seem to be the most passionate ones. I attribute this to making the choice to convert, which means it is more than just "that's how I was raised".

I believe you are off base here.
"Born again" Christians are not necessarily converts, because all Christians are born again. The meaning of this varies, but the concept does not.
Most have merely codified a preexisting condition.
Many shun the label "born again", because of the baggage it carries, but none would deny being 'born again', as they mean it.

When I say born again, since the definition varies, I mean people who lost their way, and now "found Jesus" as an adult. These people, in my experience, are usually ex-con or drug users, and their faith is the only thing keeping them "straight". As such, they are disturbingly passionate.

Honestly, most of the 'disturbingly passionate' 'born agains' that you are talking about, never left the flock.
I agree that those who did stray from the path, (cons, addicts, etc) are sure to be disturbingly passionate, but those who do embrace the label, never left the flock, will say for example that Catholics (and many other denominations) are not Christians.
In general, any sect that recognizes infant baptism is likely to be 'not really Christian' by their standards.
I find that to be a mark of a disturbingly passionate Christian, and it is a very common attitude among born again Evangelicals.

Okay. What you describe still explains the zealotry, though. They made a conscience choice to be baptized as an adult, ergo, they defend this position more fervently (on balance) than those that do it just because they are told to and have always done it (like Catholics).
Who do you think defend the religion harder: nuns and priests (who take vows and make sacrifices) or the people who attend church most Sundays?
My work here is, finally, done.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:30:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 9:12:44 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:07:43 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:56:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:53:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:21:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Aren't converts the most zealous?
Born again Christians seem to be the most passionate ones. I attribute this to making the choice to convert, which means it is more than just "that's how I was raised".

I believe you are off base here.
"Born again" Christians are not necessarily converts, because all Christians are born again. The meaning of this varies, but the concept does not.
Most have merely codified a preexisting condition.
Many shun the label "born again", because of the baggage it carries, but none would deny being 'born again', as they mean it.

When I say born again, since the definition varies, I mean people who lost their way, and now "found Jesus" as an adult. These people, in my experience, are usually ex-con or drug users, and their faith is the only thing keeping them "straight". As such, they are disturbingly passionate.

Honestly, most of the 'disturbingly passionate' 'born agains' that you are talking about, never left the flock.
I agree that those who did stray from the path, (cons, addicts, etc) are sure to be disturbingly passionate, but those who do embrace the label, never left the flock, will say for example that Catholics (and many other denominations) are not Christians.
In general, any sect that recognizes infant baptism is likely to be 'not really Christian' by their standards.
I find that to be a mark of a disturbingly passionate Christian, and it is a very common attitude among born again Evangelicals.

Okay. What you describe still explains the zealotry, though. They made a conscience choice to be baptized as an adult, ergo, they defend this position more fervently (on balance) than those that do it just because they are told to and have always done it (like Catholics).

I am not sure if we are clear here.
Catholics and other non-Anabaptist sect members are not told to be baptized.
They are baptized as infants, without knowing it.
When they reach the age of consent they can ask to be "confirmed". Some do, some do not.
Anabaptists are dedicated as infants, baptized as consenting (young) adults.
Others are baptized, then confirmed.

Who do you think defend the religion harder: nuns and priests (who take vows and make sacrifices) or the people who attend church most Sundays?

Anabaptists are religious snobs.
We might say that they defend 'Their Christianity' more resolutely.
As for defending "Christianly", Catholics and others make up for any lack of zeal for their sect with their acceptance, and Christ like behavior to mankind.
I call it a wash.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:00:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:21:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Aren't converts the most zealous?
Born again Christians seem to be the most passionate ones. I attribute this to making the choice to convert, which means it is more than just "that's how I was raised".

True, but I wouldn't put it past a zealot to create a foil then pretend to convert. I mean you don't see bsh1 changing his name and starting threads about abortion. And his reason for converting, that the DNA between mother and unborn is different, that's almost comical because it implies that he didn't know that before. It's just fishy to me.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:17:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Where you ever pro choice? You've seemed to sip the jesus juice a bit too hard to be an actual convert.

Christians can be prochoice, everyone makes mistakes.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:05:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 7:49:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A dictionary - to settle moral disputes.
There ya go, who knew it was that easy.

No need to stop there.
Abortion is not murder, since it is not a crime.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now we can all rest a little easier.

I have proven from a reliable source that prochoice is proabortionb.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Then what shall we call someone who advocates, not just for the legalization of abortion, but for the practice as well? "Pro-abortion" seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. Obviously, terms can have multiple meanings. This is literally one of the most pointless threads I've seen.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:39:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:05:00 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/5/2015 7:49:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A dictionary - to settle moral disputes.
There ya go, who knew it was that easy.

No need to stop there.
Abortion is not murder, since it is not a crime.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now we can all rest a little easier.

I have proven from a reliable source that prochoice is proabortionb.

And I have proven from the same source that abortion is not murder.
But for the record, dictionaries are not considered reliable sources for morality issues, and - here is a shocker - words can have more than one meaning.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:14:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
These "single issue" accounts seriously make me LOL

I just thing it's ridiculous to come here to have your opinions challenged and choose a name that reflects any ideology.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:57:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:39:46 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:05:00 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 4/5/2015 7:49:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:58 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Peochoice: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Proabortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A dictionary - to settle moral disputes.
There ya go, who knew it was that easy.

No need to stop there.
Abortion is not murder, since it is not a crime.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now we can all rest a little easier.

I have proven from a reliable source that prochoice is proabortionb.

And I have proven from the same source that abortion is not murder.
But for the record, dictionaries are not considered reliable sources for morality issues, and - here is a shocker - words can have more than one meaning.
You are wrong. My links prove that prochoice is proabortion. You need to debate the facts.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:00:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:11:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Then what shall we call someone who advocates, not just for the legalization of abortion, but for the practice as well? "Pro-abortion" seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. Obviously, terms can have multiple meanings. This is literally one of the most pointless threads I've seen.

The term can apply to both those who advocate the practice and those who advocate the ability to practise. Although the former has very little public support (few people actually think abortion is a good thing, most pro-abortionists seem to think it is morally neutral).
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:10:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:07:59 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I agree that legality does not equal morality.

I still do not think you understand.
"Murder" is a legal issue, not a moral issue, unless you want to make it that way for yourself.
Just like eating shellfish. I am free to believe it is immoral.

You can say 'abortion' is immoral all day long, you are entitled to that opinion.
You can not call it murder, because that is a legal issue, and abortion is not murder.

Murder, is the unlawful killing of one human being by another.
Abortion is not unlawful, so it is not murder.
"Pro-abortion", on the other hand, can mean someone who advocates for, and encourages abortions. With that meaning, prochoice is not abortion.

There was a pro-abortion movement in the united States, and it was started by ministers are rabbis.

"The year was 1967, and too many women were dying.

The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state"s strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York City"s maternal mortality rate. While wealthy women could use their "connections" to have illegal yet safe abortions performed in hospitals, less privileged women didn"t have that option. According to a survey of low-income women who had abortions in the 1960s, eight in ten said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, and only two percent said that a trained physician was involved in any way.

Rev. Howard Moody, the minister of the historic Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan, couldn"t stand by and watch any longer. He started gathering with a group of faith leaders to talk about how they might help women get connected with the illicit "abortionists" who could perform a safe procedure. Those pastors and rabbis formed what came to be known as the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion.

That May, they announced their new organization in a front page story in the New York Times. In consultation with the New York Civil Liberties Union, the religious leaders decided their best strategy for avoiding getting in trouble with the law " the charge for "aiding and abetting" an illegal abortion was a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison " was total transparency. They wanted to operate out in the open, sending the message that they were choosing to defy the law in order to adhere to a higher moral code. And they ultimately initiated a long, yet mostly overlooked, history of clergy-assisted work toward ensuring women"s reproductive autonomy.
http://thinkprogress.org...
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:14:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:10:55 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:07:59 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I agree that legality does not equal morality.

I still do not think you understand.
"Murder" is a legal issue, not a moral issue, unless you want to make it that way for yourself.
Just like eating shellfish. I am free to believe it is immoral.

You can say 'abortion' is immoral all day long, you are entitled to that opinion.
You can not call it murder, because that is a legal issue, and abortion is not murder.

Murder, is the unlawful killing of one human being by another.
Abortion is not unlawful, so it is not murder.
"Pro-abortion", on the other hand, can mean someone who advocates for, and encourages abortions. With that meaning, prochoice is not abortion.

There was a pro-abortion movement in the united States, and it was started by ministers are rabbis.

"The year was 1967, and too many women were dying.

The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state"s strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York City"s maternal mortality rate. While wealthy women could use their "connections" to have illegal yet safe abortions performed in hospitals, less privileged women didn"t have that option. According to a survey of low-income women who had abortions in the 1960s, eight in ten said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, and only two percent said that a trained physician was involved in any way.

Rev. Howard Moody, the minister of the historic Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan, couldn"t stand by and watch any longer. He started gathering with a group of faith leaders to talk about how they might help women get connected with the illicit "abortionists" who could perform a safe procedure. Those pastors and rabbis formed what came to be known as the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion.

That May, they announced their new organization in a front page story in the New York Times. In consultation with the New York Civil Liberties Union, the religious leaders decided their best strategy for avoiding getting in trouble with the law " the charge for "aiding and abetting" an illegal abortion was a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison " was total transparency. They wanted to operate out in the open, sending the message that they were choosing to defy the law in order to adhere to a higher moral code. And they ultimately initiated a long, yet mostly overlooked, history of clergy-assisted work toward ensuring women"s reproductive autonomy.
http://thinkprogress.org...

Since when were we arguing the semantics of "murder"?
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:16:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:10:55 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:07:59 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I agree that legality does not equal morality.

I still do not think you understand.
"Murder" is a legal issue, not a moral issue, unless you want to make it that way for yourself.
Just like eating shellfish. I am free to believe it is immoral.

You can say 'abortion' is immoral all day long, you are entitled to that opinion.
You can not call it murder, because that is a legal issue, and abortion is not murder.

Murder, is the unlawful killing of one human being by another.
Abortion is not unlawful, so it is not murder.
"Pro-abortion", on the other hand, can mean someone who advocates for, and encourages abortions. With that meaning, prochoice is not abortion.

There was a pro-abortion movement in the united States, and it was started by ministers are rabbis.

"The year was 1967, and too many women were dying.

The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state"s strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York City"s maternal mortality rate. While wealthy women could use their "connections" to have illegal yet safe abortions performed in hospitals, less privileged women didn"t have that option. According to a survey of low-income women who had abortions in the 1960s, eight in ten said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, and only two percent said that a trained physician was involved in any way.

Rev. Howard Moody, the minister of the historic Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan, couldn"t stand by and watch any longer. He started gathering with a group of faith leaders to talk about how they might help women get connected with the illicit "abortionists" who could perform a safe procedure. Those pastors and rabbis formed what came to be known as the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion.

That May, they announced their new organization in a front page story in the New York Times. In consultation with the New York Civil Liberties Union, the religious leaders decided their best strategy for avoiding getting in trouble with the law " the charge for "aiding and abetting" an illegal abortion was a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison " was total transparency. They wanted to operate out in the open, sending the message that they were choosing to defy the law in order to adhere to a higher moral code. And they ultimately initiated a long, yet mostly overlooked, history of clergy-assisted work toward ensuring women"s reproductive autonomy.
http://thinkprogress.org...

If legality equals morality, was slavery acceptable when it was legal?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:28:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:14:33 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:10:55 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:07:59 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I agree that legality does not equal morality.

I still do not think you understand.
"Murder" is a legal issue, not a moral issue, unless you want to make it that way for yourself.
Just like eating shellfish. I am free to believe it is immoral.

You can say 'abortion' is immoral all day long, you are entitled to that opinion.
You can not call it murder, because that is a legal issue, and abortion is not murder.

Murder, is the unlawful killing of one human being by another.
Abortion is not unlawful, so it is not murder.
"Pro-abortion", on the other hand, can mean someone who advocates for, and encourages abortions. With that meaning, prochoice is not abortion.

There was a pro-abortion movement in the united States, and it was started by ministers are rabbis.

"The year was 1967, and too many women were dying.

The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state"s strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York City"s maternal mortality rate. While wealthy women could use their "connections" to have illegal yet safe abortions performed in hospitals, less privileged women didn"t have that option. According to a survey of low-income women who had abortions in the 1960s, eight in ten said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, and only two percent said that a trained physician was involved in any way.

Rev. Howard Moody, the minister of the historic Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan, couldn"t stand by and watch any longer. He started gathering with a group of faith leaders to talk about how they might help women get connected with the illicit "abortionists" who could perform a safe procedure. Those pastors and rabbis formed what came to be known as the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion.

That May, they announced their new organization in a front page story in the New York Times. In consultation with the New York Civil Liberties Union, the religious leaders decided their best strategy for avoiding getting in trouble with the law " the charge for "aiding and abetting" an illegal abortion was a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison " was total transparency. They wanted to operate out in the open, sending the message that they were choosing to defy the law in order to adhere to a higher moral code. And they ultimately initiated a long, yet mostly overlooked, history of clergy-assisted work toward ensuring women"s reproductive autonomy.
http://thinkprogress.org...

Since when were we arguing the semantics of "murder"?

When we started arguing the semantics of "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion".
Claiming something as a 'reliable source', has consequences.
Dictionaries are not considered to be 'reliable sources' for the meaning of emotionally charged words in a debate.
If they are to be accepted, then the logical extension of that is fair game.
If the OP insists on being correct, then they have to insist that abortion is not murder, since the same 'reliable source' says it is not.