Subject:
|
Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:02:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1304 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
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 up the support for not aborting as it
implies that the NARAL have a broader legal outlook than those who support the
restriction of abortion. The position of the ‘pro-life’ advocates can be
somewhat encompassed under the policies of the NARAL.
| |
| |
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?
|
This is the most convincing argument for abortion I have heard although the
cutoff point for it is fuzzy so it can only be validly applied for a limited
time span. I’m not really sure of the various arguments put forth by the
anti-abortion lobby on this as it seems to be a mostly US debate nowadays.
| |
| |
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?
|
I give naturalistic reasons for just about any choice. It is the innate problem
of the naturalistic argument. By naturalistic arguments murder, rape and other
crimes can be easily excused.
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
