|
|
 | | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
| (...) They won't say it because it is patently absurd, just as Bennett was arguing reductio ad absurdum. (...) ???!! I'm sleighed, -->Bruce<-- (...) Come on! You seriously can't think that Bennett had any inkling that this action was anything but (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) Oh? I didn't think that was what was desired. I could believe that there are some out there who would be in favor of it, but I think in general, they're talking abortions within the first few months of pregnancy. Correct me if I'm wrong, of (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) Prior to any late-term abortion legislation restricting it (not doubt opposed by NARAL), yes, in theory. (...) Yes. I'm not in the "every sperm is sacred" camp;-) (...) But they want the right to do it if they choose. (...) The right to choose (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
| (...) And LEGO won't say it. Why? They would find it morally reprehenisble. Just like they are not going to say that if all black babies were aborted and LEGO wouldn't have to make non-yellow minifigs. Maybe that would be true, but they wouldn't be (...) (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)
| | | | | 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?
|
| (...) Um-- I wouldn't call them citizens, but yes, to protect the rights of people in general. (...) Are abortions legal 3 weeks prior to the due date? I didn't think that was allowed? You're right insofar as the line needs to be drawn. Otherwise, (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
