It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Gryphon66
"Person," is a legal term. "Homo Sapien," and by extension "human being," pertains to science and not law. It may or may not be murder when killing a fetus, but it is always killing. Which premise do you disagree with in my argument?
originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Gryphon66
It is not redundant. All cases of killing are not unlawful, only unlawful cases of killing are murder. Individuals whom consitute a state can murder, that is if they kill someone unlawfully. The "death penalty," however, is a judicial killing; judicial killings are not cases of murder since they are lawful.
originally posted by: Thetan
Here is a very simple argument against abortion.
All intentional killing of innocent human beings is wrong.
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
One exception. If the mothers life was to be in imminent danger if she were to have the child, then the killing of the fetus would be a foreseen variable, but not the intent.
originally posted by: Thetan
Here is a very simple argument against abortion.
All intentional killing of innocent human beings is wrong.
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
One exception. If the mothers life was to be in imminent danger if she were to have the child, then the killing of the fetus would be a foreseen variable, but not the intent.
originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That isn't an argument, that's an assertion. An assertion that I agree with for that matter; we've seen that with the drug war. The argument proposed however, has nothing to do with legality, it is an argument which is concerned with ethics. I am differentiating between what is legal and what is ethical.