Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Cabaal

More pro-life leaflet lies doing the rounds in Dublin this week...

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/05/01/the-choice-is-yours-6/



(Looks to be maybe the other side of Eamonns leaflet I prev posted)

smacl

robindch wrote: »

And as above, the anti-abortion side will refer to the law of god, they will disagree about the point at which life starts, and you're back again at their own square one - that abortion is murder (in a religious context, where there is such thing as "god's law", and where life is held to begin at conception).

Again, this isn't my point of view, but it is the point of view of the anti-abortion side and that's how it's argued.

And that's why I think the use of the term "murder" in abortion debates is useless if not downright unacceptable as there is no common agreement amongst the sides taking part in the discussion as to what it is, and how it arises, and how dependent it is upon context - a point I made nine months ago:Referring to another poster as "bigoted" impugns the character of the other poster, so it violates the "civil discussion" rule. It's not all that different from an anti-abortion poster calling a pro-choice poster "a murderer" - yes, it might make sense in an anti-abortion context, but it also impugns their character.No, they cannot be - it's not civil discourse.At that point, the levels of context and implication are hard to trace unambiguously, so I would imply avoid any use of the term "bigot" and related terms, as the charter suggests.

That's fine and dandy, but at what point in an atheist forum do we accord religious laws the same accord as the law of the land. We do not live in a theocracy and we are an increasingly multi-cultural society. As an atheist, and more importantly as a secularist, I treat religious belief very much the same way as I treat personally held opinion. We are also conversing in English where words have one or more well defined meanings. Changing the meaning of a word to match your opinion and introducing into the conversation on that basis is not reasonable.

If we treat the laws of God or the laws of Allah the same as the laws of the state, there is no reason to have an atheism forum.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Referring to another poster as "bigoted" impugns the character of the other poster, so it violates the "civil discussion" rule. It's not all that different from an anti-abortion poster calling a pro-choice poster "a murderer" - yes, it might make sense in an anti-abortion context, but it also impugns their character.No, they cannot be - it's not civil discourse.At that point, the levels of context and implication are hard to trace unambiguously, so I would imply avoid any use of the term "bigot" and related terms, as the charter suggests.

I was very clear about referring to the post rather than the poster, so the above is misleading if it is said in reference to my argument. If we can't distinguish the post from the poster, every argument can be considered de facto ad hominen.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

That's fine and dandy, but at what point in an atheist forum do we accord religious laws the same accord as the law of the land.

That's why I distinguished between murder within a moral or religious context, and murder within a legal context. Within a legal context in Ireland, as I've said many times, abortion is not murder. Within a moral or relgious context, it might be and usually is.

If people wish to discuss whether "abortion is murder" is accurate or not, then they need to say what context the discussion is taking place within.

A discussion without a clear context, and without clearly-defined terms, leads to frustration on all sides - hence the suggestion to avoid the use of the term "murder".

robindch

smacl wrote: »

If we can't distinguish the post from the poster, every argument can be considered de facto ad hominen.

A point which others have raised recently and which I don't see any easy way of dealing with beyond noting that it's best to avoid using disjunctive terminology.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

That's why I distinguished between murder within a moral or religious context, and murder within a legal context. Within a legal context in Ireland, as I've said many times, abortion is not murder. Within a moral or relgious context, it might be and usually is.

If people wish to discuss whether "abortion is murder" is accurate or not, then they need to say what context the discussion is taking place within.

A discussion without a clear context, and without clearly-defined terms, leads to frustration on all sides - hence the suggestion to avoid the use of the term "murder".

This is an ostensibly atheist forum though, the implicit context here is that religious beliefs do not hold true until shown otherwise. Your argument might hold water in the Christianity forum but not on this one. When we talk about unlawful, in the context of atheism or secularism, we are referring very explicitly to the laws of society. Again, if not, why have this forum?

volchitsa

smacl wrote: »

This is an ostensibly atheist forum though, the implicit context here is that religious beliefs do not hold true until shown otherwise. Your argument might hold water in the Christianity forum but not on this one. When we talk about unlawful, in the context of atheism or secularism, we are referring very explicitly to the laws of society. Again, if not, why have this forum?

I wonder could someone come onto A&A and start lecturing posters about how the law of the Prophet Mohammed means women's opinions are only worth 1/4 (or is it 1/2?) that of men's?

What are the chances they'd get pulled up pretty sharpish and told this was an atheist forum? Close to 100%, I'd say.

And still Christians like to portray themselves as being oppressed and victimised in Irish society today.

SusieBlue

robindch wrote: »

That's why I distinguished between murder within a moral or religious context, and murder within a legal context. Within a legal context in Ireland, as I've said many times, abortion is not murder. Within a moral or relgious context, it might be and usually is.

If people wish to discuss whether "abortion is murder" is accurate or not, then they need to say what context the discussion is taking place within.

A discussion without a clear context, and without clearly-defined terms, leads to frustration on all sides - hence the suggestion to avoid the use of the term "murder".

I think you'll find that its only the pro-life posters who repeatedly refer to abortion as murder here.
9/10 times it'll be one of them who first brings the word into a conversation.
Then a pro-choice person will reply saying that legally it isn't (which is correct), and the bickering & derailing starts. So if you want people to stop bringing up murder, its the pro-life side that you need to direct that to.

I have no problem with people being morally opposed to it, but I don't accept they should be given free reign to go around calling other people murderers and the like just because its what they believe. I also don't feel this forum is a relevant platform for those views to be aired.

Moral & religious context has no place in the A+A forum.
Factually & legally abortion is not murder & those who use the term should be sanctioned.
They shouldn't be protected just because its their "moral" opinion.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

A point which others have raised recently and which I don't see any easy way of dealing with beyond noting that it's best to avoid using disjunctive terminology.

I actually think this is something you deal with very effectively on a regular basis. If you were to look at the history of your moderating actions, I would guess a large number of them relate from the shift of vitriolic focus from the argument to a poster. As it says in the first line of the charter "Attack the post, not the poster". I don't see the value of trying to eliminate any well defined words from a robust debate once these boundaries are respected and enforced.

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

This is an ostensibly atheist forum though, the implicit context here is that religious beliefs do not hold true until shown otherwise. Your argument might hold water in the Christianity forum but not on this one. When we talk about unlawful, in the context of atheism or secularism, we are referring very explicitly to the laws of society. Again, if not, why have this forum?

I'd agree here,
A religious viewpoint on the meaning of a word holds as much weight as a viewpoint of a word (thats different to the legal meaning) as expressed in a Grims Fairytale book

robindch

smacl wrote: »

When we talk about unlawful, in the context of atheism or secularism, we are referring very explicitly to the laws of society.

People are referring very implicitly to the laws of society and unfortunately, it's the resulting imprecision which the anti-abortion side uses to muddy the waters.

Again, I'm not taking sides in this. I'm just pointing out that an imprecise context leads directly to allegations that other posters are not addressing the point, since the point changes depending on the context.

If posters aren't going to specify a context, and thereby allowing their points to be moved, then it's best - again - that the emotive terms concerned are avoided altogether since there will never be agreement.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

A religious viewpoint on the meaning of a word holds as much weight as a viewpoint of a word (thats different to the legal meaning) as expressed in a Grims Fairytale book

I agree too - that's why it's necessary for everybody to specify context so that there's an agreed framework for discussion.

I think it was Michael McDowell, former Minster of Justice, who made a similar point years back when he said that Canon Law had the legal weight of the house rules of a golf club. Didn't go down well with our religious friends and colleagues, but it's quite right - in the context of Irish law.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

If posters aren't going to specify a context, and thereby allowing their points to be moved, then it's best - again - that the emotive terms concerned are avoided altogether since there will never be agreement.

So with that in mind given that it is a big cause of disagreement, perhaps use of the term murder should be banned when referring to abortion?

Its inaccurate under law and even pre repeal 8th it would have been inaccurate to refer to a women committing murder if she had an abortion, even pro-life groups didn't want women charged with murder or even jailed at all.

Seems an easy solution.

It would likely save countless posts over the inaccurate use in this forum.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

I agree too - that's why it's necessary for everybody to specify context so that there's an agreed framework for discussion.

I get where you are coming from but given this is a Atheism & Agnosticism and religious weight doesn't carry the default context is that same....a religious view/canon law etc carry's no weight by default.

Accordingly if you want to claim something then it must be inline with society laws and given its boards.ie it would be Irish law by default too.

If I was posting in the Christian forum I'd expect the default context to be different (a religious context), same goes for Islamic.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

So with that in mind given that it is a big cause of disagreement, perhaps use of the term murder should be banned when referring to abortion? [...] It would likely save countless posts over the inaccurate use in this forum.

I suggested this nine months ago here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107454506&postcount=1260

robindch wrote: »

[...] I would suggest that both sides could do better than to concern themselves with the use of a single emotive term "murder", since it does not make for a peaceful or worthwhile discussion.[...]

But the suggestion was ignored by posters and not actioned by moderators - either or both actions would have de-escalated tensions, as would a realization by all concerned that neither side was going to change their position and that discussion on the topic was therefore a touch on the pointless side.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

If posters aren't going to specify a context, and thereby allowing their points to be moved, then it's best - again - that the emotive terms concerned are avoided altogether since there will never be agreement.

That's fair enough, but if we agree that religious belief has the same weight or value as personal opinion in the context of this forum, than repeating an argument which is backed solely by religious belief amounts to soap-boxing and should be dealt with accordingly. Surely those hell bent on building argument based solely on religious dogma should be redirected to the appropriate religious forum.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

(Looks to be maybe the other side of Eamonns leaflet I prev posted)

It is yeah, just got it through the door, it is official election literature posted (not delivered) and using the electoral register

Whatever about his many ridiculous false claims, aren't there laws against posting material which is offensive or liable to cause distress or alarm through the mail?

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Surely those hell bent on building argument based solely on religious dogma [...]

That's what religious people do and no moderator will ever be able to change that behaviour, short of banning them from posting in the first place.

In any case, if people don't want to discuss issues concerning deities and religion, then perhaps there are better places to post than an atheism/agnosticism forum?

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

That's what religious people do and no moderator will ever be able to change that behaviour, short of banning them from posting in the first place.

In any case, if people don't want to discuss issues concerning deities and religion, then perhaps there are better places to post than an atheism/agnosticism forum?

They all deny that their objections to abortion have anything to do with religion though, so why are you allowing them that double standard? That's exactly the sort of thing that is frustrating so many of the rest of us I think. Me anyway.

If it's about religion, then let them use religious terms and references sure, but they explicitly say it isn't.
So it's about the law.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

They all deny that their objections to abortion have anything to do with religion though, so why are you allowing them that double standard?

Most religious posters seem to believe that their views concerning abortion are based upon morals which they believe are provided by their religion - I'm not going to get into how wrong that sentence is, but that seems to be the way things work in this area for most religious people.

Any claim that their views upon abortion are unconnected with their religion should be treated with some skepticism and a few pointed questions might help locate the reliance.

I don't see any double-standard in the forum here - religious people have a religious point of view - as above somewhere, that's just a fact of life (though I might wish it were otherwise).

Calina

The pointed questions are never answered.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

Most religious posters seem to believe that their views concerning abortion are based upon morals which they believe are provided by their religion - I'm not going to get into how wrong that sentence is, but that seems to be the way things work in this area for most religious people.

Any claim that their views upon abortion are unconnected with their religion should be treated with some skepticism and a few pointed questions might help locate the reliance.

I don't see any double-standard in the forum here - religious people have a religious point of view - as above somewhere, that's just a fact of life (though I might wish it were otherwise).

This is your belief about their views though, and IME most of them deny this when it is suggested as being the source of their opposition to abortion (it's the case to some extent about other social issues like divorce and contraception, but not to the same massive extent as for abortion)

They constantly default to variants on "everyone knows that life begins at conception, this is a scientific fact and not a religious opinion" and as Calina points out, they refuse to respond to anything that might point up the inconsistencies of this. Stuff like "why do no prolifers make serious objections to women travelling for abortion" that sort of thing - that's a pointed question, been asked often enough. Has there ever been an answer given?

Basically it seems to me that since they deny that religion is the reason for their objection to abortion, it's bizarre that the mods allow them to use certain terms on the basis that they are not telling the truth when they make that denial.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

In any case, if people don't want to discuss issues concerning deities and religion, then perhaps there are better places to post than an atheism/agnosticism forum?

Why? Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. By what logic would an atheist forum be a good place to discuss issues concerning deities? The bulk of the busier threads here tend to relate more to religious negative interference in our society. This is better described as secularism than atheism.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

By what logic would an atheist forum be a good place to discuss issues concerning deities?

Fourteen years and 385,000 posts - the vast majority concerning religion in one way or another - suggests that most posters believe that A+A is a fine place to discuss issues related to deities

smacl wrote: »

The bulk of the busier threads here tend to relate more to religious negative interference in our society. This is better described as secularism than atheism.

It wasn't always that way, but has leaned that way in recent years as religious influence, and the number of religious posters, has waned in society generally.

recedite

Calina wrote: »

The pointed questions are never answered.

Answer me this; did the nazis murder any jews?
Going by the various assertions made over the last few pages about the word "murder", all you have to do is show that (a) they contravened their own laws and (b) they flouted the majority opinion of the day (in their own jurisdiction)
And remember, all religious and other subjective notions of morality have already been stated to be irrelevant when defining the word.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Answer me this; did the nazis murder any jews?
Going by the various assertions made over the last few pages about the word "murder", all you have to do is show that (a) they contravened their own laws and (b) they flouted the majority opinion of the day (in their own jurisdiction)
And remember, all religious and other subjective notions of morality have already been stated to be irrelevant when defining the word.

Nuremberg found that they did. On the basis that human rights are a universal concept.

So should women who have abortions be tried by an international court too?
If never, then it's not comparable.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Answer me this; did the nazis murder any jews?

Oh dear...

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Fourteen years and 385,000 posts - the vast majority concerning religion in one way or another - suggests that most posters believe that A+A is a fine place to discuss issues related to deities

I would suggest that the vast majority in recent times relate to interference by the church in social issues such as education, women's health, and gay rights. A second large group of posts relate to historical and ongoing abuses by the church here and other major religions further afield. The number of posts that actually speculate about the potential existence or nature of deities is tiny by comparison. To be fair to God, Allah, Jesus and Mo, they put in a regular appearance in the funnies thread, but that's about it. This is no doubt because the majority posters in this forum find the notion of a god or gods existing to be somewhat farcical, given of course they're atheists.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Nuremberg found that they did. On the basis that human rights are a universal concept.

Interesting, so now we are talking about "universal concepts" as opposed to "the letter of the law".
But "universal concepts" is just a rather ponderous way of saying "basic morality". Yet only a few pages back, people were saying the exact opposite; morality had no place in the definition of murder, it was only the strict legal definition that counted.
And not only that, murder had to be premeditated. So in the context of nazis, only the laws in force at the time (eg nazi laws, not nuremberg laws) would have been relevant, according to that line of thinking.

"Just following orders" was the common defence cited for a crime that was legal at the time it was perpetrated.


And we have the same kind of thinking in this thread, for example...

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have no problem with people being morally opposed to it, but I don't accept they should be given free reign to go around calling other people murderers and the like just because its what they believe. I also don't feel this forum is a relevant platform for those views to be aired.
Moral & religious context has no place in the A+A forum.
Factually & legally abortion is not murder & those who use the term should be sanctioned.
They shouldn't be protected just because its their "moral" opinion.

amcalester wrote: »

But the legal framework does outweigh the moral one, that shouldn't even be up for discussion.

smacl wrote: »

But murder is explicitly defined as unlawful premeditated killing, so it clearly does not meet this definition..

robarmstrong wrote: »

The disagreement arises because the pro-life proclaim that their moral view of the definition of what qualifies as murder is fact when it is not fact.
When abortion is legal, it removes the “unlawful premeditated killing of a human being”. That is law, that is legal definition.
A moral definition does not become factual as morals go hand-in-hand with beliefs, which are opinions and viewpoints.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is nothing to resolve. the meaning of murder is plain.

Only the moderator proposed a more circumspect view...

robindch wrote: »

That's why I distinguished between murder within a moral or religious context, and murder within a legal context. Within a legal context in Ireland, as I've said many times, abortion is not murder. Within a moral or religious context, it might be and usually is.

If people wish to discuss whether "abortion is murder" is accurate or not, then they need to say what context the discussion is taking place within.

A discussion without a clear context, and without clearly-defined terms, leads to frustration on all sides - hence the suggestion to avoid the use of the term "murder".

And for that he was slated.
I'm not saying abortion is, or is not, murder. All I'm doing here is pointing out that its not so obvious as to preclude any discussion.

And I'm saying the proposal that anyone using the word murder in the context of abortion should immediately be "sanctioned" (as quoted above) is ludicrous.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Interesting, so now we are talking about "universal concepts" as opposed to "the letter of the law".
But "universal concepts" is just a rather ponderous way of saying "basic morality". Yet only a few pages back, people were saying the exact opposite; morality had no place in the definition of murder, it was only the strict legal definition that counted.
And not only that, murder had to be premeditated. So in the context of nazis, only the laws in force at the time (eg nazi laws, not nuremberg laws) would have been relevant, according to that line of thinking.

"Just following orders" was the common defence cited for a crime that was legal at the time it was perpetrated.


And we have the same kind of thinking in this thread, for example...







Only the moderator proposed a more circumspect view...

And for that he was slated.
I'm not saying abortion is, or is not, murder. All I'm doing here is pointing out that its not so obvious as to preclude any discussion.

And I'm saying the proposal that anyone using the word murder in the context of abortion should immediately be "sanctioned" (as quoted above) is ludicrous.

For someone who doesn't think abortion is murder or gay people are lesser people than heterosexuals you spend a lot of time arguing against your beliefs.