FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-06-2003, 07:48 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Soyin Milka
It's not only according to Hezekiah Jones.
Many governments also make a clear legal distinction between murder and abortion.
Not long ago, many governments made a clear distinction between human beings and blacks.

Quote:
I didn't read Hezekiah's post as saying abortion is not murder because it's legal, but rather as saying abortion is legal because it's not murder.

Soyin
You obviously didn't read his response when I questioned him on the matter.
yguy is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:00 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld
Posts: 4,836
Default

Quote:
Not long ago, many governments made a clear distinction between human beings and blacks.
Nice try. Gov'ts also make a clear distinction between human beings and animals. Not long ago, many gov't made a clear distinction between human beings and blacks. Does NOT imply that animals are human beings.

Don't appeal to emotion. Lay out your case for why fetuses should be granted the rights of a human being, but don't try to win by associating your opponent with racists.
elwoodblues is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:07 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Default

Originally posted by yguy
Obviously. The point is that the same logic can be used to justify infanticide.

Sorry, I can't "justify infanticide" using the Court's logic. If you want to use abortion jurisprudence to "justify infanticide," be my guest. You just might be able to.

Originally posted by yguy
What is the state's interest in protecting the right to life of retarded children, or the chronically homeless?

Same as its interest in protecting yours. Retarded children and the chronically homeless are "persons." As I said, the state's interest in the life of the unborn increases the further the unborn advances from viability.

Is a 32-week-old fetus a "person"? Perhaps. 24-week? Maybe. Three-days-old? I think not. That's probably not even a fetus. So it's probably somewhere in between. Any ideas? Where shall we draw the line, so to speak?

Originally posted by yguy
Why wouldn't they be, since it's not murder, according to you?

Because I'm quite sure that having an abortion is an extremely difficult and uncomfortable decision for most women, if not all. And that is why her privacy is guaranteed, as well as considerations with respect to her physical and psychological health in consultation with her physician.
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:12 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Default

Originally posted by Soyin Milka
I didn't read Hezekiah's post as saying abortion is not murder because it's legal ...

Yep, that's what I said, sort of. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. Ergo, abortion is not murder. Any state criminal code will confirm this.

(lol - Absurdistan. I love it.)
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:24 PM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by elwoodblues
Nice try. Gov'ts also make a clear distinction between human beings and animals. Not long ago, many gov't made a clear distinction between human beings and blacks. Does NOT imply that animals are human beings.
Had I made the assertion that the humanity of the fetus followed from the fact that we now recognize the humanity of blacks, you would have a point; what I actually did, though, was demonstrate that Soyin Milka's implication that popular consensus confers any legitimacy upon abortion is incorrect.

Quote:
Don't appeal to emotion. Lay out your case for why fetuses should be granted the rights of a human being, but don't try to win by associating your opponent with racists.
If abortion supporters wish not to be associated with racists, they might consider eschewing the logic favored by racists. Dumping Margaret Sanger as an icon wouldn't hurt any either.
yguy is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:27 PM   #46
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Absurdistan
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
obviously didn't read his response when I questioned him on the matter.
You're correct. I took for granted he meant what I thought he meant. You interpreted his words more accurately than me. That abortion is legal because it's not murder is my own belief.

If you believe abortion is murder, do you also believe women who get an abortion should be treated like murderers?

Soyin
Soyin Milka is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:31 PM   #47
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Absurdistan
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by hezekiah jones
Originally posted by Soyin Milka
I didn't read Hezekiah's post as saying abortion is not murder because it's legal ...

Yep, that's what I said, sort of. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. Ergo, abortion is not murder. Any state criminal code will confirm this.

(lol - Absurdistan. I love it.)
Your logic is so cold and abstract, but I mean this in the best possible way

(Absurdistan is a sorry place. On may sixth, I still have enough snow in my backyard to make a snowman. But thank you!)
Soyin Milka is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:32 PM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Soyin Milka
If you believe abortion is murder, do you also believe women who get an abortion should be treated like murderers?
At this time, no, because many women honestly don't believe it is murder, the contrary perception having been ground into the American psyche. A woman can't be rightly convicted of murder if she didn't believe it WAS murder, because she lacks intent.
yguy is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:38 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Default

Originally posted by Soyin Milka
Your logic is so cold and abstract, but I mean this in the best possible way.

Ha! I guess because I see it as a legal issue rather than a moral one. I have an idea what the state of the law currently is, and I would seriously like to see some arguments put forth against it, aside from this "killing" business. We all know it's "killing."

But at least no one has mentioned "holocaust" or "slaughterhouses" yet.
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:41 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Default

Originally posted by yguy
A woman can't be rightly convicted of murder if she didn't believe it WAS murder, because she lacks intent.

Ignorance of the law and intent are two completely different issues.
hezekiah jones is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:46 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.