quote:(that goes for you too, Sam. If I'm so unreasonable and you are so open-minded, then how come you aren't changing your mind?)
Let's postulate: What would be your response if someone was to come up to you and ask you "If you're so open minded, how come you aren't changing your mind?"
How alike would it be to my response?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I know. What I'm saying is that it's possible to get reactions that aren't negative, but not through your methods. And by trying to provoke negative reactions in other people, you actually poison the well for those of us who prefer positive communication.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have known when I walked into a thread criticizing such a highly political book that the thread itself would be all politics! I, too, had a problem with the book (which I must rate as my lease favorite of Card's), but just at the moment I have more of a problem with the original post!
quote:I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints.
What arrogance!
I find it interesting that you also claim that the conservative viewpoint is the result of years of considering and of changing opinions. I've found just the opposite to be true. I clung to conservatism as a child and teenager because my father believed it and because it was easy to believe something that someone else thought up for me. As I matured and was forced to take a hard look at the real world, I found my view VERY SLOWLY shifting left, one issue at a time.
Because it happened slowly, one issue at a time, I would never put all liberalism in a neat little bundle and try to sell it as a package deal. In fact, I still don't buy all of it. I'm a firm believer in individual freedom and responsibilities -- something that conservative republicans used to espouse. Now they seem to want us to have all of the responsibility with none of the freedom and I won't have that.
quote:it's worth noting that most studies demonstrate exactly the opposite; that those who self-identify as "liberals" are more likely to change their opinions on specific issues frequently over their lifespan, while those who self-identify as "conservatives" are much, much less likely to do so.
While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I would also appreciate a source for this information. That way, we can argue over how credible the source is rather than over whether or not we want to believe this.
quote:Look at the fruits of their labor since the sixties. We have some improvements, such as racial equality and environmental awareness. But look at how bad things are getting....The normalization of deviancy, to include homosexuality and pedophilia.
That you put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same category shows an astounding ignorance of both subjects. The only thing I could argue that they have in common is that neither is becoming more common -- just more talked about. Now let's grow up and set pedophilia aside because you and I both know that no one is in favor of adults having sex with children!
As for homosexuality, no conservative has yet satisfactorily explained to me how two men humping next door effects their life in any way. Yet you seem to think it is part of a package deal that is destroying us, so let me try to dig into the conservative mindset just long enough to find how we can both think logically about this and yet come to different conclusions. (You see, I'm not so arrogant as to believe I'm the only one who thinks about this logically.)
The trouble with this (and many other issues) is that the disagreement stems from two wildly different sets of underlying assumptions about the world. Conservatives are right that homosexuality is destroying our society as long as they define that destruction in terms of change. Things are not now as they once were. This has always been a tenant of conservatism -- that things should stay the same. I also perceive a desire from conservatives that people should do what we expect them to do and not be wildly different from a set social norm. If you take all these assumptions as true, then homosexuality needs to be stamped out.
But this is where the freedom is lost in the old "individual freedoms and responsibilities" party. Alas, the democrats are lacking the responsibility part, so I will continue to deny membership in either party.
quote: Young girls becoming more and more violent and promiscuous, bringing themselves down to the level of men, all for the sake of trying to attain the same rights as men to have to suffer in work and society the way we've always had to.
And here I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think you've gone the wrong way with it. I am disappointed with the fruits of the sexual revolution, but for vastly different reasons. I'm glad that we are not chained down by our gender roles as we once were, but now we seem to be chained by other things. We've given men permission to love us and leave us, requiring us to take on the responsibility of both traditional gender roles in order to raise our children. Moreover, the pendulum has, in many cases, swung the other way and women who would choose to embrace the traditional gender role are looked down upon for that choice. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for one income households to make ends meet, giving women no choices at all.
But I won't stand by and agree that because there are some kinks in the progress, that all of liberalism is wrong or even to blame.
quote:The slow death of marriage and the restriction and persecution of religion, with the exaltation of athiesm.
I always laugh when I hear people suggest that religion is being persecuted. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. I still see atheism and agnosticism being frowned upon and treated as dirty. I don't think modern Christians know what persecution is. You said you've read history...check out the part about being fed to the lions. If atheists start doing that to you, I'll fight on your side. In the meantime, the atheists and agnostics I know at best just want to be left alone and at worst are no threat. They have no community of like-minded individuals (a church) to cling to for strength and support.
*******************************
I haven't had a chance to really think about this stuff in ages. Usually, people don't want to talk about it. I can get my husband to talk about it, but he agrees with me on most of it so it's just not the same. Thanks for the opportunity. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you may be right, but here in the bible belt it feels a bit lonely not to embrace Christian beliefs. Plus, since I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, those groups wouldn't apply to me.
Which brings up another problem with non-Christian (I suppose I should say Judeo-Christian) viewpoints...they are not consistent or organized. There is no creed and no leader.
But I at least partially accept your stance so I will rephrase to say that there is less support and community for non-Christians than there is for Christians.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you Google the term "atheist support groups," the first hit is a list of groups in Tennessee, one of which is an atheist club. The other hits on the first page are all discussions of whether or not Alcoholics Anonymous is "atheist-friendly," or whether practical atheist alternatives exist. It isn't until the fourth page that we encounter a group which exists to support people in atheism, as opposed to a support group for people with a problem who also happen to be atheists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Others: "Abortion is about the rights of a woman and what she chooses to do with her body."
Me: "Abortion is about the unborn child being killed. The child happens to be in the womans womb, but she is not the only person involved. There is a separate person who's life is being ended."
"Others" also believe that the fetus is not a separate self until certain conditions are met, and that until that state is reached the mother's wishes are paramount. The question is not the mother's rights. The question is when does that bundle of cells become a self?
If you believe at conception, then of course you are against abortion. If you believe at a later time, then you may be willing to accept abortion before that time. The rights question can only be answered when the self question is settled.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe at conception, then of course you are against abortion. If you believe at a later time, then you may be willing to accept abortion before that time.
That's actually not true. There's at least one person on this board who thinks that at least some abortions result in the death of a fully human person who still opposes a ban on those abortions. (I'm being vague about the exact time frame, but there is definitely overlap.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I believe that a human embryo is fully human from the moment of conception, but I'm against a ban on abortions. I do think that abortions should be very rare, and the fact that they aren't is of serious concern as an indicator of the morality of society. Efforts to "legitimize" abortion have definitely had a negative impact on that morality, but I don't believe that they are totally or even primarily responsible for the decay.
After all, allowing abortions in the event of rape, incest, or serious danger to the mother is something that very few people will argue over. I know women who feel privately that they'd rather not have an abortion in even those cases, but few of them want to impose that decision on anyone else. And that argument is extensible on the other side. I have a hard time saying that there should be some kind of bright-line between an action that is fully legal and one that requires proscecution.
Which is why I think that the debate over the legality of abortion is pointless. The problem isn't that it's legal, the problem is that there's so damn much of it.
But your society really does have more pressing issues. Even if we factor in all the root causes of abortion, those aren't going to destroy your civilization for another several decades, possibly a century or more. So why all the fuss about it when you may have only months left?
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:allowing abortions in the event of rape, incest, or serious danger to the mother is something that very few people will argue over.
My youth pastor actually did argue over that, claiming (and I haven't been able to google anything to back it up) that even after rape, it takes a few days for conception to occur, and that a girl should see the doctor immediately to prevent pregnancy before conception.
I abhor the practice of abortion, but do not believe there should be any legislation or governement intervention on the issue, meaning I don't think there should be federal funding for abortion centers.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why all the fuss about it when you may have only months left?
I was actually going to respond to something you said in that last post, but then I got to the end and saw that you tacked this crap on the end of your post (yet again), and I decided against it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Launchy -- what your youth pastor told you has several problems with it. First of all, serious danger to the mother can occur at any point in the pregnancy, but I think he was probably focusing on rape or incest. In both of these cases, I think it demonstrates a profound lack of sensitivity to suggest that a woman who has just been raped should then proceed to make a purely logical decision. Many times in the wake of such a crime a woman is scared, confused, and alone. Often, these crimes occur by someone she trusted and fears.
Once you get past that, you get to the problem that the "morning after" methods are just as heavily debated as abortion itself! If life begins at conception, then those, too, are wrong. The idea you and your youth pastor are proposing seem to take a "life begins an implantation" approach which, to be honest, is more in line with where I fall but it is still a political hot bed.
I, too, am one who believes that life begins before birth (with a viable implantation, actually, which is a bit unusual), but I do not want to see legislators tell us whether or not we can get an abortion or under what circumstances. I know what *I* believe but it is based at least as much on faith as anything else. Others disagree and I would not be so arrogant as to use the law to force them to my way of thinking.
I don't like the abortion rate. I think it may be part of a larger problem, though, and that the way to handle the situation is through community and not through the law. Unplanned pregnancy can be a long, lonely road with little encouragement and lots of judgment.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Others disagree and I would not be so arrogant as to use the law to force them to my way of thinking.
My problem with that is that we seem to have no problem using the law to prevent murders in other situations. If someone genuinely doesn't believe that, say, a handicapped individual is a human being by his or her criteria, does that mean that we have no business passing a law that says otherwise?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom...I started on a much longer explanation that would have addressed that point and then deleted it. I guess I shouldn't have.
Discussions of what constitutes "human" are somewhat interesting but more often circular. The government is charged with keeping law and order. A society cannot function if citizens are given leave to kill one another. Some people think it is okay to kill anyone at all, but these are not reasonable people.
There are many reasonable people who do not believe that a fetus is human yet. And I'm going to botch this part but I'm going to say it anyway...the life or death of a fetus as determined by its own mother is not a matter of law and order. It is strictly a matter of morality.
As for handicapped people...well, there have been societies that have taken the attitude that they should die. I would be surprised if the reasoning was that these people were not human, though. I would be more inclined to believe that they were a drain on society and that, having so little, they could not afford to sacrifice for people who could not produce. We have the luxury of having plenty and so our decisions about what to do with people who cost more than they produce can be based on something more than basic necessity and expediency.
Anyway...keep it coming. It's always helpful to have to refine my position. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints.
quote: What arrogance!
It's a problem: how to point out that you think you're right (which, by definition, you do), without sounding arrogant.
It can be hard sometimes, but I'd say the first thing to do (and the biggest problem I had with what I quoted) is not to come straight out and call your side wise, experienced, and logical while calling the other side impulsive and rash. If you can find a logical support for your argument, you can say these things *without* saying them -- but therein lies the key. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it is legal to withhold medically necessary care from people who will die without it, as long as you can show that such care represents an undue burdan on yourself. Whether or not it should be is another issue entirely.
I don't see the legality of abortion as being the main problem, that's all. That would be true even if it weren't for the fact that it isn't the most pressing issue facing your civilization. I'd recommend some way of encouraging people to reserve sex for relationships which were ready to take on the responsibiilties of parenthood.
But then, I also don't think that overt acts of homocide need to be as illegal as they are now, so maybe you can do as mph does and ignore my thoughts on the matter.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are many reasonable people who do not believe that a fetus is human yet. And I'm going to botch this part but I'm going to say it anyway...the life or death of a fetus as determined by its own mother is not a matter of law and order. It is strictly a matter of morality.
Governments have often legalized murder, while maintaining law and order. I'd cite some, but I think it would invoke Godwin's Law Suffice it to say that I am quite happy to live in a country where maintaining "law and order" is not the only consideration when determining what should or should not be illegal.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy -- I would say that a government that legalizes murder does not EVEN have law and order in mind when deciding laws. Governments themselves have been known to try to reign with an iron fist, but they don't tend to last long.
(I did tell you I would mess up what I was trying to say, didn't I? )
Of course there is more to lawmaking than law and order, but legislating on morality alone (while done) goes against the tenets of a free society. So I guess before I get myself in more trouble I should ask, for Puppy or anyone else who cares to answer...under what principle of the role of government should abortion restrictions be enacted?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're going to have to define individual here, because I'm really struggling with it. I ate chicken for dinner last night; was that chicken an individual?
Of course, I'm sure you mean human, but then you get back to one of the fundamental problems with the abortion debate: When does human life begin? We (society) can't agree. Shall you define it for them?
One other reason I can think that "protection of the individual from external harm" does not work is that it can be applied to the mother as well. It's not easy to be pregnant and have a baby. I did it because I wanted my son and love him. I thank God I was never put in the position of having to choose to carry a baby I did not want or worse -- one that was the result of rape. I'm not sure if my personal conviction that an unborn baby qualifies as human would have stood up to that after the migraines and nausea took hold -- and that's just the first month.
So basically, my problem with "protection of the individual from harm" is that the definition of individual is murky and that even if the unborn baby qualifies, there are two individuals being harmed.
Is there another basis for outlawing abortions?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been societies, including ours, which have decided that "protection of the individual from external harm" doesn't apply in their case because [insert ethnic group here] aren't really humans.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not clear on the connection, to be honest. Humanity as a whole is capable of some pretty egregious acts that we sometimes rationalize, but just because the argument has been used in the past as rationalization for terrible atrocities does not make it an invalid argument in the here and now.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Humanity as a whole is capable of some pretty egregious acts that we sometimes rationalize, but just because the argument has been used in the past as rationalization for terrible atrocities does not make it an invalid argument in the here and now.
"I'm fat. I need to lose some weight." -- works great if you're 300+ pounds, not so great if you're a 60-lb anorexic. The anorexic is rationalizing. The 300+ lb person is not.
"They aren't really human." -- works great if you're discussing using lab rats for scientific research, not so great if you're talking about Jews in World War II.
Just because something is a rationalization in one context does not mean that it is in another. The argument is entirely illogical. Context is everything here.
To put it another way...All you said was that you don't believe humanity is limited by ethnic group and you implied that most reasonable people nowadays would not limit humanity in this way. Great. I agree. That doesn't mean that humanity can't be limited by something else.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The logic works because you said that one of the problems with protecting individuals from external harm was identifying what the word 'individual' means.
Other societies have killed people we consider to be human individuals.
Our society kills fetuses, which some people consider to be human individuals.
All you've done is assert that it's okay to continue aborting fetuses, because we can't agree on whether or not they're human.
To me, that's a rather flimsy justification for murder.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you seem to be asserting that because other societies have (as far as our current philosophy is concerned) misidentified what constitutes an individual, we need to consider fetuses human.
Nope, not working for me! Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, you seem to be asserting that because other societies have (as far as our current philosophy is concerned) misidentified what constitutes an individual, we need to consider fetuses human.
The alternative would be -- to use your example -- to continue massacring Jews until we could provide definitive proof of their humanity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can't help but notice that all of you are trying to sink this discussion in peripheral details and avoiding the main crux. Let me see if I can steer us back before we drown in B.S.
Q. Under what rule of law should abortion be outlawed?
A. Protection of the individual from external harm.
Q. What constitutes an individual and how do we determine which individual's rights is more important when they clash?
quote:What constitutes an individual and how do we determine which individual's rights is more important when they clash?
If you can answer this definitively, you've managed to resolve, like, three thousand years of legal history.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can consider possibilities. Is it OK to fire your rifle blindly into a house, because you don't know for sure that anyone's home? Is it good to torture a humanlike figure to death, because you aren't absolutely sure the figure is a person? That should be enough to prevent elective abortion, but not one needed to save the life of the mother.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. The rights aren't clashing. Your statement, that "2 individuals are harmed" is a misleading one, in that it equalizes the amount of harm being done to both parties at the extremes of the scenario. However, an honest look at the situation will reveal that the quantitative harm is NOT equal: women, in America, generally ALL survive their pregnancies, and recover within weeks.
Almost no fetus lives through an abortion.
In what way are these two "harms" equal, as you seem to imply?
2. In terms of individual rights, I'm glad to be on the liberal side for once: applying the right to life to as many human beings as possible. I rarely get to claim a liberal stance for anything; thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me or for everyone else? Because I already said, I believe the fetus is alive. I could be wrong, but I personally would err on the side of caution. (And BTW, I think that is the best argument you've made yet. I have been tempted to make it for you but I decided to wait and see if you'd get there. )
For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision. I know what it's like to give birth, do you? Physically, recovery is relatively easy. But emotionally, economically, socially...it's a life-altering thing. Your body actually releases hormones to mess with your mind when it comes to your offspirng...encouraging you to bond with the infant, discouraging you from wanting to give up, and causing you to forget about the most painful parts of pregnancy and childbirth. 10% of women suffer from post partum depression as a result of these hormones.
quote:Have you ever seen a crack baby? Or one with fetal alcohol syndrome?
I personally know one of each who would take great personal exception to the idea that someone would think them better off had they been aborted.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was ill-said. I apologize. I was thinking of the destruction that a mother could do to an unborn fetus without aborting it and in some cases, the death comes, but later. That is the case I knew of personally and was thinking of. I should have considered it a little more before I posted that.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision. I know what it's like to give birth, do you? Physically, recovery is relatively easy. But emotionally, economically, socially...it's a life-altering thing. Your body actually releases hormones to mess with your mind when it comes to your offspirng...encouraging you to bond with the infant, discouraging you from wanting to give up, and causing you to forget about the most painful parts of pregnancy and childbirth. 10% of women suffer from post partum depression as a result of these hormones.
I fully support public money going towards educating women of these facts before having consentual sex, which is the case in over 99% of all pregnancies.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision.
This may simply be semantics, but the fetus (if you insist) is quite obviously alive. I've never heard anyone claim the contrary in a debate such as this.
Second, given the many methods of birth control available to any budget, and that the vast majority of pregnancies are caused by a choice, the number of unwanted pregnancies should be approaching zero in the modernized world.
Third, given that the fetus is genetically identical to a human at the time of conception, it is disingenous at best to fault anyone for referring to it as a baby. The only difference between a "fetus" newly conceived and a baby just delivered is about nine months of growth.
Or would you argue that a man who has lost his arm is no longer human because he doesn't look like one?
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about a man who has lost most of his higher nervous functions?
Look, I'm not in favor of abortions. I just don't see banning them as being the solution to any of the problems we have. Restricting them? Sure, I can see the logic of making it illegal for doctors to perform the overt act which kills the child, which would naturally restrict what kinds of abortions you could legally carry out. Making a real effort to educate the public about the specific medical details of what abortion is and what it does? Sure, all this "letting the air in" business is silly.
But simply banning it won't fix anything that's really wrong with our society. I don't like abortion myself, but laws against it are like laws against suicide...silly in their fundamental concept. Christine has pointed that out, I suppose. She has done so without the tact or clarity that might have made her point, but it's a valid point. I have no sympathy to spare for people who kill themselves. I have none for women who deliberately kill their own children. But you have to be sane about the laws you make and whether they can be enforced practically.
Even assuming that we could enforce such a law, I don't think all abortion should be illegal, anymore than I think that it should ever be mandatory. I may disagree with someone on what specific proceedures should be illegal, but I don't think that disagreement is important compared with other issues.
For instance, the agreement that abortion is generally a bad thing and we should be finding ways of reducing the demand for it. I think many opponents of the culture of abortion fall on opposite sides of the debate because the debate is framed in terms of legality rather than morality.
Maybe I just don't care about legality because that entire part of the system is about to crash and burn. Or maybe there are just too many things that have been determined to be legal which I find deplorable, or things that are illegal which I think would be good (at least for some people). Whatever.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
God, I've been so sick. I'm sure everyone missed me.
I want to clarify something about the arrogance thing. I don't know that I'm right about any of my opinions, I only think I am. I do know the difference. And Tom made the best argument against allowing abortion, and the one I adhere to the most, because it is most logical. If there is a slight posibility that abortion at any stage is murder, then I wouldn't want to be guilty of having an abortion, performing an abortion, supporting abortion, or voting for someone who supports it. And since there is no way of knowing that the fetus is not a human, I believe the only reasonable and logical option is to outlaw it, as it is society's and the government's duty to protect the defenseless.
This to me, is unassailable logic. I challenge anyone to find a flaw in it. If you can, I will never argue the pro-life side again. Bringing up "women's choice" or "what about rape, incest, or deformities" does not address the logical construct. Nor does "your arrogance and bad attitude obscures your point," as I have heard ad nauseam.
And because of the complete logical supremecy of this argument, and a slew of others that are "conservative," it is for this reason that I feel I can make statements like "I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints." Notice the use of "personally believe" and "based more in widom/impulse..." Now if someone wants to argue that I shouldn't make statements like that because it is rude and does not promote the discussion, you will probably win that one without a fight. I just ask that I not be misinterpreted, and I would like that people recognize that I am really not intentionally trying to offend, usually. Exceptions abound. Things just come out a certain way sometimes, and I tried to keep it in check a while, but it was too tiring, it interfered with my point, and people ignored me. I'm not posting all this so people can skim and move on, not remembering what I said or that I even said anything. As I said before, I'm looking for a reaction. And my natural, offensive style seems to get results. In turn, I let people's intentionally insulting comments toward me slide, and I engage their points (with the occasional verbal jab.) It's fun!! I'm pretty sure that if you read this thread with that in mind you will see that to be the case.
posted
Well, since I started with a pro-life viewpoint and wisdom and experience drove me to a pro-choice viewpoint, I can't see your argument as valid. As for the unassailable logic...well, I could assail it but I remembered why it was that I stopped talking about this subject. Both sides are based on fundamental and unbridgeable differences in their underlying assumptions. Any assaults I made on your logic would stem from my assumptions, and be entirely unreasonable in your world. If there is one thing that wisdom has taught me it's that arguments are won or lost in the underlying assumptions that are rarely (if ever) discussed.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to sound offensive, but just because you moved from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint does not mean my argument is not valid. It is possible that your reasons for changing were flawed. And since I find the logic for being pro-life, as I set it up, to be unassailable, I must conclude that your reasons were in fact flawed. Doesn't mean I'm right, it just means that it will take some kind of deconstruction of the logical framework I am working from in order to change my mind. And the simple assertion that my logic is assailable without pointing out how isn't going to cut it.
I agree with you when you say that "both sides are based on fundamental and unbridgeable differences in their underlying assumptions." I just think that the assumptions for one are wrong and the assumptions of the other are not. The only assumptions I make are 1) we cannot know that a fetus is not a human, and 2) it is a governmental and societal responsibility (morally) to protect the defenseless. In order to deconstruct this argument, you would have to show that one or both of those assumptions are false. It's as simple as that.
edit: added (morally), as this is an important distinction
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the underlying assumptions of the abortion debate are usually pretty clear, if completely pointless. Christine doesn't assume that the fetus is "human", you assume that it should be considered human until proven otherwise. I don't care about the "humanity" of the fetus one way or the other.
My underlying assumption is that it simply isn't practical to outlaw abortion in this day and age, it is simply too easy for educated women in our modern society to reliably abort their own pregnancies. Unless you want to turn every miscarriage into a criminal investigation, you might as well leave abortion (of some types, at least) legal and concentrate on finding other ways to encourage changes in the sexual and moral culture.
My other assumption is that almost none of the current laws are going to survive the coming extinction crisis, and thus it doesn't matter a good damn what the laws are. But even if you don't believe such a thing is about to happen, my first posited assumption bears examination.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep making that point, Survivor. I actually agree with you. We are not long for this Earth. But that doesn't excuse immorality in the meantime. And even if we couldn't enforce the law (and I think we could), at least we wouldn't be actively condoning something as awful as abortion and our own suicide.
By the way, I just finished responding to Kwea's highly insulting post on the other thread that this one is linked to. I know some of my statements are found to be offensive by some, but I don't actually set out to insult anyone here. I try to keep my "sweeping generalizations" impersonal. So how come blatently offensive and insulting attacks on me are excused but I get called on anything I say that can be interpreted ---correctly sometimes, but not always--- negatively?
Could it be because I am found to be genuinely threatening? Maybe I'm wrong and arrogant to think this, but I'm taking it to mean that my arguments are in fact so strong that I must be attacked. Like Bill O'Reilly, or George W. Bush. If those men really meant nothing and had no power or influence, would anyone make a big deal about them? If O'Reilly really is just a blowhard and Bush really is just an idiot, then why would people actively try to destroy them? I'm not equating myself with them, but I think the principle is the same.
posted
I think it's more because you don't seem open to changing your mind. Thus they see no advantage in not antagonizing you in the hope that you'll go away (or commit suicide, I've had that suggestion thrown my way a couple of times ).
In a larger sense, I think that it is Card that the camper-trolls on this forum regard as a threat. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't be camper-trolling his forum, eh? By driving off or subverting Card's native fanbase, they hope to both reduce his popularity and to convince him that he's insane for writing the kinds of things he writes.
I think that mostly they just succeed in making fools of themselves, but they do seem to have caused some pretty serious emotional conflicts for a few good people. All in the service of humanism, I suppose.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lest anyone wonder whether Richard's speculations might in fact be accurate, let me remind them that he claims to be a member of an inhuman species dedicated to the extermination of our own. In fact, he's repeatedly asserted that he has little understanding of and no sympathy for human motivations. So that might help you measure exactly how accurate his suggestions on that front might be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to sound offensive, but just because you moved from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint does not mean my argument is not valid.
My only point in saying that I went from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint was to counter your point that age, wisdom, or experience had anything to do with this. I don't assume that I am definitely right as you do.
As for the underlying assumption, you are missing the most important one. You are assuming that there is absolute truth in this world that we are measuring against.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like Bill O'Reilly, or George W. Bush. If those men really meant nothing and had no power or influence, would anyone make a big deal about them?
It's because of their power and influence that they worry people. The loudest talking idiot can often convince people who are likeminded into following them down whatever harebrained path they're headed towards.
quote:You are assuming that there is absolute truth in this world that we are measuring against.
Beyond that, he's assuming that he is somehow smart or privileged enough to access this truth and that anyone who disagrees with him is not.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
