Abortion

[Dancing Mustard]

So a teenager gets pregnant. Do you think they are able to raise the child?

No.

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

I just swatted a fly. Was that abortion? Was it wrong?

The fact that this issue is still debated and legal shows the moral decline of the people.

Don't blame the people. Blame the lizardmen who are controlling their minds with fluoride mind-rays.

[jay_a2j]

I just swatted a fly. Was that abortion? Was it wrong?

See, that's the problem. When you have a mentality where you compare a human being with a "fly" you have serious problems.

[Dancing Mustard]

See, that's the problem. When you have a mentality where you compare a human being with a "fly" you have serious problems.

But you said yourelf that:

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

You seem confused, are you sure you meant what you said?

[PLAYER57832]

I just swatted a fly. Was that abortion? Was it wrong?

See, that's the problem. When you have a mentality where you compare a human being with a "fly" you have serious problems.

Agreed. to synasp what has been said.

1. There is a BIG difference between "liking" abortion, thinking abortion is even "OK" and the law by which we all must live. No one sane, even abortion doctors, even Planned Parenthood folks, LIKE abortion. (other than idiots ... ) They just see it as better than an absolute ban. Why? see below.

2. Similarly, it is medically and morally OK to get an abortion when the mother's life is in danger. It is also OK to remove a dead child. (but legally, that is often classified just like taking a live child ... I know, it happened to me).

3. The rest is the are of contention. The questions are thus.

A. [color=#4000BF]At what point does life really begin? Interestingly, though the Bible is often cited as reason to oppose abortions, the Bible seems to indicate birth as the point of life. In Dueteronomy, there is a greater penalty for harming a pregnant mother who gives birth to a damaged child than there is if the child is born still (dead). What changed? Not religion or faith. Medicine changed. We know without a doubt that children can hear, feel and touch well before birth. When? No one really knows. BUT, the point of three months was established as a point so far from any medically proveable point of conscience as to make abortion acceptable (though still distasteful).
Among thinking and very CARING and RELIGIOUS individuals (of many religions) there is very real and serious debate. MANY, MANY people do not believe that life has really and truly "begun" at three months. This ends up being a moral debate. One of our fundamental values as a country is that people may practice their religious and moral beliefs as pertaining to their families.
The argument here is that since people of conscience (not the idiocism to which Napoleon Ire referred or tried to claim I was referring) disagree, the government must stand back.[/color]
B.[color=#408000]Some children are plain and simply not able to survive or have anything even close to a productive or "happy" (define it as you will) life. For some, that might mean they question bringing into the world a child with the most sever spina bifida. For others, an a-cephalic child (a child with a brain stem, such that heart and lungs will work, but no brain or only a very, very rudimentary brain that does not function in any real way). For others pain is the criteria. Now, I want to state that on a personal level, I would do what I could to save almost any child. A cephalicism? I don't know. A child that would be in serious and severe pain AND not have the ability to talk,even blink their eyes .. .I would probably (???) question whether it was best to bring that child into the world.

BUT, the bottom line is that laws are for everyone. Dealing with a severely disabled child is an ENORMOUS undertaking, even with all current medical advances. I would not tell a parent they could not raise such a child, BUT do I, or a group of legislators have the right to tell parents int eh deepest pain they will ever experience, consulting with their doctors and (if religious) clergy... do I have the right to sit here, with my 2 healthy children to tell them what to do? I say NO. EVEN IF they decision they might make is not my own, it is just too personal a choice. There are just too, too, too many variables for any law to take them all into account[/color].

C. Is a LAW, the best way to prevent abortions? The predominant opinion has been that education is where the real focus must lie. Education that covers how, what happens, how to prevent, consequences of (pregnancy, diseases, life changes. etc.). For teens, this is appropriately called "abstinence" because we (as a society) don't want teens getting pregnant. There are very real and true reasons why teens, specifically, should not get pregnant. For older adults ... it becomes a moral judgement. BUT, the goal is to give people enough information so that they can make whatever decision is right for them. The result will be, IS fewer abortions, fewer pregnancies.

Not mentioned, except in passing is that we also need decent social networks so that if a young teen or even older single becomes pregnant, they can afford to keep that child if they wish.

D. Options are not always available. Some people find abortion actually more ethical than adoption. (I don't agree, I just acknowledge the position) The argument is that it is our greatest responsibility to care for and raise our children to be "good citizens" If we cannot, then we cannot trust society to do so.

Many teens face being kicked out of their homes or physical/ mental abuse if they reveal a pregnancy. (even today) The bodes poorly for the well-being of the child AND the teen.

Many adults have similarly serious reasons for wanting abortions. Again, I DON'T agrree with many of those reasons, BUT, the point is that many of these will get one whether it is legal or not. My grandmother was a nurse before Roe vs. Wade. The nurses back then were in favor of legalized abortion because they saw too many women DYING from illegal abortion shops.

The voices presented here fall across the spectrum. On the one end is Napoleon Ier, who feels that all birth control is basically the same as abortion. He has probably done more to discredit his position than anything else by raising all kinds of idiotic analogies and evern resorting to literally changing folk's words (mine in particular). There are, however others who voice a similar opinion in more reasonable terms. There really haven't been any voices (that I can remember) seriously claiming that abortion should be allowed "whenever", but I might just have declines to read those positions.

MOST folks fall somewhere in between. Most of the discussion centers on the "grey areas". AND, questioning various statistics and information presented.


BOTTOM LINE: I think just about everyone can agree that abortion is NOT something to be taken lightly. But, there is a very seriously considered range of beliefs about this. For that reason, I have argued that this just does not belong in the hands of the legislator. It is a personal decision. Even if, the decision made is not one I would agree with or like.

In addition to the above, there were several very personnal stories shared.

[Psy Oct]

EDIT: quoted something from a really early page, didn't realise >_>

[TaylorSandbek]

BUT, the bottom line is that laws are for everyone. Dealing with a severely disabled child is an ENORMOUS undertaking, even with all current medical advances. I would not tell a parent they could not raise such a child, BUT do I, or a group of legislators have the right to tell parents int eh deepest pain they will ever experience, consulting with their doctors and (if religious) clergy... do I have the right to sit here, with my 2 healthy children to tell them what to do? I say NO. EVEN IF they decision they might make is not my own, it is just too personal a choice. There are just too, too, too many variables for any law to take them all into account[/color].

Blatant justification of an act of murder.

[Napoleon Ier]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to lynch him.)

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

You'll note, PLAYER18394, that I added "Weimar" to the above post to make clear that the quote is a synthetic satire of your views and those of the NSDAP's supporters in the late 20s.

Firstly, Napoleon loses (That's been happening a lot today...)

"Yuh, lyke, totally, first thing, u leik totally lose."

Please try and sound less like a pathetic and vacant-minded American High School cheerleader.

Secondly: Whut? "Abortion laws should be rendered stricter, but still allow abortion as a valid option until very late in the term, unless a valid medical reason is present" = Nazi Germany? Your pseudo-satirial quote isn't very clear as to your actual intentions with the post. Elaboration would be appreciated.

Ahhh...no, no NO, this is where you make your mistake. Our friend PLAYER was arguing that if there's a serious risk to the mother's health, and it will be tragedy and she won't be able to care for the child and she's just young with a whole future ahead of her blah blah blah ad (quite literal) nauseam, then it's OK to kill the foetus regardless of whether it's alive or not. If she had addressed the issue of personhood, the parametres of debate may have been acceptable, but surely for all the sob stories she can bring out about abortion, I can come out with another about how some poor ethnic German was losing out to a big Jewish retail oufit and his family were starving as a result (which happenned fretquently).

All right, now we've explained that for the slightly slower-of-mind, let's move on...

Firstly, have you actualy considered the impact of rendering abortion completely illegal? Illegality won't kill it, it'll simply drive it underground. Clean operating theatres will become grimy alleys, where they women are left to bleed out after the 'operation'. Do you consider this an optimal situation?

Yes...just like the Waffen SS could argue that is they didn't gas jews, ordinary citizens would spontaneously erupt onto the streets and smash their shop windows, drag them out into the street and knife them, potentially getting an infected glass cut in the process or something. Which would be tragic...

Secondly, a personal question: Roughly, what social bracket would you consider you and your family to be in? I'm betting upper-middle middle class, or upper middle class. If so, do you really think your lifestyle and education reflects that of the majority (84%, according to Wikipedia the Almighty) of those less well of than yourself? How does your exposure to informal sex-ed classes compare to that of a working class kid of the same age?

He's conservative so he's rich. Can't fault you logic on that one, can I squire?

I find it very difficult to believe that even a large minority of people who are not explicitly told so can work out the dangers presented by STD's, the ease of conception, and the massive usefulness of contraception on their own.
I did, obviously, but with the idiots (Not always idiots; there are often other reasons. However, the net result is the same) who failed high school, I find it never pays to assume anything.

If people that stupid exist, the first step is to chemically castrate them and permantly remove their genes from circulation for the good of everyone.

Now, I know arguing with Napoleon "One Billion Abortions in the Last 50 Years" Ier is pretty pointless, but at least no-one can accuse me of not trying.

That's an underestimate, since it doesn't include clandestine abortions. But look up the stats for yourself...there's rougly 30-50 million abortions every year worlwide (including clandestine ones), multiply it by 50 and you get about 2 billion abortions. And before I get a load of whinge about how they weren't legalized so my stats aren't accurate etc....yes, OK, but that's an estimate, which has been halved, and in most countries, abortion numbers actually dropped after they were legalized. (Evidence the State should provide them? No,evidence the State should have intensified it's campaign against abortion doctors, like it would against any other kind of criminal wave).

[tzor]

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

You seem confused, are you sure you meant what you said?

Dancing Mustard, you fail at the English Language, specifically at subordinate lauses. You also fail at logic and set theory.

"that's what abortion is" ... What's "that?" ... "kill somethig that is living."

Adjust the sentence "Abortion is, "kill somethig that is living.'"

If A is B ... then logic says that you can't say B is A because A could be a subset of B

Therefore to assert that jay_a2j implied that killing something that is living is abortion is a violation of logic.

[TaylorSandbek]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to lynch him.)

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

You'll note, PLAYER18394, that I added "Weimar" to the above post to make clear that the quote is a synthetic satire of your views and those of the NSDAP's supporters in the late 20s.

Firstly, Napoleon loses (That's been happening a lot today...)

"Yuh, lyke, totally, first thing, u leik totally lose."

Please try and sound less like a pathetic and vacant-minded American High School cheerleader.

Secondly: Whut? "Abortion laws should be rendered stricter, but still allow abortion as a valid option until very late in the term, unless a valid medical reason is present" = Nazi Germany? Your pseudo-satirial quote isn't very clear as to your actual intentions with the post. Elaboration would be appreciated.

Ahhh...no, no NO, this is where you make your mistake. Our friend PLAYER was arguing that if there's a serious risk to the mother's health, and it will be tragedy and she won't be able to care for the child and she's just young with a whole future ahead of her blah blah blah ad (quite literal) nauseam, then it's OK to kill the foetus regardless of whether it's alive or not. If she had addressed the issue of personhood, the parametres of debate may have been acceptable, but surely for all the sob stories she can bring out about abortion, I can come out with another about how some poor ethnic German was losing out to a big Jewish retail oufit and his family were starving as a result (which happenned fretquently).

All right, now we've explained that for the slightly slower-of-mind, let's move on...

Firstly, have you actualy considered the impact of rendering abortion completely illegal? Illegality won't kill it, it'll simply drive it underground. Clean operating theatres will become grimy alleys, where they women are left to bleed out after the 'operation'. Do you consider this an optimal situation?

Yes...just like the Waffen SS could argue that is they didn't gas jews, ordinary citizens would spontaneously erupt onto the streets and smash their shop windows, drag them out into the street and knife them, potentially getting an infected glass cut in the process or something. Which would be tragic...

Secondly, a personal question: Roughly, what social bracket would you consider you and your family to be in? I'm betting upper-middle middle class, or upper middle class. If so, do you really think your lifestyle and education reflects that of the majority (84%, according to Wikipedia the Almighty) of those less well of than yourself? How does your exposure to informal sex-ed classes compare to that of a working class kid of the same age?

He's conservative so he's rich. Can't fault you logic on that one, can I squire?

I find it very difficult to believe that even a large minority of people who are not explicitly told so can work out the dangers presented by STD's, the ease of conception, and the massive usefulness of contraception on their own.
I did, obviously, but with the idiots (Not always idiots; there are often other reasons. However, the net result is the same) who failed high school, I find it never pays to assume anything.

If people that stupid exist, the first step is to chemically castrate them and permantly remove their genes from circulation for the good of everyone.

Now, I know arguing with Napoleon "One Billion Abortions in the Last 50 Years" Ier is pretty pointless, but at least no-one can accuse me of not trying.

That's an underestimate, since it doesn't include clandestine abortions. But look up the stats for yourself...there's rougly 30-50 million abortions every year worlwide (including clandestine ones), multiply it by 50 and you get about 2 billion abortions. And before I get a load of whinge about how they weren't legalized so my stats aren't accurate etc....yes, OK, but that's an estimate, which has been halved, and in most countries, abortion numbers actually dropped after they were legalized. (Evidence the State should provide them? No,evidence the State should have intensified it's campaign against abortion doctors, like it would against any other kind of criminal wave).

[Napoleon Ier]

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

You seem confused, are you sure you meant what you said?

Dancing Mustard, you fail at the English Language, specifically at subordinate lauses. You also fail at logic and set theory.

"that's what abortion is" ... What's "that?" ... "kill somethig that is living."

Adjust the sentence "Abortion is, "kill somethig that is living.'"

If A is B ... then logic says that you can't say B is A because A could be a subset of B

Therefore to assert that jay_a2j implied that killing something that is living is abortion is a violation of logic.

More than anything, he's being pedantic.

[jonesthecurl]

[jonesthecurl]

Let's let the icons do the arguing for us.

[PLAYER57832]

BUT, the bottom line is that laws are for everyone. Dealing with a severely disabled child is an ENORMOUS undertaking, even with all current medical advances. I would not tell a parent they could not raise such a child, BUT do I, or a group of legislators have the right to tell parents int eh deepest pain they will ever experience, consulting with their doctors and (if religious) clergy... do I have the right to sit here, with my 2 healthy children to tell them what to do? I say NO. EVEN IF they decision they might make is not my own, it is just too personal a choice. There are just too, too, too many variables for any law to take them all into account[/color].

Blatant justification of an act of murder.

Can you read?

Spoken with the assurance of someone who has obviously never had to deal with anything close, who likely is very far from even being a parent. NO, you DON'T have the right to make that accusation!

When and IF (and I certainly would not wish it on anyone), you are ever in the position yourself ... or have a close friend/relative in that position....

Failing that, go visit an intensive care prenatal unit. Look at the pain on the faces of parents with children they desperately want to survive, but knowing full well that the chance of any kind of life is minimal. Look down the hall to the REALITY of those who survive. Not the 1 in a 100 (sometimes 1000) who has a really good outcome, but the rest... Consider that they represent many more parents, equally wanting children to live, but, with even LESS of a chance of survival. And THEN, when you yourself have experienced what it really is to be a parent, to love someone more than ANYTHING in this world. KNow what it is to see that child in pain ... even small pain, nnever mind the kind of pain discussed above. Experience those things ... and then, MAYBE you will have a partial right to make such a judgement.

[Neoteny]

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

You seem confused, are you sure you meant what you said?

Dancing Mustard, you fail at the English Language, specifically at subordinate lauses. You also fail at logic and set theory.

"that's what abortion is" ... What's "that?" ... "kill somethig that is living."

Adjust the sentence "Abortion is, "kill somethig that is living.'"

If A is B ... then logic says that you can't say B is A because A could be a subset of B

Therefore to assert that jay_a2j implied that killing something that is living is abortion is a violation of logic.

I disagree. Accoding to jay's statement, abortion is "if you kill something that is living." Also,it is "wrong" for that reason. The logic from that statement is explicitly stated as "if you kill something that is living," which includes flies, that is "wrong." It's clear from the context what jay means, but his sentence was not perfectly illustrative, and thus DM's post was "humorous" as intended.

[Napoleon Ier]

Failing that, go visit a street in Hamburg. Look at the pain on the faces of parents with children they desperately want to survive, but knowing full well that the chance of any kind of life is minimal. Look down the street to the REALITY of those slimy jews living in luxury. Not 1 in a 100 (sometimes 1000) Jew has a really good soul, the rest... Consider that they represent many more parents exploited, equally wanting children to live, but, with even LESS of a chance of survival. And THEN, when you yourself have experienced what it really is to be a business owner in 1930s Hamburg, to love someone and you business more than ANYTHING in this world. Experience those things ... and then, MAYBE you will have a partial right to make such a judgement.

[tzor]

1. There is a BIG difference between "liking" abortion, thinking abortion is even "OK" and the law by which we all must live. No one sane, even abortion doctors, even Planned Parenthood folks, LIKE abortion. (other than idiots ... ) They just see it as better than an absolute ban. Why? see below.

I think we may have to disagree. Remember I come from New York. I have seen the enemy. They want nothing other than the absolute right to kill. The pre-born are the first. Non-voluntary euthanasia is the next logical step. Mind you I've never considered them "sane."

2. Similarly, it is medically and morally OK to get an abortion when the mother's life is in danger. It is also OK to remove a dead child. (but legally, that is often classified just like taking a live child ... I know, it happened to me).

You will have no arguments from me. (I mean if you want arguments from me, there is always the principle of "double effect," but I mean you won't get any arguments against your position from me.)

A. At what point does life really begin?

(Fixed the color tags)

There is no good argument from the Old Testament. The general principle is that the first breath is important. This probably comes from God breathing into man in Genesis. On the other hand "blood" was considered "life," hence there was a lot of nit picking in the law for various aspects of blood.

Then again the Old Testament also believed in a flat earth, a solid dome in the sky which kept the water from flooding the land and so on. The answer is simple. There is no easy answer. Love demands we give the benefit of the doubt in all such cases.

B. Some children are plain and simply not able to survive or have anything even close to a productive or "happy" (define it as you will) life.

What's productive? What's happy? And are you sure it's better than the alternative? Clearly some are non-viable. Clearly some might suffer extreeme pain. But to some who might think their lives are not productive those lives might choose to disagree. As long as we are into "choice" should this question be up to them?

I know parents who take care of severly disabled people. She has to watch him like a hawk because he can literally stop breathing at night. It was and is a ton of work. Ironically she complains the most about her younger child who is normal because he keeps running around all over the place.

C. Is a LAW, the best way to prevent abortions?

No. The law is the best place to place honest boundaries on abortions, much like the law places honest boundaries on the rules of the road. The law prevents abuse, provides people with rights (ironically there isn't much "right" in most cases on the subject of abortions).

As I said, I live in New York. Spitzer's bill which would have forced religious hospitals to provide abortions and make all abortion regulation a crime is still in the state senate committee. Hopefully it will die there.

D. Options are not always available. Some people find abortion actually more ethical than adoption. (I don't agree, I just acknowledge the position) The argument is that it is our greatest responsibility to care for and raise our children to be "good citizens" If we cannot, then we cannot trust society to do so.

Options should always be available. You cannot in all honestly claim you are pro-choice when there is only one choice available. Inside every pro-life person who really cares about this issue is a rabid liberal socialist wanting to break out. And don't make me pull out the vile Hillary's famous "it takes a village." If we cannot trust society, we cannot trust ourselves.

(Yet as Reagan said, "trust but verify.")

BOTTOM LINE: Abortion is NOT something to be taken lightly. But, there is a very seriously considered range of beliefs about this. LEGALIZING abortion puts the debate into the hands of the parents and medicine, NOT in the hands of Legislators.

And here we disagree. Reasonable laws on abortion puts the debate into the hands of parents and medicine. Current laws do not. Parents are not informed of what happens to their children. People are not informed of all potential risks of various procedures. Malpractice is often left unpunished. And subtle eugenics is being pushed on the people.

[tzor]

I disagree. Accoding to jay's statement, abortion is "if you kill something that is living." Also,it is "wrong" for that reason. The logic from that statement is explicitly stated as "if you kill something that is living," which includes flies, that is "wrong." It's clear from the context what jay means, but his sentence was not perfectly illustrative, and thus DM's post was "humorous" as intended.

Don't make me pull put the paint program and start uploading english diagrams.

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

"that's what abortion is" is a clause that modifies the subject that preceeds it. It does not modify or justify the conclusion (there is an implied "then" missing in the sentence) that follows it.

If you had bothered to study English in college, which I could not because R.P.I. had no English requirement, you would understand.

Does not mean that you would underderstand because R.P.I. had no English requirement.

You fail.

I do not, because R.P.I. had no english requirement.

[Dancing Mustard]

Dancing Mustard, you fail at the English Language, specifically at subordinate lauses. You also fail at logic and set theory.

Well it would appear that you fail at being anything other than a pompous, overbearing, blowhard. Further, it would appear that you fail at typing coherent prose yourself, and that you fail at the vital social skill that is "making any fucking sense whatsoever". Finally, and you may consider this particular comment as being beyond the realms of this current discussion, it would appear that you have failed (on multiple occassions) to stick to your weightwatchers diet and at seeking a competent barber to hack off your ridiculous facial hair.

If A is B ... then logic says that you can't say B is A because A could be a subset of B

Delightful though it was to watch an ageing mathematics fanatic twist Jay's sentence around to attempt to make him appear to be a lifeform capable of comprehending the concept of sub-clauses, I can't help but take issue with some of your thinking.

Now I appreciate that you were contriving to have Jay's words read "Abortion is a sub-set of the activity known as 'killing living things', all of which I regard as wrong", so please spare me any pompous "oh you clearly do not understand my mighty ginger logic" retorts.

Here is why your analysis is, for lack of a better word, a heap of steaming shit:

1. Even if you were to interpret Jay's sentence as "Abortion is, "kill somethig that is living.'", then you still wouldn't have sufficiently defined the activity known as 'abortion' to exclude the killing of a fly.

2. Even if we take the liberty (as you did) of glossing Jay's stumbling attempts at using the English Language and regarded him as talking about 'abortion' as a sub-set of the wider set of 'killing living things', then he still wouldn't have provided a reason that 'abortion' is morally different from the killing of flies (something he would presumably do via shonky soundbites about 'sanctity of human life').

This leaves us with two possibilities:
1. Jay failed to define 'abortion' particularly well, and made it sound precisely the same as 'killing'.
2. Jay might, somewhere at the back of his tragically deficient mind, have been attempting to express he notion that abortion is merely one type of 'killing', but failed to distinguish why that particular 'kill' was worse than any other. Therefore leaving him open to 'so why is it any worse than any other type of kill?' probing.

So let's see:
Was I guilty of 'violations of logic? Nah.
Did I make incompetent use of the English Language? Not so much.
Was I simply the target of a misguided attempt, by this Forum's latest self-important windbag, to salvage the post of somebody who appeared to agree with him? Yeah... that looks like the one.


Basically Tzor, I know you have an incredibly high opinion of yourself (though why I can't imagine), and I realise that you have a great deal of free-time in which you can attempt to devote yourself to making pseudo-intellectual statements about logic theory. But I'd appreciate it if you'd try to keep your droning civil in the future.
After all, it's tedious enough to be forced to listen to your lengthy pontification on subjects that you know precious little about, but it's just plain old insufferable when you start trying to paint yourself as some kind of tough-talking 'enforcer of logic' character.

So in the future if you've got something to say in my general direction try to make it polite and try to make it vaguely sensible. The last thing this place needs is another imbecile waddling around making smug and inane comments whenever their ego gets too big to contain.

In short: You fail. Next time try not to look like such a pompous arse while you do it.

[tzor]

You know DM I do believe the room for flames is down the hall to the left. I would say that your argument is a "a heap of steaming shit" but you really need to be warm blooded in order for your shit to be hot enough to be steaming. Yes not only does your cold blooded argument fail, it isn't even above room temperature.

And at least I tend to stay on the subject. You know you really ought to give birth to your thoughts and not simply abort them before they are half formed. I think you've proved the case why we need laws against thought abortions. At least have the dignity to bury the remains of your thoughts in a proper place.

[Dancing Mustard]

You know DM I do believe the room for flames is down the hall to the left.

Shame we don't have a sub-forum for self-righteous hypocrites really, if we did then I could give you directions to there as a retort.

As it is I'll just have to stick to pointing out that you're nothing but a self-righteous hypocrite, and were in fact the first person to kick off with 'flames' here. You remember them right? The bits where you said: "you fail at the English Language, specifically at subordinate lauses. You also fail at logic and set theory". Weedy flames indeed, but flames nonetheless.

Funny how all of a sudden you've thrown your arms up in the air and harping on about the rules. It's always amazing how people act when the boot is on the other foot.

One can only conclude that you only enjoy throwing your (considerable) weight about and attempting to bully other posters when you don't think they'll snap back.

I would say that your argument is a "a heap of steaming shit" but you really need to be warm blooded in order for your shit to be hot enough to be steaming. Yes not only does your cold blooded argument fail, it isn't even above room temperature.

You can say what you like son, but I note that your precious logic-clauses have suddenly deserted you. I can't help but notice that you've gone from pretending to have something sensible to say, to peddling trite insults (hang on, who was it that was crying about 'flames' here?).

Wail all you like about how "dat iz teh stoopidz" Tzor; the fact is that you've just had your fallacious 'logic' handed back to you on a platter, and no amount of childish whinging is going to change the fact that your previous assertions have been demonstrated to be utterly ridiculous.

And at least I tend to stay on the subject.

If pretentious pseudo-logical posturing and blustering attempts to bully other posters is 'staying on subject', then I can only agree...

You know you really ought to give birth to your thoughts and not simply abort them before they are half formed. I think you've proved the case why we need laws against thought abortions. At least have the dignity to bury the remains of your thoughts in a proper place.

What's that?

Yet more sanctimonious whinging about flames? Yet more weak attempts at making flames of your own? Still no logical rebuttal of my demolition of your arguments? A petulant admission of the complete and utter failure of your petty attempts at making a point? All of the above you say? Well then, it looks like my work here is done.


Have fun with your hypocritical whinging about 'flames' Tzor, and have fun with your continuing pathetic attempts to make them yourself. I'll come back once you stop throwing your undignified little losing tantrum, and when you start vainly attempting to make sense again.

Bibi kk mwah xxxx

[PLAYER57832]

Thank you for your reasoned response. For the most part, it requires no reply.

I will, however clarify the following:

BOTTOM LINE: Abortion is NOT something to be taken lightly. But, there is a very seriously considered range of beliefs about this. LEGALIZING abortion puts the debate into the hands of the parents and medicine, NOT in the hands of Legislators.

And here we disagree. Reasonable laws on abortion puts the debate into the hands of parents and medicine. Current laws do not. Parents are not informed of what happens to their children. People are not informed of all potential risks of various procedures. Malpractice is often left unpunished. And subtle eugenics is being pushed on the people.

I actually am in favor of parental consent, with the possible provision that a minor child may petition for secrecy in certain specific cases. (though in those cases, I would say the best outcome is to remove the child to a safer environment).

As for the eugenics part. Eugenics, Euthanasia is, if anything even more complicated than abortion (or, in this case, seriously complicate abortion). One the one hand, I find the idea that someone would abort a child of the "wrong sex" or with "Down's" .. or any number of other "imperfections" (by who's standards, anyway?) to be morally reprehensible.

On the other hand, I have enough knowledge of medicine, enough knowledge of biology to say that at some point decisions no one likes have to be made. I want churches, people of morals involved in that. I don't think it is healthy for our society that these serious debates are so often framed by the extremes ... to the exclusion of other "middle" options.

Finally, as per the severely injured (I don't use the term"handicapped" .. it is considered derogatory) child of your friends. I would NEVER tell them they made the "wrong" decision. BUT, ask yourself this. Think about the amount of dedication necessary to maintain that child. Ask yourself what would happen were that child born to parents who just were not so skilled, not so dedicated... What if they child were significantly more injured? In more pain? I certainly don't have the answer.

Further, when talking of legislators, any standard set today will change tommorrow. Many years ago, children died, with no hope, from diabetes, kidney problems, facial deformities (that prevented them from eating properly), and other things we now consider not even "real" disabilities. When I was young, "Joni" and "Karen" were popular examples of "survival against all odds". Now, we hear of people who can not only live, but thrive with the most severe of disabilities. Voice activated computers or computers that work on the merest eye movements, Wheel chairs that can ski and climb stairs..... not to mention surgaries and medicines that our grandparents never even imagined.

BUT, the capabilities available at the top hospitals in the nation are not the capabilities available in our area. In our local hospital, they don't even regularly have an incubator (though they bring one in when needed). Life Flight -- our link to the "big" hospitals, takes 1-2 hours. The decisions that make sense in your community of NY and that would make sense hear are not the same.

There are a LOT of complicated issues here. On that, I believe we each agree. We might not agree 100% on just where the law should lie, but no matter what, it is bound to be imperfect. And, that is all I am saying. IN this, there is no "good" and "pure" answer. Often it comes down to making the best of only bad choices. As humans, we cannot perform perfectly. As a Christian, that is why I am taught we need God's grace, forgiveness and guidance.

Sometimes that is the ONLY real answer possible.

[Juan_Bottom]

And I would like to voice my disagreement on the whole 'churches, people of morals' being involved in the decision making. It is ok though if you ment for an individual to seek personal council. But I don't want someone elses version of morality to ever hold sway over my decisions. I don't think someone becomes more qualified, or informed just because they are deemed 'most moral', or religious. I do not want any church beliefs involved in any law, and especially not in an abortion one.

[jonesthecurl]

I disagree. Accoding to jay's statement, abortion is "if you kill something that is living." Also,it is "wrong" for that reason. The logic from that statement is explicitly stated as "if you kill something that is living," which includes flies, that is "wrong." It's clear from the context what jay means, but his sentence was not perfectly illustrative, and thus DM's post was "humorous" as intended.

Don't make me pull put the paint program and start uploading english diagrams.

If you kill something that is living, that's what abortion is, it's wrong.

"that's what abortion is" is a clause that modifies the subject that preceeds it. It does not modify or justify the conclusion (there is an implied "then" missing in the sentence) that follows it.

If you had bothered to study English in college, which I could not because R.P.I. had no English requirement, you would understand.

Does not mean that you would underderstand because R.P.I. had no English requirement.

You fail.

I do not, because R.P.I. had no english requirement.

From a grammatical point of view, you are quite correct. However, allow me to doubt that Jay has such an exact command of the niceties of correct grammar.

Frankly, in order to extract the exact sense (or nonsense) that he actually intends, you have to attempt to sift the grains of information from the passing stream of verbiage.

In other words (a) read what he says, and then (b) ask yourself "What the 'effin 'ell did he mean by that?" and then (c) decide the paydirt is not worth the sifting, and move on with your life.

[Snorri1234]

Secondly, a personal question: Roughly, what social bracket would you consider you and your family to be in? I'm betting upper-middle middle class, or upper middle class. If so, do you really think your lifestyle and education reflects that of the majority (84%, according to Wikipedia the Almighty) of those less well of than yourself? How does your exposure to informal sex-ed classes compare to that of a working class kid of the same age?

He's conservative so he's rich. Can't fault you logic on that one, can I squire?

Actually, he has a point as you seem to be of pretty high intelligence (though there is evidence to the contrary) and therefore your education probably doesn't reflect that of the average kid.

I find it very difficult to believe that even a large minority of people who are not explicitly told so can work out the dangers presented by STD's, the ease of conception, and the massive usefulness of contraception on their own.
I did, obviously, but with the idiots (Not always idiots; there are often other reasons. However, the net result is the same) who failed high school, I find it never pays to assume anything.

If people that stupid exist, the first step is to chemically castrate them and permantly remove their genes from circulation for the good of everyone.

So player is being a nazi while you're arguing eugenics?

[tzor]

There are a LOT of complicated issues here. On that, I believe we each agree. We might not agree 100% on just where the law should lie, but no matter what, it is bound to be imperfect. And, that is all I am saying. IN this, there is no "good" and "pure" answer. Often it comes down to making the best of only bad choices. As humans, we cannot perform perfectly. As a Christian, that is why I am taught we need God's grace, forgiveness and guidance.

Sometimes that is the ONLY real answer possible.

I think we have come to a meeting of minds here.

And I think this has been the best example of how people can work to find common ground when they admit that some issues are complex and we have to look at all the decisions which are never ideal and allow for the posibility that the least evil option be given the posibility.

...

Oh wait, I'm supposed to be having an elitist argument with DM ... now where was I?

From a grammatical point of view, you are quite correct.

You know there are people in this world who wear surgical masks because they don't want to accidentally breathe in a fly. The basic argument "killing something that is livng is 'wrong'" is a perfectly good argument. People might disagree with it and I might even disagree with it but it's a perfectly good argument. The sentence seemed simple enough for me, and I'm always a proponent of saying things simply. (Yes DM I never said I practice what I propose.)