Abortion and gay rights

[quote name='pittpizza']I think you two are asking the wrong question. Everyone would agree that "yes, life exists" but the rub is defining when it begins to exist, at least it is in the abortion debate, if that's still what you two are talking about.[/QUOTE]
Right.

My religious side of the family: Conception. Period.
Me: When I say so, though I'm willing to cede to a point to strong objections of others.

Objective or subjective? Both.

Which is the beauty of the freedom to choose for one's self.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Right.

My religious side of the family: Conception. Period.
Me: When I say so, though I'm willing to cede to a point to strong objections of others.

Objective or subjective? Both.

Which is the beauty of the freedom to choose for one's self.[/quote]Not to be a semantic jerk, but that's simply impossible. If objectivity is involved at all, someone is right, someone is wrong. What you've laid out are two subjective opinions, both held very strongly. If one is actually objective, that would make the subjective dissension wrong.

Just for clarity's sake, I'd recommend that you stop using "objective" in this sense, unless you mean what the word means, a truly universal, unquestionable truth. You can't blend relativity and objectivity in the way you have above.

That's right folks, this thread is now going in a new direction: definitions and language use. Hold on tight!
 
[quote name='daroga']Not to be a semantic jerk, but that's simply impossible. If objectivity is involved at all, someone is right, someone is wrong. What you've laid out are two subjective opinions, both held very strongly. If one is actually objective, that would make the subjective dissension wrong.

Just for clarity's sake, I'd recommend that you stop using "objective" in this sense, unless you mean what the word means, a truly universal, unquestionable truth. You can't blend relativity and objectivity in the way you have above.

That's right folks, this thread is now going in a new direction: definitions and language use. Hold on tight![/quote]

Agreed. If you wanted to be a purist, you could argue that all observations with the exception of Descartes' famous saying are subjective. However there are a set of empirical laws such as gravity and the existence of matter in solid/liquid/gas form that most people accept as objective truths.

In modern parlance, 'life' is one of the most subjective concepts in the dictionary.
 
Well, to clarify, I don't think the debate is really about when "life" exists, since obviously even the sperm and egg independently are "alive". It's about when human life begins to exist. We, as a society, obviously don't really mind taking the lives of anything other than humans, so that's not really a point of contention.

I'd hope that nobody is so deluded to think that a zygote isn't alive, it just isn't a human yet (according to those who think that) and therefore people think that it's justifiable to end that life for whatever various reasons they do in the same way that it's justifiable to end the lives of the other things that we kill everyday.

EDIT: And as far as the semantics go, "life" like any other word, is an invention of humans and so is by definition subjective. When we apply something we made up (the word/concept "life") to the objective reality that we did not make up, it has to be subjective. Reality is not divided up into into categories as our minds and language are.
 
See. If it was a brother & sister or cousins.. I'm a bit more OK with that. Moms/Sons + Dads/Daughters just make me nervous.

Though, if that's how they feel, then who cares. But I kinda do agree that these couples shouldn't reproduce due to a kid being retarded or messed up :( I wouldn't mind if the adopted, though.
 
There's a guy out in front of the grocery store next door to work right now collecting signatures to help "define" marriage to be between a man and a woman. He asked if I'd like to sign his petition to give "marriage" a definition.

I told him it already had one - a commitment between two people who love each other, regardless of gender or sexual preference.

He gave me a very dirty look.
 
[quote name='JJSP']There's a guy out in front of the grocery store next door to work right now collecting signatures to help "define" marriage to be between a man and a woman. He asked if I'd like to sign his petition to give "marriage" a definition.

I told him it already had one - a commitment between two people who love each other, regardless of gender or sexual preference.
[/QUOTE]

Dictionary.com disagrees with you.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Websters disagrees with you.
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Cambriage dictionary disagrees with you.
a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this

Answers.com disagrees with you.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Those are all the first definitions given. Of course, they address any and all interpretations of it further down the list, but you get the point.

Soooo, I guess you should have told the guy that he was already right, and you'd happily take his place collecting signatures to change the definition.
 
[quote name='JJSP']There's a guy out in front of the grocery store next door to work right now collecting signatures to help "define" marriage to be between a man and a woman. He asked if I'd like to sign his petition to give "marriage" a definition.

I told him it already had one - a commitment between two people who love each other, regardless of gender or sexual preference.

He gave me a very dirty look.[/quote]I think there's a difference between how something is defined and how you want something defined.

See thrust's post above.
 
God damn, I imagine nobody even read my last reply to this thread (not that I really expect everyone to) as it applies to what you just said thrust. Words are defined by those who use them, they have no objective significance.

The fact that every one of those dictionaries (besides cambridge, since it only has one definition) has the definition of marriage also in an extralegal and/or same-sex context should be enough to show you that, especially since 2 out of those 3 are a subset of the same 1st definition, but I guess definition 1a1 is superior to definition 1a2. I know you recognized that there was more than one definition, but why you think that one is somehow more right than the others is beyond me.

If you define marriage by legality then does your definition change when you cross the border of Massachusetts? Can you hop back and forth over the state line and chant "man and woman", "two consenting adults", "man and woman", "two consenting adults"?
 
[quote name='daroga']I think there's a difference between how something is defined and how you want something defined.

See thrust's post above.[/quote]

At the time of America's founding, a man as defined in the US Constitution did not mean everyone, just the non-slaves (slaves were considered 1/3 of a man)

Definitions do change, see Msut77's post.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
The fact that every one of those dictionaries (besides cambridge, since it only has one definition) has the definition of marriage also in an extralegal and/or same-sex context should be enough to show you that, especially since 2 out of those 3 are a subset of the same 1st definition, but I guess definition 1a1 is superior to definition 1a2. I know you recognized that there was more than one definition, but why you think that one is somehow more right than the others is beyond me.
[/QUOTE]

Dictionary's usually order the different definitions of a word based on how often it's used. In other words, how common it is. The first one being the most common use by the majority of it's uses.

Also, the other definitions besides the first, are often called alternative definitions. So yes, alternative definitions of things fit quite nicely with alternative lifestyles, don't you think?

[quote name='Msut77']thrust/daroga

http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/6355[/QUOTE]

Big shocker there. Ooooh, look how progressive and sophisticated Oxford is. :roll:
 
[quote name='camoor']At the time of America's founding, a man as defined in the US Constitution did not mean everyone, just the non-slaves (slaves were considered 1/3 of a man)

Definitions do change, see Msut77's post.[/QUOTE]

That's correct, they sure do. Especially with words like "Religious Tolerance", "Freedom", and "Democracy".
 
[quote name='camoor']At the time of America's founding, a man as defined in the US Constitution did not mean everyone, just the non-slaves (slaves were considered 1/3 of a man)

Definitions do change, see Msut77's post.[/quote]

Come on, you're selling slaves short. They are worth 3/5 of a person! ;) See, the Constitution wasn't that racist...

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Dictionary's usually order the different definitions of a word based on how often it's used. In other words, how common it is. The first one being the most common use by the majority of it's uses.

Also, the other definitions besides the first, are often called alternative definitions. So yes, alternative definitions of things fit quite nicely with alternative lifestyles, don't you think?[/quote]

Jesus it's 1a2 in Webster, they don't even separate it from the definition you gave by another letter. Your argument has no merit.
 
I know that primarily it should be the women that should choose a decision like a abortion...and gay rights..well..who's going to listen to them anyways...I know I wont..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top