Subject:
|
Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:02:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1246 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
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.
|
No problem.
| |
| |
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.
|
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 synonymous.
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
The moment you bring in “in my book” (or “in the holy text of my choice”) you
are talking about ethics or morality.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
My criteria aren’t important. The important thing is that one must construct
criteria in order to justify the argument. This requires ethics or morality as
an axiom from which to begin the logic.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I should have added the smiley too.
Either way their is no naturalistic argument for reproductive choice or
restriction thereof. There are only moral and ethical arguments.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
