Thus, from your take on medical necessary abortions -- by the contravening edge of the same sword -- are such abortions likewise considered a "bit like" murder?
Atheists and abortion
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Thus, from your take on medical necessary abortions -- by the contravening edge of the same sword -- are such abortions likewise considered a "bit like" murder?
Killing someone in self defense is always a bit like murder, though what distinguishes the two is rather important.
Obidiah Irving
New member
@Town heretic. I’ve never claimed to have gone to the south. Did you read what I said or did you do the usual forum trolling for key words looking to create an argument of nothing? Or are you trying to simply distract from the point? I’m not from the south and never claimed to be. I said some people assume my name means I’m from the south, professors, exchange students, other Yankees. My having visited the south has no bearing at all on anything I said.
“Had God desired to grant a woman the right to abort or he'd have given them the ability to consciously control the outcome. And that's before we get to His law in regard to murder.”
You’ve completely ignored everything I wrote previous to this. My entire point is that an abortion is a natural miscarriage and that is all it is. It is not a murder or anything of the sort, like some more radical people claim, there is no guilt involved. But what most people call an abortion is *not* an abortion, it is the *termination* of a child. If you read what I said you would see that there is a clear difference between the two.
“Mostly people are speaking to the willful ending of a human life as the direct result of the mother's choice and the actions of a physician.”
I understand this fully, as I pointed out earlier… Again, did you read what I wrote or are you merely trying distract from the point? My point is that the terminology of the debate is entirely wrong, abortion is not “the willful ending of a human life as the direct result of the mother's choice and the actions of a physician.” Abortion is a simple miscarriage, read the Latin root, it is something completely different than what most people refer to it as.
“Medical necessity, usually involving a direct threat to the life of the mother or where there is no chance of the unborn surviving and additional complications and harm to the mother would be the natural extension of doing nothing. It's a bit like self defense and few people would dispute a necessary procedure.”
Ok? Thank you for the definition…
“Had God desired to grant a woman the right to abort or he'd have given them the ability to consciously control the outcome. And that's before we get to His law in regard to murder.”
You’ve completely ignored everything I wrote previous to this. My entire point is that an abortion is a natural miscarriage and that is all it is. It is not a murder or anything of the sort, like some more radical people claim, there is no guilt involved. But what most people call an abortion is *not* an abortion, it is the *termination* of a child. If you read what I said you would see that there is a clear difference between the two.
“Mostly people are speaking to the willful ending of a human life as the direct result of the mother's choice and the actions of a physician.”
I understand this fully, as I pointed out earlier… Again, did you read what I wrote or are you merely trying distract from the point? My point is that the terminology of the debate is entirely wrong, abortion is not “the willful ending of a human life as the direct result of the mother's choice and the actions of a physician.” Abortion is a simple miscarriage, read the Latin root, it is something completely different than what most people refer to it as.
“Medical necessity, usually involving a direct threat to the life of the mother or where there is no chance of the unborn surviving and additional complications and harm to the mother would be the natural extension of doing nothing. It's a bit like self defense and few people would dispute a necessary procedure.”
Ok? Thank you for the definition…
So this is what you learned? It does have some merit, being you learned the power of words, change the signified, you displace the word itself, yet you must have not learned this alone, in this case, is lacking, as the word, abortion, still is in perfect form, all you have done is add a new signified; you have not replaced the word.
Failing and incorrect is lacking to substantiate a normal pregnancy; you should know this. Abortion still is what it is, and still as much s natural crime.
Right...though it's a touch more complicated than that. Is it the fetus who's guilty of anything as to remove it like a soulless tumor? Moreover, a few weeks/days/hours prior was deemed sacred....where lies the justification for the moral line you just crossed?
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
No human life can be deemed sacred. 'Sacredness' is G-d's realm, no-one elses. Human life is important, however, the human that is walking around and thinking is more important than the one being carried.
Just answering the question asked within its context.
The unborn isn't guilty of anything, but you can't reasonably fashion a law that insists the mother isn't allowed to defend her life. It's a tough but thankfully rare consideration.
I only just gave it to you. You have two competing interests. The doctors should do everything they can to preserve the life and right of the unborn, but the mother's right to her life must also be protected. As between the two of them if only one is capable of surviving apart and neither will survive if the mother dies then it's a sad, but moral decision to see at least one do that.
You brought it up with the name nonsense. I was expanding the joke. I was curious if your sense of humor functioned at your own expense.
I also addressed what followed.
I never use the search function and I never fashion an argument out of nothing, though I frequently fashion one against not much.
By answering directly on it? That would be one of the worst distractions ever, don't you think?
Are you still going on about the one sentence you wrote that got about as quick an answer? Well, there's the humor answer at any rate.
lain: Edit: I should add that my mother, a former professor and born to and spending most of her adult life in the South, wouldn't have made that assumption. Irving isn't a common Southern name, for one thing. More common in the New England area and even more so in Canada.“Had God desired to grant a woman the right to abort or he'd have given them the ability to consciously control the outcome. And that's before we get to His law in regard to murder.”
No, not really. What makes you think that?
It's a pointless point. If the popular usage notes a particular act then altering it is a waste of time.
No one is claiming a natural occurrence is murder.
It's a pointless distinction that doesn't impact the arguments for or against a medical procedure.
Of course. It wouldn't make sense as a spontaneous outburst. What could have occasioned it? Your remarks.
Your point isn't moving the argument, only an attempt at a distinction that won't really impact. It's a bit like stopping in the middle of a battle over the N bomb to lecture folks on the point that most people of color aren't actually black skinned, etc. It's missing the point of the dust up.
Last edited:
Correct, yet where else are you allowed to murder an innocent life as a prerequisite for defending yours?
Again sure, but what has changed...regarding the fetus, morally speaking?
It wouldn't be murder given the presence of the infant is itself a defacto attack on the mother in those circumstances.
Nothing. Both are entitled to their lives, but the unborn is, without meaning to, attacking the physical integrity of the mother to the point where her life is in jeopardy. She has a right to defend her life.
You're conveniently playing fast and loose with arbitrary terms. Like I noted earlier, this fetus was considered "innocent" just prior... to which it's currently considered a "defacto attacker" i.e. morally befit to be aborted. This idealistic position is untenable, the fetus cannot qualify for both whilst retaining a unconditional, defaulted conviction for it's right to life ....as such you're forced to accept the moral status of the unborn as arbitrary and utterly relative to the mother's personal interest.
No, the reality is such that the unborn (as evidenced by this extreme scenario.) have no established entitlement to their lives....you're simply special pleading for abortion in the extreme case; against, in lesser extreme scenarios.
Nothing of the sort. I'm addressing a legal question from the perspective of a lawyer and the terms are rather precise in understanding and application.
I'm distinguishing between intent and function. The unborn is never, at any point in this, anything but innocent. That's a matter of intent for our consideration.
Here's another example of innocence with tragic consequence justified at law: you could be a sleep walker who thinks he's on a duck hunt and I'm a duck. Innocence in that sense goes to intent prior and isn't a measure of actual harm after. If I then shoot you to save my life it isn't because you meant to harm me or because your inherent right to exist is less valuable than my own. I have a right to defend my life.
Idealistic? That strikes you as a particularly high standard? Rather, it's a necessary one and it's no more untenable than the duck illustration. It's also, thankfully, a relatively rare set of circumstances.
A few things wrong with this assertion as a matter of law. First, no one has an unconditional right to exist. What I've said is that the abrogation of that right cannot be arbitrary. This isn't arbitrary. It's the confluence of competing right and the means by which we can distinguish between the two interests.
Or, it absolutely can, my unfortunate, sleep walking quip.
Demonstrably mistaken notion, supra.
Not at all. I haven't ignored a thing or stepped outside of reason or precedent to give a special status unsupported by either. You just missed the supportive tissue.
Gibberish.
Again, your playing at semantics by promoting the discrepant notion of an "innocent attacker" ....though the question of legal differentiation (intent v.function) is not in contention here...but rather the inconsistent conflation of the two is at issue. This is purely a moral dilemma you find yourself within.
The point is: You condone act X under conditions Y yet, comdemn act X under conditions Z.
X remains static thus, your contention is with the latter scenario Z..... that is, where abortion is sought as an elective procedure.
Though it's a rare exception, it's an exception nonetheless which unconvers an otherwise underlying premise that pro-lifers' furtive goal is upon limiting the actions/freedoms of the mother ....all the while praising the affectation entitled life.
Not at all. There's nothing in what I wrote that is particularly hard to understand and nothing in it contrary to a rational examination.
I can't do "again" what I haven't done and you haven't established beyond declaring it so. But to cut to your distillation:
It's not a problem. By way of, I condone killing (X) under conditions that justify it (Y) and I condemn killing (X) under those that don't (Z).
So you have a right to defend your life by committing a justifiable homicide but not the right to murder, though both are taking life.
Justifiable homicide is an exception. Of course. The rule is that the taking of life is something unjustifiable at law and immoral in nature.
Yet, nothing has changed between Y and Z other than your arbitrary view per the scenarios.
Rather, the hue and cry is over X and something fundamental has changed in the circumstance that defines the outcome of the action, which is why all killing isn't murder. It isn't remotely arbitrary. It is within the application and circumstance that the moral question and the legal distinction rests.
So abortion, as with any taking of life, finds few justifications.
Demonstrate this diametric circumstantial change regarding the unborn. You can't. This particular scenario has forced a arbitrary moral judgment upon you..it can't be anything more than arbitrary.
I fully agree that it's not murder, though I've never carried the burden of such pretension.
I'm not sure what you're asking for. I've noted that where there exists in the being and presence of the unborn that rare but undeniable threat to the life of the mother, which would in and of itself then result in the death of both, that the mother has that same right to defense of her life as would you or I in the case of the sleep walker. Morally speaking there is no similar choice to be made on the part of the unborn, who by action (proxy) can only take life and cannot lay claim that the mother's being is the root of his or her own peril.
Nothing demonstrably arbitrary about it, supra and prior.
Your insistence aside, no. If we value life then then the saving of some is a superior proposition to the ending of all even outside of the moral justification of defending our own and the disparate positions occupied by the mother and unborn.
No pretense at all. There is the morally and legally defensible taking of a human life and there is murder. These are not arbitrary distinctions, but distinctions rooted in reason and subject to it in determination.
You're attempting to fit this scenario into the classic mold of aggressor/victim...with a justification for the killing of the former.
It's a non-fit. Within the classic scenario the aggressor has willfully (or via delusion as in the sleepwalker case) transgressed upon his victim thus has jeopordized his right to freedom and/or life itself.
You cannot use this as justification to remove the (presumed) right to life for the unborn simply because the unborn distinctly lack a capacity for such a transgression...it's merely an unfortunate natural occurance.
Of course it is...there's no appreciable difference between the scenarios from the fetus' perspective; only mom's interest is paramount, while the only appreciable difference comes from you and your current, uncharacteristic, aribtrary focus upon mother instead of the unborn.
Aggressor is your choice of words and one that traditionally flows from intent, a thing absent here and in the sleep walker scenario. Here's another scenario. Arty has lost control of his car on slick ice, having taken every reasonable precaution and through no fault of his own. Bob is sitting on his motorcycle with a vaporizing lazer strapped to his hip. His son is clinging to him in the second seat. Bob realizes there is insufficient time for him to remove himself from harms way. He fires and vaporizes Arty.
Arty wasn't an aggressor, only a threat. Bob acted in defense of his life. And yes, I could have found a more reasonable (though less entertaining) illustration, but not with a laser in play.
You defeat the point of emphasizing willfully with your recognition in the parenthesis. It doesn't have to be an exact match (something I never once claimed it to be, which is why I believe I began that it was like traditional self defense) to be an understandable, consistent application of the underlying principle, which in this case is that we have a right to protect our lives.
Accidentally or willfully, once the first party is responsible for the threat to the second party the second party has a right to defend against that threat.
Ah, no. I didn't say that. What I did say was that they are inarguably in very different positions. The infant cannot defend his life, because to preserve it for a moment is to lose it in the next and by operation end the life of the mother as well. Or, as I noted:
"...there exists in the being and presence of the unborn that rare but undeniable threat to the life of the mother, which would in and of itself then result in the death of both, that the mother has that same right to defense of her life as would you or I in the case of the sleep walker. Morally speaking there is no similar choice to be made on the part of the unborn, who by action (proxy) can only take life and cannot lay claim that the mother's being is the root of his or her own peril."
There is nothing arbitrary in my conclusion and my focus is on the issue/underlying. I've rather markedly set out the distinction between them and the why of a greater moral value in addition to the established right to protect our own life and how that comes into play.