[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'Anti-choice'???
wtf, who in their right mind is against choices? I'm lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously?

Anti-choice = Believes abortion should be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its no more and no less dishonest a tactic than calling yourself "pro-life" and insinuating that the other side is somehow anti-life. I approve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the issue is entirely about life and not at all about choice, which should be made perfectly clear by the fact that even the most radical libertarians (the most "pro-choice" people in the world) are split on the issue. See one of my last posts in the recent abortion thread about obfuscating and misdirecting from the truth about abortion with unrelated, pathological analogies or turning it into some sort of bastardized civil liberties issue (like preventing the choice of raping someone would be a civil liberties issue for the rapist), while totally ignoring the legitimate and worthwhile debate that is going on about the value of the unborn.

Also love how you insinuate dishonesty and then approve of it in the same post.


btw vhawk,

Your input is still desired in that other thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, if I agreed with a single thing in this post then we wouldnt even have an argument, right? For example "the entire issue is about life and not at all about choice" couldnt possibly be more wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then where does choice come into it? You tell me. Are there huge message board threads out there about whether or not people should have the choice to kill other people that I just haven't seen?

Then you post, who said anything about killing other people?

Then I post, exactly - that's what the debate is about. Not about "choice."

If the debate IS about choice, then why are so many radical libertarians/ACists etc. so staunchly against abortion? We are pro-choice on literally EVERY SINGLE ISSUE where choice is even a factor, i.e., choices that do not involve aggression. Can you answer this?

How about we make a deal - I'll admit to being anti-homicide-choice if you'll admit to being anti-fetal-life. How's that? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I also like how you didn't address my post at all, which is not so different from your snark-and-run tactics in the other recent abortion thread. If you are so confident in that contract argument, I am eager to hear you defend child murder on the same grounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not anti-fetal life, just like I'm not anti-immunizations or anti-poor people getting a warm meal.

But anyway, as to any further responses needed in the other thread, just understand that I <3 Judith Thomson, and you can probably extrapolate any particulars from that. I have yet to see any objection to her thought experiment that is even remotely convincing to me. The life or non-life of the fetus, while possibly an interesting scientific question, could not be any less relevant.

EDIT: btw, yes, there probably ARE huge message board posts about whether it is ok to kill people. Obviously there are many times where it is. Self-defense, war (arguably), surely you can imagine others. I'm willing to grant that abortion is killing a person (although I dont think it is, I find its an unnecessary point to argue) and yet its still ok. I probably killed 15 people today in various ways.