From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Weak v. Strong Arguments
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:51:40 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Jul27.210747.705@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>] In article <l6c073INN49c@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>] >
>] >Technically, we might not be guilty of murder in the first place, since
>] >murder is a legal term and murder laws may not apply on this desert island.
>] 
>] Not to single out anyone in particular, Eric, but I'm sick to death of this
>] specious argument. Murder is a term in law, yes, but it's ALSO a moral term,
>] too, being roughly defined as "malicious, premeditated killing". The reason
>] that the pro-life mantra "abortion is murder" is inaccurate therefore is NOT 
>] just because it's a legal term, but because it is typically used inaccurately
>] even _outside_ of the legal realm, i.e. because there is no evidence of 
>] "malice" as being the motivation for any abortion ever.
>] 
>] Why make a weak objection, when one can make a strong one?
>
>
>kevin,
>
>at one level your argument is interesting.
>
>the problem remains that when the matter is presented as
>being a legislative agenda, it is a matter of discussing Law.

"Law" as a mere body of words printed in dusty, bound documents, or "law" as 
an intellectual, conceptual tradition? I would argue that any meaningful 
discussion about "law" MUST also include some sort of moral precepts, 
otherwise it's nothing but lithography-appreciation.

>Granted the sloagn, "If We Get Our Way, Abortion Will be Murder"
>is hard to chant, save for those of us who cna do gregorians.
>
>there are, I presume you will agree, three popular notions of 'murder'
>
>1. the legal notion
>
>2. your restrictive definition of a 'moral' token, that
>rests upon the legal notion of murder requiring 'malice of forethought.'
>
>3. the more broad based generic notion of 'murder' as
>simply denoting a 'wrongful death.' { You may remember that there
>was a coroner's inquest in the UK in regards to their 'killed
>by friendly fire' which did return a verdict of 'wrongful death.'
>A matter that seems to have slip out of the headlines, given that
>suddenly the US Law Enforcement Community was able to find a couple
>of IRA escapee's from the MAZE, who were residing in the USA... 
>Not that I would suggest a quid pro quo.... }

Are (2) and (3) really that different? I mean, what's intrinsically "wrongful" 
about a death if there's no intentionality and no malice involved? The law may 
make fine distinctions between "murder" and "voluntary manslaughter" and 
"involuntary manslaughter" and "negligent homicide", and plain old "accidental
death" but are all these gradations translatable into moral terms?

>Under notion three, a lot of folks go ranting off about this
>or that being 'murder.' And as overpeck as pointed out time
>and again, its not a matter that the term has substantive value,
>but that it is the extent of the emotional termoil that AntiAbortionists
>suffer from in regards to thinking about abortions. Just as many
>PeaceNiki feel about the notion of warfare. We are not talking, in
>terms of some sort of LogicalPositivistSelfContainingTheMeansOfFalsification
>token, but more in the unverifiable emotional context.

Agreed. The emotional weight of the term "murder" often overshadows its mere
technical semantics. That's why it's important to EFFECTIVELY point out its 
inaccuracy.

>Given that analysis of the nature of the language, there is
>no clean bifurcation into strong and weak arguments.

Huh? You have stated the _purpose_ of debunking the "abortion is murder"
assertion. I have been discussing the _means_ by which to accomplish this.
Nothing you have said in the preceding paragraph is incompatible with my
analysis.

>So until the AntiAbortionistLegislativeFaction can get pas their
>emotional reactions, and begin to work with substantive claims,
>there will always be a problem with creating a substantive notion
>that can be translated into law.

So you advocate employing a specious argument just to get them thinking about
the term, only to follow up with the valid one later? Why such a roundabout
strategy???

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality