Sklansky on Abortion

[Joey Legend]

[ QUOTE ]
You think a potential person has a "right to life", and I don't. We could discuss this further, but I'm glad we at least got that far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh and as well, I really take a bit of exception to calling the fetus a "potential person" its not like a fetus might become a person, or perhaps it will become something else. If it follows through with its natural path it is certain to become a person after some time. Thats more than just potential.

[hmkpoker]

Any pro-lifers here think that abortion is acceptable if it results from rape?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I really take a bit of exception to calling the fetus a "potential person"

[/ QUOTE ] joey, that's a strange thing to take exception to, it's just a word, I could understand taking exception to a concept. Usually I'll let the other person pick the words we use, they can even make them up, since all that matters is how we define them so we can discuss a concept. In this case, since the concept was being exceptionally well explored for an internet forum, it could be referred to as quatsmo-person and it wouldn't change anything. ( as an aside, 'potential' seems fit it's normal usage in this context, but what the hey).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Any pro-lifers here think that abortion is acceptable if it results from rape?

[/ QUOTE ]
ONLY if the mother's health is at stake. I've discussed this before (possibly in this thread, I'm too lazy to look bac) in this forum. Being against abortion but allowing an exception for rape/incest is not logically consistent.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Being against abortion but allowing an exception for rape/incest is not logically consistent.

[/ QUOTE ] If positions are based on principles then it not logically inconsistant if the principles that underlie the normal positions dictate a different position in certain circumstances. It doesn't matter what the topic is, if you arrive at specific positions from underlying principles rather than set 'rules' that came from who knows where then it's likely that some context will arise that makes an action that is not our 'standard' response be the one that is faithful to our principles.

[BCPVP]

english please?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any pro-lifers here think that abortion is acceptable if it results from rape?

[/ QUOTE ]
ONLY if the mother's health is at stake. I've discussed this before (possibly in this thread, I'm too lazy to look bac) in this forum. Being against abortion but allowing an exception for rape/incest is not logically consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good man, you nailed that right on the head [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[BCPVP]

The sad thing is that most people against abortion do believe such an exception should exist. I think this is because they don't want to seem too "extreme" and that they haven't really thought out the logic behind such a belief.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The sad thing is that most people against abortion do believe such an exception should exist. I think this is because they don't want to seem too "extreme" and that they haven't really thought out the logic behind such a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, I was secretly hoping someone would say something like that so I could tear them a new one, but you foiled my plans, you bastrd

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
english please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, no, just continue as you were, I'll sort it out.

Ok, I'll be serious. I'll take several runs at it in case one of them clicks with you.

Our stance on specific issues is usually arrived at by applying more general underlying principles to the situation in front of us. It's not that we are born with a crib sheet list of do's and don't for each situation chiselled on our knuckles.

Along the lines that a supreme court decides cases ... from the general principles expressed in the constitution it tries to work out how they apply in the specific set of circumstances in front of it. They don't have a 'rule book' where they can just look it up.

Life is complex enough that we evolved a mind capable of figuring out some pretty tricky situations, if all situations were merely code-following there is no way natural selection would waste the incredible amount of energy it takes to run the flipping thing.

So, when somebody says, "I'm against X, I'm for Y" I still give them credit for having a thought out chain of reasoning for why their default approach applies to the specific case at hand. If they insist it's "always" without any rational analysis of the various principles involved then I usually just grunt back and offer to do cross-grooming.

sorry for the lack of clarity the 1st time through, heck, even this time through,
hope that helps, luckyme