What the...

[Sumakima]

Yesterday, alot of girls in my school had tape on their mouth's that read "LIFE," and some of them were silent. I had no idea what was going on. Did this happen at your schools'?

 

[Blitzzo]

Perhaps that may be related to what I saw yesterday while going on college tours. At University of Cincinnati, they had set up a display with a multitude of graphic photos showing unborn babies that resulted from abortion, with descriptions comparing them to "genocide". Clearly a pro-life campaign.

 

[Fish hook]

I guess that means that the day girls keep quiet is the day life gets good!!

Should have asked them if they wanna go on a date or they wanted money.

OR what 2+2 is.

I'm on holiday for a week, so no, no gaggec girls in my school.

 

[Jazz]

Yeah... I'd say they were pro-life demonstrators?

 

[Sumakima]

That makes sense... I think.

 

[Princess Plushima]

Man, protest techniques are getting weirder and weirder.

I'm also curious to know how many of those girls were only pro-life because that's the views their parents took.

 

[SSNTails]

They put the tape over the wrong hole.

 

[luis90]

Gah, When will people get it.


Don't kill babies, you can have your "choices" womens rights activists, but keep this in mind, you've killed children.

 

[Jazz]

I'm also curious to know how many of those girls were only pro-life because that's the views their parents took.

Thats the same way with everyone. Don't pretend you're above it.

Don't kill babies, you can have your "choices" womens rights activists, but keep this in mind, you've killed children.

In your view.

Everyone is entitled to their own view.

Your opinion is not fact, nor is anyone else's.

 

[luis90]

And you make it appear that I am trying to make it so...

 

[Oogaland]

In your view.

Everyone is entitled to their own view.

Your opinion is not fact, nor is anyone else's.

And this is where we have to be very careful. This does not hold water: if I decide, say, that I am justified in robbing the bank tomorrow morning, does that make it so? It is, in fact, objectively wrong for me to do so: not wrong because it's an affront to a widely-held sense of propriety, or because I feel that it is wrong for me, but rather that the action is wrong in and of itself.

I agree that the girls' methods seem bizarre. I don't see the significance. But the moral relativism that you argue for is a quick path to depravity.

 

[Jazz]

Gah, When will people get it.

That right there tells me that you believe people who don't believe the way you do are wrong. You wouldn't ask when people will "get it" if you didn't believe those people were wrong.

Don't kill babies, you can have your "choices" womens rights activists, but keep this in mind, you've killed children.

By saying "Don't kill babies," and "you've killed children" you've just referenced to the lines used by every pro-life supporter since abortion was invented.

And you make it appear that I am trying to make it so...

You are the only one who made it appear so.

*EDIT*

And this is where we have to be very careful. This does not hold water: if I decide, say, that I am justified in robbing the bank tomorrow morning, does that make it so? It is, in fact, objectively wrong for me to do so: not wrong because it's an affront to a widely-held sense of propriety, or because I feel that it is wrong for me, but rather that the action is wrong in and of itself.

I agree that the girls' methods seem bizarre. I don't see the significance. But the moral relativism that you argue for is a quick path to depravity.

You took me too literally. I should have probably added a qualifier to my statement:

"Everyone is entitled to their own views; within reason."

I obviously would not support someone who's views conflicted with the general safety and security of society of a whole. I apologize for not making that more clear in my previous post.

 

[Oogaland]

"Everyone is entitled to their own views; within reason."

Yes, I think we may be slightly at cross-purposes. An example might be illuminating: I'm rather fond of pasta (I'm half Italian; perhaps it's hereditary), but it would be preposterous for me to argue that everyone else ought to like pasta just because I do. The difference here from the previous example is that the proposition here refers to me in particular. I cannot conclude from Oogaland likes pasta that Jazz likes pasta. If, however, Jazz believed Oogaland doesn't like pasta, he'd be objectively in error.

However, in the matters we're dealing with here, the propositions are independent of any individual: either a foetus is a fully paid-up human being, or it isn't. There's no in-between state. You might argue that we don't know, but that's different. Then you need to define murder (killing anyone; killing someone innocent; killing someone who'll be missed...?). And then you need to conclude that murder is wrong. And so on.

Notice, as I mentioned, that none of these propositions is a function of anyone in particular: so to apply the same 'opinion' analysis as in the pasta example would be incorrect. I defer to Pope St Felix III, who puts it all rather succinctly:

Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it.

 

[luis90]

I'm not trying to force my opinions jazz, and when I meant, "Gahrarhahsa, when will people get it?", I meant, when will people stop you know, caring so much.


I mean honestly, the rallies and all, I'm all for expressing your opinion, but don't push it on someone who disagrees with you on that one thing.

 

[Jazz]

I'm not trying to force my opinions jazz, and when I meant, "Gahrarhahsa, when will people get it?", I meant, when will people stop you know, caring so much.

Understood. Just note that many millions of people care about this topic very much, on both sides of the issue. Just be careful what you say, thats the only advice I have to offer.

I apologize if my post offended you in any way.

However, in the matters we're dealing with here, the propositions are independent of any individual: either a fetus is a fully paid-up human being, or it isn't. There's no in-between state. You might argue that we don't know, but that's different. Then you need to define murder (killing anyone; killing someone innocent; killing someone who'll be missed...?). And then you need to conclude that murder is wrong. And so on.

The problem of course is that each person has different definitions for these two things, hence the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Each object is independent of each individual, that is correct. However, each individual will view/interpret these objects differently.

Hence, one person may consider a fetus a complete human being, and another person may not. There is no in-between state, that is correct. But saying that either one of these people is wrong is incorrect, because it all depends on the person's point of view.

It would be similar to tell a person that believing in God is wrong, because he does not exist. To one person, God may exist, and to another, he might not. Obviously God must either exist, or must not, there is no in-between state. However, it is not our place to tell another person their perception of certain objects and concepts are fundamentally wrong, especially based on things that cannot be proven.

As a wise person once said:

Perception is reality.

 

[Rob]

Hence, one person may consider a fetus a complete human being, and another person may not. There is no in-between state, that is correct. But saying that either one of these people is wrong is incorrect, because it all depends on the person's point of view.

That's where science steps in. There needs to be a definite "This is where life starts" statement. Now I've heard, but can not confirm that there was a statement where life starts at conception. I've never seen this statement myself, much as I'd love to. In such a case, there would then be a "Yes, a fetus is a living human being", and some real "This is why this is wrong" statement.

 

[Sky Ninja]

This happened at my school once. They had selected people to pertend to be dead as the reasult of abuse and drugs.

 

[Oogaland]

However, it is not our place to tell another person their perception of certain objects and concepts are fundamentally wrong, especially based on things that cannot be proven.

This is the kernel of the issue, I think. Not only are we justified in correcting such error, we are obliged to do so -- always, of course, within the confines of due charity. Also -- and perhaps this is what you are in part referring to? -- a simple denunciation ("You're wrong! Because I say so!") is nothing other than churlish and frankly doesn't achieve much.

I don't have the time or energy to write up a detailed exposition of the argument at the moment, and in any case I'm far from the best-equipped and -suited person to be doing so. But since I'm here, I might as well make an attempt when I have the leisure to do so. If I forget, feel free to poke me.

 

[Jazz]

Its fine, this does not need to become a full-fledged philosophical debate, or at least, no more than it already is.

I'm glad we had this conversation. This is perhaps the most intelligent discussion I've ever participated in on these forums.

If you decide to take this up again, let me know.

 

[Sykotic]

Abortion is fine. Fuck the activists.