Abortion??? anyone??

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Excluding the law was not a "suggestion", it was a request for clarification and the motivation for your opinion. Read the post again, slowly.

My "motivation" is as I have stated. If that isn't good enough for you....tough.

I have re-read your post and wish to change no part of my answer.

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

My "motivation" is as I have stated. If that isn't good enough for you....tough.

I have re-read your post and wish to change no part of my answer.

Right. You may as well not. Your response to my late post makes as much sense as: "To the question: what is the meaning of life." Your answer: "7.3"
Which makes this thread pointless.

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Right. You may as well not. Your response to my late post makes as much sense as: "To the question: what is the meaning of life." Your answer: "7.3"
Which makes this thread pointless.

Sorry you couldn't turn the conversation into what you wanted but, alas, that is the way it goes sometimes.

 

[dahermit]

The court said that a woman has the right to end a potential human life. Can you prove what unborns are "potential human lives" As I said, if the court says specifically that you have the right to raise chickens on your property, it does not give you the right to raise ducks and the court has absolutely no authority whatsoever to call a duck a chicken.

No, but the court has said to to be so, therefore, until they rule differently, in effect, it is true.
But, the court, in the case of Roe v. Wade, has called a duck a chicken and that has resulted in nearly everyone interpreting what the court has ruled as a what may as well be a right to an abortion on demand. If it were not so, prosecutors would be changing abortion Dr.s and women who have had abortions with murder.

Other than that, you seem to have won the abortion debate here as to the fetus being human according to scientific literature, and also (other than Roe v. Wade) the constitution also indicating that a fetus is a human being.

This begs the question: What have you won? How many people do you think that you have effected a change in philosophy as to abortion? You have spent a considerable amount of time and effort to support your position for seemingly no progress in converting those who prefer to keep Roe v. Wade as the ruling.

As a character said in a popular war movie (Platoon): "There are two things in life; how things should be and how things are." Your argument is how things should be. Roe v. Wade is how things are.

 

[Libsmasher]

This begs the question: What have you won? How many people do you think that you have effected a change in philosophy as to abortion? You have spent a considerable amount of time and effort to support your position for seemingly no progress in converting those who prefer to keep Roe v. Wade as the ruling.

As a character said in a popular war movie (Platoon): "There are two things in life; how things should be and how things are." Your argument is how things should be. Roe v. Wade is how things are.

Just to inject a thought here: there very well may have been progress in converting people, insofar as the abortion rate has declined every year since 1982. Sometimes it takes a long time for "things as they are" to catch up with "things as they ought to be", eg, the abolition of slavery in the US. When they do catch up, it's due to years of the patient day-in, day-out protestations of those who speak out against evil.

 

[dahermit]

Just to inject a thought here: there very well may have been progress in converting people, insofar as the abortion rate has declined every year since 1982. Sometimes it takes a long time for "things as they are" to catch up with "things as they ought to be", eg, the abolition of slavery in the US. When they do catch up, it's due to years of the patient day-in, day-out protestations of those who speak out against evil.

Uhhh...so PaleRider's posts can take credit for the decline in abortions in the U.S. since 1982? I though that the abortion threads on this board were only a few months old.
Also, You have not established that abortions are "evil". Is that a scientific or legal term? It sounds almost like a religious term to me.

 

[BigRob]

Uhhh...so PaleRider's posts can take credit for the decline in abortions in the U.S. since 1982? I though that the abortion threads on this board were only a few months old.
Also, You have not established that abortions are "evil". Is that a scientific or legal term? It sounds almost like a religious term to me.

His response had nothing to do with PaleRider's posts. People have been protesting abortions since they were made legal. That is what he was getting at.

Further, you can call someone like Hitler "evil" or someone like Stalin "evil" without making it a religious argument.

 

[dahermit]

His response had nothing to do with PaleRider's posts. People have been protesting abortions since they were made legal. That is what he was getting at.

He answered a question I had not asked. The question was limited to PaleRiders contribution.

Further, you can call someone like Hitler "evil" or someone like Stalin "evil" without making it a religious argument.

"Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'e-v&l, British often & US also 'e-(")vil
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler ; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL , WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation> "

This is from a common usage dictionary. Notice the "SINFUL" referance?

Can you show me the definition of "Evil" in a legal dictionary? Can you show me the definition of "Evil" in a scientific dictionary? PaleRider never used that word. He stated that his arguments had only the elements of science and law...not relegion. It is PaleRider's posts to which I referred.

But for the record, "evil" is subjective. Nevertheless, if anyone cares to cite evidence that abortion is "evil", I will certainly read it carefully.

 

[BigRob]

He answered a question I had not asked. The question was limited to PaleRiders contribution.

Fair enough.

"Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'e-v&l, British often & US also 'e-(")vil
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler ; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL , WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation> "

This is from a common usage dictionary. Notice the "SINFUL" referance?

Can you show me the definition of "Evil" in a legal dictionary? Can you show me the definition of "Evil" in a scientific dictionary? PaleRider never used that word. He stated that his arguments had only the elements of science and law...not relegion. It is PaleRider's posts to which I referred.

But for the record, "evil" is subjective. Nevertheless, if anyone cares to cite evidence that abortion is "evil", I will certainly read it carefully.

There are many "legal" definitions that in the description they talk about "evil." While I do not seem to find it in an actual legal dictionary, there are examples such as this:

justifiable homicide
n. a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties.

manslaughter
n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing)


There are others, but you get the idea. It would seem that there is some argument for what "evil" means legally. If it is subjective as well (and I agree it is) then it would seem that it is simply up the jury to decide what is evil given these definitions. Given that, I think it is entirely possible to argue that "evil" in legal terms simply means what society takes it to mean, which as we agree is subjective. Therefore, depending on who you ask, it seems plausible to say that abortion is "evil" even in a legal sense.

 

[Libsmasher]

Uhhh...so PaleRider's posts can take credit for the decline in abortions in the U.S. since 1982? I though that the abortion threads on this board were only a few months old.
Also, You have not established that abortions are "evil". Is that a scientific or legal term? It sounds almost like a religious term to me.

Ooops, I forgot that anything that smacks of morality doesn't parse in the pro-abort brain. And the idea that evil can only be discerned from a religious perspective merits a sick laugh.

 

[dahermit]

Ooops, I forgot that anything that smacks of morality doesn't parse in the pro-abort brain. And the idea that evil can only be discerned from a religious perspective merits a sick laugh.

I am still waiting for the first team. That is, the person whom the question was addressed.

 

[palerider]

This begs the question: What have you won? How many people do you think that you have effected a change in philosophy as to abortion? You have spent a considerable amount of time and effort to support your position for seemingly no progress in converting those who prefer to keep Roe v. Wade as the ruling.

Over the years since I have argued this topic, I would conservatively estimate that I have brought about a philosophical change in about 45 people. That would include those who I debated with personally, and those who I never spoke to but who sent me private messages stating that my arguments with (whoever) convinced them that the pro choice position was not intellectually defensible and therefore they had decided to adopt an anti abortion on demand position.

Thinkers. That is, critical thinkers who will not hold a postion that can not be rationally defended are few and far between. Those who are both critical thinkers and intellectually honest to the point that they will admit that their argment has lost and as a result, are going to make a philosophical change as a result are even more scarce.

So tell me; what sort are you? You admit that my argument has prevailed and other than a decision by the supreme court (hundreds of which have been reversed), the pro choice position seems to be indefensible. Do you make a philosophical change to the anti abortion on demand side, or do you hold on to your dogma?

With regard to your Platoon quote. Would you have held the same passive attitutde towards slavery? If you don't like slavery, don't own one? I don't look to hollywood very often for words of wisdom. To your movie quote, I would answer with a quote from Edmund Burke, a man who was actually wise; "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Again I ask. What sort are you? A passive standerby who does nothing?

 

[Libsmasher]

I am still waiting for the first team. That is, the person whom the question was addressed.

I'd duck too if I were you.

 

[dahermit]

Thinkers. That is, critical thinkers who will not hold a postion that can not be rationally defended are few and far between. Those who are both critical thinkers and intellectually honest to the point that they will admit that their argment has lost and as a result, are going to make a philosophical change as a result are even more scarce.?

My observations of mankind is that there are few, if any who can distinguish or separate that which forms their opinions from that which is emotion and that which is logic. Most people cannot be swayed by an logical argument if it is different from that they already believe. These are observations of a lifetime, that is why I find the number 45, hard to believe.

So tell me; what sort are you? You admit that my argument has prevailed and other than a decision by the supreme court (hundreds of which have been reversed), the pro choice position seems to be indefensible. Do you make a philosophical change to the anti abortion on demand side, or do you hold on to your dogma??

The supreme court of late, has rendered several decisions which arguably have seemed indefensible relative to the constitution, not just Rowe v. Wade. It is what it is...complaints from me are not going to change that either.

Just what dogma is that?

Despite your argument being so convincing, that does not mean that there are not just as good evidence for the opposing position that just was not brought forward because of the lack of prowess by your opponents, who were of little skill in debating. Who knows what arguments could have been made by a truly bright opponent. Do not challenge me to do it, unlike you, I do not have the time or passion to do the research; this is not the burning passion in my life. Unless, of course this is the only debate that exists that has only one side.

With regard to your Platoon quote. Would you have held the same passive attitude towards slavery? If you don't like slavery, don't own one? I don't look to hollywood very often for words of wisdom. To your movie quote, I would answer with a quote from Edmund Burke, a man who was actually wise; "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."?

Slavery is not what is being discussed. But yes, I hold the same passive attitude about semi-voluntary slavery that the working class are enduring today. A paraphrase: "All you must do to be seen as a fool is to champion all the complaints of the entire world."

Again I ask. What sort are you? A passive standerby who does nothing?

Of course. Atrocities abound. I do not adapt the causes of others just because they have found their most deep passion.

Despite law and medical arguments, I cannot rationalize that the fertilization of an egg has thus become a person...no basis in the Constitution, no references in medical literature allow me to look at a living baby beside a petri dish and say they are equal. Most intellectually honest persons cannot. To paraphrase one of your earlier inquisitors: "If you were in a burning building, and you could only gather up as many children as you could carry, or fertilized eggs in petri dishes, which would you choose to carry to safety? Ten of so fertilized eggs or two little children?" I know of no people who would not carry children...anyone who says otherwise would not be intellectually honest despite protests otherwise.

Humans are not logical...they are what they are. Congrats on your 45 victories.

 

[palerider]

Despite law and medical arguments, I cannot rationalize that the fertilization of an egg has thus become a person...no basis in the Constitution, no references in medical literature allow me to look at a living baby beside a petri dish and say they are equal.

Your own intellectual limitations do not change the facts. You only expose your own inability to wrap your mind around the biological reality.

To paraphrase one of your earlier inquisitors: "If you were in a burning building, and you could only gather up as many children as you could carry, or fertilized eggs in petri dishes, which would you choose to carry to safety? Ten of so fertilized eggs or two little children?" I know of no people who would not carry children...anyone who says otherwise would not be intellectually honest despite protests otherwise.

Logial fallacy. False delimma. Which I would choose to rescue is irrelavent. Either way, human beings are left behind to burn. That is the sort of loaded question that very poor debaters resort to. I could say that 6 children were in the room. A white child, a native american child, a chinese child, a black child, a korean child, and an hispanic child and you can only get two out. No matter which two you take, I get to accuse you of racism for leaving the others. It is a foolish senario and means nothing.

You will notice that my previous "inquisitors" have scattered to the tall grass.

Humans are not logical...they are what they are. Congrats on your 45 victories.

My victories are legion. 45 is approximately the number which have taken an anti abortion on demand position as the result of my arguments.