Bob Cos, I apologize for misinterpreting your position.
Jodi, threads on controversial subjects often digress. And confusion results when two or more threads on similar subjects anyway. I apologize for contributing to the confusion. Fundamentally, though, the premise of the OP depends on an a priori acceptance of abortion as bad. I reject this acceptance without proof.
You seemed to have developed a degree of antipathy towards me; unfortunate, since I hold your reasoning in great respect. I’m not sure if you disagree with me out of sheer reflex or from sincere disagreement. This is not to deprecate the quality of your arguments; they remain razor-sharp on their own merits. However, I don’t particularly enjoy engaging in Monty Python-style automatic contradiction. It seems inappropriate and somewhat rude of me to continue intruding upon your attention, or the attention of other posters on this thread. I will leave this topic for another day and another thread where my views will be more appropriate.
Well, “bad” is a value judgment for which it’s very difficult to marshall “proof.” But as it happens I personally wholeheartedly agree with your pro-choice stance.
This surprises me; I assure you I have developed nothing approaching antipathy for you, and I sincerely apologize for the fact that something I said apparently lead you to believe this. The few people on the board towards whom I have felt “antipathy” are well-aware of who they are, though frankly I’m not out of charity with anyone at the moment (so far as I know; someone else may well feel out of charity with me).
I took issue with you initially because I interpreted your position as not merely disagreeing with the pro-life side of the debate – as I myself do as well – but as refusing to even grant that there is a legitimate other side to the debate at all. That was how I interpreted your initial comments about the “irrationality” and “arbitrariness” of their position. Now, I don’t think the pro-lifers are right, but neither do I think they are entirely irrational and arbitrary. If we got off on the wrong foot, it might be because I have a fundamental dislike for arguments that amount to “We’re right and they’re stupid.” It might not have been your intention to take such a position, and indeed based on your later posts I assume it was not, but that was how it initially appeared to me.
I took issue with the substance of your position later because you sounded like a substantive debate was what you were after. I think I was pretty clear all along that the pro-life position was not one I personally held, so my intention was never to “win” the argument – as I have said repeatedly, no one ever “wins” abortion debates anyway – but rather merely to show you that a substantive argument can be made. So while my posts were certainly not posted from the “sheer reflex” of disagreement, neither do I feel they were insincere.
Thank you! You yourself are very good at cogently presenting your views and the bases for them. Do not get frustrated because you can’t get people to agree with them; some people will genuinely disagree, and some people would rather die than admit they are wrong under any circumstances. And do not take too personally that disagreement; rejection of your position does not necessarily indicate rejection of you, or antipathy for you.
I agree that it’s time to let this go; I personally could not participate further in anything but a half-hearted fashion anyway, since I do not really believe in the position I undertook to defend. But stick around; you’re a great asset to Great Debates, and your views are always “appropriate” here. Shake?
You yourself are very good at cogently presenting your views and the bases for them. Do not get frustrated because you can’t get people to agree with them; some people will genuinely disagree, and some people would rather die than admit they are wrong under any circumstances. And do not take too personally that disagreement; rejection of your position does not necessarily indicate rejection of you, or antipathy for you.