Subject:
|
Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:58:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1208 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
By supporting a system which allows for abortion I would argue that they are
indeed supporting abortion.
|
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 but not another? If they advocate a system of choice,
then by your argument they are in some way responsible for all choices made
under that system.
|
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 rests on weasel words and literal meanings. Do you deny that the
NARAL supports the legal right to abortion and through that supports peoples
right to undergo abortion and through that supports abortion?
| |
I can think of another example wherein choice is so highly valued that it’s
even more important than salvation. Since God clearly supports a system
(i.e., free will; i.e., choice) that allows for abortion, does he
thereby support abortion?
|
I see your argument here and I would have to say yes. God may disagree with
abortion but he supports it.
| |
If so, then it’s hard to see how such a system of choice can, in itself, be
wrong.
|
Not really. It is quite easy to argue that supporting a system of choice can be
wrong. If I support a government which wishes to remove the illegality of murder
then I am supporting murder since I can assume that without murder being illegal
it will increase in frequency.
| |
For the record, I am atheist, and I have no idea of your faith. However, I
recognize the value of a deity-figure as a metaphor, and that’s how I use
God here.
|
I’ll leave that one a secret. Lets just say that my position in this argument
has something to do with the Devil.
| |
| |
One group believe that abortion is immoral, the other
group believe that disallowing abortion is immoral. It’s merely two moral
standpoints with clever marketing.
|
Again, I’d rephrase this. One side supports the intrusion of government into
choices of reproductive freedom, while the other side rejects that intrusion.
|
Again the emotive manipulation. One side supports reproductive choice at the
potential expense of the unborn childs choice, the other supports the
potential unborn childs choice at the expense of reproductive choice. The
morality (or more strictly ethics) comes in at where you draw the line of
choice.
| |
It needn’t be exclusively about morality; it’s also a matter of liberty.
|
Liberty is a form of morality. Give me one logical argument why liberty is a
more valid social structure than bondage.
| |
| |
As for your analogy, if the NRA supported the right of murderous choices it
would be valid but as it stands it is not.
|
Once again, I reject your framing of the issue. The NRA supports the right
of private citizens to bear arms. The NRA makes no argument in favor of
willful violence, and willful violence enacted by a gun-owner is not the
fault of the NRA.
NARAL supports the right of private citizens to control their reproductive
freedom. Decisions made based upon that right are not teh responsibility of
NARAL.
|
Let me swap the argument. The analogy would be the same if the NARAL supported
the right to purchase abortive medicines but also supported making abortion
illegal. As it stands it is a false analogy.
| |
| |
That said I do support abortion and I believe that arms should be very
strictly controlled. I also think that the people organising this event are
hell bent on harming their own cause.
|
Well, abstinence is an incredibly modern notion, evolutionarily speaking, so
I’d argue that people have said “screw abstinence” for quite a long time
already.
|
Reproductive choice is a modern notion.
| |
I find the whole event a trifle silly, but no more silly than the “Silver
Ring Thing,” for example.
Dave!
|
Well I agree that the “Silver Ring Thing” is ridiculous but at least it is
positive to the cause it is trying to promote. Saying “Screw Abstinence” is just
begging for people to attack you.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) 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)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
