That is the difference between you and I on this issue, you prefer the hypothetical (what if it is "life") and I prefer reality.
Meat production is so inefficient that even if there are enough grains being raised to maintain everyone on a 2600 calorie diet, people still starve because it takes anywhere from multiples of those pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. http://sustainablechoices.stanford.edu/actions/at_the_store/reducemeat.html Betting on commodoties is an individual desicion as well, one that we allow. Sure, most of the time it's represented by big banks, but individuals can bet too. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis See what I'm talking about in terms of emprical arguments?
no, you're judging a bunch of people without even being in their shoes, and launching a tirade of moral arguments that have nothing to do, really, with the issue at hand; namely the legal framework of abortion (either historic, or current).
it's not an assumption. It is how I define human life. No one can question that. It is not a believe, it is a definition.
Good dodge? How about you dodging giving an answer as to why you are obsessed with derailing a thread that is NOT a thread about abortion. YOU are derailing this thread, and don't give a good god damn that you are doing so. You claim to be so interested in "life," yet you are busy disrupting the life of this forum by ignoring the thread topic, a topic you clearly could care less about. You only care about your own obsession with what is obviously your paramount interest in D&D, and crapping in the process on those who have an actual interest in the reason this thread was started shows just how self-centered you are. Why didn't you start yet another thread about abortion yourself? You were asked to at least allow others who DO care about the OP to discuss it. Instead, when you could have started another of the countless threads arguing pro or con or "don't have an opinion one way or another" regarding abortion, you chose instead to piss on the rest of the members who found the original topic interesting, and took the time to post about it. You can't be bothered, because you only care about yourself. Ironic, if you ask me.
Another dodge. Total irony. I prefer the reality of the life being sacrificed for the hypothetical, short-sighted choice you cling to because it avoids the larger, heavier question.
I need to find that list of outstanding human beings who were born under circumstances that most often result in a choice to abort. While the list is impressive, everyone who is conceived deserves their shot at life. Sorry but it is hard to be empirical when we are only talking about potential as these lives are snuffed before they've seen the light of day.
I don't have to be in their shoes to feel something is right or wrong. Lots of wrong deeds are committed by people who think they are doing the right thing. I'm more interested in advocating for the innocent. Sometimes it has to get ugly to punch through the veneer of self deception. I'm not really interested in how we got here. I'm just sorry we are there and work to move away from that. Not every human construct is good or enduring. Not all greed or selfishness is about money.
Did you bother to read my earlier post in response to your earlier rant? I was not the first to bring abortion into the discussion. I responded to some who had. Most of my posts have been direct replies... which implies a conversation that is two-way. Is that my fault? Many others have joined in. Indeed even the OPer who, by the way, has sent me an encouraging private message. S/he doesn't seem to mind so why do you? Liberalism: Bullying for Adults.
I actually answered this at the bottom of the prior page. Maybe you didn't see it because it was at the bottom. Here you go:
If your wife were pregnant and didn't know it and someone invaded your home one evening and informed you that were were going to perform an early first-trimester abortion on her, would you and she be protesting and screaming about our violating her Choice or her Child? Sure?
No, I saw it. The only one on your list that I struggle with is War and that is so horrendously and hugely complex.... I've softened on the DP but mostly because it is inefficient (including and especially wrongly convicted persons) but I have no problem with the DP when there is dead certainty about commission of a capital crime. Just wish it were swifter. I'm a meat-eater but never owned or bought fur and little leather.
I'm encouraged by your shifting position on the death penalty. Too many innocents have been put to death and we are the only civilized Western nation that still allows for premeditated, state-sanctioned killing. Every time we go to war, thousands upon thousands of innocents are brutally killed, by bombs, guns, tanks, grenades. Those thousands include countless children that either die or are made orphans. Innocents. The Pope and the Church are against war. We should all be against it except in matters of clear self-defense. As a pro-lifer, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, especially based on manipulated evidence, ought to have been enough for you to vote Kerry in 04 no matter how you felt about him otherwise. Killings of choice seem to be your top issue. That means war should be your top issue and your position should clearly be one of peace-first and war only if absolutely necessary. I'll let you off the hook on meat. For now.
If someone believes abortion is murder, their number 1 issue is certainly abortion. War doesn't have near the death toll.
With our abundant continent, we should embrace isolationism more eagerly! Back when wars were heating up, I described myself as war-willing. I'm a peace-loving guy. Talking to one of my friends the other evening, I realized that I've never thrown a punch at another person (other than pokes in the arm that we did as kids if you know what I mean; I think we used to call it giving frogs as I recall). The problem of course is the last part you included... "if absolutely necessary." When is that and is it really here and now? Who's to say? I'd say the describer innocent is more operative: clear as a bell when it comes to abortion. A necessary certainty when it comes to crime. Completely trod over when it comes to the irrationality of War and, to me, not really material when it comes to meat-eating.
