Hey *******, you called me a "disturbed human being" and then you called me dishonest in explaining myself. Sorry I called you an "*******." I should not have done that and don't mean it. That's an apology.
this thread is a good reminder why abortion debates on the interwebs suck. i'm all for starting a fund so rhadamanthus can send giddyup an engraved apology. maybe we could get the lost writers to write it into next season where he can go back in time and act like he never even registered here! sheesh!
for real. I have no idea how someone can interpret "I apologize" as anything but an apology. Is there some alternative definition of "apology" I'm not aware of? Weird. Just plain weird. Whatever.
I cannot believe I missed this trainwreck of two dogpile bullet trains traveling at high speeds. To add to the massacre, giddyup, if you don't want to be insulted, stop being a deliberately obtuse jackass, making obnoxious statements and then playing innocent. You've done this for years, it's not a surprise. Of course this is all deliberate, so obviously you want to be insulted, so I don't really need to be explaining this at all to you. So actually I just want to wish you both good luck, we're all counting on you.
You have to look at it from his perspective. All giddy is interested in is saving lives. By not apologizing with enough passion, you cause untold numbers of pregnant women to lose their faith in humanity and get partial-birth abortions. Who's the monster now?
So if it is not religion that defines your position, it's the fact tha DNA is unique that defines life? That makes no sense, there is no school of thought that says life begins when you have a complete set of DNA. And if a unique set of DNA defines a human being, then killing a skin cell would be murder. So where on earth are you getting your definition? "My side" isn't killing human beings. I do not promote abortion. I defend it as a right. Big difference. Your side wants to take rights away from human beings, I want to give it to them. Your side isn't protecting human beings, it's protecting an ideology based on either religion or something else you haven't explained. If it's not the bible, then what is it? There is no science that leads to the conclusion that a human being begins life at the moment of conception. Science is far from it and will say a human embryo or early stage fetus is indistinguishable from a chicken fetus! So if it's not religion, what it is it? Your own made up philosophy? That's fine, but that's what it is. And no, I am not playing god. I am defending human rights. You are trying to take those rights away based on spurious ideology. That's what the abortion debate is about.
Are you not smart enough to figure out the time-travel gimmick I created? It was poking fun at someone who wants to throw seminars which will do nothing to help babies at risk right now... This is for you to, rhad: I expect an apology that is intended to make me feel better not to made rhad feel better for saying something he should not have. That's what an apology is. That's not what he offered.
I explained the DNA stuff sufficiently earlier; try reading it again. remember, I don't feel guilty when I sneeze. If you support it being codified into law, you are supporting the act itself. How about a law banning murder-- except for redheads. How would you feel when redheads are murdered not because they have to be but because they can be? The principle is the same: I'm free to murder a redhead if I so choose because your law allowed it. It's spurious ideaology to assume that that child in the womb is anything but a human because nothing but a human is ever born from it.
No, but it would do a lot to keep "babies at risk" in the future from ever being conceived. I guess you choose to have very little impact on the problem in favor of rhetoric which has the sole impact of getting people riled up against your position. Keep going and see how many "babies" you help that way.
It is ideology to label it a "human" or a "baby" when science says it is an embryo or fetus. A caterpillar is not a butterfly, no matter the DNA evidence to the contrary.
I'm catching up with this thread and didn't know if this was adressed yet. First off the people who flew the planes into the WTC thought they were doing the right thing too and did feel they were targetting both a part of the economic infrastructure of their enemy in addition to delivering a symbolic blow, shock and awe. The idea wasn't just to terrify everyone but to shock the US into a change in policy. The killing of Dr. Tiller while it was most immidiately about stopping him does also appear to be sending a message out in regard to those performing abotions. Your argument of scaring regular people is based on the assumption that those who provide abortions aren't regular people. That could go to Al Qaeda's thinking that we aren't trying to scare regular people just their enemy. The argument made by Rhoeder could be if you quit doing abortions we won't target your while Al Qaeda is if you reform US foreign policy we won't target you. In both instances there is a policy goal and the decision to use violence to achieve it.
I would be very careful with this line of thinking. For one stillbirths happen all the time and I recall a statistic that says that only about 1 out of 4 fertilzed embryos ever attach to the uterus and even have a chance of developing. Also given genetic defects such as Down Syndrome there are many situations where an embryo has more or less chromosomes that what is standard for humans. You earlier stated that when you sneeze you don't feel bad since that isn't a complete human dying in your snot. Well an embryo isn't a complete human either. It has the genetics to potentially be a complete human but its not. Its a potential human but given cloning so is one of your skin cells.
In close to 70% of countries in the world, abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother. In the countries where abortion is legal, many have made it illegal after 13 weeks of pregnancy. In the latest Gallup Poll, 68% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal after 13 weeks of pregnancy. And, yes, Dr. Tiller was murdered. Whether he is a terrorist or not, who cares? One could argue that all murderers are terrorists. Could anyone quote the U.S. laws concerning the murder of a pregnant woman? Are the penalities more severe? Is it considered a double homicide? I've heard of some recent cases where this has been brought into question.
Oh my goodness! You're still going on about this? lol. Seriously, it's like third grade! Let's start from the beginning, my dear giddyup, just to show clearly what a monumental idiot you are. In post 423 you state, without shame, one of the more callous statements I have ever read on this board. Callous enough, anyhow, (especially given the generally understanding commentary of the past several pages) that four separate posters subsequently expressed their shock. Presuming this is not some grand fatty-esque conspiracy against you, I think it can be generally stated that, as a whole, your comment was disturbing and out-of-line/character. Conclusion: You wrote something offensive and disturbing. Me, being a bit of a hot-head about hypocritical pseudo-religious wankers who love acting the part of self-righteous ass-hattery, calls it like it is. Unfortunately, I directed the commentary at you, and not your post. As is evidenced by the aforementioned four posts prior to mine, the generally accepted methodology for expressing distaste in posts is either elementary shock or the (far more awesome) sam fisher-inspired flame. Ergo, my post was probably out of line. Here's where it gets funny. Rhester, being rhester, wrote a sermon (get it? rhester sermonizing? I'm hilarious) which actually made me regret posting in my haste because, no matter how offensive your post was, responding to it in kind, but directing the commentary at you personally, does nothing to advance dialogue and makes me look about as stupid as you did in your original post-o-shame. I'm sure that will offend your sensitive little eyes, giddyup, but it ain't an insult. Just the reality of how discussion works. Now, let's have a vocabulary lesson: apologize: to offer an apology or excuse for some fault, insult, failure, or injury Remarkable. When I say "my apologies", it means that I apologize, which means that I offer an apology, . Shocking, really. Apology: a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another So an apology is an expression of regret from the person apologizing. Again, a shocking lesson in vocabularly and grammar. Take note, those with a poor grasp of the english language. Well, let's continue as this is when it turns from a story of redemption into a story of outright irrational absurdity: So... you imply forgiveness and understanding (the colloquially accepted meaning of "no problem", given the context). But.... First, I don't owe you ****. Secondly, I apologized for my comment, you accepted the apology, but now you're re-addressing it and acting as if I never meant it. On an internet message board. Conclusion: You're acting like a child. A stupid child. So... the "no problem" was a lie, and you suddenly doubt that the word "apologize" means to, you know, apologize. Furthermore, what does "Words are trickier so your apology remains in the twilight zone." mean? Do you want us to kiss and make up? Again, we're on an internet message board. The standard mode of communication is to use words. It's shocking, I know. Lastly, and most importantly giddyup, as my post regarding dishonesty clearly shows, I was only referring to your bit presuming that I think you're a monster. Conclusion: Your reading comprehension is terrible. So....my apology (that you accepted) was not an apology and you had to give an example. Apparently, I forgot the "I should not have done that and don't mean it." line, which (again, this may be a shock to you) is otherwise known as regret. Regret, as you may recall (feel free giddy, to re-read the vocabulary section above if necessary), is implied in the term "apology". Conclusion: You're ridiculous. You don't feel better? Boo-hoo. That you decided to take back you previous acceptance of my apology and demand something different (I don't know what - my option are limited by the ****ing dictionary, something utterly foreign to giddyup apparently) is not my problem. Conclusion: You're an idiot. Hilariously, this little exchange is a microcosm of this entire thread. Maybe sam was right. CHECK! CHECK! CHECK!
