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 | |
|
myrmecophaga
Student  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 19, 2007 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 51 |
 #41
A discussion of the semantics of the word 'abortion' are irrelevant to the moral debate with regards to the process. Just because the etymology might suggest the action being involuntary doesn't mean that its modern usage does. I have yet to find a compelling moral argument against abortion that is not laced with religious undertones. "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 |
|
Cookie Parker
Born 'n Raised in Iowa  Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 25, 2006 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 10 |
#42
oligopolist wrote: 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. Wow...what a nerve....and you are wrong..on so many levels, but let's just discuss abortion this time. As there is no one who will be with the woman on this decision, it is hers and hers alone to make. Not sure why you throw in the straw man case for being an emotional decision,etc. It's her decision to make as it affects her life. Plain and simple. Just as a decision to have or not have children, and how many, is a personal choice, so, too, is the decision to have or not have a fetus go to full growth. There is no human being involved in the decision beyond that of the caretaker of the child. Also, because women in this society are not slaves, they are not beholding to bear children for those couples who want a child but cannot have one I suggest you understand that this is not a morality issue.....nor is it one of murder....this is a decision of conscience for ONE human being...the woman...and it's no one else's business at all. John W. Gardner: The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. |
|
oligopolist
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 30, 2007 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 94
|
#43
swordfishtrombone wrote: 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. A legal dictionary will only give you legal definitions which are based on moral decisions. Webster’s or any other language dictionary, (high school, seriously?), will define words universally and list ALL of their definitions. I am not trying to define ‘murder’ in legal terms, I don’t care. I have proven in it’s definition that it CAN be used to describe the killing of another human being and that an abortion is technically an act of murder. I have at least shown that it isn’t ONLY morally loaded as I have no moral position on it myself, get it? I am not the only one but I’ll be damned if the logical side doesn’t almost always get overrun by people on the sides yelling about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. swordfishtrombone wrote: 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. What word is used to medically describe capital punishment? So again, what word reflects one who kills their unborn child? An abortionist? A homicider? A killer? A murderer? Offer something because by DEFINITION it’s murder or killing unless you view the fetus as ‘not a life’. So anyone who views a fetus as life and therefore the killing of one as murder, is ignorant and emotional according to most of this thread. All that view accomplishes is a means to invalidate people who disagree. I am saying that to have a true discussion about abortion in any way, you have to be able to accept the opposing view views it as killing a life or murder. That won’t change no matter how much you try to isolate the definition of the word ‘murder’. Your only case is to prove that life isn’t really ‘life’ or valuable as a fetus. Or as I believe, you have to convince people who believe that it is taking a life and therefore murder, that it is a justifiable act like Capital punishment or euthanasia. That may be hard to pull off if you denounce capital punishment out of the other side of your mouth but telling people they can’t call it murder is telling them that only your opinion of when life starts and is valuable counts. That is not logical but irrational and not in the least in the guise of acquiring new knowledge or understanding much less resolving any debate. swordfishtrombone wrote: This conversation is completely useless. Something tells me that will be a trend for you, finding different views useless. J swordfishtrombone wrote: 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). No, you’re invalidating the opposing opinion by calling it immature, nice argument. 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. Like I said, I’m not the one putting MORAL conditions on what words ‘can’ and ‘can’t’ be used to ignore an entire opposing view point. Someone of the belief that a fetus at 1 month of progress holds the same value as one at 6 months of progress is not wrong for viewing abortion as murder, it fits the definition they live by and no progress will be made in the discussion of whether it can or should remain legal unless both sides can hear the other. To not take responsibility for the act of killing the fetus in any way is irresponsible and only gives more argument to the people trying to make it illegal. If you can at least own up for the act, it makes the argument a lot more difficult. landlady wrote: You have provided us with an incomplete definition of the verb "abort" (I wonder why?). Here is a complete definition from Merriam-Webster: Because the noun was already listed and the verb contained all definitions. I am talking about it as a verb. Abortion is murder can be read a few ways, but an Abortion IS murder is transitive. ‘To murder an unborn child.’, not, ‘That abortion sure was murder.’ landlady wrote: I believe it does: Your belief is irrelevant, it isn’t defined as such. And there in lies the point. Is this a moral debate of whether abortion is right or wrong or about beliefs? myremecophaga wrote: A discussion of the semantics of the word 'abortion' are irrelevant to the moral debate with regards to the process. Just because the etymology might suggest the action being involuntary doesn't mean that its modern usage does. I have yet to find a compelling moral argument against abortion that is not laced with religious undertones. No one is having a moral debate, isn’t that the point? Who is arguing ‘against abortion’ (great phrasing!) So then people who base moral decisions on religion are inherently wrong? Isn’t that the purpose of religion, to define morals and the purpose of law to uphold them? I myself am not religious, I just like to make progress in a discussion with people that are and it won’t go anywhere if I don’t give equal understanding to their perspective. I find it gets a lot further to relate and admit that it is murder and that a fetus is life but it’s a reasonable and justifiable act of murder and should be legal. The only people I seem to encounter that take issue are people who choose to rename and redefine things at whim and convenience instead of taking responsibility. “It’s not killing a child, it’s aborting a pregnancy”, “It’s not suicide, it’s euthanasia”, ”it’s not murder it’s capital punishment”. If for no other reason, the sole act of taking responsibility for abortion being murder deflates the majority of the opposing view and the fears of “no one taking responsibility”. It’s a logical approach to resolving the argument but obviously that’s not the point, fragile ego and guilt normally are. cookie parker wrote: Wow...what a nerve....and you are wrong..on so many levels, but let's just discuss abortion this time. As there is no one who will be with the woman on this decision, it is hers and hers alone to make. Not sure why you throw in the straw man case for being an emotional decision,etc. It's her decision to make as it affects her life. Plain and simple. Just as a decision to have or not have children, and how many, is a personal choice, so, too, is the decision to have or not have a fetus go to full growth. There is no human being involved in the decision beyond that of the caretaker of the child. Also, because women in this society are not slaves, they are not beholding to bear children for those couples who want a child but cannot have one I suggest you understand that this is not a morality issue.....nor is it one of murder....this is a decision of conscience for ONE human being...the woman...and it's no one else's business at all. You have repeated that concept over and over. I get it, you were alone, blah blah, but it doesn’t hold any validity to this discussion. It isn’s a fact that only a woman is effected by a pregnancy or an abortion. You haven’t responded logically to anything I proposed, such as how an abortion CAN affect the father and the father CAN be part of the process same as the families who’s genetic and economic structure can be altered. I have given a few rebuttals which you seem incapable of responding to so just enjoy that view of life there, what with all that obvious warmth and companionship and whatnot. Still no offer of a word that defines ‘the act of killing a fetus’ better than murder and no one has proven anything about the word ‘murder’ only implying legal or moral standards. Take into account what the point in debating/arguing/discussing a topic really is for to you. If the point is to understand others or try to persuade them in any way, I suggest the approach I mentioned above. If however you prefer justifying your own emotions and judgments about the subject, keep up the hard work! |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#44
oligopolist wrote: A legal dictionary will only give you legal definitions which are based on moral decisions. You're having difficulty reading, and I don't know why I persist in this. You're also having difficulty understanding the differences between law, ethics, morals, definitions, and connotations. This makes it very hard to have a coherent conversation with you. So I'll leave it at this: The legal definition of murder is not something you'll find in a law dictionary, let alone Webster's. It's something you find in law statutes. I have proven in it’s definition that it CAN be used to describe the killing of another human being and that an abortion is technically an act of murder. No it's not. And furthermore, you STILL don't get it that "human being" is not synonymous with a fetus. So let me put you out on a limb here. I want you to tell me with a simple YES or NO if a fertilized human egg is ALWAYS a human being. And then we'll see how coherent your idea of human being is. And if you think I'm trying to trap you here, you're right -- and I will. I have at least shown that it isn’t ONLY morally loaded as I have no moral position on it myself, get it? If you don't think that the term "murder" is morally loaded, then you haven't spent enough time talking to other humans. Honestly, go to a VA hospital and ask the patients there what it was like to murder all those Japanese soldiers on Okinawa. Use that word. And it's really not germane to this conversation whether you (or any of us) have a moral position. But if you want to make any headway in this conversation, then we need to be speaking the same language and agreeing on terms. And you seem to be more fixated on your own solipsistic use of language than you are on communicating with the rest of us. I am not the only one but I’ll be damned if the logical side doesn’t almost always get overrun by people on the sides yelling about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. If you don't think people view the word murder in moral terms, then you hardly have much claim to logic. And dictionaries only list possible uses. They don't tell you what people think when that word is used, or what moral overtones it has relative to other related terms. Edited by Swordfishtrombone on Dec 21, 2007 - 1:12 PM 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
|
#45
So no offer of another word still huh? Hmmm, fascinating! How about responding to the rest of the post, like the part that already explains/answers your comments. "If you think" statements are amazing for progress in the discussion! Just answer the rest of the questions in the post and stop being selective. |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#46
Yes. Abortion is abortion. Murder is murder. I'm not being selective, because you're not making philosophical points. You're playing semantic games. You're doing what Bush does with loaded terms like "Islamofascists". And you still didn't answer my question: Are ALL fertilized human eggs, including all development that happens after fertilization, HUMAN BEINGS? That's an easy one for you: just YES or NO. Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
|
noachian
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 19, 2007 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 15 |
#47
Abortion is the destruction of a potential human life. Therefore in principal abortion is unethical and immoral. But like all things; circumstances effect the 'right and wrong' of the situation. |
|
myrmecophaga
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 19, 2007 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 51 |
#48
"oligopolist" wrote: No one is having a moral debate, isn’t that the point? Who is arguing ‘against abortion’ (great phrasing!) So then people who base moral decisions on religion are inherently wrong? Isn’t that the purpose of religion, to define morals and the purpose of law to uphold them? I myself am not religious, I just like to make progress in a discussion with people that are and it won’t go anywhere if I don’t give equal understanding to their perspective. I find it gets a lot further to relate and admit that it is murder and that a fetus is life but it’s a reasonable and justifiable act of murder and should be legal. The only people I seem to encounter that take issue are people who choose to rename and redefine things at whim and convenience instead of taking responsibility. “It’s not killing a child, it’s aborting a pregnancy”, “It’s not suicide, it’s euthanasia”, ”it’s not murder it’s capital punishment”. If for no other reason, the sole act of taking responsibility for abortion being murder deflates the majority of the opposing view and the fears of “no one taking responsibility”. It’s a logical approach to resolving the argument but obviously that’s not the point, fragile ego and guilt normally are. You got the wrong end of what I said. I was simply attempting to stimulate some argument given that is applicable to somebody who, as I am, is secular. It may be the purpose of religion to define morals, and religion is very successful in this, however there are those who simply cannot believe that any religion is true, and as has been mentioned, they are more likely to be 'pro-choice'. You make an interesting point in the reference to a "justifiable act of murder", however murder to me is a word that inherently means immoral. a far better term is "a justifiable act of homicide", where a murder is "an unjustifiable act of homicide". With regards to this, the practical argument, as I have already shown in this thread, lies with the 'pro-choice' viewpoint. This is the justification for legal abortion. It is crucial, however, to understand that, as a choice alone, there is no reason for anyone to go against their religious beliefs. There is however the other reason that it should be a secular reason, and that is that we increasingly live in diverse nations and a diverse world, and laws based on holy teachings are oppressive to those who do not believe in said religion. As a legal issue it must be considered in secular terms, and thus it stands to reason that it should indeed be legal. On personal terms the religious arguments are valid. "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 |
|
oligopolist
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 30, 2007 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 94
|
#49
swordfishtrombone wrote: Are ALL fertilized human eggs, including all development that happens after fertilization, HUMAN BEINGS? That's an easy one for you: just YES or NO. Yes as much as if someone kills a pregnant woman. Is that not a case of 2 murders? Again I am not the one being 'semantic' and putting conditions on words, I am saying that by doing so, you are making an emotional decision for emotional reasons and that not one based on evaluating all the factors involved with the action. It's selective. myremecophaga wrote: You make an interesting point in the reference to a "justifiable act of murder", however murder to me is a word that inherently means immoral. a far better term is "a justifiable act of homicide", where a murder is "an unjustifiable act of homicide". I agree, so can abortion be referred to as homicide then when it isn't illegal? I come to the word murder as an honest expression that applies regardless of law or personal belief OUTSIDE of the belief that a fetus isn't life. That is also a valid belief but I don't see the logic behind it. |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#50
oligopolist wrote: Yes as much as if someone kills a pregnant woman. You're completely sure about this -- if it starts from a fertilized human egg, or it is a fertilized human egg itself, it is ALWAYS a "human being" and killing it is therefore ALWAYS murder. This is how you feel in absolute terms? Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.