You didn't answer the question. Is the woman in question a murderer?

She is a killer of another human being. Now whether or not she is a murderer depends on the laws of the place where the killing occurred.

Is she as valuable human being as if she had not caused the fetus to die?

Yes.

so you would say it was wrong to kill Osama Bin Laden even though he clearly caused great misery and suffering to the world?

Are they as evil as those Americans who buy their kids Nikes instead of paying for irrigation in Africa?

Did we kill Osama because his life had less value than ours or did we kill him because he threatened our lives?

Clearly we valued his life less because he threatened our lives. How much value does a life have if it can be so easily overcome by such reasons as threatening our lives? What if we could travel back in time and abort him?

I showed earlier that even you don't really believe in equality. It is actually impossible.

And saying that my example is one of a murderer or that Gandhi=Bin Laden or that a raped girl shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion is so messed up on so many levels.

If by my threatening the life of another person causes the value of my life to decrease, where then does that lost value go?

It goes to value heaven where values hang out. How I value your life decreases and the well-being you bring to this world decreases, I dont think there is any ectoplasmic value leaving your body.

No, but my laptop just broke and my xoom sucks for making detailed posts so you are going to have wait for an explanation.

So you are saying the value is just anhilated? That seems a little nonsensical to me. I like my equations to balance.

Erm, well, yes..since differing definitions have lead to this entire debate...

Stu I gave the example of the two drowning children and you admitted that you would choose your kid over unknown one, proving my point that you do value one life over another. So either you are being a hypocrite or your playing stupid games...

Why would I suppose that?

I'm really confused. Earlier you posted that a measure of valuing life equally is maximizing the number of human beings who survive a situation. Now you seem to be saying that we cannot expect you to act to maximize the number of human beings who survive a situation. Careful, I see genocide in your future...

You tell us we need to change our evil ways, and value every human life equally. Then you tell us that you cannot be expected to bear any negative impact whatsoever to help a dying person, else we be accused of valuing that dying person more than you. And you call us evil?

And I am curious how you can suggest that you cannot be expected to bear any negative impact whatsoever to save a human life, but you do expect a woman to do so to save a fetus.

No reason he can't be doing both.

This thread started in the gray area. Devolved into personal attacks pretty damned fast.

After more reading, this thread still has merit. Infractions pending, no more personal attacks folks.

I still thinkmost sad people would not say they'd rather they were never born. Also I disagree that human well-being is a measurable concept.

The reason I see a conscious as morally worthwhile is that is can feel, therein it can feel pain, therein causing it pain is morally wrong, as pain is bad.
Obviously if its not "self-aware" killing it becomes less of an issue; when we go to sleep then we're no longer thinking but people don't see it as morally bad.
I think its just that you are killing that which is morally worthwhile; sometimes it is excusable, sometimes not.

I just enjoy the taste, so if I ever attend with my father, I take the eucharist.

I wasn't aware that pointing out religious hypocrisy to a person based on the threads the person posts is supposedly violating rules.

This makes no sense at all. So a believer can come here to this forum state ridiculous nonsense and an atheist/agnostic/someone with other beliefs is not allowed to call him out on his bull****, even if the hypocrisy is evident?

Maybe so but if they were never born they wouldn't care.
I think it has to be if human mind is a natural phenomena.

Where does my headache go when it stops?

But thats not how morality is judged.

(This is in response to me claiming human well-being is measurable.)

I meant by my claim that humans are irrational- desires, beliefs, etc.., exist but we cannot quantify their quality and well-being.
We can judge some things to be better; but the values cannot be summated.