Rudy/Abortion

[randerizer]

Ah, very good response. So based on this, would you view abortion as murder?

no. abortion is without doubt termination of life. but i wouldn't call it murder if you were to terminate the life of a dog, a frog, a spider, a tree, one of my testicles (cancerous or not - there's a softball for you JL :icon_wink: ), etc..

You are welcome to use a term such as fetacide or something to describe an abortion if you want. I think its pointless to create a new word when it means the same thing as abortion, however. But since murder requires the willful killing of a person, it is very much different than abortion.

[RhythmDawg]

The American Heratige Dictionary defines murder as...

1. Noun: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Verb: To kill (another human) unlawfully.

[randerizer]

And by the way, despite how much I enjoyed and appreciate this response, it nevertheless remains, regardless of reason, simply your opinion that would be argued by many...though not me.

I understand - and we've really been through that argument a bunch before in these:

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40534
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39197

and this one was perhaps the largest discussion.
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39886

but i'm not sure that i'd call my stance "simply an opinion." given sufficient evidence, I would change my stance, as I outlined in at least one of those threads. but since that evidence does not currently exist for anyone, I find my "opinion" to be one of the only valid stances on the issue.

[RhythmDawg]

no. abortion is without doubt termination of life. but i wouldn't call it murder if you were to terminate the life of a dog, a frog, a spider, a tree, one of my testicles (cancerous or not - there's a softball for you JL :icon_wink: ), etc..

You are welcome to use a term such as fetacide or something to describe an abortion if you want. I think its pointless to create a new word when it means the same thing as abortion, however. But since murder requires the willful killing of a person, it is very much different than abortion.

Good. I don't remember exactly how we got on the murder thing, but whatever.

So we have established that abortion is not murder. For you, what is the difference in terminating the "life" of a fetus and terminating the life of a dog, a frog, a spider, a tree, one of your...um...yeah, you wrote "testicles ," etc.? Is it based on it's potential?

[randerizer]

The American Heratige Dictionary defines murder as...

1. Noun: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Verb: To kill (another human) unlawfully.

human, in its simplest definition, would be "rational animal," implying that the entity is a distinct thing (implicit in "animal") with certain qualities that distinguish animals from other entitites, and is rational (implying consciousness, volition, etc.). To be sure, the definition of a human also implies a biped w/ 2 eyes, a thumb and 4 fingers on each hand, etc. But the term "rational animal" is probably the simplest definition that properly distinguishes human from ALL other things.

[RhythmDawg]

I understand - and we've really been through that argument a bunch before in these:

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40534
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39197

and this one was perhaps the largest discussion.
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39886

but i'm not sure that i'd call my stance "simply an opinion." given sufficient evidence, I would change my stance, as I outlined in at least one of those threads. but since that evidence does not currently exist for anyone, I find my "opinion" to be one of the only valid stances on the issue.

Yeah, I can agree with that. :icon_wink:

[RhythmDawg]

human, in its simplest definition, would be "rational animal," implying that the entity is a distinct thing (implicit in "animal") with certain qualities that distinguish animals from other entitites, and is rational (implying consciousness, volition, etc.). To be sure, the definition of a human also implies a biped w/ 2 eyes, a thumb and 4 fingers on each hand, etc. But the term "rational animal" is probably the simplest definition that properly distinguishes human from ALL other things.

My dog can make rational decisions...be them quite simple ones.

[johnnylightnin]

It doesn't. This was posted to refute the statement "The reality of the truth does not bend to conform to one's personal beliefs," in that there are more than one opinion on this issue and each side belives itself to be correct, yet can't prove itself to be correct.

Your assuming art criticism and moral absolutes can be equated...they cannot.

[johnnylightnin]

Oh I wasn't going so far as to equate that to majority of society, I was simply providing a legal example. I cannot support that a majority of society does not believes that. That is why I said I "think." Can you support the opposite? I would assume not...which, again, is why we have this discussion.

According to my medical ethics book, 78% of Americans believe abortion should either be VERY stricly regulated or outlawed all together. I'd call that an overwhelming majority.

[RhythmDawg]

Your assuming art criticism and moral absolutes can be equated...they cannot.

Why? Is there a moral standard that everyone must follow? Does such a thing as a moral absolute exist? I think that if there is such thing as a moral absolute, then no one should disagree with it. Terrorists have no moral problem with murder. Some liberals have no moral problems with abortion. Some politicians have no moral problems with lying .

Wearing a bikini...unacceptable 100 years ago and considered a "moral absolute" today is dictated by (some) societies as morally acceptable. Heck, wearing a bikini in America is morally acceptable. Wearing a bikini in the Middle East is morally, absolutely wrong.

[randerizer]

Good. I don't remember exactly how we got on the murder thing, but whatever.

So we have established that abortion is not murder. For you, what is the difference in terminating the "life" of a fetus and terminating the life of a dog, a frog, a spider, a tree, one of your...um...yeah, you wrote "testicles ," etc.? Is it based on it's potential?

i feel bad about killing a dog because i've known the beneficial qualities of having a dog around me. if i had any more time around the house, i'd be interested in adopting a dog to go along with the sheltie i currently have.

i'm somewhat indifferent to killing frogs, but i hear that they taste like chicken. i like to kill spiders, because i've had enough bad experiences with them to know that the best ones i ever find are dead.

as far as trees, I'd hate to kill a tree that provides shade nearby, and I guess I think it might be beneficial to prevent significant deforestation. Then again, with killing a tree comes wood for a house, so if I was building a house I'd be all for it. I'm considering chopping down a chinaberry tree in my yard, because its droppings keep staining my patio. so the berries are worse than the reduction in shade in this case.

i'd defend my testicles if someone tried to take them from me. if it was cancerous, i'd have to do what i needed to do, but it would probably not be an easy decision.

as for a fetus, it does represent a potential human being, that is much closer to being an actual human than sperm, etc. i also know that becoming pregnant is a significant hurdle to others. i think it might be least traumatic for a pregnant woman to have a child and send it for adoption rather than to have an abortion. for others, it might not be. i think avoiding the pregnancy altogether would be the best thing to do, but there are risks associated with playing the game. i think that the morning after pill (along with birth control pills, condoms, etc.) is one of the greatest inventions we've ever seen, because it avoids a significant amount of trauma. at least, I'd have NO emotional response whatsoever to my wife taking a morning after pill, other than my support for her.

[RhythmDawg]

According to my medical ethics book, 78% of Americans believe abortion should either be VERY stricly regulated or outlawed all together. I'd call that an overwhelming majority.

Based on your statements, if you are going to claim 78%, you can't include the "VERY strictly regulated" group as being TOTALLY against abortion."

[johnnylightnin]

Does such a thing as a moral absolute exist?

Orthodox Christians believe that it does. Further, my inability to prove something to you does not make it false. For instance, I can't prove to you that Lincoln was shot, but it happened. I can't prove to you that I wear a size 10 1/2 shoe, but I do.

My whole point is that it's disingenuous for Rudy to say that he hates abortion, but he believes people should have the right to choose it. Why would he hate it if he didn't believe it was wrong. If it is wrong, he should fight it instead of trying to stay electable in New York.

[johnnylightnin]

Based on your statements, if you are going to claim 78%, you can't include the "VERY strictly regulated" group as being TOTALLY against abortion."

Okay, how about 78% of Americans disagree with the abortion rights displayed in Roe V Wade?

[RhythmDawg]

Orthodox Christians believe that it does. Further, my inability to prove something to you does not make it false. For instance, I can't prove to you that Lincoln was shot, but it happened. I can't prove to you that I wear a size 10 1/2 shoe, but I do.

Lincoln's pillow with his blood stain are on display in D.C. i've seen it, so you don't have to prove it. As for your shoe...I'll take your word for it. And I never said your statement was false. I simply deal with percentages, trials, polls, trends, etc., all the time that say one thing or another about society, and only one thing is consistent about most all of them...they didn't ask my opinion.

My whole point is that it's disingenuous for Rudy to say that he hates abortion, but he believes people should have the right to choose it. Why would he hate it if he didn't believe it was wrong. If it is wrong, he should fight it instead of trying to stay electable in New York.

I totally respect your position on this. I am still not certain of where I stand on it. I can see this point, but can also see the issue of impeading on others rights when all aspects of the issue, according to some, are not clear.