+1
It gives credence to the belief that when conservatives disagree with liberals, they the think liberals wrong; when liberals disagree with conservatives, they think conservatives evil.
But I am glad that BrainGlutton had the balls to finally admit that he’s fairly close to Der Trihs in his beliefs. The two of them, shoulder-to-shoulder will be a force to be reckoned with, indeed!
Hey, Brain, just out of curiosity, do you think that abortion should have any time restrictions whatsoever? The last trimester? The last three weeks? The last three minutes? The last three seconds?
Is this one of those Koans? Like, who killed first? The Abortion doctor or the Anti Abortion activist?
Well, in BG’s defense, there is literally no logical argument against SSM.
No one has ever offered one, at least. Maybe someone, in some village in the Amazon, has an argument against same sex marriage that’s based on logic and reason, but so far they haven’t made themselves known.
I will grant that there are arguments against abortion, in some instances. But by and large the arguments against abortion are based on sentimentality or mystical beliefs.
And what ways would those be?
Even assuming that’s true, what does that have to do with today?
I don’t care if gays get married, so I don’t have much to say here.
I would venture to guess you’re being disingenuous then. As I constantly say to Bryan, you can’t ignore the moral issues involved in abortion, no matter how much you try to wish them away.
Take, for example, the following issue. You apparently live in Canada. A few weeks back there was a mini-uproar about sex selective abortions, which the prevailing thought being that women should not be allowed to have an abortion because they disliked the sex of their child, and that there should actually be legislation against the practice (no matter how impractical it might be).
Such a position goes against all the typical pro-choice talking points. Usually, pro-choicers tend to hide behind the “It’s her body!”/“It’s not a person!” lines. Pro-choicers tend to also scoff at the notion that abortions should be prohibited because of some moral worth of the unborn. However, if you throw in some stipulations they don’t like, suddenly none of the aforementioned criteria matter and they start to argue from a distinctly pro-life position. That is, instead of arguing on stuff like bodily autonomy or whether or not the unborn has reached some arbitrary stage of development, they focus on the moral worth of the unborn child and whether or not the woman’s reason for wanting to abort should trump the life of the unborn.
See the problem there? If it can be argued that it’s wrong to abort for some reasons, then who’s to say that it’s any less wrong to abort for other reasons? If it can be argued that it’s wrong to abort because you wanted a boy rather than a girl, then who’s to say that’s any less wrong than wanting to abort because you simply don’t want to be pregnant or want to take that trip around the world? And thus why the abortion issue won’t go away. At some point in time you’re going to have to address the moral implication involved in abortion, and mindlessly reciting the “It’s her body!”/“It’s not a person!” arguments aren’t much in the way of winners.
I’m sorry but your analogy is moronic. Your analogy would only make sense the aborting of female fetuses in Asia occurred without the mother’s consent, but with rare exceptions it doesn’t.
Anywhere are you conceding that there are many circumstances in which reasonable people might object to an abortion being performed?
If there was a medical advancement that allowed the fertilized egg/fetus to be taken from the mother and transplanted in a willing participant or grown in a jar with legal rights to a parent should it be ‘born’ would both sides be ok with that?
-The pro-choice crowd shouldn’t care because the mother is just donating tissue, who cares what happens to your tonsils after they are taken out.
-The Pro-life crowd argue they rescued a child from a mother that didn’t want it, like very early adoption.
Would this technological advance dissolve this debate?
That’s false. But I’m not surprised that that fact would get in the way of you peddling it. You may want to reword it to say “no logical argument that you have found convincing”, that would, as far as I understand your position, at least be accurate. But if you’d like to argue SSM, either start a new thread or contribute to one of this already open. If you disagree with any of the above, you might want to acquaint yourself with the definition of the word “logical”. It seems that you’re using a definition other than the one in the dictionary.
Really?
What are the logical arguments against SSM?
I agree about SSM. In this case, there is absolutely nobody being hurt by allowing it, unless you you count a bigot being offended by other people’s rights as being hurt.
For abortion, there is someone being hurt if you count a fetus as someone. The problem is that this is a philosophical and ethical position, not one of fact. The anti-abortion position then boils down to claiming that their God objects (without demonstrating that their God exists and ignoring other versions of God who don’t have a problem) or by asserting that a fetus is a person with rights without being open to other opinions. Both things are common in religiously based impositions of morality on those not agreeing with the premises.
I vote that this one thread be kept active and become the sole venue for debating abortion and same-sex marriage.
I’d like the Penn State thing to no longer be the longest current thread.
The Prop 8 proponents had an excellent forum for bringing up logical arguments against SSM in the trial, and failed miserably. Neither assertions that it is wrong because we’ve never done it before or unsupported assertions that SSM will in some way hurt OSM are not logical arguments.
Rants go in The BBQ Pit.
So moved.
Do you have evidence that their solution to this problem is banning abortion? Perhaps the problem here is social pressure (combined with government pressure in China) that limits the choices of women? Just like abortion laws do?
Interestingly, many years ago I (a liberal) started a thread asking on which issues you had the most and least sympathy for the opposing viewpoint. Gay marriage is one of my leasts, and abortion is one of my mosts.
Or you could read the entire thread, notice how many liberals are in fact not jumping on the OP bandwagon and high-fiving each other now that we’ve clearly won this argument, and come to a different conclusion entirely.
Oh good. Now that we are in the pit, I can finish this post in a way that I thought was too strong for GD:
Arguments against SSM are not logical, they are the arguments of liars, buffoons and cretins. The performance of the witnesses in the Prop 8 trial, supposedly the best they had, amply supports this assertion.
No, because the “anti-abortion” movement is a hate movement. They don’t care about abortion except as a club they can beat women with. They’d just switch over to some other argument designed to punish women, like insisting she pay for raising the resulting child they’ve forced into existence - they sure aren’t. Or they’d forbid the whole idea as unnatural and immoral.
Oh no! Not their very mothers!
So’s drunk driving.
Well, it’s worth pointing out that the very mothers are very okay with this, and in fact the very mothers very are very looking to very undergo the very voluntary procedure.
Verily.