murder (műrdőr) n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous.
—murder v. murdered, murdering, murders.
1. To kill (another human being) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate.
5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.
To commit murder.
get away with murder. Informal.
To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act.
murder will out.
Secrets or misdeeds will eventually be disclosed. —murderer n. —murderess n.
As you can see, it seems the definition of murder deals with the legalness of the killing. If it is unlawful, then it is murder. If it is lawful, then it isn't murder.
The problem we run across in discussing this is that while both abortion and the death penalty are legal in some places and illegal in others, this within this same country, how do we differentiate?
Those who are in the enyartian faction call ALL abortion murders even though that is not true according to the definition of the word.
They also want the death penalty, yet call that NOT murder, although since it IS illegal in most states it does qualify.
Now if we add the very first definition in it's complete usage, then the words "premeditated malice" become a major part of our focus.
IF one is FOR the death penalty, and wants this law in place, then there is premeditation, or forethought on the commiting of the act. Thus those for the death penatly are on par with "murder" in fulfilling the definition.
So lets go on into the definition of the second part of that. Malice
malice (mal*s) n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
OK, now we see that the Enyart faction is premeditating the deaths of others, AND they do it with malice, since the paper "Day 1" details the way those who are to die are to die slowly and with revenge (offering the family of the victim the opportunity to participate is revenge.)
So the Death Penalty IS murder by the definition of the words.
Now lets look at abortion. They stand up against abortion, and call it murder. Well for the most part, they ARE premeditated (except in life or death situations when the mother and child are both at risk of dying and the mother is not conscience) but can we honestly say it is done with malice? In some cases, I am sure it is. But in most cases? Can we honestly say this mother hates the life inside her? Do they desire to see someone harmed and suffer? Is it extreem ill will or spite? Sometimes yes. Most often, not at all.
Now there are other definitions of murder there. Legality is a big part. So the Enyart faction (I say this because they are the most vocal in this forum. I know there are others who do not believe in what Bob Enyart believes in, yet agrees with them in these issues) seems to want to make one form of murder legal, and another form illegal.
So let's dig deeper. The next definition of murder is brutally. Well that is subjective to the persons opinion, but in most cases, the way that the Enyartians believe the death penalty be carried out is very brutal. (Read day 1 if you have any questions www.enyart.com
) They can say the same about an abortion too, so this evens out, they both qualify as murder in this sense.
The next definition qualifies in both cases also. (To put and end to, destroy)
So we go to the last definition (next is a slang so we will pass on that. It really has no bearing on this discussion) To spoil by ineptness/mutilate. Well they both qualify as that.
So as we can see, both the death penalty and abortion CAN qualify as murder, with the death penaly actually being a bit stronger because of the malice and revenge factor.
So are we really discussing abortion as being right or wrong, or should we rather be discussing the value of ALL life. It is perfectly clear that if both of the Enyartian beliefs are put into place, then what they are doing isn't sanctifying all life, but rather insuring that more people live to be tortured in the death penalty clause. If no baby is aborted, then more will end up commiting a crime since we can't even employ 100% of those we DO have, how will we do it with another whatever number Elena Marie came up with in the other thread.
I could not decide on abortion since it is not my body that is carrying this baby. I can only say what I want in my own family, and I could not force my will to be enforced if my partner really wanted an abortion. They do it without doctors now, what would happen once there is no doctor present? We already know because abortion was once illegal.
But what I want to get at is the duplicity of the faction. Reguardless of beliefs, both do qualify as murder by our definitions. So how can one person advocate murder, and in the same breath say that murder is wrong? That is exactly what is being discussed. It isn't the sanctity of life, it is the ideal of opportunity for revenge. It is the want to dictate every aspect of someones life. The NEED to control others.
If you want to be taken serious ND, then you have to make the stand. It is life for all or death for all, not life where YOU pick and choose and death where YOU pick and choose. I know one thing. God isn't going to argue semantics with us on judgement day. He is going to say "All life is precious" and those of you who think they are championing a cause are going to be left out in the dark.
If Abortion is murder, the death penalty is murder. If the death penalty ISN'T murder, then abortion isn't murder.