Atheists and abortion

[quip]

Aggressor is your choice of words...

Stemming, no less, from your "defacto attack" assertion.

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.

Yet, Arty holds some level of culpability/responsibility for his own demise. The unborn - lacking in capacity - are innocent ....at the most literal level.

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.

Likewise, the colorful emphasis you set out....
Supra.

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.....

....in other words: the woman's life remains paramount ..by default.

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.

Your distinction fails to take into account a distinct lack of actionable behavior performed by the unborn. Morally speaking, it's the identical living essence it was prior to the scenario. In order to save this woman's life you're forced to take an arbitrary stand against this innocent unborn's continuation of life.

 

[Obidiah Irving]

@Town Heretic

“It's a pointless point. If the popular usage notes a particular act then altering it is a waste of time.”

Wrong. It is always worth using the correct technical term, for, in a debate proper, the meaning of words is especially important. Anyone with any proper training in hermeneutics, religious studies, or theology general can tell you that it is absolutely essential that proper word usage must be maintained. There is a reason experts differentiate between ferrite, iron, and steel even though in the common vernacular most people use iron or steel to generally mean one or the other or any ferrous material. Exactness of word meanings matters enormously when discussing technical issues and I expected that at a site with the name “theology online” members would have at least a modicum of respect for the proper usage of technical terms, as any good student of theology would… Maybe they might have some understanding of the proper methods by which theological research is accomplished, instead of just a pocket full of “yahoo answers” worthy one-liners...

So, I will be as mono-syllabic as possible. I am not an advocate of abortion. No one, technically and accurately speaking can be. Abortion is a neutral process, just as a woman’s period is. They both are disposal mechanisms for something that is no longer viable. It is a regrettable necessity, without which the human species would not survive… To say that you support a woman’s right to an abortion is a moot point. A woman’s body will naturally abort what it will abort, no amount of debate or legislation can alter the genetic material of the human species so to allow this. To say that you are opposed to a woman’s right to abort is equally moot. Once again, you cannot change the human genetic pool to allow this. An abortion is simply a miscarriage, that’s all.

What most Christians and moralists are trying to say is, and this is what I believe Stripe meant: No one has a right to place an arbitrary and artificial limit (terminate) on the life of a healthy and viable fetus. I feel this is the heart of what Stripe meant but, if you read the preceding comments, Lucaspa, as most Termination-ists will do, instantly distracted the debate by seizing on the fact that he used the word: Abortion. Lucaspa jumped on the fact that abortion is a natural process and, through only slightly flawed logic, drew an almost correct conclusion. Let’s re-post it just in case you missed it the first time.
Lucaspa (and I paraphrase some): “Fourth, let's look at the biology a moment. Fully 75% of fertilized ova NEVER produce a baby. In [any] case, abortion is a biological process that happens to most "humans". If you believe God specially created humans in their present form, then the inescapable conclusion is that God is an abortionist! Otherwise, He would have designed a system whereby there were no abortions after fertilization. So, if God approves of abortion, [then] it must be moral. By your own criteria of morality, Stripe.”

I assume this is easily understandable? Let me flush out what Lucaspa was saying just in case we don’t understand it:

God created and designed humans. Women = humans. Thus God created and designed women.

With me so far? There’s a little more yet.

Women’s bodies naturally miscarry (or abort) according to God’s design. Abortion = natural God designed process.

So: God designed and created women + Women naturally miscarry (or abort) according to design = God created women to have abortions! Thus, as Lucaspa says, “By your own criteria of morality, Stripe…. God approves of abortion…. [and] it must be moral.”

As you can see if you go back and read the thread, this was the first really well thought out and logically organized, but still wrong, post in response to Stripe’s post. It, with its good logical foundation, makes it impossible to criticize abortion as it is simply a natural God designed-approved process.

Where Lucaspa is incorrect is that he draws the wrong conclusion from the equation:

God designed and created women + Women naturally miscarry (or abort) according to design = God created women to have abortions (where abortion means: both the natural process of miscarrying as well as placing an arbitrary and artificial limit on the life of a healthy and viable fetus[ i.e. Terminating])!

The problem here is that Lucaspa lumped a natural biological process of miscarrying (abortion) in with an artificial and arbitrary medical process of Terminating a life. Without understanding the distinction between the two it is impossible to logically counter his argument.

My point in posting what I posted was not to make a “a pointless point” as you so eloquently put it. Rather it was to show that there is a clear distinction between the natural vs. unnatural processes of Abortion vs. Termination, and that it is incorrect to equate the two as Lucaspa did. Because God designed women with the natural and lifesaving ability to abort an already failed attempt at developing a human life does not mean that he supports all those other types of things that have all been neatly and mistakenly-dishonestly wrapped under the term “abortion.”

I hope that cleared things up for you. But after our discussion I must say that I can clearly see why the Pro-Termination crowd has been so successful in all of its attempts at swaying public opinion to its position. The pro-life crowd can’t even begin to counter the efforts of the Pro-Termination crowd because they are far too busy picking petty inane quarrels amongst themselves…

 

[Town Heretic]

Wrong. It is always worth using the correct technical term, for, in a debate proper, the meaning of words is especially important.

If the popular usage of abortion is a medical procedure and the argument pertains to that medical procedure then the point of language is satisfied. Nothing is meaningfully accomplished by altering the usage since no one is arguing over natural, spontaneous abortions.

Anyone with any proper training in hermeneutics, religious studies, or theology general can tell you that it is absolutely essential that proper word usage must be maintained.

I'm a lawyer. I understand the value of precision. Here you've yet to produce a virtue or impact of altering popular perception on the point.

Maybe they might have some understanding of the proper methods by which theological research is accomplished, instead of just a pocket full of “yahoo answers” worthy one-liners...So, I will be as mono-syllabic as possible.

Knock yourself out. We'll see if it makes a difference.

I am not an advocate of abortion. No one, technically and accurately speaking can be.

Then you haven't really said anything, but you've said it a lot.

...To say that you support a woman’s right to an abortion is a moot point.

Once you change the words so that the popularly understood "up" becomes "off to one side" a balloonist will necessarily become confused by your commands until you've moved his language.

But what if the point is to move the balloon? lain:

What most Christians and moralists are trying to say is, and this is what I believe Stripe meant: No one has a right to place an arbitrary and artificial limit (terminate) on the life of a healthy and viable fetus. I feel this is the heart of what Stripe meant but, if you read the preceding comments, Lucaspa, as most Termination-ists will do, instantly distracted the debate by seizing on the fact that he used the word: Abortion. Lucaspa jumped on the fact that abortion is a natural process and, through only slightly flawed logic, drew an almost correct conclusion. Let’s re-post it just in case you missed it the first time.
Lucaspa (and I paraphrase some): “Fourth, let's look at the biology a moment. Fully 75% of fertilized ova NEVER produce a baby. In [any] case, abortion is a biological process that happens to most "humans". If you believe God specially created humans in their present form, then the inescapable conclusion is that God is an abortionist!

What Lucaspa is mistaking doesn't take an alteration of the usage to account for. He isn't confused on terms. He's confused on a deeper issue concerning the nature of God and the world and on what constitutes humanity and has adopted an arbitrary standard for determining it.

The problem here is that Lucaspa lumped a natural biological process of miscarrying (abortion) in with an artificial and arbitrary medical process of Terminating a life. Without understanding the distinction between the two it is impossible to logically counter his argument.

No one is confused about the difference between spontaneous, natural abortion and a medical procedure, Luca included. Or if they are they have more serious issues to wrestle with than vocabulary.

My point in posting what I posted was not to make a “a pointless point” as you so eloquently put it.

It wasn't eloquent, but it was funny if you understood me. Given the blood that seems to be in your eyes I fear you may well have already poked yourself with it while I was engaged elsewhere.

Rather it was to show that there is a clear distinction between the natural vs. unnatural processes of Abortion vs. Termination, and that it is incorrect to equate the two as Lucaspa did. Because God designed women with the natural and lifesaving ability to abort an already failed attempt at developing a human life does not mean that he supports all those other types of things that have all been neatly and mistakenly-dishonestly wrapped under the term “abortion.”

You could make the "life saving" rebuttal without any of the rest.

I hope that cleared things up for you.

I don't find your writing confusing, only needless for the most part. The point above was exceptional to that general impression and could have been offered without the larger attempt.

But after our discussion I must say that I can clearly see why the Pro-Termination crowd has been so successful in all of its attempts at swaying public opinion to its position.

Actually, the pendulum of public opinion has been moving against the "pro-choice" crowd for some time now.

The pro-life crowd can’t even begin to counter the efforts of the Pro-Termination crowd because they are far too busy picking petty inane quarrels amongst themselves…

The pro-life crowd can readily counter the efforts and reason of the opposition, though as with almost anything men attempt, there is difference over the means and in argument.

I tend to approach the issue as a rationalist, not as a moralist. But then I'm addressing the law and not arguing theology on the point, believing that while we may never move people to believe as one we may appeal to the unifying nature of reason.

 

[Town Heretic]

Stemming, no less, from your "defacto attack" assertion.

De facto being the operative "in effect" and not necessarily the literal.

Yet, Arty holds some level of culpability/responsibility for his own demise. The unborn - lacking in capacity - are innocent ....at the most literal level.

In what way is Arty culpable? He's no more culpable than I would be if I was shot dead sitting in my reading chair by the stray bullet of a hunter. Chance has intervened and made a situation by which the actions of each are limited and guilt isn't rightly attached to any.

....in other words: the woman's life remains paramount ..by default.

In other words we can achieve one good or allow two evils.

Your distinction fails to take into account a distinct lack of actionable behavior performed by the unborn.

Rather I've noted the existence itself is the cause of a mortal blow, is the harm itself.

Morally speaking, it's the identical living essence it was prior to the scenario.

Absolutely.

In order to save this woman's life you're forced to take an arbitrary stand against this innocent unborn's continuation of life.

There's nothing arbitrary about rational necessity and the right to self defense and how it can be raised by the mother to a good end and how it cannot be accomplished by the unborn.

 

[quip]

De facto being the operative "in effect" and not necessarily the literal.


In what way is Arty culpable? He's no more culpable than I would be if I was shot dead sitting in my reading chair by the stray bullet of a hunter. Chance has intervened and made a situation by which the actions of each are limited and guilt isn't rightly attached to any.


In other words we can achieve one good or allow two evils.


Rather I've noted the existence itself is the cause of a mortal blow, is the harm itself.


Absolutely.


There's nothing arbitrary about rational necessity and the right to self defense and how it can be raised by the mother to a good end and how it cannot be accomplished by the unborn.

Okay, let's try this from a different angle. :banana:

If you'll allow me my own colorful demonstration:

'Twas a dark and stormy night You find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. I lure you into a back alleyway, toss you a rope..one end tied to the nearest fire escape stairwell, the other fasioned into a hangman's noose and persuade you to sacrifice yourself on my behalf as my goal is to harvest your liver. My liver is in the final stage of cirrhosis and without your healthy liver I will soon perish.

Here we have an act of sacrificing one innocent individual (you) in a selfless effort to procure the continuation of my life.

Is this a moral scenario? Absurd scenario?
In effect, this is what your asking of the otherwise innocent fetus.

One discernable difference is that the two individuals above have no direct physical link they share, that is, the continued existence of one individual has no causal effect upon the other's well-being or lack thereof.

Now, for us to necessarily claim self-defense it implies that we must accept this causal relationship e.g. the physical womb/fetus circumstance unique to pregnancy. Though, in accepting this causal relationship, something went awry and now both parties become implicated in each other's potential death thus, to preempt the life of the fetus we must accept the former absurd scenario and in doing so are forced to arbitrarily suspend the fetus' (assumed) right to life (morally and legally) vis-à-vis the mother's rational and legal right to defend herself.

Or rather:

Fully acknowledging the unique physical circumstance of pregnancy; expose the impractical, inconsistent ramifications inherent to the right-to-life, pro-life premise regarding the unborn ....all the while accepting and acknowledging that the unborn simply have no inherent right to life.

Either way, the argument against abortion remains morally arbitrary and/or subjective.

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay, let's try this from a different angle. :banana:

If you'll allow me my own colorful demonstration:

'Twas a dark and stormy night You find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. I lure you into a back alleyway, toss you a rope..one end tied to the nearest fire escape stairwell, the other fasioned into a hangman's noose and persuade you to sacrifice yourself on my behalf as my goal is to harvest your liver. My liver is in the final stage of cirrhosis and without your healthy liver I will soon perish.

Here we have an act of sacrificing one innocent individual (you) in a selfless effort to procure the continuation of my life.

Is this a moral scenario? Absurd scenario?

It's a willful and criminal act. You're stealing, among other things. Guilt attaches to you.

In effect, this is what your asking of the otherwise innocent fetus.

Nah, but I'll address your conclusions, again, below.

...Now, for us to necessarily claim self-defense it implies that we must accept this causal relationship e.g. the physical womb/fetus circumstance unique to pregnancy.

The circumstances are particular to it, but there are parallels to illustrate the principle. I gave you one or two.

Though, in accepting this causal relationship, something went awry and now both parties become implicated in each other's potential death thus, to preempt the life of the fetus we must accept the former absurd scenario and in doing so are forced to arbitrarily suspend the fetus' (assumed) right to life (morally and legally) vis-à-vis the mother's rational and legal right to defend herself.

Or rather:

Fully acknowledging the unique physical circumstance of pregnancy; expose the impractical, inconsistent ramifications inherent to the right-to-life, pro-life premise regarding the unborn ....

That's a statement, but it's not a proof. Beyond the semicolon it's wishcraft and I've addressed it. There's nothing impractical or inconsistent. I understand why you need for it to be, but you haven't and won't demonstrate either. And sometimes because of circumstance a contract may fail without the fault of either party attaching. It doesn't follow that a pro contract position is impractical or calls for an inconsistent approach.

all the while accepting and acknowledging that the unborn simply have no inherent right to life.

That also doesn't follow. The sleep walker had a right to life. But he didn't have a right to yours.

Either way, the argument against abortion remains morally arbitrary and/or subjective.

Here's the easiest rejection of your argument from equality of right: preserving life is only possible in one scenario and the unborn cannot rationally call up on the right to self defense because it is incapable of defending its life by any permutation and then can only choose to take a life (by proxy) with his own. That's murder and the attempt to exercise that proxy makes the mother's position morally and legally superior.

 

[quip]

It's a willful and criminal act. You're stealing, among other things. Guilt attaches to you.

Interesting that you feel this way about the principles invovled.

That's a statement, but it's not a proof. Beyond the semicolon it's wishcraft and I've addressed it. There's nothing impractical or inconsistent. I understand why you need for it to be, but you haven't and won't demonstrate either. And sometimes because of circumstance a contract may fail without the fault of either party attaching. It doesn't follow that a pro contract position is impractical or calls for an inconsistent approach.

If neither impractical nor inconsistent then why the diametric abandonment of this pro-life premise?

That also doesn't follow. The sleep walker had a right to life. But he didn't have a right to yours.

Within this scenario the sleepwalker and subject relationship/interaction is no more than happenstance. Plus, the subject is never a threat to the sleepwalker nor is the active hunt for ducks equal to passive gestation. The attempt to parallel...is rendered moot.

Here's the easiest rejection of your argument from equality of right: preserving life is only possible in one scenario and the unborn cannot rationally call up on the right to self defense because it is incapable of defending its life by any permutation and then can only choose to take a life (by proxy) with his own. That's murder and the attempt to exercise that proxy makes the mother's position morally and legally superior.

"By proxy" you mean by the mother's own body? If the unborn is incapable of defending its own life then it likewise fails at choosing to take a life...let alone directing mom's body against itself.

By way, if anyone is owed blame for the current situation it's obviously going to be the mother's. Seems quite odd that I cannot reiterate the pro-life mantra oft enough: The unborn are innocent victims of abortion!.

More odd, given the conspicuous dead-air from pro-lifers concerning their own agenda.

 

[Town Heretic]

Interesting that you feel this way about the principles invovled.

If by interesting you mean consistent, okay.

If neither impractical nor inconsistent then why the diametric abandonment of this pro-life premise?

Self defense isn't an abandonment of the premise, regardless of the particular application.

Within this scenario the sleepwalker and subject relationship/interaction is no more than happenstance.

It's something that happens. It isn't something willed or planned. That's true of every scenario in play.

Plus, the subject is never a threat to the sleepwalker nor is the active hunt for ducks equal to passive gestation. The attempt to parallel...is rendered moot.

Your attempt to skew the actual point maybe, but not the one I made clearly enough.

"By proxy" you mean by the mother's own body?

I mean the unborn isn't capable of asserting or deciding so any defense must be raised for it by proxy, so to speak.

If the unborn is incapable of defending its own life then it likewise fails at choosing to take a life...let alone directing mom's body against itself.

If the proxy chooses to attempt to defend by exerting the right to life then it follows that all that proxy can actually accomplish is the death of both parties. There is no defense of the unborn because nothing can accomplish its survival in this limited circumstance, as I noted.

By way, if anyone is owed blame for the current situation it's obviously going to be the mother's.

Why? Assuming we aren't talking about a rape, even assuming we're talking about a desired pregnancy how does that assign blame?

Seems quite odd that I cannot reiterate the pro-life mantra oft enough: The unborn are innocent victims of abortion!.

You can repeat anything you like, but that doesn't counter my advance at all. Just so, you can believe in the sanctity of life and still take it in defense of your own without violating the belief or principle.

More odd, given the conspicuous dead-air from pro-lifers concerning their own agenda.

No idea what you mean by that. I don't speak for anyone who isn't me. That's plenty for me to take care of right there.

 

[quip]

Self defense isn't an abandonment of the premise, regardless of the particular application.

Traditionally you're correct..though it's been pointed out to you several times of the very non-traditional nature of this scenario. The pertinent facts of which you continue to artfully spin.

It's something that happens. It isn't something willed or planned. That's true of every scenario in play.

Willful, contingent actions by both agents precede the happening. A huge distinction.

If by interesting you mean consistent, okay.
----------------------------------
Your attempt to skew the actual point maybe, but not the one I made clearly enough.

Again, very interesting. All of my attempts at "skewing" your point entail the consistent employ of pro-life principles. Ironically, any such objections to this method only serve to highlight the inconsistencies akin to those very principles.

I mean the unborn isn't capable of asserting or deciding so any defense must be raised for it by proxy, so to speak.

And this is what I am doing by remaining consistent to pro-life principles. You, on the other hand.... seek no such defense for the unborn under the pretext of rights to defend oneself.

If the proxy chooses to attempt to defend by exerting the right to life then it follows that all that proxy can actually accomplish is the death of both parties. There is no defense of the unborn because nothing can accomplish its survival in this limited circumstance, as I noted.

Enter the newly exposed pro-life incongruity....stage right.

Why? Assuming we aren't talking about a rape, even assuming we're talking about a desired pregnancy how does that assign blame?

I agree, there's no assignable blame to be had. I'm simply expanding upon the notion of an innocent fetus. Being that something has gone awry with the mother's reproductive process ... it's clearly no fault of the unborn.

You can repeat anything you like, but that doesn't counter my advance at all. Just so, you can believe in the sanctity of life and still take it in defense of your own without violating the belief or principle.

Not without compromising the very principle at play.

 

[moparguy]

"If atheists truly believed in science, logic and reason, ..."

It's not logical to state or believe that God doesn't exist.

Thoughts exist, and atheists can tell you what they mean by "god." You can't describe a thing that doesn't exist.

Atheists are very determinedly irrationalists.

The proper question to be asked is, "what is the nature of God's existence."

 

[Town Heretic]

Traditionally you're correct..though it's been pointed out to you several times of the very non-traditional nature of this scenario. The pertinent facts of which you continue to artfully spin.

Using tradition here is no more meaningful than when it was used as an objection to, well, anything really. It's not an argument, it's an appeal to authority.

Willful, contingent actions by both agents precede the happening. A huge distinction.

No, it's a particular distinction that doesn't impact either blame or right.

Again, very interesting. All of my attempts at "skewing" your point entail the consistent employ of pro-life principles.

I've answered every attempt. There's been enough skewing around with principles around here.

Ironically, any such objections to this method only serve to highlight the inconsistencies akin to those very principles.

Again, I'm arguing my case and there's no inconsistency in it.

And this is what I am doing by remaining consistent to pro-life principles. You, on the other hand.... seek no such defense for the unborn under the pretext of rights to defend oneself.

It's almost as if you're not reading me. I've literally covered that point and noted no such defense is possible. The unborn cannot by baring the mother protect itself. That's one of the things that makes a tragic, if rare, situation morally and legally clear in distinction.

Enter the newly exposed pro-life incongruity....stage right.

You can keep saying it, but you've yet to apply it to my actual position.

I agree, there's no assignable blame to be had. I'm simply expanding upon the notion of an innocent fetus. Being that something has gone awry with the mother's reproductive process ... it's clearly no fault of the unborn.

Fault doesn't enter in for either, or blame either.

Not without compromising the very principle at play.

Yes, without compromising the principle. No one believes life or right utterly inviolate, rather the bar for justification is (as it should be) a high one. Here we have that. The mother is seeking to defend her life. The unborn cannot defend his life, defeat the mother's attempt or not. Were the unborn capable of sustaining his life the mother would not be entitled to end it, nor would she be in a position where the act was necessary.

 

[quip]

No one believes life or right utterly inviolate, rather the bar for justification is (as it should be) a high one. Here we have that. The mother is seeking to defend her life. The unborn cannot defend his life, defeat the mother's attempt or not. Were the unborn capable of sustaining his life the mother would not be entitled to end it, nor would she be in a position where the act was necessary.

Nothing here is under contention. The point remains that the current moral condition of the unborn remains identical to those cases where an elective abortion is sought. The non-inviolate bar you're setting only subjectively denotes the arbitrary degree at which you personally find abortion acceptable. You've simply no right to arbitrarily set the bar prohibitively high for the woman who's moral proclivities fail to mirror yours.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nothing here is under contention. The point remains that the current moral condition of the unborn remains identical to those cases where an elective abortion is sought.

I've never said the unborn was guilty of anything in any case here. I have said that advancing the right of self defense doesn't work for the unborn and that the morally superior position is occupied by the mother and noted why.

The non-inviolate bar you're setting only subjectively denotes the arbitrary degree at which you personally find abortion acceptable.

Well, no. It isn't a subjective or arbitrary bar any more than it was an inconsistent application of principle prior. Rather, the law sets rare exception, a high standard for abrogating the right, but it isn't inviolate. Similarly, there is nothing immoral in taking a life with justification, but the justification is rare. And so, both at law and in moral terms we distinguish between murder and justifiable homicide.

You've simply no right to arbitrarily set the bar prohibitively high for the woman who's moral proclivities fail to mirror yours.

You're declaring one thing to be that you haven't demonstrated and then concluding with a declaration rooted singularly in the prior declaration.

It's not argument. Now if you want to meet my rebuttal, I'm interested. But this isn't that. Supra and prior for answers on both legal standard and moral distinction.

At your leisure. :e4e:

 

[aikido7]

This is just weird....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/pat-robertson-hitler-baby_n_7547442.html

 

[quip]

I've never said the unborn was guilty of anything in any case here. I have said that advancing the right of self defense doesn't work for the unborn and that the morally superior position is occupied by the mother and noted why.


Well, no. It isn't a subjective or arbitrary bar any more than it was an inconsistent application of principle prior. Rather, the law sets rare exception, a high standard for abrogating the right, but it isn't inviolate. Similarly, there is nothing immoral in taking a life with justification, but the justification is rare. And so, both at law and in moral terms we distinguish between murder and justifiable homicide.


You're declaring one thing to be that you haven't demonstrated and then concluding with a declaration rooted singularly in the prior declaration. lain:......:chuckle:

It's not argument. Now if you want to meet my rebuttal, I'm interested. But this isn't that. Supra and prior for answers on both legal standard and moral distinction.

At your leisure. :e4e:

:sigh:

I gather this...coupled with the hat-tipping emoticon...is your swan song?

Old hat...if you will.

 

[Town Heretic]

:sigh:

I gather this...coupled with the hat-tipping emoticon...is your swan song?

Old hat...if you will.

It was meant to signify that I'm interested in talking through my argument or answering a counter, but less in meeting general declaration/valuation without particular application.... The old, "That's inconsistent" or "subjective" or "arbitrary"...and it felt like we were recycling in the last post or so. So, having answered on the question of legality, morality and the distinctions between parties relative to each I couldn't see the point in it going forward absent some new and particular complaint/address of my rebuttal. Valuations, especially those not rooted in example and particularly related to my points and part aren't that.

I'm not sure what else there is for me to say. No point in that unless I wanted the last word, which contrary to some opinion only matters to me when someone insists on using it to misstate me. The hat tip is something I do when I've been enjoying an exchange. Given I thought that was likely about it...seemed appropriate.

 

[Obidiah Irving]

“I'm a lawyer. I understand the value of precision.”

It’s not hard to tell a sophist… There is a fundamental distinction between you and I. Ideally, when two scholars meet and argue they argue over what is true, correct, and accurate. They have a commitment only to absolute veracity. One (or both) of them will be wrong but they argue with the firm belief that they are correct and with the goal only of showing the truth clearly.

When two lawyers meet it is a different matter entirely. Lawyers often have no interest in the truth; the truth tends to interfere with good lawyerly work. When two lawyers argue a case they do so before a judge, or a judge and a jury. The verdict (which means truth- from veritas) is *never* decided by the lawyers. The verdict is always in the hands of a judge or a jury of peers. One (or both) of the lawyers will be wrong, but they will still be duty bound to make their case appear to be right even if it is wrong. All a lawyer does is attempt to make something appear to be true, whether there is any truth to it or not. They have no power to declare a verdict (truth) and, often, no interest in finding what is true.

So when you tell me that you belong to a profession that practices, not truth seeking, but the art of persuasive rhetoric (often with the goal of convincing someone of believing something that is not true) I’m afraid it does little to convince me of either your desire or your capacity for truth… I find it hard to believe that someone who belongs to a profession that is synonymous with hypocrisy and all other types of dishonesty and specious reasoning could really be committed to unerring precision… But then, as any good sophist would, you never said that did you? You only said that you “understand” the value of precision, not that you *actually* value it yourself… The school of semantics generally tends to make poor logicians, but eloquent sophists…

“If the popular usage of abortion is a medical procedure and the argument pertains to that medical procedure then the point of language is satisfied.”

Wrong again. The term abortion is, technically, an exact and specific term. In the lay persons vocabulary it has become extremely muddled and confused. The point of language is to help humans communicate in a clear and lucid manner, or close to it as we can achieve, and having a term that can be equally applied to two diametrically opposed processes at the same time does *not* satisfy that. It violates all the rules and purposes of language.

It can mean:
A woman’s body naturally disposing of a non-viable attempt at life creation.
A woman’s body being threatened by a failed attempt at creating a life and the need for medical intervention that results in the loss of the fetus’s life but the saving of the mother’s life.
A healthy viable fetus being killed by the mother artificially creating-simulating an unhealthy situation in which the body no longer has the resources to create-carry the child.
A healthy viable fetus being killed at any time during the pregnancy, from conception till just before birth.
A healthy viable fetus being killed during the birthing process.

In short there is a host of things which this may mean. It is not enough to say that “I am opposed to abortion!” In every debate or discussion I’ve ever heard on the subject the pro-choice advocate always pulls out the, “What about when a woman’s life is in danger” card. And it instantly halts or problematizes the debate. When or if that fails the pro-choice advocate reverts to the same argument Lucaspa made: “God designed women to have abortions! Take it up with him!”

In my state Planned Parenthood is running a radio advertisement about a married mother of three who had an abortion. The child, on the far chance it survived, would have been born with no sensory abilities and serious brain damage. But if the mother didn’t have medical assistance in the abortion process she would have died leaving behind a husband and three children. The conclusion to the ad ran something like this: “Protect a woman’s right to an abortion, because no politician has a right to tell you what you can do with your body.”

The ad was both emotionally and logically well put together, but the conclusion was false. It falsely lumped a lifesaving-natural (albeit medically assisted) process in with all other types of abortion.

No reasonable Christian simply says: “I’m opposed to sex!” or “I support sex!” The term is too vague and inexact. Rather we subdivide sex into multiple categories to make the debate more easily understandable and to make our position more exact and clear. We divide the topic into: consensual vs. non-consensual, of age or underage, married or unmarried, adulterous or faithful, gay or straight, vanilla or not, &c… Now sex has been around since the beginning of time, and we’ve come to understand that it is essential to subdivide it into categories and be exact with our wording, “I’m opposed to sex” vs. “I’m opposed to gay sex.” It is the only way to make the debate clear and not confused.

“Abortion” (in the modern sense) is a new thing to our societies (arguably the world), and no one has of yet come to see the importance for terming it appropriately as we have with the various types of sex. But it is essential for those same reasons that we make our stance and our terms more clear and exact so as to not distract from the debate.

The problem is : “the popular usage of abortion is [both] a medical procedure [that] the argument pertains to [as well as a natural process] [and] the point of language is not satisfied because the same term is simultaneously being applied to [and equated with] radically different and opposite things.”

 

[Obidiah Irving]

“I'm a lawyer. I understand the value of precision.”

It’s not hard to tell a sophist… There is a fundamental distinction between you and I. Ideally, when two scholars meet and argue they argue over what is true, correct, and accurate. They have a commitment only to absolute veracity. One (or both) of them will be wrong but they argue with the firm belief that they are correct and with the goal only of showing the truth clearly.

When two lawyers meet it is a different matter entirely. Lawyers often have no interest in the truth; the truth tends to interfere with good lawyerly work. When two lawyers argue a case they do so before a judge, or a judge and a jury. The verdict (which means truth- from veritas) is *never* decided by the lawyers. The verdict is always in the hands of a judge or a jury of peers. One (or both) of the lawyers will be wrong, but they will still be duty bound to make their case appear to be right even if it is wrong. All a lawyer does is attempt to make something appear to be true, whether there is any truth to it or not. They have no power to declare a verdict (truth) and, often, no interest in finding what is true.

So when you tell me that you belong to a profession that practices, not truth seeking, but the art of persuasive rhetoric (often with the goal of convincing someone of believing something that is not true) I’m afraid it does little to convince me of either your desire or your capacity for truth… I find it hard to believe that someone who belongs to a profession that is synonymous with hypocrisy and all other types of dishonesty and specious reasoning could really be committed to unerring precision… But then, as any good sophist would, you never said that did you? You only said that you “understand” the value of precision, not that you *actually* value it yourself… The school of semantics generally tends to make poor logicians, but eloquent sophists…

“If the popular usage of abortion is a medical procedure and the argument pertains to that medical procedure then the point of language is satisfied.”

Wrong again. The term abortion is, technically, an exact and specific term. In the lay persons vocabulary it has become extremely muddled and confused. The point of language is to help humans communicate in a clear and lucid manner, or close to it as we can achieve, and having a term that can be equally applied to two diametrically opposed processes at the same time does *not* satisfy that. It violates all the rules and purposes of language.

It can mean:
A woman’s body naturally disposing of a non-viable attempt at life creation.
A woman’s body being threatened by a failed attempt at creating a life and the need for medical intervention that results in the loss of the fetus’s life but the saving of the mother’s life.
A healthy viable fetus being killed by the mother artificially creating-simulating an unhealthy situation in which the body no longer has the resources to create-carry the child.
A healthy viable fetus being killed at any time during the pregnancy, from conception till just before birth.
A healthy viable fetus being killed during the birthing process.

In short there is a host of things which this may mean. It is not enough to say that “I am opposed to abortion!” In every debate or discussion I’ve ever heard on the subject the pro-choice advocate always pulls out the, “What about when a woman’s life is in danger” card. And it instantly halts or problematizes the debate. When or if that fails the pro-choice advocate reverts to the same argument Lucaspa made: “God designed women to have abortions! Take it up with him!”

In my state Planned Parenthood is running a radio advertisement about a married mother of three who had an abortion. The child, on the far chance it survived, would have been born with no sensory abilities and serious brain damage. But if the mother didn’t have medical assistance in the abortion process she would have died leaving behind a husband and three children. The conclusion to the ad ran something like this: “Protect a woman’s right to an abortion, because no politician has a right to tell you what you can do with your body.”

The ad was both emotionally and logically well put together, but the conclusion was false. It falsely lumped a lifesaving-natural (albeit medically assisted) process in with all other types of abortion.

No reasonable Christian simply says: “I’m opposed to sex!” or “I support sex!” The term is too vague and inexact. Rather we subdivide sex into multiple categories to make the debate more easily understandable and to make our position more exact and clear. We divide the topic into: consensual vs. non-consensual, of age or underage, married or unmarried, adulterous or faithful, gay or straight, vanilla or not, &c… Now sex has been around since the beginning of time, and we’ve come to understand that it is essential to subdivide it into categories and be exact with our wording, “I’m opposed to sex” vs. “I’m opposed to gay sex.” It is the only way to make the debate clear and not confused.

“Abortion” (in the modern sense) is a new thing to our societies (arguably the world), and no one has of yet come to see the importance for terming it appropriately as we have with the various types of sex. But it is essential for those same reasons that we make our stance and our terms more clear and exact so as to not distract from the debate.

The problem is : “the popular usage of abortion is [both] a medical procedure [that] the argument pertains to [as well as a natural process] [and] the point of language is not satisfied because the same term is simultaneously being applied to [and equated with] radically different and opposite things.”

“Nothing is meaningfully accomplished by altering the usage since no one is arguing over natural, spontaneous abortions.”

Wrong again. People *are* constantly arguing over natural and spontaneous abortions and saying that because they are a fact of life, and a necessary one for the survival of the human species, then abortions in general need to be supported. They say that abortions are a God designed-approved process and therefore no Christian has the right to argue with them or make them illegal. Listen to any Planned Parenthood rhetoric. As long as the two are so incorrectly equated with one another, because we have no term to differentiate them, the Christian cannot logically say they are opposed to Abortion because it is an impossibility. You seem intent on willfully ignoring this point. You might understand the difference here, and some people on the forum might understand the difference but the *public* in general does not understand the difference. It is for the public in general that we must make it clear what the difference is.

“Once you change the words so that the popularly understood up means off to one side instead of actually up then a balloonist will necessarily become confused by your commands until you've moved his language.”

Once again, your reasoning is specious, a false analogy proves nothing. The point is not to change the language to something it is not, but rather to something it *is* but is not recognized as such. Up means up, to the side means to the side. These are terms that are accurate and fulfill the point of language. There is no need to change the balloonist’s vernacular. However the term “abortion” is incorrectly used in the common vernacular. If a woman says “I had an abortion” and it means either “I terminated a healthy and viable fetus using an artificial medical process” or “I had a natural miscarriage of a non-viable fetus” that is a problem… It’s like saying “I really [insert word] you” in which the inserted word could mean “I love you” or “I hate you.”
Once again: You should *never* have the *same* word mean two *opposite* things.

“What Lucaspa is mistaking doesn't take an alteration of the usage to account for. He isn't confused on terms. He's confused on a deeper issue concerning the nature of God and the world and on what constitutes humanity and has adopted an arbitrary standard for determining it.”

Wrong again. He is confused on both, but the incorrect usage of terms lends his mistaken view of the nature of God some credibility. Clear terms make clear debates. Using a word to mean two contradictory things is not acceptable in debates, it always confuses things, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

 

[quip]

It was meant to signify that I'm interested in talking through my argument or answering a counter, but less in meeting general declaration/valuation without particular application.... The old, "That's inconsistent" or "subjective" or "arbitrary"...and it felt like we were recycling in the last post or so. So, having answered on the question of legality, morality and the distinctions between parties relative to each I couldn't see the point in it going forward absent some new and particular complaint/address of my rebuttal. Valuations, especially those not rooted in example and particularly related to my points and part aren't that.

I'm not sure what else there is for me to say. No point in that unless I wanted the last word, which contrary to some opinion only matters to me when someone insists on using it to misstate me. The hat tip is something I do when I've been enjoying an exchange. Given I thought that was likely about it...seemed appropriate.

Okay, its statements such as this that indicate you've no idea what I'm proposing nor (the reductio) method at which I do so:

Originally Posted by quip: Nothing here is under contention. The point remains that the current moral condition of the unborn remains identical to those cases where an elective abortion is sought. You: I've never said the unborn was guilty of anything in any case here. I have said that advancing the right of self defense doesn't work for the unborn and that the morally superior position is occupied by the mother and noted why.

Once again, none of this was being contested.

Just one simple question:

Is the aborted fetus - by way of mother's right to self defend - morally disparate in some manner from the fetus that gets aborted via mother's right to electively choose such?

A simple yes or no will suffice at this point.

 

[rexlunae]

It’s not hard to tell a sophist… There is a fundamental distinction between you and I. Ideally, when two scholars meet and argue they argue over what is true, correct, and accurate. They have a commitment only to absolute veracity. One (or both) of them will be wrong but they argue with the firm belief that they are correct and with the goal only of showing the truth clearly.

Speaking of sophistry, you do realize that this whole paragraph of yours as well as the next few amount to little more than a character attack? You learned that your opponent is a lawyer, and assumed against the evidence that he is going to be forced to use the adversarial style for his posts here?

When two lawyers meet it is a different matter entirely. Lawyers often have no interest in the truth; the truth tends to interfere with good lawyerly work.

It's a necessity of how our courts work, and if you are ever sued or accused of a crime, you're going to be glad that your lawyer can't simply conclude that you are wrong and/or guilty and declare that to the court. Having an advocate with a professional duty to guard your legal rights is a good thing, and it shouldn't be any shame to them that they are merely a part of a larger system of justice.

Further, it is actually a pretty well established form of debate beyond the legal profession, as well as a useful thought exercise for introspection to take an argument and run with it as far and as well as you can regardless of your opinion of it. You might just surprise yourself from time to time.

When two lawyers argue a case they do so before a judge, or a judge and a jury. The verdict (which means truth- from veritas) is *never* decided by the lawyers. The verdict is always in the hands of a judge or a jury of peers. One (or both) of the lawyers will be wrong, but they will still be duty bound to make their case appear to be right even if it is wrong. All a lawyer does is attempt to make something appear to be true, whether there is any truth to it or not. They have no power to declare a verdict (truth) and, often, no interest in finding what is true.

The system is designed to find the truth, and each actor in the system plays a part.

So when you tell me that you belong to a profession that practices, not truth seeking, but the art of persuasive rhetoric (often with the goal of convincing someone of believing something that is not true) I’m afraid it does little to convince me of either your desire or your capacity for truth…

Did he actually tell you that, or is that not the truth?

I find it hard to believe that someone who belongs to a profession that is synonymous with hypocrisy and all other types of dishonesty and specious reasoning could really be committed to unerring precision…

I find it hard to believe that you have read a lot of legal opinions, or watched a lot of lawyers in court. I suspect that you watch them on TV though. A lawyer afflicted with an affinity for specious reasoning, dishonesty, or hypocrisy probably isn't going to be winning a lot of cases. It is literally a profession built around making the best possible arguments.