Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i do this because, more often than not, it seems that taking over these clusters substitutes for thinking--or, in other instances, these "machines" are reproduced in an individuals posts seemingly unawares. i find these interactions of individual positions and ideology interesting. i find it usually really obvious in folk who operate from the right.
|
Okay, I can understand that. Though I prefer to give, whether or not it occurs "more often than not", the benefit of the doubt to whomever I'm debating. And then I'll revoke that benefit if they fall into the category of people you speak of.
Quote:
|
a philosophical type discussion is entirely possible on the basis of theological axioms--most of heidegger for example--lots of others---2,000 years worth no less.
|
Pardon, should've read "philosophical and devoid of religious speculation". Another clarification: devoid of
dogmatic religious speculation.
Quote:
|
my point is that because there is no agreement about premises upon which a debate about abortion should happen, that it makes no sense for anti-choice folk to attempt to impose their views on the rest of us by agitating to make abortion illegal.
|
What if slaveholders had disagreed with abolitionists about the premises of a slavery debate?
Quote:
my argument is that keeping the procedure legal and safe has nothing to do with the complexity of the debates that women (primarily) woudl have over whether they would or would not have the procedure.
the claim that one must make the procedure illegal because not to makes it a matter of course to have an abortion is, to me, offensive as an assumption. i do not think the decision about having one is easy. i know several people who have had them, and for each it was really really difficult, the decision. it is patronizing for those who oppose the procedure to imagine that there is no debate within folk about whether to use it or not. this is the most basic area of disagreement i have with anti-choice people.
|
This is one anti-choicer who doesn't disagree with you in the slightest here.
Quote:
|
who are you to presume to judge whether the criteria a woman who chooses to have an abortion brings to bear on the decision are or are not adequate?
|
The problem here is that I don't see a relevant difference between this question and "who are you to presume to judge whether a woman was justified in committing infanticide?"
Quote:
|
you argue above, repeatedly, that for you killing another can be justified--then you should also be in a position to grant that those who choose to have an abortion come to the decision that their actions are justified.
|
We don't do anarchy, we alternate between tyranny of the majority and of the minority.
The basic idea is that we kill, when necessary, in response to the right to life being violated, and in response to the threat of violation. (Insert neocon foreign policy jab here.) And then we try to come to a consensus on whether a given action (1) was a killing of a human being and, if so, (2) was an appropriate and necessary response to a violation. There's also (3), is the proposed legal solution within the bounds of the government's proper limits?
Some pro-choicers say 'no' to #1 and stop there. Some pro-choicers and all pro-lifers (that I know of) say 'yes' to #1. Those pro-choicers go on to say 'no' to #2 or #3. (To be honest, I don't fully understand how #3 works - or at least not how it could lead to a "no restrictions whatsoever" mindset.)
Then the people form a consensus. Or the courts do.
Quote:
|
that move--which is, sadly, typical of most anti-choice people i know in 3-d land (we dont tend to get along well if this topic comes up) or in messageboard land--is the problem.
|
Believe it or not, I haven't found it that common - it's rare, even, in these parts. Though my dad probably falls into that mindset from time to time, unfortunately.