This is not so much as an oppinion thread as an honost question on my part. Im going to use abortion as an example for my point so bear with me and keep in mind that this thread is not intentioned to be about abortion.
I personally am againt abortion except in cases where the mother has a very high chance of death do to pregnancy. I am up in the air on rape.
But my question is does that really give me the right to voice an oppinion towards others? To go out and say "you are wrong" to someone who is for abortions? I mean there are a lot of really good arguments to point out that a fetus isnt really alive during the first trimester. And my reason for being against abortion is a personal one not a religious or moral one.
And someone else having an abortion really does not effect me in any way whatsoever. Its there baby and there decision.
Your thoughts....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: And someone else having an abortion really does not effect me in any way whatsoever.
Would the murder of somebody across the country affect you in any way whatsoever?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And my reason for being against abortion is a personal one not a religious or moral one.
Moral and religious reasons are personal reasons.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
quote: Moral and religious reasons are personal reasons.
-I know but i mean that mine is really neither religious or moral. It is strictly personal.
quote: Would the murder of somebody across the country affect you in any way whatsoever?
-No. But i see your point and the difference i see here is that a murder does affect more than one person. or two in the case of abortion but same idea. It affects someone other than the decision maker in other words. So by saying it doesnt effect me i mean anyone other than the person involved.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Aborting a fetus that would have lived affects the lives of every single person that would have interacted with that person.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Would have...whats to say the fetus wouldn't have died in some freak accident the day after it was born. (And remember I am against abortion. I meant this thread to be about voicing oppinions primarily)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And who's to say that the person across the country that was murdered wouldn't have died in a freak accident five minutes after he was murdered?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
No, you don't have the right to tell someone who is pro-choice that they are wrong.
That someone doesn't have the right to tell you that you're wrong either.
No one's wrong; it's that person's personal opinion on the subject.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
How can we hope to discover truth except through the interplay of ideas? How can our own positions be well thought-out if they are never challenged? What possible harm could there be in hearing that people disagree with you?
Is this the natural conclusion of Political Correctness? Is every expression of an opinion now an act of imperialism?
Also, your view seems to clearly suggest a worldview in which there is no objective right or wrong, only personal ones. Many people would disagree, and for them, attempting to convince people of their beliefs is much more important, because in possibly convincing somebory else to think things through again, one has a potential chance--albeit a small one--to improve the world.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Hey Icky! I just got in about 10 min ago..
I think it depends on the venue, and the attitude you bring to the conversation, myself.
Having this discussion with people interested in hearing your views is fine, even if they are unlikely to change their own viewpoint to yours (as in conversing about abortion here at Hatrack ).
Standing in front of an abortion clinic threatening women who are going there, or trying to intimidate them, isn't.
Everyone is intitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to discuss thier opinion with me.
I have the same view of telemarketers....if I was interested in your service/product, I would have called YOU rather than the other way around.
Kwea
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I have no problem with interchange of ideas. You present your arguments, but you have no right to tell someone straight out "You're wrong." You are implying that your opinion is the right one, and anyone else who has a different one must be wrong when they are not. And yes, regarding this particular subject, there is no right or wrong.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Aborting a fetus that would have lived affects the lives of every single person that would have interacted with that person.
Wow...
Is this a joke? If it's a joke it's clever and I almost laughed. If it's not a joke, I just don't know what to make of it. Total head-scratcher.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:You present your arguments, but you have no right to tell someone straight out "You're wrong." You are implying that your opinion is the right one, and anyone else who has a different one must be wrong when they are not.
Well, suuuuurree..... But. Of *course* I have the right to tell someone straight out that they're wrong. That doesn't neccessarily make it so, but I have the right to say anything I please in the context of an argument or a debate.
Three cheers for freedom!
I'll give the first cheer.
Hip!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Hip!
Not only do you have the right to tell someone they're wrong, I'd say that you're morally obligated to do so in some situations. To take an extreme example, people were a) right to judge the Holocaust as a morally wrong thing, and b) right to speak out against it and tell the Nazis that they were wrong in their "opinion" that killing the undesirables in their nation was a good thing.
However, while I think that there most certainly are moral rights and wrongs, I'm not convinced that it's the government's place to legislate a certain morality, at least in a country as pluralistic as ours.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But my question is does that really give me the right to voice an oppinion towards others? To go out and say "you are wrong" to someone who is for abortions?
I think it is the same thing that gives me the right to call anything else wrong, such as murder, stealing, torture, racism, or gossip. People have a right to judge actions as right or wrong, and I think they have a right to express that judgement if they so choose to. Nobody else is required to agree with them though.
quote:You are implying that your opinion is the right one, and anyone else who has a different one must be wrong when they are not.
Don't you think your opinion is the right one? I certainly think mine is. Otherwise, I'd get a different opinion. I'm inclined to think anyone who has an opinion on anything must think that opinion is right, and that hiding the fact that you think your opinion is right may be diplomatic but is also deceptive and potentially dangerous. When good people say nothing about bad things they observe, those bad things tend to continue.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I know one arguement against legislation supporting abortion and other stuff... is that if the government says its okay even if being neutral about it gives a aura of legitimacy to the act, and thus making the people believe it IS moral. Thus making society corrupt. Not my argument, just tossing it in.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
This argument will not be resolved until a fetus has the same definition by both groups. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Personally I see the matter in terms of a voluntary genetic culling. We are taking a percentage of the chance we have to produce genius and infamy as a society, and reducing it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I know one arguement against legislation supporting abortion and other stuff... is that if the government says its okay even if being neutral about it gives a aura of legitimacy to the act, and thus making the people believe it IS moral. Thus making society corrupt. Not my argument, just tossing it in.
Interestingly, that is the exact same arguement many people make to justify denying marriage benefits to homosexuals. (And previously to denying them other forms of equal protection.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Indeed, it is the same arguement, but I didn't wanna derail the thread.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Of course you have the right to express your opinion. Even if your opinion is socially unacceptable and possibly even immoral, you have the right to express it.
This doesn't mean there will be no consequences stemming from your expression. Sometimes people are willing to have a reasonable, even logical debate over disagreements. Other times people will be upset and offended that you dared to disagree. That's part of the risk and reward of speaking your mind. This includes telling people you think they are wrong.
I tend to see it from Icarus' point of view. Honest debate of viewpoints encourages deeper thinking and understanding of the issues, even if the two sides never come close to reconciling.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:Aborting a fetus that would have lived affects the lives of every single person that would have interacted with that person.
Wow...
Is this a joke? If it's a joke it's clever and I almost laughed. If it's not a joke, I just don't know what to make of it. Total head-scratcher.
No joke. What don't you get? I can't imagine a simpler and clearer way of putting it.
Let's suppose that I was aborted. OP said this would affect no one besides my mother.
I say that it would also affect (besides me), my father, my brothers, every friend I've ever had, all my teachers, every enemy I've ever had, my wife, my children, and everybody else I've interacted with, including everybody that has read any post I've ever made. Including you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:you have no right to tell someone straight out "You're wrong." You are implying that your opinion is the right one, and anyone else who has a different one must be wrong when they are not. And yes, regarding this particular subject, there is no right or wrong.
You are wrong. I have every right to say that you are wrong or that you are right.
You are not forced to agree, just like I'm not forced to agree with you that there is no right or wrong regarding this particular subject.
Not only that, but there is nothing wrong with believing that there is a right and a wrong here, and there is nothing wrong with saying it.
[ March 13, 2006, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
One has a right to express himself even if it offends others. Same goes for the freedom of press, which is why I am baffled by the response of the US media to the cartoon debacle. Now you don't have right to say things about others that are untrue, but in the case of opinion, truth is ephemeral (maybe not the right word).
Of course these rights are constitutional in the US but it may be argued that they are natural rights and the Bill of Rights was simply stating rights that already existed.
Sergeant
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: I have no problem with interchange of ideas. You present your arguments, but you have no right to tell someone straight out "You're wrong." You are implying that your opinion is the right one, and anyone else who has a different one must be wrong when they are not. And yes, regarding this particular subject, there is no right or wrong.
Laugh. You've just told both sides that they are wrong since you assert that there is no right or wrong in this case. I think both sides would vehemently disagree with you. Saying there is no right or wrong is telling those people that believe there is a right and a wrong that they are wrong. Wow, that's a confusing sentence.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The only uinversal truth is that there is no universal truth. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love that there is a definite opinion expressed that it is wrong to express definite opinions.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
That was the irony I was trying to get at katharina. I just wasn't able to put it as succinctly as you were Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because I have the right, and my mouth can form the words.
Edit: Aw man, he deleted his post.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Aborting a fetus that would have lived affects the lives of every single person that would have interacted with that person.
What's so perplexing about this statement, honestly, is that anyone would say it with a straight face and mean it.
Something that *didn't happen*, and that no one ever *knew about* does not effect the lives of ANYONE -- because it didn't happen and no one knew about it.
It's just a completely bizarre position to take, in my opinion.
It's not a pragmatic position to take.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
You fail to see the forest for the trees, on that one, in other words.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Was the second post there necessary? Didn't the first one express your opposition succintly enough without insults?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Something that *didn't happen*, and that no one ever *knew about* does not effect the lives of ANYONE -- because it didn't happen and no one knew about it.
Just because you aren't aware of the affect of something doesn't mean that there aren't any affects. Would you have written that post of yours if I had been aborted? I wouldn't be writing this post if you had been.
quote:It's not a pragmatic position to take.
It's not a position at all. OP said that an abortion affects nobody but the mother. I showed that this is not true, but that's not a position.
It's such a blatantly true statement that I have trouble understanding how anybody could even question it.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I deleted my post because I rethought my position.
And besides, my post refers to this particular subject. I don't understand how an opinion can be wrong, first of all. This is all that people can have on this issue - an opinion. There is no factual base that proves either argument either way. For example, if you say that 2+2 is 5, then I can tell you that the answer's 4. This is the answer that is generally accepted and usually you get it marked wrong in school. I'm not saying that there are not circumstances where you can tell people they're wrong, but I don't think so in cases where the only proof you have backing up your argument that the other person is wrong is your own opinion. When I argue with my friends over abortion, I don't tell them that they're wrong - we just have different views on the subject and I ask them why they believe what they believe. It doesn't mean that they're wrong in any way.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Was the second post there necessary? Didn't the first one express your opposition succintly enough without insults?
I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Just because you aren't aware of the affect of something doesn't mean that there aren't any affects. Would you have written that post of yours if I had been aborted? I wouldn't be writing this post if you had been.
But it's a totally fantastical argument. It didn't happen. Therefore it does not effect me.
I'd believe in Unicorns if I grew up in Unicorn-town, but I didn't. Therefore I don't. The fact that Unicorns do not exist has not effected my life in any way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You are conflating whether or not people's opinions can be wrong with whether or not one is capable of convincing them that their opinions are wrong. Outside of some special circumstances, 2 + 2 is 4. You may possibly be so think-skulled as to reject any evidence I could offer in defense of this , but that doesn't change the fact that it is four.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My point was not fantastical in any way. It was hypothetical. There is a big difference between the two.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
What is the difference in a pragmatic, real-world way? I frame it that way because that's the part of your argument to which I have taken exception. The idea that something that didn't happen and that no one knew about effects lives. Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I don't understand your post.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I really dislike the idea that opinions, by definition, cannot be wrong. Just because everyone's entitled to an opinion doesn't mean they're all created equal.
As far as abortion is concerned, the one question that no one ever seems to ask is, can we safely assume that a fetus is not alive? Someone pointed out in a recent thread that some people consider an embryo or fetus to be no different from any other clump of cells in a person's body. I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume that it is different unless we know for sure that it isn't.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Something that *didn't happen*, and that no one ever *knew about* does not effect the lives of ANYONE -- because it didn't happen and no one knew about it.
Do know the backstory of Spiderman? Peter Parker *didn't* stop the criminal who would murder his uncle. His uncle died as a result. For at least a while Peter was the only person who knew he could have stopped that man. Wouldn't you say the thing that *didn't happen* did in fact alter the life of his uncle?
Keep in mind that something that *doesn't happen* results in something else happening instead, which in turn will have consequences.
quote:I don't understand how an opinion can be wrong, first of all.
If opinions can't be wrong then opinions also can't be right, which makes them pretty useless don't you think?
What is your opinion on murder? Do you think it is wrong? If I said I think it is okay to murder people whenever I want, would you say my opinion on murder is just as good as yours, or would you say I'm flat out wrong on that?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:the one question that no one ever seems to ask is, can we safely assume that a fetus is not alive?
The reason no one asks that is because everyone agrees that the answer to "is a fetus alive" is yes. It is alive. So is mold. The question you're looking for is not "is it alive" but "is it an individual human person."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yes, you're absolutely right. I should've been more specific.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Not to side-step the philosophical, tree falling that no one hears argument, but abortions affect many people besides the mother and the aborted fetus. For one, if the father/grandparents/extended family know about the terminated pregnancy, they are unlikely to be unaffected. The mother herself is altered in attitude, which changes her interactions with other people around her. The doctor who performs the abortion, the support staff at the hospital/clinic, the counselors the wife will need; all are people affected by the abortion. Very few actions only affect a single individual.
quote:question you're looking for is not "is it alive" but "is it an individual human person."
I don't agree that this is the question that should be asked; it's too limiting. I don't believe a fetus at every stage of development is an individual human person. However I believe abortion is always bad and generally wrong. I'm not sure what the real question should be, but limiting it to "is the fetus a person or not" is overly narrow, IMO.
Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
Everyone has the right to an opinion -- and in the USA, one of our founding principles is that everyone has the right to voice that opinion. What we don't -- and shouldn't -- have is the right to enforce our opinions on others.
Opinions are never right or wrong. Actions can be beneficial or harmful, which can translate into right or wrong, but personal beliefs -- while they may change -- are always, always, sunjective. Therefore it isn't wrong to say that murder is a good thing, if your opinion is that murder can be a good thing. It becomes wrong when you harm others by acting on that belief -- so I could say that in my honest opinion someone should kill my next door neighbour and I'm not wrong, but if I go out and kill her -- well, then I've crossed that moral line.
Which isn't to say that in our opinions other peoples opinions can't be wrong, which is of course where things get more complicated.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mirrored Shades: Everyone has the right to an opinion -- and in the USA, one of our founding principles is that everyone has the right to voice that opinion. What we don't -- and shouldn't -- have is the right to enforce our opinions on others.
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. I don't know of any laws that aren't based on people's opinions of what's right and wrong.
quote:Opinions are never right or wrong.
People keep asserting this as though it were truth. However, if your assertion were true, then it would also be false, because your opinion that opinions are neither right nor wrong would in fact be neither right nor wrong. You might as well be saying, "The truth is that there is no truth."
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Opinions don't need to be useful. They should be expressed in a way that facilitates discussion on the topic so that they are reflected more upon.
Saying someone is flat out wrong instead of engaging in debate is pointless and usually escalates the conversation into an argument. In arguments, people tend to block out what the other person is saying completely. In discussions, people are more likely to reflect on the other person's point of view and may modify their opinion accordingly.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: Saying someone is flat out wrong instead of engaging in debate is pointless and usually escalates the conversation into an argument.
Could you point out where this is actually happening? 'Cause I'm not seeing it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:personal beliefs -- while they may change -- are always, always, sunjective.
That is your own belief, and your use of the word "always" makes it appear that you don't think that this belief is subjective.
It is true that many beliefs are purely subjective. (Keanu Reves is teh kewlest OMG!!!!!!)
Other beliefs can be right or wrong.
I believe the earth is rougly spherical in shape. Either I'm right or I'm wrong.
Being able to prove it also has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong. If I had lived 4000 years ago, I would have been impossible to prove that the earth is round, but that wouldn't change whether or not my belief was correct.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by jh: Saying someone is flat out wrong instead of engaging in debate is pointless and usually escalates the conversation into an argument.
Could you point out where this is actually happening? 'Cause I'm not seeing it.
I said that jh was wrong when he said that nobody has the right to say that somebody is wrong.
In my defence, though, he started it. Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
...All right. Maybe I was wrong. Let me try this again.
An opinion is subjective -- but can be judged right or wrong by how it correlates with objective reality. Therefore if in your opinion the world is flat when there is proof the earth is round, your opinion is wrong.
But if 4000 years ago you had believed the earth was flat, your opinion could not have been either right or wrong, because the shape of the earth was a matter of opinion alone, with no definitive proof one way or another.
But I stand by what I said earlier about it being actions, not opinions, that people should be judged by. I'll try and put it another way: it isn't a crime to think the right thing to do is kill all the black people, though people probably won't like you very much if you voice that opinion. It is a crime to go out and try to kill every black person you meet. It is also, in most peoples opinions, *wrong.*
As for why we come up with these laws in the first place... well, it really is a matter of opinion. That's where things get hairy when it comes to matters like abortion, because everyone has an opinion and we're all fighting desperately not to let our country become something that terrifies us -- whether that's a place that allows women to kill their children, or a place that forbids women to have control over their own lives and choices. Every law is formed on the opinions of the governing body, the beliefs and desires of whomever has the power to enforce those beliefs.
Everyone wants a better world, we just can't ever agree on what a better world *is.*
...I've confused even myself, now. I suspect that somewhere along the line I stopped making sense. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But if 4000 years ago you had believed the earth was flat, your opinion could not have been either right or wrong, because the shape of the earth was a matter of opinion alone, with no definitive proof one way or another.
It would still be wrong, even if it couldn't be proven.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mirrored Shades: But if 4000 years ago you had believed the earth was flat, your opinion could not have been either right or wrong, because the shape of the earth was a matter of opinion alone, with no definitive proof one way or another.
No, the shape of the earth was a matter of things like gravity and planetary physics, just like it is today. Just because people did not recognize the proof does not mean that there was no proof.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You lost me about 4000 years ago Seriously though, the opinion would still have been correct if you argued that the earth was round. Just because you were unable, by the methods of the time, to prove your position does not change the fact that your opinion was correct. Even though there might not have been definate proof at the time, the objective reality is that the earth is round. Just because we didn't discover that reality for 3500 years doesn't mean the person's opinion was right.
I think that was mph argument. We just don't know right now, but an objective truth is out there. Our children's children will write our history. If the truth is discovered at that time, it may be that the pro-life movement will be regarded as a backwards, anti-liberty group who tried to repress women; on the other hand it may be that the pro-choice group is remembered for encouraging the homicide of millions of unborn babies despite cries for restraint.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You understood my round earth argument.
I do not think, however, that general public acceptance of something makes that thing correct.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think he was implying that we might reach one of those two beliefs because we would realize that it was an objective fact.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ah. If so, then I misunderstood.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks Jon Boy. That's what I meant mph. That one day the question of the humanity of a fetus may be objectively answered-not answered by a common consensus of opinion. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
...There's a reason I try and stay clear of philosophical debates. So a belief that world is flat would be wrong even if there wasn't any proof that it was wrong. Got it. I'm not sure that that was what I was trying to say, anyway. I think my point was that *at the time* those opinions couldn't have been proved either way, so while today they're wrong, at the time -- while still wrong -- it didn't matter. It was a matter of opinion, and not something that could be argued until someone set out to sail around the world and didn't go over the edge.
As far as the abortion issue goes, whatever the objective truth is, we don't know it and have no way of knowing it. Potentiality is not actuality, a fetus is not a child, and as far as we are thus far able to tell, a first trimester abortion is not murder. This isn't fact -- it can't be. An argument about the ethics of abortion is going to be based on opinion no matter which way you argue, if you base that argument on the idea that abortion=murder, or fetus=nothing but a clump of cells. If your someday grandchildren find out that your opinion fits the objective facts, that doesn't change the fact that as of today, your opinion is just that: an opinion.
I'm going to go scratch my head and ponder, and let you all go forth and poke holes in my argument. I hold out hope that one day I will finally know enough to know what I am talking about.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I would say you have the right to an opinion, and a right to discuss that opinion.
And you have the right to flat-out tell someone they're wrong, but if you make a habit of doing so out of sheer ire, you can expect to have your teeth handed to you and I'm not going to have a whole lot of sympathy for you when you do.
On the other hand, if you're going to try to make your opinion law, or otherwise prepared to dictate that everyone has to conform to your opinion- you ought to consider that opinion *very* carefully, and not just from "where you stand."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And you have the right to flat-out tell someone they're wrong, but if you make a habit of doing so out of sheer ire, you can expect to have your teeth handed to you and I'm not going to have a whole lot of sympathy for you when you do.
Please, please tell me that this is hyperbole and that you don't literally think this.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Not entirely. I'm not of a mind to assault people for voicing their opinions, if that's what you're asking, even if I find those opinions personally repellant. But I understand that for some people, words are weapons. And I don't think people who shout others down without any attempt at understanding, sympathy, or compassion should be surprised if their attacks warrant hostile responses, simply because their attacks were "only" verbal or written.
For example, take the people who are making a business of hectoring people at military funerals because they believe their deaths are some kind of divine retribution for harboring homosexuals. Now, I wouldn't take a swing at one of those people. And if someone else did, my principled intellectual mind would be horrified that someone was assaulting someone merely for using their First Amendment rights. But somewhere in my reptilian brain, I would be delighted. And I certainly wouldn't be rushing over to help them up.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think it is somewhat disrespectful to not tell me when you think my opinion is wrong. That suggests that you either think I am incapable of seeing the truth that you see, or that I am not worth the effort. And that you are willing to let me suffer the consequences of having mistaken beliefs.
quote:As far as the abortion issue goes, whatever the objective truth is, we don't know it and have no way of knowing it.
Unless God tells us - that'd be pretty darn good evidence, if God is both omniscient and honest.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mirrored Shades: As far as the abortion issue goes, whatever the objective truth is, we don't know it and have no way of knowing it. Potentiality is not actuality, a fetus is not a child, and as far as we are thus far able to tell, a first trimester abortion is not murder.
This is what I was trying to get at earlier—are these really safe assumptions to be making? Are we going to look back fifty or a hundred years from now and regret that we thought it was alright? After all, people have used the argument "They're not really human" to justify a lot of horrible things in the past.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)