Abortion

Originally posted by Bardock42
Noral Murder? That makes no sense. First murder is defined as a legal term. there's no definiton for a not legal murder. Then morals are subjective.

I am no lawyer, I am not sure if it's called murder. They certainly killed jews, but to be hinest, what does that have to do with anything.

Once again, no, murder is NOT just a legal term. As a term its root in language was created before there was even a legal system. It can be a MORAL term.

The world decided it was murder by the Nazis, regardless of German law.

You cannot hide behind law books. A greater morality than the law may prevail, and it may be doing so here.

Relgiious types, for exzample, accept no morality other than that from their religion, and so their religion, NOT the law, defines murder for them. The law only sets the interpretation they are forced to abide by.

Opinion. Belief. NO set fact.

Even if it is a human life? How is it morally wrong to kill a human?

Because morality generally contends that it is wrong to terminate the life of another human, certainly for selfish gain.

This is a childish argument, and a waste of time in the thread. You don't think morals can be objective- fine, but that, again, is only an opinion. Many, MANY people in history have thought otherwise, and used the term 'murder' in that way.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once again, no, murder is NOT just a legal term. As a term its root in language was created before there was even a legal system. It can be a MORAL term.

The world decided it was murder by the Nazis, regardless of German law.

You cannot hide behind law books. A greater morality than the law may prevail, and it may be doing so here.

Relgiious types, for exzample, accept no morality other than that from their religion, and so their religion, NOT the law, defines murder for them. The law only sets the interpretation they are forced to abide by.

Opinion. Belief. NO set fact.

How, and who decided what "moral murder" is?

Yeah, but not regardless of the definition of "murder"....a legal one.

Who would be the instance of this greater morality? There may be, c ertainly, but there probaböly isn't. Why should there be a morality, and who decides it, and why is it higher than our law?

I remember the bible saying "You shall not kill" not "You shall not murder"...coincidence? I doubt it.

No... once more, and continually until you get the message... murder is NOT only a legal term.

If you want to debate objective versus subjective morals, go to the Philosophy area. For this argument, just accept that Governments make a moral judgment, and that might be influenced or based on an absolute system. or it might not, but it makes all of this, as ever, open to opinion. That you don't like the idea that people may think there is a higher law is neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But it IS considred morally wrong on grounds of terminating life at some point. Like I say, this is making the debate absurdly pedantic.

To who? You? Not me. You seem to believe your morals are the gospel or something.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You cannot refute the case that it is posdible that abortion possibly SHOULD be murder because you cannot demonstrate that a foetus is definitely not a human life at a certain point. That's why you cannot state a factual shut down of debate here.

I'm not the one with anything to prove though. It's definitely not murder, legally, because murder is a legal term across the board. Factually and regardless of morals. The only other kind of "murder" is the one you're creating to back your subjective morals up.

The reason the debate still goes is because YOU are making it pedantic by applying a subjective notion to an objective area, that being law and legality. Doesn't work that way. You can't create a whole new area of debate by applying what you've CHOSEN to believe, to what actually is.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, I am saying it is possible to make a case for it to be illegal on grounds that you should not kill a viable human being.

And in this case, the law agrees with ME, not you. You say you don't care about third trimester. UK law says that's illegal.

Doesn't say that it's murder, which is what you told me many times, remember? You tried to force me to concede my point because the law agreed with you that killing a baby 30 seconds BEFORE birth is murder. It doesn't.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And once more... I have every right to call for something I think is unjust to be made just. Get used to that.

Let's play a game called "Find where AC said you didn't have the right". I merely said I have a problem with your reasons.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Fantasy in your opinion only. But irrelevant in any case- as the state m,akes the final decisions here, I again have the right to think the state should change its mind to the opinion of many other states, like Ireland.

Like I said, you SEEM to be of this belief: "The law says this." "No it doesn't..." "Law is shit then, should be changed." "Why?" "Is immoral..." etc. So your only grounds for debate are beliefs you've PERSONALLY chosen.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But in any case, I do NOT actually call for a change in abortion law. I merely say the argument is viable. I also say that acience MUST come up with an answer to the 'when does life start'? puzzle, as until then it is almost certain that some immoral killings are taking place out of ignorance.

So we're all left hanging on something science will likely never come up with, just because people can't get over their own little moral dilemmas? Not for me thanks.

As of right now, when we're discussing what is and isn't murder (legal term primarily) with regards to abortion, nothing in utero is murder. So therefore, it all comes down to your subjective morals being the main ammo.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because morality generally contends that it is wrong to terminate the life of another human, certainly for selfish gain.

This is a childish argument, and a waste of time in the thread. You don't think morals can be objective- fine, but that, again, is only an opinion. Many, MANY people in history have thought otherwise, and used the term 'murder' in that way.

What morality generally? Who has the right to decide morality generally? Mine doesn't...so it can't be generally.

And that is the point, you argue that there might be some morals that don't allow abortion. Of course there might. But we humans can not live on might and maybe.

When laws are made, they are ALWAYS made on mights and maybes; they have to make a choice between options, and it continually changes.

Again... if you want to dbeate moral rights, go to Philosophy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
When laws are made, they are ALWAYS made on mights and maybes; they have to make a choice between options, and it continually changes.

Again... if you want to dbeate moral rights, go to Philosophy.

Laws are not mights and maybes...they are jsut set, they are fact. YOu can't argue about Laws...they just are (well you can argue them, but that is really Philowsophy material then)

You might want to argue that the law is wrong (in your moral opinion) and that it should be changed. But you can't argue that it already is changed. They are set....there is no argueing about it.

"To who? You? Not me. You seem to believe your morals are the gospel or something."

Trying to turn the fact that I have confidence in my morals into an insult? Not going anywhere.

-

I'm not the one with anything to prove though. It's definitely not murder, legally, because murder is a legal term across the board. Factually and regardless of morals. The only other kind of "murder" is the one you're creating to back your subjective morals up."

Lie. History and simple common sense shows that murder is not just a legal term.

And again, to argue it on that baiss is sheer pedantcism- as if the argument changes at all if all uses of the word 'murder' change to 'immoral killing'. Again, this childishness in your arguing speaks very badly of you.

And thirdly, in any case, there is plenty of precendent for a country's law to be overrideen by other law.

And meanwhile, I might be arguing from a global perspective, not a UK one, and some places think it is legally murder so, again, your point has no value.

Really, really poor basis for arguing you are showing here. It's pitiful.

-

"Doesn't say that it's murder, which is what you told me many times, remember? You tried to force me to concede my point because the law agreed with you that killing a baby 30 seconds BEFORE birth is murder. It doesn't."

Many laws do agree, and all laws agree it is immoral, so where does that leave you? Stop trying to worm out of it. No civilised Govenrment agrees with your interpretation, and no surprise, as it is EXTREMELY immoral.

-

"Like I said, you SEEM to be of this belief: "The law says this." "No it doesn't..." "Law is shit then, should be changed." "Why?" "Is immoral..." etc. So your only grounds for debate are beliefs you've PERSONALLY chosen."

Again, you are trying to say I shouldn't say that the law is wrong.

Newsflash, AC- the Law has only EVER been based on people's personal opinions. Anyone, therefore, has the right to say that it should be changed on theirs, and many people have done such things over time to make changes to laws that are now considered very just.

As it happens, many many MANY people have this opinion, and many world laws are made based on it.

EVERYONE'S contribution to this debate is on personal belief. Yours, mione, everyone's.

-

"So we're all left hanging on something science will likely never come up with, just because people can't get over their own little moral dilemmas? Not for me thanks."

Lives might be at stake. That makes this a vitally important 'moral dilemma'. No wonder people cannot get over it.

-

"As of right now, when we're discussing what is and isn't murder (legal term primarily) with regards to abortion, nothing in utero is murder. So therefore, it all comes down to your subjective morals being the main ammo."

Once more, that they are subjecvtive is only your opinion. And I am certainly not talking about ONLY a leal definition, important as that is.

It comes down to my beliefs. Which is perfectly valid, and is what everyone else is doing also.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Laws are not mights and maybes...they are jsut set, they are fact. YOu can't argue about Laws...they just are (well you can argue them, but that is really Philowsophy material then)

You might want to argue that the law is wrong (in your moral opinion) and that it should be changed. But you can't argue that it already is changed. They are set....there is no argueing about it.

People argue about laws continually. Law is all interpretation- dunno where you got your idea of law from.

And I did not argue it already is changed at any point. You seem to have drifted into an entirely different argument.

Once more, this pedantic quibbling about 'murder' is tiresomely childish. Murder or immoral killing, what the hell damn difference does it make? If the foetus really is a human life, it's still WRONG to kill it, despite what nomenclature you are using. Which should be obvious to anyone with common sense.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
People argue about laws continually. Law is all interpretation- dunno where you got your idea of law from.

And I did not argue it already is changed at any point. You seem to have drifted into an entirely different argument.

Once more, this pedantic quibbling about 'murder' is tiresomely childish. Murder or immoral killing, what the hell damn difference does it make? If the foetus really is a human life, it's still WRONG to kill it, despite what nomenclature you are using. Which should be obvious to anyone with common sense.

It makes no difference to teh arguement. But the term murder is wrong. So if you don't think it makes a difference why not call it "immoral (in your opinion) killing"? Would make things much easier.

If the foetus is human it's still not necessarily wrong to kill it. And this arguement is indeed pointless. Since murder is the wrong term, and you don't seem to care what to call it, why don'T you call it killing..which it certainly is, and not murder, which it isn't?

You will find plenty of dcitionaries that simply define murder as "to kill intentionally and with premeditation".

So again, you are simply wrong in saying that this is not murder based purely on legal terms, and AGAIN I have to remind you that some places DO consider it murder, and AGAIN I will remind you that there are numerous historical precedents for something being called murder regardless of national law. Nazi Germany is just one part of that list. Stalin had quite a name for it as well.

Get over this, guys. This quibbling over murder is making your position look absurd. Everyone knows what the term means in this argument, which is why it IS the term used in this argument outside the schoolyard mentality of these forums.

Oh man...whatever....lets jsut get back to the original topic.

A woman has every right, be it abortion, killing, murder, genocide or whatever the **** you want it to be, to get rid of a foetus in her body...that better?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Trying to turn the fact that I have confidence in my morals into an insult? Not going anywhere.

No...trying to show you that your morals are your own, they don't apply to everyone. I thought you were above purposeful misinterpretation, apparantly I was wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lie. History and simple common sense shows that murder is not just a legal term.

It's a legal term unless you morally (subjective) consider it something else. Which is a bit silly. The law says it's not applicable to abortion. If you can't deal with that, I'd recommend living in that "real world" you are always promoting.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And again, to argue it on that baiss is sheer pedantcism- as if the argument changes at all if all uses of the word 'murder' change to 'immoral killing'. Again, this childishness in your arguing speaks very badly of you.

And thirdly, in any case, there is plenty of precendent for a country's law to be overrideen by other law.

It doesn't speak badly of me at all. It's me knowing where morals end and where actuality begins, a line you've obviously not discovered yet. Murder, whether you like it or not, is a legal term. You MAKING it a moral term and saying "Well that's murder...morally." is just an ironically childish failsafe to keep your argument afloat in this debate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And meanwhile, I might be arguing from a global perspective, not a UK one, and some places think it is legally murder so, again, your point has no value.

Wait, so...you propose living in the real world but...you then go on to say "Some places think it is legally murder"? You live in the UK, until you live in any of these other states or countries, that's the law you should be concerned with. Oh...of course, now you know it doesn't agree with you, it's a "global" thing. Love it, dig it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Really, really poor basis for arguing you are showing here. It's pitiful.

Funny how you talk about being childish...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Many laws do agree, and all laws agree it is immoral, so where does that leave you? Stop trying to worm out of it. No civilised Govenrment agrees with your interpretation, and no surprise, as it is EXTREMELY immoral.

Immoral is subjective, I'm waiting for you to pick up on that one. Stop trying to gain just credibility for your argument by subliminally trying to make me out the "bad guy" by continuing to label me immoral.

Secondly, I don't care about many laws. I'm talking about UK law, you know? The real world where we "adults" live?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, you are trying to say I shouldn't say that the law is wrong.

Newsflash, AC- the Law has only EVER been based on people's personal opinions. Anyone, therefore, has the right to say that it should be changed on theirs, and many people have done such things over time to make changes to laws that are now considered very just.

Resorting to TELLING me what I tried to say? I merely said that it seems like you're using a very pedantic and childish get-out by immediately claiming the law is wrong when it doesn't agree with your subjective morals. I just think that's BS, I didn't say you couldn't say it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As it happens, m,any many MANY people have this opinion, and many world laws are made based on it.

Many people thought Bush was/is a great president, many people think Ashlee Simpson is a very talented young performer. Many doesn't mean much if it's many idiots.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
EVERYONE'S contribution to this debate is on personal belief. Yours, mione, everyone's.

Well, not in terms of whether it's murder or not, speaking for the UK of course.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lives might be at stake. That makes this a vitally important 'moral dilemma'. No wonder people cannot get over it.

Typical human selfishness, at best/worst. There will never be a bigger "Let's pat ourselves on the back for being great" movement than that of people who want to help everyone, even when they aren't wanted.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once more, that they are subjecvtive is only your opinion. And I am certainly not talking about ONLY a leal definition, important as that is.

It comes down to my beliefs. Which is perfectly valid, and is what everyone else is doing also.

Legality is not a side-issue though. You seem to be trying to make it so.

-AC

AC

What would be wrong with me killing someone? And if it wasn't you or anyone you know why would it be any of your business?

There was a time when we all were barbarians and might made right, but now society protects the weakest from the strong. So, killing someone is not allowed so that society can function, it really has nothing to do with personal rights. So the question is, does society have the right to limit your rights? If the answer is yes, then your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
AC

What would be wrong with me killing someone? And if it wasn't you or anyone you know why would it be any of your business?

Nope, none. I'm not one of those "Look at me! I'm being selfless by caring! LOOK AT ME!" type humans. I realise I get one life, so I spend it taking care of me and those close to me who I love. Couldn't care any less about anyone else to be honest.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There was a time when we all were barbarians and might made right, but now society protects the weakest from the strong. So, killing someone is not allowed so that society can function, it really has nothing to do with personal rights. So the question is, does society have the right to limit your rights? If the answer is yes, then your argument is invalid.

You are assuming that killing someone would stop society from functioning. This is all a bit off topic though. I'll happily debate it in a correct thread.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nope, none. I'm not one of those "Look at me! I'm being selfless by caring! LOOK AT ME!" type humans. I realise I get one life, so I spend it taking care of me and those close to me who I love. Couldn't care any less about anyone else to be honest.

You are assuming that killing someone would stop society from functioning. This is all a bit off topic though. I'll happily debate it in a correct thread.

-AC

My question was; does society have the right to limit your rights?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My question was; does society have the right to limit your rights?

To some extend. To save members their own members from greater harm. Before you declare victory, a foetus is not a member of society.

It depends.

If I'm not hurting anyone and my activites bring no unwanted harm to any innocent civilian, no.

-AC