How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[WillieWonka]

Depends on the hearer.

Assume the argument is true.

Sure, it is done all the time. Is it right or wrong to rape?

I’m dropping anything on NL in this thread because I think we are doing the same thing on the Abortion thread.

 

[vz71]

It is a valid choice. You can argue that it is not a moral choice. You can argue that it is not an ethical choice. You can argue that it should not be a legal choice. But you cannot argue that it is not a valid choice to do so is to ignore the definitions of the words you are using or the reality of the situation, either of which will not lead to effective re-education.

Sigh…OK, you can run to the dictionary if you wish.
It still does not hide the evil of abortion.
And it will leave others wondering where this precise control over the English language was when the pro-abortion side was hauling out the pro-choice sentence fragment.

And it will leave others laughing at the reckless usage of a dictionary when this same dictionary counters their own argument.
Witness the rest of the definition that you failed so loudly to quote…

2 a**:** well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b**:** logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>3**:** appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>4of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

And how about another dictionary for good measure…

1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.

Meanwhile the premise that killing an innocent life is an option is still sick and providing for the option is tacit approval of abortion.

 

[fix]

OK.They support the process of choice, but not necessarily all the options.

Not sure what this means? Can “choice” be really choice if it involves eliminating anothers right to life? If any “process of choice” involves eliminating another’s right to life then that is a false choice. IOW, how can you claim “choice” without legitimate law curtailing such a choice?

If I am following your reasoning then any so-called choice is allowable. That seems absurd.

Can we vote to destroy ourselves via multiple nuclear bombs?

 

[WillieWonka]

Not sure what this means? Can “choice” be really choice if it involves eliminating anothers right to life? If any “process of choice” involves eliminating another’s right to life then that is a false choice. IOW, how can you claim “choice” without legitimate law curtailing such a choice?

If I am following your reasoning then any so-called choice is allowable. That seems absurd.

Can we vote to destroy ourselves via multiple nuclear bombs?

My reasoning is simple. If one supports the process of making a choice, like in an election, that does not mean one supports all the possible outcomes of the choice.

If I supported the process of having a presidential election last November, does that mean I supported Obama? There is nothing false about that choice. It’s history.

 

[fix]

My reasoning is simple. If one supports the process of making a choice, like in an election, that does not mean one supports all the possible outcomes of the choice.

Yes, but that process must be limited in terms of not allowing murder. Supporting a process that includes illegitimate choices is tryanny.

If I supported the process of having a presidential election last November, does that mean I supported Obama? There is nothing false about that choice. It’s history.

Sure, but if that same process included “choices” that would allow for legal slavery that would be an abuse of “choice”.

 

[vz71]

My reasoning is simple. If one supports the process of making a choice, like in an election, that does not mean one supports all the possible outcomes of the choice.

This is a false premise.
The outcome of a presidetial election does not directly result in the death of a human being.

 

[fix]

This is a false premise.
The outcome of a presidetial election does not directly result in the death of a human being.

It has turned into a word game at this point. The use of the word “choice” is obfuscation.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, but that process must be limited in terms of not allowing murder. Supporting a process that includes illegitimate choices is tryanny.

Sure, but if that same process included “choices” that would allow for legal slavery that would be an abuse of “choice”.

You contend everyone who supported the process of the November election supported Obama?

 

[WillieWonka]

This is a false premise.
The outcome of a presidetial election does not directly result in the death of a human being.

I didn’t say anything about death. I just asked if everyone who supported the process of the November presidential election supported Obama. I think Fix says, “Yes.”

 

[WillieWonka]

It has turned into a word game at this point. The use of the word “choice” is obfuscation.

The American people exercised their choice in November. There is no obfuscation.There was an election. Each voter chose one canddate for president. It is a very clear process that happens every four years.

 

[vz71]

I didn’t say anything about death. I just asked if everyone who supported the process of the November presidential election supported Obama. I think Fix says, “Yes.”

And that is why it is a false premise.

You cannot take a non-life threatening situation and claim it the same as a life-threatening situation.

 

[WillieWonka]

And that is why it is a false premise.

You cannot take a non-life threatening situation and claim it the same as a life-threatening situation.

I am just asking about the election. That’s all. If you supported the presidential election process in November, does that mean you supported Obama?

Each person here knows:

1. If they supported the election process,
2. If they supported Obama.

And I suspect everyone who reads this knows their own, personal answer.

 

[allhers]

You might not have heard, but membership to this site is not constrained to Catholics. Anyone may become a participating member of these boards. Why do non-Catholics threaten you?

You assume far too much. I simply asked Wille a question, and how do you know if he is Catholic or not since it doesn’t say?

 

[vz71]

I am just asking about the election. That’s all. If you supported the presidential election process in November, does that mean you supported Obama?

Each person here knows:

1. If they supported the election process,
2. If they supported Obama.

And I suspect everyone who reads this knows their own, personal answer.

Straying a little bit far from the topic here aren’t we?
This time you did not even make a passing reference to the thread topic.

Do you believe you derailed the thread that far?

Allow me to place it right back where it should be…
Another area we all need to keep educated on is the ability of others in the debate to toss in a red herring. This is actually an attempt to distract from the argument at hand and to avoid the uncomfortable topic of abortion.
In this instance, the opposition here would like to place abortion on par with the election cycle.
It sounds strange to me too, but they nonetheless try.
It is an outgrowth of an attempt to claim the ‘choice’ to kill innocent human life without taking upon themselves the responsibility. They wish to defend the ending of human life as a viable option but at the same time wish to absolve themselves of the hideous reality of holding onto the option to kill a human life.
It is a myopic view in which they fail to see that merely holding taking a life as an option carries enough blood to dirty their hands.

This is actually akin to those that claim that ‘they would never have an abortion, but cannot inflict their morality on others’
And is also akin to those centuries ago that said “I would never own a slave, but cannot inflict my morality on others.”

It is a sham made up of a false sense of morality that places the liberty of one over the life of another.

The only answer I have to it all at present is to keep hammering the reality.
The line is crossed when the choice to kill an innocent human life is considered a valid choice.

 

[fix]

You contend everyone who supported the process of the November election supported Obama?

nope

 

[fix]

The American people exercised their choice in November. There is no obfuscation.There was an election. Each voter chose one canddate for president. It is a very clear process that happens every four years.

What if the vote was for self destruction? Is any “choice” acceptable?

 

[WillieWonka]

nope

OK. I was confused by the word, “Sure.”

Can we agree that one can support a presidential election process without supporting all the candidates?

Can we agree one could have supported the November presidential election process without supporting Obama?

 

[WillieWonka]

What if the vote was for self destruction? Is any “choice” acceptable?

If one choice is self destruction, I’d love to know what the other is.

So, is it possible to support an election process where one option is self-destruction without supporting self-destruction? I’d say it is.

 

[fix]

Can we agree that one can support a presidential election process without supporting all the candidates?

Can we agree one could have supported the November presidential election process without supporting Obama?

yes

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Time to get back on topic.