Forums → WEPR → "Do not kill" or "Do not murder"

Why? That would be an unprovoked act of cruelty, and ,unless these insects are the direct cause of that depression, would do nothing at all to correct the problem.

I mean at least the bad command and emotion are released by killing insects and not killing human.

In a matter of pure translation from hebrew, its "Do not murder" - אל תרצח.
God in the bible is described more than once "A jealous and avenging God, Avenger and hot tempered, God take revnge on his besieger and Hold a grudge to his enemies". He is like an abusive and violente boyfriend, and the hebrews are his mentaly weak and Terrified girlfriend.
Here is a story that describe it - Its called "The Consort on the hill". Ill write it "free style".

A ddude fro, the Levi tribe came to take his Consort from her father house, to whom she ran away from our dude. Her father didnt wanted her to go with him, but the dude somehow convinced them. So our dude took his Consort and his "boy" {a kind of a butler+budyguard} and began to travel back to his home. His boy adviced him to stop for the night at 'yevos' {Jerusalem befor it was conquerd by the jews}. The dude declined, as they were "Not from the israel peoples they are". They went to a city of the Benjamin tribe instead. A poor farmer agreed to let them in for the night. At night, the neighbores gathered around the house of the farmer and Demanded rom him that he will send the Levi dude to them, so they will "know him {If you know what i mean} and torture him {like the CIA}". Our brave farmer said "Never!". And offered his vergin daughter and the Consort instead. The mob declined. So our dude throw the poor Consort out of the window by force to the mob. In the morning, after he woke up and had a breaky, He stepped outside of the house, he saw the Consort lie on the ground. He said to her "Come and lets go". She didnt responed. Se was dead. So he took her to his home, and by a vision of god he cut her to 12 pieces, and send them to all the capitals of all the jewish tribes. many peopels came {at the threat that if they wont, they will be executed}, and besieged the Benjamin city with the demand that the rapist will be given to them. The benjamins declined and fought them for a while {and even won in 2 battles}, but then the coalition of the tribes slaughter them like they were sheeps, almost to the level of Extinction, wher only 600 mans left. So the tribes decided to avoied the Extinction of the tribe - by slaughtering another city which didnt joined the coalition, and taking all the virgin girls of the city to the Benjamins {400 girls}. But what a shame - 400 girls, but 600 mans! So they decided to let the Benjamins to kiddnape girls from the orchared during a holiday in which they were "dancing in the orchared".
All along the story it is said that its all god aproved.

Another {shorter} one -When moses came down of Sinai mountain, he saw the Israelits worshiping a golden ox as a figure of worship. he smashed the figure, threw it into a fire wher it melted, and slew some peoples. Than god told him to punish the Israelits. So moses gathered the Levi's and get them berserek. so they took arms and slaughtered 4000 peoples for an entire day. Moses asked god if this is enough. He said no. So they Slew another 3000 peopels on day 2. God say "keep going". day 3, 2000 peoples. "still going strong baby". 1000 peoples. Then god said its enough.

And these are only exmples of killing INSIDE the Israelits. Lets not begin on forginers.

TL;DR - God dosent give a **** about killing.

@Freakenstein

--Created Israel

@FishPreferred And Freakenstein and I pointed out that that isn't true. Prior to WWII Japan was an imperialistic monarchy with no qualms about using war to take whatever land/resources they wanted. After WWII they became one of the most peaceful nations on the planet and a technological giant within the global economy. WWI created an economic bubble that, when popped, led to the Great Depression. WWII ended that depression and after going through it countermeasures were put in place to mitigate any future bubbles thus preventing future depressions in the U.S. Stopping Hitler actively stopped an attempted genocide. The Holocaust wasn't part of WWII, it was Hitler and the Nazi party destroying their scapegoats so that people would think they were doing something to make everyone's lives better.

@FishPreferred And Freakenstein and I pointed out that that isn't true.

Shortly before I explained why it is, yes.

Prior to WWII Japan was an imperialistic monarchy with no qualms about using war to take whatever land/resources they wanted. After WWII they became one of the most peaceful nations on the planet and a technological giant within the global economy.

Here, let me try: Prior to WWII, nuclear fission reactors had only been theoretical designs. After WWII, they were a reality. Therefore, WWII is solely and directly responsible for the viability of nuclear power today, which could never exist without it. There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with that reasoning, could there?

WWI created an economic bubble that, when popped, led to the Great Depression. WWII ended that depression and after going through it countermeasures were put in place to mitigate any future bubbles thus preventing future depressions in the U.S.

So the most efficient way of fixing the damages caused by war is to have another war? Interesting.

Stopping Hitler actively stopped an attempted genocide.

WWII = Stopping Hitler about as much as Crop Damage = Stopping Locust Swarms.

The Holocaust wasn't part of WWII, [...]

Therefore, it shouldn't be part of this discussion.

Shortly before I explained why it is, yes.

Your "explanation" does not prove that war never benefits society, it only states that wars are costly and that a country is not the same thing as society. Just because something is expensive does not mean it doesn't have an overall benefit. The machines used for farming and manufacturing can be extremely expensive but in the end they also provide profits that would be impossible without them.

Here, let me try: Prior to WWII, nuclear fission reactors had only been theoretical designs. After WWII, they were a reality. Therefore, WWII is solely and directly responsible for the viability of nuclear power today, which could never exist without it. There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with that reasoning, could there?

You're comparing apples to oranges here. WWII had a direct impact on removing the Japanese Emperor from power, something no other form of Western influence even threatened to do before then, Nuclear power was being researched well before WWII and, as I stated in a previous post, could have been developed by other nations before the U.S. had WWII not pushed us into focusing on the research for the sake of weaponizing it.

So the most efficient way of fixing the damages caused by war is to have another war? Interesting.

Economically, yes it often is. War increase the need for manufacturing output, pushes technological development forward, provides jobs to normally jobless individuals (WWI and WWII also had huge affects on women's suffrage due to this fact), and decreases the population resulting in a lower demand and higher supply allowing for products to be sold cheaper. Arguably, war could be considered an immediate fix for any economic drop caused by stagnation, bubbles, and/or general panic from the public. That doesn't mean we should go to war every time there's a recession, but it does fix the problem and that fact is historically supported by every society.

WWII = Stopping Hitler about as much as Crop Damage = Stopping Locust Swarms.

How? Explain this logic. Explain to me how actively fighting to eliminate a man who invaded several nations long before anyone actually went to war with them is only as effective in it's goal as allowing crop damage to kill off a swarm of locusts. Tell me how it would have been better for England to surrender to Hitler, and then Russia, and then the U.S, and then every other nation on the planet than it was to sacrifice the few million lives it took to end the war. Lives that could have easily been saved had the League of Nations gone to war with Germany when Hitler took control of the Rhineland the way they were supposed to. Show me the logic by which you consider a slow methodical death under a fascist regime is better than war.

Therefore, it shouldn't be part of this discussion.

WWII ended the Holocaust. It doesn't matter why the war was fought but what effects the war had. The Holocaust was a mass euthanization of everyone Hitler deemed harmful to society and WWII stopped it. 6 million people had already been killed by 1945, how many more would have died if it hadn't been stopped? That is what makes it part of this discussion. The war saved lives. It wasn't that going to war then cost fewer lives than waiting for Hitler to invade the rest of the world, it wasn't that fighting back after the attacks on England and Pearl Harbor allowed us to mitigate how many civilians were killed by Japanese and German attacks, it couldn't have been because the Holocaust existed independently of WWII. And the war saved the lives of millions of people by ending the Holocaust, by ending Hitler's rule of Europe.

Just because something is expensive does not mean it doesn't have an overall benefit. The machines used for farming and manufacturing can be extremely expensive but in the end they also provide profits that would be impossible without them.

All irrelevant. War is a cost. You're doing a good job of pointing out the silver lining, but you're still neglecting the cloud it's attached to.

WWII had a direct impact on removing the Japanese Emperor from power, [...]

Well no, actually, it didn't.

Nuclear power [...] could have been developed by other nations before the U.S. had WWII not pushed us into focusing on the research for the sake of weaponizing it.

Well no, actually, it couldn't. You have no means of proving that this is a counterfactual possibility.

[...] it does fix the problem and that fact is historically supported by every society.

Well no, actually, it doesn't. Therefore, it is not a fact and has no support. Just telling me otherwise will not change reality. Look at what you just reasoned:

War B fixed the depression caused by War A. Therefore, war is the solution to depressions.

How? Explain this logic.

WWII is the inevitable result of the events brought about primarily by the actions of Adolph Hitler. The removal of the latter concludes the former, provided that no nation, power, or other political figure (such as Dönitz) prolongs it. Was Hitler stopped by WWII? No.
Crop damage is the typical result of events brought about primarily by the actions of locust swarms. The removal of the latter concludes the former, provided that no disease, environmental hardship, or other agricultural pest (such as the spider mite) contributes to it. Were the locusts stopped by the damage? No.

Not a perfect analogy, of course, but I think it's fairly close.

Tell me how it would have been better for England to surrender to Hitler, and then Russia, and then the U.S, and then every other nation on the planet than it was to sacrifice the few million lives it took to end the war. Lives that could have easily been saved had the League of Nations gone to war with Germany when Hitler took control of the Rhineland the way they were supposed to. Show me the logic by which you consider a slow methodical death under a fascist regime is better than war.

Where exactly did all this nonsense come from? It seems to me that you do not understand the difference between the World War and the Allied war effort.

WWII ended the Holocaust.

Well no, actually, it didn't. It's the locust equation all over again.

All irrelevant. War is a cost. You're doing a good job of pointing out the silver lining, but you're still neglecting the cloud it's attached to.

Just because something is a cost does not mean it doesn't have benefits. That's the entire point of a cost-benefit analysis. Nothing is free, you constantly brush off everything good that can come from war as inconsequential compared to war itself, but you have yet to prove that war is too expensive to provide any benefit.

Well no, actually, it didn't.

Well, yes actually it did. 5 seconds on wikipedia prove that easily enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_Japan#World_War_II

Well no, actually, it couldn't. You have no means of proving that this is a counterfactual possibility.

Actually, I can. Major research on the nuclear physics of atoms began in 1932. Years of research led to a breakthrough in 1938 when two researchers proved that the isotopes being released by uranium bombarded with slow neutrons were actually elements close to the center of the periodic table. Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman took that proof, and the ideas proposed by Ida Noddack in 1934, and went along their own line of research coining the term "nuclear fission" before Germany even invaded Poland.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421629/nuclear-fission
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/251675/Otto-Hahn

Well no, actually, it doesn't. Therefore, it is not a fact and has no support. Just telling me otherwise will not change reality. Look at what you just reasoned:

Yes, it does. The Roman Empire thrived during its warring period of expansion because of the economic benefits of war. After the empire stopped expanding the economy stagnated and the empire eventually fell because of that. During the creation of their empires China and Egypt saw nearly identical economic changes. WWI was only able to start the Great Depression by first causing a massive economic bubble that only popped when the war ended. Even the Cold War did more to boost the economy than any period of genuine peace has done for any civilization in history. You can't simply ignore historical fact because it doesn't fit with your own bizarre view of the world.

WWII is the inevitable result of the events brought about primarily by the actions of Adolph Hitler. The removal of the latter concludes the former, provided that no nation, power, or other political figure (such as Dönitz) prolongs it. Was Hitler stopped by WWII? No.

WWII was the inevitable result of events brought about by the French and British governments. Churchill and Patton vehemently opposed the treaty of Versailles because they both knew it would force another world war to start. Hitler simply managed to grab power before someone else by blaming all of Germany's problems on the Jewish people. If it wasn't Adolf Hitler it would have been someone else.

I also don't follow your logic. Your own comment states that WWII was ended when Hitler was defeated. Since WWII did end with the invasion of Germany and the reports of Hitler's death that fact is correct. But Germany wouldn't have been invaded if we weren't at war and weren't forced into invading it in order to end that war. Just because an individual had a direct hand in creating the circumstances that removed them from power doesn't mitigate the role those circumstances played. Saying that WWII wasn't responsible for stopping Hitler is like saying that the Iraq War wasn't responsible for Saddam Hussein's death. It's complete nonsense.

Where exactly did all this nonsense come from? It seems to me that you do not understand the difference between the World War and the Allied war effort.

You're right, I don't see a distinction there. Hitler took every piece of land he wanted without opposition. It was only after he invaded France and Britain declared war that WWII actually began. Before that it was simply the unimpeded march of German troops through Europe. The only way to not have war is if every nation Hitler faced continued to allow him to take their land without fighting back. That is the alternative to WWII and if you don't consider preventing Hitler from spreading his power across the world to be a benefit for society then I don't know what you would consider a benefit.

Well no, actually, it didn't. It's the locust equation all over again.

And once again your locust equation is complete nonsense. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, the Holocaust was independent of the war. Before actually invading the concentration camps the Holocaust was nothing more than some nasty rumors. The war was not fought to end the Holocaust and there's absolutely no reason to believe it would have stopped without the Allied nations going to war with Germany.

Well, yes actually it did. 5 seconds on wikipedia prove that easily enough.

Again, you are assuming that, simply because event A contributed to event B, event B is purely and directly dependent upon event A. This is something you cannot ever prove.

Actually, I can. Major research on the nuclear physics of atoms began in 1932. Years of research led to a breakthrough in 1938 when two researchers proved that the isotopes being released by uranium bombarded with slow neutrons were actually elements close to the center of the periodic table. Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman took that proof, and the ideas proposed by Ida Noddack in 1934, and went along their own line of research coining the term "nuclear fission" before Germany even invaded Poland.

Yes, it does. The Roman Empire thrived during its warring period of expansion because of the economic benefits of war.

I thought we already established that a country ≠ society.

If it wasn't Adolf Hitler it would have been someone else.

Another counterfactual assumption that simply doesn't hold water.

Saying that WWII wasn't responsible for stopping Hitler is like saying that the Iraq War wasn't responsible for Saddam Hussein's death.

Exactly.

You're right, I don't see a distinction there. Hitler took every piece of land he wanted without opposition. It was only after he invaded France and Britain declared war that WWII actually began. Before that it was simply the unimpeded march of German troops through Europe.

A declaration of war is a diplomatic formality. It does not make the ensuing war the sole responsibility of the declaring party. No war is one-sided. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the war itself and one faction's contributions to the war.

Besides, as I pointed out earlier, the Holocaust was independent of the war.

Which is why I pointed out that it is irrelevant. We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this.

We could get somewhere if you understood what cause and effect are. You consistently ignore everything that resulted from WWII as being completely disconnected from the war itself. When I give you something that existed independently of the war but was still affected by it you claim it's irrelevent or impossible to prove because it's counterfactual, refusing to acknowledge that there is any possibilities beyond what has already happened.

If you cannot follow the line of cause and effect, or worse can't even recognize that there is a relationship, then there is no point in me supporting any of my claims. I have backed up my claims with historic parallels, links, and numerous long explanations behind my rationale. So far, all you've done is say that I'm wrong and claim that war can never benefit society. Rather than continue to try to prove to you otherwise, I ask that you prove your claim because I'm tired of running in circles just so you can ignore what I'm saying. Prove to me that the effects of war are never beneficial. Show me the cost-benefit analysis you've performed that definitively proves that the cost of war is too high to ever be beneficial. Provide me with links to historical sites that back up you're statement that WWII was inconsequential to ending the rule of Adolf Hitler. Show me evidence that what has happened could not have happened any other way. Provide proof to back up everything you've claimed to be true in this thread.

I have backed up my claims with historic parallels, links, and numerous long explanations behind my rationale.

By which you mean the historic parallels where one culture benefits from the destruction and subjugation of others, the links to one article which says absolutely nothing about the direct impact of WWII on the Japanese imperial system and two articles which discuss things which have no relevance at all to the discussion, and the many rambling rants about why having WWII is better than dying a slow horrible death under the oppressive heel of a maniacal autocratic overlord. They are not being ignored; only dismissed.

Prove to me that the effects of war are never beneficial.

Really, why should I? That was never a part of my claim. My claim was that no war ever benefitted society as a whole.

A war is a means of settling a dispute. More specifically, it is (to date) a means of killing and destroying until one or more parties yield.

I do not deny that, during a war, some technological developments may be given particular interest in the hope that they will improve one's chances of success, or that afterward, some nations' policies and practices may be rejected in favour of others which are deemed more feasible. These are not, however, intrinsic to the war. Let's look at another analogy:

If whole continents become plagued with swarms of locusts which devour vital food crops at an unsustainable rate, new technologies may be proposed and implemented and new policies and government procedures may be established by affected nations in order to combat them. These new innovations may not only prevent future locust epidemics, but also improve crop yeild and pest management in general. During the investigation, it may even be discovered purely by accident that one of the wheat farmers is a sadistic serial killer, who is brought to justice at last. Does all this mean that rampant swarms of voracious crop-destroying insects are actually beneficial to society? I would say no.

Provide me with links to historical sites that back up you're statement that WWII was inconsequential to ending the rule of Adolf Hitler.

I stated that WWII was not responsible for stopping him. At no point did I state that it was inconsequential. Him choking to death on an olive pit in 1935 should clear that matter up just as well as any war, but, sadly, that did not occur. This does not mean that the war itself is the cause, however.

Show me evidence that what has happened could not have happened any other way.

The evidence should need no mention, as it is right there in the fact that it did not happen any other way.

Provide proof to back up everything you've claimed to be true in this thread.

Well, if we ignore the self-evident statements, the negative assertions, the reiterations, the undisputed claims, and what I've just now gone over, we have:

1 Prior to WWII, nuclear fission reactors had only been theoretical designs. After WWII, they were a reality. Therefore, WWII is solely and directly responsible for the viability of nuclear power today, which could never exist without it.

This is a reductio ad absurdum which follows the same reasoning you used. It does not need to be proven, because it is clearly false.

2 WWII is the inevitable result of the events brought about primarily by the actions of Adolph Hitler.

You yourself stated the following:

It was only after he invaded France and Britain declared war that WWII actually began.

Would this have been the case had he put all his effort into becoming a painter, rather than a political leader?

You also stated that:

The only way to not have war is if every nation Hitler faced continued to allow him to take their land without fighting back. That is the alternative to WWII [...]

Would this have been at all plausible in any rational historical model?

If you answered 'yes' to either question, I'd have to wonder what you've been smoking. If you answered 'no' to both, you have confirmed that WWII was inevitable and occured due to the actions of Adolph Hitler.

Did I miss anything?

By which you mean the historic parallels where one culture benefits from the destruction and subjugation of others, the links to one article which says absolutely nothing about the direct impact of WWII on the Japanese imperial system and two articles which discuss things which have no relevance at all to the discussion, and the many rambling rants about why having WWII is better than dying a slow horrible death under the oppressive heel of a maniacal autocratic overlord. They are not being ignored; only dismissed.

Just because one country suffers doesn't mean that society as a whole doesn't gain any benefit from a war. You yourself are making the same mistake you accuse others of, mistaking a single country with society. The wikipedia link established a direct correlation between WWII and the end of imperialistic Japan, which was something you contested. I honestly don't understand how you don't see that. The links to the encyclopedia Britannica website were directly related to the development of nuclear fission. You stated that I can't prove it would have developed without WWII, I provided proof that most of the necessary research was established before WWII even began. You can't dismiss that as not being evidence unless you're completely ignoring what's actually being said, or being extremely insane.

I do not deny that, during a war, some technological developments may be given particular interest in the hope that they will improve one's chances of success, or that afterward, some nations' policies and practices may be rejected in favour of others which are deemed more feasible. These are not, however, intrinsic to the war.

They are intrinsic to war, they're a natural aspect of war. They can be found in every war throughout history. The changes of political policy and technological advances are a natural, even necessary, characteristic of warfare and have built human society into what it is.

I stated that WWII was not responsible for stopping him. At no point did I state that it was inconsequential. Him choking to death on an olive pit in 1935 should clear that matter up just as well as any war, but, sadly, that did not occur. This does not mean that the war itself is the cause, however.

Hitler choking to death is counterfactual. It's not much of a debate when one side dismisses an entire statement with one word, is it? Allow me to go into detail as to why you're wrong then. Despite several assassination attempts, Hitler continued to persevere until he was completely surrounded in 1945. He survived the first world war and used that experience to endure everything that came after. Even if he didn't actually work to survive, that doesn't change the fact that Hitler did survive until 1945 and his death and removal from power are directly the result of the Allied forces taking Berlin. If you want to play with "what ifs" you're going to have to do better than that, and you're going to have to stop using the word "counterfactual".

The evidence should need no mention, as it is right there in the fact that it did not happen any other way.

You can prove that what happened happened, but you cannot prove that it couldn't have happened any other way. Unless you manage to do that then the constant dismissal of my arguments as "counterfactual" is just a cheap way for you to avoid dealing with statements that you can't actually argue against. In other words, it's absolute nonsense and if you actually expect this to go anywhere then you have to actually defend you're position rather than ignoring mine.

WWII is the inevitable result of the events brought about primarily by the actions of Adolph Hitler.

Hitler was nothing more than a tool of society and events. WWII was the inevitable result of the Treaty of Versailles. While Hitler shaped a lot of the specifics of the war (the Holocaust, the blitzkrieg of Europe, the winter invasion of Stalingrad, etc) he was inconsequential to the existence of the war itself. Patton and Churchill both predicted WWII before the treaty was even signed blatantly showing the potential for an alternate history.

Would this have been at all plausible in any rational historical model?

Of course it wouldn't be plausible. That's exactly the point. The nations with the power to resist Germany did so and could only have done so because the alternative is so horrid as to be unthinkable No nation would have willingly surrendered to Germany if they believed they had the power to resist. That's why the war was not only necessary, but beneficial to society as a whole. Because without war the only alternative would have been surrender.

You yourself are making the same mistake you accuse others of, mistaking a single country with society.

Where and in what way am I confusing a country for society?

The wikipedia link established a direct correlation between WWII and the end of imperialistic Japan, which was something you contested. I honestly don't understand how you don't see that.

It did nothing of the sort. That is a false attribution. At best, we can infer that it had some involvement, which is quite a step from "this could never have happened if not for WWII".

You stated that I can't prove it would have developed without WWII, [...]

At no point did I say any such thing, which makes this another false attribution. I don't understand why you're even trying to argue this point. I fully agree that WWII was not responsible for the development of nuclear fission reactors, or any of the benefits thereof.

The changes of political policy and technological advances are a natural, even necessary, characteristic of warfare and have built human society into what it is.

Well, no. They aren't and they haven't. Where exactly did you get that idea?

Hitler choking to death is counterfactual.

Of course it is. Which is why the war wasn't inconsequential. Which is why I didn't say that it was inconsequential.

If you want to play with "what ifs" you're going to have to do better than that, and you're going to have to stop using the word "counterfactual".

The "what if" scenario to which you refer has a name: Counterfactual History (link). I have every right to use the term which exactly describes what I'm referring to.

You can prove that what happened happened, but you cannot prove that it couldn't have happened any other way.

I'd be happy to discuss the nuances of causal determinism in another thread, but I think this one has already strayed far enough from its topic.

Hitler was nothing more than a tool of society and events.

And, by your own admission, a pivotal figure in this particular event.

That's why the war was not only necessary, but beneficial to society as a whole. Because without war the only alternative would have been surrender.

And that's where all the disagreement lies. We have a dilemma: War or Opression. Because opression is even more horribly unpleasant, war is the obvious choice. You are asserting that this makes it beneficial, because it is mutually exclusive with opression, which is bad in comparison. I am asserting that it is not beneficial, because outside of this dilemma, it is still horribly unpleasant, regardless of the alternative.

Woah, from killings to war. Let's return to kill.

When I was skimming in the "Archive", why do groups who oppose death penalty usually cite "thou shall not kill" instead of "do not murder"?

When I was skimming in the "Archive", why do groups who oppose death penalty usually cite "thou shall not kill" instead of "do not murder"?

I haven't really seen this commandment used in the death penalty debate, though it is prominent in the abortion debate. Since the reasoning would be the same in both cases (i.e. why one wouldn't hinge their argument on 'do not murder') I'll just stick with abortion.

In a previous post (I think on pg. 1) I explained the distinction that ethicists use. Murder is a species (or a kind of) killing -- it's wrongful killing. In other words, it's killing that is morally impermissible. The reason an pro-lifer (or an anti capital punishment advocate) would avoid using the notion of murder is because she would beg the question. So here's a bad argument against abortion:

1) Abortion is murder.
2) Murder is wrong.
Therfore, abortion is wrong.

This is a valid argument, but it's one that begs the question. What this means is that the argument assumes the truth of the conclusion in its premises -- in particular, premise 1. This says that abortion is murder. But that already assumes that abortion is wrong (which is the conclusion) since murder is, by definition, wrongful killing. An argument against capital punishment that assumed it was murder would suffer the same problem.

Since question begging arguments are merely trivially valid, they are uninteresting and not at all compelling. So that's why you won't see the notion of murder being used in these kinds of debates.