<p>^Yeah I agree with this. I see it of more of a “Yay I have awesome pro-choice parents who would support my decision” instead of a “Yay I get to abort my fetus”</p>
<p>Shooting people for laughs is universally seen as evil.</p>
<p>Having an abortion is not. Sure, some people disapprove of it… but an equal number of people disapprove of gay marriage, and a gay couple getting married in one of the few states where it’s allowed shouldn’t have to refrain from saying “Yay!” about it to spare their feelings.</p>
<p>People can be happy about their abortions, just as they can be happy about any other medical procedure that helps their lives. I hope you aren’t the kind of person who tries to guilt women into feeling terrible shame over something that’s their right.</p>
<p>I don’t see anything wrong with trying to make women feel guilty about having abortions. It’s a perfectly logical action, even if you disagree with it.</p>
<p>Celaplus, aren’t you a girl? If not, your name is tremendously effeminate and you’re taking really flitty classes at Brown.</p>
<p>“you’re taking really flitty classes at Brown.” -> WTH?</p>
<p>I don’t know how that sentence could possibly confuse you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a dickwad action. It’s perfectly “logical” to hand out pamphlets to gay people about how they’ll go to hell, if that’s what you actually believe. But you’re going to be causing significant emotional harm to someone else through this action, especially since being gay/having abortions is already stigmatized. I, personally, see something wrong with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea that gay people will go to hell is a logically dubious belief to begin with. Then there’s the difference between choosing abortion and being gay. The latter isn’t really something you can repent for, so rubbing it in their face has no logical purpose.</p>
<p>So I’m going to have to disagree.</p>
<p>hahahaha
haha I don’t speak enough French to know if this is true or not</p>
<p>
damn, I knew I should have taken more science classes to reaffirm my masculinity :[</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. I agree. I also think the idea that fetuses are people and terminating pregnancies is murder a logically dubious belief. Others clearly disagree with me on both measures. I don’t think this is relevant to the dickwad-ness or not of attempting shame tactics on people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If being gay became a choice-- for instance if someone created a pill a gay person could take to become straight–then would that make handing out the hell-pamphlets any less despicable? I would say no.</p>
<p>On second thought, perhaps it would make it a little less despicable. But still despicable, and definitely not “something okay that I see no problem with.”</p>
<p>@TCBH- You assume the people handing out those pamphlets don’t think being gay is a choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s still not a good analogy. The choice issue is important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not. It may not be correct, but it’s fairly coherent from a logical standpoint.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that pill were invented, then homosexuality would be a choice. In that case, would you say it’s okay to tell gay people they’ll go to hell because they made the choice to not take the “cure” pill? If you say “no,” then you are acknowledging that the choice issue is not pivotal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anything can be logically coherent if you accept the premises. For instance: “Major premise: Anything in the Bible is literally true. Minor premise: The Bible states that homosexuals will go to hell (or are immoral, God disapproves of them, etc–there’s plenty of biblical evidence). Conclusion: It is literally true that homosexuals will go to hell (or whatever).”</p>
<p>In the case against both abortion and homosexuality, I reject the premises. Hence the analogy.</p>
<p>And btw, saying that the “logical coherency” of an action dictates how okay it is is like saying that evolution is a moral framework. </p>
<p>It’s not. Logic is for evaluating whether statements within an argument are consistent with one another. It does not evaluate whether something is morally right or morally wrong. As I’ve hopefully shown with my example of how anything can be logically coherent if you accept the premises.</p>
<p>If an argument fails to be logically coherent, it is categorically wrong. However, the reverse is not true: if an argument is logically coherent, it is not categorically right-- let alone categorically moral and non dickwaddish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter what they think, it’s a fact. The issue of whether a fetus is a human is a matter of classification and thus inherently subjective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s a vast oversimplification of the issue, given that people would still be born a certain way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that anything in the bible is literally true is by itself a contradiction. And the fact that people are born a certain way is very much relevant to that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say that it was categorically anything. I just don’t have a problem with it because it’s a type of dickwaddishness that society generally celebrates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…Sigh. Must you nitpick so much. Incidentally, you’ve now changed your argument from “the important part is whether it’s a choice” to “the important part is whether it’s inborn.” </p>
<p>But very well. I will run with this change. Assume that people aren’t born gay or straight (evidence points towards it being a mix of genetic and environmental factors anyway, but let’s just assume none of it is genetic). </p>
<p>Assume that at puberty, people just choose an orientation. By taking a pill.</p>
<p>Are the hell pamphlets now okay?</p>
<p>If you say “no,” then whether it’s inborn or not is not a pivotal point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, you are nitpicking and missing the point. But I will humor you. Revision:</p>
<p>Major premise: Anything that is current Vatican dogma is true. Minor premise: Current Vatican dogma indicates that homosexuality is a sin worthy of hell. Conclusion: It is true that homosexuality is a sin worthy of hell. </p>
<p>There you go, a coherent syllogism. And even if you reject this one for some wording… do you disagree that there are coherent syllogisms based on false premises, in general? And that therefore “logical coherence” doesn’t prove anything in and of itself, so it is a bad basis for establishing whether a certain behavior is okay or not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether it’s inborn has a huge impact on whether it’s a choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Justifiable, yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At this point, although I disagree vehemently, I understand where we disagree. </p>
<p>Thank you for being intellectually honest.</p>