PS: More specificly pertaining to Tom, there is nothing for Tom to
learn in rambling, a stronger voice for his oposition would improve
the chances of him learning something new. What is more noble that
the persuit of knowledge?
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> 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.
