Another Update On the Philosophy Discussion

I'm back! I couldn't get access to the blog (or any other BlogSpot page, for that matter) for about 2 hours, but I'm here now. I just want to write another brief and pretty much meaningless update on that philosophy listserv I talked about earlier. Basically, the pro-lifers are destroying the pro-choice...ers. They tried all the classic arguments, like "the child will grow up in poverty," and "if a woman is raped, she has no responsibility to take care of the child (one person even went so far as to say that a mother could not have any love for a child conceived by rape)," and "if you use birth control but you still get pregnant, abortion is okay because you didn't want a baby," and so on. We've basically cut down all those positions, and it's slowing down a bit, but I think abortion has lost the debate for now. I'm a little disappointed because we didn't get to the plane crash analogy and my response, but we'll probably talk about that in class on Thursday. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know that the pro-life postion has prevailed in Syracuse University's PHI 191 class...for now. By the way, the class itself is really interesting, and I may talk about it more in the future. It's taught by Laurence Thomas, who has written 3 books and dozens of articles on moral philosophy, and he really knows how to keep the audience interested during lecture. Plus, if you get lucky, you can point out a flaw in one of his arguments like I did and make yourself look really smart (I'm getting a bit too egotistical these days). So, now that I've given another free advertisement for SU, it's about time for me to go. I do have work to do...eventually. Later.

*UPDATE*
The pro-choicers are fighting back! They're trying to refute my arguments, at least. I just spent 40 minutes responding to a couple challenges, particularly one that said IN THE TITLE that I was wrong. This guy tried to say that my "planes aren't designed to crash" argument was inaccurate because contraceptives aren't designed to fail, but he missed the point of my argument, which is that sex accomplishes its true purpose without contraception, and planes accomplish their purpose when they don't crash. You don't need to add anything to a plane to get to your destination, but you have to add to sex to prevent pregnancy. This guy called contraceptive sex an "alternative purpose," and I'll grant that, but it isn't the original purpose. Again, crashing a plane into the WTC could be considered an alternative purpose, but it's still harmful. I really need to go to sleep now, so...goodnight (it's currently 1:11 in the morning).