Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 05:34 pm
TICO....Jesus Christ...so I can get these idiots off my back on this issue...

...consider that I have answered your question in the links given above.

I am sure you do not agree with my reasoning...or with the conclusions I have made...

...but I am asking that you consider it a response to you and your question.

And of course, if you feel the response was not forthcoming...or if you want any part of it explained...or if you want to pose any follow up quesions...

...please do so.



NOW MA...I hope this takes care of your goddam concerns in this issue.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 05:43 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
TICO....Jesus Christ...so I can get these idiots off my back on this issue...

...consider that I have answered your question in the links given above.

I am sure you do not agree with my reasoning...or with the conclusions I have made...

...but I am asking that you consider it a response to you and your question.

And of course, if you feel the response was not forthcoming...or if you want any part of it explained...or if you want to pose any follow up quesions...

...please do so.



NOW MA...I hope this takes care of your goddam concerns in this issue.


Actually, Frank, I gotta agree with Intrepid .... HERE.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 05:56 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
TICO....Jesus Christ...so I can get these idiots off my back on this issue...

...consider that I have answered your question in the links given above.

I am sure you do not agree with my reasoning...or with the conclusions I have made...

...but I am asking that you consider it a response to you and your question.

And of course, if you feel the response was not forthcoming...or if you want any part of it explained...or if you want to pose any follow up quesions...

...please do so.



NOW MA...I hope this takes care of your goddam concerns in this issue.


Actually, Frank, I gotta agree with Intrepid .... HERE.


Okay. I'm disappointed. But if you agree that I have not responded to your question...I will accept it and respond directly.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:02 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Frank: When does it become "not okay" to kill the baby?


When it becomes a baby.

That happens when it is born into this world.

Prior to that...it is either an zygote, an embryo, or a fetus.

And at any time that it is any of those things...that means the woman bearing the zygote, embryo, or fetus is pregnant...and I think a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy any times she wants.


Quote:
When the head pops out of the womb?


When the fetus is completely delivered into this world...it becomes a baby. Prior to that...it is a fetus and the woman is considered pregnant...and if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy...it is my opinion she should have the right to do so.


Quote:
When the entire body clears the passageway?


Yeah...I'll go along with that.


Quote:
When the cord is severed? Surely there is a line of demarcation for you?


I think I've covered everything now.


I want to go on record as saying that what you just did here, Tico...has lowered you in my estimation a huge amount.
0 Replies
 
JustBrooke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:09 pm
Omg Confused
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:17 pm
Frank wrote:
I want to go on record as saying that what you just did here, Tico...has lowered you in my estimation a huge amount.


Not sure why. You fully answered my questions, and you hadn't before.

You have just clarified that so long as the baby has a toe in the womb, it isn't a "baby" (as you define the word), but is either a "zygote," "embryo," or "fetus," and his/her (you might prefer "its") mother is free to kill it if she wants. But once that toe is free, she no longer has that privilege. Right?

Have you a rational explanation for why you feel that is morally right? I don't remember if you believe in morals or not, but you do have a sense of right and wrong. Why is it "right" for the mother to terminate the pregnancy (partial birth abortion or whatever), but not okay for her to drown her kids in the bathtub after birth?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:23 pm
Tico must have hit a nerve. He asks for an answer that he is entitled to and gets

Frank wrote:
Quote:
I want to go on record as saying that what you just did here, Tico...has lowered you in my estimation a huge amount


Tico and I have disagreed on many things, but he has always had my respect. I want to go on record as saying that what you just did here, Tico has raised you in my estimation a huge amount.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:33 pm
Tico,

I have to agree with Intrepid. Very finely put, very stately. I applaud you.

And you really look like that? Cool!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:40 pm
Thank you Intrepid ... and MA.

Frank and I have yet to agree on anything (I'm still sure that's the case). And even with his many failings (by which I mean spiritual and political), I do respect him even though we don't agree. His is certainly a unique perspective. I would love to have a beer with him if the opportunity ever came up.

One thing about Frank that is undeniable ... he is extremely comfortable in his very tanned skin. Laughing
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:42 pm
why tico wants to bring "a toe " into this i can't quite understand.

frank has stated quite clearly : " if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy...it is my opinion she should have the right to do so. "

we may disagree with that, but i think frank is entitled to state his opinion - which he quite clearly did.

frank's point is that it is the woman's choice to decide, and i can't see who else should have a right to make that decision.

to carry this just a little further, if a man decides not to "procreate" , should he be forced to do so if a woman wishes him to do so ? ... i don't think so. anyone have a different opinion on the man's "right" to abstain ? hbg
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:51 pm
hamburger wrote:
why tico wants to bring "a toe " into this i can't quite understand.

frank has stated quite clearly : " if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy...it is my opinion she should have the right to do so. "

we may disagree with that, but i think frank is entitled to state his opinion - which he quite clearly did.

frank's point is that it is the woman's choice to decide, and i can't see who else should have a right to make that decision.

to carry this just a little further, if a man decides not to "procreate" , should he be forced to do so if a woman wishes him to do so ? ... i don't think so. anyone have a different opinion on the man's "right" to abstain ? hbg


If you have been keeping up on the thread, you will remember that Frank had stated he considers abortion to be ok even up to the actual birth of the baby. Earlier discussion had talked about when is a fetus considered a living being. Tico was trying to determine at exactly what point in time the baby is considered a baby...in Frank's opinion. We know that Frank's opinion is that it is a woman's choice. We wanted to know at what point Frank considers it not ok to kill the child.

Your last sentence, in my opinion, is rather silly and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are talking about the killing of a living being, not the withholding of sperm.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 06:57 pm
Quote:
We are talking about the killing of a living being, not the withholding of sperm.

the point is No We ARE NOT, what we are talking about is at what point in time does one become a human being (especially in the eyes of the law) "birth" is the answer. Frank has made abundantly clear his opinion is that the mother has the final authority voer what happens to her body up to the point of a birth of a legal human being.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:12 pm
intrepid writes : " We are talking about the killing of a living being ... ".

it seems that intrepid has the authority to use the royal " we ".

it is frank's opinion that was asked for and he gave it. that's good enough for me.

speaking of a "living being", i don't think "sperm" is exactly dead either, if you know what i mean. hbg
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:14 pm
I know what you mean, but without an egg sperm is nothing. If you know what I mean.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:53 pm
And Hamburger, Intrepid can include me in that "we" anytime.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 08:51 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Thank you Intrepid ... and MA.

Frank and I have yet to agree on anything (I'm still sure that's the case). And even with his many failings (by which I mean spiritual and political), I do respect him even though we don't agree. His is certainly a unique perspective. I would love to have a beer with him if the opportunity ever came up.

One thing about Frank that is undeniable ... he is extremely comfortable in his very tanned skin. Laughing
Kudos, Tico; And may I add an insult from Frank is a badge of honor to be worn proudly. I have invited Frank and a few others to a barbecue at Joe Sixpack's house. You would be most welcome, but I don't believe either Frank or Setanta will popabrewski with us, so I'm figuring on some Coke and Dr Pepper. Certainly all a2kers are invited - soon as Joe moves into his new place. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:03 pm
Neo,

So, are you getting sprung from the Romulan Correctional Facility soon? Laughing
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:14 pm
Er, I'm hoping to get work release. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:19 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
We are talking about the killing of a living being, not the withholding of sperm.

the point is No We ARE NOT, what we are talking about is at what point in time does one become a human being (especially in the eyes of the law) "birth" is the answer. Frank has made abundantly clear his opinion is that the mother has the final authority voer what happens to her body up to the point of a birth of a legal human being.


Actually in the "eyes of the law" you can be charged with murder for killing an unborn child (unless you own an abortuary).

So relying on the law to give you a clear answer on this is futile, Dys, cause the law sees it both ways at present.

"The eyes of the law" also could not see that black folks were persons and declared that they weren't in the Dred Scott decision.

If you are counting on the law to help you find out what is right, you're gonna grow up a scary person.

---------------------

Frank, you have stated previously that if abortion was illegal you would still think that the mother has a "right" to an abortion.

So my question to Frank or any other pro-abortion devotee who thinks he can answer:

If her "right" does not come from the law, then from where or who does it come?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:29 pm
Neo,

Work release, huh? I can always use help at my cat shelter! Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ABORTION.......
  3. » Page 23
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 02:22:00