If we're to isolate the idea of legality: amendments can be made for exceptions, they are constantly with other laws so the same would apply here. Generally you legislate around the majority and create amendments and clauses for the more isolated scenarios (e.g., rape, life-saving).
I'm not going to actually address the idea about them "happening even if they're illegal," regardless you can probably guess at what the objection would be. I learnt from DDO arguing in comments isn't nearly as productive as structured debates so I'll leave it at that.
From what I've seen, you proved my point you didn't disprove it. I can elaborate upon this if you'd like but there's no point in bickering about it in the comments.
I think the why question is for the most part is irrelevant. Value isn't just something you ascribe, and whether you choose to believe something has value or not is irrelevant to whether it actually does.
That's exactly what I was confused about in his vote as well.
Maybe it was a typographical error? Regardless, reporting his vote would be reasonable because his justification wasn't entirely accurate or properly articulated.
It wasn't meant as an accusation of biased motivation, I just saw on you profile you're a Christian and wanted to be sure you were evaluating the discussion in a fair manner.
You are welcome to debate the actual veracity of the paper itself in the comments. It seems to me a solid analysis regardless of the individual behind it. The video was mainly meant to be a more accessible summation, but perhaps it would've been more prudent of me to stipulate such a thing.
If you press the quote button it might look more visually appealing. I know the feature surprised me coming from DDO so I just figured I'd mention it before I actually write up my argument.
I like your argument for the most part, it just seems you're confusing shame with social stigma. Individual shame can be the result of acting discordantly with a stigma; likewise, an act is shameful if society has defined it negatively.
Stigma isn't inherently good or bad but a distinction between shame and stigma has to be made.
It goes both ways, anti-abortion advocates aren't anti-choice. I don't know of any 'pro-life' individual advocating for the banning of condoms or preventative measures. In fact, most advocate for them.
I'm not sure it's a matter of cognitive dissonance, women are constantly deceived with simple rhetorical figures such as "her body; her choice." It's only natural they'd see anti-abortion advocates with inarticulable disdain.
If we're to isolate the idea of legality: amendments can be made for exceptions, they are constantly with other laws so the same would apply here. Generally you legislate around the majority and create amendments and clauses for the more isolated scenarios (e.g., rape, life-saving).
I'm not going to actually address the idea about them "happening even if they're illegal," regardless you can probably guess at what the objection would be. I learnt from DDO arguing in comments isn't nearly as productive as structured debates so I'll leave it at that.
Forgot to tag you
From what I've seen, you proved my point you didn't disprove it. I can elaborate upon this if you'd like but there's no point in bickering about it in the comments.
Sure, but seeing as I've already said and justified it having value it's irrelevant to ask 'why' you should appreciate such value.
You're applying a relativistic viewpoint to an objective value -- that's the true red herring, not the justification I'm using.
I think the why question is for the most part is irrelevant. Value isn't just something you ascribe, and whether you choose to believe something has value or not is irrelevant to whether it actually does.
We already covered this topic in the debate itself. At this point it would be better to allow a 3rd (or 4th) party to evaluate the vote itself.
That's exactly what I was confused about in his vote as well.
Maybe it was a typographical error? Regardless, reporting his vote would be reasonable because his justification wasn't entirely accurate or properly articulated.
It wasn't meant as an accusation of biased motivation, I just saw on you profile you're a Christian and wanted to be sure you were evaluating the discussion in a fair manner.
Could you elaborate or reword the justification for me having better arguments?
I just wouldn't like to receive an improper vote, and seeing as you're biased on the subject it's a fair thing to ask.
You are welcome to debate the actual veracity of the paper itself in the comments. It seems to me a solid analysis regardless of the individual behind it. The video was mainly meant to be a more accessible summation, but perhaps it would've been more prudent of me to stipulate such a thing.
If you press the quote button it might look more visually appealing. I know the feature surprised me coming from DDO so I just figured I'd mention it before I actually write up my argument.
I like your argument for the most part, it just seems you're confusing shame with social stigma. Individual shame can be the result of acting discordantly with a stigma; likewise, an act is shameful if society has defined it negatively.
Stigma isn't inherently good or bad but a distinction between shame and stigma has to be made.
It goes both ways, anti-abortion advocates aren't anti-choice. I don't know of any 'pro-life' individual advocating for the banning of condoms or preventative measures. In fact, most advocate for them.
I'm not sure it's a matter of cognitive dissonance, women are constantly deceived with simple rhetorical figures such as "her body; her choice." It's only natural they'd see anti-abortion advocates with inarticulable disdain.
Cool, thanks for the clarification.
I'm new to this site, but do you mind if I accept?