h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And for your viewing pleasure :

mur·der (mûrdr) n.

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Slang; Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.

A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr.

To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
v. intr.
To commit murder.

Now, as we know, the law ain't always right. So "unlawful" in my eyes is entirely down to personal preference. "Malice" is the only questionable term : but as we know from various enemy troops that we have faced in the past, propaganda does miraculous things.

I can see where you are coming from guys, but I don't agree. Jut because the government okays a particular action, it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it any less of a crime.

*tired, prefers to be spectator this round*

Because as Ben said, soldiers carrying out their duty are not committing murder. They're doing a job, a job that sometimes involves killing people. It is very rare that a soldier's mission is "go kill people". A soldier's mission is much more likely to be "take this town, capture this position", killing is merely something that may be required to fufill that mission. Murder is the delibrate act of killing someone *because that's what you want to do*. That's why killing in self defence is not murder, or killing by mistake (you dropped a brick from a building, it hit someone, you drove you car, it hit someone), is not murder. A soldier kills because it is required to be able to complete their mission, or because if they don't the other bugger will kill them. Not for fun, vengence, or or any other emotional response.

"A soldier kills because it is required to be able to complete their mission."

Oh. So that makes it OK then? Because it is part of a nice and legal government job, they have the right to take a life? Because it is part of a *mission*?

Ok. So, let's make a nice little hypothetical, where it isn't government sanctioned.

I want your house. That is my mission. And I will get your house by any means necessary. Now I *know* that I just can't kick you out of your house, because you are hardly going to vacate the premises without putting up a fight. So I take a weapon that ensures you will leave with no fuss. However, I know that you will call the police, and I will subsequently be taken away and locked up. So I decide I need to kill you as part of my mission to capture my chosen position.

Which I do. Everything goes fine. You are dead.

Am I a murderer? Of course I am!!!

Not *every* mission is self-defence.

(oops left last bit out)

...not every *mission* is self defence, it is sometimes invasive. And therefore not morally correct. Sometimes self-defence isn't morally correct, and invasive is.

Murder is murder, and should be avoided at all costs. A soldier takes a job that condones death as *just one of those things*...regardless of anything, when someone kills with purpose, they are a murderer.

"...not every *mission* is self defence, it is sometimes invasive. And therefore not morally correct. Sometimes self-defence isn't morally correct, and invasive is."

??? There seems to be a little contracdiction there.

In any case, things seem to be drifting further off-topic here. Maybe the

F19585?thread=264318&post=3283581#p3283581

conversation might be more appropriate. Plenty of arguments, and HVL has already got bored and left, so maybe another hothead would be useful.

I'm not really interested in debate right now, to tell you the truth. I just provoke, get offended, and don't seem to be bothered with much else.

So if you'll excuse me, I concede.

*You* get offended?

can I go back on topic then?

I read the backlog. I was quite shocked because I thought I knew quite a bit about abortion, and I had never heard of Partial Birth Abortions before. Apparently there is no such medical term (its a legal one) so I'll refer to it as Breech Extraction.

I've had a bit of a look on the internet, and as far as I can tell Breech Extractions are performed because (a) the pregnancy is being terminated because of severe fetal abnormality or the mother's life is in danger and (b) the fetus is being extracted breech i.e. feet first, and so the skull must be collapsed to get the babies head out.

(Abortions that don't include inducing labour mean its is difficult to fully dilate the cervix before 36 weeks.)

Other methods of abortion are not chosen eg caesarian section or inducing labour, because of the damage to the mother's health.

I also wonder if there is a medico/legal issue here - that in some circumstances it is easier _legally_ to terminate a pregnancy with the baby still in the mother's body. I know in the past in New Zealand that pre-term babies with severe deformities that were aborted through induced labour and were born live were wrapped and kept warm until they died (usually within minutes or hours). I assume this is still the case here. However I wonder if in the US there are huge medico/legal issues with delivering a live fetus after an abortion.

One of the US pages I looked at described giving a lethal injection to the fetus before a surgical (eg D and C) abortion is begun, so maybe thats how it is done, although I would think there would be risks associated with a woman having to deliver a dead fetus rather than a live one during an induced labour abortion.

So to answer the original question -

Yes, there are times when abortions are performed because the health of the mother is at risk (eg severe kidney or heart disease). The way the abortion is done may also be for medical reasons - a woman with a severe heart condition may be safer with a Breech Extraction rather than a Caesarian or Induced Labour abortion.

However I would say this is pretty rare, and that most late 2nd, and 3rd trimester abortions are being done because of severe fetal abnormality, where the doctors are convinced that the baby would not survive if left to go to term.


here's some useful links -

good descriptions of 1st and 2nd trimester abortion proceedures

http://www.gynpages.com/boulder/services.html


and a Q and A page on 3rd trimester abortions (specific to the US)

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/PBAinfo/PBA_ACOG.htm



The other thing I wanted to say was that for the person who thought that abortions are dangerous or damaging to maternal health - pregnancy and birth are both inherently risky things too. Once a woman is pregnant there is no risk free way out.

Saturnine, you may have conceded but I am still going to call you on the following astonishing statement, because no-one else has:

'"unlawful" in my eyes is entirely down to personal preference'

Wha-a-a-a-at?

I mean, What the f*-*-*-*-*k?

I would certainly agree that we are each entitled to a view about what is and is not immoral, (I would not use the term 'personal preference', but there you go). But just because you don't like a law, does not mean it is not the law.

Example: I don't agree with the highly restrictive gun laws in the UK, and I don't agree with the criminilisation of cannabis. If I choose to flout either of those laws I am still a criminal, pure and simple. I may be a criminal with right on my side, I may be a criminal with popular sympathy, I may even be a criminal for an act which is about to be decriminalised, but I am still a criminal.

By definition the law is an absolute. Laws are made by parliament, and enforced by the judiciary.

I really cannot explain simply and calmly that the lawfulness of a law is not something that you can have a 'personal preference' about. Laws are - by definition - lawful.

As I said - you may consider particular laws to be immoral, and you may consider yourself to be ethically sound while breaking them or actively opposing them. But that is a different matter.



Moving on a little.

I was pleased to see that you checked out the definition of 'murder'. The only currency we have for the exchange of thought on this site is words, and it is important, if we are not to misunderstand each other, that we use the words accurately.

There is a touch of the Humpty Dumpty about your posts on this subject. "Words mean what I want them to mean" - the danger in that is that, actually, no, words mean what they are commonly understood to mean, and you will fail to put across your argument effectively.



For the record, murder, and for that matter execution, are terms whose definition is based on the *legal status* of the acts concerned.

I have a couple of questions, which relate to the legal framework in which the deaths take place. If this war is not in fact legal, does that actually make Blair and Bush murderers? And the question I asked about terrorist killings still stands, are they collateral damage or murder?

B

Tough question.

Who's court/legal system are you going to use to test the case?

War is basically open conflict between nations, parties or states. It is openly declared and openly waged between well defined groups. In theory at least it should not involve the civilians who may be supportive of either side. In practice the necessity to destroy the defensive positions, supply routes and other civilian installations that support either side will inevitably lead to civilian casualties.

Terrorism is the indiscriminate threat or use of violence against people and or property. The objective may be similar to that of war, but the means chosen are explicitly determined to safeguard the aggressor and harm the usually much stronger victim. This is coercion.

Murder (sticking with the legal term) is unlawful killing.

These are all entirely separate concepts.

Whether a war is legal is a tricky question that I believe can only be assessed after the fact when the political objectives of the war have been met and peace restored. Then and only then will it be possible to determine with certain leaders have acted appropriately. (Finding WMD would be a good start.)

Whether or not a war is legal, if both sides take reasonable steps to safeguard civilian populations then civilian deaths, while unfortunate and in some circumstance avoidable, are unlikely to be viewed as murder.

There is good evidence to support this. There was an interesting interview on TV last night with someone in London, with family in parts of another country who honestly felt that the loss of one or two family members back home would be a small price to pay for their freedom.

Terroists on the other hand are totally indiscriminate. Open rebellion and civil war comes under the heading of war, not terrorism. Terrorism is distinctly not war. It is by definition the threat or use of violence by a minority to coerce change. In this sense it is most like a robber using a knife to relieve you of your wallet. Murder? Probably.

The trouble is, when does "terrorism" become "guerilla warfare"? Is there any difference between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters"? Is it certain that Al'Quaida are, in fact, representing a minority?

I would say that in war the targets are military, and in terrorism the targets are civillian.

If you want to take the attacks on the USA as an example, the people in the twin towers and on the planes were victims of terrorism and therefore murdered, the people in the Pentagon were casualties of war.

As for legality, when it comes to war, who decides on the rules? The people with the biggest guns.

Bouncy makes a point that answers Madents quetion, we wont use anyones courts to try the US and bush or the UK and Blair. Just like there was no one prosecuted for the bombing of Dresden or Nagasaki, acts killed many civillians and that struck terror into the hearts of the people in those countries.

This strand was statrted by a person who supports the pro-life movement. Some pro-lifers find it acceptable to end the lives of Doctors who perform abortions but we do not call them terrorists. It is a sad fact that a major lesson from history is that those who commit the most foul acts tend to be from the groups of people who control the definitions of our laws and the way they are excercised. This is why most people who extend the freedoms of the common man and women are at some stage branded as criminals or terrorists.

>Some pro-lifers find it acceptable to end the lives of Doctors who >perform abortions but we do not call them terrorists.

I do. They seem a cracking example of terrorists to me.

"I would say that in war the targets are military, and in terrorism the targets are civillian."

I think that in principle I agree with this

The definition of terrorism that I prefer is the unlawful use of force used to influence a society or government to change it's policies. Terrorism is directed at the public, not at the victim. Deaths are a side issue to the terrorist. They're trying to communicate to the audience. What usually differentiates terrorism from other types of violence is the message.

This definition is useful because it distinguishes what we know is terrorism from other forms of violence.

The targeting of non-combatants in war would be a murder or an attempted murder. Don't lump everything together and call it terrorism.

I can see the logic of killing doctors who perform abortions. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then the attackers are trying to save lives. It's still a terrorist act. It's unlawful, because the threat to the other supposed person is not imminent. It's also sending a message to society that abortion providers should be killed and a message to abortion providers that their safety is in jeopardy.

Ben - Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right!

Anyway, I conceded because I couldn't be bothered having yet another argument with the moral majority and having to back down through pressure and the resulting inability to back up my argument.

So, back to abortion?

"Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right!"

And how many times did I say that in my post? Three? Four? More?

B

I don't know!

See, lack of observation. Proves I can't be bothered!