29 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think that was a very good experiment; God could have really showed up them commies if all "his" bouquets sprouted the next day into beautiful flowers. The Berlin Wall and the "evil Empire" would have collapsed 40 years earlier.
Your position reminds me of the "proof" of God's non-existence given to children in Communist Russian schools during the fifties.
The teacher would cut flowers in the school's garden. Then he divided them into two bouquets. One bouquet was going to be cared for by the pupils and the teacher. They were put in a vase filled with water to be replaced by ...[text shortened]... pable of living outside the womb, to establish whether an unborn child can be killed yes or no ?
Did you know that Stalin made abortion a criminal offense in the USSR? Do you think he believed in the "Sanctity of Life"?
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is also something like "abortion and politics".
I think that was a very good experiment; God could have really showed up them commies if all "his" bouquets sprouted the next day into beautiful flowers. The Berlin Wall and the "evil Empire" would have collapsed 40 years earlier.
Did you know that Stalin made abortion a criminal offense in the USSR? Do you think he believed in the "Sanctity of Life"?
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis topic has been done over and over again on these forums. It will never get resolved. Some people believe that there is "life" at conception, while others think it is only "life" when the child is actually born. You also have those in the middle who believe that you can set a date on "life" (such as 20 to 22 weeks). Whatever the case may be, everyone has their own opinion and everyone thinks that their opinion is the correct one. Most people think the way they do, not for their own benefit, but because they truly feel morally obliged to one side or the other. And there are many on each side that think the other side is fanatical. After reading articles from both sides, talking to doctors + teachers + professors, reading the debates that go on in here, and contemplating, I have come to the realization that I am (maybe not the best terminology) a "weak" pro-lifer. In other words, I would lean more to the side of the pro-lifers, but understand that there are certain cases and situations where an abortion would seem to be the best course of action, at least from the perspective of the person having the abortion and other persons involved in the process, for the general well being of said persons and taking into account what kind of life the child would've had otherwise. That's about as much as I can say on this that shows my position without trying to offend anyone and keeping it "civilized". Basically, that's about as politically correct as I can get when it comes to this topic. I will not go into full detail, because I know it will stir-up the left (and maybe even the right). Most likely people will attack me, call me a moron, and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been through all that before, so let's just skip all the other bulls*it and agree to disagree.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0034.html
Abortion and Logic DONALD DEMARCO
"John Irving is a well-known novelist and short story writer. In his latest book, My Movie Business: A Memoir (Knopf, 1999), he presents his view on abortion and his attitude toward Right-to-Life advocates. This passage is quite remarkable in that it con ...[text shortened]... ice side argue that the "Sanctity of Life" position is irrational, illogical ?
Why is that ?
PS, ivanhoe: No offense, but I think your attempts are futile. (This is not to say that I agree or disagree with your beliefs.) I only say this because I know that many on this forum who have posted in this thread, have posted before on the other threads that have to do with abortion, and have not changed their positions. I think this is one debate where most people are set in stone, one way or the other. You're just going to stir up old, angry feelings and emotions from both sides, and honestly, I think most people who are already decided don't care what the other side has to say anyway. It looks like right now the pro-choice side is winning. If you want to keep on "fighting" what you believe to be "the good fight" on these forums, then go right ahead. Just dont be surprised that there are so many who think differently, and realize that there are some people who will try to make you feel miserable and guilty simply because of what you believe in differs from what they believe in.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeLogic is a grammar, logic has no content, and any position can be logically or illogically defended in some way. Being illogical can kill an argument, but logic is not sufficient to form an argument; we must also choose our axioms well. In almost all fields (I think maths is the only exception), choosing where to start and defending our assumptions by appealing to evidence is a much more striking feature of arguments than logic is. One simply doesn't see complicated chains of logical inference in most arguments; even the most complicated arguments are complivated because of their content, not their structure. In fact, even in mathematics, this is often the case.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0034.html
Abortion and Logic DONALD DEMARCO
"John Irving is a well-known novelist and short story writer. In his latest book, My Movie Business: A Memoir (Knopf, 1999), he presents his view on abortion and his attitude toward Right-to-Life advocates. This passage is quite remarkable in that it con ...[text shortened]... ice side argue that the "Sanctity of Life" position is irrational, illogical ?
Why is that ?
Therefore the quoted post is a little bit silly -- the logic involved in such debates is so basic and the content so complicated that accusing one side of being less 'logical' than the other is even more an instance of obscurantist misdirection than using the phrase 'an instance of obscurantist misdirection' is.
I'm sad to be repeating myself, as Cribs prophesied, regarding the issues addressed in Ivory Tower Arcana #1.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by lioyankGoing further in that direction takes you further from any hope of political power, so how can you call such political suicide "politically correct."
Basically, that's about as politically correct as I can get when it comes to this topic.
I submit that if the PC term has any real meaning, it is the opposite of what you imagine it to mean. Rather, it is a form of doublespeak, much akin to calling a weapon of destruction a peacemaker. People are happy to go along with you, as they followed the Pied Piper, but the terminology wrests our language, and thus our future, ever further from rational understanding.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by royalchickenWord.
Logic is a grammar, logic has no content, and any position can be logically or illogically defended in some way. Being illogical can kill an argument, but logic is not sufficient to form an argument; we must also choose our axioms well. In almost all fields (I think maths is the only exception), choosing where to start and defending our assumptions by ...[text shortened]... repeating myself, as Cribs prophesied, regarding the issues addressed in Ivory Tower Arcana #1.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm
I think that was a very good experiment; God could have really showed up them commies if all "his" bouquets sprouted the next day into beautiful flowers. The Berlin Wall and the "evil Empire" would have collapsed 40 years earlier.
Did you know that Stalin made abortion a criminal offense in the USSR? Do you think he believed in the "Sanctity of Life"?
Romania's Ceausescu was anti-abortion too. The link gives a quick view of the former situation in Romania which was governed by a dictator determined to increase his country's population.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by royalchickenNice, I've got my logic lesson tonight and we're learning it exactly as you mention, as a grammatical language which has no intrinsic content. Not dissimilar to MIDI.
Logic is a grammar, logic has no content, and any position can be logically or illogically defended in some way. Being illogical can kill an argument, but logic is not sufficient to form an argument; we must also choose our axioms well. In almost all fields (I think maths is the only exception), choosing where to start and defending our assumptions by ...[text shortened]... repeating myself, as Cribs prophesied, regarding the issues addressed in Ivory Tower Arcana #1.
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeMany pro-choicers claim to be the rational side in the abortion debate.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0034.html
Abortion and Logic DONALD DEMARCO
"John Irving is a well-known novelist and short story writer. In his latest book, My Movie Business: A Memoir (Knopf, 1999), he presents his view on abortion and his attitude toward Right-to-Life advocates. This passage is quite remarkable in that it con ...[text shortened]... ice side argue that the "Sanctity of Life" position is irrational, illogical ?
Why is that ?
Is this really true ?
I am pro-choice. I think that both sides can be rational.
Doesn't the pro-choice side argue that the "Sanctity of Life" position is irrational, illogical ?
Why is that ?
You seem to be boxing huge groups of people into categories and then attributing certain claims and beliefs to those categories which implies all those people think these things. This is not a realistic picture of the people in question.
I'm sure some pro-choicers argue this sometimes. One possible reason is that sometimes pro-lifers are irrational and illogical.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you want to read a John Irving novel on abortion, read "The cider house rules."
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0034.html
Abortion and Logic DONALD DEMARCO
"John Irving is a well-known novelist and short story writer. In his latest book, My Movie Business: A Memoir (Knopf, 1999), he presents his view on abortion and his attitude toward Right-to-Life advocates. This passage is quite remarkable in that it con ...[text shortened]... ice side argue that the "Sanctity of Life" position is irrational, illogical ?
Why is that ?
Then you will understand that logic has nothing to do with abortion, but feeling and sympathy.
You see. Whether you agree with abortion or not is not really the issue Ivanhoe. The issue is that no matter what laws and morals you have in place, there will always be young women who for matters which are none of our business are going to want to get rid of a child.
Do you really want girls going to back-water cabins, being fed 1/2 bottles of whiskey and being worked on by amateurs with knitting needles?
Is that what you want? Do you really think you're going to create a society where girls won't feel the need to have pregnancies terminated?
That's why Irving, me and probably most people with a hint of humanity want abortions legal. Not because it's nice or logical, but because having them illegal leads to many deaths and loads of suffering.
01 Nov 05
6 edits
Shavix: Do you really want girls going to back-water cabins, being fed 1/2 bottles of whiskey and being worked on by amateurs with knitting needles? Is that what you want?
No, that's not what I want.
"That's why Irving, me and probably most people with a hint of humanity want abortions legal. Not because it's nice or logical, but because having them illegal leads to many deaths and loads of suffering."
This "knitting-needle", "back alley" or "coat-hanger" argument you are presenting does not have any impact on the question whether or not performing abortion is morally permissible. It is a fallacy in reasoning, the so called "Appeal to Pity".
Besides this, the argument is "Begging the Question", yet another fallacy:
Only by assuming that the unborn is not a human person does the argument work. But if the unborn is a person, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so.
Shavix: "Then you will understand that logic has nothing to do with abortion, but feeling and sympathy."
Establishing the moral (im)permissibility of abortion is and hopefully remains a procedure in which logic and sound reasoning takes a fundamental place.
Feeling and sympathy also have to do with it, not just towards the mothers and fathers in question but also towards the innocent victims of these practises.
Shavix: "The issue is that no matter what laws and morals you have in place, there will always be young women who for matters which are none of our business are going to want to get rid of a child.
You claim abortion has to do with feeling and sympathy, but I don't see any compassion, feeling or sympathy in the above quote towards the unborn child. I can detect, however, indifference and cold-heartedness towards it.
The problems women (and men) are facing in a situation where they contemplate performing abortion on their unborn child is a very serious, very sad and often very desperate one. My stance is that a solution must be found for ALL parties involved without killing one party in order to "solve" the other parties's problems. I find the "solution" of killing to be wrong for ALL parties involved.
Feeling and sympathy ? Yes ! .... for ALL parties involved, please.