Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
That's what I said in Post 130. Aren't you following along? But anyway, if abortion is a disagreement on when life begins, why do they claim they are "pro-life" when they actually aren't?
|
For something like the twelfth time, because it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
Who said they did? But tell you what, when a group gets together that wants to
1) redefine death so that a person incapable of breathing and eating on their own is declared legally dead;
2) make it illegal to use life support systems despite a loved one's objection;
3) is against the death penalty; and
4) call their group Pro-Death to gain support
get back to me.
|
Again, for something like the thirteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate. You know this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
I'm not sure whether I agree with "most." The jury is still out on that one.
|
This is where many extremes and many of our current problems come from - people who disagree are no longer seen as people with a different idea but almost cartoonish caricatures of an actual human being. I miss when people didn't live life convinced the other 50% are cartoon villains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
It's not that I "pretended not to be able to understand common words and phrases," it's more that I don't agree with using the term pro-life in that manner. So far, nobody has even attempted to answer the question, how can they be "pro-life" when they're not? Just like I don't agree with Russia using the term "special military operation" for their invasion of Ukraine. Should we all just acquiesce and call it a "special military operation" because it's their invasion and that's what they want to call it?
|
Again, for something like the fourteenth time, it is not an absolutist philosophy of the universe, it is one of the two main sides in a much narrower debate of a specific issue. It is a silly hyper partisan argument (you don't seem to keep complaining about the equally incorrect term 'pro-choice' if your pre-suppositions that these are absolutist philosophies of the universe and not what they are defined as in the dictionary and by 99%+ of America).
In other shocking news, you don't really drive in a driveway, you park in it. You know what these two terms actually mean, you know they are not absolutist philosophies of other separate issues. You are just complaining about the one that the other side uses. That's not a reasonable and consistent thought, it's just a hyperpartisan talking point that doesn't say much of anything.
"Special military operation" is not a common-use term whose meaning is known to all and commonly used above any other expression for what it is in reference too, steeped in decades of the common vernacular. I have not heard a single American use this to refer to the war, besides mocking it. This is a bad false equivalence.
Abortion is an issue for which there are rational arguments supporting both sides. I cannot fathom why this is the abortion-related argument that seems the best one to make to you. Virtue-signaling to absolutists has never convinced a person you are right; rational arguments sometimes do.