SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Elroy who wrote (229865)4/19/2005 2:04:09 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 1573954
 
I don't equate the legal system with individual morality

I don't either, and I did not assert that you did, or ask if you did. That wasn't the issue.

That question equated a fetus to an already born person - my point was that analogy is not accurate, at least legally, since the fetus doesn't have the legal rights that the poor homeless dude does.

If you are arguing about the fundamental justice of a situation, and you believe in such a think as justice and human rights as being separate from whatever the law decrees, than the question the statement "that analogy is no accurate, at least legally", doesn't mean a lot. I assume everyone here knows what the current law is at least in very general terms. We aren't discussing the issue in terms of current law, in fact it makes no sense to discuss the issue in terms of current law. There is little controversy about what the current law says. The discussion is about what is just in this situation not what is considered legal.

I understand you are pro-choice but I didn't think you were a legal positivist to the extreme extent of believing no law can be wrong.

The above is an example of a "straw man" argument.

Not its not a straw man argument on two counts.

1 - I was not using it as the basis of a phony argument supposedly from my opponents that I then went on to demolish. A straw man argument here would be if I made an argument for legal abortion, but it was a weak one which you where not actually making, so I could present its demolition.

2 - It was in the context of stating how the current law is only decisive in this discussion if you are such an extreme legal positivist. You seemed to be declaring that current law (or really legal interpretation) was decisive (not directly but you post implied it, "it doesn't matter what your opinion is the law says...").

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News