Ooo, somebody better call the wambulance. The man has the right to start a relationship with someone that wants to have a child. He doesn't have the right to coerce a woman into having a child. But I am starting to see you guys' collective strategy. Hydra forces women to have babies, even in the case of rape... and then we all party and incur massive amounts of reproductive success. Incidentally Timing, what say yee to the other crux (if you addressed it in a previous page just give me the << b/c I started back here )? What say yee to a man that's not giving it up to a woman that wants to have a child? Should she tie her husband down? Or should she find another man?
giddyup, Refman is not the only one who doesn't like your style. In fact, from reading this post and that other one, on this subject at least, your style seems to be universally disliked. You still have a right to post, a right to your opinion, etc, but in that other thread you said you were trying to change people's minds. If everything you say pisses people off because of the way you say it, you might try another tact. The compassion for the unborn thing was from G. W. Bush. He's just one of many extremely pro-life people, in a position to preach from the bulliest of pulpits, who recognizes that your particular brand of changing men's minds has failed spectactularly. Keep on keeping on though, man. It's folks like you that keep those checks rolling in to pro-choice candidates. I know. You don't care. You're right, right, right and that's all that matters. Funny how you accuse me of trying to feel superior. It was your moralist absolutism, in the middle of several thoughtful people speaking to and listening to each other, over repeated posts, that moved me to respond to you. You alone have earned that sort of response from me on this board, specifically because you talk down to people here and intimate that only you understand the gravity of this issue. I'd love to say that was all I had to say to you. I've meant to say in in previous posts. I always stop myself because I know you'll come back with something else deserving of a slapdown. Bring it, brother.
Do what they legally can? Umm...I don't know if you've paid attention, but they can legally do NOTHING. That's the freaking problem.
So screw the fathers, right RM95? It's too bad for them and they just have to eat it. Where's your sense of fairness now?
Are you for real? Question for you...when does a child stop being a "little parasite?" Is it when the kid gets a job and starts contributing to society? To equate abortion performed by people with a miscarriage is lunacy. In fact it will cause people to question either your sincerity, sobriety or sanity.
First off you are just being inflammatory. Contribute something or get out of the way of those who will. More importantly than all that is that men aren't coercing women to have children. News flash...sex causes pregnancy. Often it's not intended by either party. People who want nothing to do with having a kid shouldn't be having sex. When men don't want the kid they are told to "be a man" and support their kids. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I'm just looking for a little equal time here. Sorry you don't understand the distinctions.
Originally posted by Achebe Ooo, somebody better call the wambulance. The man has the right to start a relationship with someone that wants to have a child. He doesn't have the right to coerce a woman into having a child. I'm speaking of rights during a pregnancy obviously. A man has the right to choose his partners but once there is a pregnancy he has no rights whatsoever. Incidentally Timing, what say yee to the other crux (if you addressed it in a previous page just give me the << b/c I started back here )? What say yee to a man that's not giving it up to a woman that wants to have a child? Should she tie her husband down? Or should she find another man? She can adopt. Both men and women are able to look for whatever they want in a partner but that's not what we're talking about here.
True dat. Has it ever occurred to you that Bush may actually be a passionate and decent person? Even Molly Ivins called him a really affable fellow. Since when is believing in right and wrong a bad thing? You believe (as do I) that calling a gay man a fuitcake is wrong. That's moral absolutism. But when it comes to abortion etc. there can be no absolutes? I'm sorry my friend...I don't follow.
I will be much more likely in advancing our side of the argument than you will be. You have to think about the means that will advance the ends. He's right. You are even pissing me off...and I agree with you. Thin kabout that. Hey Batman...that's 3 agreements in 24 hours...isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?
Oooo ooo Refman's on the warpath. LOL Learn something about physiology Refman. I'm not going to waste bandwith arguing about the reality of the womb to you, when this has nothing to do with your knowledge of the issue. This is obviously an emotional issue for you, and those args will be lost (though I will of course, prove my superior intellect again ). I do think that question was honest, though. Your emotion on this issue is obviously based on your relationship with your God. If your own God, yadda yadda yadda (god these arguments are boring) inflicts such incredible wrongs, either through incompetence as an architect or through innate evilness, how do you construct a normative statement concerning abortion? Good enough for the God, but not the woman? If God aborts 1 out of ~2 fetuses, shouldn't we walk in his path? Aren't you guys always using these naturalistic fallacy arguments? I thought you guys would like this. You know "if we weren't supposed to eat meat...", blah blah blah. I'm giving you the template, have at it! LOL (incidentally I don't think the naturalistic fallacy is so bad, but that's a different topic. Well, I also think that philosophy is a ****ing waste of time, but that's even another topic.). If you want to chat about mammalian physiology Refman, let me know. You should know a bit more about the environment you're so quick to legislate. B/c honestly... right now, you have no clue. I grew up thinking birth was some special process. It's decidedly not. Sure primates are cool... but the road there is friggin' gross and very combative.
BTW, chill out Refman. Timing and I disagree cordially, which is what I was trying to do w/ you. *sigh*
You have no idea what I know and what I don't know. I have discussed these issues ad neaseum with my father in law (a physician). I think he knows about all I need to know to engage in debate. Thank you for your concern about my education though. The notion of suing God is still dumb.
Physicians are glorified mechanics... I don't care about their opinions. I care about the opinions of 'scientists'. (kidding) The notion of God is dumb, but I didn't bring that up, did I? The argument goes, if you believe in God, where do you delineate between God and goodness? Is goodness some inherently (haven, can you take over, these arguments are truly jejune) valuable form, tangential to God, and something that God ascribes too? Does God... nevermind, I can't go any further. I'm bored. I'll just write it off to another inane argument w/ a theist in which theist throws his arm up in the air and refuses to confront the problem w/ evil. If you are ignorant of the habits of your God, so be it. I just wish that you wouldn't take that ignorance and use it as a platform w/ which to legislate the acts of those "that walk in God's way". If you're doing that you're just taking a stance in conflict with the habits of your God. Have at it. I appreciate that it's an emotional issue for you, though. Timing, you know I respect you. I'm still confused about that horse/Lobos thread... but I won't hold it against you.
<b>Refman</b>: Remember Venn Diagrams from middle school math. Something about overlapping areas of two distinct geometric shapes. Just because you and Batman have an overlapping area doesn't mean that you will EVER get him to change his position. I happen to think that getting him or anyone else mad at me is a first step in changing a mind. It's called perturbation. Why do you think he attacks me personally? He accuses me of sloganeering. I have quoted no bumperstickers. He accuses me of adding nothing new to the argument. That may be true; there may be nothing new to add to the argument. That's what I was getting at with you earlier. This is mostly re-hashing of long-held positions. There is very little to discover. <b>Batman</b>: My style is UNIVERSALLY disturbing. That's OK. I never claimed moral absolutism. That was assigned to me. I hedged on circumstances which may justify abortion. I have always done that. That's NOT ABSOLUTE by definition. Quit trying to attach a destructive label to me, please!!! And, as Refman said, what's wrong with being moral? Show me an instance where I talk DOWN to anybody? The closest I came was in giving Refman a HINT, but the purpose of that was to make him look even harder than he might have. As it turns out he didn't even try. I think he was pissed at me. Is pointing out something overlooked talking down? Is simplifying the argument to it's most basic component talking down? Most of those here doing the talking about abortion, talk only of the mother and the father. I chime in for the unborn child-- as do a few others. I do talk differently and I am in the minority position here. What's with you all-inclusive people!?!
Do you try to be an inflammatory ass or is it a gift? Because I believe in God it makes me somehow less intelligent than you? Stop soaking your Wheaties in bongwater.
What if you believe the soul chooses its form and its destiny prior to actually being conceived? The theory of predestination is common to millions of people who believe in reincarnation. Those who believe it and support the right to choose may be, in fact, speaking for the unborn child as well because they believe the soul also has a choice prior to even taking human form including the choice of how and even if they are born. The problem with erring on the side of caution is that there are so many possibilities, we don't really know what side that is. --------------------------- The rhetoric in every thread about racism, abortion, etc. is ridiculous. I respect giddyup's opinion even if I don't agree. No one here has to belittle anyone else to have an opinion. You don't raise your opinion by squashing someone else's.
Nah, it's a gift, but he is getting better at it, but really Refman you should know better than to throw stones in a glasshouse.
<b>Jeff</b>: What's that medical thing: First Do No Harm. What's wrong with that? Are you trying to say that the unborn soul flees the soon-to-be=aborted fetus just in the nick of time? Any caution, though, leaves more possibilities doesn't it?
Actually, that was my point. There is also a huge difference between a newborn child and a geriatric. That doesn't make one of them less human. It is so much easier for a woman to destroy a child while it is a one month old fetus than an infant. If she had to look the child in the eyes while she was killing it, I believe and hope that she would be more loathe to terminate the life for many of the reasons that people have abortions. It is a lot harder to defend being pro-choice (pro-abortion), when the "choice" is revealed as killing babies. I have never had any problem with defending letting babies be born, no matter the language used to describe it.
