Member Rara Avis
... threadbear uses the word in post #86. It was his use of the word that I was speaking to.[quote]
My apologies, Bob. I missed that.
[quote]"And why then would they wish to attribute their somewhat unsettling fantasy lives to people whose position is limited to suggesting that women be allowed the right to make their own choices here? This puzzles me."
I have actually asked a question here. In Ron's reply, quoted below, we can see his use of the word "Right." indicates he has heard. And we can see by the two questions on another topic following right afterwards that he has choses not to answer the question. He treats it as rhetorical when it is not.
Bob, if you want a serious answer you have to ask a serious question. Your phrasing is no less loaded that the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. I don't know anyone with unsettling fantasy lives. I don't know anyone whose position is limited. And I certainly don't know anyone suggesting that women be allowed the right to make their own choice here. I'm guessing you meant something else in that last part?
Ask a question that doesn't presuppose the answer, Bob, and I'll be happy to answer directly.
While Ron may have stated his position with clarity at some point, I confess I haven't seen it.
You haven't missed it.
From his various statements, it appears that he has some disagreement with my thinking on this matter, and that his own thinking is not in agreement with his own usually more Libertarian views in this regard.
I don't try to structure my views according to someone else's labels, Bob, if that's indeed what you mean.
Ron here is suggesting that if he can prove that Mel was merely exercising his right to choice, he can prove that the right to choice in general is as crazy as Mel. This depends upon Ron's ability to blur the distinction between Mel and a woman making a choice to have or not have an abortion.
I wouldn't use the word crazy, Bob. I'm not interested in Mel's sanity, after all, but rather the way his choices impact other people. Especially the woman missing the teeth? Who, some might say, has a lot in common with the child not allowed to come to term.
The point, Bob, is that you can't legitimately argue for a person's right to choose. Not without giving it a context, because realistically we limit people's right all the time. If Mel makes the choice to murder a woman and yank out her teeth, we're going to try to stop him. That's a choice within a context. You can argue whether it's right or wrong, but you can't argue that Mel gets to make and act on any choice he wants. At least, not if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
Protecting the people from other people? As far as abortion goes doesn’t that just move the question to “when is a foetus a person?” .
Exactly so, Grinch.
I answered your question in the other thread “when is a foetus alive” by suggesting that it could be judged on when the foetus had the ability to live independent of the mother, with or without medical intervention.
At least that's a target, Grinch, albeit a potentially moving one. It's a common opinion, too, indeed, the prevailing opinion it would seem.
But have you really laid any foundation for why it should be more than an opinion? More on that in moment.
I’m against abortion after the point of viability, the point where a foetus has the ability to live independent of the mother. Before that point all you’re killing is the potential of a living person, it’s no different from denying the potential for life through contraception.
See, that moment didn't take lone.
Why is viability from the mother "the" dividing point? I agree we have to draw that line in the sand, but why pick one that depends solely on medical technology? This particular line in the sand essentially says that a group of cells is only a potential one day but becomes a living person twenty-four hours later. Isn't that a little hard to justify?
What if our line in the sand was, instead, the point at which brain cells begin forming permanent connections? Isn't it the brain, after all, that physically differentiates us from animals? At what point does a child's neural connections begin to form?
So you are saying, post-abortion, that if you laid, side by side:
- your used 'contraception' device
- and the 3 month fetus, (3-4 inches long, with head, hands, legs, eyes, mouth)
that they are 'NO DIFFERENT' to you?!
I get the impression, threadbear, that you feel people aren't taking the potential life of a fetus seriously enough. And that's a valid point, I think.
It might be constructive, however, to honestly ask yourself whether you're taking the consequences of contraception seriously enough? To many, many people the latter is every bit as damning as the former. Why should we believe they're wrong and you're right?