And the reply to every single one of those people is, “If you think abortion is wrong BECAUSE it is murder, then what are your feelings on the death penalty or war?”
It’s not the gotcha you think it is. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, and the death penalty and war don’t don’t intentionally involve innocent people.
It’d be like saying “oh, you oppose murder? What about self defence???”
Murder is not defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, by either Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, American Heritage Dictionary, or Dictionary.com
Not one definition anywhere has the word “innocent” in it.
It is defined in one place as “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” How we define “justification” is important. I would call most war, “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
Other places has it as “unlawful or unjustified killing of a person.”
Is it really “most war,” or is it one half of most wars?
But sure, that’s a fine definition. I think if you don’t include “justified” the definition is clearly incomplete - and I don’t think anyone who thinks about it would disagree, because it would contradict common usage so thoroughly.
So now you get to argue that killing foetuses is justified. Good luck with that, I’m sure the definitional exercise will have convinced whomever you were talking to :/
Death penalty is usually opposed because the person might be innocent. Just the ‘Don’t Talk to the Police’ clip cites two different cases where policemen talked mentally ill people into incriminating themselves, which people were later exonerated by DNA evidence.
Yeah, but it’s not the reason Catholics and other Christians are supposed to oppose it. It’s unnecessary killing, regardless of guilt. In defensive war it’s one thing to kill, but a person you can stop from killing anyone? You’re supposed to keep them in prison and try to help them change
Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:
That’s not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won’t be convincing to the person you’re debating. It won’t be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.
The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:
What makes this wrong, specifically?
and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., “killing an innocent person is wrong.”
What makes something innocent? What makes something a person?
If you can get them to at least admit that it’s a gray area, you’ve won.
Most people can be convinced of something. I have a lot of debates, both in person and online, and I’ve gotten somewhat decent at it. I think the most important thing is setting a realistic goal.
Did I convince a group of young earth creationists that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life? No I did not. Did I convince some of them that biologists aren’t a part of a satanic conspiracy, and that they’re just trying to come up with good explanations for the stuff they see? Yes, I think so.
Did I convince a “pro-life” friend that abortion should be exclusively the host’s decision? No I did not. Did I make them recognize that drawing the line on when abortion should or should not be allowed is harder than they had assumed, and that IF the government is going to draw that line, they should at least consult some medical experts? Yes, I think so.
On some level it might feel like it’s not enough… But there isn’t anything better, so I’ll take what I can get. Good luck out there.
And the reply to every single one of those people is, “If you think abortion is wrong BECAUSE it is murder, then what are your feelings on the death penalty or war?”
It’s not the gotcha you think it is. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, and the death penalty and war don’t don’t intentionally involve innocent people.
It’d be like saying “oh, you oppose murder? What about self defence???”
Murder is not defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, by either Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, American Heritage Dictionary, or Dictionary.com
Not one definition anywhere has the word “innocent” in it.
It is defined in one place as “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” How we define “justification” is important. I would call most war, “recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
Other places has it as “unlawful or unjustified killing of a person.”
Is it really “most war,” or is it one half of most wars?
But sure, that’s a fine definition. I think if you don’t include “justified” the definition is clearly incomplete - and I don’t think anyone who thinks about it would disagree, because it would contradict common usage so thoroughly.
So now you get to argue that killing foetuses is justified. Good luck with that, I’m sure the definitional exercise will have convinced whomever you were talking to :/
Death penalty is usually opposed because the person might be innocent. Just the ‘Don’t Talk to the Police’ clip cites two different cases where policemen talked mentally ill people into incriminating themselves, which people were later exonerated by DNA evidence.
Yeah, but it’s not the reason Catholics and other Christians are supposed to oppose it. It’s unnecessary killing, regardless of guilt. In defensive war it’s one thing to kill, but a person you can stop from killing anyone? You’re supposed to keep them in prison and try to help them change
It’s a good reason to oppose the death penalty, but I don’t think it makes it murder at all.
You just said above that it is murder.
Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:
That’s not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won’t be convincing to the person you’re debating. It won’t be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.
The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:
and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., “killing an innocent person is wrong.”
If you can get them to at least admit that it’s a gray area, you’ve won.
Good luck convincing such people of anything.
Most people can be convinced of something. I have a lot of debates, both in person and online, and I’ve gotten somewhat decent at it. I think the most important thing is setting a realistic goal.
Did I convince a group of young earth creationists that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity of life? No I did not. Did I convince some of them that biologists aren’t a part of a satanic conspiracy, and that they’re just trying to come up with good explanations for the stuff they see? Yes, I think so.
Did I convince a “pro-life” friend that abortion should be exclusively the host’s decision? No I did not. Did I make them recognize that drawing the line on when abortion should or should not be allowed is harder than they had assumed, and that IF the government is going to draw that line, they should at least consult some medical experts? Yes, I think so.
On some level it might feel like it’s not enough… But there isn’t anything better, so I’ll take what I can get. Good luck out there.
You won’t succeed in one go, the goal is to leave them asking questions later and not aggressively rejecting your position
It’s not murder when the men with money do it.
Which is whataboutism - it is a legitimate argument.