better undertaken when the topics are discussed in a way centered
around logic, impartiality and unconfined by any restraints other
than the above.
Paul asserting a fetus is equivelent to a brick and me conversly
ascerting that a fetus is every much a brick as Paul is all mighty
god is not productive for the persuit of truth.
If the bar is raised on both sides, fact becomes more dificult to
argue against than ilogical or non factual arguments. One who is
confident in his point of view would see the strengthening of both
sides as pertaining to factuality and logic as a bolstering of his
own position as he believes it to indeed be factual truth.
--- 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.
