Your Religious Views on Abortion

[geoffrey]

IMO, the woman's life is more important than the fetus'. Period.

It is like this in nature as well. In a pride of lions, if food is scarce, the females will eat before the cubs. Why? Because the female can go on and have more cubs, while the lives of the current starving cubs is precarious at best.

So if a child is too much a mental burden on a woman, say with infanticide, she should be free to kill it as there will be time to make more in a more opportune time. Uh huh. Ethics are what seperate us from animals, we don't kill each other based on our civility. That's a really weak example, I'm hoping your argument doesn't rely on that one.

My life is more important than the addict on the corners, no doubt. I'll contribute far more greatly to society, where as he'll likely just be a burden. Can I kill him too? Just because one's life is more important, does that mean the lesser can be killed?

Glad to hear it.

Yet in the same post you state: I see no difference between a religious anti-abortionist shooting abortion doctors and many other types of warfare. Our military soldiers sacrifice their lives to defend causes they believe are just and so do the religious anti-abortion shooters. We justify killing out of convenience and so do they.

So it's ok to commit a crime (murder) a doctor to forward your cause?

I think the pro-life cause run into trouble when it supports the murder of abortionists. If we want the amount of death to be lessened, the first step isn't to kill people.

Aha! "...everybody has the right to life and control over their body." Then we agree.

A woman has control over every aspect of her physical being. Including pregnancy.

No, a woman would have the right to protect her physical well being if it were threatened by a high-risk pregnancy. But no one has the right to convenience over someone else's physical well-being. Your right to self-determination ends when it conflicts with someone else's right to self-determination.

I am glad that you can accept that others may have different ideas as to "right" and "wrong" and respect that view by not imposing your values on society.

I too don't neccessarily consider banning abortion the most harm reduced method available. That being said, you'll have to eventually come to terms that there is always a rational right and wrong and that views are imposed on you all the time. Typical murder is wrong, that value is imposed on you by the courts. Same with fraud, theft, kidnapping, ect.. Societal values exist to preserve order, abortion is a grey area that in Canada, actually has no law in favour or against.

Of course not, just because a person believes a woman should have a choice as to what to do with her body, does not mean they condone or support abortion based on gender or other frivilous human characteristics.

If you will notice, women in the countries mentioned have been forced to have abortions based on gender or limits on numbers of children per family. These women do not have a choice.

As a woman in our society, I demand (and get, thankfully) the respect to do with my body what I see fit.

If the baby isn't alive, then what does it matter? Abortion should always be just a megre 'oh well' situation. Since your conscience obviously won't let you accept that fetuses are completely worthless flesh, then I'd suggest you think harder at your reasoning for your support of abortion. If the woman's life is threatened, then yes, her rights are being breeched by the pregnancy. But otherwise, I can't really see how you can sometimes justify it morally, but othertimes not. Based on physical deformation, eye colour, mental retardation (not always accurately diagnosed by the way, personally the motivation behind my strong opposition to abortion on these terms, the doctors recommended I be aborted due to certainty of mental illness... no mental illness at all was the outcome), it's all the same. I don't understand how you can say it's wrong to abort a fetus sometimes based on some reasons, but ok on others. Do you apply the same logic to people, are some reasons legit for murder but some not?

[Riverwind]

So if a child is too much a mental burden on a woman, say with infanticide, she should be free to kill it as there will be time to make more in a more opportune time.

A woman can always give up a child that she does not want/cannot care for. The gov't and/or charities give her a choice therefore there is no conflict between her rights and the child's. In fact, gov'ts in some places allow mothers to walk into a police station, hospital or other safe location and hand over a child with no questions asked. If we followed your line of thinking the gov't should force those woman to care for the child and throw them in jail if they are not willing or able.

A fetus cannot be given to other people to care for therefore a woman should have the final say about whether that fetus is allowed to become a child or not.

[Black Dog]

Probably the first, but that's just me. The difference is that it's my choice to make. I am saying that all people have the right to decide when they are going to die, and society should not allow others to prematurely kill them. That's my position on how a right to life trumps all other rights. It's the same reason why I don't support capital punishment, no one has a right to kill anyone else unless it's in their own defense (or defense of others, ie. a war or a police officer).

But the choice is the thing. Absent that, what are you? A prisoner. Which is also what you are saying pregnant women are. Prisoners of the contents of their uterus.

So if a child is too much a mental burden on a woman, say with infanticide, she should be free to kill it as there will be time to make more in a more opportune time. Uh huh. Ethics are what seperate us from animals, we don't kill each other based on our civility. That's a really weak example, I'm hoping your argument doesn't rely on that one.

Once the fetus is born, it can be regarded as a sperate entity. It's no longer a question of self-determination for the mother.

But no one has the right to convenience over someone else's physical well-being. Your right to self-determination ends when it conflicts with someone else's right to self-determination.

So I was right.A pregnant woman no longer has any right to her own person IYV. Easy for those who don't have uteruses to say.

[Charles Anthony]

A woman can always give up a child that she does not want/cannot care for.

That is a cop out. The woman can only give up a child to someone else who is willing to take it.

The gov't and/or charities give her a choice therefore there is no conflict between her rights and the child's. In fact, gov'ts in some places allow mothers to walk into a police station, hospital or other safe location and hand over a child with no questions asked.

Hallelujah! Great example!

In Brazil, the police kill street kids. Street Children: More and More Killed Everyday

If we followed your line of thinking the gov't should force those woman to vare for the child and throw them in jail if they are not willing or able.

If we followed your line of thinking, morality depends on the government and charities and what else?

A fetus cannot be given to other people to care for therefore a should woman has the final say about whether that fetus is allowed to become a child or not.

That is ridiculous. A newborn child can not be given to ANYBODY but rather only to people who are willing to take it.

Once the fetus is born, it can be regarded as a sperate entity. It's no longer a question of self-determination for the mother.

No. The non-aborted-post-pregnancy-survived thing can not live alone in the same way as the non-aborted-pre-pregnancy-survived thing can not. Survivability is a stupid criteria. It legitimizes infanticide.

Now, the question is: until what age do you accept infanticide??

[Black Dog]

No. The non-aborted-post-pregnancy-survived thing can not live alone in the same way as the non-aborted-pre-pregnancy-survived thing can not. Survivability is a stupid criteria. It legitimizes infanticide.

I didn't say survivability, did I? I'm talking about physical dependence, which is totally different. See, a "non-aborted-post-pregnancy-survived thing" can be fed and nurtured and cared for by those other than its biological mother. The fetus is physically dependent on the mother. It is, for all intents and purposes, part of her body in a way a post-birth infant is not.

[Drea]

Now, the question is: until what age do you accept infanticide??

Ridiculous!

No one is advocating that we kill newborn babies.

Pro-choice is about one thing. CHOICE.

It is not about killing babies. It is not about not wanting a kid with brown eyes... it is not about having a boy over a girl... It is about the CHOICE.

I, for one, am glad we live in a society where my choice is respected and acted upon.

In February of 1993 I made another choice.

The choice to keep the fetus inside of me. Isn't it wonderful that I, as a female human being, was able to make that choice? No one forced me to have an abortion, that no one forced me to give up the baby once he was born; No one forced me to carry the pregnancy to term -- I CHOSE to keep the fetus, to let it feed off me <heh> until it was ready to enter the world as it's own living, breathing entity.

[Riverwind]

That is a cop out. The woman can only give up a child to someone else who is willing to take it.

Why should anyone be obligated to care for anyone else? If taxes to pay for social services are theft then what is forced labour to care for unwanted children? If a child can't support itself then why should it expect anyone else to support it - isn't that the motto of the anarchist movement? If you are going to say that a parent has a duty to care for a child then explain what arbitrary line you would draw that would free the parent from their obligation: 6 years, 12 years, 18 years? No matter what number you pick you will have to draw an arbitrary line that has no truely rational basis.

Most people intuitively understand that there is a biological difference between a fetus in a womb and a baby. For that reason most people are comfortable drawing an arbitrary line somewhere around 8 months where a fetus would likely survive if it was separated from the mother's body. However, I will concede that the line still arbitrary - it is just less arbitrary than a line that says a parent is freed of the obligation to care for a child at X years old.

[Charles Anthony]

No. The non-aborted-post-pregnancy-survived thing can not live alone in the same way as the non-aborted-pre-pregnancy-survived thing can not. Survivability is a stupid criteria. It legitimizes infanticide.

I didn't say survivability, did I? I'm talking about physical dependence, which is totally different.

No, they are not totally different at all. One follows the other. In the context of respecting individual rights and not-forcing-people-to-do-anything-against-their-will, they are inseparable. Nevertheless, forget survivability and I will stick to your "physical dependence" criteria.

See, a "non-aborted-post-pregnancy-survived thing" can be fed and nurtured and cared for by those other than its biological mother.

So what?

If the mother does not want the child, the mother would still be burdened with the task of finding a foster parent. Anything else leaves her responsible for its death/abuse/neglect. The freedom of the mother is constrained by the pregnancy. Therefore, "survivability" goes hand in hand with your "physical dependence" criteria. Why bring it up?

The fetus is physically dependent on the mother. It is, for all intents and purposes, part of her body in a way a post-birth infant is not.

So what? The newborn infant can not survive on its own. Somebody has to make a sacrifice for its survival.

What does "physical independence" mean to the newborn?? Does the newborn have any new rights? Does anybody have responsibilities to the newborn since it passes the "physical dependence" stage?

Pro-choice is about one thing. CHOICE.

It is not about killing babies. It is not about not wanting a kid with brown eyes... it is not about having a boy over a girl... It is about the CHOICE.

No. Pro-choice is much more complicated than you say and you are stonewalling its more deeper ramifications. Pro-choice can be as callous as not wanting a kid with brown eyes and having a boy over a girl.

Why should anyone be obligated to care for anyone else?

They are not.

If taxes to pay for social services are theft then what is forced labour to care for unwanted children?

Slavery.

Is it not intriguing that the "obligation" of parenthood perpetuates humanity???

If a child can't support itself then why should it expect anyone else to support it - isn't that the motto of the anarchist movement?

Correct.

Mind you, I never said that I believe it is right to force anybody to do anything. Or have I?? Go sift throught the thread and let me know.

If you are going to say that a parent has a duty to care for a child

I never said that but in keeping with this thread, I will go for an other spin because at least it is getting us to examine the arbitrariness of our right to life.

then explain what arbitrary line you would draw that would free the parent from their obligation: 6 years, 12 years, 18 years?

I can not. You are right. There is no objective answer. To avoid being arbitrary you must choose an extreme. One of those extremes reminds me of The Lone Flea's Baggy "To be or not to be?" collective question.

No matter what number you pick you will have to draw an arbitrary line that has no truely rational basis.

Correct. I understand that dilemma perfectly and I thank you for bringing it up because it is a corollary of the exact same dilemma that I posed to you: When does a person acquire the inalienable right to life and why that time?

It is impossible for anybody to objectively answer those questions without being arbitrary whether they follow a non-aggressive code of life or whether they read from a little red "social contract" reference book.

By examining the balance between:

1) the mother's right to control her body

2) the right to life of her child

and by eliminating the arbitrariness (what I lump into the "religious" section for both abortionists and anti-abortionists) we are left with Motherhood and the Family presenting a paradox in a non-coercive society. Such a paradox is easily ignored/abused in any coercive society.

It is with great reverence that I proudly say: the sacrifices of Motherhood and the responsibility of the Family are the only things that are more noble than Anarchy.

[Black Dog]

So what?

If the mother does not want the child, the mother would still be burdened with the task of finding a foster parent. Anything else leaves her responsible for its death/abuse/neglect. The freedom of the mother is constrained by the pregnancy. Therefore, "survivability" goes hand in hand with your "physical dependence" criteria. Why bring it up?

On the continuum of dependancy, finding a foster parent or moseying down to the adoption agency is simply not as burdensome as pregnancy.

So what? The newborn infant can not survive on its own. Somebody has to make a sacrifice for its survival.

Yeah? And? As you would say: so what?

[Charles Anthony]

So what? The newborn infant can not survive on its own. Somebody has to make a sacrifice for its survival.

Yeah? And? As you would say: so what?

Easy.

The issue of abortion centers around the pregnant woman's right to control her body. You said that. She (like every other person in the world) should have that control all of the time.

Placing an obligation of finding a foster parent for the unwanted child becomes coersion or a loss of control over her body.

Not placing an obligation of finding a foster parent for the unwanted child becomes accepting infanticide.

If you give the woman the right to control her body at all times, you must accept infanticide.

[Drea]

She could, as stated earlier, simply drop it off at a hospital or police station with no obligation whatsoever. Absolving herself of any duty to find a home for the child.

The mother's identity may never be known if she drops it off without letting anyone see her. Desperate mothers have done this before.

[Black Dog]

Easy.

The issue of abortion centers around the pregnant woman's right to control her body. You said that. She (like every other person in the world) should have that control all of the time.

Placing an obligation of finding a foster parent for the unwanted child becomes coersion or a loss of control over her body.

Not placing an obligation of finding a foster parent for the unwanted child becomes accepting infanticide.

If you give the woman the right to control her body at all times, you must accept infanticide.

You're wrong. Having to find a foster child (which, in our society, is a responsibility shouldered mainly by the state or individuals who have chosen to make that their life's work) may be a financial burden, or it may be a mental burden, it may just be a pain in the ass, but it is not a physical burden in the same sense as pregnancy. Not even close. Here's another thing: if a woman is looking for a foster parent for her unwanted child, that is a choice. She is not being forced to seek others to assume parental responsibilities that she herself is unwilling or unable to take on. She could also consider keeping the kid herself. Her choices may be limited, but she still has choices.

Tell me this: if you were unemployed, would consider having to look for a job an act of physical coercion, even if it was your choice to do so?

[Charles Anthony]

She could, as stated earlier, simply drop it off at a hospital or police station with no obligation whatsoever. Absolving herself of any duty to find a home for the child.

You are kidding?? Forgive me but you really have no idea how parts of the world (and even Canada) are different from your own. Not everybody has the luxury of a hospital nearby.

Here's another thing: if a woman is looking for a foster parent for her unwanted child, that is a choice.

What are the other choices??? Now we are getting closer.

Do you object to her choosing to leave the kid on the ground?

Personally, I would let her. If I could pick that child up and find foster care myself, I would. Otherwise, I would leave the kid where she left it.

She is not being forced to seek others to assume parental responsibilities that she herself is unwilling or unable to take on.

If you do not let her leave the kid on the ground, you are forcing her.

It really is that black and white.

Tell me this: if you were unemployed, would consider having to look for a job an act of physical coercion, even if it was your choice to do so?

No, it would not because there is no other person involved -- just me. You are side-stepping the issue. You are refusing to address letting the kid die of exposure after it is no longer "physically dependent" on the mother. You are also refusing to address exactly what obligations (if any) are made on the parent after the "physical independence" criteria is met. In other words:

1) does a newborn have an inalienable right to life (as any other person might have) and;

2) if so, who is obligated to fulfill that right ?

You're wrong. Having to find a foster child (which, in our society, is a responsibility shouldered mainly by the state or individuals who have chosen to make that their life's work) may be a financial burden, or it may be a mental burden, it may just be a pain in the ass, but it is not a physical burden in the same sense as pregnancy. Not even close.

Agreed, it is different. However, you are side-stepping the issue of control over her body: would you let her drop the kid on the ground and let it die of exposure?? Why or why not?

[Black Dog]

What are the other choices??? Now we are getting closer.

Raise the kid herself is one such choice.

Do you object to her choosing to leave the kid on the ground?

Yes. Because I have this crazy, illogical belief that once you go through the trouble of having a kid, you need to look after it or find someone who will. I support abortion because it preempts more unpleasant realities.

If you do not let her leave the kid on the ground, you are forcing her.

It really is that black and white.

In that case: tough shit. However, you're still wrong about it being a ophysical burden on par with pregnancy.

Man its tiresome arguing with nihilists.

[Renegade]

How can you not see the logical inconsistancy with believing that some people have more of a right to convience than others have a right to life? That's actually unbelievable.

Those pro-choicers that say that fetuses (feti?) aren't alive, they have some logic behind their argument, if it ain't live, who cares. But to say that a fetus has rights but it's right to life is outweighed by a woman's right to convenience is just beyond any comprehension. What other types of people's right to life is outweighed by convenience?

geoffrey, let me help you believe and comprehend since you seem to be having a hard time doing either.

When two parties have rights but those rights are mutually exclusive, one set of rights has to take priority. I think you understand this, but what you seem not to accept is that pregnancy is a considerable mental, physical, emotional, and financial burden on the woman. It is much more than an inconvenience as you characterize it. If you are willing to let the state coerce a woman into hosting a pregnancy against her will, where will coercion end? Should we forcibly take organs from healthy people and use them for those that need them?

Maybe you can answer in this scenerio. Person A is dying and needs an immediate blood transfusion to save his life, however Person A has a rare blood type. Person B is the only known person with a compatible blood type as Person A. Would you forcibly extract blood from Person B to provide a transfusion for Person A?

[geoffrey]

How can you not see the logical inconsistancy with believing that some people have more of a right to convience than others have a right to life? That's actually unbelievable.

Those pro-choicers that say that fetuses (feti?) aren't alive, they have some logic behind their argument, if it ain't live, who cares. But to say that a fetus has rights but it's right to life is outweighed by a woman's right to convenience is just beyond any comprehension. What other types of people's right to life is outweighed by convenience?

geoffrey, let me help you believe and comprehend since you seem to be having a hard time doing either.

When two parties have rights but those rights are mutually exclusive, one set of rights has to take priority. I think you understand this, but what you seem not to accept is that pregnancy is a considerable mental, physical, emotional, and financial burden on the woman. It is much more than an inconvenience as you characterize it. If you are willing to let the state coerce a woman into hosting a pregnancy against her will, where will coercion end? Should we forcibly take organs from healthy people and use them for those that need them?

Maybe you can answer in this scenerio. Person A is dying and needs an immediate blood transfusion to save his life, however Person A has a rare blood type. Person B is the only known person with a compatible blood type as Person A. Would you forcibly extract blood from Person B to provide a transfusion for Person A?

Absolutely I would forcibly extract the blood from B. No problem with enforcing the great utility there.

About organ donation, I'm ok with having mandatory donations from healthy (dead) donors if it's saving lives.

I understand your argument very well. I understand that pregnancy is a major pain in the ass. What you don't seem to understand is that no pain in the ass is worth a life. If the fetus and woman have rights, the fetus's right to life outweighs any other right. Just as your right to life prevents others from killing you to gain more convenience. I stand by my argument... anyone that supports abortion must support the argument that a fetus has absolutely no rights, it is merely part of the woman.

If the fetus has it's own rights, it shows is a distinct being and the woman has no right to enforce death upon someone/something else. There can be no 'conflict of interests'... the fetus must have absolutely ZERO interests in order for abortion to be morally justified.

[Renegade]

Absolutely I would forcibly extract the blood from B. No problem with enforcing the great utility there.

About organ donation, I'm ok with having mandatory donations from healthy (dead) donors if it's saving lives.

I assume you are also ok with forcibly removing a kidney from a healthy live donor to save a life? Where exactly do you draw the line on your coercion? Will you let the state confiscate wealth from you if it saves lives?

If the fetus and woman have rights, the fetus's right to life outweighs any other right. Just as your right to life prevents others from killing you to gain more convenience.

The position you have, that the fetus's rights trumps all other rights, is a personal one. Our society has made other choices. In the examples I gave above, society has chosen the individual's right to self-determination even if the impact is death to another individual. Our society doesn't forcibly extract blood or organs to save lives.

It is quite different than someone killing me if my death is convenience for someone else. Convenience is not anyone's right. Control of one's own body is.

Let me ask annother hypothetical. Let's say the technology existed to extract a fetus and "freeze" it so it didn't die but could continue regrowing once implanted in a womb. Would you then let a woman extract the fetus from her womb?

[Renegade]

geoffrey, it occured to me that we use the term "right to life" but have not defined what we mean by it.

Here's what I mean by "right to life": The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state.

Can you state how you would define "right to life"?

[Drea]

geoffrey, it occured to me that we use the term "right to life" but have not defined what we mean by it.

Here's what I mean by "right to life": The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state.

Can you state how you would define "right to life"?

That is correct -- A woman has the right to sustain herself without interference from any other individual or the state.

[geoffrey]

I assume you are also ok with forcibly removing a kidney from a healthy live donor to save a life? Where exactly do you draw the line on your coercion? Will you let the state confiscate wealth from you if it saves lives?

Nope, that significantly lowers one's life expectancy.

The position you have, that the fetus's rights trumps all other rights, is a personal one. Our society has made other choices. In the examples I gave above, society has chosen the individual's right to self-determination even if the impact is death to another individual. Our society doesn't forcibly extract blood or organs to save lives.

It is quite different than someone killing me if my death is convenience for someone else. Convenience is not anyone's right. Control of one's own body is.

Let me ask annother hypothetical. Let's say the technology existed to extract a fetus and "freeze" it so it didn't die but could continue regrowing once implanted in a womb. Would you then let a woman extract the fetus from her womb?

No, it's not a personal position I've taken. It's a logical one. The fetus cannot have rights if your ok with it's disposal. Unless of course, your ok with disposing of many living humans for their unsatisfactory burden?

I would certainly let a woman extract the fetus in that situation, the fetus wouldn't be killed and the woman is happy. All is good, why not?

geoffrey, it occured to me that we use the term "right to life" but have not defined what we mean by it.

Here's what I mean by "right to life": The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state.

Can you state how you would define "right to life"?

A right to not have death imposed on you by another person.

[Renegade]

Nope, that significantly lowers one's life expectancy.

So, you don't think that pregnancy imposes a risk to the health of the woman? What exactly is your criteria for drawing the line between when the risk is significant and one isnt?

No, it's not a personal position I've taken. It's a logical one. The fetus cannot have rights if your ok with it's disposal. Unless of course, your ok with disposing of many living humans for their unsatisfactory burden?

Are you suggesting that their can be no confict of rights? I believe the fetus does have a "right to life" as I have defined it. That means that the fetus is free to live without interference. It also cannot intefere with a woman's body so as not to violate her rights. It is an unfortunate fact of nature that the fetus cannot infact sustain itself without intefering with the woman's rights, as as such will perish.

I would certainly let a woman extract the fetus in that situation, the fetus wouldn't be killed and the woman is happy. All is good, why not?

So what exactly would you do when with time, you accumulate all these millions of frozen zygotes which would ordinarilly be destroyed? Would you forcibly implant them in other women in order to preserve the zygotes's "right to life"?

A right to not have death imposed on you by another person.

If you are hungry and I don't supply you with food, is that "having death imposed on you"? Or is it your own responsibility to provide your food? What exactly do you mean by having "death imposed"?

BTW, you didnt answer if you are ok for the state to confiscate funds from an indivdiual if it use the funds to will save lives.

[Renegade]

That is correct -- A woman has the right to sustain herself without interference from any other individual or the state.

Yes, and a zygote has no capability to sustain itself so its death by abortion doesn't violate its right to life.

[Charles Anthony]

Here's what I mean by "right to life": The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state.

I like that definition.

I will be a little nit-picky by suggesting that it be re-phrased: "The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state and without interfering with any other individual's rights."

[non legitimus carborundum]

In fact, contrary to what many Christians believe, the Bible does NOT consider abortion murder.

The only reference to a 'woman losing her fruit' specifically points out a fine or punishment that is much less than killing a person.

Don't get mad at me, I am old indeed but not old enough to have written the original book/s.

• In Ex. 21:22-25, God tells us what to do if a man who is brawling knocks against a pregnant woman. If the woman dies, the principle of "life for life" is invoked and the man responsible for her death must be killed.

If she lives but has a miscarriage, then the death of the fetus is to be compensated for by the payment of a fine, as demanded by the woman’s husband.

Thus the bible is not equating abortion with murder.

So all the Bible thumpers can leave by the side doors.

[August1991]

Thus the bible is not equating abortion with murder.

So all the Bible thumpers can leave by the side doors.

What about people who don't rely on the Bible for their moral views? And what makes you the definitive interpreter of the Bible?

Here's what I mean by "right to life": The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state.

I like that definition.

I will be a little nit-picky by suggesting that it be re-phrased: "The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state and without interfering with any other individual's rights."

Huh?

Left alone when I was about 4 years old, I probably would have died. Do you mean that infanticide should be legal?

----

An American pilot just killed a Canadian soldier. Is the pilot guilty of murder? Well, he didn't "intentionally" kill the soldier on the ground. Huh? He was a pilot in a plane with guns - of course he intended to kill. But not a Canadian soldier.

So if he aims to kill an Afghan, is that not murder? If the pilot learns later that the Afghan was a civilian, does that matter? Does it change the morality?

Now, then let's say the pilot killed a Taliban insurgent/guerilla/freedom fighter/terrorist. Is that not murder?

These debates and distinctions are endless and remind me of debates about the sex of angels. Morality and ethics surely deserve a better basis.