Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I should have stayed around to let you know that these deflectors think that deflecting without reading links is a quite fair way of defeating the intent of the posters of the threads. There are so many of them that not all of them need be around at any given time. I am sorry they have tried to do you in about abortion instead of what you intended.
Don't be sorry, Roysoldboy. I'm used to it. Keeping pro-abort ideologues on-topic is next to impossible. Fortunately they trip themselves up quickly without any help from me.
Abortion only came up because of the Crown's argument:
"In her judgment, the judge rejected arguments from the Crown that the single father and the grandparent also face 'the same stresses of the mind' as a mother who kills her own baby. The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that 'while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,' she writes." No Jail For Alberta Woman Convicted Of Infanticide
The comparison being made is not between abortion and the murder of the baby; it's between the effect of pregnancy and childbirth on a mother as compared to a father and grandparent.
The comparison is being made because precisely the same reasoning the court used to excuse infanticide is said to justify abortion. Otherwise it would not be relevant, now, would it?
I have news for you: no one gets out of this world alive. In the end we are all "going to die no matter what." Are you then volunteering to self-abort post birth and lead by example?
If I so chose that I wanted to, yes.
But as of now, life's pretty good. Been doing quite decent under our current president, have wonderful friends and relationships,etc.
First you say:I'm actually embarrassed for you. Watching pro-choicers try to make coherent arguments is ... painful.
You are embarrassed for others? You put up a link to an abstract with six lines. And then you demand that people who are pro-choice offer support for claims in a summary for which we have no idea what the purpose or line of argumentation is? Are you serious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Anyway, that's two down - the only two of my interlocutors who have directly engaged the ideas presented in the OP.
I actually admire people who are hardcore in their beliefs. But not when they are hardcore to the extent that they are blinded to what constitutes a decent argument. You obviously have no idea what bioethicism is about or how it works. You read a couple of sentences and assume that the exploration of an idea necessitates execution in practice. Sorry, but this isn't how ethics typically works. But in order to support your ideology, you need those couple of sentences to be true, so that you can continue to rant about how evil pro-choicers are and how good anti-choicers are.
Well, that's fine. Your agenda is obvious. But it hardly makes for a nuanced or convincing argument. And, if you really believe that abortion is murder, it's your moral duty not simply to shout at the top of your lungs, "Abortion is murder," but to convince those who think otherwise to convert to your way of thinking. This obviously isn't your objective, which is hard to understand given your beliefs. But that's something you'll have to answer for in the end--why it is that you let your pride dictate the means of your evangelism.
And, if you really believe that abortion is murder, it's your moral duty not just to shout at the top of your lungs, "Abortion is murder," but to convince those who think otherwise to convert to your way of thinking. This obviously isn't your objective, which is hard to understand given your beliefs. But that's something you'll have to answer for in the end--why it is that you let your pride dictate the means of your evangelism.
I'm not here to evangelize, dear. But thanks for the advice.
Let it be noted that you still have not engaged the OP. If you think there is something wrong with the ideas proposed, please tell me what the problem is. Otherwise it's fair to assume that your silence is consent.
But as of now, life's pretty good. Been doing quite decent under our current president, have wonderful friends and relationships,etc.
So, I see no reason to off myself.
Why should you be given the luxury of choice when the just born baby is not? You've already had your time on this earth and why do you assume your life will be of higher quality than the new one?
Who defines quality of life, some government bureaucrat? Someone perhaps like the eugenicist Obama looks to in an advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel?
Are you seriously suggesting taking away the inaleinable right to life?
Why should you be given the luxury of choice when the just born baby is not? You've already had your time on this earth and why do you assume your life will be of higher quality than the new one?
You do realise I was talking about a baby that was already terminally ill, right?
One that was going to die a painful death soon?
inb4 'FOMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE EVENTUALLY', which is idiotic, and completely sidesteps the point.
You might want to take a lesson from how Jesus conducted himself and model yourself accordingly. To me, your pride is very unbecoming but that is of a little consequence, of course. To Him, on the other hand, I don't know. In the end, that will be just between you and Him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Let it be noted that you still have not engaged the OP. If you think there is something wrong with the ideas proposed, please tell me what the problem is. Otherwise it's fair to assume that your silence is consent.
I've engaged the OP for what it was worth. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you would like to post a link to the actual article, I'd be happy to read it and respond to the arguments made therein.
You put up a link to an abstract with six lines. And then you demand that people who are pro-choice offer support for claims in a summary for which we have no idea what the purpose or line of argumentation is? Are you serious?
Of course I'm serious. The abstract makes specific truth-claims: the paper presumably argues for them. If you disagree with the truth claims, you should say so, and give your reasons.
Why do you balk at this? Suppose I had linked to a paper with a different abstract that claimed "women do not have the same moral status as actual persons".
Don't try to tell me that you wouldn't disagree instantly and loudly! Don't try to tell me you'd be making excuses for it as though these "scholars" were just harmlessly kicking the idea around in an abstract philosophical exercise! Please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
