posted
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....
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aborting a fetus that would have lived affects the lives of every single person that would have interacted with that person.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Indeed, it is the same arguement, but I didn't wanna derail the thread.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love that there is a definite opinion expressed that it is wrong to express definite opinions.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was the irony I was trying to get at katharina. I just wasn't able to put it as succinctly as you were Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was the second post there necessary? Didn't the first one express your opposition succintly enough without insults?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was not fantastical in any way. It was hypothetical. There is a big difference between the two.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
