Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
look, folks, i really am not interested in a debate about this because my disagreement with the anti-choice position is so basic that i have simply decided that these conversations are, in the main, not worth having.
|
That's quite alright. I'm sympathetic to that attitude.
I'm not sympathetic to simplistic characterizations that leave no room for the nuances of reality.
Quote:
|
another way: embedded at the center of antichoice poltics is the assumption that their views concerning this arbitrary fiction "sanctity of life" (under capitalism? are you joking?) **should** override existing legal parameters.
|
(1) Frequently embedded. But not logically required. You enjoy generalizations, it seems. I don't find much use for them.
Quote:
war is a legal state of affairs--the debate on abortion indicates that the sanctity of life overrides legal questions--so pacifism is the only alternative.
same with capital punishment.
as for the question of the redistribution of wealth--concern for the "sanctity of life" that does not extend to equal concern for the quality of this life, this sacrosanct process we generate as we move through it, mean nothing to me.
|
Again, a lack of imagination. Here, a hint: if life is sacred, perhaps the correct answer to the quandry of a murderer is to prevent the greater destruction of life that would arise from allowing him to live.
Perhaps your conception of "sanctity of life" doesn't allow for this option. But in that case, I don't believe that the antichoicers' conception of "sanctity of life" matches yours.
You're dismissing a strawman.