Which Of These Three Starements Do You Reject? (Abortion Related)

[eMbAh]

seems i misunderstood the post, i also reject #2

[andyfox]

If it's not morally wrong to bomb clinics where they're killing children, and fetuses are eqvuialent to children, then it can't be morally wrong to bomb abortion clinics.

I understand that we're often not 100% certain of the facts or how we fell about things. I'm assuming David's post assumes that we are, and that, if we are, we cannot logically hold to all three propositions simultaneously.

[PantsOnFire]

I reject #1 and #2.

[eMbAh]

I don't understand? you say: if it's not morally wrong to bomb clinics then it can't be morally wrong to do it

I would say that it's immoral to bomb the clinic but it's not immoral to make an abortion

[2OuterJitsu]

I reject 1 & 3.

Why can't I accept #2 and still believe that abortions are not immoral(sic)?

[vhawk01]

Did any of you guys read the questions? He just said you must logically reject at least one of them. You all reject 1 or 2 and then ask dumb questions.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
I reject 1 & 3.

Why can't I accept #2 and still believe that abortions are not immoral(sic)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is morally wrong to bomb retarded kid killing clinics (rejecting 1) and
it is morally right to bomb fetus killing clinics (rejecting 3) then saying
a fetus is a child (accepting 2) doesn't fit because you are saying you approve of killing kids who are retarded unless they are a fetus. Then you give fetus' the same status as children.

So you are basically for killing retarded people?

This wouldn't be as confusing if it wasn't as full of double negatives.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Given my recent post about how some people won't examine their thoughts for inconsistencies, I wanted to ressurect a topic I broached before in this explicit way. But please understand that I choose this topic only because it is the best real world example of the syndrome that I can think of.

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

Anyway here are three statements. Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no friggin' monument to justice! I lost my hand! I lost my bride! Johnny has his hand! Johnny has his bride! You want me to take my heartache, put it away and forget?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicholas Cage as Ronny Cammareri in "Moonstruck" as he berates Cher for denying that he lost his hand because of his brother(Danny Aiello).

The world is full of inconsistencies and paradoxes.To deny this as an objective manifestation present in our outer and inner world is illusory. Isn't there a cliche connecting consistency and small minds?

[Deorum]

The inconsistencies:

1. It's okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children.

2. A fetus is a child.

3. It's not okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children (fetus = child as per #2).

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
The inconsistencies:

1. It's okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children.

2. A fetus is a child.

3. It's not okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children (fetus = child as per #2).


[/ QUOTE ]

All the above is true but a qualitative understanding might say that a handicapped born child is different than an unborn child. His judgment could very well be that he rejects none of the scenarios.

This thought would not try to be consistent but take a wider perspective of "child" than you would expect. A soldier "kills" in war and another "kills" on the street during a robbery. At what point is there a separation of identity of the two individuals?

Judgment is a sticky matter and "judge not" is a powerful mantra for personal edification.