Here you go:
Interestingly, parenting (which they refer to here as shared environment) eems to have pretty much no effect on your abortion attitudes. Genetics has a strong effect (0.55), which is in line with a lot of other psychological traits.
That is to say: the correlation between monozygotic twins, for abortion attitudes, is almost twice as high as for dizygotic ones.
I meant the people with whom I associate. But even so, most of them are not pro-gay marriage but are still pro-gay adoption. They are interested in saving lives.
It did. His family was (and is) very active in the K of C; we were committe chairman at the state together.
I see your point… but I have to wonder if this would be the tone if I told you that my buddy had, 20 years ago, rescued an infant from a burning car. I suspect you’d focus on the life saved, not on his failure to found an organization to improve car safety systems.
Who’s voting rights in particular would you restrict?
That would depend entirely on if the conversation was about friends we know that have done brave things, as opposed to the overall problem of car safety. In context, your anecdote didn’t add to the conversation.
edited to add: The “If that conversation actually happened” bit was a response to your saying the exact same thing to Annie-Xmas.
That would only be analogous if your buddy had set fire to the car.
I wouldn’t go quite that far.
It’s analogous if the buddy had organised to support lax fire safety standards for cars. He would be congratulated for saving the life. Regardless of what role he might play and what he might prefer as far as fire safety policy. But just as we shouldn’t ignore that he saved that life, we also shouldn’t ignore that (in the hypothetical) there would hundreds if not thousands of other babies who didn’t have such a saviour on hand, and that that is a situation he supports. From a pro-life perspective, at least.
Sure. Except that Annie’s claim didn’t make much sense. I can easily understand her saying to the protester that he should go live under the Taliban – it’s his purported reply that strains credulity, since, as I laid out in my reply to her, he’s essentially saying that he wouldn’t live under the Taliban because they wouldn’t let him protest abortion clinics, but her comment to him points out that the taliban doesn’t permit abortion in the first place.
Huh?
He had nothing to do with creating the pregnancy, i assure you. He stepped in to the middle of a situation in which a woman was seeking an abortion due to her belief she couldn’t care for the child, and volunteered to adopt the child.
How does that remotely analogize to starting the fire?
The fact that it didn’t make any sense was exactly what she was pointing out in the first place.
The “this” might well have referred to open protest in general, as opposed to protesting abortion in particular.
I think she was pointing out that the protester was hateful idiot.
I suppose it’s possible, but since the conversation took place at an abortion protest, i think it’s a strained reading.
I repeat.
I repeat.
Her story isn’t particularly credible. But even if it is, it’s also not very relevant.
Yes, in every single one of Annie’s encounters with abortion protesters, they are invariably depicted as unable to form any sort of coherent argument or rational sequence of ideas.
Nope. That fact doesn’t contradict my point at all.
Please point me to research on preventing the roughly 30% of fertilized ova from terminating early in pregnancy.
No I don’t. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I think it’s immoral to harass women to prevent them from getting legal abortions.
People shouldn’t have the right to harass others. There’s a difficult-to-draw fuzzy line here, between protesting and harassing. I’m against the harassment, not valid protest. Protest to change the law all you want. Don’t harass women exercising their legal rights.
No it’s not. That issue has been legally decided. The moral issue being discussed here is whether people should have the right to protest women getting abortions as they walk between their cars and the facility.
Wrong again. See above.
Well, it’s on its way to being a unique human individual. We can certainly agree that its genetic makeup is determined. There’s a lot more to an individual than its genetic makeup. There is no clear line of demarcation. You prefer to put it at the (fictitious) “moment of conception”. You have a right to prefer that. I prefer to put it far later. As Bricker points out, we need to use the system to work out our difference of opinion.
Yup, only as I’ve pointed out, they’re not even “pro-embryo” because those 30% of embryos that don’t make it past a month or two aren’t important either. They’re not “pro-life”, they’re “anti-abortion”. They have every right to be anti-abortion, but they like to dress it up as something it’s not, which is patently obvious from their actions.
Assuming the exchange occured as reported, it strikes me as the most plausible interpretation.
The alternatives are that the person was admitting that they are only interested in yelling at or shaming women, not in whether abortions are performed or not, which seems unlikely; or that the person is a simpleton.
Annie aside, that doesn’t sound too far-fetched to me.
Purely out of interest - is this the same group of people you’re talking about twenty-some years ago and today?