Subject:
|
Re: How to start a fire.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:25:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
239 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > Anyway, good luck trying to argue abortion against a Pro-Lifer and succeed.
> > Moral issues are seldom (almost never) debatable to the point of solving
> > anything.
>
> Very true. If the question is reduced to "when does the person have a
> soul" then I have to walk away.
I think that's what you'd end up debating, unless you're trying to create or
debate law which defines the "acceptable" point for an abortion to take place.
Then you'd argue the points you brought up. In general, I think the issue that
Pro-Lifers have is "person potential". I think they have an inherent moral
disposition against actively preventing childbirth that would otherwise
seemingly have taken place, which is (in the end) a matter of morality and (I
would deem) opinion rather than fact.
As for the "acceptable" point, it ranges everywhere from Catholics (as an
example) who are against birth control to (probably) people who don't care if
8-month-old fetuses are aborted. (not that I know any per se, so maybe the other
end of the spectrum only goes to like 6-month-old fetuses or some other number,
but just saying). Depending on who you're arguing against, you may never get
anywhere-- the only interesting part of the debate would be in finding out where
& why you stood where you stand.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) True enough. I'm taking it as an abortion debate separate from the Iraq debate. (...) I don't accept "person potential" because, with the advent of cloning, most cells in your body have "person potential." It is not slippery slope reasoning to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
