Subject:
|
Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:29:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1119 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
| |
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 beg your pardon, but the specific application of language is hardly using
“weasel words.” And the “literal meanings” of words are central to both law and
rhetoric.
Let me clarify something before I answer your question: In my mind “supporting
abortion” means “encouraging abortion” or “fostering abortion,” rather than
simply supporting a system of choice under which some people choose abortion and
some do not. By that measure, I would say that NARAL does not support abortion
but instead supports reproductive freedom.
| |
| |
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.
|
Nice! 8^)
| |
| |
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.
|
Absent a compelling health-based motivation (like fatal complications late in
pregnancy, the fetus can’t make a choice before the inception of higher brain
function. Thus, a blastocyst does not have “choice” at all, and certainly not
in any way that trumps a conscious and congnizant human being.
In my book, before the fetus exhibits higher brain function, it doesn’t even
have anything to do with ethics or morality (which I identify as will-o-wisps in
any case, if you’d care to explore that topic elsewhere).
| |
| |
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.
|
Interesting. At the risk of being accused of “weaseling,” I’d like to ask what
your criteria are for a “valid social structure.”
I would say that, in general, if people are able to form objective assessments
of each, then the preferences of the majority of people are more consistent
with liberty than with bondage.
| |
| |
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.
|
Okay, so the analogy is flawed, but the underlying point is sound nonetheless:
the support of a system of choice does not equal the support of every possible
outcome of that choice.
| |
| |
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.
|
Perhaps I should have included a smiley in that bit.
In any case, reproductive choice is far older than our nation, our language, our
culture, and the dominant religions of our land.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
