(December 2, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:(December 1, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wow guys. I was NOT talking about sex/rape at alllll.
I know you weren't, I was restating your argument in that way to show why one should not depend on the naturalistic fallacy as justification for one's position. I was not intending to insinuate that you somehow supported or condoned rape, I know you don't. I was intending to show how that kind of argument (using the naturalistic fallacy), with only a few changes of words, can be used to justify both what people consider a moral position or behavior (a pro-life stance) and what people consider an immoral position or behavior (something like rape) in the same way I used it before (see the post with the Mr. Bean pic).
I've already PM'd Cathy but I wanted to let anyone who might be expecting a response from me know that I need to stop posting in this thread (personal reasons). I'm sorry if you were hoping I'd respond, under other circumstances I would have stayed, but I really need to not participate in this thread anymore.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I don't agree that you can compare a fetus with a rapist, and conception with rape, though. Like I said in that post, it's not like a big bad baby forces his way into your body without permission lol. It's not his fault if he get's conceived there and it's not like he has a chance to ask for permission (that's just how conception works, that's the natural order of human reproduction). The same cannot be said about a rapist.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh