recedite wrote: » The above is a good example of soapboxing; repeating the same opinion ad nauseum. As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand". Then suggesting ”Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies...” means that the abortion may be limited at some subsequent stage, but in the intervening period there are no actual constitutional restrictions at all. Its all a bit pedantic, and its a moot point at this stage anyway because the subsequent legislation setting the limits has been enacted.
eviltwin wrote: » This is the same Eamonn Murphy who ran that bogus HSE type website?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Describing abortion as murder is not just using your own language. Murder has a well defined meaning. Abortion does not meet that definition.
recedite wrote: » Well that's a start. The next bit is where you (or the person who uses the term) cites bits of legislation or dictionary definitions or whatever, to explain why. Otherwise you (or they) could be construed as just "soapboxing".
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I tell you what. I can provide you with any number of definitions that show that abortion does not meet the definition of murder. Show me one from a recognised source that does the opposite and then i will engage with you. If a mod asks me to show my definitions i will be happy to do so but until then i will not engage with somebody attempting to bog discussion down in well understood terms.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » [...] There are words used that have well understood meanings but one side continues as if there is still debate about their meaning.
robindch wrote: » Whether or not abortion amounts to "murder" is the very core of the discussion concerning abortion. One side says it's not murder, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion. The other side says it is, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion. Forum moderators are not going to adjudicate on whether it is or not - that is for people involved in the discussion to debate. It would certainly help the discussion move forward, instead of in circles, if pro-choice and anti-abortion posters made a genuine effort to find common ground instead of sniping at each other and using words which have no agreed meaning or context.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the meaning of murder is plain.
recedite wrote: » [...] this zombieland thread [...]
robindch wrote: » Since pro-abortion and anti-abortion posters obviously disagree on the meaning of the word "murder", why not try to seek out an agreed definition, then see if abortion - however that is defined - meets that definition?
robarmstrong wrote: » Again, it falls under the remit of the interpretation of a term.
robarmstrong wrote: » However because "murder" is lawfully defined and has a clear definition in the eyes of the law as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, removing the unborn's right to life and legalizing abortion essentially removes the unlawful killing aspect of the argument.
Pro Life Campaign wrote: Do you believe that life beings at conception? Yes
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Nonsense. Just pure nonsense. Murder is illegal killing. Abortion is legal now in this country so abortion cannot be murder. To suggest otherwise is just rubbish.
robindch wrote: » Indeed. That is exactly my point. The two sides don't agree, therefore both sides continue to speak past each other.Which would all be fine, if the pro-choice and anti-abortion sides both agreed when human life begins, and obviously they don't and neither side has demonstrated much interest in the 30,000-odd posts in this thread in coming to a common understanding. For the avoidance of doubt, here's the anti-abortion view of when life begins:https://prolifecampaign.ie/main/portfolio/detail/when-does-life-begin/ Therefore, since life begins at birth, and that a pregnant woman therefore holds a full and complete human life within her, any premeditated act which terminates that pregnancy amounts to murder. Legally, in Ireland, abortion is not murder since - by implication, though not by definition - human life begins at birth. Anti-abortionists believe that the moral assertion that human life begins at conception outweighs the legal position which implies otherwise, hence they refer to abortion as murder. Whether you believe that's right or not comes down to whether you believe that moral considerations outweigh legal ones, or legal outweighs moral. I'm not taking sides in any of this, all I'm doing is pointing out that neither side is agreeing terms of reference or definitions - hence all the fire, heat and smoke in the abortion debate as people try to bludgeon each other to death with their own preferred, but splendidly undefined and disjunctive, terms.
robarmstrong wrote: » you’re not really contributing anything in relation to the “murder” angle either.
robarmstrong wrote: » A moral viewpoint simply cannot outweigh a legal standpoint or fact. I’m sorry but it can’t it absolutely cannot, it is farcical to suggest otherwise.
robarmstrong wrote: » You attempted to outline a position and explain it so and I have stated why your statement does not help either side in discussion.
robindch wrote: » I have outlined not one position, but two positions. I have clarified why the two sides disagree. The post is not intended to "help either side", but to point out where disagreement arises. It's up to posters taking part in this discussion to tease this disagreement out.
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.
recedite wrote: » As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand".
robindch wrote: » If, as I have pointed out already, you believe that legal frameworks outweigh moral ones, then yes, you'll believe that's true. If, as many (most, all?) anti-abortionists believe, moral frameworks outweigh legal ones, then you won't believe that's true. I can't really say it more simply than that and suggest - again - that you take up the point with an anti-abortionist.
recedite wrote: » an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand".
robindch wrote: » However, the anti-abortion side disagree about when life begins, and in so doing, make the case that it is murder.
smacl wrote: » But murder is explicitly defined as unlawful premeditated killing, so abortion clearly does not meet this definition, any more than a militant vegan stating meat is murder.
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.
smacl wrote: » On the one hand you're not willing to allow a post to be referred to as bigoted yet on the other you entertain a clear misuse of an another emotive term.
smacl wrote: » So women who have had an abortion may be called murderers
smacl wrote: » yet we cannot refer to that assertion as bigoted?
