Abortion

[jiminski]

It's simple logic, really, not a flaming matter.

Player essentially states:

P1/ --Abortion is the destroying of an embryo, or fetus.
P2/ --There is no absolute point at which we can define the former as a person, so this responsibility is delegated to the parents.
P3/ --The greater good is always achieved by maximizing happiness for the most possible people. The way to maximize utility is for "parents, clergy and medicine {sic}" to decide.

Now, the logical conclusion is that unless some metaphysical significance is given to the point of birth, there is only a continuously variable and subjective scale by which personhood can be measured, and this must be done by "parents, medicine and clergy" due to the "highly complex, personal, morally relative etc...etc..." nature of abortion. Hence the killings a 3-month-old, an 8-week fetus, or indeed a 17-year old, are (when measured against the standards of PLAYER's logic) ethically undifferentiable.

So using the 3 above premises stated by PLAYER, I drew out the simple logical inference. That's all I did. Sometimes, Mustard, you need to learn to read between the lines to get at the meat of your opponent's argument.

Now, we've already seen you're unable to understand fundamental logic and mathematics, but that's none of my concern, I'm just trying to present a case against PLAYER, if you don't understand my points, that's not my problem, spend a bit of time improving your general culture and then come back for serious discussion.

you are being a little tit Nappy!

you can not base your discussion on pseudo-superiority and 'intellectualised' flaming without substance (Mainly consisting of strings of esoteric words, which mean absolutely nothing without leaping into semantic-symbolism and metaphor; in so doing you can make anything appear to make sense before the reader catches on) and then chastise everyone else for debating without substance!

Your strategy of being rude, terse and condescending attempts hide you from the ultimate truth; the truth that you understand almost precisely nothing Nipper.

One day, when you have the balls to pull yourself from the shadow of the fearful, you may understand 'stuff' like doubt and then you may not just pretend to yourself that you do 'know'.

On that day i hope you will hold little chaps like you in paternal contempt... I hope you will show the patience which we have shown to you!

[Napoleon Ier]

Mmhmm. Nice jiminski and cola, very nice, and...do the pair of you have a logical rebuttal? Of course you don't...so you can f*ck off until you actually have something of value to say, eh?

[jiminski]

Mmhmm. Nice jiminski and cola, very nice, and...do the pair of you have a logical rebuttal? Of course you don't...so you can f*ck off until you actually have something of value to say, eh?

heheh nice try Nap!
Read the words, let them sink in, try to 'understand' them..

[heavycola]

Mmhmm. Nice jiminski and cola, very nice, and...do the pair of you have a logical rebuttal? Of course you don't...so you can f*ck off until you actually have something of value to say, eh?

'it's simple logic really, not a flaming matter.'

Then perhaps you could start by not throwing words like 'moron' and 'imbecile' around in every insufferable post you make. Or try to be less of belligerent, or perhaps rid yourself of that condescending sneer that infests everything you write. Then read jim's previoous post. Then mine.

[tzor]

you are being a little tit Nappy!

I'm sorry Nappy is not being a little tit. This is a little tit.


I have to agree with Nappy on his reasoning here.

I'm starting to get sick and tired of "I am too lazy to read what you wrote" becomming "read the words." This is starting to become a scene with the black knight.

So jiminski and heavycola, stop acting like a pair of boobys!
(Blue footed ones at that!)

[heavycola]

I have to agree with Nappy on his reasoning here.

I'm starting to get sick and tired of "I am too lazy to read what you wrote" becomming "read the words." This is starting to become a scene with the black knight.

So jiminski and heavycola, stop acting like a pair of boobys!
(Blue footed ones at that!)

Nappy's reasoning is usually pretty good. He's certainly not stupid. But that's not the point here. Perhaps you should try reading other people's posts...

[jiminski]

you are being a little tit Nappy!

I'm sorry Nappy is not being a little tit. This is a little tit.


I have to agree with Nappy on his reasoning here.

I'm starting to get sick and tired of "I am too lazy to read what you wrote" becomming "read the words." This is starting to become a scene with the black knight.

So jiminski and heavycola, stop acting like a pair of boobys!
(Blue footed ones at that!)

look mate, the little fella needs to pull in a tad.
His reasoning is sometimes ok.. but he breaks all the rules he holds up as sacrosanct to the field of debate.
He is dismissive and down right rude, using language measured to dissuade sensible debate only to claim the high moral ground when you take the debate to where he already lowered it!
Look at his treatment of Player .. hehe she has her peculiarities for contention, as do we all but Nappy is unnecessarily nasty.
So step back partner and see the wood in the trees... although i appreciate the attempt to make light!

[Napoleon Ier]

In other words, jiminski doesn't have the intellectual level and so resorts to rather sad name calling with a pseudo-mature attitude, whilst heavycola is barely able to compose a coherent sentence and so resorts to making non-sensical demands for me to "cock off" in a rather pathetic attempt at conveying an internet-hardman image.

[Dancing Mustard]

In other words, jiminski doesn't have the intellectual level and so resorts to rather sad name calling with a pseudo-mature attitude

Next time you feel the urge to type a message here you should perhaps focus more on your computer screen and less on your handmirror.

[heavycola]

In other words, jiminski doesn't have the intellectual level and so resorts to rather sad name calling with a pseudo-mature attitude, whilst heavycola is barely able to compose a coherent sentence and so resorts to making non-sensical demands for me to "cock off" in a rather pathetic attempt at conveying an internet-hardman image.

if you'd bothered to read what jim or I wrote, 'cock off' aside - although it still stands as a request - you would have noticed that neither of us is arguing with your opinions, or tzor's, or player's. The issue here is your endless unpleasantness, the way you don't seem to be able to have a debate without sneering at, insulting or attempting to condescend to anyone who a) disagrees with you, or b) doesn't respond to your verbal diarrhea in the correct, nappy-approved way.
Then - oh irony of ironies, hypocrisy of hypocrisies - you actually have the gall to declare: 'It's simple logic really, not a flaming matter.' How many insults have you thrown around in the last 10 pages?
'Rather sad name-calling' - that's another good one. Ahahaha.

Are you able, in any way, to stop acting like such a deeply unpleasant knobhead?

[tzor]

Upon reflection, I do believe my tit was a tad too big.

Heavycola, this "read what I wrote" thing is getting old. You can't use it ad nauseum, we are already well beyond sick of it. I think it is clear that we are inded reading what you write. That we may not be drawing the same conclusions from it as you might have intended is only because we are not you.

Let's try to get back to arguing the poster's points, and not the poster's attitude OK?

[Neoteny]

Upon reflection, I do believe my tit was a tad too big.

Heavycola, this "read what I wrote" thing is getting old. You can't use it ad nauseum, we are already well beyond sick of it. I think it is clear that we are inded reading what you write. That we may not be drawing the same conclusions from it as you might have intended is only because we are not you.

Let's try to get back to arguing the poster's points, and not the poster's attitude OK?

It was a great tit, one might say.

[Napoleon Ier]

In other words, jiminski doesn't have the intellectual level and so resorts to rather sad name calling with a pseudo-mature attitude

Next time you feel the urge to type a message here you should perhaps focus more on your computer screen and less on your handmirror.

Next time you feel the urge to type a message here you should perhaps focus more on putting together an expression of your thought-process which looks vaguely coherent.

Now how about you explain to us just how it is that a continuously variable-value scale of personhood which can only be subjectively interpreted can yield an absolute value defining personhood?

[jiminski]

Upon reflection, I do believe my tit was a tad too big.

Heavycola, this "read what I wrote" thing is getting old. You can't use it ad nauseum, we are already well beyond sick of it. I think it is clear that we are inded reading what you write. That we may not be drawing the same conclusions from it as you might have intended is only because we are not you.

Let's try to get back to arguing the poster's points, and not the poster's attitude OK?

yeas, i agree but first the issue of the supercilious bastion of contradiction, which is Nappy, needs to be addressed.
to have a fruitful debate and move on, we must first take his personalised attacks, which he uses as panacea to cure all arguments, away from him.

Without that we are perpetually catching-up with abashed egos and circling in never decreasing paradox.
It is like trying to take codes of conduct into a street-fight, with a 12 year old hooligan holding a broken bottle and a can of pepper-spray!

the fight is beneath us.. but we are never-the-less in the fight!

[tzor]

to have a fruitful debate and move on, we must first take his personalised attacks, which he uses as panacea to cure all arguments, away from him.

The simple answer is "no." What is the purpose of this debate? To win "brownie" points or to convince others? If it is the latter then personalized attacks, from either side, should be ignored. In the old words of the early internet, "do not feed the trolls," and there is a troll in every one of us.

If someone makes a statement that you would think surprsing, don't say "you're an idiot," or "didnt' you read what I wrote," but instead, "can you care to elaborate, I don't see how you can say that." Thus your opponent will have to defend his point instead of going off on a tangent about your attack style.

Likewise I believe that Nappy has raised a valid question about how you can assume you can draw an absolute line when you claim everything is scaling and relative.

[jiminski]

to have a fruitful debate and move on, we must first take his personalised attacks, which he uses as panacea to cure all arguments, away from him.

The simple answer is "no." What is the purpose of this debate? To win "brownie" points or to convince others? If it is the latter then personalized attacks, from either side, should be ignored. In the old words of the early internet, "do not feed the trolls," and there is a troll in every one of us.

If someone makes a statement that you would think surprsing, don't say "you're an idiot," or "didnt' you read what I wrote," but instead, "can you care to elaborate, I don't see how you can say that." Thus your opponent will have to defend his point instead of going off on a tangent about your attack style.

Likewise I believe that Nappy has raised a valid question about how you can assume you can draw an absolute line when you claim everything is scaling and relative.

no Tzor! your vision is clouded due to your partisanship!

[tzor]

no Tzor! your vision is clouded due to your partisanship!

Horse feathers. In fact I've often had a few "what is he thinking" moments from reading Nappy's post, but his basic question is still valid. I was, if you may recall, the one who first indicated that the discussion was changing from a question of abortion (the medical needs of the mother) to the question of euthanasia (the mercy killing of someone who would live a life of extreeme pain and suffering).

If we look at the latter question, as opposed to the former question which is the question Player raised on several occasions, then the question Nappy raised is indeed a valid one. If you like I will raise it. Remember this is a multi-dimensional argument, one could easily discuss the nature of the termination of active life support or the other direction of the direct termination of a life.

Let us also assume that there is no 'magic' moment, no constitutional fairy bopping you on the head the moment you take your first breath. If life is going to suck five minutes before birth it's probably going to suck five minutes after birth. (Conversely anyone born is probably not going to be a potential threat anymore to the life of the mother - these are two seperate issues in more ways than one.)

If there is a moral argument that a person's life is so horrid that death is better than that argument exists as much after birth as before it. The real question is who should make that determination. Unlike abortion the implications of this can have far reaching consequences. The parents are technically the legal guardians of their children, making decisions on behalf of their children. Anything that applies to that situation could equally apply to any other form of legal guardianship. In other words, the legal guardianship of the eldery by persons or the state - involuntary euthanasia.

So the question is what should be the criteria and who should decide on such things? Hey I've watched the Star Trek movies, this isn't supposed to be an easy question. (So if you want to run away from it, I'll understand ... we won't get any closer in terms of understanding but I'll understand.)

[Dancing Mustard]

Next time you feel the urge to type a message here you should perhaps focus more on putting together an expression of your thought-process which looks vaguely coherent.

See, you just can't get away from angry pre-pubescent flaming.

Your bawled insults are not based in fact or reality, and until you finally start acting like an adult then people are going to have to continue treating you like a child.

It's such a shame that you keep ruining these otherwise decent threads with your childish trolling.

[tzor]

See, you just can't get away from angry pre-pubescent flaming.

As opposed to your comments which are ... angry pre-pubescent flaming.

[muy_thaiguy]

It's such a shame that you keep ruining these otherwise decent threads with your childish trolling.

TROLL POWWWWWWWWWWWER!!!

Sorry, but I just find this a bit ironic, that someone who uses a sig like the one below, and practically preaches and encourages it, then tries to chastise someone else for it.

[Juan_Bottom]

So what do we agree on anything? Is there any middle ground on abortion? Cases of rape, possibility of the mother dying, fetus has already died, when the fetus is still basically blank cells, mutations, ect...? Any middle ground? Because, I want to make up my mind where I stand on this issue too.

[Bertros Bertros]

So what do we agree on anything? Is there any middle ground on abortion? Cases of rape, possibility of the mother dying, fetus has already died, when the fetus is still basically blank cells, mutations, ect...? Any middle ground? Because, I want to make up my mind where I stand on this issue too.

Dude, seriously, you want to make your mind up on abortion, go think about it for yourself and follow what seems right to you. Don't be listening to the trite bullshit that gets bandied around in here. Anyone can argue the issue either way and many do just for the joy of arguing. Opinions one way or the other can easily be 'justified' by religion, politics, statistics, bullshit... all that really matters is what YOU think is right.

[Napoleon Ier]

Next time you feel the urge to type a message here you should perhaps focus more on putting together an expression of your thought-process which looks vaguely coherent.

See, you just can't get away from angry pre-pubescent flaming.

Your bawled insults are not based in fact or reality, and until you finally start acting like an adult then people are going to have to continue treating you like a child.

It's such a shame that you keep ruining these otherwise decent threads with your childish trolling.

Well, I was using your own piss-poor attempt at a flame against you in an ironic way, but if that's the way you describe your own prose, I can only commend the above as a good critique.

[Juan_Bottom]

So what do we agree on anything? Is there any middle ground on abortion? Cases of rape, possibility of the mother dying, fetus has already died, when the fetus is still basically blank cells, mutations, ect...? Any middle ground? Because, I want to make up my mind where I stand on this issue too.

Dude, seriously, you want to make your mind up on abortion, go think about it for yourself and follow what seems right to you. Don't be listening to the trite bullshit that gets bandied around in here. Anyone can argue the issue either way and many do just for the joy of arguing. Opinions one way or the other can easily be 'justified' by religion, politics, statistics, bullshit... all that really matters is what YOU think is right.

I already made my mind up a long time ago. I just want thes f*cknuts to stop arguing with each other. Thought I could get them to look at me for the moment. Dumbasses....

[Napoleon Ier]

So what do we agree on anything? Is there any middle ground on abortion? Cases of rape, possibility of the mother dying, fetus has already died, when the fetus is still basically blank cells, mutations, ect...? Any middle ground? Because, I want to make up my mind where I stand on this issue too.

Dude, seriously, you want to make your mind up on abortion, go think about it for yourself and follow what seems right to you. Don't be listening to the trite bullshit that gets bandied around in here. Anyone can argue the issue either way and many do just for the joy of arguing. Opinions one way or the other can easily be 'justified' by religion, politics, statistics, bullshit... all that really matters is what YOU think is right.

I already made my mind up a long time ago. I just want thes f*cknuts to stop arguing with each other. Thought I could get them to look at me for the moment. Dumbasses....

In effect, since we have heard no evidence which would lead us to draw a distinction between child, adult and unborn, abortion is justified iff murder of a grown adult would, under identical ethical circumstances, be justified.