snood wrote:And it also may be, my presumptuous friend, that I understand what Phoenix said, and we simply disagree. She seems to be okay with that. Maybe that's a point you don't "get".
Not quite. I'll clear it up a bit:
snood wrote: Oh-----kay.....
Well, IMHO, even a devout pro-lifer, if they had everyday scruples, would be understandably stumped if surrounded by a burning building and faced with a choice of saving a crying baby or 5 less developed life forms (even if they intellectually believed them to be equal). In my world, most human beings wouldn't react so coldly analytical.
That's the whole point. Remember, to pro lifers, a fertilized egg deserves the same protection as a born human being. Read Phoenix's post again, she (he?) explains the dilemma perfectly.
snood wrote:It's the same as asking a strong opponent of the death penalty something like - "Well, what if a crazed, foaming at the mouth just-escaped murderer held your wife hostage for three days while raping her and then slowly killed her with a knife, stabbing her 47 times...wouldn't you want to kill that man?" As if his saying "yes" destroys utterly all his beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of the death penalty. Bullshit. (A tactic which I've seen pulled during more than one political debate)
Wrong. It's a VERY different situation. A person would naturally want to kill the person who did that to his wife. Using the death penalty example here is comparing apples and oranges. One of the main thrusts against the death penalty is the flawed criminal justice system and risks of putting an innocent man to death. This hypothetical doesn't relate to your argument at all.
snood wrote:But yes, you can formulate a question that would could disarm anyone trying to stand on any principle, I suppose. And though I find it distasteful defending a rightie talk show host I've never heard of, and from what I hear on the clip would not like, I still think it's simply intellectually (and even more basic, emotionally - for those of us who profess to have feelings) dishonest, and the most juvenile form of "gotcha".
I'm with you on that one, which is why I rank this up there with the whole "terrorist and a time bomb" scenario. Even then, THAT question is still more stupid than this one, as it presumes a captured "terrorist" would know the location of said bomb.
Here, a true (or simply avid) pro-lifer would have to side on the "save the 5 fertilized eggs" option, even though it seems brutal if they want to maintain their principal. It's up to them at that point to get people to understand the concept that "life begins at conception."
Words can be used to paint just about anyone in a bad light. Here, it's being used to demonstrate how absurd it is to consider newly fertilized eggs on the same level as born people, and that's the whole point.
What makes it even that much better is how the talk show host completely makes himself look like an ass in his response (which is the
real reason I posted it... I hate idiots like him).
