Roe v Wade: an interesting article from Philosophy Now.

[Q Classic]

abortion: the other way of removing a parasite feeding off of your body.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Albert Speer


the problem Patroklos is that usually, we're talking about fairly young women here who have been mis-educated by Democrat-controlled local, urban school districts and a pro-abortion media which causes many Black women to not realize the full implications of their actions until it is too late.

And not forgetting the hateful white liberal picket lines around drugstores, pharmacies, condom vending machines and family planning clinics.

And that Hillary Clinton feminazi beeyatch, preventing those poor African American sisters from crossing their legs, saying no, or using the contraceptive pill and making their men wear condoms.

Yawn.

Speer passes the buck on to the Democrats- right they're really preventing the bros in da 'hood from taking some personal responsibility about when and where they deposit their sperm.

In Britain these jokers are called baby fathers- they see the first act of the play, but don't stop for the remaining four of the five act tragedy.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Roe v Wade: an interesting article from Philosophy Now.

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, I confidently predict that no Apolytoner will change his or her opinion on reading this article - more's the pity.

No one is going to change there position because the article doesn't give a position.

I still say that abortion is a legislative issue, not a constitutional one, and that I don't support either side.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
The point the section about procreation is missing is that the reason we allow mentally handicapped people to procreate is not the inalienable right to equality but the fact that doing otherwise would be unjust as it would grant a group less power based on their identity.

The same argument is, of course, the one I prefer for being pro-choice. Since pro-lifers are all right-wing, wouldn't it make sense that like all other right-wing policies it lessens the power of an oppressed group?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
"The full implications"? If your sisters listened to those liberals they would not be getting pregnant as often-since they would practice safe sex- but you conservatives act like if people didn;t have sex, so you demand sex ed be cut, and thus allow for more abortions by sticking your fingers in your ears and going blah, blah, blah.

I want sex ed to be cut because it's stupid and boring

[Agathon]

Re: Re: Roe v Wade: an interesting article from Philosophy Now.

Originally posted by skywalker


No one is going to change there position because the article doesn't give a position.

Yes, one could be like me and become rather sceptical about the whole business.

[chequita guevara]

Sex ed should be about positions and how to use your hands and mouth and elbows and what the various devices are and how to keep from getting pregnant.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Agathon:

That is an interesting arguement. If one defines personhood at ensoulment, which is a religious matter, then the state cannot rule one month more valid than any other, because ensoulment has to do with one's religious beliefs.

His point as I read it is that ensoulment is mandated by the law as the ground of rights.

That's not to say it is true or not, that's just what the law says on this interpretation. That is not a religious matter. However, just when ensoulment takes place is a religious matter.

It's a cunning argument, as I said.

Where's ****ing Imran when he's wanted?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sex ed should be about positions and how to use your hands and mouth and elbows and what the various devices are and how to keep from getting pregnant.

Sex ed should be like the class in Monty Python's Meaning of Life with the added modification that if the teacher is a fox, the students get to bang her over a desk.

There, that should raise young Skywalker's spirits.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

What do you think of my critique of his earlier argument against the prolifers? I actually like his analysis of natural law, it's much more sensible.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sex ed should be about positions and how to use your hands and mouth and elbows and what the various devices are and how to keep from getting pregnant.

with pictures

[Agathon]

dp

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Agathon


I don't think he's wrong. The majority of pro-lifers I know are like that, but unreflectively so it's a reasonably fair description in my book.

I don't think it's ad hominem either, he's not impugning their position by impugning their character. I don't think he's doing anything other than reporting beliefs here.

But you are right the NL argument is more interesting.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

I agree that he is not insulting the prolifers, but rather, he is attacking the person, and not the arguement. He never actually addresses the argument that abortion is murder.

However, I will tell you that the most intelligent prolifers I know make the argument from natural law personally, thought publicly, they prefer to argue on more secular grounds.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Agathon:

I agree that he is not insulting the prolifers, but rather, he is attacking the person, and not the arguement. He never actually addresses the argument that abortion is murder.

He gives an account of the position, but I don't see him attacking them personally.

More later...