ABORTION.......

I think I'd have to call that just plain defamatory Intrepid.

You lie.

Specifically, you know I have "qualms" about ALL abortions. I have said so many times.

Unlike you, I also have "qualms" about the serious consequences of outlawing abortions.

As for "babies being butchered" it has never been discussed by me.

Perhaps you are using a rhetorical phrase (designed to inflame an already emotional issue to detract from the facts of the situation) by which you meant the "abortion of foetuses"?

I see the difference being that those laws help to protect peoples lives and safety, as do the laws that ALLOW abortion. They protect women from harm.

Again it comes down to what you define as a person. I'll support any law that prevents a mother from killing her 6 year old. I don't see abortion as the same thing at all.

Intrepid does tend to enjoy thinking that only he (and those who define human life as he does) has any real regard for human life.

Strangely, the deaths of teenagers who attempt to do their own abortions during it's prohibition don't seem to bother him at all.

But we've been down this road a few times now.....

Eorl wrote:

I think I'd have to call that just plain defamatory Intrepid.

You lie.

Specifically, you know I have "qualms" about ALL abortions. I have said so many times.

Unlike you, I also have "qualms" about the serious consequences of outlawing abortions.

As for "babies being butchered" it has never been discussed by me.

Perhaps you are using a rhetorical phrase (designed to inflame an already emotional issue to detract from the facts of the situation) by which you meant the "abortion of foetuses"?

Eorl wrote on November 21, 2005 at 9:50 PM

Quote:

I see the difference being that those laws help to protect peoples lives and safety, as do the laws that ALLOW abortion. They protect women from harm.

Again it comes down to what you define as a person. I'll support any law that prevents a mother from killing her 6 year old. I don't see abortion as the same thing at all.

Where did you say that you were AGAINST abortion?

No amount of education or church guidance is going to eradicate teen pregnancy entirely. As I've said, I'm all for reducing the number of abortions but not at the risk of people's lives.

Potential lives are important too but (as we've already established)...not as important to me as people are.

I'm all for discouraging abortion and moving it further in the direction of "last resort" but causing too much guilt could cause more damage than good

Intrepid wrote:

You were one of the lucky ones

Doktor S wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

No, I really don't.
Rights are arbitrary, I was suggesting a distinction based on reason. As there are no 'inherent' rights, humans must set the standard.

So,if rights are arbitrary,then you would have no problem with anyone taking away the "right" to have an abortion?
After all,arbitrary things can be given AND taken away.

Thank you for actually admitting that.

An admission sort of implies I am conceding a point. I am not.
There are no 'rights', there is simply the status quo.

If there are "no rights",then this whole discussin is meaningless.
If there are no "rights",then there is no right to abortion.
You cant say there are no rights,then say that there is a right to an abortion.
Either there are,or there are not,you cant have it both ways.

Chumly, this post is simply ridiculous...

Yes, I did. You are either too dense to see it, or too dishonest to admit it. And I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have suggested 'rights' based on convenience.

Does your definition of 'symbiosis' include someone who is dependent upon another for monetary support to continue medical care?

What if we were to decide that another person sucking up our money with their doctor bills is a 'parasite' and therefore has no 'rights', so that we may kill them?

Your concept of rights is foreign to the American concept of rights embodied in the Constitution, but you should do just fine in a dictatorship.

Intrepid wrote:

Eorl wrote:

I think I'd have to call that just plain defamatory Intrepid.

You lie.

Specifically, you know I have "qualms" about ALL abortions. I have said so many times.

Unlike you, I also have "qualms" about the serious consequences of outlawing abortions.

As for "babies being butchered" it has never been discussed by me.

Perhaps you are using a rhetorical phrase (designed to inflame an already emotional issue to detract from the facts of the situation) by which you meant the "abortion of foetuses"?

Eorl wrote on November 21, 2005 at 9:50 PM

Quote:

I see the difference being that those laws help to protect peoples lives and safety, as do the laws that ALLOW abortion. They protect women from harm.

Again it comes down to what you define as a person. I'll support any law that prevents a mother from killing her 6 year old. I don't see abortion as the same thing at all.

Where did you say that you were AGAINST abortion?

Here:

Quote:

No amount of education or church guidance is going to eradicate teen pregnancy entirely. As I've said, I'm all for reducing the number of abortions but not at the risk of people's lives.

and here:

Quote:

Potential lives are important too but (as we've already established)...not as important to me as people are.

and here:

Quote:

I'm all for discouraging abortion and moving it further in the direction of "last resort" but causing too much guilt could cause more damage than good

and many more times. I spent quite a long time trying to explain why thinking that anyone not on YOUR side is automatically on the OPPOSITE side is stupid, cruel and counterproductive to your cause. But you guys who are so always certain about everything aren't very good listeners. So be it.

Mesquite,

I'm not quite sure just who you think owes Frank an apology and what that apology would be for. I and others maintain we do not consider the fetus/child to be a parasite and Frank has stated he does consider it to be one.

So, what's up with that?

Technically? Nice way to think of a human being.

To me and others, this is infanticide. Plain and simple. Hence, the relevance to Hitler. Hitler thought the Jews were subhumans with no rights and were parasites on this earth. Well, ask Frank. He will tell you that a fetus is a parasite in the body of a woman who is the host.

Momma Angel wrote:

[ Well, ask Frank. He will tell you that a fetus is a parasite in the body of a woman who is the host.

You have made this comment several times...and I've passed it by as evidence of desperation. But this is one time too many.

I DEFY YOU TO CITE ONE INSTANCE OF ME SAYING THAT A FETUS IS A PARASITE IN THE BODY OF A WOMAN.

You may use all the thousands of posts in any of the threads here in A2K...and any of the tens of thousands of posts in any of the threads over in Abuzz.

I DEFY YOU TO DO IT.

Just for kicks, I did a post search for "parasite" with author "frank apisa" and got seven hits.

In all seven the word "parasite" was within a quote from another poster.

foxfyre -- 4
Momma Angel --2
Intrepid -- 1

Just for kicks, I did a post search for "parasite" with author "frank apisa" and got seven hits.

In all seven the word "parasite" was within a quote from another poster.

foxfyre -- 4
Momma Angel --2
Intrepid -- 1

Well...you are entitled to think that.

I think that is a bunch of horseshyt.

I think it insane to suppose that a fetus...growing in the body of a host....has rights or interests that cause its host to lose rights or interests that teh host has.

And I certainly don't want someone like you deciding which interests take precedence over which others.

You seem to have a lot of qualifying buts in there.

........ prenatal organisms still within the mother's womb would not be considered true parasites only if one can successfully argue that the definition of a parasite cannot apply if the survival of the species is dependant on it..............

real life wrote:

Yes, I did. You are either too dense to see it, or too dishonest to admit it. And I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or option#3, you didn't address me at all
Whining and crying about how i would dare disagree with your great founders (which you have not even demonstrated I have done) is not addressing my point. I made a reasonable assertion as to when a 'person' has rights. You have neither addressed what I said (logically or otherwise) nor asserted a counter-proposal. Do try to focus and try rational discussion rather than childish name calling and attempts at slights of character against me. Unless that nebulous mind of yours can't formulate a cogent position which to assert? .........

Chumly wrote:

........ prenatal organisms still within the mother's womb would not be considered true parasites only if one can successfully argue that the definition of a parasite cannot apply if the survival of the species is dependant on it..............

Good point Chumly, because of course the survival of the species does depend on exactly that.

Intrepid wrote:

You seem to have a lot of qualifying buts in there.

That would be because, unlike you, I don't see the issue as black and white....which is kinda my point.

The fact that you see white doesn't mean I see black just because I think you're wrong.

(That's the best you got?......huh......)