Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

I did not say that the law was 'right' those are your own words, I just pointed out that in the case where a killing occurs legally it is not murder. I also mentioned that if the law changed that same act could then be murder. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Obilisk18]

Selfish_Meme wrote: I did not say that the law was 'right' those are your own words, I just pointed out that in the case where a killing occurs legally it is not murder. I also mentioned that if the law changed that same act could then be murder. Don't put words in my mouth.

In that case, your argument is irrelevant. Unless you choose to conflate murder, as defined by the law, with inherent rightness, then the current abortion laws have no bearing on the pro-life movements opposition to legalized abortion. I termed abortion murder earlier, and legally I'll concede that it does not yet fit the mandated criteria, but the only aspect it lacks is the weight of law, something which is morally neutral and therefore unrelated to the current question.

[Selfish_Meme]

Not entirely irrelevant, you detested the OP for his 'shambles' of an argument, don't we get to hold you to your own level of greatness?

However stangely enough if you changed your murders to killing, then i would have found your first post pretty reasonable, a bit harsh, but I can't argue with the logic or conclusions.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: I'm not even sure what we are discussing any more Gilbert ;)

hmmm...the problem is, someone said 'we shouldn't kill each other it is immoral', someone else said 'is killing immoral in all situations?'. Someone else said, 'not if they are killing good people', so someone else said, 'OK it is not immoral to kill as long as they are killing good people'. Someone else said 'we need a new word to describe these good people killers'. Someone else said 'I don't like those murder people over the hill, lets call them murderers'.

So where does that leave us morally?
My original point was and remains that the law DETERMINES whether there are facts to convict someone of murder or a lesser crime. People originally created the law to codify societies moral view.

An individual's belief is NOT determined by the law. Ghandi was morally right and the law was wrong. Martin Luther King was morally right and the law was wrong.

Abortion was by the vast majority of the population United States considered unlawful killing at one stage now it isn't. The morality of abortion will never change only the morals of the society and the law reflecting those morals.

It is immoral to willfully and without any provocation take the life of a human being, it may be legal but that does not make it either right or moral.

I believe that capital punishment is immoral even thought technically it is not correctly called murder since it is LEGAL. Its legality does not make it less immoral. And by the way in many countries capital punishment IS considered murder.

One's moral obligation supercedes one's legal obligation.

[Selfish_Meme]

Something can't be moral or right and immoral and wrong at the same time in society generally, it must be one or the other. Of course morals are subjective so to the individual it can be immoral and wrong while society thinks it is moral and right.

So if society thinks abortion is moral and right, you may think they are wrong and immoral, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or immoral in general.

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Something can't be moral or right and immoral and wrong at the same time in society generally, it must be one or the other. Of course morals are subjective so to the individual it can be immoral and wrong while society thinks it is moral and right.

So if society thinks abortion is moral and right, you may think they are wrong and immoral, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or immoral in general.

So then slavery was moral when it was legal and became immoral once it was outlawed?

Or was it finally outlawed because it had always been immoral?

[skieeborn]

ALl this is true but i still think pro life or pro choice doesnt matter most of this is guys talking about abortions

THE BOTTOM LINE IS it should be the womens or girls decision no1 elses.

[Obilisk18]

skieeborn wrote: ALl this is true but i still think pro life or pro choice doesnt matter most of this is guys talking about abortions

THE BOTTOM LINE IS it should be the womens or girls decision no1 elses.

:sigh1: I've noticed a key distinction between poor pro-life arguments and poor pro-choice arguments. Poor pro-life arguments generally follow this format "My point of view is right." Poor pro-choice arguments, on the other hand, follow this format "I understand all these arguments and I acknowledge the opposing side, but my point of view is right." While the former is silly, the second is dangerous, because there's a presumption that legitimate debate has been conducted. It's conniving. This particular argument for instance, has two contradictory statements. It begins by claiming that, at the end of the day, pro-choice and pro-life distinctions are irrelevant. It thus presents the argument in terms of moderation and accommodation (I suspect this is fundamental characteristic of liberal arguments). We are left with the presumption that the remainder of the argument will in some way propose an alternative position on abortion. The second part simply re-clothes the pro-choice argument. By formulating the argument in this manner, some among the intellectually lazy are persuaded. Unforunately, it is every bit as invalid (maybe more so ) as the failed pro-life arguments.

[skieeborn]

thats not what i meant by it,

Ok my oppinion on the matter.

Things should stay how they are now, women should be able to get abortions but people can protest it as well, this is the foundation of america.


Subject A- No matter law or no law people will get abortions either from doctors or cloth hangers.

Subject b- In this freedom that we call america unless something can think or feel (which a fetus can not do in early stages) it is not human therefore lawful for killing.

random a- If u r pro life, u should also be a vegetarian because killing a live animal is a whole lot worse then killing anything unborn.

Subject c- A womens right, as i said earlier it should not be our decision if it is morally right it should be the womens decision of whether it is moral or unmoral.

random b- When i was little pro life ppl were protesting at a run for cancer research they waited in the streets holding signs of dead babys, and other nasty things. I was 5 years old, one of the oldest there i am still devastated to this day BUT I AM PROUD TO SAY I AM STILL PRO CHOICE AND I LIVE WITH THE DEVASTATION and it is horribly wrong to dramatize any1 thru that ever get ur point accross to the politions not 5 year olds.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Something can't be moral or right and immoral and wrong at the same time in society generally, it must be one or the other. Of course morals are subjective so to the individual it can be immoral and wrong while society thinks it is moral and right.

So if society thinks abortion is moral and right, you may think they are wrong and immoral, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or immoral in general.

So then slavery was moral when it was legal and became immoral once it was outlawed?

Or was it finally outlawed because it had always been immoral?
It became immoral when society determined it to be immoral. I didn't live in the period but I would suggest that many people saw it as perfectly fine. Because morals change we look back and see it as immoral, and suspect it always was, probably because of hindsight and better education. However if we had of lived in the times we would probably be mostly for it, especially the further back in history we go. I know the israelites where saved from slavery, but did anyone else go out of their way to end slavery?

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Something can't be moral or right and immoral and wrong at the same time in society generally, it must be one or the other. Of course morals are subjective so to the individual it can be immoral and wrong while society thinks it is moral and right.

So if society thinks abortion is moral and right, you may think they are wrong and immoral, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or immoral in general.

So then slavery was moral when it was legal and became immoral once it was outlawed?

Or was it finally outlawed because it had always been immoral?
It became immoral when society determined it to be immoral. I didn't live in the period but I would suggest that many people saw it as perfectly fine. Because morals change we look back and see it as immoral, and suspect it always was, probably because of hindsight and better education. However if we had of lived in the times we would probably be mostly for it, especially the further back in history we go. I know the israelites where saved from slavery, but did anyone else go out of their way to end slavery?

Many people thought it was immoral and did for hundreds of years prior to it finally ending. Clearly in those states where it was outlawed MA, CT, NH, VT, PA, NY, NJ it WAS considered immoral and that is WHY it was outlawed. Eventually over 600,000 people died in a civil war fought in part because of the immorality of slavery. Slavery did not become immoral BECAUSE the laws were changed it was made illegal because it was immoral.

[Selfish_Meme]

I see what you are getting at now, no it didn't become immoral because the laws where changed, it became immoral because the majority of society saw it as immoral already or was convinced forcibly that it was immoral, and then the laws changed to reflect that.

However with murder, abortion wouldn't become murder until the law changed, because it is a legal definition not a moral one, though many pro-life people try to use it incorrectly.

i.e 'murder' is a subset of killing, denoting illegal killing. Abortion can be immoral leading you to be charged with 'murder' if it is illegal.

[Lumina]

Abortion is, in the main, murder. Yes, it's de jure murder, but it's murder nevertheless. Almost understandable if you accept capital punishment to also accept the murder of the pre-born. The difference, of course, is that pre-born children didn't ask to be conceived and have committed no crimes except for being created.

[Selfish_Meme]

I don't think murderers asked to be conceived either.

Also to commit a crime you must be capable of conceiving that you did something wrong. If you are not competent enough to understand the difference you cannot commit a crime, because you cannot be convicted, similarly you cannot commit a sin if you can have no concept of what it is. Therefore Animals and fetuses cannot sin, so therefore they can not be innocent either. The concept only applies to beings that are capable of understanding it.

[Selfish_Meme]

Lumina wrote: Abortion is, in the main, murder. Yes, it's de jure murder, but it's murder nevertheless. Almost understandable if you accept capital punishment to also accept the murder of the pre-born. The difference, of course, is that pre-born children didn't ask to be conceived and have committed no crimes except for being created. Um De Jure means based on law, so when you say 'Yes, it's de jure murder' you are saying it is murder in a legal sense, which it isn't. It could only be considered murder in a non-legal interperatation of the word.

[Obilisk18]

Selfish_Meme wrote: I see what you are getting at now, no it didn't become immoral because the laws where changed, it became immoral because the majority of society saw it as immoral already or was convinced forcibly that it was immoral, and then the laws changed to reflect that.

Morality is independent of laws. If it were not, as I said, then there would be no justification for change. That, if something becomes immoral only when society is convinced it's immoral, then those who promoted change would be at best, acting irrationally, and at worst liable to accusations of criminal insanity. Let's imagine for instance that 75% of the people currently believe gay marriage to be an immoral institution (whether the law currently reflects this fact is irrelevant to the question at hand). According to your logic, because the majority of the society currently believed gay marriage to be immoral, or were forcibly convinced of it's immorality, gay marriage is de-facto immoral. Furthermore, those who believed gay marriage to be moral would be unreasonable in attempting to convince others of their view. They'd be attempting to convince others to adopt an immoral position, since you've granted moral weight to the opinions of the majority. An action thus cannot "become" immoral as you've suggested, because this necessarily stipulates that a function of the political climate determines morality, and grants any changes to the opinions of society a quality of irrationality and absurdity.

Selfish_Meme wrote: However with murder, abortion wouldn't become murder until the law changed, because it is a legal definition not a moral one, though many pro-life people try to use it incorrectly.

As I've stated previously, this is irrelevant to the debate at hand. What does the moral work in the question of murder? That is, what is it about murder that makes it an action worth proscribing? Certainly, it is not the illegality of the action. That argument is circular. After all, the statement that "it is worth making something illegal because it is illegal" hardly makes sense. Clearly then, murder is wrong because of the immorality of the action. Since an action cannot "become" immoral in any real sense (see above) the charge that something is not murder has no moral weight. In short, though abortion may not legally be defined as murder, it may nonetheless possess the qualities which make killing worth proscribing.

[Lumina]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Lumina wrote: Abortion is, in the main, murder. Yes, it's de jure murder, but it's murder nevertheless. Almost understandable if you accept capital punishment to also accept the murder of the pre-born. The difference, of course, is that pre-born children didn't ask to be conceived and have committed no crimes except for being created. Um De Jure means based on law, so when you say 'Yes, it's de jure murder' you are saying it is murder in a legal sense, which it isn't. It could only be considered murder in a non-legal interperatation of the word.

I also believe that the death penalty is de jure murder.

[Selfish_Meme]

Obilisk18 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: I see what you are getting at now, no it didn't become immoral because the laws where changed, it became immoral because the majority of society saw it as immoral already or was convinced forcibly that it was immoral, and then the laws changed to reflect that.

Morality is independent of laws. If it were not, as I said, then there would be no justification for change. That, if something becomes immoral only when society is convinced it's immoral, then those who promoted change would be at best, acting irrationally, and at worst liable to accusations of criminal insanity. Let's imagine for instance that 75% of the people currently believe gay marriage to be an immoral institution (whether the law currently reflects this fact is irrelevant to the question at hand). According to your logic, because the majority of the society currently believed gay marriage to be immoral, or were forcibly convinced of it's immorality, gay marriage is de-facto immoral. Furthermore, those who believed gay marriage to be moral would be unreasonable in attempting to convince others of their view. They'd be attempting to convince others to adopt an immoral position, since you've granted moral weight to the opinions of the majority. An action thus cannot "become" immoral as you've suggested, because this necessarily stipulates that a function of the political climate determines morality, and grants any changes to the opinions of society a quality of irrationality and absurdity.

Selfish_Meme wrote: However with murder, abortion wouldn't become murder until the law changed, because it is a legal definition not a moral one, though many pro-life people try to use it incorrectly.

As I've stated previously, this is irrelevant to the debate at hand. What does the moral work in the question of murder? That is, what is it about murder that makes it an action worth proscribing? Certainly, it is not the illegality of the action. That argument is circular. After all, the statement that "it is worth making something illegal because it is illegal" hardly makes sense. Clearly then, murder is wrong because of the immorality of the action. Since an action cannot "become" immoral in any real sense (see above) the charge that something is not murder has no moral weight. In short, though abortion may not legally be defined as murder, it may nonetheless possess the qualities which make killing worth proscribing.
I can see your point about morals changing, if not for socety defining what is and is not moral, what then is the vehicle of change? Morals can be shown to change over time and between societies, so what changes the moral outlook of society.

[Lumina]

I don't society as a whole deems abortion "moral." To give you a little perspective, I was a junior in college when Roe vs. Wade was passed, and yes, I was--at the time--absolutely thrilled. Why "at the time"? Because other changes were also afoot, some of them enduringly valuable--e.g. taking seriously the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Abortion was considered a horror. But it's also a fact that birth control pills weren't widely available. And out-of-wedlock was regarded as a shame. I get pretty impatient with the coat-hanger argument because this type of abortion was never "common." NEVER.

Girls "in trouble" were sent to "visit relatives," and organizations such as the Edna Gladney Homes provided adoption support.

Way too many social changes to comment upon here, but abortion was done in secret--as it is today and for the same reason...and I don't think that those who supported Roe vs. Wade ever envisioned a society in which unmarried pregancy would be "fixed" by abortion.

The bottom line isn't coat-hanger abortions and their inherent risk; it's abortion as a matter of convenience. Yes, there are moms who have completed their families and discover themselves pregnant. That's one deal. And then there's ectopic pregnancy, and even the Catholic Church says nothing about abortion to save the life of the mother. (In fact, when I had my tubal ligation performed in 1984 at a Catholic hospital that obstensibly didn't perform these, there was no question that my becoming pregnant again would be fatal to me, the mother. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I could have also obtained an abortion rather than successfully bear my daughter, despite the terrible risks--my choice.)

I just become enraged when the old abortion-in-the-case-of-rape is re-introduced. This is the BIG LIE. Only one percent of abortions are performed because of rape or incest, so let's cut the crap. Most abortions are performed because pregnancy is "inconvenient" for the mother. And most abortions are NOT performed on minority or poor mothers who can't afford kids. PLEASE. Most abortions are performed on college girls who "aren't ready" for motherhood.

I don't think anybody sane questions life-of-the-mother or rape/incest issues. But that's not why the majority of abortions are performed. They're performed because of convenience and as a means of birth control. At least call a spade a spade.

[Obilisk18]

Lumina wrote: I don't society as a whole deems abortion "moral." To give you a little perspective, I was a junior in college when Roe vs. Wade was passed, and yes, I was--at the time--absolutely thrilled. Why "at the time"? Because other changes were also afoot, some of them enduringly valuable--e.g. taking seriously the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Abortion was considered a horror. But it's also a fact that birth control pills weren't widely available. And out-of-wedlock was regarded as a shame. I get pretty impatient with the coat-hanger argument because this type of abortion was never "common." NEVER.

Girls "in trouble" were sent to "visit relatives," and organizations such as the Edna Gladney Homes provided adoption support.

Way too many social changes to comment upon here, but abortion was done in secret--as it is today and for the same reason...and I don't think that those who supported Roe vs. Wade ever envisioned a society in which unmarried pregancy would be "fixed" by abortion.

The bottom line isn't coat-hanger abortions and their inherent risk; it's abortion as a matter of convenience. Yes, there are moms who have completed their families and discover themselves pregnant. That's one deal. And then there's ectopic pregnancy, and even the Catholic Church says nothing about abortion to save the life of the mother. (In fact, when I had my tubal ligation performed in 1984 at a Catholic hospital that obstensibly didn't perform these, there was no question that my becoming pregnant again would be fatal to me, the mother. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I could have also obtained an abortion rather than successfully bear my daughter, despite the terrible risks--my choice.)

I just become enraged when the old abortion-in-the-case-of-rape is re-introduced. This is the BIG LIE. Only one percent of abortions are performed because of rape or incest, so let's cut the crap. Most abortions are performed because pregnancy is "inconvenient" for the mother. And most abortions are NOT performed on minority or poor mothers who can't afford kids. PLEASE. Most abortions are performed on college girls who "aren't ready" for motherhood.

I don't think anybody sane questions life-of-the-mother or rape/incest issues. But that's not why the majority of abortions are performed. They're performed because of convenience and as a means of birth control. At least call a spade a spade.

Nice post. I've tended to make the purely reason based arguments against abortion on this forum, but this is a well-presented description of the fallacies pro-choicers often adopt. On a side note, I think a case can be made to proscribe abortion in cases of rape and incest. I'm somewhat reluctant to make it due to my ambivalence on the issue, but I don't think you'd have to insane to subscribe to that view.