 | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | (...) This article is not talking about the Left, it is talking about supporters of abortion throwing an event. This is a liberal point of view but not a Left wing point of view. Please don't bandy about terms incorrectly. As for the event, I would (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) At the risk of splitting hairs, I have to take issue with your choice of words here. NARAL does not support abortion but instead supports the right of reproductive choice. To say that NARAL supports abortion is like saying that the NRA (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | (...) By supporting a system which allows for abortion I would argue that they are indeed supporting abortion. The whole pro-choice/pro-life facade is just emotional manipulation. One group believe that abortion is immoral, the other group believe (...) (19 years ago, 5-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Again, your selection of words is questionable. NARAL supports a system that allows for reproductive choice. It's true that choice may allow for abortion, but it also allows for non-abortion; why do you condemn NARAL for one avenue of choice (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) But our government supports a system of protecting the rights of its citizens-- the real debate isn't whose choice it is, but rather whether or not the fetus has rights which need protecting by the government. Obviously, 1 second after birth (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Um-- I wouldn't call them citizens, but yes, to protect the rights of people in general. (...) Are abortions legal 3 weeks prior to the due date? I didn't think that was allowed? You're right insofar as the line needs to be drawn. Otherwise, (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Prior to any late-term abortion legislation restricting it (not doubt opposed by NARAL), yes, in theory. (...) Yes. I'm not in the "every sperm is sacred" camp;-) (...) But they want the right to do it if they choose. (...) The right to choose (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh? I didn't think that was what was desired. I could believe that there are some out there who would be in favor of it, but I think in general, they're talking abortions within the first few months of pregnancy. Correct me if I'm wrong, of (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | (...) For one thing I did not condemn them for supporting the choice of abortion. There is absolutely no condemnation there at all. As I stated I fully support legal abortion so I would be stupid to condemn someone who does so too. Your argument (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Oops—my bad. I misread you, and I see now that you were criticizing the choice to hold the "Screw Abstinence" event rather than condeming anyone. My apologies. (...) I beg your pardon, but the specific application of language is hardly using (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) No problem. (...) If you want to be precise I would suggest looking up the dictionary definition of support. To support means precisely what you argue the NARAL does. You are confusing support with encourage. They are definitely not (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Perhaps I am, now that you mention it. But then I would still phrase it this way: NARAL supports (def 7b at (URL) YourDictionary.com>) the right of reproductive choice. As a result, NARAL supports the right to have an abortion if one so (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes but in the context of this argument it is irrelevant whether or not the implicit support also applies to other things, in a debate on abortion it is the stance on abortion that is most important. That said, I somewhat agree with bringing (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Really? Is that because you have a moral-like sense towards them that you wouldn't deem "moral" or "ethical", or that you don't have such a sense for them? If the latter, I'd have to ask you whether it was moral to go around slaughtering mice, (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
