Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[Yttrium]

This is a syllogism by a cyber friend from New Zealand, Bnonn Tennant. I think the logic is solid.

1.It is wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons (because it is murder)

2.A human zygote or fetus is a human being

3.Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human zygote or fetus for personal reasons

https://bnonn.com/why-abortion-is-ir...ent-to-murder/

The argument relies too much on semantics.

If a human zygote or fetus is a human being,

then it is not necessarily wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons (because it is not necessarily murder).

[One Bad Pig]

The argument relies too much on semantics.

If a human zygote or fetus is a human being,

then it is not necessarily wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons (because it is not necessarily murder).

Your issue is not, then, with the argument but with the first premise.

[Yttrium]

Your issue is not, then, with the argument but with the first premise.

Yes. What is a "human being"? Oh look, the second line helps define the term. That's not how it should work. The terms "human being" and "murder" should be well defined before we get to the second line, so that the first line makes sense independently.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes. What is a "human being"? Oh look, the second line helps define the term. That's now how it should work. The terms "human being" and "murder" should be well defined before we get to the second line, so that the first line makes sense independently.

I agree, those two should be flipped.

[carpedm9587]

The argument relies too much on semantics.

If a human zygote or fetus is a human being,

then it is not necessarily wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons (because it is not necessarily murder).

Agreed. The syllogism is valid, but for the argument to be sound the premises have to be true. The first premise is dicey because of semantics. "Personal reasons?" If someone is attacking my son, and I kill them, I would suggest I am doing so for "personal reasons." It is not clear to me that this would be murder. A human zygote or fetus is most definitely human (by definition), but "human being" is not merely a scientific term - it is a philosophical term as well and open to debate. Not all people agree that the second premise is true.

[Tassman]

So you think we knew what a normally developing foetus's MRI scan looked like before MRI scanners were invented???

Obviously not. But the point remains that the primary role of MRI's is is to check for abnormalities and potential problems.

[Tassman]

That's a flat out lie. I proved you wrong by showing the parts of your cites that you omitted. You included PARTS of resolutions from the SBC that argued for exceptions for abortion - the part you omitted was about the sanctity of human life. That was a even a couple years BEFORE RvW.

The resolutions cited the sanctity of human life - INCLUDING THE FETUS - then allowed for some very limited exceptions.

Your citation of "The bureau chief of the Baptist Press" turned out to be the very liberal OPINION of ONE bureau chief of SBC's most liberal and troublesome office.

You are just as wrong about this as when you falsely accused the homosexual man of supporting NAMBLA, when he was, indeed, speaking AGAINST NAMBLA.

How do you get so much wrong so often?

Here we go again.

I have no intention of re-litigating a previous debate from a different thread the only purpose of which is to deflect from your discomfit at unwelcome facts.

[Cow Poke]

And he was soundly blasted by fellow Baptists. He was wrong on that, as he realized later. And your dishonest misrepresentations of the various Southern Baptist statements on abortion even PRIOR to RvW was also debunked.

Here we go again.

I have no intention of re-litigating a previous debate from a different thread the only purpose of which is to deflect from your discomfit at unwelcome facts.

Yes, I can understand why you'd want to forget being proven so incredibly and profoundly wrong.

[Jedidiah]

yes, i can understand why you'd want to forget being proven so incredibly and profoundly wrong again.

fify

[Tassman]

And he was soundly blasted by fellow Baptists. He was wrong on that, as he realized later. And your dishonest misrepresentations of the various Southern Baptist statements on abortion even PRIOR to RvW was also debunked.

he said,

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

A perfectly reasonable approach and commonplace among Baptists until 'abortion' became a political rallying cry 45 years ago.

Yes, I can understand why you'd want to forget being proven so incredibly and profoundly wrong.

You delude yourself, Preacher, but your intention to deflect is understandable given the unscrupulous origins of the abortion debate. .

http://religiondispatches.org/the-no...life-movement/

...as authored by Jonathan Dudley, a graduate of Yale Divinity School.

[Cow Poke]

He was forced to toe the party line

So, the "party line" was that abortion was a bad thing?

Cool!

[Tassman]

So, the "party line" was that abortion was a bad thing?

Cool!

http://religiondispatches.org/the-no...life-movement/

[Cow Poke]

It became the "party line" for political reasons; it wasn't the party line for most of the history of Evangelicalism.

Your opinion based on opinions of....

http://religiondispatches.org/the-no...life-movement/

That's a leftist website run by a guy who used to work alternet.org. Sheeeeesh. He's almost as big a bigot as you!

Tass, do yourself a favor - give up the nuttery.

[Cow Poke]

http://religiondispatches.org/the-no...life-movement/

So, let's take a look at the author of this incredibly powerful and persuasive piece blasting Evangelicals....

Here's Jonathan Dudley....

dudley.jpeg

And here is his website liked to from his twitter account...

dudley website.jpg

AND, should I be surprised that he's a pro-abortion, pro-GLBTXQPTS anti-Christian activist?

But he DOES have almost 2,000 followers on Twitter!!!!

[Quantum Weirdness]

https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/wh...re-pro-choice/adamantly opposed to abortion under any circumstances? You seem unable to address this straightforward question.

Do you actually think "you lot" are opposed to abortion under any circumstances?