Abortion Is Murder!

Let's take this one step at a time.You start by citing your Catholicism as the reason you believe in God. I would think one should believe in God before choosing the particular religion they blindly subscribe to, but that's not the debate here. Since you seem to be appealing to the notion that the Bible forbids abortion, I offer a two-pronged rebuttal. The first will show the rather questionable nature of following the word of God so directly and the second will show that by many accounts, the Bible doesn't even consider abortion to be murder.1. If I were to wake up tomorrow morning and claim that saying some Latin words and waving my hands over a stack of pancakes were going to magically transubstantiate them into the body of Elvis, people would call me insane. However, if I were to do basically the same exact thing on top of a cracker and say it was turning into the body of Jesus, people would just call me Catholic. Further, if someone were to tell you, as a devout Christian, that your significant other was cheating on you or that eating chocolate ice cream would give you the power of flight, I think you'd probably ask me to provide some evidence to support those claims. However, when someone told you that the book you keep by your bed was actually written by an omniscient invisible deity who will ultimately punish you in hell for all eternity in the case that you do not accept his every claim about the entire universe, you seem to have not required any evidence whatsoever.Subnote: If you did require evidence on that last point, please do share what evidence it was that convinced you.2. Just a few points on the notion of the Bible considering abortion murder:"Do those opposing abortion on religious grounds know that the Bible does not consider a fetus a full human life or the killing of a fetus murder?" - Eliyahu FedermanIt is also noteworthy that as early as Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that life begins at birth, declaring that God “breathed into his [Adam’s] nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.” The verse implies that until Adam took his first breath he was not considered a living being.Furthermore, you can scour the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, yet you will not find any passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Not a single verse yet the anti-abortion movement continues to declare, in the name of God, that abortion is murder. It seems that God left out the prohibition of abortion or perhaps does not consider a fetus a full human life. I’ll let you decide."Exodus 21:22-25 describes a case where a pregnant woman jumps into a fight between her husband and another man and suffers injuries that cause her to miscarry. The miscarriage is treated differently, however — as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it’s not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is." - Rick Lowery, Ph.D.We can certainly debate whether 0.999... = 1 in the forum in which you recently challenged me. It's not an inherently absurd claim, however it's your method of arguing that reflects a complete ignorance of basic mathematics that I said was absurd.To your enumerated answers:1. I'm glad we cleared that up.2. That is *NOT* the definition you gave when we started this debate (see my quoting of your own words). It is not against law or moral code to change the definition of the most important part of your argument, but it is certainly bad practice.3. Again, I simply based these comments on your own arguments and definition(s).5. Sarcasm not necessary, but indulgence much appreciated.On those hypothetical questions - I suspected you might say no to all of them, which is why I asked in the first place. That reflects a complete absence of logical continuity in your reasoning. You have stated that you would allow an abortion in the case where the birth was going to kill the mother, however not in the case that it was going to kill people other than the mother. This seems a bit silly. In most cases (granted, not all), the mother was in some way involved in the conception of that fetus. Many use this fact as a basis for arguing that acting in any manner aside from abstinence opens a mother to the obligation of carrying and nurturing a child. You clearly do not agree with this, which I take no objection to. However, it seems a little unfair and counterintuitive to state that you would not save the lives of 3 individuals who were not involved or in any way responsible for a pregnancy while saving an individual that may or may not have been responsible, in whole or in part. Again, I am not arguing the point of whether an abortion should be allowed in the case of threat to the mother nor am I passing judgment on the concept of maternal responsibility for conception. Rather, I am using your own answers to hypothetical questions to show that your logic is, at best, capricious and arbitrary.I am not here to judge whether or not you have morals, that is not the subject of the debate. I very much respect anyone who believes strongly in whatever it is they believe in. Personally, I vehemently reject the notion that some invisible overlord created the entire universe and has dictated precisely what will happen at every quantum step along the chain reaction that is our reality. However, let's just say that "things happen for a reason." You seem to use that as justification for a pro-life stance, presumably because you argue that conception has happened "for a reason" and thus the baby should be born to fulfill its fate/destiny. Surely you must see that the invocation of such a philosophy is nothing better than illogical. For what "reason" would Boko Haram have kidnapped over 1,000 children in northeastern Nigeria since 2013? For what "reason" has the Darfur genocide resulted in the deaths of over 400,000 innocent men, women and children? Perhaps only God's children (Catholics, in your case) are protected by God in his infinite glory in power. Surely, to them, "things [would] happen for a reason." What, then, is to be made of the 10,667 instances of sexual abuse by members of the Catholic church against minors under the age of 18 between 1950 and 2002? It is hard to imagine what the "reason" would be for that happening. Further on this point of reason, supposing that all the previous claims are somehow swept away, who is to say that the "thing" that is to happen "for a reason" in a pregnancy, especially those that are the case of rape or incest, is an eventual birth. Is it not equally likely that God wanted a woman to get pregnant for the "reason" that they have an abortion at which time a doctor uncovers a lung tumor and removes it before it metastasizes? I don't think it is for either of us to say which of these "reasons" is more "likely".Finally, your point about Hitler not being born is well taken. In fact, that is the whole reason that I feel the philosophy of Utilitarianism is very silly. You claim, "it's pretty safe to say that if WWII never happened we'd still be in the Great Depression." First of all, I don't think ANYONE claims that we would still be in the Great Depression. Some claim that the War ended the Depression, but I don't think there is a reasonable, moderately-educated economist on the planet that thinks we'd still be in such a state without it. That all said, I do take objection to your use of the phrase "it's pretty safe to say," when in fact many scholars disagree:"A common fallacy is that the Great Depression was ended by the explosive spending of World War II." - Peter Ferrara, Forbes Magazine"World War II Did Not End the Great Depression" - Art Carden, Mises Institute "No, WWII Did Not End The Great Depression" - The Corbett ReportTo be clear, I am not taking a stance on the idea that WWII did or did not end the Great Depression. I am simply showing that your cavalier use of the phrase, "it's pretty safe to say," is neither valid nor constructive.Looking forward to hearing back and chatting about 0.999... = 1!