@YJ

"@KingCyrus: not really, I'm refusing to allow the deflection. As Draug and I discussed, whether not abortion is murder is semantics - it just depends on how you define murder. If you define murder as merely, "the taking of human life," then yes, I'm pro-murder* from your definition.

* - your definition is fucking stupid."

Um, yeah, actually that IS your definition...

"*shrug* I don't care whether the little parasite has some fleeting pain. I'm not your typical pro-choicer. I acknowledge it is murder at any stage. I just don't give a rat's ass."

There are two things here, the right to life (no one has the right to kill you) and the right to self-determination (you have the right to continue your life or not). Forcing someone to stay alive while, for example, slowly dying while the mind and body are both going and in a high degree of pain, is more like enforced torture. An natural right to life should include a natural right not be tortured.

What about looking it at the perspective of self-consciousness? If someone is self-aware, or could be self-aware (but is sleeping or in a coma right now), is that a good measure? Or is there a better one? Would we then have to start including a dolphin's or whale's right to life? Why or why not?

"Aren't you doing the same for another age group?"

No I am not. I never mentioned an age group, other than to specify that a newly fertilised egg is not a human (does not have the right to life) and a 8 month old baby does have the right to life.

I'm not falling in to the debate inbetween, but I have clear boundaries that are unanimously agreed. 1 day old = not human, 8 months old = human.

You said that humans can't decide what are humans, yet you are doing so.

And I have a hard time believing you will get a unanimous opinion that a one day old baby/fetus/fertilized egg is not a human.

It's fertilized, it's a baby. It has it's own body and unique genetic makeup. Anything else is just sophistry.

And there goes your unanimous opinion SY

I ask again why does it matter? A non-viable human fetus is still non-viable, whether it's human or not.

Because SY's original argument was that a human person has the right to life, if and only if they are a human.

Then the question is directed to SYnapse.

Yes, the question of when a mother's right trumps over other rights is a different question than who is a human being.

Hi Cyrus.

Maybe I was playing a bit loose with my verbiage, but that statement you quoted me on accepts the pro-lifer's definition of "murder" because I don't feel it's worthwhile to argue the point. Does that make sense?

Once we are in agreement as to what "murder" means (something stupid, in this case) I don't have to feel bad when they say I'm "pro-murder."

Why must all questions revolve around issues of 'rights' rather than good policy?

Now, if you want to use a more commonplace definition of murder (phrases like "against the law" and "malice of forethought" come to mind) then of course I am not pro-murder. See what it's a silly discussion? It's all semantics.

Well, there is no doubt that there is malice of forethought when you abort a child I'm the womb. As far as legal, that doesn't define murder throughout time, only clarifies ot for legal purposes. Society males the law therefore society decides what is and isn't legal murder. But the word was used bu the Hebrews (well, the Jewish word was) long before modern civilization and rule of law. The usual thought is that murder is the willful taking of another life without cause of self defense or military intervention.

God damn it. *In the womb*. Fucking autocorrect.

@YJ

OK, thanks for clarifying, but I think you can see how that was a very ambiguous way to say that.

So, if your definition is that it is the law, you would be completely against abortion if it was against the law?

Sounds like a Cure song.

Murder means unlawful killing anyway, if we want to be Anglo-Saxon about it. Since getting a legal medical service is not unlawful, it's not murder - by definition.

"Well, there is no doubt that there is malice of forethought when you abort a child I'm the womb"

What malice? This is more slandering of medical professionals. Their concern is with providing healthcare, there is no 'malice'.

" But the word was used bu the Hebrews (well, the Jewish word was) long before modern civilization and rule of law."

Good thing English derives from Anglo-Saxon and Proto-Germanic languages and therefore has nothing whatever to do with Hebrew meanings. Murder = morþor which has a specific meaning - unlawful killing.

"So, if your definition is that it is the law, you would be completely against abortion if it was against the law?"

No, the point is the word is meaningless for what we're discussing. It's just an example of pro-life invective because they want to use emotional terms, its usage is arbitrary.

@Putin, if murder means unlawful killing, which I don't dispute, and then abortion is made illegal, abortion becomes murder, as it is illegal killing. Any logical fallacy I made?

"No, the point is the word is meaningless for what we're discussing. It's just an example of pro-life invective because they want to use emotional terms, its usage is arbitrary."

Exactly.

And to answer your question, Cyrus, I don't personally care much what the law says. My morality is independent of that. But again, we're just arguing definitions of murder. You tell me what you mean when you say murder, and I'll tell you whether I support murder or not.

There was a reason it was at Putin, YJ...

And what guides that system of morality YJ?

@YJ - How about "the unjust and intentional killing of another person"?

And if the law is all that defines murder, then the Nazi's didn't murder a single Jew at the camps, because killing Jews wasn't against their law.

Godwin'd!

@YJ,

"Personally, I think it's a stupid question and I refuse to engage. Acknowledging it's humanity from the onset is the only solution that isn't entirely open to arbitrariness."

The problem is, with your definition, and a support of abortion's legality, your choice of which murder is *wrong* (or should be illegal) becomes entirely arbitrary.

If you're going to support abortion and not (what we all agree is) murder, you have to be arbitrary somewhere.

"Now, if you want to use a more commonplace definition of murder (phrases like "against the law" and "malice of forethought" come to mind)"

First, quick note -- it's "malice aforethought." ; ) Not that you should know that.

Second, while I accept that several popular dictionaries define murder with respect to the law, I think there are serious problems with that definition, in terms of how people actually use and think about the word. Not that it's always wrong, but I think there's an important other definition, (logically) preceding any human law, which would be the wrongful killing of another human. This removes the tautological aspect from discussions of whether a particular type of killing is murder. Anyway though, this is just a note about how the word is used; I'll agree that arguments about definitions in the context of broader arguments are often unhelpful.

Roe v wade. Support it

The simple answer is that anyone who uses the word sophistry in their argument can be ignored :)