3 ms·
I think the main argument that Dawkins wanted to make is that many pro-choice arguments are completely missing the point and don't engage with the pro-life argu
by Beltalowda 4y ago
I think the main argument that Dawkins wanted to make is that many pro-choice arguments are completely missing the point and don't engage with the pro-life arguments at all, rather than try to engage with all pro-life arguments, and do a full exploration of them.
- lapcat 4y ago> I think the main argument that Dawkins wanted to make is that many pro-choice arguments are completely missing the point and don't engage with the pro-life arguments at all I agree, but I think Dawkins fell prey to the exact same problem. He ignored the religion behind the pro-life movement and tried to break it down into biological terms. Is that really engaging?
- Beltalowda 4y agoThe intended audience for this article is pro-choice people, not the pro-life people. It's trying to start a "strategy discussion" on how to better enact certain goals. In short, he's not trying to convince any pro-lifer of anything here, he's trying to convince pro-choice people to use better arguments. And in general, I actually avoid the "soul argument" as well, even when engaging with pro-life people. First, I know several pro-life people who are not religious or even atheists, secondly I have no good arguments to counter a faith-based belief, and thirdly I think that for many religious pro-life people it's not even that important of an argument (for example many – though not all – pro-life advocates will allow room for nuance in cases of medical issues or rape).
- sparrish 4y agoHe knows that as an evolutionary atheist, he has no attack against the "soul" or "man is made in the image of God" argument that would be persuasive to a believer so he avoids it.
- ykevinator2 4y ago