[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
(personal) Question(s): Has anyone in this thread been involved with a woman/girl who has had an abortion?
Does anyone have any real experience with the subject matter? [/quote]
I haven’t been with any, I have known them though. One was bat shit crazy…[/quote]
And I’m the King of France.[/quote]
Then, your pro-abortion stance is quite excusable.
You just spent 219 years without a head, after all.
[/quote]
Pro choice. Not pro abortion.[/quote]
No. If support the ‘choice’ to abort, you are pro-abortion. You’re just trying to make it sound prettier, it’s not it’s ugly.[/quote]
Just like how if the choice is to not abort, you are anti-abortion. Oh wait, that’s retarded because it’s too ad-hoc to accurately describe the pro-choice position…
Well at least your title is accurate; pro-life… except when it comes to killing ‘terrorists’ and certain criminals… hmm perhaps you are the ones just trying to make your position sound prettier. [/quote]
I am very anti-abortion.
Introducing terrorists and criminals is a Red Herring. And you don’t know my position on that.[/quote]
It’s not a red herring, it’s very much relevant. You cannot call yourself pro-life if you’re only pro-life when it suits you. You didn’t deny that you support the death penalty, so I assume you do and only brought up that you haven’t made a stand either way as a talking point.
You are ‘anti-abortion’, in the same way I’m ‘pro-choice’-of-whether-or-not-to-get-an-abortion. You are always against abortion, while I am always for the choice, the open option, without legal repercussions. They are equal terms.
You can change your terminology as you will, but then the rules change and I have to change my terminology accordingly. [/quote]
I do not support the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not in the conversation…
1.2 million > 20. When the numbers of abortions become as little as the death penalty, I will give it it’s due attention. Abortion is a way bigger problem. The death penalty is morally wrong, in most cases.
And it’s still a Red Herring…[/quote]
So it’s a matter of numbers for you? Interesting.
Also, you say “in most cases”, meaning it’s not always morally wrong?
Finally, I’ve given my reason as to why it’s not a red herring. If you want to prove it is otherwise you’ll have to carry the idea farther than the declarative stage.[/quote]
Numbers do matter. Both are morally wrong, and if all else are equal then they deserve equal attention. But all else is not equal. Death penalty is rarely used, abortion happens every 3 seconds.
It is a red herring because you were trying to divert the topic from abortion being murder, to trying to prove I had an inconsistent stance on life. Even if I had an inconsistent stance on life, it still wouldn’t change the fact that abortion is murder.
I meant ‘in most cases’ because a state has a right and a duty to protect it’s citizens. For instance, sometimes you have people who are leaders or some such, whose existence can stir up followers to do harm or to try and rescue, him or something like that. In such a case, the need to rid the populous of such a risk is greater than need to preserve the other guy’s life.
Think about Bin Laden for instance, taking him in to custody could be a disaster. Terrorist acts or attempted rescues would have been a distinct possibility, hence killing him was the better option.
This type of thing is very, very rare of course, but it’s an exception to the rule that must be accounted for.[/quote]
Wrong. Abortion being murder is a given, that’s not what I’m arguing about. My entire effort is to reveal contradictions in your philosophy, so there is no red herring. Ironically, in your attempt to pull a red herring out of my argument, you’ve committed a red herring.
[/quote]
So your stance is that abortion is murder, but that it’s ok to do anyway? That’s interesting and honest and I appreciate that.
I haven’t presented any contradictions in my arguments though. You were pulling from a stereotype where you assumed I was a “typical republican” and against abortion and for the death penalty. That’s simply not the case. Further, you introduced these things, I did not. I was talking about abortion and it’s wrongness because it’s the taking of a human life. From that I have not wavered not one little tiny bit.
[quote]
So, if I understand you correctly, you contend that killing can be moral so long as it serves the ‘greater good’, so to speak? [/quote]
No I do not contend that killing is “moral” at best it’s a morally neutral act. I cannot for see a scenario where killing is a ‘good’ thing, but just in case I will leave it open as a remote possibility.
Sometimes, there really isn’t a choice. If your family is in danger, or there is imminent threat, then you have to protect yourself and others if you are able to do so. Likewise, if there is a scenario where the mother’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy, she really doesn’t have much of a choice other than to abort. These aren’t morally “good”, they are just necessary which makes them neutral.[/quote]
Of course I introduced these things. I don’t see your point. If there is ever a case where you are okay (even if not gung-ho) with killing, then calling yourself pro-life isn’t accurate. Equally as inaccurate as calling me pro-abortion, in fact. That’s the point I want to establish.
Anyway, from what I gather, you contend that ‘necessary evils’, so to speak, are morally neutral actions. You also give life or death examples of these morally neutral actions. My question to you is, can you think of any such situation where killing is morally neutral even if it’s not a ‘kill or be killed’ scenario?