Abortion

Werbung:
But it has nothing to do with the purpose of the death penalty.

You know that little white speck on the top of chicken sh!t... that little white speck is chicken sh!t too!

Purpose does not equal justice.



Was to retake the holy land from the Muslims.

The Crusades were fought all over the know world it was a religious Crusade to destroy the Muslims wherever they might be.


Only in your Progressive world of next Tuesday does the draft prove that we go to war because of emotions.

Well if the Republicants & Bush is in charge we go to war on lies set off by emotions.

And as I said before (on the abortion topic) the draft is an authority forcing innocent men to die against their will.


That doesn't mean it was instituted for the purpose of revenge.

Revenge is revenge whether it was originally instituted for that reason or not. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

Yet you have no defense of your position.

That's almost as good as your standard fall back "I got nothing I'll say irrelavant":D... resistance is futile my friend you have already lost over & over again. Fodder for late night comedy shows is all you have left. Serious people dismiss you out of hand.

 
:confused: What!? Where have I "attacked" anyone for not agreeing with me on this subject? If you use fallacies, and I point them out, its NOT an attack. If you lie about what I've said or what my position is, which you have, then my correcting you is not an attack. An attack is what ASPCA "adds" to the discussion, vociferous, nasty, hate-filled attacks.

I made a comment about people who didn't have brains must live longer than a couple days because they post here. I intentionally left that open so that anyone could laugh at the joke. ASPCA used it to attack Bob and myself. You used it to attack Republicans... and you accuse me of being cheap and cheesy.

As far as the mental masturbation, there are only two people here that have looked at the scientific information and set aside their emotions to accept the truth, the rest have done their level best to avoid, ignore, dismiss and reject the truth in order to maintain a position they "feel" is right.

Comments about people without brains, for instance. And as for mental masturbation, well, your piece to Pale where you argued Conservative vs Liberal (or however you define the two sides) while pointing out that ONLY YOU had come up with an argument of value was a classic piece of mental masturbation. In public too.
 
Comments about people without brains, for instance. And as for mental masturbation, well, your piece to Pale where you argued Conservative vs Liberal (or however you define the two sides) while pointing out that ONLY YOU had come up with an argument of value was a classic piece of mental masturbation. In public too.


Mare, you made a joke about the same thing and it was funny.

Why do you consider what Gen said as anything less?

He did not personally attack anyone just as you did not personally attack anyone.

Actually his was left to the imagination, yours was directed to republicans.

but in the end both were funny and harmless. Personal attacks are like


"you have half a brain"
"you are a racist"
"you are an idiot"

exc.
 
Purpose does not equal justice.
No one said it did, well... You did just then but you often set up strawmen. The DP was instituted as a form of justice, not revenge.

Strawman FAIL

The Crusades were fought all over the know world it was a religious Crusade to destroy the Muslims wherever they might be.
It was a war that began over territory.


History FAIL

And as I said before (on the abortion topic) the draft is an authority forcing innocent men to die against their will.

How does that relate to abortion? Because women kill their children against the childs will?

Relevance FAIL

Revenge is revenge whether it was originally instituted for that reason or not.
Definition FAIL

Revenge is an act taken with a vindictive spirit.

Justice is the meting out of a deserved punishment.

That's almost as good as your standard fall back "I got nothing I'll say irrelavant"... resistance is futile my friend you have already lost over & over again. Fodder for late night comedy shows is all you have left. Serious people dismiss you out of hand.
Personal attack FAIL

donkey200.jpg
 
I wanted to hear the debate you were going to have with PaleRider that never materialized. I was willing to stay out of the way and listen, if others would have done the same, General. Sounded interesting to me.

I have company this weekend, and will be hoping to find it materialized this weekend when I have more time on Tuesday to see what fur has flown in my partial absence.
 
This is off topic nonsense. Capital punishment is justice. If you deny someone of their right to life, then you forfeit your own life. Wars too are not fought for emotional reasons, they are fought over property. There is not a single war in the history of mankind that has not been fought for control of property.

But emotionalism underlies the desire to take more land or goods, that emotion is fear, the fear that there won't be enough for all. It's emotion that fueled the Protestant and Catholic war in Northern Ireland. It's fear of losing "our" oil and greed that drives our wars in the Middle East.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is not justice, it's revenge. Killing people who kill people to teach people not to kill people not only doesn't work, it's a silly idea. If wars were not about emotion then we wouldn't have to stir up patriotic fervor and demonize the enemy to make people fight.

Emotion is what drives people and science, logic, and law can but rarely override those emotions. In South Africa the black people managed to override their emotions and they held Truth and Reconcilliation meetingwhere the white people who had so abused the blacks were required to face the people they had harmed, tell what they did, who they did it to, and why, in exchange the black people forgave them. When did we ever do something so "Christian"?
 
Comments about people without brains, for instance.
I intentionally did not specify any person or group that way all could appreciate the humor.

And as for mental masturbation, well, your piece to Pale where you argued Conservative vs Liberal (or however you define the two sides) while pointing out that ONLY YOU had come up with an argument of value was a classic piece of mental masturbation. In public too.

Bunny_with_a_Pancake_on_Its_Head.ashx


If you are refering to my changing sides and choosing to debate for abortion on demand, I was correct in my statement. No one but Pale had offered scientific evidence to back their position on the subject. Rather than follow the lemmings off the cliff, I chose to accept his argument and STILL managed to field a better argument against his than any of you had come up with.

Mental Masturbation takes both hands.
obama_hands.jpg
 
I wanted to hear the debate you were going to have with PaleRider that never materialized. I was willing to stay out of the way and listen, if others would have done the same, General. Sounded interesting to me.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed thus far but I don't think Pale has ever had someone agree with his conclusions but disagree on the position he arrived at as a result.

The problem as I see it is that once you establish that the unborn has rights equal to the mother, then someones rights are going to be violated if the mother does not want the child.

Under those circumstances: Those who support welfare cannot argue against banning abortion without being hypocrites. Those who are against welfare cannot argue for bans on abortion because such a position makes them hypocrites. Its a real catch 22 for both sides because they typically support one and do not support the other.
 
I must say I'm a bit disappointed thus far but I don't think Pale has ever had someone agree with his conclusions but disagree on the position he arrived at as a result.

The problem as I see it is that once you establish that the unborn has rights equal to the mother, then someones rights are going to be violated if the mother does not want the child.

Under those circumstances: Those who support welfare cannot argue against banning abortion without being hypocrites. Those who are against welfare cannot argue for bans on abortion because such a position makes them hypocrites. Its a real catch 22 for both sides because they typically support one and do not support the other.

It indeed is a dilemma for both sides, and I was looking forward to reading the discussion that might have taken place.

Pandora and I have discussed, from time to time, and are struggling, to figure out what might be done about late terms that both sides might find palatable.
 
What do you mean by "willing to work with those who agree on 95% of the issue"?

I have seen no flaws in his arguments and I'm saying that as someone who has supported abortion in the cases of rape and incest. I cannot make a rational or intellectually honest defense of supporting abortion on those conditions.

Clearly he does not claim to be this. He has offered credible, legitimate, authoritative sources that support his position. He has not simply declared himself to be a credible, legitimate, authoritative source and asked others to take his word for it.

Post some of these examples that refute the statements made by Pale's sources.

Pale should be proud, he has bested everyone.

Sorry Gen, but he hasn't bested me, he's simply continually refused to address the point I raised as asked, and instead inserting all manner of unrelated information in order to try the age old "data overload" manner of winning debates, and apparently his subterfuge worked on you.

My point was that in cases of rape, where the woman is immediately taken to the hospital, that what he and others are calling an "abortion" is in fact NOT an abortion, because of the fact that 1) 99% of the time, the sperm would not have even REACHED the egg in order for it to be fertilized, and 2) that even if the sperm had reached the egg, until such time as it is attached to the uterine wall (which takes DAYS to happen), it cannot grow and develop into a human, and therefore it's removal in the process of providing essential medical attention to the rape victim does not qualify as a "abortion".

I very carefully differentiated between this, and cases where a woman was raped, yet failed to immediately seek medical attention, and went to great length to elucidate the fact that in such a case it would in fact be considered an abortion as the zygote would by that time in fact be attached to the uterine wall and be growing.

I hate to say this buddy, but he baffled you by burying you with bullsh*t. He refused to deal directly with my points in order to avoid having to acknowledge that an "abortion" in cases of rape was not in fact necessarily an "abortion" in the common vernacular.

As for his sources, I already addressed several of those where his own definitions fail to support his assertions.
 
Pale, you're beyond hope. You're one of the very ones that gives our side of the issue a bad name because you're not even willing to work with those who agree with you on 95% of the issue.
You never did say what you meant by "work" with those who agree on 95%.

In other words, you're nothing but a disingenuous ideologue who will twist, turn, and contort anything to support your flawed position.
You offered no sources of your own to support your claims.

You claim to be the end-all, be-all of Biology,
He never did.

there are tens of thousands of REAL Biologists, in all disciplines who discount your position
Yet you cite exactly zero of them here.

and it is THEY who I have based my position upon.
Since there is more than one side with scientific credibility, you're choosing to base your position on one opinion is no different from him choosing to do the same with an opinion he agrees with.

You've lost, and you're too prideful to admit it.
You've already admitted the science is unsettled by virtue of there being evidence to support multiple sides, therefore there can be no winner or loser.
 
Pandora and I have discussed, from time to time, and are struggling, to figure out what might be done about late terms that both sides might find palatable.

For every late term abortion, a Politician must be put to death.... Oh wait... We'd have a huge spike in late term abortions. :p
 
Werbung:
Gen, now you're playing games.

I provided all of the evidence that was needed, the Tabers definition, as well as his own. He claimed one thing, threw up a definition as "proof" even though his own definitions, from his own sources CONTRADICT his assertions.

As far as citing any of the tens of thousands of credible scientists that disagree with Pale, I don't need to because YOU YOURSELF just acknowledged the fact that "the science isn't settled", which makes it a point of common knowledge!

As far as basing my belief on "one side", that's far from accurate. It is a demonstrable FACT that it takes, on average, several hours to days before sperm reach the egg. This is fact, not opinion, and even Pale acknowledges this. My entire premise has ONLY been that in cases of rape where the woman is immediately taken to the hospital for treatment, there is no probability that the sperm has even reached the egg, so it's not an abortion.

Even if the sperm has managed to reach the egg in one of the extremely rare cases that all of the conditions were "perfect", we again have to deal with the fact of Pale's "unsettled science", and as it is unsettled, the fact still remains that it takes days for the "egg/zygote/whatthef*ckeverelse" to move down the tubes and to attach itself to the uterine wall (well outside the time necessary to get the woman to the hospital for treatment), so since it is NOT attached, and since the science is "unsettled", it's still not an "abortion" if it is lost while providing essential medical care for the rape victim.
 
Back
Top