New America,The LEFT Glory to Abortion and Suicide!

[KoolBak]

Pssst. Ask Bugs Bunny too. We need answers from ALL the fictional characters!

[mookiemcgee]

Cows... I mean, what about wars, death penalty or anything else that right wing christians are happy to look the other way on when it comes to 'thou shalt not kill'.

[jimboston]

Cows... I mean, what about wars, death penalty or anything else that right wing christians are happy to look the other way on when it comes to 'thou shalt not kill'.

Right… I mean the all the Crusaders were forgiven in advance and completely absolved for future murders they committed in their violence against Muslin peoples.

Shit… even William the Conqueror and his Knights were pre-absolved of their murders required to take control of England from Heathen Christians who didn;t give the Pope and his lackeys enough money.

I always found it interesting how God declared (pretty clearly) that Murder was a sin… and let’s assume we all agree he meant against humans… but then somehow Popes have the ability to pre-forgive murder whenever it suited their financial interests.

How come not-yet-born humans have more protection than non-favored living humans?

[jusplay4fun]

It's been a fun thread of older men talking about abortion though... maybe you guys can start another thread about period cycles next?

That’s pretty much my position….

The position being that neither I (nor any other man) should have a say here.

Many pro-abortion critics lament the decision of 6 SCOTUS Justices, but they have NO problem about the Roe v. Wade decision made in 1972, made by an ALL MALE Court in 1973.

So, men should NOT make decisions about abortion, RIGHT? Men have NO say? Men cannot have a say about abortion?

Read about The Roe v. Wade decision; then use your brain, jimmie-boi.

Ok…wow… a valid point… almost.

It’s gonna take a second to get my wind back before I can reply.

OK…

So in Roe the (male) judges made the decision that it’s up to the woman to do what she wants with her body.
So Roe was a decision where they were GIVING THE RIGHTS AND DECISION MAKING ABILTY TO THE WOMAN.

The more recent case is a situation where the court is TAKING THE RIGHT TO DECIDE AWAY FROM THE WOMAN… and giving that right to State Legislative bodies.

Do you understand the difference?

In once case the court is affirming a woman’s rights and in another it is stripping them.

Men shouldn’t have a say… and by not having a say… that would enable the woman to have her own say about her own body.

I also don’t think women should have a say on other women’s bodies.

You do not understand the concept of a RIGHT. I think you confused that with left vs right wing politics. That is all you pee-wee brain can grasp. You are the IDIOT and, based on the vitriolic and denigrating nature of nearly ALL your posts, it is DOUBTFUL THAT YOU ARE A FUCKING Idiot. Get laid and calm down, DUMM ASSS jimmie-boi.

There is NO right to an abortion, unlike what jimmie-boi contends. The Rights that j-boi wants to GIVE are enumerated in the Bill of RIghts, essentially the first 9 amendments to the US Constitution. Until then, the concept of RIGHTS was vague and not documented well for the average person. The entire History of western thought is developed from some ideas of the Greeks and Hebrews to the Magna Carta to the writings of thinkers like Locke and the American Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson and Madison. The "right" to an abortion is interpreted as IMPLIED in the 14 Amendment, and the Right to Privacy. There is no mention of Privacy nor Abortion in the 14 Amendment, so your interpretation of such a "right" is WRONG, jimmie-boi. That is what the SCOTUS said in their recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

What did the amendment do for the right to privacy?
The 14th amendment states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Supreme Court ultimately used that to endorse other rights and prevent states from implementing laws that restrict those not directly stated in the Constitution, including the right to privacy.

What does the 14th amendment have to do with Roe v. Wade?
Writing for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun said that the court held a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected under the 14th Amendment. However, while the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman's right to choose, it also acknowledged the state's interest in protecting the "potential of human life."

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-is-the-14th-amendment-and-how-is-it-connected-to-abortion-rights-roe-v-wade/2823999/

The "right" to an abortion is never even mentioned in the US Constitution, so you totally misunderstand the concept of RIGHTS. QED.

Furthermore:
The ability to provide a "safe" abortion has only come about in the past 100 years or less of medical advances. Before then, MOST women died during CHILDBIRTH, a terribly complex and dangerous event. So the "right" to an abortion could only be discussed in light of recent medical advances; the same is true for birth control via use of contraceptives (i.e., the "Pill").

Read and learn something, jimmie-boi; stop showing us ALL how ignorant you are of History and the concept of RIGHTS. What a maroon...! I am done trying to teach such a poor student; jimmie-boi, the jimcel, is not worth any more of time to try to enlighten.

[mookiemcgee]

There is NO right to an abortion

Well actually there was for 50 years, full enshrined by the constitution and the supreme court. That is what Roe was about. But yeah for the last week or so, there is NO LONGER a right to an abortion.

[jimboston]

There is NO right to an abortion, unlike what jimmie-boi contends. The Rights that j-boi wants to GIVE are enumerated in the Bill of RIghts, essentially the first 9 amendments to the US Constitution. Until then, the concept of RIGHTS was vague and not documented well for the average person. The entire History of western thought is developed from some ideas of the Greeks and Hebrews to the Magna Carta to the writings of thinkers like Locke and the American Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson and Madison. The "right" to an abortion is interpreted as IMPLIED in the 14 Amendment, and the Right to Privacy. There is no mention of Privacy nor Abortion in the 14 Amendment, so your interpretation of such a "right" is WRONG, jimmie-boi. That is what the SCOTUS said in their recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

In the first case a group of men affirmed a specific Right. (This is R-vs-W.)

In the latter case a group of mostly men, took away a specific Right. (This is the more recent Mississippi case.)

Now… you can say it’s not a “Right” because it’s not specified in the Constitution… and I could point to many examples of things we all consider “Rights” that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution… and we could go around and around and around.

… and I would prove you’re an idiot and you’d be unable to recognize, and we’d accomplish nothing.

So let’s cut to the chase.

Two facts…

1) This is the first time in the history of SJC decisions in which a “Right” previously granted has been stripped away. All other Court decisions expanded Rights… this decision restricts them.

2) This decision now puts the ball in 50 separate State Legislative Bodies, which are DOMINATED by men…. yet the restrictions would only apply to or effect women.

[Dukasaur]

Pssst. Ask Bugs Bunny too. We need answers from ALL the fictional characters!

[Dukasaur]

You can believe that 1 and 2 both exist and accept that there is a difficult balancing act between them. Teenagers just forming a worldview see things as black or white. Part of growing up is realizing that almost everything is a shade of grey and there are points to be made on both sides.

Heartbeats are meaningless. An earthworm has a heartbeat. What does have meaning, however, is brain activity sufficiently complex for cognitive thought to be taking place. That's the point where I start worrying about the feelings of the fetus.

The technology is sufficiently advanced that we can measure fetal brain activity. It may not be super-simple, but it is possible to demarcate a line where we think the brain activity is sufficiently complex that we are causing suffering if we kill the fetus. Killing a lump of cells that has a heartbeat but no brain activity certainly isn't murder. We don't call it murder when we turn off the life support of an adult human who has a heartbeat but no brain activity. Conversely, once brain activity of sufficient complexity is taking place, the argument can certainly be made that there's a being there and killing it is murder.

Duk, you will never get a consensus agreement on some brain scan measurement.

"Never" is a very long time. I agree it won't happen overnight, but I think in the long run this kind of sensible compromise can prevail.

Without being explicitly stated that way, it's already the basic thinking that underlies most European countries laws on abortion ... where most countries allow unrestricted abortion of 10 week embryos (which anyone except a religious nutcase will agree are just unfeeling aggregations of cells) and put stricter and stricter restrictions on abortion in later terms.

The "all-or-nothing" type hysterics that surround this issue in North America are not the way its discussed in Europe.

Assume you set a point where brain-waves = X = personhood….

First… it’s highly likely that different Fetus’s will hit ‘brain-wave X” at different times. Maybe some hit this measurement at 20 weeks and other don’t hit it till 28 weeks…. so do you set the law to a specific fetal age? or do you have to measure fetal brain-waves for every abortion? It’s not practical.

How about when new technology comes along… do you update the law every three years?

… and even more basically…. who decides what level of brain-wave should be the ‘X’ number? You might have some scientists say it’s X… but other who would argue it should be 0.75X because really there’s evidence that is sufficient brain activity for pain; meanwhile others will argue it should be 1.5X because nerve-responses are not really the same as “pain’. Your ‘solution’ just opens more bogus areas for nuanced arguments that don’t solve the problem.

So your compromise position sounds good but you already lose a fit percentage of people who are “Pro Choice” because now instead of priests telling them “No” they have scientists telling them “No”. Forget that your compromise position won’t even start to win over religious folk who believe that the “soul enters the body at the moment of conception”. These people are no-compromise from the start… to them it is a religious/spiritual point… and there’s no room for compromise. Period.

… and we could have a whole separate discussion on “fetal personhood”. Once you decide a fetus is a person you open all kinds of doors to fetal rights…

I generally like the idea of compromise and believe there is nuance in most issues… but in this case, when you boil away all the bullshit, you basically have two positions. Any nuance at that point just sets arbitrary boundaries that ultimately weaken the two choices and will never lead to an absolute resolution.

When I was in high school, the symbiotic theory of eukaryotic development was considered speculative science fiction, and had I completed university and not disintegrated, I would probably have done my doctoral work on it. Today, the symbiotic theory of eukaryotic development is settled science. Nobody is even trying to challenge it any more.

The brain is the last frontier, but in the last decade we are finally making headway. Today, we can "read minds" in the laboratory. (In the sense that we can show you a picture of a trout, and measure the signals in your brain that correspond to "trout", and then we can show you a picture of a man eating dinner, and measure the signals in your brain that correspond to "man eating dinner", and by adding them together, we can predict exactly which of your neurons need to fire to create the idea of "man eating trout.")

The stars were the province of the priests, until scientists were able to accurately predict the motions of the stars, and kick the priests out of the heavens. The weather was the province of the witch doctors, until science was able to start (mostly) accurately modeling the weather, and kick the witch doctors out of the skies. Mumbo-jumbo only rules until science is able to make accurate predictions, and then nobody want the mumbo-jumbo any more. The structure of the mind has long resisted scientific inquiry, but at last the walls are falling down, and within my lifetime I expect to finally see a coherent scientific theory of the mind. Once consciousness, pain, thought, etc., have demonstrable empirical definitions, the ghost-whisperers will finally be sent packing.

[bigtoughralf]

How long will it be before US women start travelling abroad to get abortions in countries more respectful of their reproductive rights, like China?

[mookiemcgee]

How long will it be before US women start travelling abroad to get abortions in countries more respectful of their reproductive rights, like China?

Some of these crazy backwards states might turn into extra large prisons just to stop it... Mississippi legislature is debating using dogs who are trained to smell pregnancy at airports to prevent women from escaping.

[jimboston]

"Never" is a very long time. I agree it won't happen overnight, but I think in the long run this kind of sensible compromise can prevail.

Without being explicitly stated that way, it's already the basic thinking that underlies most European countries laws on abortion ... where most countries allow unrestricted abortion of 10 week embryos (which anyone except a religious nutcase will agree are just unfeeling aggregations of cells) and put stricter and stricter restrictions on abortion in later terms.

The "all-or-nothing" type hysterics that surround this issue in North America are not the way its discussed in Europe.

I guess you have a higher opinion of fellow-man than I do… I don;t think we will see a “sensible” compromise in our lifetime.

When I was in high school, the symbiotic theory of eukaryotic development was considered speculative science fiction, and had I completed university and not disintegrated, I would probably have done my doctoral work on it. Today, the symbiotic theory of eukaryotic development is settled science. Nobody is even trying to challenge it any more.

The brain is the last frontier, but in the last decade we are finally making headway. Today, we can "read minds" in the laboratory. (In the sense that we can show you a picture of a trout, and measure the signals in your brain that correspond to "trout", and then we can show you a picture of a man eating dinner, and measure the signals in your brain that correspond to "man eating dinner", and by adding them together, we can predict exactly which of your neurons need to fire to create the idea of "man eating trout.")

The stars were the province of the priests, until scientists were able to accurately predict the motions of the stars, and kick the priests out of the heavens. The weather was the province of the witch doctors, until science was able to start (mostly) accurately modeling the weather, and kick the witch doctors out of the skies. Mumbo-jumbo only rules until science is able to make accurate predictions, and then nobody want the mumbo-jumbo any more. The structure of the mind has long resisted scientific inquiry, but at last the walls are falling down, and within my lifetime I expect to finally see a coherent scientific theory of the mind. Once consciousness, pain, thought, etc., have demonstrable empirical definitions, the ghost-whisperers will finally be sent packing.

Weather predictions are pretty solid nowadays… much better 10-15years ago. Even basic “free” weather.com app is solid… and if you pay for premium service you get more pin-point accuracy.

I understand the general idea, and perhaps you are right that we are on the cusp of breakthroughs that make these questions easier to answer. I can;t speak to this scientific area with any level of expertise.

That said… even if we crack-the-code tomorrow… scientists still have to explain all this and convince “the public” and our leaders that they’re correct… and that will take a generation or more… if ever. I mean think about this. I’m pretty sure things like the age of the Earth and the general idea of evolution are widely accepted as fact by the scientific community… but in both these cases I think more and more people (especially on the close-minded end of the political spectrum) don’t believe this and this does not bode well for your confidence that we’ll get some sort of “sensible” compromise.

[jimboston]

How long will it be before US women start travelling abroad to get abortions in countries more respectful of their reproductive rights, like China?

Some of these crazy backwards states might turn into extra large prisons just to stop it... Mississippi legislature is debating using dogs who are trained to smell pregnancy at airports to prevent women from escaping.

Are you joking?

Mississippi is prob the most fucked-up State.

They are so dead-set against abortions… yet they provide zero support for mothers-in-need and have the highest rate of infant mortality in our country.

[jusplay4fun]

There is NO right to an abortion

Well actually there was for 50 years, full enshrined by the constitution and the supreme court. That is what Roe was about. But yeah for the last week or so, there is NO LONGER a right to an abortion.

What the SCOTUS said in the Ruling of Dobbs (overturning Roe v. Wade) is that there is no RIGHT to an abortion specified in the US Constitution. The Roe v. Wade decision is based on the "Right to Privacy" based on the 14th Amendment. Neither the words (and thus the Right to) "abortion" or "privacy" are in the Constitution.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO). The ruling upheld Mississippi’s ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy, overturned Roe v. Wade, and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion in the United States.

This means that we are back to where we were before the Roe decision in 1973, where the individual 50 states make the laws for such medical procedures. That is called for in the TENTH Amendment to the US Constitution.

Even Justice Ginsburg criticized the Roe decision:

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

[jusplay4fun]

worth reading:

https://www.umt.edu/montana-constitution/articles/article-ii/ii-3.php

on the developments and history of the concept of Inalienable Rights

[mookiemcgee]

There is NO right to an abortion

Well actually there was for 50 years, full enshrined by the constitution and the supreme court. That is what Roe was about. But yeah for the last week or so, there is NO LONGER a right to an abortion.

What the SCOTUS said in the Ruling of Dobbs (overturning Roe v. Wade) is that there is no RIGHT to an abortion specified in the US Constitution. The Roe v. Wade decision is based on the "Right to Privacy" based on the 14th Amendment. Neither the words (and thus the Right to) "abortion" or "privacy" are in the Constitution.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO). The ruling upheld Mississippi’s ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy, overturned Roe v. Wade, and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion in the United States.

Yup, that's what I wrote. During the Roe years, the supreme court held that abortion was a right guaranteed under the constitution. The word Abortion is not in the constitution, but thats why we have a supreme court to help decide what the limited amount of words in the constitution means in broader terms. The word 'gun' also doesn't appear in the constitution, yet the supreme court has held that the right to own guns is protected under the 2nd amendment. That is the main function of the supreme court... interpret a document written several hundred years ago

[saxitoxin]

Mississippi legislature is debating using dogs who are trained to smell pregnancy at airports to prevent women from escaping.

NICE! Go get 'em, pups!

Mississippi is prob the most fucked-up State.

A new poll from Harvard finds that 72% of Americans believe abortions should be banned after 15 weeks, the exact limit that Mississippi set that resulted in the Dobbs decision.

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-conten ... esults.pdf (Slide 41)

Given that, it seems Massachusetts and California are the fucked-up states and Mississippi and Alabama represent the normative mainstream. Reminds me of this classic SNL sketch -

[mookiemcgee]

If Mississippi represents the normative mainstream then America is truly fucked.
20% of the population doesn't have any health insurance
41% of the population is obese
Has held a net negative migration rate longer than any other state in the union
Was one of only 3 states to have negative population growth rate from 2010-2020, all states bordering MS had population increases during this period.
Median household income is $20,000 less than the national average
MS is massively reliant on Federal gov't money, it represents 27% of the states revenues.
Everyone there acts like Saxi or Confed
I could go on...

[saxitoxin]

20% of the population doesn't have any health insurance

mcgee admits Obamacare is a failure

41% of the population is obese

On par with national average - point proved.

https://www.tfah.org/report-details/sta ... sity-2020/

Has held a net negative migration rate longer than any other state in the union

California is trying to catch up

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... s-pandemic

I could go on...

me too

[jimboston]

A new poll from Harvard finds that 72% of Americans believe abortions should be banned after 15 weeks, the exact limit that Mississippi set that resulted in the Dobbs decision.

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-conten ... esults.pdf (Slide 41)

How many abortion clinics are there in the entire State of Mississippi?

One… at least prior to the recent court decision. It may be zero now.

They may have designed a law to sound “ok” to people who don’t want to think too deeply… but the simple fact is that abortions aren’t and never were readily available in Mississippi. Meanwhile they have the highest infant mortality rate in the country and some of the worst social support systems for pregnant women and new mothers. The legislature in Mississippi is happy to tell women they need to keep their unwanted child… but they aren;t happy to help in anyway. Their support and protection for children ends the moment the “child” leaves it’s mother’s womb.

This sounds pretty fucked up to me. How about you, MISSISSIPPI, prove you actually care about life before you make laws that pretend you care about life.

[saxitoxin]

Apparently a girl in Iowa had to go to Indiana to terminate the presidency!.

[2dimes]

41% of the population is obese

On par with national average - point proved.

https://www.tfah.org/report-details/sta ... sity-2020/

What's obese?

• legitamate weight problem, they need to plan ahead for getting out of a chair and adjust the way they walk to some form of a waddle
• Saxi talks about them behind their back at work because they gained 3-7 pounds, likely due to water retention or a second piece of cake after a long weekend
• weigh at least 550 pounds.. Other patrons wonder how they got to the Golden Corral
• over 100 pounds of extra weight but they still don't walk different than others and can board a bus in under a minute
• They are unable to leave the house until a wall is removed
• They should probably lose 40-80 pounds

[bigtoughralf]

Apparently a girl in Iowa had to go to Indiana to terminate the presidency!.

Apparently, according to one doctor who refused to provide any evidence supporting her claim then deleted all her social media accounts and took her phone off the hook once the story got picked up:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... t-10-year/

To be fair to the Biden administration they have also repeatedly accused China of genocide on equally flawed 'evidence' so they are at least being consistent in their gullibility.

[jusplay4fun]

Impassioned Biden signs order on abortion access

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-us-supreme-court-government-and-politics-0e6496122de46f1039cbb2b5145d6d60

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday condemned the “extreme” Supreme Court majority that ended a constitutional right to abortion and delivered an impassioned plea for Americans upset by the decision to “vote, vote, vote vote” in November. Under mounting pressure from fellow Democrats to be more forceful in response to the ruling, he signed an executive order to try to protect access to the procedure.

(...)

Biden is also directing his staff to line up volunteer lawyers to provide women and providers with pro bono legal assistance to help them navigate new state restrictions.

(...)

But Lawrence Gostin, who runs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health at Georgetown Law, described Biden’s plans as “underwhelming.”

“There’s nothing that I saw that would affect the lives of ordinary poor women living in red states,” he said.

Gostin encouraged Biden to take a more forceful approach toward ensuring access to medication abortion across the country and said Medicaid should consider covering transportation to other states for the purposes of getting abortions.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, recently told the AP that the agency had been looking at whether Medicaid could cover travel for abortions, but acknowledged that “Medicaid’s coverage of abortion is extremely limited.”

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser condemned Biden’s order, saying, “President Biden has once again caved to the extreme abortion lobby, determined to put the full weight of the federal government behind promoting abortion.”

WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden said the Supreme Court decision overturning the right to an abortion was an exercise in "raw political power" and signed an executive order on Friday to ease access to services to terminate pregnancies.

Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure from his own party to take action

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-sign-executive-order-help-safeguard-access-abortion-contraception-2022-07-08/

(...)

The Supreme Court's ruling restored states' ability to ban abortion. As a result, women with unwanted pregnancies face the choice of traveling to another state where the procedure remains legal and available, buying abortion pills online, or having a potentially dangerous illegal abortion.

Oh, and there are the choices NOT to engage in sex, (at least THAT type of sexual activity) or use contraceptives (and, of course, this does not include rape, that we discussed before, of often underage girls).

I thought those in favor of abortion (often abortion on demand) wants to call themselves Pro-Choice. I see several choices here.

[jusplay4fun]

God on abortion

show

show

show

For a minute I thought you were quoting the bible... but this is just the voice in your head, no words from the bible since abortion isn't actually prohibited there at all... though incest is.

“Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20:13

Ok… and so killing a cow to eat is a sin then.

I mean the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill”, right?

So where does it specify this prohibition is only on humans and not on all of God’s Creations?

I mean any killing is a sin by this standard. Killing a cow. Cutting down a tree. Killing in self-defense. Even killing an abortion doctor in the middle of him/her performing an abortion would be a sin by this standard.

Can you please go ask God to be a little more specific?

COWS:

in Leviticus 11, the Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron and sets out which animals can be eaten and which are to be avoided. It makes an interesting list. Any animal that has cloven hooves and chews the cud can be eaten. Aquatic animals can be eaten so long as they have fins and scales. Winged insects are permissible so long as they have joints in their legs above their feet. All other animals falling outside of these definitions were seen as ‘unclean’. Various types of birds were not to be eaten and eating bats was expressly prohibited.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011&version=ESV

murder vs. Killing:

Thou shalt not kill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#:~:text=Matthew%20Henry%20considered%20the%20commandment,the%20body%20of%20any%20other

Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew: לֹא תִּרְצָח ‎; lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah.[1]

The imperative not to kill is in the context of unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[2]

Hebrew Bible
Retzach
The Hebrew verb רצח‎ (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".[citation needed]

According to the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach. Even accidental killing, or "thou shalt not kill," is expressly prohibited in Numbers 35:33. If the killing is accidental, the accused must flee to one of the cities of refuge—and remain in that city until the high priest dies, or the "revenger of blood" can kill the accused with no legal repercussions. The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.

Capital punishment
Main article: Catholic Church and capital punishment
Legitimate defense is depicted as justifiable, even if the defender deals his aggressor a lethal blow. However, a person should not use more force than necessary to repel an attack. The legitimate defense of persons and societies should not be considered as an exception to the prohibition of murdering the innocent: the preservation of innocent life is seen as the intended outcome. Injury or death to the aggressor is not the intended outcome, it is the unfortunate consequence of using necessary force to repel an imminent threat.[68]

(...)

Calvinism
In The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin viewed the purport of this commandment as the safety of all being entrusted to each person. All violence and injustice, and every kind of harm from which our neighbor's body suffers is thereby prohibited.

(...)

under Calvinism, you can read

Matthew Henry considered the commandment against killing to apply to both one's own life as well as the life of one's neighbor and considered it to apply not only to causing of death but also to prohibit any thing unjustly hurtful to or injurious to the health, ease, and life of one's own body or the body of any other person.[86] He also ties the commandment against bloodshed back to the command to Noah, and he sees it as a command applying to the individual against his neighbor, but not against killing in lawful war, for one's own necessary defense, or against the government instituting due punishments for criminal offenses. He portrays lying in wait for the blood of the innocent as a grave offense against human dignity as one of the fundamental laws of nature.