If calling another's arguments empty is not classy, then I guess I'm guilty. That definitely is disgusting and warrants Donny saying I beat my wife. Give me a break. Your argument before was simply don't take away a women's choice, when obviously there is a lot of debate that there's a second person there, that the SCOTUS has deemed worthy of protceting in Gonzalez v. Carhart. Now you seem to be making the limited government, no way to define life argument. The fundamental choice was done away with in Casey, so that's not the current argument, that's not the law of the land. If you are willing to admit that there is a second person there that is affected by the choice of the mother, which most of the world sees and allows for some restrictions on abortion, then I think rethinking your no restriction abortion policy, which FOCA advocates, is logically inconsistent. I also haven't heard you mention one thing about forcing doctors who do not want to perform abortions being the subject of civil action as a bad thing. Yet I'm the one who's advocating legislating morality.
TW, We can continue to go back and forth and neither of us is going to change the others mind. You clearly are against Foca, and while I can see you using extreme cases of the law to make your point, it doesn't hold sway with me. So, we just disagree. DD
Wow. So the concept of a loaded question, or framing a debate, is totally lost on you? When you equate abortion as murder in a question, that is unfair. For example. In the death penalty debate, if I ask you "do you support state sanctioned murder?" It's unfair and dishonest.
No it's not. I don't support the death penalty in America , but that would be an appropriate way to frame the question. Sate-sanctioned murder is an appropriate way to look at it. The state is saying there is an element of justice that has been violated by the criminal and therefore they must die. I don't advocate that in a modern society, or as a punishment for crime. It might be more appropriate to call it manslaughter but it depends on what malice aforethought means to you. But that's not a loaded question. Or a framed debate. What is it then to define something as a person, as DD said, and then to provide that that person can be killed (call it whatever you want, but if its a person and then dead, it has been killed). It was neither unfair or dishonest. And if you think an appropriate response is to tell me I beat my wife, well then that just says a lot about you.
Fine, let's start there, you state your definition of when life begins, or when a fetus is a person. DD
Incredible. Simply incredible. I did not think someone could be so dense yet so vapid at the same time. So long.
You know where I think it begins, at conception. That's not what's at issue here (although science agrees). The court has said that there is no longer a fundamental right to abortion in PP v. Casey. Everything is left up to the loose standard of health issue. FOCA comes in and destroys that, holds conscientious objectors liable, etc. You are willing to admit that a 2nd trimester fetus is a person. You also support the killing of that person, based off of a fundamental right, which is not the law of the land. For the sake of argument let's draw the definition of person in the 2nd trimester, as you propose. What legal argument is there to killing at this point? Do you disagree that it is killing? IS it like capital punishment to you? I'm seriously just trying to follow your line of logic. Do you realize the full extent of FOCA? And you are then willing to support that? And I'm not trying to say that you support it by supporting Obama, but you do seem to support it. I don't think you quite realize the ramifications of it. It would be huge.
Once again, that's not really an argument. Funny that the guy who didn't instigate the insults with you is now suddenly on your ignore list. You started the playground fight Donny.
I have a purely hypothetical question: Candidate A - you agree on 90% of the issues; candidate is pro-choice Candidate B - you disagree on 90% of the issues; candidate is pro-life Who would you vote for?
No, its not. we're arguing about the legal definition, which is about to be shat on with FOCA, and then will take down a bunch of doctors who don't want to perform abortions. Heck I'm arguing if anything to just leave it be while the courts continue to deepen their understanding. You are arguing, without addressing a single argument that is currently out there, to blow up the past 30 years of legislative and judicial history. And for no tenable legal basis.
I asked you for a definition. Your definition indicates that adults don't have a soul. I get the idea from your own words. If you can't even properly tell me what a soul actually is, what it does, and how to identify it, why should you expect me to believe it is so vital and important to protect?
If we can not agree on the beginning of the issue we will not agree on the end...it is pointless, enjoy arguing with yourself. DD
I dont recall seeing you post in D&D before, xelloss12. If you have in the past, and I missed it , then my apologies. In any event, welcome, and don't be a stranger. This is an issue I've tried to avoid in the past, because it always ends up becoming emotional, angry, polarizing (no kidding!), and members who would otherwise believe in comity toss it out the window. Multiple pages ensue, arguments are repeated, and then repeated again, and the end result is often some members leaving D&D for a while, claiming that the "other side" (either one) simply won't discuss this in a rational, civil way, ignoring that they are being emotional, angry, and completely unable to see even a modicum of the opposing view as a valid argument, even if disagreed with. In short, an exercise in frustration, at least for me. The one good aspect I see in it is that it can bring members I respect (and some new ones) back into this forum, because I enjoy reading their stuff, agreeing with them, or not. twhy, you're one of the folks I referred to in the above paragraph. Glad you are back, even if you "don't want to be." And I agree with you about Donny (sorry, Donny) that the "wife beating" thing is unnecessary and nonsensical. There is no question that this issue is close to the top, if not at the top, of the primary divisive issues in our country. Any attempt by people of good will to reach a compromise of sorts is met with contempt. Doesn't matter what side they are coming from. Grand, sweeping statements are made that leave no room for "meeting in the middle." Truly awful things are said about the motives of those on one side or the other. Yet this needs to be resolved, at least enough that it can stop polarizing a nation that is polarized enough, because people of good will are being put at each others throats over this. I've frequently read in D&D that "it is useless to discuss this issue because no one's view is going to be changed." That those discussing it are either "Far Left" or "Far Right." I disagree with both of those comments. My own views towards this issue has been changed here, thanks in large part to members I respect a great deal, like Max. Today, I would support a ban on abortions in the third trimester, as long as the health of the mother wasn't in danger. That is making an assumption that if the pregnancy is the result of rape and/or incest, the abortion would have happened much earlier, in the first, or possibly second trimester. That was, and is, a big change in my position and not one made lightly. I've dealt with this subject directly and indirectly for over 40 years. In the 1960's, I took girlfriends to Planned Parenthood to get birth control. I had close friends wrestle with this issue, agonizing over it when they became pregnant. Women who were taking birth control, forgot to take a pill, became pregnant, and were in the middle of their college career, struggling to pay for it, and faced with a decision that could wreck the plans for their career and their life. The father simply another young person who thought the woman was on birth control and there was no risk. Sometimes, the women carried to term and kept the child, and sometimes they had an abortion. It was never an easy decision. None of the women I knew that were faced with this situation did so with a light heart. And the women who chose to have the child never said an ill word towards those who chose not to. It was their decision, their bodies. And that's how I look at it. I don't see why a ban on abortions in the third trimester, unless the health of the mother is at risk, wouldn't be a good compromise. It is reasonable. Why does it have to be "all or nothing?"
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Over the past few years I've enjoyed D&D for amusement. I realize that has been a mistake, I wasn't taking things serious, most everyone else here does. It is posts like this that has made me try and change, I am trying to be more thoughtful when I post and I sure need to be more considerate too.
Rhester, You, Deckard and Max are three of the best posters because of your consideration of others. If we all posted like that, it would be a much better place. I mean this thread was doomed from the get go, by the awful divisive title. DD
I really hope to meet more posters (we are all Rocket fans!) Max is an awesome guy and sometimes he springs for lunch. Krosfyah (sp) is a great guy (and a red rowdy) Sishir, outstanding and DD- I like you, hope I can get to Austin by the playoffs. Deckard is a great poster. And JVG if you are lurking, Hi! Solid is very solid IROC it-really nice guy, but may be a Cowboy fan?????
