[P-Marlowe]

Leviticus 17 is not a valid argument for abortion not being murder. The whole chapter is dealing with sacrifices and the eating of blood, not related to murder or whether something is alive without blood being in it. So no, that is not a valid argument.

Then why does the bible refer to murder (hundreds of times) as the "shedding of innocent blood"?

If there is no "blood" then how can you call it the "shedding of innocent blood"?

Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.

[bcsco]

Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.

You see? This is an example of you arguing against yourself. If it is wrong, it cannot be a valid argument. So, it's either right, and valid, or wrong and invalid. Take your pick, but don't argue against yourself.

[metmom]

Then why does the bible refer to murder (hundreds of times) as the "shedding of innocent blood"?

Note the key word of INNOCENT. The death penalty, established by God, does not qualify as murder. Why? Because of the guilt of the person involved.

Murder is not simply the shedding of blood, but of *innocent* blood. Therefore, the argument that murder must only involve the shedding of blood is invalid.

Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.

If it's wrong, it can't be a valid argument.