Is court ordered execution murder?
Fair cop. What I had heard was incorrect. Iâll try to be more careful about confirming information.
Not technically illegal.
The difference is the enemy can fight back. Not a good analogy.
Are soldiers allowed to kill unarmed enemy?
JayJay:NoâŚthe âpitchâ is the word âmurderâ has a definition which includes the word âunlawfulâ.
Not technically illegal.
Pretty much.
They should simply be called the pro-birth crowd. Theyâre anything but pro lifers.
Just look how they shrug at kids dying at the border. Or glee with delight at bombing countries. Or brush aside civilian casualties. And Come up with all sorts of reasons to keep people from having life saving access to healthcare.
WuWei: JayJay:NoâŚthe âpitchâ is the word âmurderâ has a definition which includes the word âunlawfulâ.
Not technically illegal.
Pretty much.
So legal. Now youâre getting the hang of it.
MidwestIndy: CanadianJudo:Murder is a legal term it has everything to do with law.
that is why if you shoot someone breaking into your house its not murder.
Also the reason why we generally label military servicemen and women who fight in combat and wars for our freedom heros and not murderers.
The difference is the enemy can fight back. Not a good analogy.
Are soldiers allowed to kill unarmed enemy?
I take it youâre against bombing civilian targets then?
WuWei: MidwestIndy: CanadianJudo:Murder is a legal term it has everything to do with law.
that is why if you shoot someone breaking into your house its not murder.
Also the reason why we generally label military servicemen and women who fight in combat and wars for our freedom heros and not murderers.
The difference is the enemy can fight back. Not a good analogy.
Are soldiers allowed to kill unarmed enemy?
I take it youâre against bombing civilian targets then?
Why would you take that?
Civilian targets are pretty much indefensible, especially with our Air Force and guided weapons capabilityâŚitâs a slaughter, not a fight.
pro-life women are continuously shamed for not having an abortion or being against abortion. Abortion is pushed onto women like hotcakes in the winter time, almost as if itâs their only choice.
This post is false.
JayJay: WuWei: JayJay:NoâŚthe âpitchâ is the word âmurderâ has a definition which includes the word âunlawfulâ.
Not technically illegal.
Pretty much.
So legal. Now youâre getting the hang of it.
Actually YOUâRE getting the hang of it.
But thanks!
They should simply be called the pro-birth crowd. Theyâre anything but pro lifers.
Just look how they shrug at kids dying at the border. Or glee with delight at bombing countries. Or brush aside civilian casualties. And Come up with all sorts of reasons to keep people from having life saving access to healthcare.
Look how they offer prayers only when first graders are ripped apart by bullets. We remember the lack of actions.
gooddad409: H_Arendt:These are powerfully stated opinion pieces, but they are not science. Science requires falsifiability and there is nothing but a set of stated opinions here.
Consensus of Medical Doctors agree that life begins a conception⌠you can make that statement, but that is different than stating science proves the point.
Better hope God agrees.
Are you suggesting that God is a Republican, judging each person solely on their stance on abortion? The God I was raised to worship was not a single issue voter.
God says thou shalt not kill. God is interested in your morality.
Actually Good says âThou shalt not killâ.
But I think he means unless itâs on his ordersâŚlike slaughtering all the AmalekitesâŚmen, women, children AND livestockâŚand punishing Saul when he DOESNâT do it.
The headline is absolutely false. For example my church offerings were going to support orphan homes.
I was giving privately to a Christian adoption agency on a regular basis and sometimes to St Judeâs Hospital.
I dare say countless other pro lifers do the same.
I suppose the headline is some sort of vain attempt to justify the killing of millions of unborn babies.
H_Arendt: gooddad409: H_Arendt:These are powerfully stated opinion pieces, but they are not science. Science requires falsifiability and there is nothing but a set of stated opinions here.
Consensus of Medical Doctors agree that life begins a conception⌠you can make that statement, but that is different than stating science proves the point.
Better hope God agrees.
Are you suggesting that God is a Republican, judging each person solely on their stance on abortion? The God I was raised to worship was not a single issue voter.
God says thou shalt not kill. God is interested in your morality.
God included the commandment not to kill in his commandments to Moses. Moses passed the mantle of leadership to Joshua who had no qualms about killing people to establish Jewish hegemony in Judea and human beings in the Judeo-Christian tradition have found excuses to kill other human beings ever since.
The Commandment is absolute, but very few people have ever followed that commandment absolutely.
I have asked for a scientific basis for the issue that life begins at conception⌠and no one responded.
Thatâs not honest.
As I stated. With pro life advocates it is a matter of faith, not of science.
Stop with that.
Science unequivocally shows that life begins at conception.
Telling a theophobe to take it on faith is a waste of time.
H_Arendt:I have asked for a scientific basis for the issue that life begins at conception⌠and no one responded.
Thatâs not honest.
If you accuse me of dishonesty then back it up by showing which post provided the falsifiable hypothesis that I asked for. In truth. If I missed it, I will acknowledge that I missed it.
But if you cannot provide the post that answered my question, then please withdraw the accusation of not being honest, as it is a baseless accusation.