Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
including the Family Planning Association, Marie Stopes, and Brook. So I don't think there's much to worry about. The DoH probably jsut want to be able to say they've listened to all opinions.
Let them jump up and down and claim the coalition is going to revoke the right to choose, everyone will be much happier.
once it's established that their polices run contary to all the evidence, and that they have no expertise in providing sexual health services. They'll become like your racist uncle at Christmas dinner - tolerated in person and then rightly ignored.
The dropping of the BPAS from the group smacks of idiocy though. Surely they could have bought another chair.
I'm more worried about the news that the Catholic Children's Society will be providing sexual health advice to children in Richmond. I give it two years before the teenage pregnancy rate and abortion rate starts to climb again as a result.
is like a pacifist organisation giving weapons training.
hmmmmm oh no wait i mean... good work virgins
sounds pretty backward and depressing to me
so I find it depressing
It's not "backward" just because you don't think this is how things should be in a modern, western society.
precisely because it's not how things are in a modern, western society.
rather than progression. As PO points out, quite a lot of people probably think it would be progressive to ban abortion.
Which was why I queried the use of the word "backwards".
It no longer is.
Re-banning it would be going back to an earlier state, ie going backwards.
So it wouldn't be 'progressive', either in the political sense or in terms of what words mean.
Which was an even earlier state.
Banning it would not be 'progressive' because it would simply be re-instating a previous state of affairs, and the argument that either stance is progressive is not one that I made.
It's fairly clear that banning abortion or even just encouraging abstinence would not be (what a broad consenus understand from the word) 'progressive'. You can discuss your preference, but don't see that that particular issue is up for debate.
like what it would mean to reinstate an abortion ban in the modern world. something different from before, obviously.
or daft or ridiculous or idiotic.You can argue about abortion and the time limit on it etc but this is the sort of organisation who would be happy to return us to the days of Vera Drake. Not saying that means they should be shut out of any discussions, but doesn't mean I can't view their opinions with contempt.
I think you'll struggle to defend that position.
and therefore how do you decide the legitimacy or indeed governing policy when your bias is just as solid as those who believe the opposite?
to gain momentum.
So...it's subjective what's objectively wrong, I guess?
"More pointing out the obvious flaw in someone saying that anything can be objectively wrong in an ethical debate.
like how it is possible to embody truth without knowing it. yeah man. i am right though.
I might even quote this. :)
and sounds more clever than van gok wan from the internet.
not the supporting quote ;) which i assume is you!
people have different opinions on things, therefore everything is subjective? naaaah. a lot of people believe homosexuality is 'objectively wrong'. that doesn't mean the ethical issue of gay rights is 'subjective'.
"somethings are clearly objectively wrong, therefore anything I say that is objectively wrong can be objectively wrong, in my opinion, and then- oh."
This isn't an argument about any one issue, even. It's simply that calling anything ethical objectively wrong is *fucking silly*
i think using either 'subjective' or 'objective' is extremely misleading in this context (and most contexts) but robluvsnic is your guy for a more thorough account of that particular issue
don't really see how you can accept that ethics is 'subjective' and still see any point whatsoever in engaging in ethical or political debate. the subjectivist line entails that all moral stances are equally valid. do you really believe that? and if so what's the point in taking a stance on anything?
and in the case of, say, defining government policy, if you're able to convince enough people that you are correct, democracy votes with you. If you're not, they don't. But discounting a standpoint other than your own outright doesn't leave you any room to consider other viewpoints, and that's a dangerous way to be.
But your first point is *more* right - there's probably little point in debating subjectivity/objectivity in general, because of the obvious ironies involved within that.
IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO CHALLENGE OTHER PEOPLE'S STANDPOINTS
'discounting a standpoint other than your own outright doesn't leave you any room to consider other viewpoints, and that's a dangerous way to be'
i don't see how it can be possible to take a strong moral stance on something without, by necessity, 'discounting' the opposing stance. if you are at the stage of taking a stance, it's not that you don't have 'any room to consider other viewponts'; presumably you have already considered those other viewpoints, and decided that they are wrong. i'm not really a fan of this glorifying of ambivalence, this idea that anyone who defends a strongly held ethical or political position is just close-minded or undemocratic or refuses to consider all sides of the issue. it's a bit patronising, tbh. there are plenty of very convincing arguments for subjectivism/relativism being far, far more of a 'dangerous' position to take.
on your first point, i'm sure this is too obvious for words but majority rule doesn't guarantee the 'best' or most ethical outcome. presumably, though, democracy is a central tenet of your particular moral code (one that you've probably never even really had to think about). do you think it's unfair or close-minded that you have discounted outright the viewpoints of people who don't believe majoritarian democracy is the best way to run society? hmm, interesting...
and how we relate them to truth and rightness are actually massively worth debating, but that might be a wee bit too derailing for this particular thread...
the level of argument here could definitely be improved by a lengthy essay on the problems with 'subjectivity'/'objectivity' as applied to political debate
depending the grounds on which people oppose homosexuality and the dialogical sphere of validity and shit like that. but i disgaree. i don't think it' subjective and relative and stuff. people should be able to be impartially and rationally accountable for all of their beliefs (pre-expression of those beliefs) before they can be valid, in any context. so if what someone believes can't stand to reason (or the presuppositions they base the belief on can't), then it is objectively false and they are mistaken, imo. so it is possible that being homophobic is wrong everywhere and cannot ever be justified. i'm going to take a massive leap of faith and say this actually is the case.
i don't think it's necessarily objectively not true in a sorta metaphysical sense (cause what do i know about the transmissibility of truth). just want to harp back ot my previous point about being objectively wrong in believing something has retained subjectivity. i guess i think you can be be "right," don't know why i started bothering with "truth" tbh.
but they represent the honestly held beliefs of a very large propertion of people in the UK. I think abortion is atrocious, but I would do anything to defend the woman's right to it, and as such I find LIFE's stance utterly wrong. however, plenty of people would agree with them and are happy to see them represented. That's only fair.
This is the UK not the USA.
where around half of the population think abortion shuld be made much harder to get (according to something I read about a year ago.) See also large sections of NI and north west England in particular.
Slightly confused at why B_C has been banned.
yeah it's their belief and not something they've contrived to think in order to annoy me. But, similarly, I can't help but find it unpleasant and depressing that so many people think women don't have a right to choose whether and when to have children. It's depressing that the issue does appear to come down to such a personal, moral, philosophical level and this makes it harder to debate without having to challenge someone's core beliefs - it's very difficult to tell someone they are mistaken in their devoutly-held religious views.
I just think, if people don't like abortions, they don't need to have them. I can accomodate their views without imposing my own on them. But some people do want to have abortions so accomodate their views,stop imposing your own and stfu.
obvs you know i would never say that <3
I have very confused thougths about abortion. I was kind of forced into one when I was at uni by some people (not family) who thought they had my best interests at heart, and so I find it hard to be objective about it. I am very much pro-choice, but- whilst I don't agree with them at all- I can empathise with the views of people who think that it is murder which cannot be justified on public policy grounds. I cannot emphasise with the barmy ones, on either side of the fence, who generally do more harm than good to their campaogn.
it comes down in a lot of minds to when a baby/embryo is actually 'alive', and when it therefore becomes a form of murder in their eyes.
but even for the minority whose sentiment is derived from following a specific faith, a certain degree of mysticism will be involved in 'believing' life begins at a point at which abortions can legally take place.
your second point I'm even less sure about. If someone decides that an embryo is a life waiting to happen, and they don't want to end that, how are they in any way 'wrong'? In theory they're completely correct - a life is going to happen as of the point of conception, and stopping that from happening means one less life. So... mystical? Mmm.
By the way, I'm certainly for women having the choice, but I don't like the idea that people seem to saying that they're arbitrarily determining the person's reasoning, and therefore can call that decision a right or wrong one.
The main impetus for anti-abortion movements or laws around the world is religion, specifically Christianity in the US and UK and Islam in the Middle East. My phrasing my not have convinced you, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.
I'm not at all interested in discussing when life begins or what any individual in this thread's opinion on abortion is- I'm sure of my stance and I'd imagine most here are equally sure of their own- but 'life' in the terms we are discussing it unavoidably lends itself to mysticism, again whether or not you like it. We can all agree on when an embryo is formed or when it's cellular structure reaches a certain stage, because they are facts. 'Life' is not.
But there are vegetarians who won't eat an egg because of what it *will* be. And I suppose from your point of view they're equally wrong (you monster ;)). But despite the obvious parallels there, being vege is a much more accepted stance, EVEN THOUGH you could apply the mysticism argument there too.
And as for the fact of your first para... that's fine, as long as it doesn't mean you're assuming that anyone opting not to abort possesses the same mentality. It's a very silly assumption to make.
A religious one? I'm not sure what assumption it is I might have made.
I also think there are many obvious reasons that veganism is not analogous to being anti-abortion, even within the confines of the reasoning you've given, but that's because analogies are rubbish. I've sworn off them after a few horrible incidents.
of 'mysticism' to anyone who believes that abortion is taking a life. Basically. That is the crux of this.
And yes, that was a bad analogy, BUT I was more questioning whether not eating eggs because of what they'll become also a mystical standpoint.
ugh. Too bored to focus. :(
i will, of course, be eating it :(
This is why you shouldn't have used an analogy. Just slink away and hope we all forget about this.
Not one bit.
It would be schadenfreude to find it funny.
your analogy is shite
and even if they weren't, this mysticism thing is kinda weird. i don't know any vegans who don't eat animal products on these grounds. veganism is about cruelty. maybe there are some vegetarians who don't eat meat cause it's bad "karma" to kill and eat something (this is kinda dumb though imo cause most farmed animals are killed anyway in the wider processes of human consumption and of course its often just as cruel to keep animals for purposes other than meat production).
the "personal, moral, philosophical level," which is kinda religious but not entirely.
Surely this entitles them to be involved in what seems to be no more than a sexual health forum / discussion.
However, they do seem to be spreading things that are misleading/false. I think that's more of an issue. Abortion and the issues surrounding are divisive, but if they're making it worse through that, they shouldn't be involved.
I don't agree with many of the teachings of islam, and their interpretatoins, but it doens't make them completely illegitimate per se. I hate the arrogance that comes with dyed in the wool opinons, and complete lack of ability to empathise without seeing despicable motive everywhere.
(I also agree with your second point- hopefully by having an actual 'voice' now, any fringe group PR 'nonsense-facts' will reduce.)
^This so so much.
People should surely see that they are proportionally representative of the country and have to be taken into consideration. For the record I completely agree with abortion and think there should be alot more.
why should a gov sexual health forum be?
I'd be surprised if it weren't so predictable.
some of you. Are you ready for my controversial views? I don't think you are. They ARE pretty shocking.