Abortion

[freethinker44]

Judgements, not opinions, are imposed on real crimes. Perceived crimes, by definition, haven't been proved.

Well, by definition, you're arguing semantics.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm just trying to see whether Sonofason's position is consistent with what he's said so far. I don't really care whether it's consistent with what you think he should be feeling.

I'm saying all of our laws are just opinions imposed on others. Everyone in the criminal justice system has had someone else's opinion imposed on them because we deem their actions to be morally wrong.

If someone thinks abortion is morally wrong, why should that particular moral opinion be different from any other moral opinion, and not be imposed on others? In other words, if someone thinks abortion should be illegal, why wouldn't you expect them to impose that opinion on people who get/perform abortions just as they would someone who does any other illegal activity?

 

[BSM1]

Well, by definition, you're arguing semantics.

Please don't tell me you're anti-semantic.

 

[freethinker44]

Please don't tell me you're anti-semantic.

Only when they disagree with me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm saying all of our laws are just opinions imposed on others. Everyone in the criminal justice system has had someone else's opinion imposed on them because we deem their actions to be morally wrong.

If someone thinks abortion is morally wrong, why should that particular moral opinion be different from any other moral opinion, and not be imposed on others? In other words, if someone thinks abortion should be illegal, why wouldn't you expect them to impose that opinion on people who get/perform abortions just as they would someone who does any other illegal activity?

Unless I've miss something, so far, Sonofason hasn't said that he does think abortion should be illegal. He hasn't even said that he's opposed to it (AFAIK); he's only said, effectively, that he doesn't see why someone would want to do it.

And again: I'm not trying to get into what his position should be; I'm just trying to see whether it's consistent.

 

[freethinker44]

Unless I've miss something, so far, Sonofason hasn't said that he does think abortion should be illegal. He hasn't even said that he's opposed to it (AFAIK); he's only said, effectively, that he doesn't see why someone would want to do it.

And again: I'm not trying to get into what his position should be; I'm just trying to see whether it's consistent.

You're missing something.

Actually, I would love to see abortion illegalized as a means of contraception.

Just to further discussion, and out of genuine curiosity; suppose this belief is consistent, what direction would you go with your argument? And supposing it is found to be inconsistent, how would you argue it then?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're missing something.

Fair enough.

Just to further discussion, and out of genuine curiosity; suppose this belief is consistent, how would this change your argument? And supposing it is found to be inconsistent, how would you argue it then?

It's not consistent, but I think we've blown it out of proportion at this point, so I'd rather not get into it unless Sonofason wants me to.

 

[Sonofason]

"Leaving it at that" would mean not choosing an abortion for yourself while not trying to impose your opinion on others. Do you really leave it at that?

Actually, that's not true at all.

I had said, " I just don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. I'm happy to leave it at that."

So it is clear that what I meant, is exactly what I said, that I am happy leaving my personal opinion as it is, being that I don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. And again, I'm quite happy leaving it at that.

 

[Sonofason]

Let me be clear. I don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. I would be most happy to impose my will regarding this issue on every living person, despite their personal opinions on the matter. I'm happy leaving at that. The fact that people might disagree with me is of little concern to me. I don't care what others want. Knowing very well, that I know better, I'd be happy to impose my will on everyone.

 

[adi2d]

Let me be clear. I don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. I would be most happy to impose my will regarding this issue on every living person, despite their personal opinions on the matter. I'm happy leaving at that. The fact that people might disagree with me is of little concern to me. I don't care what others want. Knowing very well, that I know better, I'd be happy to impose my will on everyone.

So glad you decided to be reasonable

 

[freethinker44]

It's not consistent, but I think we've blown it out of proportion at this point, so I'd rather not get into it unless Sonofason wants me to.

It just seems like sophistry to look for and attack holes, weaknesses, or inconsistencies in an argument instead of address the content or points raised, if any, and if not then it shouldn't be too hard to take down a weak argument with weak proof if you simply produce the truth. It's sort of on par with arguing semantics, you know? You're not arguing the topic, you're arguing the argument.

 

[McBell]

Let me be clear. I don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. I would be most happy to impose my will regarding this issue on every living person, despite their personal opinions on the matter. I'm happy leaving at that. The fact that people might disagree with me is of little concern to me. I don't care what others want. Knowing very well, that I know better, I'd be happy to impose my will on everyone.

At least your honest about it.

 

[Sonofason]

So glad you decided to be reasonable

It's interesting that you should use the word "reasonable" in your response to me. I assure you, my comment was quite reasonable. But perhaps not in the sense that you are now using the word to describe me.

Surely, I sense sarcasm in the tone of your response, which must imply that you are using the word "reasonable" in the sense of fairness. While it is true that being reasonable could imply a sense of fairness, being reasonable can be anything but fair.

Seriously, if you think me being happy to impose my will upon others is unfair, imagine if I actually had the power and authority to impose my will upon others. As it is, I am but one voice. But because I do desire to have my will imposed upon others, it is only reasonable that I use my voice to at least try to cause my will to be established.

So here we are, living on a planet with 7 billion people, who have various subjective opinions on the matter of abortion. Given that all of these opinions are arguably subjective personal opinions, who's right? Surely the one who must be right is the one who has the power and the authority to impose his will upon the rest. Luckily, I live in a democracy, where my opinion counts, even if only a little. If I can use my opinion to sway another opinion, especially if it be the opinion of the power and authority that imposes his will upon the rest of us, it furthers my cause, and that would be beneficial to me. And that is quite reasonable.

 

[DallasApple]

Actually, that's not true at all.

I had said, " I just don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. I'm happy to leave it at that."

So it is clear that what I meant, is exactly what I said, that I am happy leaving my personal opinion as it is, being that I don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. And again, I'm quite happy leaving it at that.

Of course you would see "no good reason " to have an abortion.

I see no good reason for you to have sex.

I think its wrong you have sex .

But hey that's only my opinion .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's interesting that you should use the word "reasonable" in your response to me. I assure you, my comment was quite reasonable. But perhaps not in the sense that you are now using the word to describe me.

Surely, I sense sarcasm in the tone of your response, which must imply that you are using the word "reasonable" in the sense of fairness. While it is true that being reasonable could imply a sense of fairness, being reasonable can be anything but fair.

Seriously, if you think me being happy to impose my will upon others is unfair, imagine if I actually had the power and authority to impose my will upon others. As it is, I am but one voice. But because I do desire to have my will imposed upon others, it is only reasonable that I use my voice to at least try to cause my will to be established.

So here we are, living on a planet with 7 billion people, who have various subjective opinions on the matter of abortion. Given that all of these opinions are arguably subjective personal opinions, who's right? Surely the one who must be right is the one who has the power and the authority to impose his will upon the rest. Luckily, I live in a democracy, where my opinion counts, even if only a little. If I can use my opinion to sway another opinion, especially if it be the opinion of the power and authority that imposes his will upon the rest of us, it furthers my cause, and that would be beneficial to me. And that is quite reasonable.

It's not reasonable at all. In a free society, a plurality of views is allowed unless a compelling justification is provided for why freedom should be restricted. Until then, your disapproval of abortion is accommodated by your freedom not to have an abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It just seems like sophistry to look for and attack holes, weaknesses, or inconsistencies in an argument instead of address the content or points raised, if any, and if not then it shouldn't be too hard to take down a weak argument with weak proof if you simply produce the truth. It's sort of on par with arguing semantics, you know? You're not arguing the topic, you're arguing the argument.

I never intended this to be a big issue. My first post to Sonofason was just a question for clarification, which you then blew up to be something way more significant than I ever intended.

But I do see a certain irony in you complaining that I'm "arguing the argument" as if that isn't exactly what you were doing with this tangent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me be clear. I don't think there are any good reasons to have an abortion. I would be most happy to impose my will regarding this issue on every living person, despite their personal opinions on the matter. I'm happy leaving at that. The fact that people might disagree with me is of little concern to me. I don't care what others want. Knowing very well, that I know better, I'd be happy to impose my will on everyone.

Then I'm glad you're not in charge.

 

[freethinker44]

But I do see a certain irony in you complaining that I'm "arguing the argument" as if that isn't exactly what you were doing with this tangent.

As with semantics arguments, I think there is a difference between arguing against a topic by arguing against an argument, and arguing against an argument that's arguing against an argument.

 

[freethinker44]

It's not reasonable at all. In a free society, a plurality of views is allowed unless a compelling justification is provided for why freedom should be restricted. Until then, your disapproval of abortion is accommodated by your freedom not to have an abortion.

Full circle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Full circle.

Care to expand?