For someone who is not arguing abortion, your recent post history
appears very misleading. But I think I understand your motive a
little better now; it sounds kind of reasonable. But why would a
"nominal pro-lifer" want to improve the arguments of
pro-choicers?
What is the "fetus fairy" argument?
And isn't the pro-choice argument already vastly more scientific
than the pro-life/anti-abortion one? I don't believe I've ever
heard anyone accuse the pro-choice side of being more
superstitious / religious / illogical / non-factual than the
pro-life side. Those qualities are usually always (in my
experience) attributed to the tactics/philosophies of the
pro-life side. Exactly what would be the religious part of the
pro-choice argument anyway? AFAIK, pro-choice arguments are far
more reasonable and far less religious than anti-abortion
arguments. Of course any good argument can always become better,
but to have as you claim - less logic and fact than the
anti-abortion camp - is to have virtually none IMO. An accusation
like that sounds to me very much like a pro-lifer, with far more
than a "nominal" commitment.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
------------------
Mark,
I have not in any way intimated that I am possessed of some kind
of
"neutrality." I am not*. But I'm also not interested in arguing
abortion _per se_. What I am interested in is improving the
quality of
argument about abortion from the "pro-choice" side.
My "agenda" is to TRY to get the "pro-choice" side to stop
arguing
from superstitious/religious "Fetus Fairy" premises and to
instead
make logical arguments from factual premises. I have reasons for
wanting to accomplish this, but those reasons are not related to
any
given outcome of further debate on abortion. They're related to
improving the quality of libertarian argument, including of the
"pro-choice" variety.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
* I am nominally on the "pro-life" side of the issue -- but I
just
don't consider it an "important" issue in the _political_ sense
insofar as there's no likely constituency waiting for libertarian
representation on it.
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
