I wonder what you think of this.September 13 2008 at 1:08 PM
|noob (Login huskerdu2)|
Response to Well, that isn't the topic, but I'll respond...
The argument that you pose can be considered a "slippery slope fallacy". "If we allow xyz, the sky will fall and bad things will happen". It is an emotional appeal, and can be effective at stirring people to action. However, if it is a fallacy, isn't it unethical to use it as a tactic to press an agenda?
I would submit for your consideration, that the people that don't value life will get abortions whether they are legal or not. Laws can't and won't work to prevent things like this.
Of the people that do value life, the ones that would make the choice have scrutinized their options and decisions with a lot of seriousness. These are educated, moral, decent people - just like the regular people that get pregnant outside of marriage. Is your position that the government has the right to dictate to these people what is moral and what is not?
As much as I'd like to throw scum-bags that don't value life on an island together, I cannot make the leap that this an issue for the Federal Government to solve.
And I am against abortion, I find the idea repulsive and can't understand how a mother could do such a thing. But I also find bottle-feeding repulsive, I find the act of abandoning a child a day-care facility for someone else to raise for the first 5 years of a child's life to be repulsive. I find spanking and any physical violance against children repulsive. There are some areas that are personal choices, and the government does not belong in the decisions.
Imho, this forcing of personal issues into the Government is the "big violation" of the neo-con movement that is in violation of conservatism that I'm trying to understand better.
|This message has been edited by huskerdu2 on Sep 13, 2008 1:11 PM|