Kerry Or Bush??

No, Senn, you are missing the point.

I am trying to point out the fallacy that Sandman made (and you repeated), confusing "is" and "ought".

A law "is".  Morality is what "ought" to be.  Laws sometimes reflect morality, but never lead to morality, and are never the foundation of morality.  A statement like "X is the law, therefore it is good/bad" is a bad statement.

Before we can have a meaningful discussion of morals, we need to separate out the discussion of laws. 

SandMan wrote: First, "murder" is not purely a legal construct. It is the legal expression of a moral trespass. It is also a word with a set, though admittedly changeable, meaning. By your logic, we might as well say that "green" refers to the underside of one's foot and "larceny" refers to the crime of picking one's nose in public. Such relativism is incapable of making a meaningful point.

There are, then, two homonymical words "murder", which you are attempting to combine into one.

"Murder" - unlawful killing.  Legal idea created by society.

"Murder" - immoral killing.  Moral concept, and much more difficult to understand/explain.

The two are clearly not unrelated, but neither is the relationship between the two obvious.  This is the point that I am trying to make.  Just because somethings is legal "murder" does not automatically mean that it is moral "murder", any more than something not being legal "murder" means that it is necessarily not moral "murder".

Is there a relationship between the two?  Almost certainly.  But not nearly as strong as what Senn is suggesting.

You're ignoring the origin and intention of laws in general, which is to create and maintain order.

Generally agree (except as to the ignoring part).

Given the documented structure and morality of the United States and indeed Western culture in general, this structure includes the preservation of the rights of all independent human beings.

In the context of "murder", I absolutely disagree, unless you are defining yourself into truth, and then this is true only in the most banal sense.

History is replete of societies where killings that would be considered murder were fully acceptable, or considered only minor violations.

By old Scandinavian law, if you killed a man, you had to buy him a slave to replace the lost labor - the killing itself was not a significant legal wrong (although the brother was free to avenge).

Dueling, and similar permitted practices, have always allowed people to kill for minor perceived insult.

English kings had their wives beheaded because they were thought to be adulterers.

"Witches" were executed in Salem for what, at worst, was an expression on independent thought.  "Witches" were executed in Europe for far less.

Sharia law requires a father/brother to kill a sister/daughter who has been raped.

Some societies allow(ed) killing to protect property, other did/do not.

In Texas you can shoot a trespasser.  In Illinois that is murder.

And, of course, there is the great big exception - war.  Once some head of state has declared "war", almost all rules are suspended.  Killings that would clearly be murder in any other circumstance are suddenly not only permitted, but required.

Separately, there are also permitted killings of innocents by accident, by necessity, for mercy, and so forth.

You are drastically understating the relativism of the legal definition of "murder" by focusing on your idea of slaves as non-humans.

Third, the critical part of the definition of murder you SHOULD be addressing is the "human being" clause. The serfs of medieval Europe were basically equivalent to the slaves of early America in that they were seen as personal property BEFORE being acknowledge (if at all) as human beings. Thus, their killing without cause was justified by the nature of their disqualification as an independent human being.

As noted, this is insufficient.

Last, it seems to me you are arguing to prevent whatever conclusion you believe I am attempting to make. The truth is, however, I offered my conclusion in the very beginning in saying that we do not have enough information to properly define the "independent human being" status of the embryo.

On the contrary.  I believe I said from the outset that I agree with this point.

My point is that even if we were to conclude that embryos/fetuses are "independent human beings", it would still be insufficient, since we clearly have a moral history of permitting the killing of persons in a variety of contexts.  Killing human beings, independent or otherwise, does not equate to "murder".  It never has.

"Murder" as we know it is a remarkably new legal concept.  What Senn is doing is applying this new legal concept, or the theory underlying it, to create a claim for an absolute moral "murder."

That is a logical fallacy.

Clark Kent wrote: I hereby exorcise thee back to the Dark Ages from whence thou came.  Shoo.

No its still very modern, maybe if you actually had some morals you would know that. Also I agree with admSenn, people like you get so caught up on "constitunial rights" that you forget whats morally right. Abortion is killing get over it. Life starts as soon as conception starts. Its killing when they take that baby, cut its head open and suck its brains out so it will die. How in Gods name can you or anyone think that is morally right. If thats not an act of inhuamanity and an act of the living devil then what is? People like you are freakin liberal, inmoral, morons.

Dune wrote: Good luck being a teenage father. Society changes greatly, religion changes little. To not use condoms may be a sin in your book, but it's called intelligence in mine.

Religion can change alot unless your to ignorant to listen to the beliefs the religion. As for being a father I don't have any kids now and I don't plan on having any until I get married. When I do have kids I will teach them morals just like my mom and dad taught me.