|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:49 pm
Freedom Fire crystal_pepzi Quote: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible In this verse we see that if the pregnant woman is killed god commands that the killers life be given in return but if the fetus is killed (forced miscarriage: The closest that the bible ever comes to talking about abortion) they only ask for a fine to be paid. Proof that the christian god does not consider a fetus to be the equal of it's mother. AHA! If that's the closest the Bible comes to abortion, the Bible doesn't condemn abortion at all. It condemns forced miscarriages, and killing the fetus inside a woman without her consent is very different from abortion. An abortion is done with the woman's consent, and is an exercise of her right to bodily domain. This is not what the Bible condemns, or even mentions. A forces miscarriage is done without the woman's consent, and is therefore a violation of her bodily domain. If it was considered murder, the Bible would declare death as the appropriate penalty. A fine indicates that it's wrong, it's not murder but rather a wrong done to a fellow human being which violates her rights. Not to mention in Psalms we are told a whore should be happy to kill her born children, so we can infer God would be happy if a whore killed her unborn children as well since they are not seen as fully human in Exodus. Happy is she that dasheth thy little ones against the stones (or something to that effect)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:26 pm
Excuse me, Talon, for slightly altering the set up of your post. Extra lines annoy me slightly.Talon-chan How often do people come into the ADT and say "abortion is murder"? Almost every single day. How often do pro-choice advocates respond with - "the law defines murder as the malicious, unlawful taking of life of a legal person. Abortion is not malicious* or illegal and a fetus is not a person, therefore abortion is not murder." Unfortunately, this is not a good response. First and foremost it is a fallacy. No pro-lifer in the ADT is unaware of the current state of the law.
But if you're referring to regular lifers and those who post less often, I do agree. In general, though...it's not really fair to assume this constant when many have shown otherwise, even if only initially.Talon-chan They are making an argument about moral equivalency, and each and every one of you know this. If any one of you sincerely thinks a pro-lifer saying, "abortion is murder" is attempting to make a statement of fact about the current legal system please speak up and prove me wrong. When you treat their argument as such you are building a strawman - you are making a weaker argument and knocking it down, avoiding their actual argument.
Now, I do believe it's truly a strawman fallacy if they're ONLY focusing on the law and how it's approached legally for even rhetorical situations and assumptions. This is something I've seen done around the ADT, but didn't want to be overly rude by mentioning anything about it. Partly to avoid off-topicness in the thread, and otherwise it became quite involved 80% of the time.
If their entire argument is based on "abortion is murder," then it's not fallacious, by far, to argue that it's not. "Murder" in the US, Canada, and much of Europe is a very specific legal term, and opinion does not change the definition. The definition of murder, as being presented, is a fact and the fact if CAN change does not make it different NOW.Talon-chan It is also a fallacy of appealing to authority - you are implying that "because the law says so, it must be acceptable." This is clearly not true since many heinous things in the past and present have been and are perfectly legal (where many innocuous things are illegal confused ).
Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but it just doesn't seem a very consistent reason, especially since the CURRENT law is what's being argued, not past laws. If past laws are brought up, they can be refuted for why they're changed or currently moot.Talon-chan The second problem is that you, yourselves, would never accept such an argument, so why think a pro-lifer will? Talon-chan In the horrible situation that one day abortion is made illegal in the US (where many of you live), how many would throw up your hands and say, "well the law says abortion is wrong, so it must be true!"? How many of you would be convinced that "well the law says abortion is wrong" is a reasonable response to "I believe a fetus imposes on a woman's bodily autonomy"? Talon-chan The third problem is that this sort of argument has a negative impact on the pro-choice movement. First, it makes you, the pro-choicer, appear stupid - how dense does one have to be to think pro-lifers don't know the state of the law and are making anything other than an argument of moral equivalency?
My second issue with this point is that it's making assumptions. This line of thought isn't very consistent because the OPINION of the other can be formed in many ways, and it's not always based solely on the argument Despite this small, and trivial, point, I'd like to point out that the argument making someone appear "stupid" is a rather far-fetched claim, as it's typically making the person seeming stubborn. Possibly not as caring, but never stupid.Talon-chan Second, it makes you appear heartless - you're apparently willing to follow any law just because it's the law no matter how negative its impact may be. Talon-chan Third it makes pro-choicers seem just as irrational as pro-lifers. "But the law says so," is the equivalent to "well the bible says so," and if that's the best you can do you won't convince anyone or worse you will make a pro-lifer more convicted in their own beliefs because "it's the law" is apparently the best you can do in response to "abortion is the moral equivalent of murder." What are your thoughts about this argument? Feel free to completely disagree. I'd hate to have anyone think that because I am convicted in my views that I am not open to differring opinions.
It's rather fallacies, or even presumption all these opinions and stances will be automatically made or assessed based on the presentation of the argument solely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:45 am
Kata, from what I gage reading your post... your whole objection is:
Sometimes pro-lifers really do think it is the crime of murder, and as such it's ok to respond to any "abortion is murder" post with the legal argument. You [Talon] are only right with your assessment when the pro-lifer is actually making an argument of moral equivalency.
I agree.
What I think you miss is this: When a pro-lifer comes into the thread, pro-choicers immediately go for the low-hanging fruit [the law argument]. A pro-lifer says, "abortion is murder because it kills a person" and is immediately regaled with "the law says XYZ, therefore you're wrong." IF this pro-lifer was making an argument of moral equivalency (and just not stating it as such), they have now been scared away from the thread and the PC movement hurt for the reasons I presented. What you think now was just a case of someone ignorant of the law, was actually a case of moral equivalency.
In my honest opinion, I think those ignorant of the law are few and far between (the honest to goodness 13-15 year olds on gaia who have never learned anything about abortion that wasn't tainted by lies), and that the vast majority of pro-lifers IRL are perfectly aware that abortion is legal and that women who abort are not charged with murder.
I believe that ultimately, the best response to "I believe abortion is murder of a human being" would be to ask "What do you mean by that? That killing a fetus is currently illegal and the legal crime of murder, or that it isn't, but should be?"
But as before, that's just my opinion and I am open to criticism of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:47 pm
Talon-chan Kata, from what I gage reading your post... your whole objection is: Sometimes pro-lifers really do think it is the crime of murder, and as such it's ok to respond to any "abortion is murder" post with the legal argument. You [Talon] are only right with your assessment when the pro-lifer is actually making an argument of moral equivalency. I agree. What I think you miss is this: When a pro-lifer comes into the thread, pro-choicers immediately go for the low-hanging fruit [the law argument]. A pro-lifer says, "abortion is murder because it kills a person" and is immediately regaled with "the law says XYZ, therefore you're wrong." IF this pro-lifer was making an argument of moral equivalency (and just not stating it as such), they have now been scared away from the thread and the PC movement hurt for the reasons I presented. What you think now was just a case of someone ignorant of the law, was actually a case of moral equivalency.
We can't simply assume the argument is one way or other based on the appearance of a word, or simplified reason. Now, if the lifer in question said "Abortion is murder, because I think/belive the (fetus/baby/charged term) is a person (or human being)," then yes it turns into moral debate. That does NOT, however, mean they cannot be corrected on the definition or murder or that using it in any other way is incorrect being that it's a specific legal term. This is not an appeal to any authority, it is presenting facts and keeping the debate as it is: a legal one.Talon-chan In my honest opinion, I think those ignorant of the law are few and far between (the honest to goodness 13-15 year olds on gaia who have never learned anything about abortion that wasn't tainted by lies), and that the vast majority of pro-lifers IRL are perfectly aware that abortion is legal and that women who abort are not charged with murder. Talon-chan I believe that ultimately, the best response to "I believe abortion is murder of a human being" would be to ask "What do you mean by that? That killing a fetus is currently illegal and the legal crime of murder, or that it isn't, but should be?" But as before, that's just my opinion and I am open to criticism of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:13 pm
Kata, the biggest problem is that the law can be changed. It's easy to trump refuting it with legal definition.
However, drawing legal parallels is different. You can draw a parallel to a well-accepted legal constant - something that will never change, unless we seriously ******** up somewhere. In the case of abortion, you can draw a parallel to killing a rapist in self-defense due to the violation of rights being the same. Since rape will never be legal due to how much we know about rape and what happens, they can't just argue change of law because it's a law that can't be changed due to public opinion. It makes the argument a lot harder to refute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:22 pm
Lord Setar Kata, the biggest problem is that the law can be changed. It's easy to trump refuting it with legal definition.
Yet abortion is still legal, and not murder. We're working with current fact, not potential. Currently, abortion is not murder. Murder is a very specific legal term, and cannot be argued differently based on belief, opinion, or even potential. It's weak grounds to stand on, as fact can be backed better than opinion, and if one argues what they think murder is, it'll be refuted with current fact.
Further, should abortion be even made murder under law, then a series of further violations and inconsistencies can be invoked and enforced. Do we really need to continue on this slippery slope?Lord Setar However, drawing legal parallels is different. You can draw a parallel to a well-accepted legal constant - something that will never change, unless we seriously ******** up somewhere. In the case of abortion, you can draw a parallel to killing a rapist in self-defense due to the violation of rights being the same. Since rape will never be legal due to how much we know about rape and what happens, they can't just argue change of law because it's a law that can't be changed due to public opinion. It makes the argument a lot harder to refute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:29 pm
Kata Samoes Lord Setar Kata, the biggest problem is that the law can be changed. It's easy to trump refuting it with legal definition.
Yet abortion is still legal, and not murder. We're working with current fact, not potential. Currently, abortion is not murder. Murder is a very specific legal term, and cannot be argued differently based on belief, opinion, or even potential. It's weak grounds to stand on, as fact can be backed better than opinion, and if one argues what they think murder is, it'll be refuted with current fact.
Further, should abortion be even made murder under law, then a series of further violations and inconsistencies can be invoked and enforced. Do we really need to continue on this slippery slope?True enough. However, I prefer presenting more airtight arguments and trying to make my opponent think. I find that the main cause of being pro-life seems to be a lack of use of the matter lying inside of one's cranium. I don't just want to be convincing, I want my opponent to have to think about how they can refute my post rather than just being able to pull some weak, easy excuse out of their propaganda file. Sadly, this is likely why my posts tend to go ignored, because it seems that most of my opponents seem to enjoy being force-fed stuff and thinking seems to be too much of a strain on said matter inside of their crania (craniums? I have no idea what the plural is...). Kata Samoes Lord Setar However, drawing legal parallels is different. You can draw a parallel to a well-accepted legal constant - something that will never change, unless we seriously ******** up somewhere. In the case of abortion, you can draw a parallel to killing a rapist in self-defense due to the violation of rights being the same. Since rape will never be legal due to how much we know about rape and what happens, they can't just argue change of law because it's a law that can't be changed due to public opinion. It makes the argument a lot harder to refute. Eh, I just put forward a more airtight argument, something harder to refute - actually, to disagree with the parallel and say that while killing in self-defense in the case of rape is okay, abortion is not, is inconsistent. Rights do not work that way - you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either both are legal, or neither is. There's nothing different in the violations, so why should anything be different in the means of defense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:02 pm
Lord Setar Kata Samoes Lord Setar Kata, the biggest problem is that the law can be changed. It's easy to trump refuting it with legal definition.
Yet abortion is still legal, and not murder. We're working with current fact, not potential. Currently, abortion is not murder. Murder is a very specific legal term, and cannot be argued differently based on belief, opinion, or even potential. It's weak grounds to stand on, as fact can be backed better than opinion, and if one argues what they think murder is, it'll be refuted with current fact.
Further, should abortion be even made murder under law, then a series of further violations and inconsistencies can be invoked and enforced. Do we really need to continue on this slippery slope?True enough. However, I prefer presenting more airtight arguments and trying to make my opponent think. I find that the main cause of being pro-life seems to be a lack of use of the matter lying inside of one's cranium. I don't just want to be convincing, I want my opponent to have to think about how they can refute my post rather than just being able to pull some weak, easy excuse out of their propaganda file. Sadly, this is likely why my posts tend to go ignored, because it seems that most of my opponents seem to enjoy being force-fed stuff and thinking seems to be too much of a strain on said matter inside of their crania (craniums? I have no idea what the plural is...).
The only responses I did get were either out of stubborn-ness, annoyance, anger, or personal issues. All quite sad, but I never let anyone with such negative responses get me down or kick me out.
Besides that, the argument by itself isn't airtight, but supporting it with other refutes or positions have made it better or more airtight.Lord Setar Kata Samoes Lord Setar However, drawing legal parallels is different. You can draw a parallel to a well-accepted legal constant - something that will never change, unless we seriously ******** up somewhere. In the case of abortion, you can draw a parallel to killing a rapist in self-defense due to the violation of rights being the same. Since rape will never be legal due to how much we know about rape and what happens, they can't just argue change of law because it's a law that can't be changed due to public opinion. It makes the argument a lot harder to refute. Eh, I just put forward a more airtight argument, something harder to refute - actually, to disagree with the parallel and say that while killing in self-defense in the case of rape is okay, abortion is not, is inconsistent. Rights do not work that way - you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either both are legal, or neither is. There's nothing different in the violations, so why should anything be different in the means of defense?
It seems more and more arguments are about punishing the woman more than 'saving lives!' in this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:21 pm
Kata Samoes Lord Setar Kata Samoes Lord Setar However, drawing legal parallels is different. You can draw a parallel to a well-accepted legal constant - something that will never change, unless we seriously ******** up somewhere. In the case of abortion, you can draw a parallel to killing a rapist in self-defense due to the violation of rights being the same. Since rape will never be legal due to how much we know about rape and what happens, they can't just argue change of law because it's a law that can't be changed due to public opinion. It makes the argument a lot harder to refute. Eh, I just put forward a more airtight argument, something harder to refute - actually, to disagree with the parallel and say that while killing in self-defense in the case of rape is okay, abortion is not, is inconsistent. Rights do not work that way - you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either both are legal, or neither is. There's nothing different in the violations, so why should anything be different in the means of defense?
It seems more and more arguments are about punishing the woman more than 'saving lives!' in this issue.Aye. What needs to be put forward is that in terms of rights, nothing is changed. Only the situation is changed, but it's the same violation of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:10 am
I veer away from relying on the current status of the law to back myself up (why should I use the fact that something is legal as a support for whether or not it should be legal? that's just as bad as anti-gay advocates saying that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's currently not allowed), it makes more sense to tell them why the law is what it is, because I have met many a pro-lifer who thinks that the current state of the law is just a blip in consistency and they're the only ones who have figured it out.
Learning about the basis for why abortion cannot be treated as murder has opened my eyes very much about this topic and solidified most of my beliefs and stances on the topic. Unfortunately, when I present this to people, they either start making completely irrelevant things up ("you're saying the fetus isn't alive!?") or pretending my argument has no merit because they haven't seen any other pro-choicer use it (one guy in the GD tried to tell me I was insane, apparently it's my fault he doesn't understand bodily domain?) and are thus unable to use cookie-cutter weak refuting infodumps.
I'll admit that on days when I'm feeling rather snippy, I will say to them that abortion = murder is equatable to me saying that the sky is green. The only thing keeping either of those statements from being true is a definition change, but no one will agree with me that the sky is green, because it just isn't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:24 am
Freedom Fire crystal_pepzi Quote: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible In this verse we see that if the pregnant woman is killed god commands that the killers life be given in return but if the fetus is killed (forced miscarriage: The closest that the bible ever comes to talking about abortion) they only ask for a fine to be paid. Proof that the christian god does not consider a fetus to be the equal of it's mother. AHA! If that's the closest the Bible comes to abortion, the Bible doesn't condemn abortion at all. It condemns forced miscarriages, and killing the fetus inside a woman without her consent is very different from abortion. An abortion is done with the woman's consent, and is an exercise of her right to bodily domain. This is not what the Bible condemns, or even mentions. A forces miscarriage is done without the woman's consent, and is therefore a violation of her bodily domain. If it was considered murder, the Bible would declare death as the appropriate penalty. A fine indicates that it's wrong, it's not murder but rather a wrong done to a fellow human being which violates her rights. Be careful though, many lifers interpret that passage to be saying that "further harm" refers to the early-born baby dying, rather than the mother who is giving birth. I really don't think it's the case, though, since in those times premature birth = death anyway, so there would be no need for the distinction, as premature babies being able to survive is a feat of modern science and probably wouldn't have been forseen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
