what do you identify as politically?

[Revi]

Okay, genius. Let me walk you through the argument step by step, since you seemed to have missed the point. I said defining abortion as murder comes down to a subjective belief (otherwise referred to as an opinion). Endus said people who believe abortion is murder are objectively wrong. You both said "it's the legal definition, ergo it is proved." Here's the problem: the legislature (and therefore the law) is not objective.

GG, you lose. Thanks for playing.

Instead of "murder" you'll want to use "taking a life" or something synonymous to that , it doesn't mean the same thing. Don't make one word the basis of your argument if you don't know what it means.

[Deleted]

Okay, genius. Let me walk you through the argument step by step, since you seemed to have missed the point. I said defining abortion as murder comes down to a subjective belief (otherwise referred to as an opinion). Endus said people who believe abortion is murder are objectively wrong. You both said "it's the legal definition, ergo it is proved." Here's the problem: the legislature (and therefore the law) is not objective.

GG, you lose. Thanks for playing.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...english/murder
Anybody in a country where abortion is legal saying that abortion IS murder is objectively wrong and misusing the English language.

[Adhemar]

That's not my position, it is the very meaning of the word 'murder'. Murder refers specifically to an unlawful killing.

When someone says "abortion is murder" it's short-hand for saying "abortion is the pre-meditated killing of another person" and not a reference to direct laws. No one thinks people who have or perform abortions are in violation of existing law and that's why this argument is stupid.

You can believe that it should be murder but if you claim that it already is murder then you are wrong.

And again, anyone who says "abortion is murder" means exactly this and Endus and Wells hiding behind the legal definition of the term know this to be true.

[Adhemar]

Instead of "murder" you'll want to use "taking a life" or something synonymous to that , it doesn't mean the same thing. Don't make one word the basis of your argument if you don't know what it means.

I know what the word means, but thanks for your condescending comment. And I'm not the one making the argument that abortion is equivalent to murder. My argument is that there is a broad spectrum of subjective opinion on this topic and anyone claiming there's an objectively right answer (without leaning on religion to arrive at it) is wrong.

[Deleted]

When someone says "abortion is murder" it's short-hand for saying "abortion is the pre-meditated killing of another person" and not a reference to direct laws. No one thinks people who have or perform abortions are in violation of existing law and that's why this argument is stupid.

Those people are using the language incorrectly. Or simply using that word in an attempt to provoke emotional responses.

And again, anyone who says "abortion is murder" means exactly this and Endus and Wells hiding behind the legal definition of the term know this to be true.

Having seen these debates I know that people say it is murder not that it should be. They are making false claims about abortion so Endus and Wells are well within their right to correct them.

Also it's not the 'legal definition' of the term, it is the actual definition.

[Wells]

When someone says "abortion is murder" it's short-hand for saying "abortion is the pre-meditated killing of another person" and not a reference to direct laws. No one thinks people who have or perform abortions are in violation of existing law and that's why this argument is stupid.


And again, anyone who says "abortion is murder" means exactly this and Endus and Wells hiding behind the legal definition of the term know this to be true.

You're demanding people concede language that is defined by illegality. Not gonna happen.

And since you want to change the framing for the argument for some reason here's what was said that started this whole chain:

Also it's not a goal-post change. We've gone over this enough times that that should be obvious. There are people who honestly believe terminating a pregnancy is murder.

This is an objectively wrong belief.

[Theinquisition]

When someone says "abortion is murder" it's short-hand for saying "abortion is the pre-meditated killing of another person" and not a reference to direct laws. No one thinks people who have or perform abortions are in violation of existing law and that's why this argument is stupid.


And again, anyone who says "abortion is murder" means exactly this and Endus and Wells hiding behind the legal definition of the term know this to be true.

Welcome to debating with Wells 101. Never expect more than a snarky 2 sentence response.

He's a great guy though.

[Adhemar]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...english/murder
Anybody in a country where abortion is legal saying that abortion IS murder is objectively wrong and misusing the English language.

As murder is unlawful killing of another human being, abortion is, objectively speaking, not murder anywhere that it is legal so long as it occurs under the legal circumstances. Any attempt to say otherwise is false. So assuming Endus was referring to people living in places such as the United States or Canada, he is correct to say they are objectively wrong when they call it murder. We need not consider whether or not a prohibition on murder or an objection to abortion come down to subjective beliefs to know this.

Or maybe they meant abortion was "a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience" ... see where literalism takes us?

[Revi]

Or maybe they meant abortion was "a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience" ... see where literalism takes us?

But that's not what they meant, we all know that. Calling it murder is an attempt at getting an emotional response, and it's completely wrong.

[Adhemar]

Those people are using the language incorrectly. Or simply using that word in an attempt to provoke emotional responses.

It is no more incorrect use of the language than when someone says, "collateral damage is murder." Yes, anyone using the term is attempting to provoke a passionate response. So are people who refer to embryos as "parasites" or "tumors." I didn't choose the term, and I wouldn't base my own position on it.

Having seen these debates I know that people say it is murder not that it should be. They are making false claims about abortion so Endus and Wells are well within their right to correct them.

Also it's not the 'legal definition' of the term, it is the actual definition.

I've never met anyone who thinks that abortion is currently illegal in the United States. I'm sure that level of ignorance probably exists somewhere, but that's not what the core of the argument was and dodging the debate through a legal loophole is not objective proof.

- - - Updated - - -

Those people are using the language incorrectly. Or simply using that word in an attempt to provoke emotional responses.

It is no more incorrect use of the language than when someone says, "collateral damage is murder." Yes, anyone using the term is attempting to provoke a passionate response. So are people who refer to embryos as "parasites" or "tumors." I didn't choose the term, and I wouldn't base my own position on it.

Having seen these debates I know that people say it is murder not that it should be. They are making false claims about abortion so Endus and Wells are well within their right to correct them.

Also it's not the 'legal definition' of the term, it is the actual definition.

I've never met anyone who thinks that abortion is currently illegal in the United States. I'm sure that level of ignorance probably exists somewhere, but that's not what the core of the argument was and dodging the debate through a legal loophole is not objective proof.

[satimy]

That's not even vaguely circular. Murder is illegal premeditated homicide. Abortion is legal.

- - - Updated - - -


This isn't what the axis is at all. Its equality vs stratification. If you see that as pitting one side as the bad guy you aren't thinking it through.

I don't know if youre trying to be intentionally vague, but some abortion is illegal, it depends on the weeks of the pregnancy.

[Adhemar]

But that's not what they meant, we all know that. Calling it murder is an attempt at getting an emotional response, and it's completely wrong.

Right. And "abortion is currently illegal under the laws of the United States" is also not what they meant, and we all know THAT, too, but it's now been asserted at least 5 times in this thread.

[Wells]

Guys guys guys why aren't people taking my factually incorrect attempts at evoking emotional responses seriously?

[Mormolyce]

Can we stop turning this into another abortion thread? Abortion doesn't even fit anywhere on that political spectrum. It's only political insofar as it's a political football really.

[Adhemar]

I speak English and all of my communication with other people is predicated on the assumption that they also speak English and not some other language that just happens to use symbols arranged in a manner that consistently looks like English. If you'd like to speak a language other than English, be my guest, but have the courtesy to let us know that you are speaking another language, as the visual similarity might make it hard to tell otherwise. Thanks.


P.S. You'll find me extremely unsympathetic to any attempt to justify emotional appeals. Get a real argument or go home.

I have made no emotional appeals. If you feel I have, please point them out instead of hurling accusations without supporting them.

My statement would have been absolutely correct usage of the English language, which does not demand that everything be represented in exact, literal terms (that's the point, after all).

[Deleted]

It is no more incorrect use of the language than when someone says, "collateral damage is murder." Yes, anyone using the term is attempting to provoke a passionate response. So are people who refer to embryos as "parasites" or "tumors." I didn't choose the term, and I wouldn't base my own position on it.

A foetus does act as a parasite does so there is nothing incorrect about referring to one as thus. Tumors I agree with you on however.

I've never met anyone who thinks that abortion is currently illegal in the United States. I'm sure that level of ignorance probably exists somewhere, but that's not what the core of the argument was and dodging the debate through a legal loophole is not objective proof.

When somebody uses the phrase "Abortion is murder" it means "Abortion is an unlawful killing...". They are, there and then claiming that abortion is unlawful whether they mean it or not. If they use the language correctly and say it should be murder then fair deuce, but they do not. Thus it is objective that what they are saying is incorrect.

[xskarma]

I know Endus was involved in this at some point, but he said back at page 6:

I'm not dealing with the rest, because the goal wasn't to derail the thread into debating abortion.

And yet here we are many pages later with the thread derailed into discussions about specific terms surrounding abortion.

I suggest we drop the abortion specifics discussion and concentrate on the original intention of the thread: What do you identify as politically?

[Adhemar]

A foetus does act as a parasite does so there is nothing incorrect about referring to one as thus. Tumors I agree with you on however.

It makes no difference whether or not the claim is true, it is still an attempt to provoke an emotional response.

When somebody uses the phrase "Abortion is murder" it means "Abortion is an unlawful killing...". They are, there and then claiming that abortion is unlawful whether they mean it or not. If they use the language correctly and say it should be murder then fair deuce, but they do not. Thus it is objective that what they are saying is incorrect.

Only if you take it literally, and we both know it's not meant that way.

- - - Updated - - -

I know Endus was involved in this at some point, but he said back at page 6:



And yet here we are many pages later with the thread derailed into discussions about specific terms surrounding abortion.

I suggest we drop the abortion specifics discussion and concentrate on the original intention of the thread: What do you identify as politically?

I'm very much not arguing for or against abortion (for the record), simply that it is a subjective position and that Endus's statement that you cannot be libertarian and anti-abortion was incorrect. I do, however, concur that we've gone down the abortion rabbit hole and this will be my last post in this topic.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Sex is automatic consent for all of the direct consequences of the act.

But does not oblige the woman to carry out a pregnancy to term, thus sex is not solely for the purpose of reproduction among humans. Implying that a woman is not allowed to have an abortion because sex is ultimate consent to having a child is an argument lacking in logic.

[oxymoronic]

murder or not you still killing a potential life after a zygote is formed. i support abortion just wish people would call it what it is instead of dance around the issue and make soon to be mothers feel a little better about their decision.

PS I go both ways
(im dirty)