Roe v Wade: an interesting article from Philosophy Now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ernt!

I know what I'm trying to say.

Attack ! = Insult.

By attacking the person, his argument focusses solely on what people who are labelled 'prolifers' believe, and not the specific argument claiming abortion as murder.

Any clearer?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ernt!

I know what I'm trying to say.

Attack ! = Insult.

By attacking the person, his argument focusses solely on what people who are labelled 'prolifers' believe, and not the specific argument claiming abortion as murder.

But everyone knows that argument. He's just pointing out that most pro-lifers while accepting that position are not as clear on whether it allows abortion for health reasons or in the case of incest.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's very true. It means that prolifers in general need to do more work in educating people who are supposed to be on our side.

However, I would have liked to see him address the very effective prolife argument, that does allow for the exception for the life of the mother but not for health reasons.

[TCO]

abortion should be allowed to 2 yrs of age.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

'We'll take foreplay as read darling.'

'It's an ocarina, sir.'

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
abortion: the other way of removing a parasite feeding off of your body.

Ok, I'm moderately pro-choice.

But how the hell can anyone be such an extreme reductionist in this manner, and oversimplify the significant issues a woman has to suffer through when making a decision on whether or not to have an abortion??

[Q Classic]

easy. babies are terrifying parasites that pop out of a person and then systematically and progressively ruin their lives before turning into hosts for future parasites.

but, mr fun: that's not quite what i think. it's a bit of black comedy, like dead baby jokes:

Spoiler:

how many babies does it take to paint a house? depends on how hard you throw them.

more seriously, i'm not quite pro-choice, because i think abortion is a heinous deed; but the government also has no business legislating something like this: some don't think the baby is sentient, and therefore can be flushed out; others think that a baby is still a baby, and so can't. until that's resolved, the government cannot legislate on that matter.

[Kuciwalker]

Whether or not the government "has any business legislating this", I still don't see how it is a constitutional issue. The "right to privacy" just doesn't hold water for me. Let the state legislatures decides.

EDIT: on second thought, the recent case of Ohio may make that a bad idea

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

but, mr fun: that's not quite what i think. it's a bit of black comedy, like dead baby jokes:

Spoiler:

how many babies does it take to paint a house? depends on how hard you throw them.

Ah -- you meant tasteless, cruel jokes, right? I'm sure women who went through an abortion would find these jokes hilarious.

[Ben Kenobi]

the recent case of Ohio may make that a bad idea

So states rights when you agree with the states, and not when they disagree? Perhaps abortion should not be left up to the states, eh?

[Whaleboy]

Gentlemen, where should I stand on abortion? Convince me!!

[Sava]

Originally posted by TCO
abortion should be allowed to 2 yrs of age.

for the south, up to the 200th trimester sounds like a good idea

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So states rights when you agree with the states, and not when they disagree? Perhaps abortion should not be left up to the states, eh?

notice the

[Sirotnikov]

Agathon - interesting article, though there are several bits at the start that are not very serious. Especially the tautology claim. You could take the phrase "You have the right not to be killed by a gun shot, because you have a right to life" and phrase it : ""You have the right not to be killed by a gunshot, because you have the right not to be killed by a gun shot." And by the author's standards that would be a tautology.

One other arguement there I didn't like though.


But I do understand Kenobi's point - The author doesn't deal with the issue standing. You can summarise it in two major parts:

1) showing that the current arguements don't stand a logical test
2) showing that higher judicial and moral arguements have serious semantics problems. It doesn't really deal with the question in hand, but rather shows the judicial and moral difficulties when trying to solve it.

But I enjoyed it still.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Agathon - interesting article, though there are several bits at the start that are not very serious. Especially the tautology claim. You could take the phrase "You have the right not to be killed by a gun shot, because you have a right to life" and phrase it : ""You have the right not to be killed by a gunshot, because you have the right not to be killed by a gun shot." And by the author's standards that would be a tautology.

That's not quite his argument, which is logically valid. People who do make that particular mistake do so unreflectively.

One other arguement there I didn't like though.

But I do understand Kenobi's point - The author doesn't deal with the issue standing. You can summarise it in two major parts:

1) showing that the current arguements don't stand a logical test

It would take a much longer article to do that, though.

2) showing that higher judicial and moral arguements have serious semantics problems. It doesn't really deal with the question in hand, but rather shows the judicial and moral difficulties when trying to solve it.

The legal arguments are somewhat different because they are based on legal precedent, no matter how morally coherent that is. I think he has a reasonable case that the constitution is based on a particular theology and if that is the case, so is the law. Presumably this would be a good reason for changing it, but it doesn't stop someone from making good legal arguments from this basis.

But I enjoyed it still.

Great. Glad to make someone's day better than worse.