Since you resort to several logical fallacies in one post, I’m going to assume that means you know you can’t win the case on it’s merits.
Most notably, the personal attacks, which are completely disrespectful and uncalled for.
My sincere apologies, and the way I wrote (I didn’t mean it to be personal but then a group attack isn’t any better
), while perhaps explained by it being before dinner, certainly isn’t excused by it.
To be honest, though, my regrettable insinuations aside, there isn’t actually a logical fallacy that I can see (could you point it/them out?).
There is only one real world – the one created and superintended by God.
The human ordained one that you claim is the “real” one has all the illusion of it, but none of the actuality.
Do not judge by appearances. What appears to be so will fade or be burned up in due time.
Make no mistake, where you put your faith – in what you suppose is the “real world” – will, ultimately be a huge disappointment when you realize what a bizarre fiction it truly is.
The point I was trying to make I’ll try expressing in another way, because I think it balances what both of you are saying.
I wasn’t saying “real world” in a ‘shadows on the cave wall’ type of thing - what I meant was we live in a ‘real’ world full of and made by fallible and sinful human beings (we three as well as everyone else
). It is by no means utterly impossible but in a democratic system (democracy is flawed too!), it is extremely difficult to make actual sweeping changes. I’m not sure I can think of one actual major change, anywhere, really, almost ever. Our social and political system works by adopting incremental changes; the result of compromise.
As people have correctly pointed out on other threads, while the Supreme Court decision earlier in the year re. same-sex marriage is in one sense a “major” change (it’s not really, though it doesn’t make the decision much better IMO), it was also only possible because of a long process of adaptation by both ‘sides’ regarding homosexuality (tolerance on the part of one, and a willingness and desire to work and live a little more within ‘normal’ social boundaries, in the main, on the part of another). Or the establishment of the British welfare state didn’t magically appear with the foundation of the NHS in 1948, or even the introduction of state pensions in 1911, but long before then (arguably over 100s of years). ‘Big’ things only successfully and permanently come from lots of ‘small’ things; little steps usually taken without a long-term goal in sight. (I’m talking about the earthly world here, of course).
Now the demand for abortion only exists because of the consequences of the increasing number of people of both sexes taking rather libertine excesses. (Some people always have, of course, right through history, but while to misquote Larkin “sexual intercourse [never only] began in 1963”, the middle of the 20th century through to today did away with the hypocrisy surrounding sex, which left one rule for the rich, and for men, and another for everyone else. At least we are nearly all in the boat together now).
Firstly we cannot legislate away the demand for abortion, and locking up women for causing the death of a child, isn’t going to do the trick either. People need to either a) have “responsible” sex (ie within marriage, ideally, I suppose) or b) be in a position that it is always the easiest and best choice to choose life (if only for adoption). (Of course plenty of married women have abortions too so I guess they only would have one of those options
).
Secondly - this returns to the idea of incremental change - small changes which promote life but aren’t characterised or expressed by ways which imply anyone being judgemental (getting doctors not to basically violate women in order to force ultrasounds upon pregnant women who don’t want them - but actually, you know,
talking which is something doctors always used to be good at doing, perhaps - about ‘other options’ eg adoption), might be the very first of those steps. They are what might be more possible here and now. Penalising poor women so they have to travel outside of their state or 100s of miles away from home, and then compounding that by doing away with welfare assistance for poorer families (not what is being advocated here, I know, but the pro-life agenda in the US is generally yoked to the arch-neo-liberalism of the Republican Party which while some of it I might find plausible, again, can’t work if you do the whole thing at once), doesn’t really cut the mustard.
Banning abortion outright, when the demand for it still exists, will result in our going back to the situation before 1973, when, basically, rich women (or women with rich boyfriends/husbands), could obtain an abortion, and most women - poorer women - couldn’t; travelling abroad if necessary. This would be one line of defence for any attempt to unpick abortion law in single major attempt, and the deliberate creation of such inequality is such untrammalled awfulness that it would probably be successful.
So, Peter Plato, I do get (and actually agree!) with what you are saying - but I think it misses the point on this. The world you and I live in, runs in the long term to the Lord God’s timetable but in the short term, to ours. It is not judging by appearances to suggest that we deal with the world, today, as it is, and not as we’d like it to be. It would be more or less impossible (because it would seem so blatantly unfair) to make a permanent change regarding abortion, overnight (It was only a few decades ago, but it’s entrenched in society, much like large-scale domestic surveillance which is even more recent but also so entrenched - it will be decades at least before either can be undone, I fear). So, let’s all try to make small changes, one step at a time?
to grasp the thought that porn causes abortion.
