Katanablade posted... I love the way people think that a website that is intended to be as middle ground as possible expects it to contain nothing but ethical stances they wholeheartedly agree with.
It does things like addresses the pro's and cons of legalising sex work/prostitution ect and lets both sides speak on it.
And those that are saying "there is no middle ground on abortion", they are doing exactly what militant vegans do, just come back with rhetorics that just appeals to their own sensibilities. Vegans see killing animals for food as an abomination, meat eaters dont, so they are never going to see eye to eye on the issue. Militant vegans say things like "i love the way people say i am a nasty horrible person for attacking people for choosing to eat meat. Who would you really say is the evilest person?, people that keep funding an industry that tortures exploits and murders innocent animals because of their taste pleasures, or someone like me who abstains from doing that, but sometimes when i address this atrocity to them, i say some horrible nasty things sometimes?"
People with pro choice views of course totally dismiss the idea that an unborn baby is valid life at all, so therefore no violation of human rights is being committed, so because of that they will never recognise any merit in the pro life stance and will make arguments to the pro life stances according to their own sensibilities.
Katanablade, do you think it is appropriate to debate the pros and cons of The Holocaust? If not, why would that be?
(My stance being that it is not appropriate)