[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;33914076]Isn't the only way to override a Supreme Court decision passing an Amendment? Or a reversal decision by the Court? I don't think he can pull of either one.[/QUOTE]
Either by Amendment or a new case brought to the SCOTUS regarding Abortion.
Ex:
Plessy v. Ferguson was reversed via Brown v. BOE
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;33914076]Isn't the only way to override a Supreme Court decision passing an Amendment? Or a reversal decision by the Court? I don't think he can pull of either one.[/QUOTE]
There's also acting like the Supreme Court doesn't exist.
I support this.
Dr. Paul?
Oh really?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33913667]Um so murder shouldn't be against the law either? That's what the argument against abortion is.[/QUOTE]
Bringing up murder doesn't fly, because it allows use of the violinist.
[QUOTE]Judith Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm (see Thomson, 1971). Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The foetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a foetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
However, the argument, even though it has the same structure as the anti-abortion argument, does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. Thomson's thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The foetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the foetus has a right to life (which Thomson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33913667]Anyone who uses a "this is a woman's rights issue" argument completely misunderstands the issue and is using a sensationalist emotional argument to get support. It's an argument about where human life begins and when that life deserves legal protection.[/QUOTE]
No, anyone who argues it isn't a women's rights issue completely misunderstands the issue. You did a good job of demonstrating that by comparing it to any other act, which doesn't work, as it's barely defensible in its own context and outright indefensible outside of it.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33914287]Bringing up murder doesn't fly, because it allows use of the violinist.
No, anyone who argues it isn't a women's rights issue completely misunderstands the issue. You did a good job of demonstrating that by comparing it to any other act, which doesn't work, as it's barely defensible in its own context and outright indefensible outside of it.[/QUOTE]
That violinist argument seems flawed in that, except in rare cases, it is preventable to have an unwanted pregnancy, while they seem to say that it comes out of nothing and you did nothing for it to happen.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33914287]Bringing up murder doesn't fly, because it allows use of the violinist.
No, anyone who argues it isn't a women's rights issue completely misunderstands the issue. You did a good job of demonstrating that by comparing it to any other act, which doesn't work, as it's barely defensible in its own context and outright indefensible outside of it.[/QUOTE]
Thought experiments shouldn't be used as evidence.
[QUOTE=Glent;33914335]That violinist argument seems flawed in that, except in rare cases, it is preventable to have an unwanted pregnancy, while they seem to say that it comes out of nothing and you did nothing for it to happen.[/QUOTE]
So how are you going to distinguish between "preventable" pregnancies and "unpreventable" pregnancies in a practical way?
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33914358]Thought experiments shouldn't be used as evidence.[/QUOTE]
The fuck are you talking about?
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33914358]Thought experiments shouldn't be used as evidence.[/QUOTE]
good thing they aren't being used as evidence, but rather a way to show you that your way of thinking is shallow and stupid
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33914384]So how are you going to distinguish between "preventable" pregnancies and "unpreventable" pregnancies in a practical way?
The fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
I suppose it depends on the scenario, since each individual can differ. That wasn't my point though, I was just saying that I didn't agree with the example you quoted.
Just vote for someone else, holy shit.
You guys pretend like the Democrat and Republican candidates are the only ones, because of this stupid idea that voting for say, the Green party is 'throwing your vote away'. It's not throwing your vote away unless you vote for someone you don't actually like, dumbass.
If you think that the candidate you like won't win, why not try to increase awareness about him? The whole point of a campaign is to get people well known so they are voted for.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33914424]good thing they aren't being used as evidence, but rather a way to show you that your way of thinking is shallow and stupid[/QUOTE]
What?
All I said is that you shouldn't use a thought experiment as a valid argument.
No need to up the asshole factor.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33914725]What?
All I said is that you shouldn't use a thought experiment as a valid argument.
No need to up the asshole factor.[/QUOTE]
"dont use this argument as an argument. because i said so. and dont call me stupid either, jerk"
Oh boy I love internet sarcasm :v:
To be truthful this is fucking retarded.
George W. Bush proclaimed his pro-life stance and talked about limiting rights for abortion, but for his 8 years as president, he did nothing to stop it. Obama is pro-life, personally, but he doesn't do anything about it as president.
I'd rather vote for Ron Paul for more critical issues than not vote for him because women might not be able to abort their babies.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;33913760]I don't get it, hasn't Ron Paul been against shoving his personal beliefs into Politics and aligning himself with Conservatism for a long time? Why is he starting now?[/QUOTE]
Because I don't think he would've gotten votes if he proclaimed himself as an independent. In Amurica, you have to ally/associate yourself to one of the two major parties if you want to get votes.
Anyone noticing that the closer we get to the 2012 elections, the candidates against Obama seem less and less appealing?
[QUOTE=thisispain;33909656]oh boy here comes reagan 2.0.[/QUOTE]
Just wondering, since I live in San Diego (close to it) aka super conservativeland in CA, and my textbooks have often painfully tried to be neutral, what did he do bad?
I literally do not know, like I want someone to tell me, as if I was from another planet.
[QUOTE=Sanius;33913262]if life begins at conception, why do we celebrate birth days instead of conception days?
I think I just won this argument[/QUOTE]
Because the tradition of birthdays began a long time ago, before they knew how to determine when conception was. Also birth is kind of symbolic of your entry into the world.
Anyways, that's an awful argument and life does begin at conception whether you're pro-life or not. It's a scientific fact that fetuses are alive.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33914287]Bringing up murder doesn't fly, because it allows use of the violinist.
No, anyone who argues it isn't a women's rights issue completely misunderstands the issue. You did a good job of demonstrating that by comparing it to any other act, which doesn't work, as it's barely defensible in its own context and outright indefensible outside of it.[/QUOTE]
The whole violinist thing is a fucking stupid analogy, it only applies to rape (they break in and connect you)
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33914424]good thing they aren't being used as evidence, but rather a way to show you that your way of thinking is shallow and stupid[/QUOTE]
So ironic it hurts
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33915362]Just wondering, since I live in San Diego (close to it) aka super conservativeland in CA, and my textbooks have often painfully tried to be neutral, what did he do bad?
I literally do not know, like I want someone to tell me, as if I was from another planet.[/QUOTE]
It really depends on who you hear it from, Republicans think he was the greatest president ever, Democrats usually think he was one of the worst. The reality is probably somewhere in between.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33915396]The whole violinist thing is a fucking stupid analogy, it only applies to rape (they break in and connect you)[/QUOTE]
I agree that it's stupid and not a valid argument in favor of abortion as it's not directly analogous, but that's not really the point- it's useful in the way all thought experiments are, in that it exposes a shallow understanding of the situation. In this case, the party responsible for the situation isn't directly relevant, because it's supposed to make you think about the situation itself. The condition of being hooked up to and sustaining something you didn't intend to be and having no desire to stay that way.
If you need it reworded so that it involves a hypothetical spontaneous pregnancy, you're not really thinking about things, just looking for a nit to pick so you can stick with your preconceived notions.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33914287]Bringing up murder doesn't fly, because it allows use of the violinist.
[/QUOTE]
Except in the violinist case you had no choice. Pregnancy is a choice you make through action with the exception of rape. If you agreed to have the violinist attached to you, is it right to go back on that agreement later and kill the violinist?
[quote]No, anyone who argues it isn't a women's rights issue completely misunderstands the issue. You did a good job of demonstrating that by comparing it to any other act, which doesn't work, as it's barely defensible in its own context and outright indefensible outside of it. [/quote]
No, anyone who argues it is a women's rights issue completely misunderstands the issue. You did a good job of using an analogy that doesn't really work, as your point of view is barely defensible in its own context and outright indefensible outside of it.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33915396]So ironic it hurts
[/QUOTE]
you calling my way of thinking shallow is SOOO IRONIC because:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33915665]No, anyone who argues it is a women's rights issue completely misunderstands the issue. You did a good job of using an analogy that doesn't really work, as your point of view is barely defensible in its own context and outright indefensible outside of it.[/QUOTE]
oh wow man you said what he said but changed a negative to completely change the meaning of the sentence you are such a wordsmith
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33915696]
oh wow man you said what he said but changed a negative to completely change the meaning of the sentence you are such a wordsmith[/QUOTE]
ikr argument invalidated
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33915712]ikr argument invalidated[/QUOTE]
awkwardly feigning wit and cleverness by changing a single word in someones post to reverse what they said isn't an argument
maybe if you explain the reasoning behind your horribly generic retort yeah, but you didnt, so it isnt
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33915665]f you agreed to have the violinist attached to you, is it right to go back on that agreement later and kill the violinist?[/QUOTE]
Read the post one above the one you made here.
I'm sorry I'm giving you guys the benefit of the doubt about the whole "cognition" thing.
Well then what was some bad stuff Reagan did?
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33915765]Well then what was some bad stuff Reagan did?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics[/url]
i think this is the main concern from what i've seen, but to be honest i'm not an expert on reagan and im just parroting what i've heard others mention in regards to what is bad about him
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33915662]
If you need it reworded so that it involves a hypothetical spontaneous pregnancy, you're not really thinking about things, just looking for a nit to pick so you can stick with your preconceived notions.[/QUOTE]
Alright, so why did you post it if it was invalid? It isn't even worth using if it isn't relevant to the argument.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33915752]awkwardly feigning wit and cleverness by changing a single word in someones post to reverse what they said isn't an argument
maybe if you explain the reasoning behind your horribly generic retort yeah, but you didnt, so it isnt[/QUOTE]
I did. It isn't about women's rights, it's about human rights and when a person is considered a human being with rights and legal protection.
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
Any attempt to turn it into a women's rights argument is just some desperate attempt to demonize any opponent to your argument by implying they are misogynistic.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33915813]Alright, so why did you post it if it was invalid? It isn't even worth using if it isn't relevant to the argument.
I did. It isn't about women's rights, it's about human rights and when a person is considered a human being with rights and legal protection.
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
Any attempt to turn it into a women's rights argument is just some desperate attempt to demonize any opponent to your argument by implying they are misogynistic.[/QUOTE]No, it is entirely a women's rights issue. It is entirely about the mother and her right to self determination which is something that no fetus, regardless of its age, is capable of.
Libertarian. Pro-life. Not contradictory in any way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
