Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print Abortion | |
|
oligopolist
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 30, 2007 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 94
|
 #31
Cookie Parker wrote: No, you are stressing an emotional/religious intolerance to individuality and women's rights to choose their lives based upon your beliefs. A woman....one woman...will be affected by her decision....you will not. That would have to do with my intention and you are simply wrong. That’s a very small hole you are viewing us through from in there. You are also completely wrong in thinking it only affects the woman. That’s not only selfish it’s a sign of an inability to think beyond the obvious. If you are still running around in the circle of this being emotional to anyone but you or the woman involved, you are sadly mistaken. It's a rational decision to most people. I am not saying abortion is wrong or that someone is bad for having one, simply that they have committed murder/homicide. You are however selfish for believing you are the only one affected. How emotional is this to you for you to not get the point? You have demonstrated no ability to look at this situation objectively. All you've done is erroneously assume I am making my decisions for some religious or emotional purpose, so allow me to assume that yours comes from a lack of faith and inability to cope with emotional decisions yourself. Edited by oligopolist on Dec 19, 2007 - 8:41 PM |
|
MagicalLobster
Aspirant  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 16, 2007 Location: Santa Clarita, California Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 24 |
#32
I was sort of trying to get my main point out about abortion before this post. It wasn't really what or how I felt about the subject but more about how I felt it should be dealt with. I'll try and go into how I feel about abortion itself. Imagine a junior in highschool who has a 4.3 GPA, top of her class, so on and so forth. Never done an immoral thing in her life worth large amounts of regret and is always kind to her family, always doing the right thing, always trying to make everybody happy. In the event this girl should get raped and impregnated, what does she do? Her life is ruined. If she keeps the baby, she'll have to care for it, won't have time for college, and the baby will have a horrible life because it won't be raised properly and will have been a mistake and so on. Lets say she gets an abortion not because she is immoral or because she is irresponsible, but because she feels it is the right thing to do. She feels she can raise a child better when she is older and has decided the matter for herself and consented to sex. And because that baby won't have a good life, she won't be able to take care of it, it will ruin her grades because she won't be in school when she gives birth, etc. Lets say all possible odds are looked at and the only way out is an abortion. Maybe she feels it's her responsibility because although she is killing an innocent life, she's going to make up for it later with all the great things she can accomplish. It wasn't her fault she got pregant, and certainly the only person to blame for the mistaken spoiled life is whomever raped her. In her case, I don't think it would necessarily be an immoral or looked down-upon choice, but I think it would be the right thing to do and it's not something I would shun her for. In the act that she truly felt remorse for the life that was lost, I would understand. However...there's the matter of the woman who should go out and have sex with her boyfriend every night with no protection. She's 30 years old, lets say. She gets pregnant, is perfectly capable of carrying the baby and putting it into some sort of adoption or possibly even keeping it for herself to raise like morality says she should. However, she gets an abortion and doesn't even look twice on the matter before moving on with her life. She thinks that the mistake she made should be the child's loss. This is because she obviously thinks it's too much for her to live up to what she's ultimately responsible for. Lets say she moves on from it and feels no sadness whatsoever. This, my fellow peers, is a travesty. The problem with abortion that I see is that doctors hand it away like an info-mmercial. Anyone can get an abortion...think about that. If you ask me, abortion should only even be considered on the grounds that someone has a dignified reason. It's given to all the wrong people: All the people who refuse to use protection and all the people who really don't care at all about it in the first place. People have sex because they know that in the worst case scenario they could get an abortion. If doctors were to screen whoever was getting the operation and refuse service to anyone who doesn't have a moral reason, people wouldn't even have sex as frequently because they would know that the offer wasn't in store for them. They would know now that in the worst case scenario, they would have to keep the baby for the long run. Overall, abortion is wrong. There's always a better solution, but in some cases I would consider it more wrong than in others. |
|
Landlady
curious skeptic  Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Feb 09, 2007 Location: USA Total Topics: 26 Total Posts: 714 |
#33
oligopolist wrote: I am not saying abortion is wrong or that someone is bad for having one, simply that they have committed murder/homicide. Are you implying that murder/homicide is not wrong? There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. Each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible. - Frankl. |
|
oligopolist
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 30, 2007 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 94
|
#34
I clearly stated that murder/homicide isn’t inherently wrong. It requires context and a moral subjectivity for that. Violence in all forms is simply a tool. How it is applied within the confines of a society or environment determines its moral bearing. |
|
myrmecophaga
Student  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 19, 2007 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 51 |
#35
If there is a moral objection to abortion that somebody has from a religious background, then there is no need to criminalise the act, since it is (invariably, if not necessarily) punished in some way after the persons earthly life has ended. Thus we can argue on the basis of practicalities of the matter, for society on earth. Here it is clearly the case that abortion is beneficial to society as a whole: Firstly we must consider the future of the unborn child were it not aborted. Whilst it is true that the child were it to grow up would say that it would rather life than no life, its life as an unwanted child will be worse than average in standard, and thus we should consider it to be substandard, and predictably so. The argument of removing the potential of the child to live is invalid, since the capability of man to propagate life exceeds the number of children that couples in modern society tend to have. Thus, it being given that the abortion will not affect the number of children born (a woman with a child being unlikely to found as large a family as one without), it is unwise for an unwanted child to be born. Secondly is the case for the woman, and indeed man, concerned. Having an unwanted child to look after will necessarily harm the way they can progress in life and contribute through their life. They will understand the child to be a problem, and there is an increased likelihood that this child will be neglected. As has already been said, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion. In any case, the choice can always be made not to abort if the couple consider the abortion to be causing more emotional strain than the harm done for having the child. Thirdly is the impact on society of having unwanted children is clear. They are more likely to have social difficulty, to not succeed in education and to be drawn into crime. Youth offences in America dropped dramatically in the period from 13-19 years after the legalisation of abortion because of this, so for society it is clearly a benefit. Thus the arguments for a secular world are compelling to a greater degree than their counters, and for the religious, the greatest punishment for all sins lies not on earth but beyond it, and so that we do not criminalise it here is of no importance. "It would be wrong to call it Patriotism, because the word is so given to misunderstanding. It is better expressed as a concern for your country that runs so deep, you find it physically impossible to switch off and cultivate the garden" -- Lord Deedes. "Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?"- Henry Ward Beecher |
|
Landlady
curious skeptic Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Feb 09, 2007 Location: USA Total Topics: 26 Total Posts: 714 |
#36
oligopolist wrote: I clearly stated that murder/homicide isn’t inherently wrong. It requires context and a moral subjectivity for that. Violence in all forms is simply a tool. How it is applied within the confines of a society or environment determines its moral bearing. The word murder, itself, exists as a legal or moral concept. In a legal sense, an act of taking someone’s life would either be legal or illegal, while in a moral sense, it would be either moral or immoral, or right/wrong. In a legal sense, murder is illegal and in a moral sense murder is wrong. So, to say that murder is inherently not wrong (or not illegal) is almost like saying "illegal is not inherently illegal” or that “immoral is not inherently immoral.” oligopolist wrote: So if biologically life starts at conception and by definition, murder is the willful act of taking another life, you can see where there is no need to add emotion to create a few interpretations of the word. Terminating another life is just that, terminating another life (like you said, it is not inherently wrong). When you put a “wrong” sticker on this act, it becomes “murder.” Murder, by definition, is a wrong (or illegal) act of taking another life. When you say: oligopolist wrote: to me is like saying:I am not saying abortion is wrong or that someone is bad for having one, simply that they have committed murder/homicide “Saying negative things about God is not inherently wrong but it is still a blasphemy (which is wrong).” There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. Each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible. - Frankl. |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#37
Exactly. If you're going to use the word "murder" to be neutrally synonymous with willful homicide, then you're accusing a LOT of police officers and US Army veterans of murder. Every American who stormed Omaha beach and killed a German defender is a murderer. A police sniper who kills a terrorist holding hostages on a bus is a murderer. A helpless little old lady who shoots a person assaulting her in her house is a murderer. Are you willing to use the word murder like that?? I'm pretty sure that in legal terms murder means legally unjustifiable, intentional homicide. It has to be legally unjustifiable, because everyone can give a reason if they want. And that's why you are not under law considered a murderer if you kill in clear-cut self defense. And murder as a law is derived directly from murder as a moral concept. We have words other than murder to describe other situations in which someone dies. Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
|
oligopolist
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 30, 2007 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 94
|
#38
Landlady wrote: The word murder, itself, exists as a legal or moral concept. In a legal sense, an act of taking someone’s life would either be legal or illegal, while in a moral sense, it would be either moral or immoral, or right/wrong. Unfortunately public education tends to fail. What word are you offering to use in place of ‘murder’? What other word means ‘to slay another human being’? I can list a few: kill, slaughter, slay, exterminate. I think those bring a much more dramatic tone though. Murder just means the intentional act of killing another human being. I don’t think that’s normally a problem for most of you, it’s considering a fetus’ to be a human being that seems to be the problem. Landlady wrote: In a legal sense, murder is illegal and in a moral sense murder is wrong. So, to say that murder is inherently not wrong (or not illegal) is almost like saying "illegal is not inherently illegal” or that “immoral is not inherently immoral.” I am sorry YOU have an emotional problem with the word and YOU assign moral definition to it but I don’t like I said, public education offers no reason to respect the proper use of our language. Show me this isolated definition. Webster’s disagrees with you. Murder v. 1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice 2: to slaughter wantonly : slay 3 to put an end to The word is meant to distinguish when one human being is killing another human being or at the very least can acceptably be used as such. Please find another word that does the same. Again, I believe you are just attempting to dehumanize the child. Take the definition for the word abortion. abort Etymology: Latin abortus, past participle of aboriri to miscarry, from ab- + oriri to rise, be born intransitive verb 1: to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring 2: to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary 3: to terminate a procedure prematurely <the pilot decided to abort due to mechanical difficulties> The word abortion only represents the aborting of the pregnancy UNwillfully with no reference to the taking of a human life. It was adopted from the Latin word for ‘miscarry’, which reflects no act of intention. It’s interesting that it can also be viewed as a willful act in the sense of ‘aborting a mission’ but it still lacks any reference to the act of killing another human being. Landlady wrote: “Saying negative things about God is not inherently wrong but it is still a blasphemy (which is wrong).” Only if everyone HAS to agree with YOU and your personally selective ideals, which again, I do not. Swordfishtrombone wrote: Exactly. If you're going to use the word "murder" to be neutrally synonymous with willful homicide, then you're accusing a LOT of police officers and US Army veterans of murder. Every American who stormed Omaha beach and killed a German defender is a murderer. A police sniper who kills a terrorist holding hostages on a bus is a murderer. A helpless little old lady who shoots a person assaulting her in her house is a murderer. Are you willing to use the word murder like that?? I'm pretty sure that in legal terms murder means legally unjustifiable, intentional homicide. How about NOT being ‘pretty sure’ and being ‘accurate’ instead. See definitions above. Swordfishtrombone wrote: It has to be legally unjustifiable, because everyone can give a reason if they want. I agree, but before it is justified or not, it is simply the act of murder. Some may find it justified, some may not. Swordfishtrombone wrote: And that's why you are not under law considered a murderer if you kill in clear-cut self defense. If we are referring specifically to the legal or medical definition of the word ‘abortion’ then what’s the discussion? Just post the definition. I am saying that the word ‘murder’ doesn’t ONLY have to be used in moral or legal context and that abortion is an act of murder that society deems justified. I ask you as well, what word means the ‘willful act of one human being killing another’? All of your examples are technically murderers. We have MORALLY and LEGALLY decided to not label them as such when they are found justified, usually AFTER an investigation. Swordfishtrombone wrote: And murder as a law is derived directly from murder as a moral concept. We have words other than murder to describe other situations in which someone dies. How many posts until you offer one? How come no one has mentioned one before now? Not calling abortion murder is solely an attempt to view the baby as an object instead of a life. The core debate is ‘where does life begin’ but that’s another thread. |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#39
How about NOT being ‘pretty sure’ and being ‘accurate’ instead. See definitions above. Ok, report back to me when you've looked up murder as documented in a legal statute, not in a high school dictionary. Until then, you haven't done any better than I at defining murder in legal terms. In the meantime, in medicine we call abortions 'termination of pregnancy'. That is a purely neutral statement. There is no subtext about 'malice' or 'slaughter', as there is when you co-opt the word murder for it. If we are referring specifically to the legal or medical definition of the word ‘abortion’ then what’s the discussion? Just post the definition. I am saying that the word ‘murder’ doesn’t ONLY have to be used in moral or legal context and that abortion is an act of murder that society deems justified. I ask you as well, what word means the ‘willful act of one human being killing another’? All of your examples are technically murderers. We have MORALLY and LEGALLY decided to not label them as such when they are found justified, usually AFTER an investigation. This conversation is completely useless. When you use the phrase "abortion is murder", then you introduce all the ramifications that inhere within the term murder, including 'wanton slaying', 'premeditated malice', and 'human being' (which is not by definition the same as a living human embryo). You're playing sophomoric games with language, and using this fallacy to rationalize your appropriation of morally loaded words into a philosophical debate. Which makes it no longer a philosophical debate on your part, just a judgemental semantic rant. Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
|
Landlady
curious skeptic Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Feb 09, 2007 Location: USA Total Topics: 26 Total Posts: 714 |
#40
oligopolist wrote: Webster’s disagrees with you. abort Etymology: Latin abortus, past participle of aboriri to miscarry, from ab- + oriri to rise, be born intransitive verb 1: to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring 2: to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary 3: to terminate a procedure prematurely <the pilot decided to abort due to mechanical difficulties> The word abortion only represents the aborting of the pregnancy UNwillfully with no reference to the taking of a human life... You have provided us with an incomplete definition of the verb "abort" (I wonder why?). Here is a complete definition from Merriam-Webster: abort Function:verb Etymology:Latin abortus, past participle of aboriri to miscarry, from ab- + oriri to rise, be born intransitive verb 1: to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring 2: to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary 3: to terminate a procedure prematurely <the pilot decided to abort due to mechanical difficulties> transitive verb 1 a: to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely b: to terminate the pregnancy of before term 2 a: to terminate prematurely : cancel <abort a project> <abort a spaceflight> b: to stop in the early stages <abort a disease> Merriam-Webster. oligopolist wrote: It was adopted from the Latin word for ‘miscarry’, which reflects no act of intention. It’s interesting that it can also be viewed as a willful act in the sense of ‘aborting a mission’ but it still lacks any reference to the act of killing another human being. I believe it does: Online Etymology Dictionary wrote: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=abortiveAbortion first recorded 1547, originally of both deliberate and unintended miscarriages. Online Etymology Dictionary Swordfishtrombone wrote: You're playing sophomoric games with language, and using this fallacy to rationalize your appropriation of morally loaded words into a philosophical debate. Which makes it no longer a philosophical debate on your part, just a judgemental semantic rant. I agree. There is time to laugh and there is time not to laugh, and this is not one of them. - Insp. Clouseau. Each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible. - Frankl. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.