That would be the point. You're not doing
a good job of it here, so why
bother?
When my opponents say I'm not doing a good
job of representing unborn babies, I take
that as a sign that I'm doing something
right. Thanks.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-11-08 21:46pm
How can that be a good sign? And you'll
notice that I didn't actually say
"unborn babies". Nice try, though.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3961 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 03-11-08 21:59pm
Are unborn babies dishonest, deceitful and
perform morally questionable acts?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-13-08 10:55am
Eiri
wrote:
How can that be a good sign?
.
The opinion of an opponent can be assumed
to be exactly contrary to the best
interests of their opposition. Thus, if
you are against what I'm doing, it tells
me I must be doing something right.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3961 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 03-13-08 11:03am
yodavater
wrote:
The opinion of an opponent can be assumed
to be exactly contrary to the best
interests of their opposition. Thus, if
you are against what I'm doing, it tells
me I must be doing something
right.
This says alot.
I suppose the great dictators of history
have believed in this kind of black and
white thinking.
That's why we live in a world so divided.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-14-08 00:25am
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
How can that be a good sign?
.
The opinion of an opponent can be assumed
to be exactly contrary to the best
interests of their opposition. Thus, if
you are against what I'm doing, it tells
me I must be doing something
right.
But I'm still not clear as to why this is
a good thing? Isn't bi-partisanship the
worst way to solve a debate? We need
connection on this issue, not hate.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-16-08 14:00pm
Eiri
wrote:
But I'm still not clear as to why this is
a good thing? Isn't bi-partisanship the
worst way to solve a debate? We need
connection on this issue, not
hate.
I don't think there is any realistic hope
for "bi-partisanship" in this debate, no.
We are at opposite poles of a very, very
basic issue.... the right to life.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 03-16-08 16:33pm
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
But I'm still not clear as to why this is
a good thing? Isn't bi-partisanship the
worst way to solve a debate? We need
connection on this issue, not
hate.
I don't think there is any realistic hope
for "bi-partisanship" in this debate, no.
We are at opposite poles of a very, very
basic issue.... the right to
life.
No, it's the right to choose. Or the
rights of a fetus. Pro-choicers believe
that a person has a right to life once
they are born. I doubt you'd find any
pro-choicers who'd argue that a born
person doesn't have a right to life (with
the obvious exception of the death penalty
and those who forfeit their right to
live).
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-16-08 18:57pm
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
But I'm still not clear as to why this is
a good thing? Isn't bi-partisanship the
worst way to solve a debate? We need
connection on this issue, not
hate.
I don't think there is any realistic hope
for "bi-partisanship" in this debate, no.
We are at opposite poles of a very, very
basic issue.... the right to
life.
But not really. I believe the fetus gets a
right to life once it becomes viable. I
still believe it has a right to life, my
date is just later than yours.
When IS your date, by the way?
Fertilization or implantation?
So see? Even on the right to life issue,
there is common ground. Only the
extremists from either side are incapable
of communication. It is the moderates
(like me) that are able to speak to both
sides. In the end, we make both sides
angry too. We refuse to remove a woman's
choice in the early months, but at the
same time many of us are very much against
late-term abortions and do NOT believe it
is "OK" to abort a baby one month before
it is due unless the circumstances are
DIRE.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 09:49am
Reptar
wrote:
No, it's the right to choose.
.
You mean to choose to kill? That's a
proabort thing, we prolifers don't think
that ought to even be debated.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 09:53am
Eiri
wrote:
When IS your date, by the way?
Fertilization or implantation?
Date for what? If you mean when does the
existence of each new human being begin,
that's obviously at fertilization.
Eiri
wrote:
We refuse to remove a woman's choice in
the early months, but at the same time
many of us are very much against late-term
abortions and do NOT believe it is "OK" to
abort a baby one month before it is due
unless the circumstances are
DIRE.
Yeah, I know. But suckers as this may
sound to you, I think your position is
less consistent than that of the other
prochoicers on this board. If it is moral
to electively kill a pre-viability
fetus/embryo (and I don't think it is, of
course), then it is also moral to kill
that same baby after viability.... after
birth, in fact. It's the same "critter",
regardless of it's age.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 10:16am
I meant date for when it is no longer the
woman's choice to end the pregnancy.
Technically, it is possible for some forms
of birth control to prevent implantation,
so would you consider those incidences to
be abortions, if you believe the new human
being exists at fertilization?
I happen to believe that is when the
unique individual starts as well.
Obviously I don't believe that being a
unique individual gives it the right to
life, but that's just because it's not
viable yet.
I'm aware that my viewpoint is different
from that of other pro-choicers on this
board, but that does not instantly make it
"not pro-choice".
And no, it's not moral for blah blah blah.
Doesn't anything I've said make sense?
Viability? Hello?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 10:35am
Eiri
wrote:
I meant date for when it is no longer the
woman's choice to end the pregnancy.
Technically, it is possible for some forms
of birth control to prevent implantation,
so would you consider those incidences to
be abortions, if you believe the new human
being exists at fertilization?
Yes, I consider such BC to be the moral
equivalent of an abortion. As to when it
is moral to end a pregnancy, I think that
only a real threat to the life of the
mother justifies that.
Eiri
wrote:
I happen to believe that is when the
unique individual starts as well.
"Uniqueness" cannot begin at any other
time than fertilization, for technical
reasons. That is when the new DNA is
formed, and after that it does not change
throughout the life of the creature.
Eiri
wrote:
I'm aware that my viewpoint is different
from that of other pro-choicers on this
board, but that does not instantly make it
"not pro-choice".
Obviously not. I was speaking of
consistency, not overall position. Anyone
who supports the legal status of elective
abortion is prochoice.
Eiri
wrote:
And no, it's not moral for blah blah blah.
Doesn't anything I've said make sense?
Viability?
Hello?
Morality isn't necessarily going to make
"sense" to anyone who has different moral
values. Morality and logic are not
related, IMO.
(Note: either someone has changed the
wording of my last post, or I'm having
halicunations. I never used the word
"suckers".)
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 10:44am
You must have said one of the filtered
words; the forum does that automatically.
I think what I'm saying is logic based,
not related to morality. It is what holds
up my moral feelings on the issue,
however. I have found most other
pro-choice doctrine to be full of holes.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 10:49am
What's going on here? All I wanted to do
was report my own double-post darnit!! I
know I didn't report your post.
Weird. Anyway, at least your one post is
still up. I guess you'll have to repost
the one that somehow got reported?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 11:02am
Eiri
wrote:
What's going on here? All I
wanted to do was report my own double-post
darnit!! I know I didn't report your
post.
Weird. Anyway, at least your one post is
still up. I guess you'll have to repost
the one that somehow got
reported?
I don't know.... I haven't reported
anything this morning.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 11:06am
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
What's going on here? All I
wanted to do was report my own double-post
darnit!! I know I didn't report your
post.
Weird. Anyway, at least your one post is
still up. I guess you'll have to repost
the one that somehow got
reported?
I don't know.... I haven't reported
anything this
morning.
Guh, I think I must have accidentally
reported it when trying to report my own.
I'd still like to know what it said; was
it yours?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-23-08 07:30am
Eiri
wrote:
Guh, I think I must have accidentally
reported it when trying to report my own.
I'd still like to know what it said; was
it yours?
Don't think so, it looks like all mine are
still there.
