Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (4804)	1/5/2017 3:15:55 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 357294

Feel free to tell me where the straw man argument is. You framed the alternative to the right to choose as "life [in general] is meaningless." That's overly broad, even with your further explanation. Even "the life of the unborn [qualified] is meaningless" is overly broad. I think that "the life of the unborn is one factor to consider in making a moral judgment regarding abortion" would be a fair counterpoint. Hence my statement that the left refuses to discuss life and its value to the unborn and prefers to discuss a right to choice over a right to life. Perhaps because the opposition refuses to discuss anything but the unborn's right to life as though nothing else matters. I'm sure you've heard the expression that pro-lifers' concern for life begins at conception and ends at birth. Epicure and the left prefer to make the abortion argument all about the right for a women to choose. I think it is inapt to frame that position as a lefty one. There are people across the spectrum in that camp. The Christian right is a critical voting block for the GOP so no politician can get nominated without taking a pro-life position and they know it. But the GOP also preaches for smaller government and liberty, which lead towards choice. There is an internal inconsistency there that the party just ignores or glosses over because it needs the votes from both camps. The Democrats may have taken up the cause for choice but they don't have a monopoly on the position. They are the ones waving the flag whereas the GOP supporters remain on the down-low. As for the argument being all about the right to choose, in a way it is. There are really two discussions wrt abortion. One is the morality of it. The other is who decides. I think that pro-lifers inextricably mix the two because conservative Christians expect the government to enforce their religious strictures through force of law. To them it probably seems odd to be anti-abortion while pro-choice. The art of living in a diverse country with constitutionally guaranteed freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, however, is to recognize that one's morality is not the same as one's country' legality--to recognize that at any given time someone will be doing something we disapprove but in a free country, that's OK because they have rights, too. IOW, we mind our own business. So, we citizens can legitimately have different views on the morality of abortion and we can discuss them and try to persuade others. Enforcing one religion's view on everyone else by law, however, is a denial of their personal freedom (which is in itself immoral). The moral decision includes the factor of the right to life of the unborn. The legal decision is who decides in any given case, the individual or the state, which is why the issue is ultimately about choice. If there is no right to choose, the individual's conscience and religion become moot. No competition for me. It seems unusual for a moderator to have some participants on ignore, but ignore seems healthier and fairer than banning, which would be easier for the moderator and more typical. Bentway is a fool unable to compete in the forum of competitive thought... as is epicure. That is not my perception. I have read apt arguments from each.