illegal, and since I can think of no other reason for
making it illegal other than that it is murder…), and
the OP is supposed to limit this discussion somewhat.
Oh, I might suggest that the picturesque use of language explains all. There you were, merrily, disposing of the variously ‘guilty’, when this awkward Jewish lady (mother of two, no miscarriages, no abortions) turns up and says “Hold on a minute!”
Threads are no more impermeable than the boundaries of ‘These United States’, by the way.
I’m not sure your paraphrase accurately captures my
statement.
I think it captured (note the ‘d’ rather than ‘s’) it very accurately - until you were challenged.
Good question, Leaper. Let me give you the perspective of one pro-lifer.
The distinction I have always drawn is abortifacients vs. contraceptives. A contraceptive which allows conception to occur, and then aborts the fertilized egg is an abortifacient, not a contraceptive. Clearly, abortifacients are the same, morally speaking, as a typical abortion: a baby dies as a result of purposeful actions by another human.
My religion currently asks me not to use contraception, but it is not a consequentialist teaching in that there is no direct, nonconsenting physical victim if I use contraception (unlike abortion, which has a baby victim from my perspective).
I don’t seek to impose the nonconsequentialist morality of my faith on others. My personal view is that only consequentialist laws should be passed; that is, the force of law is only authorized to protect a nonconsenting victim. Abortion has a nonconsenting victim; contraception does not. Therefore, passing a law against contraceptives (as opposed to abortifacients) would blur the healthy line between chruch and state to the detriment of both.
Long story short: contraceptives fine; abortion not. One may persuade others not to use contraception, but it would be immoral to impose a legal regulation on those not so convinced. In contrast, one may morally use the force of law to protect the unborn against aggressive action by others by outlawing abortion.
Are you implying that my intent was to mislead everyone into believing that I supported capital punishment? Why would I do that?
You seem to credit yourself with a spectacular insight into the workings of the minds of prolifers, but I suggest that if you had such insight, this discussion wouldn’t have degenerated into ad hominem attacks merely by the addition of your posts to this thread.
Assuming the other side is evil or duplicitous is not helpful to this discussion. I’ll assume you have a genuine support of abortion and choice, and that you believe your belief is internally self-consistent. I’ll assume that you believe you are defending a noble cause and aiding victims of terrible circumstances. And I’ll ask you not to assume that I am lying or attempting trickery when I try to convey my position. I’ll ask you to assume, if anything unflattering about me, only that I am ignorant, not hateful. Ignorance can by corrected by inciteful posts on your part. Malice is not so correctable. For us to have a successful discussion, we must assume ignorance rather than malice on the part of the other, and then endeavor to respectfully teach the other about our own position. If I assume you are a murderous fiend who would rather eat little babies than carry them to term, then we have no hope of a meeting of the minds in a search for truth regarding this issue.
candida, please use the quote feature. Why are you following a convention that is both more difficult to use and tougher to read? Get with the program, please.
Are you implying that my intent was to mislead everyone
into believing that I supported capital punishment? Why
would I do that?
Makes a change from hitting women with metaphorical fetuses?
You seem to credit yourself with a spectacular insight into
the workings of the minds of prolifers, but I suggest that if
you had such insight, this discussion wouldn’t have
degenerated into ad hominem attacks merely by the
addition of your posts to this thread.
Ah, il Topo reaches for the ‘ooh, disagreement with my moral righteousness consists of ad hominem’ hoping candida will fall back in vampiric theatricals. Sorry, il Topo, if I said “il Topo is wrong because he’s a sick woman-hating monster”, it would be ‘ad-hominem’, if, however, I said “il Topo is wrong because ‘(a) . . . (b) . . . , oh, by the way, he’s a sick, woman-hating monster”, it wouldn’t be ad-hominem (trust me il Topo, I’m a Phil Grad - multiply).
Assuming the other side is evil or duplicitous is not helpful
to this discussion.
Waving a crucifix against me il Topo won’t work and I’m the one wearing the Magan David.
I’ll assume you have a genuine support of abortion and choice
I think you should think of me as ‘anti-anti-abortion’. In other words, I think you are a far greater ‘evil’ (you’re the user of the word) than abortion could ever be.
I don’t understand your insult, please educate me. It appears to me that you are saying that anyone who is pro-life is inherently duplicitous, but that cannot be your position, can it? Either that, or I have angered you. If the insult is, in fact, personal to me instead of general to pro-lifers, you need not respond unless you wish me to explain myself further.
Let’s set aside ad hominem and start over. What are (a), (b), etc.?
Why? You must have some postive belief that leads you to conclude that I am evil, something which my anti-abortion position threatens. For example, do you believe that you are defending the rights of women to keep the government off of / out of their bodies? That would be a noble cause. Or do you merely think that I am a duplicitous Christian attempting to propogate my faith by force…that would be pretty darned evil of me, I think.
I don’t believe I’m waiving a crucifix at you. I am only recently returned to the Catholic Church after many years of atheism. My abortion position has not changed as a result of my return to the Catholic Church. (There are atheists who are pro-life because, after all, life is all there is.) Perhaps for the purposes of our discussion, you should assume I’m an atheist. I think we can then jettison any religious baggage which will likely only cloud the issue and potentially cause some animosity. Please call attention to any view of mine which you feel is undefendable outside the context of Catholicism. I think laws should be cross-faith and extra-faith defendable. I believe in separation of church and state.
I don’t understand your insult, please educate me. It appears to
me that you are saying that anyone who is pro-life is inherently
duplicitous, but that cannot be your position, can it?
Never said, or implied, anything of the sort as regards all ‘pro-life’ people. To give a parallel, on other circumstances, it’s often necessary for me to discern the difference between ‘anti-Zionism’, ‘anti-Israel’ and ‘anti-Semitism’. One learns to discern the difference.
Either that, or I have angered you. If the insult is, in fact,
personal to me instead of general to pro-lifers, you need
not respond unless you wish me to explain myself further.
It is almost impossible to anger me, my husband says it’s my most infuriating characteristic.
Let’s set aside ad hominem and start over. What are (a), (b), etc.?
It was an argumentative exemplar after your use of the knee-jerk call-out of ‘ad hominem’. It involves different arguments to be held in different threads.
Why? You must have some postive belief that leads you to
conclude that I am evil, something which my anti-abortion
position threatens. For example, do you believe that you are
defending the rights of women to keep the government off of /
out of their bodies? That would be a noble cause. Or do you
merely think that I am a duplicitous Christian attempting to
propogate my faith by force…that would be pretty darned evil
of me, I think.
Far more ‘macro’ than that, I’m saying that you are part of the current variant of the moralistic mask covering the tradition of all the dead, dangerous, generations - Inquisition Man, Gestapo Man, NKVD-man.
I don’t believe I’m waiving a crucifix at you. I am only recently
returned to the Catholic Church after many years of atheism. . .
. . . I think laws should be cross-faith and extra-faith defendable.
I believe in separation of church and state.
I come from people who have good reason to doubt the loving nature of the Holy, Roman and Catholic Church.
And rightfully so. The Inquisition was truly an unholy time for the Catholic Church. (Did you note the Pope’s apology?) It was just one example of mixing church and state. Such a mix benefits neither, and usually kills many people. That is why I try to argue abortion from a secular position.
And rightfully so. The Inquisition was truly an unholy time for the
Catholic Church. (Did you note the Pope’s apology?)
Indeed I have, you’ll have to accept that the daughter of German Jewish refugees is not overly impressed.
It was just one example of mixing church and state. Such a mix
benefits neither, and usually kills many people. That is why I try
to argue abortion from a secular position.
Far as I’m concerned, the origin of the ‘knowledge’ that people have that they know the answer is irrelevant - knowledge does not legitimize itself by its pedigree. It’s that people who ‘know what the answer is’ have to be opposed.
Last night before I could post this, I kept getting a database error from the board. But anyway, now that it’s all cleared up…
And how the hell would you ever be able to enforce that? First, you’d have to prove that she had sex, then, you’d have to prove that there was going to be conception in the first place. Pregnancy doesn’t allways result from sex. Then, well there’s a whole other host of problems too long for me to list here, that go against enacting a law like that. In the case of morning after pills, and so on, if abortion became illegal, it would be better to just go after manufactures and distributors.
That’s a very excellent point, and a hard one to answer. The only thing I can think of at this time (1:41 in the morning) is that, in law, not all killing is treated the same. There’s various degrees of murder and manslaughter. And if abortion ever became illegal, there would probably be degrees of that too, like taking a pill VS having a doctor perform one.