ABORTION.......

Chumly wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

To help an addict, YOU DON'T GIVE THEM DRUGS! That is called enabling. They will never become productive members of society by giving them drugs.

A paternally false claim as there are many drug and alcohol users and over users who are and have been very productive indeed.

Hence your views are not demonstrable assertions in real world conditions. That makes your views idealized beliefs as per your perceptions.

Therefore your analogy fails the test vis-a-vis abortion.

What do you call "productive"? Minimally, to say the least. Sure some will manage to go to work and make a living. But their personal lives revolve around their habit, and their habit almost always comes first before anyone or anything else.

Nine times out of ten, when there is a theft or domestic disturbance, there is illegal drug or alcohol abuse involved. Any police officer will tell you this!


THAT is the REAL world, not the theoretical, and a terrible situation for children to grow up in.

We are nowhere near overpopulation. Babies cause global warming?? Extinction? Wow.

...and so again it comes down to what you define as a person. Stop trying to tell me that killing people is wrong. I KNOW that. Instead, prove that foetuses are people.

I'll trust the majority view of doctors and scientists, while you folks ask your priests.

Intrepid - I started with a 14 year old example and I see no reason to change it. For me, girls around that age are the most likely to suffer from outlawing abortion. The way I see it, they are the ones most in need of my advocacy.

...and so again it comes down to what you define as a person. Stop trying to tell me that killing people is wrong. I KNOW that. Instead, prove that foetuses are people.

I'll trust the majority view of doctors and scientists, while you folks ask your priests.

Intrepid - I started with a 14 year old example and I see no reason to change it. For me, girls around that age are the most likely to suffer from outlawing abortion. The way I see it, they are the ones most in need of my advocacy.

...and so again it comes down to what you define as a person. Stop trying to tell me that killing people is wrong. I KNOW that. Instead, prove that foetuses are people.

I'll trust the majority view of doctors and scientists, while you folks ask your priests.

Intrepid - I started with a 14 year old example and I see no reason to change it. For me, girls around that age are the most likely to suffer from outlawing abortion. The way I see it, they are the ones most in need of my advocacy.

real life wrote:

Due to the abusive nature of your post, Jason. as far as I am concerned this topic will continue without you.

I don't go through this world making excuses about my behavior, Real. I make mistakes and I'm able to learn from them. That's why I'm here…to learn from my mistakes and the mistakes of others, and gain some extra knowledge in the process. I don't actually know why you're here. If you want to block yourself from any human reasoning while analyzing the obvious, don't expect me to go easy on you.

But if you find that my responds to you are offensive, I apologize. However, there is no other way to reason with the illogical without exposing some flaws (and it is quite entertaining, indeed.)

And about this "topic [continuing] without [me]," I do agree with you. Written words always surpass the human flesh.

Intrepid wrote:

We are nowhere near overpopulation. Babies cause global warming?? Extinction? Wow.

Babies grow up to buy suv's and exponentially consume non renewable resources...

Chumly,

Will you please stop frustrating me!!!! I said THEE answer Chumly, not THE answer. If we had THEE definitive answer there would be no problem!

More babies = more overpopulation = more global warming = extinction

RexRed wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

We are nowhere near overpopulation. Babies cause global warming?? Extinction? Wow.

Babies grow up to buy suv's and exponentially consume non renewable resources...

You gotta be kidding, right?

Momma Angel wrote:

Chumly,

Will you please stop frustrating me!!!! I said THEE answer Chumly, not THE answer. If we had THEE definitive answer there would be no problem!

It does not matter what you claim as per "THEE definitive answer" it's still meaningless in the sociologic sense.

An answer, even your so-called "THEE definitive answer" means nothing in and of itself in a sociologic sense.

Progress and compassion are strictly application dependant.

It makes no difference whether you are frustrated or not, the sociologic implications do not change based on your emotions or your idealizations or "THEE definitive answer"

It is intelligent action in the sociologic sense that defines progress and compassion not your emotions, or your idealizations, or a some so-called "THEE definitive answer".

More babies = more overpopulation = more global warming = extinction

Uh, Chumly, I can't figure out if you are serious or are joking with that post.

PoetSeductress,

You posted before I got there. Yeah, I was joking with Chumly. He thinks way too deeply for me. He gives me a headache sometimes.

It is very odd that with all the world's ecological problems, that some believe our massive population has nothing to do with it.
.
.
.
.
Very weird but very true.........