Search results

No it concerns the second part of the question which you failed to answer. What is it that makes it irresponsible?

You're right Brian, Adam is struggling to hold the line of the conversation.

Can't argue with that. Good luck with it :p

Perhaps, it depends on what it is that makes it irresponsible. As has happened before, I'm met with a certain reticence to answer the question.

I was referring to the part in A Christmas Carol where Scrooge says people should go ahead and die and decrease the surplus population. Basically to have zero empathy to the individual in favor of cold arithmetic. Edit: Here's Captain Picard sharing the same point of view :D...

I wish to explore what makes it irresponsible and to ensure whatever it is, it is take into account on arguments for and against abortion.

To think, all the constructive things you could achieve with that energy.

Again your approach to be devoid of empathy to the individual is insufficient when considering what makes up the rationale of a human. Do we really think that the "Scrooge" view on "the surplus population" is an adequate framework to build our ethics on?

I'll just address this point. The reason for law is to uphold a standard of our notion of ethics. It cannot be left to the individual because then selfish reasons would tend to override this standard and ethics would quickly be dispensed with. In this case, the way our rationale works, the...

That was the point of my question too. If the reason given for having an abortion is not wanting a baby then the definition of an embryo as a parasite becomes inadequate. The mother herself is expanding the definition to include the potentiality of that embryo. To restrict the definition of...

So 'mothers' don't decide to have an abortion because of what the embryo might become but rather what it is currently doing?

Don't know what you're talking about :p Link

Now we're getting somewhere. I feel much the same way about sharing Walmart with people with itchy fingers exacerbated by an overdose of Fox news. It seems you're quite open to gun restrictions.

Unbelievable attitude. How do you lose out with your grandson having to undergo compulsory gun training apart from your own ego? Any shortcomings in the education he receives you can make up for. Big deal. However the numbers of people who would have received none get some form of education...

It's about applying your actual, real-time experience to your life and not relying on figures or media to supply that experience for you. I've never experienced gun crime in my town but I do know it happens occasionally through the local paper. However I know when driving to town, by personal...

I'm not sure how you think placing getting shot in the same category as getting screamed at is any help at all for you. If gunfire was really as likely as an argument then which civilized member of society wouldn't call for greater legislation? This is the odd thing about this point of view...

Here is why I think it is a false analogy. The use of a car is filled with legislation and supervision. Driving tests, seatbelts, speed limits, speed cameras, traffic cops, road markings, car insurance, laws of the road, car maintenance, no cell phones. The laws and supervision governing car...

I think you have neatly encapsulated the difference in our point of views. For you, the killing of innocents is a payable price for gun ownership.

Ok, so you agree that your statement explained a lottery that ringing on a doorbell might possibly get you shot? If you can agree to that then we can move on. It has to do with your comment being placed under the title of this thread. But I'll clarify. spikepl says Halloween is a...

I think stating that you can be shot any place anytime says a lot about gun ownership. Don't you think?