From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Weak v. Strong Arguments
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:07:47 GMT

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


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.

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.... }

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.

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

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.

ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion