D
Doc_Keele
Guest
You’re mistaking my position Jim.
You’re also misunderstanding the pro-choice position.
You’re also misunderstanding the pro-choice position.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
That is exactly it. They will deny it, but changing the name of an act cannot change what is really happening.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
So you have both have failed repeatedly to understand the arguments I have put forward for the pro-choice position?
Why did I bother?
Why did I bother?
F
fix
Guest
It is not accurate to say we failed to understand. What you fail to understand is that pro abortion arguments are easily refuted. As they have been here.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Doc Keele
In California Scott Peterson was convicted of the double homicide of his wife Lacy and their unborn child. Would it be your view that he should only have been convicted of one homicide? If so, why?
In California Scott Peterson was convicted of the double homicide of his wife Lacy and their unborn child. Would it be your view that he should only have been convicted of one homicide? If so, why?
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
It’s entirely accurate fix. I have stated and explained via thought experiments like the unconscious violinist that the pro-choice position does not have to assume that the foetus is not a human being or is a different class of person.
It’s easily verified.
Charlesmagne has never even understood what my position is:shrug:
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Doc Keele
Charlesmagne has never even understood what my position is.
Perhaps because it is not common sense?
Charlesmagne has never even understood what my position is.
Perhaps because it is not common sense?
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Someone who can’t understand something which doesn’t conform to his narrow definition of “commonsense” has very limited horizons, and can’t ever hope to formulate any sort of persuasive argument.
Charlemagne, just go out repeating your mantra of commonsense with fix and see how far it gets you. Although of course the results are irrelevant as long as you’re "right.
Sounds like the ultimate exercise in futility to me.
Charlemagne, just go out repeating your mantra of commonsense with fix and see how far it gets you. Although of course the results are irrelevant as long as you’re "right.
Sounds like the ultimate exercise in futility to me.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Doc Keele
Charlemagne, just go out repeating your mantra of commonsense …
Well, why not? It certainly is common sense that we **don’t **kill our children.
Is it common sense that we may kill our children?
Have you had a chance to think about Scott Peterson and the single versus double homicide question?
Charlemagne, just go out repeating your mantra of commonsense …
Well, why not? It certainly is common sense that we **don’t **kill our children.
Is it common sense that we may kill our children?
Have you had a chance to think about Scott Peterson and the single versus double homicide question?
W
Worthy5
Guest
Pro-choice fix not pro-abortion.
C
CatofAlexandria
Guest
For the record, I totally agree with Doc on this one. I am extremely pro-life and have spent many years in the past working in abortion-alternative women’s health clinics. However, that does not mean that I must embrace every pro-life argument that splashes onto these boards. That would be a disservice to the position.
While the basic pro-life argument is nice in structure, as I’ve said before, it presumes far too much to ever persuade a pro-choice audience. If you wish to persuade, you must put some meat onto those bones and gather support for your premises. This is, genuinely, a three-step analysis: first humanhood, then personhood, then overcoming autonomy, and the last step is not a simple calculus. After this, of course, we must separate moral duties from legal duties, because the two have a relationship, but are not always the same. Each of these steps is analytically distinct.
In fact, that violinist thought experiment, and the rest of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article, remains one of the most sophisticated and damaging pro-choice arguments to date. I take issue with the way that the relationship between mother and child is defined in this thought experiment, and have come up with (what I believe is) a counter-argument, but nobody seems to want to address it. Addressing straw men, like the “what the Supreme Court says, goes” argument, isn’t going to get us anywhere. Nobody with policy-making authority could believe that argument in earnest. And women aren’t getting abortions because of judicial review.
Genuine common sense is understanding your opponent’s best arguments, recognizing their merit, and attacking them where they’re strongest. :twocents:
While the basic pro-life argument is nice in structure, as I’ve said before, it presumes far too much to ever persuade a pro-choice audience. If you wish to persuade, you must put some meat onto those bones and gather support for your premises. This is, genuinely, a three-step analysis: first humanhood, then personhood, then overcoming autonomy, and the last step is not a simple calculus. After this, of course, we must separate moral duties from legal duties, because the two have a relationship, but are not always the same. Each of these steps is analytically distinct.
In fact, that violinist thought experiment, and the rest of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article, remains one of the most sophisticated and damaging pro-choice arguments to date. I take issue with the way that the relationship between mother and child is defined in this thought experiment, and have come up with (what I believe is) a counter-argument, but nobody seems to want to address it. Addressing straw men, like the “what the Supreme Court says, goes” argument, isn’t going to get us anywhere. Nobody with policy-making authority could believe that argument in earnest. And women aren’t getting abortions because of judicial review.
Genuine common sense is understanding your opponent’s best arguments, recognizing their merit, and attacking them where they’re strongest. :twocents:
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Chester Dolan is an atheist and the author of Religion on Trial. But atheists do not have to be deprived of common sense, and in this instance, Dolan shows us that the fight against legal abortion is a matter of common sense.
“Abortion is not a human thing to do. It is monstrously inhuman. It is bound to affect morality in all aspects of our lives. The legal argument concerning whether abortion is or is not criminal hinges on one thing and one thing only:how do we define the point where human life begins. Whatever we may say about it for personal reasons of convenience, we must know that a zygote is life, not mineral. And we know too that in our case it is human life.”
Mr. Dolan, welcome to the Club of Common Sense.
“Abortion is not a human thing to do. It is monstrously inhuman. It is bound to affect morality in all aspects of our lives. The legal argument concerning whether abortion is or is not criminal hinges on one thing and one thing only:how do we define the point where human life begins. Whatever we may say about it for personal reasons of convenience, we must know that a zygote is life, not mineral. And we know too that in our case it is human life.”
Mr. Dolan, welcome to the Club of Common Sense.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Not necessarily. That is one way to characterize the legal distinction for the pro-choice position but not the only----and more important what the Court seemed to be saying in Roe. Once again Justice Blackmun:
" This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Notice what the Court seems to be saying—though not well in this poster’s view. It talks of " zones of privacy". A notion that the early fetus is so connected to the women’s body (not whether it is a life or not–the Court made no conclusion there) that as indicated the
14th Amend’s " concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" prevents the govt from regulating there at all—it cannot get there.
But then the Court recognizes the “potential life” and thus qualifies the right and allows the state to regulate as the fetus matures------the Court just split the duty on who has the decision to protect or not protect the life/potential life at a certain time.
The upshot of the Pro-choice position is------" govt power just cannot go that far in regulating the individual------ie personal liberty------ ie limited govt. Because govt power unchecked is itself a threat to a free society. The Court is saying------hey state govts, figure out another way to address the problem.
Interesting.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Worthy5
*Because govt power unchecked is itself a threat to a free society. *
For sure. The government power of the Supreme Court unchecked has created a police state for unborn children … in which they are arrested without trial and executed … 50 million since Roe v Wade. This is certainly “a threat to a free society.” Imagine if the same was done to 50 million babies who had just been born. Would that be government power unchecked, or just another ho-hum day at the butchers’ shops?
Worthy5, you do not regard as “monstrously inhuman” the tearing apart of babies in the womb?
*Because govt power unchecked is itself a threat to a free society. *
For sure. The government power of the Supreme Court unchecked has created a police state for unborn children … in which they are arrested without trial and executed … 50 million since Roe v Wade. This is certainly “a threat to a free society.” Imagine if the same was done to 50 million babies who had just been born. Would that be government power unchecked, or just another ho-hum day at the butchers’ shops?
Worthy5, you do not regard as “monstrously inhuman” the tearing apart of babies in the womb?
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
…and what’s intuitive isn’t always right, and what you believe is commonsense isn’t what other people will believe is commonsense
put it another way - has it worked yet? or is that not the test?
I have.
W
Worthy5
Guest
For sure. The government power of the Supreme Court unchecked has created a police state for unborn children … in which they are arrested without trial and executed … 50 million since Roe v Wade. This is certainly “a threat to a free society.” Imagine if the same was done to 50 million babies who had just been born. Would that be government power unchecked, or just another ho-hum day at the butchers’ shops?
Charles we understand and appreciate your passion. But this was an analysis of the legal argument of the " Pro-choice" position.
F
fix
Guest
It certainly is pro abortion. To claim one supports the legalized killing of innocent persons is support for allowing such acts.Pro-choice fix not pro-abortion.
W
Worthy5
Guest
No fix, it is about what the govt is to do, not you or I.By your logic, govt has the right to regulate all aspects of a person’s life, all aspects of society-----is that a free society? Hardly. There is always something " wrong" going on in every facet of the human condition. Is govt to regulate all that, esp using its onerous and expensive police power?
M
miguel
Guest
Yes if the constitution requires it. Civilized societies have long accepted the use of police power to prevent onerous crimes like murder (killing babies is especially onerous). And the 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of the laws to “any person” in their jurisdictions.
To get back to the injustice of the Roe decision, Blackmun ruled that the unborn were not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. So a person can be murdered one second before birth and is protected from being murdered one second after birth. There is no difference in a person one second before and one second after birth. It’s absurd.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
well, there is a difference miguel
that is the whole point of the distinction
that is the whole point of the distinction
- Status