Mr anony:
Ah I see, I hope you know that by your argument, nobody was murdered during the holocaust because according to German law then, what they did to the Jews was not murder.
Also during the slave trade, slaves were not counted as human beings but as property. By your logic, those who hung their slaves or had dogs eat them up also did not commit murder?

When we say that murder is unlawful, we are not referring to some arbitrary laws that can be made up by anyone rather we are referring to an objective moral law that binds all of us.

You are shifting goalposts, the topic was based on the extent of our Bill of Rights, you insisted foetus/zygote have a right to life, and their abortion was consequentially murder. Clearly you were arguing about legal rights of the foetus and the mother and the legal implications. And it was upon that subject we were all engaged.

When it became clearer to you that there is no such right, you fled under the rickety umbrella of objective morality.

However if that is your new stand, you must accept that foetus have no right to life!

Mr Troll:

I doubt they'll be relevant to any sensible person here.

you do not know my world view. Moreover you can't tell me when to be angry or not. You really need to get your head out your posterior and see that very few people outside christianity give a damn about your god and your bible.
your opinion, which you can't defend and which doesn't make any sense.

hehehehe. So why are you all speaking with legion voices


Wait! Its because they're not genuine christians else they'll be in agreement with you. Right?


No answer there?

The main reason we see things differently: Different lenses by which we view the evidence.

OLAADEGBU:

The main reason we see things differently: Different lenses by which we view the evidence.

you dull! I swearrigawd.

Mr Troll:

you dull! I swearrigawd.

Really?

A propos "slippery slopes" and all that jazz, here is the Abstract from a peer reviewed piece.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

This is how one newspaper reported on that piece above http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

Anyway, here is the Abstract of one academic reply to the piece http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/e1.short

In the article ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ arguments are made in favour of the moral permissibility of intentionally killing newborn infants, under particular conditions. Here we argue that their arguments are based on an indefensible view of personhood, and we question the logic of harm and interest that informs their arguments. Furthermore, we argue that the conclusions here are so contrary to ordinary moral intuitions that the argument and conclusions based upon it—including those which defend more mainstream methods of abortion—should be treated with immediate suspicion.

OLAADEGBU:

Really?

yes!
And to further butress my point you had to post an irrelevant picture that purports to link my calling you dull with the fact that you're not an evolutionist. Smh


Listen man, your being very dull has nothing to do with your religion. You're just naturally dull and being a programmed christian robot only makes it infinitely worse.