Subject:
|
Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:45:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1184 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
Perhaps I am, now that you mention it.
But then I would still phrase it this way: NARAL supports (def 7b at
YourDictionary.com) the
right of reproductive choice. As a result, NARAL supports the right to have
an abortion if one so chooses and NARAL supports the right not to have an
abortion if one so chooses.
It’s fallaciously selective to argue that NARAL supports any single choice in a
range of choices without also mentioning the other choices in that range.
If I say “I support the right of choice in all things,” I need not therefore
support every possible resultant choice: merely the right of choice itself.
| |
| |
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.
|
Good call--shame on me for imprecision. Let’s try that again:
Absent convincing evidence or argument to the contrary, there is no evidence
that a fetus has the ability to choose, prior to the onset of higher brain
function. In weighing the right to choose, what is the argument that the choice
of an entity incapable of choice should trump the choice of an entity capable of
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.
|
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.
|
I would argue that a choice made as a result of preference (“preference”
resulting from naturalistic causes, such as an organism’s experiences and
genetic predispositions, for example) descends from naturalistic causes and
therefore can be argued as such.
If you disagree, can you cite an example of a naturalistic argument for or
against any choice?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
