He never said anything of that kind. Nobody is challenging your right to disagree. It isn't what you say it is how you say it. You'll get along a lot better in life once you learn that.
So because this is a BBS you don't have to espouse your views in a respectful manner? You treat people differently than you would in face to face conversation? If so, then you have proven yourself unworthy of any serious consideration in this or any other thread.
I was not the one name-calling. Jeff likened me to a sledgehammer. I think that is a fair asessment. No need to finesse. I didn't abuse anyone. I attack the argument directly while others attack me. I did espouse my views in a respectful manner. I <b>filled in the blank differently</b> than did Mrs. JB and I'm being abusive. C'mon ... that's ridiculous.
I would say that insinuating that somebody is a baby killer is pretty inflammatory stuff. Don't run out the same old tired I didn't do it speech. Yep...you did it. I saw it...I was there. It's on the record. If one person tells you that you are drunk it may be just them. If EVERYBODY is telling you that you are drunk...hand them the keys. Same logic applies here.
Please show me where I insinuated that someone is a baby-killer. I said that babies are killed that is a factual description. Calling someone a baby-killer is a pejorative expression which I never used. Show me the record-- as you say. Do you and Batman constitute EVERYBODY?
If that baby died from a volitional act of a human being, it was killed. Abortion is a volitional act. So according to your definition of abortion, a baby was killed..the actors in the volitional act would be the killers of the baby. It is the logical conclusion. Batman and I obviously don't constitute everybody. But we do represent somebody on the left (Batman) and somebody on the right (me). You're getting called out by both sides of the aisle...that's pretty telling.
You're dodging my question. Is that definition accurate or not? It is a definition that I use but it's not mine. I didn't author it. Oh I know that pro-abortion people would like to get away with using something more clinical like terminate instead of kill-- just like they use fetus instead of human. Why is that? Do those substituted words more accurately describe the event in its totality? Not for me. How about you? Do the words "a fetus is terminated" come closer to telling the truth about what happens in an abortion than the more heavy-handed "A baby is killed?" Which is more wholly accurate? Don't forget about those souls....
I have stated time and time again that I tend to agree with you on this. I will say that it is a fetus...not a baby...until birth. Does that make abortion on demand right? I think not. But as you have been good at, you are straying from the current point. Your tone and tenor do nothing to advance the conservative view on this. What is the point in arguing a point of view if you cause yourself to have no chance at advancing that point of view? All you do when you use that tone and tenor is to further polarize. So congrats...you've taken your own position and lost ground. This is a point of view that I care about and would like to advance it.
My tone and tenor? I'm the monotonous one with the same steady old message about the right to life for unborn children. I don't do the name calling. I do the defending. I'm not trying to swing anyone posting here. I'm telling the other side of the story that they want to finesse into something less repugnant to make it more comfortable and justifiable. You do your thing your way and I'll do mine. I think you need to check out your way though. You've joined Batman in accusing me of doing things that I didn't do. You've mischaracterized my positions. You're being swayed by him rather than he by you IMHO.
Kind sir if you'll recall...I commented on the nature of your post almost immediately. That means that Batman had no part in my opinion. I have mischaracterized nothing. I just haven't allowed you to obfuscate the real message you are conveying with your more recent rhetoric. If you don't understand the import of what you say...then I can't make you understand. Have a good night, sir.
My first post was on page 2. Your first comment to me was on page 4. In the interim, Batman addressed my directly at least two times if I'm not mistaken. It is 4 AM; I'm pretty sure this is right. Hard to go back to sleep (even when you're tired) after being wakened by a crying baby... I think it's adrenalin. Achebe would know. Is this par for your accuracy? Your response was not "almost immediately." It's too much trouble to go back and look for the time and date stamps, but in the morning.... Refman: "I just haven't allowed you to obfuscate the real message you are conveying with your more recent rhetoric..." What does that mean? What is my "more recent rhetoric?" You are the one who dodged my question the first time: Is that what abortion really is (don't forget about those souls)? I'm talking about the heavy language not the fluffy stuff that gets substituted.
refman -- how would your definition of abortion differ?? it is a volitional act...and as you've pointed out, it may very well snuff out a human life, right? so how would you define it any differently?? so doesn't your definition imply that those who carry out abortion are baby killers, too??? how does that make you any different from giddyup on this issue?? he didn't come out and specifically call someone a baby killer...neither did you...but you both apply definitions that lead to the same logical conclusion...so what are we arguing about again?? i think we're spending too much time arguing about how we argue in this thread....
I think it is one of the tactics of distraction (and Refman has been drawn in to pitch in). My comment that, for me, a dead baby is the face of abortion instead of an angry male gets twisted into my calling Mrs.JB a baby-killer. That is quite a stretch, but it was the centerpiece of these criticisms of me and "my style." It may not be worth it at this point, but if you go back and read the thread, my comments were very innocuous in the beginning. Then start the attacks on me and we're off on a bender. Why can't the topic stick to the subject and not deviate to personal criticisms. I answer people's criticisms of my position yet they too often ignore mine. Obviously I think it is because they don't really have the heartfelt courage of the opinions because abortion is a pretty despicable act. If that makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself why... ... and then blame the act not me. Sorry if I disturbed you.
Oh for the love of all that is holy...pick a position and stick with it. What do you blieve in? Do you believe in exceptions or not? Make a statement. I'm pointing out that you're hurting the conservative position here and I asked you to be more careful. Now I'm being called in by some vast conspiracy to distract people from your oh so brilliant rhetoric. You really are being a smug little jackass today.
I know what my conscience is. These exceptions are an attempt at compromise. I thought it was a good thing to be able to see some of the gray areas, but in my heart I like Hydra's position best. I didn't know that you were the watchdog for the conservative position! I never said it was a conspiracy and I never said it was vast. I said it was a "tactic" and I think it is obvious you have been pulled in. You spend your time and energy arguing with someone (me) who (like you) wants to end abortion. See, you've even resorted to the name calling. Case closed. You can't or won't refute my observations about how this argument has proceeded and, apparently, you are just going to ignore MadMax's questions?
