[W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

You cannot tell apart the adjective and noun forms of the term "live human". Haha.

Given your diction, I can't make assumptions one way or another. It's rather clumsy.

Did you have an argument or are you just trying to insult your way to some sense of...who knows?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

When you say "as used here" do you mean in your post or in the thread? I introduced the issue of "legal fictions" in abortion law -- which are not personal opinions -- and the pro-abortion advocates cannot post a post without calling something a fiction.

Is a doctor's opinion as to the etiology of an illness a fiction?

Interesting. And there were 2 laws that had conflicting, mutually exclusive definitions. And most law is derived from legal opinions. Regardless, this thread is arguing opinions.

We are discussing the (disingenuous, religious/political) use of the term "unborn children". Is that legally an oxymoron? Some would say "yes". I would tend to agree.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Interesting. And there were 2 laws that had conflicting, mutually exclusive definitions. And most law is derived from legal opinions. Regardless, this thread is arguing opinions.

We are discussing the (disingenuous, religious/political) use of the term "unborn children". Is that legally an oxymoron? Some would say "yes". I would tend to agree.

Whoever thinks "unborn children" is an oxymoron has imbibed to excess the legal fictions of the contemporary debate.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Interesting. And there were 2 laws that had conflicting, mutually exclusive definitions. And most law is derived from legal opinions. Regardless, this thread is arguing opinions.

We are discussing the (disingenuous, religious/political) use of the term "unborn children". Is that legally an oxymoron? Some would say "yes". I would tend to agree.

Actually, "unborn children" is technically correct in some cases. When the woman is only 2 weeks pregnant, its a bit of a stretch to call the embryo this. But what if she is in labor, and the fetus is half way through the birth canal? How can this be anything other than an unborn child?

 

[Irredentist]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Whoever thinks "unborn children" is an oxymoron has imbibed to excess the legal fictions of the contemporary debate.

I think pro life advocates primarily use terms like "unborn children" in an attempt to convince us to form some kind of emotional attachment to fetuses, so that we will share in their moral outrage. However I see no reason such a tactic should be effective. People die every day for preventable reasons, why should fetuses be of any special concern? Especially if we have to fight the mother in order to protect the fetus. Such an endeavor is a waste of time, because ultimately mothers hold the power of life and death over the entity gestating inside of them, and there is no power that can change that.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I think pro life advocates primarily use terms like "unborn children" in an attempt to convince us to form some kind of emotional attachment to fetuses, so that we will share in their moral outrage. However I see no reason such a tactic should be effective. People die every day for preventable reasons, why should fetuses be of any special concern? Especially if we have to fight the mother in order to protect the fetus. Such an endeavor is a waste of time, because ultimately mothers hold the power of life and death over the entity gestating inside of them, and there is no power that can change that.

The call is the mother's to make, both legally and morally; there's no question about that.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Whoever thinks "unborn children" is an oxymoron has imbibed to excess the legal fictions of the contemporary debate.

Unlike philosophical musings, laws have to work in that messy place called real life. Look up "personhood legislation" for some examples of how big a fail legislating the idea that "persons" exist from conception has been to date. As an exercise, you could try to write workable legislation for those folks.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Unlike philosophical musings, laws have to work in that messy place called real life. Look up "personhood legislation" for some examples of how big a fail legislating the idea that "persons" exist from conception has been to date. As an exercise, you could try to write workable legislation for those folks.

Legal fictions are necessary fictions in legal culture.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Actually, "unborn children" is technically correct in some cases. When the woman is only 2 weeks pregnant, its a bit of a stretch to call the embryo this.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, there are stages of development. You may think it's a "person" at every stage. I don't agree with that.

But what if she is in labor, and the fetus is half way through the birth canal? How can this be anything other than an unborn child?

That's a quandary. Half born child??? Half birthed fetus?

Fortunately we have surgical techniques available that will allow both to live. 150 years ago both would have likely died.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Unlike philosophical musings, laws have to work in that messy place called real life. Look up "personhood legislation" for some examples of how big a fail legislating the idea that "persons" exist from conception has been to date. As an exercise, you could try to write workable legislation for those folks.

So what that the unborn isn't a person yet? Is that a reason to kill it?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Legal fictions are necessary fictions in legal culture.

Exactly. And sometimes there is no perfect answer, so we try to do the best possible in the world where we find ourselves.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

So what that the unborn isn't a person yet? Is that a reason to kill it?

I've never advocated that. I think 3rd trimester abortion should be so rare it effectively doesn't happen. If there's legislation that tried to allow that, it's as badly written as the personhood nonsense I've read that criminalized miscarriage.

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

So what that the unborn isn't a person yet? Is that a reason to kill it?

No woman has to give anyone a reason to terminate a pregnancy. That includes self professed racists.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Exactly. And sometimes there is no perfect answer, so we try to do the best possible in the world where we find ourselves.

Doing our best is the best we can do, but mistaking legal fictions as moral truth is not what I call the best we can do, and in the promotion of abortion culture (which is real and not the strawman you'd prefer to think of it as) that mistake is made consistently. We see it in the posts of the pro-abortion members in our forum; it is a widespread error in thought.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

No woman has to give anyone a reason to terminate a pregnancy.

"Termination of a pregnancy" is just sanitized language for murdering one's young in the womb. Bravo.

That includes self professed racists.

Haha, I broke your brain with my racist-ness.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Doing our best is the best we can do, but mistaking legal fictions as moral truth is not what I call the best we can do, and in the promotion of abortion culture (which is real and not the strawman you'd prefer to think of it as) that mistake is made consistently. We see it in the posts of the pro-abortion members in our forum; it is a widespread error in thought.

Okay, we're back to the, "my moral truth is THE moral truth" thing.

No. Sorry. It's your opinion. We all have them.

Here's one to consider (probably happens more than the half-born stuck baby thing):

A woman gets pregnant. She's a crack/heroin addict. If she goes off the drugs, withdrawal will cause a miscarriage. If she continues the drugs, the baby might survive, but it will be an addict with numerous physical and mental problems.

Carry? Abort? What is moral? What is immoral? Why?

Apply your absolutist paradigm.

 

[Angel]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Okay, we're back to the, "my moral truth is THE moral truth" thing.

No. Sorry. It's your opinion. We all have them.

Here's one to consider (probably happens more than the half-born stuck baby thing):

A woman gets pregnant. She's a crack/heroin addict. If she goes off the drugs, withdrawal will cause a miscarriage. If she continues the drugs, the baby might survive, but it will be an addict with numerous physical and mental problems.

Carry? Abort? What is moral? What is immoral? Why?

Apply your absolutist paradigm.

You didn't answer my question about the doctor's opinion concerning the etiology of an illness.

And you seem to think all opinions are right, which is absurd.

And in your crack addict case, the call is the mother's to make. She's the moral agent in that scenario. Not you, not me.

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

"Termination of a pregnancy" is just sanitized language for murdering one's young in the womb. Bravo.


Haha, I broke your brain with my racist-ness.

My brain is working just fine. Only a broken brain would claim abortion is 'murder'....unless, of course that 'broken brain' can post a legal statute which validates the positive claim that indeed abortion is murder. ( you lose yet again )

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

My brain is working just fine. Only a broken brain would claim abortion is 'murder'....unless, of course that 'broken brain' can post a legal statute which validates the positive claim that indeed abortion is murder. ( you lose yet again )

I don't need to quote any legal statute because this is a philosophical matter, not a legal one.

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

I don't need to quote any legal statute because this is a philosophical matter, not a legal one.

Incorrect. You 'can't' post a legal statute that states abortion is murder because 'murder' is a legal term, and none exists. You lose yet again. You are free however to continue to bang your head against the wall with your fallicious claim if you so choose.

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Incorrect. You 'can't' post a legal statute that states abortion is 'murder' is a legal term, and because none exists. You lose yet again. You are free however to continue to bang your head against the wall with your fallicious claim if you so choose.

But I never said such a statute exists. There need not be one, because, like I said, this discussion is a philosophical one, not a legal one. But you don't seem to understand the difference.

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

But I never said such a statute exists. There need not be one, because, like I said, this discussion is a philosophical one, not a legal one. But you don't seem to understand the difference.

Wrong yet again. What part of 'murder' being a 'legal' term, not a 'philosophical' term, do you not understand ? ( you lose again )

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Wrong yet again. What part of 'murder' being a 'legal' term do you not understand ? ( you lose again )

Murder as a concept predates laws. It is possible to talk about murder without getting into the legality of it.

 

[Logician Man]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Murder as a concept predates laws. It is possible to talk about murder without getting into the legality of it.

Nonsense...You just pulled that out of thin air. ( you lose again )

 

[Wan]

re: [W:1027] Abortion Semantics: "Unborn Children"

Nonsense...You just pulled that out of thin air. ( you lose again )

Not really. But you need to think that you have won an internet argument (LOL!) in order to feel complete.