« Why It’s Important to Inoculate (Rather Than Isolate) Our Young People | Main | Is the Bible Legend? »

July 08, 2013


I think the clear answer to this is "yes". What grieves me is that judicial fiat is always right there, quick to enshrine the next step into practice, usually making it next to impossible to straighten out an issue from its inception.

The word is 'habituation'.

People do get habituated to hurting others and also to witnessing people hurt each other. So that part is right.

Not a great example.


What qualifies you to arbitrate the lexicon of the OP and the example given and why should we consider it?

Hi Carolyn,

About 'velocification': This is an argument about language. A premise is that you love and care about language and English in particular. Perhaps this premise is not true of you. That's fine. These are not the most important things in the world.

Habituation is the more general term. It's nicely coined since it suggests it's meaning in any context. It's been used in psychology since at least the 1930's. (Note that the OP's velocitiazation hypothesis is a psychological one.)

'Velocitization' is a special case of habituation. It's an unnecessary word since we have 'habituation'. (Are we going to invent a different word for everything we might become habituated to?)

Velocification also sounds to bad (yeah: to me) - like it might have come from an automobile club newsletter.

Even if you make room for 'velocification' (perhaps just because it's a fact on the ground), there's no particular analogy between morality and automobile speed so the general term is still better.

What's wrong with the example? The OP argues that it's logic that leads people from abortion to infanticide. Logic is not part of habituation.

By the way, here is a difference between late term abortion and infanticide that breaks this claim that logic leads you from abortion to infanticide: You can't have a life or health threatening pregnancy if you are no longer pregnant.

Finally: Instead of questioning peoples qualifications - mine, the OP's, or anybody elses - try pretending that a Christian is asking you how to refute my comments and respond on that basis.

Greg is quite particular about language, and words in general. His use of this word is entirely equal to the subject matter at hand. Because you prefer something else does not improve upon or shed new light on the issue; glad you caught that. The example of abortion vs. infanticide and the logic involved suited his piece quite well.

Atheists here routinely question the intellectual qualifications of the OP through back door approaches of mocking, ridicule and scoffing. I asked you a direct question and requested information to back up your answer. Civil discourse encourages such an exchange.

Atheists here routinely question the intellectual qualifications of the OP through back door approaches of mocking, ridicule and scoffing.

Put away your broad brush and talk to me when I ridicule an OP.

My qualification - the only one I need: STR has not banned me. Thanks and respect to STR for that.

The only qualification the OP needs is control of the domain.

Again, pay attention to the words that are spoken or written - not to the source.

Enough on that. Enough. OK?

As for the other part - about the example: The OP 'explains' habituation with a logical slippery slope. That is just not what habituation is. Peter Singer is not habituated. He, as the OP says, is using logic.

And, turning that same logic on itself (rather than addressing habituation), the OP suggests that if there's no difference between a fetus at one stage of development and a newborn at the same stage, then maybe abortion is wrong.

But, as I pointed out, while the late term fetus may very well be just like the newborn, there may be a life and death difference for the woman.

She may be in a dangerous pregnancy. Or not.

If you do want discourse, then address these things I've said about the post and leave out the qualifications and ad hom's please.

I have another complaint about language. 'Taking the roof off' is an unneeded new name for reductio ad absurdum. Shun it if you care about the language.

"You can't have a life or health threatening pregnancy if you are no longer pregnant."

Not true, under the current understanding, "health of the mother" can/does include the burden of taking care of an infant.

Many physically healthy mothers with healthy babies in the womb are given this exception and allowed under civil law to kill another. You can play language games, sure you can, and these get played a lot these days, but the distinction you wish to make is no distinction under the current understanding of "health of the mother".


Your arrogance is out of place here, as are your demands for solely using terms that meet your preference. Last I checked, you were not the author of the opinion piece, owner of the site, or the moderator. Best to go with what is written rather than commanding it be rewritten to suit you. (Perhaps then, dialog will follow.)

As for your other commands directed to me, I have no motivation to jump because you say so.

Brad B,

I didn't offer an understanding of 'health of the mother' that simply evaporates. You introduced that. Why?



You needn't refrain from genetic fallacies and ad homs to suit me or because I say so; you can refrain because these are standards of discourse and you've expressed an interest in discourse.

You don't even need to take my word for this; you can look it up.

Also, you can move in that direction without giving any indication that it had anything to do with me. I'll forget all about the past and treat each comment you address to me on it's merits - as if it came from a new person.


Tell you what--I'll follow this advice you mentioned here:

"...talk to me when I ridicule an OP,"

and you refrain from mocking, scoffing comments like:

"Yep, accepting the grim truths is really bearing down on me all right. To make matters worse, it looks like this somehow makes Christianity true. Woe is me. Oh, woe is me!"

I know this sort of thing brings out the very worst in me and before I know it, I'm dishing out the same! We can do better than this, even if we are on opposite sides of an issue. Deal?

Hi RonH, you felt free to instruct as to what the correct language should be used in this video by Greg--guess what, I agree with you, even the part about the similarity of the word for getting acclimated to speed. But, you did bring up "health of the mother" when you stated:

"You can't have a life or health threatening pregnancy if you are no longer pregnant."

The health of the mother, in modern language, includes stress involved with having a child to take care of. So, health threatening pregnancy doesn't end when the pregnancy does--at least according to modern terminology. Thats all I'm saying--since you felt free to instruct, I simply did the same.

The comments to this entry are closed.