International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

lionking 6th July 2022 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849176)
I think yes, your comment is intended as being derogatory towards Christians.

No, only some. Those who share your views.

Susheel 6th July 2022 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849176)
I think yes, your comment is intended as being derogatory towards Christians.

Well...fancy that...

The Great Zaganza 6th July 2022 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849176)
I think yes, your comment is intended as being derogatory towards Christians.

well, the argument US Christians use to support their anti-abortion stance is very much derogatory of Jews, so maybe rational people should can leave Religion out of this?

Upchurch 6th July 2022 03:49 AM

The point is that early stage personhood is an idea that originates from certain religions. Even if you don’t believe there is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and it is in everyone’s best interest for their to be one, it definitely isn’t constitutional to enact a law that gives preference to one religious belief over a different religious belief.

This ruling was a bad one from start to finish.

kevbo 6th July 2022 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13849226)
The point is that early stage personhood is an idea that originates from certain religions. Even if you don’t believe there is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and it is in everyone’s best interest for their to be one, it definitely isn’t constitutional to enact a law that gives preference to one religious belief over a different religious belief.

This ruling was a bad one from start to finish.

Agreed. Especially the hilited.

shuttlt 6th July 2022 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13849226)
The point is that early stage personhood is an idea that originates from certain religions. Even if you don’t believe there is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and it is in everyone’s best interest for their to be one, it definitely isn’t constitutional to enact a law that gives preference to one religious belief over a different religious belief.

The liberal idea of equality comes from the equality of souls before God. Does the Constitution ban laws based on notions of equality?

Warp12 6th July 2022 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13849226)
The point is that early stage personhood is an idea that originates from certain religions. Even if you don’t believe there is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and it is in everyone’s best interest for their to be one, it definitely isn’t constitutional to enact a law that gives preference to one religious belief over a different religious belief.

This ruling was a bad one from start to finish.


Meh.

Liberals are all over the map with this. One minute they are screaming about religion and "early stage personhood", the next they are saying there shouldn't be restrictions on third trimester abortions.

Like I say, nothing is good enough for them. Even my prior stance of accepting Roe, supporting legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and advocating for education, community outreach, and free birth control. That wasn't good enough because I had the audacity to suggest crazy things such as a greater emphasis should be placed on personal responsibility for both men and women.

So, guess what? Liberals get nothing, now. They lost their bargaining chip via political failure and unreasonable demands. And the scotus is now a conservative's wet dream, and likely will be for a very long time. This is just the beginning.

shuttlt 6th July 2022 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849243)
Meh.

Liberals are all over the map with this. One minute they are screaming about religion and "early stage personhood", the next they are saying there shouldn't be restrictions on third trimester abortions.

Like I say, nothing is good enough for them. Even my prior stance of accepting Roe, supporting legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and advocating for education, community outreach, and free birth control. That wasn't good enough because I had the audacity to suggest crazy things such as a greater emphasis should be placed on personal responsibility for both men and women.

So, guess what? Liberals get nothing, now. They lost their bargaining chip via political failure and unreasonable demands. And the scotus is a now conservative's wet dream, and likely will be for a very long time. This is just the beginning.

Partly this is because in the utopia everybody will be free to pursue happiness without moral censure, and everybody will be protected from the consequences of their choices. It's a bit like how, when Communist man emerges, he will only want to do things that are compatible with equality, hence the obvious contradictions between freedom and equality will resolve. You can't view it as the pragmatic balancing off evils. You have to celebrate abortion as an expression of individual freedom. When everybody abandons traditional morality, a stable society of hedonistic individuals will emerge who sleep with whoever they feel like without guilt, envy or consequences.

lionking 6th July 2022 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13849251)
Partly this is because in the utopia everybody will be free to pursue happiness without moral censure, and everybody will be protected from the consequences of their choices. It's a bit like how, when Communist man emerges, he will only want to do things that are compatible with equality, hence the obvious contradictions between freedom and equality will resolve. You can't view it as the pragmatic balancing off evils. You have to celebrate abortion as an expression of individual freedom. When everybody abandons traditional morality, a stable society of hedonistic individuals will emerge who sleep with whoever they feel like without guilt, envy or consequences.

Sorry can I ask if this is an entirely serious post? Because some people here play Devil’s Advocate.

If it’s serious your slippery slope argument is too ridiculous to address.

dmaker 6th July 2022 04:59 AM

I was listening to Fox News last night on the radio while driving--I go there sometimes on commercial breaks just to peek at what the other side is talking about. Not sure who was speaking but they were complaining about how the left is so intolerant on this issue and can't they just understand that some people may find abortion to be morally wrong.

I get that. That is not the point. The point is if you don't agree with it, then don't have one, but leave others free to choose. Why should their moral choices be forced upon everyone else? Why can't they understand that??

Upchurch 6th July 2022 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13849236)
The liberal idea of equality comes from the equality of souls before God.

What is a liberal idea of equality?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13849236)
Does the Constitution ban laws based on notions of equality?

Often, but equally between whom?

shuttlt 6th July 2022 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13849261)
Sorry can I ask if this is an entirely serious post? Because some people here play Devil’s Advocate.

If it’s serious your slippery slope argument is too ridiculous to address.

Well, I doubt your average person who supported the communists back in 1920 wouldn't have read the philosophical workings out of how liberty and equality could be made compatible. They may never have considered that they weren't. The useful idiots of the revolution. If people thought in that way, you wouldn't get incoherent notions like "liberté, égalité, fraternité" becoming so popular. Maybe if they had been aware that their leaders meant something very different by "liberty" than they did, it would have made a difference, and maybe it wouldn't? It's the same today. Most people don't read the history of the ideas they support, or consider what the implications of their ideas are beyond the things they want their ideas to deliver. You see this on the "Trans women are not women" thread where you get people simultaneously supporting the process of deconstructing concepts that stand in the way of the free self-creation of the individual.... they support the deconstruction of the family, and the social role of women, but are shocked that the concept of women itself ends up getting deconstructed. People think they can board the train and then get off wherever they want.

lionking 6th July 2022 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13849286)
Well, I doubt your average person who supported the communists back in 1920 wouldn't have read the philosophical workings out of how liberty and equality could be made compatible. They may never have considered that they weren't. The useful idiots of the revolution. If people thought in that way, you wouldn't get incoherent notions like "liberté, égalité, fraternité" becoming so popular. Maybe if they had been aware that their leaders meant something very different by "liberty" than they did, it would have made a difference, and maybe it wouldn't? It's the same today. Most people don't read the history of the ideas they support, or consider what the implications of their ideas are beyond the things they want their ideas to deliver. You see this on the "Trans women are not women" thread where you get people simultaneously supporting the process of deconstructing concepts that stand in the way of the free self-creation of the individual.... they support the deconstruction of the family, and the social role of women, but are shocked that the concept of women itself ends up getting deconstructed. People think they can board the train and then get off wherever they want.

All nonsense. Thanks, it doesn’t need to be addressed.

Beelzebuddy 6th July 2022 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmaker (Post 13849275)
Why should their moral choices be forced upon everyone else? Why can't they understand that??

You're looking for a coherent argument from reasoned moral principles. You will not find one. The sole point is to claim victimization even while victimizing others. That's all.

shuttlt 6th July 2022 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmaker (Post 13849275)
I get that. That is not the point. The point is if you don't agree with it, then don't have one, but leave others free to choose. Why should their moral choices be forced upon everyone else? Why can't they understand that??

There is no neutral environment where one persons choices don't restrict the choices of other people. If in a State most of the population don't want to live under an individualistic moral system, will you let them? If you impose an individualistic system on them, then you set up tragedy of the commons type incentives that drives people to behave individualistically. Some people value community, family etc... over individual freedom. The system you see as neutral is an existential threat to them.

cosmicaug 6th July 2022 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

So we have abortion rights relentlessly attacked and pushed back at the state level to the point that, despite Roe vs. Wade, in many states abortion might as well have been illegal even before this ruling; but it's actually the liberals' fault because look what you made me do, you just tried too hard and pushed too much?

Yeah, that makes total sense!

Ziggurat 6th July 2022 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmaker (Post 13849275)
Why should their moral choices be forced upon everyone else? Why can't they understand that??

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand.

Everyone forces moral choices on other people. We need a shared moral code, and much of that moral code is enforced by law. It cannot be otherwise. You may have mistakenly believed that it was otherwise because you may not have even noticed all the morality that's encoded into law, but it's absolutely there.

I'll give you an example: laws against animal cruelty. That's a moral choice that we have made as a society. We didn't have to outlaw animal cruelty. We didn't do so for purely pragmatic reasons. We did so because we believe it is morally wrong to be cruel to animals. I'm guessing you share that belief. I'm also guessing you never really objected to forcing that moral choice on other people. But that's still what's happening. You don't actually object to forcing moral choices on other people. Nobody really does, not categorically. You only object to doing so when it's a moral choice you disagree with.

Shalamar 6th July 2022 08:24 AM

I see once again that conservatives place a greater value of life and freedoms on that of a unthinking, unformed fetus over that of an actual thinking human female.

Of course, fetus' are only valued until they're born.

tyr_13 6th July 2022 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849333)
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand.

Everyone forces moral choices on other people. We need a shared moral code, and much of that moral code is enforced by law. It cannot be otherwise. You may have mistakenly believed that it was otherwise because you may not have even noticed all the morality that's encoded into law, but it's absolutely there.

I'll give you an example: laws against animal cruelty. That's a moral choice that we have made as a society. We didn't have to outlaw animal cruelty. We didn't do so for purely pragmatic reasons. We did so because we believe it is morally wrong to be cruel to animals. I'm guessing you share that belief. I'm also guessing you never really objected to forcing that moral choice on other people. But that's still what's happening. You don't actually object to forcing moral choices on other people. Nobody really does, not categorically. You only object to doing so when it's a moral choice you disagree with.

Oops! Someone's caveat negates their point! In addition to a massive false equivalency over limiting what someone does with their body based on other people's morals with limiting what people do to other animals based on pragmatic and moral considerations.

Further, you don't believe your own reasoning to give objection. If you did you'd be fine with banning gay sex (hell, you probably will defend the state that tires it) or banning meat eating because of a minority moral consideration enforced on a majority of people.

shuttlt 6th July 2022 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13849398)
Oops! Someone's caveat negates their point! In addition to a massive false equivalency over limiting what someone does with their body based on other people's morals with limiting what people do to other animals based on pragmatic and moral considerations.

Further, you don't believe your own reasoning to give objection. If you did you'd be fine with banning gay sex (hell, you probably will defend the state that tires it) or banning meat eating because of a minority moral consideration enforced on a majority of people.

I don't think you've understood Ziggurat's point.

tyr_13 6th July 2022 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13849404)
I don't think you've understood Ziggurat's point.

No, I did and I understand that not only is it a dodge, it's a self refuting one.

I look forward to your defense of bans on meat eating.

Lukraak_Sisser 6th July 2022 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849333)
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand.

Everyone forces moral choices on other people. We need a shared moral code, and much of that moral code is enforced by law. It cannot be otherwise. You may have mistakenly believed that it was otherwise because you may not have even noticed all the morality that's encoded into law, but it's absolutely there.

I'll give you an example: laws against animal cruelty. That's a moral choice that we have made as a society. We didn't have to outlaw animal cruelty. We didn't do so for purely pragmatic reasons. We did so because we believe it is morally wrong to be cruel to animals. I'm guessing you share that belief. I'm also guessing you never really objected to forcing that moral choice on other people. But that's still what's happening. You don't actually object to forcing moral choices on other people. Nobody really does, not categorically. You only object to doing so when it's a moral choice you disagree with.

But the majority of the US society does agree with the right to abortion.
So what is it called when a minority abuses processes to force it's will on the majority?

shuttlt 6th July 2022 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13849407)
No, I did and I understand that not only is it a dodge, it's a self refuting one.

I look forward to your defense of bans on meat eating.

It isn't self refuting. You didn't understand the point. Eating meat isn't against my morality, so I'm not against it. All societies impose some form of morality on people, the only question is what that morality should be.

Upchurch 6th July 2022 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13849415)
But the majority of the US society does agree with the right to abortion.
So what is it called when a minority abuses processes to force it's will on the majority?

Authoritarianism?

wareyin 6th July 2022 09:07 AM

It's weird watching the same conservatives who argued that being illegal doesn't impede anything at all when it comes to gun laws argue here that we need laws to impose morality wrt abortion.

catsmate 6th July 2022 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13848712)
It's the First Amendment.



I was raised in a cultural setting that would likely go with "God puts the soul in the little-bitty babies the moment the sperm touches the egg". I was capable of questioning my indoctrination with skepticism and critical thought. Technically, everyone is capable of it, though few seem to make the effort.

Historically, the concept comes from the Catholic religion and was adopted quite quickly, ironically enough, by evangelical sects of Christianity. The concept that the early zygote or embryo is anything equivalent personhood was based solely on the idea that it has a soul. Otherwise, there is nothing being-like about it. Prior to that, a good number of religions and traditions held that the fetus was a person once the quickening had happened, and not before.

The RCC only adopted ensoulment at conception in the nineteenth century.

Shalamar 6th July 2022 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13849427)
It's weird watching the same conservatives who argued that being illegal doesn't impede anything at all when it comes to gun laws argue here that we need laws to impose morality wrt abortion.

Guns are a god given divine right!

Rights to bodily autonomy for womensplit-tails is not. They're just incubators.

Protect the babies! (Until they're born)

The Great Zaganza 6th July 2022 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 13849522)
Guns are a god given divine right!

Rights to bodily autonomy for womensplit-tails is not. They're just incubators.

Protect the babies! (Until they're born)

if foetuses don't want to be aborted, they can make use of their 2nd amendment right to defend themselves - if they don't get a gun, that's their mistake.

Ziggurat 6th July 2022 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13849398)
Oops! Someone's caveat negates their point! In addition to a massive false equivalency over limiting what someone does with their body based on other people's morals with limiting what people do to other animals based on pragmatic and moral considerations.

First, you assume there are no pragmatic implications of abortion, but there are. Second, you have created caveats of your own which weren't part of your original claim, and basically constitute special pleading.

Quote:

Further, you don't believe your own reasoning to give objection. If you did you'd be fine with banning gay sex
shuttit is right, you don't understand my point at all.

And to be explicit, I'm not fine with banning gay sex. But the reason I'm not fine with it isn't because it's based on morals. There are other reasons I'm opposed to it, including that it conflicts with my own morals. And yes, being opposed to a law because it's based on morality that you disagree with is a reasonable reason to oppose such a law. Same goes for abortion. I've got no problem with you opposing abortion restrictions because they conflict with your morality. But again, that's different than being opposed to it because it's based on morals. That isn't the argument you made before.

Ziggurat 6th July 2022 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 13849415)
But the majority of the US society does agree with the right to abortion.

But not an overwhelming majority, and not without some restrictions (for example, the majority doesn't support 9th month abortions).

So how do we resolve differences of opinion among the citizenry? Well, one way to do it is to devolve the question from the federal level back to the states. And I think you will find that the degree of support for and opposition to abortion varies from state to state. States where a majority support abortion can keep it legal. States where a majority oppose abortion can restrict it. If the outcome you're after is laws that most closely resemble the desires of the people, then overturning RvW is a step in the right direction. Which makes me think you aren't actually making this argument in good faith, but just trying whatever you think might stick. The problem is, it doesn't.

Quote:

So what is it called when a minority abuses processes to force it's will on the majority?
Such as when 7 unelected judges declare that states cannot prohibit abortion, no matter how unpopular the decision is within that state?

You really can't use this argument to defend Roe v. Wade. It doesn't work.

wareyin 6th July 2022 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849537)
But not an overwhelming majority, and not without some restrictions (for example, the majority doesn't support 9th month abortions).

So how do we resolve differences of opinion among the citizenry? Well, one way to do it is to devolve the question from the federal level back to the states. And I think you will find that the degree of support for and opposition to abortion varies from state to state. States where a majority support abortion can keep it legal. States where a majority oppose abortion can restrict it. If the outcome you're after is laws that most closely resemble the desires of the people, then overturning RvW is a step in the right direction. Which makes me think you aren't actually making this argument in good faith, but just trying whatever you think might stick. The problem is, it doesn't.



Such as when 7 unelected judges declare that states cannot prohibit abortion, no matter how unpopular the decision is within that state?

You really can't use this argument to defend Roe v. Wade. It doesn't work.

Although the GOP elite pose as pro-forced birth, I doubt there is a single state where the populace is. If you have evidence of one rather than assumptions that there is one, feel free to share. Otherwise, your argument falls apart.

Ziggurat 6th July 2022 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13849545)
Although the GOP elite pose as pro-forced birth, I doubt there is a single state where the populace is. If you have evidence of one rather than assumptions that there is one, feel free to share. Otherwise, your argument falls apart.

For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...tion/by/state/

Given that the facts contradict your expectations, will this prompt any introspection about why you got it so completely wrong?

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13849100)
How very Christian of you. Oh, I'm sorry. Am I picking on Christians now?

" ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law"

Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? They've fought against ever-increasing restrictive abortion laws like the one TX enacted. Get a grip on reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849176)
I think yes, your comment is intended as being derogatory towards Christians.

No, it was disgusted sarcasm toward hypocrites who claim to be Christians but behave in very unChristian ways. Maybe it's just their interpretation that when Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me" he really meant they should suffer as in being forced to give birth after being raped at 10 years old.

Christians who practice what Christianity preaches...love, kindness, unselfishness, forgiveness... have my respect. The others don't.

You failed to answer my question:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

Upchurch 6th July 2022 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13849474)
The RCC only adopted ensoulment at conception in the nineteenth century.

True story. Before that, I believe, they also held to the quickening time-frame.

Warp12 6th July 2022 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13849554)
No, it was disgusted sarcasm toward hypocrites who claim to be Christians but behave in very unChristian ways. Maybe it's just their interpretation that when Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me" he really meant they should suffer as in being forced to give birth after being raped at 10 years old.

Christians who practice what Christianity preaches...love, kindness, unselfishness, forgiveness... have my respect. The others don't.


Who was talking about Christians? Why even bring it up? Probably they might say that murdering the unborn is worse than forcing raped children to give birth to one of God's beautiful creations. God has a plan, after all. Who are we to question it?

So, I don't think that is hypocritical at all.

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13849226)
The point is that early stage personhood is an idea that originates from certain religions. Even if you don’t believe there is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and it is in everyone’s best interest for their to be one, it definitely isn’t constitutional to enact a law that gives preference to one religious belief over a different religious belief.

This ruling was a bad one from start to finish.

It's in the Book of Jerry Falwell. It's not, unsurprisingly, in the Bible anywhere. Now men OTOH, sin if they spill their seed on the ground. Could be that's where the Catholics got the idea condoms were bad.


I wonder where the Catholics got their pro-life stance from. Anyone know?

wareyin 6th July 2022 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849550)
For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...tion/by/state/

Given that the facts contradict your expectations, will this prompt any introspection about why you got it so completely wrong?

Cool, so almost a decade ago there were 11 states where the majority of respondents answered that abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. As in, out of 511 Alabamians (population 4.9 million), 58% said illegal in all/most cases. Out of 311 Arkansas (pop 3 million) respondents, it was 60%. It's weak evidence, but it's better than you usually offer! :thumbsup:

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849333)
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand.

Everyone forces moral choices on other people. We need a shared moral code, and much of that moral code is enforced by law. It cannot be otherwise. You may have mistakenly believed that it was otherwise because you may not have even noticed all the morality that's encoded into law, but it's absolutely there.

I'll give you an example: laws against animal cruelty. That's a moral choice that we have made as a society. We didn't have to outlaw animal cruelty. We didn't do so for purely pragmatic reasons. We did so because we believe it is morally wrong to be cruel to animals. I'm guessing you share that belief. I'm also guessing you never really objected to forcing that moral choice on other people. But that's still what's happening. You don't actually object to forcing moral choices on other people. Nobody really does, not categorically. You only object to doing so when it's a moral choice you disagree with.

Are there people fighting for their right to be cruel to animals? or to murder or to neglect children or ...

The point is half the country doesn't buy the morality argument for abortion. For that reason your analogy fails.

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13849474)
The RCC only adopted ensoulment at conception in the nineteenth century.

Do you know what triggered the position?

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849532)
First, you assume there are no pragmatic implications of abortion, but there are.

Name them, they aren't readily coming to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849532)
...Second, you have created caveats of your own which weren't part of your original claim, and basically constitute special pleading.

shuttit is right, you don't understand my point at all.

No one is special pleading. In your mind failure to agree means the person didn't understand you. That is a common fallacy.

We both understand as do others reading your post. It's a false equivalence and a bad analogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849532)
And to be explicit, I'm not fine with banning gay sex. But the reason I'm not fine with it isn't because it's based on morals. There are other reasons I'm opposed to it, including that it conflicts with my own morals. And yes, being opposed to a law because it's based on morality that you disagree with is a reasonable reason to oppose such a law. Same goes for abortion. I've got no problem with you opposing abortion restrictions because they conflict with your morality. But again, that's different than being opposed to it because it's based on morals. That isn't the argument you made before.

WTF?

Those split hairs aren't relevant whatever twisted reasoning you mean by it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.