- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
One can believe that abortion is morally wrong, but also believe that they have no right to force their moral opinion on other people through the law and thus support legalized abortions.
One could believe that abortion is morally wrong, but also believe that making abortion illegal does not prevent abortion but drives it onto the black-market and thus support legalization for the purpose of regulation and control over an inevitability.
Bloody hell. I am clearly too tired to be doing this debate thing. I am absolutely talking myself in circles on this one. The long and short: I think many/most people are ignorant and rather incapable of grasping the politics behind the pro-choice/pro-life semantic maneuver, but that nevertheless the maneuver is pretty evident. They think that one is either one or the other, when in actuality they are not even the right terms for discussing the issue of abortion to begin with (and even if they were, they would still be falsely dichotomous). Basically, I think we actually agree on this and I have just been going about my explanations a bit haphazardly. Sorry about that.
A moral relativist holds morality to be relative. An absolute relativist would hold all things relative, including but not limited to morality. So... a moral relativist could hold morality relative but claim that there objectively absolute facts, whereas an absolute relativist would hold both morality and the idea of absolute facts to be incorrect.
Does that clarify?
Well yes, so I could both kill it and retrieve it, but for my initial assumption, and a valid assumption at that, a corpse being a creature is not necessary, since like I've said I believe four times now, if I kill the creature, and remove it from the tree in the process, I have achieved the only task that was asked of me, which was to "get the cat out of the tree"
Remember when i explained how "get...out" or "get X out" simply means to remove, nothing more nothing less.
Meh, what's wrong with hypocrisy.
Here's a scenario:
I have a rally titled "anyone can speak" that rally is about letting anyone speak. A speaker comes up and says he does not feel anyone should speak. SO what if it's hypocritical that we don't let him speak, he's plugging a different message than us, which defeats the whole purpose of our function.
It'd be ironic, but human nature tends to be that way often.
That's a generalization. You don't know everyone so you don't know if that is everyone's desire. As far as we know that could be a prized tree, and the owners of said tree just wanted the cat infestation out of it.
However, I take you back to my valid question that asked if it had to be alive. Even if they did want the cat back, retrieved, more so than removed from the tree solely, that doesn't specify if they want it alive.
In old western movies, wanted posters ask for criminals to be brought to the jail, except they specify if they want the criminal dead or alive.
Yes, but the word retrieve isn't used here, I could say to you I don't see that as being the only meaning for get.
Let me give you an example. You call an exterminator, and frantically you say, get these bugs out of my house. When you say that does that mean you want him to capture them, safely, and give them to you? It absolutely does not, it means you want them removed. The phrase "get...out" does not mean retrieve, it means remove.
So I take you back to my initial question, does it has to be a live? This is both a valid question, and assuming they just want the cat out of the tree, and nothing more, it's a valid answer, since I would effectively be able to remove the cat from the tree if it were dead, but ultimately in asking I was ensuring that they wanted it removed, instead of retrieved.
I agree with a lot you mention here. I agree that they are not dichotomous - therefore, if they are presented as a dichotomy, it would be a false one. (that's the only reason I clicked Dispute rather than Support)
I probably should just have used the question in the description as both the title and the description since several people have unfortunately gotten caught up with the title, much to my chagrin.
I agree that the terms often get in the way - I find that people who consider themselves on one "side" or the other generally agree on almost everything.
To retrieve would be to get it for someone, to simply get it out of the tree is at the bottom line meaning remove it from the tree. So I take you back, if we aren't calling a dead cat a cat, it's no longer a cat in the tree, I got it out. If we are calling it a cat, then after killing said cat, I can go and get it out of the tree, if they wanted me to retrieve it, then I'd get it out for them.
It should also be noted I asked if it had to be alive, which is a valid question since the question asks how to get a cat out of a tree, not how to retrieve a cat.
Re: organ damage:
If a dog consistently bites people's fingers, or face, or genitals, etc. would you not get rid of it since it did not wound people in life-threatening ways?
Re: potential danger:
You start by saying no, but then proceed to support my assertion. The risks are given a statistical probability which can rise or fall until an actual incident does or does not occur.
A dog represents an entirely different type of threat than a fetus does, and is simply handled differently.
Probability of harm for dogs and fetuses may be calculated differently, but they are both still statistics.
Keep in mind that successful pregnancies have near certain chance of pain, fatigue, hormone imbalances, mental/physical changes, etc.
Also, note that many severe complications are not discovered until the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks.
With Obamacare, this may no longer be a concern in the US, but: if you can't afford to keep an animal you can give it away, would this be an acceptable reason even when the fetus reaches animal status in your view?
Stuff four doughnut holes in your mouth at once, and no one bats an eye. Stuff four doughnuts in your mouth at once, and everyone loses their minds, and start pulling out there camera phones, while the dunkin donuts staff warns you if you make a mess on purpose they'll make you clean it up or bar you from the establishment.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement