Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 12:13 am
Intrepid wrote:
Touchy bunch, ain't they?

:-)


Not quite truthful either. Laughing
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 03:50 pm
To Foxy; back from the flu. these are my final responses (in blue) on our "mini-thread";


Foxfyre wrote:
And I'm finally getting back to responding to DTOM:

I said (after DTOM suggested my argument was based on religious faith)
Quote:
And here you build another strawman for in no place in my argument did I express religious faith or a 'go forth and multiply' mentality as any basis for my views on this subject, nor did I in any way even suggest that anyone be bound by the guidelines of my (or anybody else's) faith.


DTOM responded
Quote:
you have in fact expressed your faith on several occasions in the past. so no, no herring and straw salad here. additionally, if you are a supporter of the pro-life agenda, you are indeed forcing your view of things onto those who do not share it.

since the pro-life movement constantly complains about the "secularist", as opposed to "sectarian", pro-choice proponents, it is only logical to consider that the vast majority of those leading and following the pro-life agenda are of a religious stripe.

a quick scan of the pro-life movement's leaders and backers will confirm that this is not a frivolous comment. perhaps not all anti-abortion people are very religious, but the secularists are certainly of a quite small percentage.


Perhaps not frivolous in your view, but a straw man nevertheless since I at no time have argued the prolife view from a religious perspective. I discuss my religious faith in threads in which the topic is religious faith. I think when you attempt to take it out of the context in which it was intended and put it into a religious perspective in order to discredit it, that is indeed a strawman argument however gently you do so. Smile

My opinion is that an unborn baby is a human life. Others' opinions, and perhaps yours, are that it is not. If I say it is and you say it is not, how am I "forcing my view of things" on you any more than you are "forcing your view of things" on me? The way your comment reads is that only the proabortionists can have a noncoercive opinion.

i've been thinking about this. you keep mentioning strawmen, yet it appears to me that you have fallen back on the bullet point denunciation (via the comment that i am "fixated" on religion)that is essentially, "dtom is attacking people of faith".

when you say that you, or other pro-lifers, check their faith at the door of this debate, it is not only disingenuous, but factually wrong. see the link at the bottom that details the beginnings and leadership of the most powerful anti-choice orgs.

now as far as your remark about "forcing views" and if there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-life...

of course there is. i've given the example before, but here it is again;

pro-choice = the preganant woman decides. i abide by her decision.

pro-life = You decide. and insist that she abide by Your decision. (you and your are used in the general way here)


I then said
Quote:
Or are you one of those who thinks that only the religious have moral values? Or that only people of faith express them? Or that people of faith can't express them because if they do they cram their religious faith down everybody else's throat?


to which DTOM responded
Quote:
nope. i don't think that being religious is the only source of morality by a long stretch. it's actually the various established religions that proclaim themselves as the fount of all morality. and even they can't agree on what 'tis and what t'ain't. regard the current uproar in the episcopal church.

if a "person of faith" insists that people follow the rules of their religion whether they share that faith or no, then yes, it is cramming it down the throats of others.

does "teaching intelligent design in a science class" ring a bell ? wanna teach it in a comparitive religions or philosophy class, be my guest. but intelligent design is not science.
how about mandatory prayer in school ? i have no problem with "a moment of silent meditation", btw. worked just fine when i was in school. so what's changed ?

"being gay is a sin. no marriage for gays, says the bible". sound familiar ?

that's just a few instances where i feel, yes, some people of faith seek to force their beliefs on the public at large. and in some cases, doing it with public taxes via the "faith based initiatives". which, btw, are a new phenomenon put in place by george w. bush; the president who you denied is a religious zealot. considering that churches pay no taxes, i'd say that there's already a fair amount of cash available to them to perform good works.


So your quarrel is actually with the religious rather than the prolifers? This is the way it appears when you bring in all these other unrelated things. My argument has clearly been that you do not have to be religious to have moral values. And I have consistently argued the abortion issue based on universal values, not just religious ones. And again, all the other issues you're bringing up here are just strawman arguments dodging the specific issue being debated.

and still no straw. tell me, with a straight face, that the issues of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Prayer in School and the whole "under God"/"Ten Commandements" flap do not have fully overlapping supporters and that the individual issues are not part and parcel of a more complete agenda.

Yes, the religious sometimes have, profess, and promote a particular point of view on various issues. But laws prevent not-for-profit religious groups (churches) from engaging in politics.

and yet they do it. "the christian coalition" ?

Individual people who are religious, however, will frequently take a position on various issues. As citizens of this country they have this silly notion that it is their unalienable right to do so. They may even band together into a secular organization that will lobby or petition their government to consider or enact legislation that they believe to be good legislation.* And you know what? So do nonreligious, atheists, environmentalists, PACs, etc. etc. etc. do the exact same thing.

The difference is, that if it is the nonreligious doing it, you seem to think that's okay. But if a person also has a religious faith, they are "forcing their beliefs on the public at large". Well, anybody who wants a particular law passed for anything is sort of doing that don't you think? And in our system of government, the majority, whether by referendum or via elected representatives, the majority ultimately prevails.

You know I love you dearly, DTOM, and have the utmost respect and appreciation for you. We are even sometimes on the same side of the page. But here your remarks sort of smack of prejudice and intolerance or at the very least appear to be irrational stereotyping. And again, that just isn't like you.

you can deny that faith enters the debate. you can deny that churches get involved in what they see as the sheparding of those without faith. you can also deny that the words and opinion delivered by a cleric have the additional weight of "fear of god", but we both know that that is not true.

remember the cleric who, during the last election, declared that it would be wrong for a person of faith to vote for kerry? and that kerry should be excommunicated ?

because of his pro-choice platform ?


(*Disclaimer: I in no way believe all religious operate in lockstep. There are conservative religious and liberal religious and more often than not people of faith will take opposing views on just about any issue anybody wants to bring up.).

while there's some truth to this, the fundis and more conservative faithful seem to have more inclination to steam roll anyone who disagrees with them. and to declare them evil.

foxy, you may remember that i was raised in the south and in the heart of the bible belt. if you'd like to discuss "intolerance", you may want to also walk a mile in my shoes before using that word towards me.


DTOM Said
Quote:
wwwhhhhaaatttttttt ???? go back and re-read quotes of your comments. on top of everything else, you tell us that you became pregnant while on a birth control program. you chose to have the children. and i commend you for that. yet you don't seem to see any real situation in which another person would make the inverse choice acceptable.

by proxy, you are indeed saying "don't do the crime if ya can't do the time


If you have been reading my arguments through this and other threads, you would have seen that I have never been for outlawing all abortion. You would have also seen that all or at least the huge majority of other prolifers do not believe in outlawing all abortions.

if you say so. but i disagree. that pro-lifers seek to outlaw any abortion other than the ones that "they approve of" is at the core of the issue.

if you are not the pregnant woman, it is not your decision.

frankly, foxy. i don't see much difference between the "pro-enforced child bearing" movement's efforts to bring government to their demands and the policy of enforced child bearing limitations of the republic of china. in both cases, someone else is telling the pregnant woman what her destiny will be.


But I believe I am safe in speaking for most prolifers that the baby should not be sacrificed just because the guy found a warm place to put it.

but the woman's destiny should be ? am i to take from your comment that only men enjoy sex ?

Nor should the baby be sacrificed after it is born just because the parents find out they hate an hour of crying, losing sleep, being tied down, spending money on pediatricians, diapers, etc.

not sure what you mean here. but it does make me remember that an awful lot of folks that i've talked about choice with, and who are strict pro-lifers, are also dead set against the welfare program.

see, quite often, pro-lifers fail to take responsibility for their actions when the insist that a woman carry a child to birth.

if pro-lifers are to take responsibility for the "pre-born person", as you called the fetus, then you must also take responsibility for the "post born fetus".

you can't just walk away ad say, "well, i saw that baby born. my work here is done".


Again for me, the whole issue is not just the unalienable rights of the woman that I would defend to the death. For me, it is once pregnancy occurs, there are two lives to consider, not one. And her rights don't trump the rights of the other life. So just as all parents should be required to accept responsibility-educating, feeding, clothing, innoculating, nurturing, loving, etc.-the children they produce, the same principle applies to the new life still within the womb. If she can't provide for this new life, she should see that somebody will.

and who would that be ? randall terry ? jerry falwell ? james dobson ? pat robertson ?

you ?

would You take an unwanted child into your arms as if it were your own? if yes, how many ?
now that is straw.

I said
Quote:
Do you know any pro lifers who think abortion for any reason or at any time should be outlawed? I suppose there may be some out there, but I've never met one.


DTOM responded
Quote:
i'm not a big fan of third trimester abortion. nor do i like partial birth.

i have never made a secret of my belief that "with choice comes responsibility". a woman should be informed and able to make a decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy long before the third trimester.

does that answer your question ?


No, you didn't even address my question.

oooohhhhh yes i did. read it again.

And in response to my discussion of when the forming baby becomes a human being, DTOM responded
Quote:
"clumps of cells" ? that is the one thing that is known about it. truth is, even post partum, we are all just clumps of cells. just a bigger clump. that is science.

the pro-lifers would probably be more accurate if their argument centered around "when does a soul enter the clump of cells". . . .and for my further edification, could you tell me, with the certainty of science backing your assertion; "at what point in your graph does a soul become manifest?".


See, here again you return to the religious issue which I did not raise at all. But you vehemently protested when I suggested you are fixated on religion. Smile

ooohhhh no you don't. hahahahaha!

you can continue to pretend that the pro-life movement is not made up of a majority of "faith" people, but you know it's only pretending.

and you did not answer my question, m'love.


On the South Dakota issues, if you will read what I said earlier when this first came up, you will see that I thought their bill was way too extreme and thought that was unfortunate. I don't think Roe v Wade is all that bad a ruling; however, I would prefer that the states or even the local communities be able to decide the abortion issue.

Finn's recent post is brilliant in why rulings like Roe v Wade are often not the way to go and actually usurp the principle of a democratic republic.

I do understand the proabortion position and I have all the compassion in the world for those who are forced into abortion for those reasons where it is absolutely necessary. It is especially heartbreaking for those who so very much wanted the child. But for me, ending the life of a perfectly healthy baby purely for the convenience of the adults is not what America is all about.


if you can understand, then why in the world would you ever seek to curtail a woman's right to choose in any way ? that's not logical at all. i can understand the pro-lifer's wanting to talk it over with the woman. i can understand them wanting to disuade her.

but, i do not like the idea of the pro-lifer's attempting to make the descision for her and enforce it using public law.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:13 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
i've been thinking about this. you keep mentioning strawmen, yet it appears to me that you have fallen back on the bullet point denunciation (via the comment that i am "fixated" on religion)that is essentially, "dtom is attacking people of faith".

when you say that you, or other pro-lifers, check their faith at the door of this debate, it is not only disingenuous, but factually wrong. see the link at the bottom that details the beginnings and leadership of the most powerful anti-choice orgs.



DTOM

I thank you for the thoughts contained in this post...and for taking the time to put them out here.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CORRECT.

All this nonsense from these folks that the core and essence of their take on this issue is not a religion motivated thing...is so absurd I find it hard to understand why supposedly intelligent people would try to pass it off as truth.

I notice that some are now pushing the line that because a tiny, tiny, tiny number of agnostics and atheists proclaim themselves on the anti-choice side...that the movement is perforce non-religious in nature.

Pathetic.

Of course I understand their need to do this. The moment religion...particularly fundamentalist Christianity...becomes a player...the entire of their arguments go down the drain.

I don't think you are going to get through to these folks...and I would bet the farm that you will not get through to Foxfyre...but it is heartening to see you making the attempt.

Thanks again.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 05:00 pm
Frank,

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8118/mirror0tz.jpg

If you have one of these things (they call them mirrors BTW) around your house, ya might just want to take a good long look in it and ask yourself something. "Just who ARE YOU to decide for everyone else what their motives are or that they are wrong? Who ARE YOU to tell someone they are lying (which you certainly do by implication) to you about why they are doing what they are doing?"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 05:02 pm
I'm going to address your points without reposting that whole long thing, but we can go back and pick up original comments if you think I'm misrepresenting you or vice versa.

DTOM writes
Quote:
i've been thinking about this. you keep mentioning strawmen, yet it appears to me that you have fallen back on the bullet point denunciation (via the comment that i am "fixated" on religion)that is essentially, "dtom is attacking people of faith".


But DTOM, I have argued my position always not from a position of religious faith but from a position of the value of a life. When you insist on bringing religion into our conversation when I have not mentioned religious faith nor argued from a position of religious faith, that is definitely a straw man.

DTOM writes
Quote:
when you say that you, or other pro-lifers, check their faith at the door of this debate, it is not only disingenuous, but factually wrong. see the link at the bottom that details the beginnings and leadership of the most powerful anti-choice orgs.


But I am not arguing and have not argued from the perspective of any anti-choice orgs so that is another straw man. I am arguing from my own opinion only and what I know of the origin and development of a new human being. Do I believe what I believe about abortion because of my religious faith? I have not even thought about that as as I know many MANY Christians who are solidly as pro choice as you are, quite a few within my own family and in the church that I most often attend and I know quite a few prolifers who do not profess a religious faith.

I am arguing 100% from the perspective of when does a child become a child? And to throw in all this other stuff has absolutely nothing to do with that. All those other things are separate points of discussion; even separate issues.

DTOM writes
Quote:
now as far as your remark about "forcing views" and if there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-life...

of course there is. i've given the example before, but here it is again;

pro-choice = the preganant woman decides. i abide by her decision.

pro-life = You decide. and insist that she abide by Your decision. (you and your are used in the general way here)

and still no straw. tell me, with a straight face, that the issues of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Prayer in School and the whole "under God"/"Ten Commandements" flap do not have fully overlapping supporters and that the individual issues are not part and parcel of a more complete agenda.


Whether or not those other issues have overlapping supporters again has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion, my belief, or the thesis of my argument. For you to accuse me of holding an opinion that is part of some larger agenda is not only unproven but REALLY deflects from the focus of my arguement which you have yet to address. Yes another straw man. Smile

As example to prove religious organization push their agenda on others, DTOM write:
Quote:
and yet they do it. "the christian coalition" ?


The Christian coalition is a lobbying group made of up some people who identify themselves as Christian and who have every bit as much right to speak and advertise their point of view and lobby their elected officials as does the ACLU, unions, Planned Parenthood, or any other group who also have an agenda. For what it's worth I am not and have never been a member of the Christian Coalition. I do support some of their issues and disagree with others. That's the American way
.
DTOM writes
Quote:
you can deny that faith enters the debate. you can deny that churches get involved in what they see as the sheparding of those without faith. you can also deny that the words and opinion delivered by a cleric have the additional weight of "fear of god", but we both know that that is not true.

remember the cleric who, during the last election, declared that it would be wrong for a person of faith to vote for kerry? and that kerry should be excommunicated ?

because of his pro-choice platform ?

while there's some truth to this, the fundis and more conservative faithful seem to have more inclination to steam roll anyone who disagrees with them. and to declare them evil.

foxy, you may remember that i was raised in the south and in the heart of the bible belt. if you'd like to discuss "intolerance", you may want to also walk a mile in my shoes before using that word towards me.
Quote:

Do you know any pro lifers who think abortion for any reason or at any time should be outlawed? I suppose there may be some out there, but I've never met one
.


DTOM responded
Quote:
i'm not a big fan of third trimester abortion. nor do i like partial birth.

i have never made a secret of my belief that "with choice comes responsibility". a woman should be informed and able to make a decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy long before the third trimester.

does that answer your question ?


I said
Quote:
No, you didn''t even address my question.


DTOM said
Quote:
oooohhhhh yes i did. read it again.


I did read it again and you neither addressed my question nor answered it.

And when I (gently I hope) chided you for being fixated on religion again

DTOM responded
Quote:
ooohhhh no you don't. hahahahaha!

you can continue to pretend that the pro-life movement is not made up of a majority of "faith" people, but you know it's only pretending.


So in your view you can just keep bashing Christians and that justifies any point of view you have. Smile

DTOM said
Quote:
and you did not answer my question, m'love.


Okay the question was, "when does the soul manifest itself". I didn't answer because
1) I don't have a clue-I am not privy to such information, and
2) It is irrelevent when you are discussing the issue of when life begins with nonbelievers.

Then I said I understand the position of the proabortionists

DTOM responded
Quote:
if you can understand, then why in the world would you ever seek to curtail a woman's right to choose in any way ? that's not logical at all. i can understand the pro-lifer's wanting to talk it over with the woman. i can understand them wanting to disuade her.
but, i do not like the idea of the pro-lifer's attempting to make the descision for her and enforce it using public law.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 05:12 pm
Say it in one sentence or less:

Turkey basters are next to godliness!
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 05:51 pm
ummm. well, instead of digging up the horse and putting a gun to it's head, i'm going to choose to leave it be and address this part only;


Foxfyre wrote:
I said
Quote:

Do you know any pro lifers who think abortion for any reason or at any time should be outlawed? I suppose there may be some out there, but I've never met one
.


DTOM responded
Quote:
i'm not a big fan of third trimester abortion. nor do i like partial birth.

i have never made a secret of my belief that "with choice comes responsibility". a woman should be informed and able to make a decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy long before the third trimester.

does that answer your question ?


I said
Quote:
No, you didn''t even address my question.


DTOM said
Quote:
oooohhhhh yes i did. read it again.


I did read it again and you neither addressed my question nor answered it.

i don't understand what part you aren't getting here.

i am pro-choice. and though i do not believe in or approve of third trimester or partial birth, i cannot make that decision for a pregnant woman.

it is not black and white as some would like to make it.

if i were to say, "yes. third tri and partial should be outlawed", we both know that it would be done in the same stupid way that so. dakota is attempting. i.e., no concern for the health of the mother. life only. no exceptions. period.

so in the view of the pro-lifers of s.d., mrs. dtom's health is of no concern to them. you can bet your bottom dollar that it is to her.

which simply illustrates my opinion that the pro-life agenda does not continue it's concern for the fetus post-partum.


otay. here's a hug of the non-partisan kind. mmmmmmmmm-uhh!

and a can of campbell's penicillian is winging it's way as we speak.

however, ya may want to consider my ol' granpappy's country remedy;

take one glass tumbler. add one spoon of honey, a small squeeze of lemon; and 3 fingers of jack daniel's. drink. repeat as needed.

it won't cure what ails ya, but ya won't care ya got it.
Drunk
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 05:58 pm
thank you, frank. i just call it as i see it, and as nicely as i can until there's a reason to not be nice.

in foxy's defense, she's never been down right rude to me. and even makes me think about things sometimes. whether or not i change my mind is a whole different kettle of aquatic life forms.

glad yer back, dude. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:57 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
A typically vacuous and pathetic response Frank: "What I say is obviously correct and only a moron would question it! I'm not going to support my rant with rationale because I doubt you would understand."


You want "vacuous and pathetic responses" Finn...read your own before posting. They are all excellent examples of "vacuous and pathetic" responses.

"I know you are, but what am I?" Funny how your arguments seem to relate so closely to the back and forth of children.

Quote:
It reminds me of much earlier days when a kid, who was scared to death of fighting an opponent, walked away with the (attempted) sneering comment: "I'd fight you, but I'd probably kill you."


Anyone who thinks I would walk away from an argument is either blind, crazy, or an idiot. I'll leave the choice to you.

Then engage in debate Frank and not
the sort of childish blather of which you've become so fond.


Quote:
Why do you presume that there is greater wisdom at the national level than the state or local level?


I never said there is "greater wisdom" at any level. I said there are some questions of great moment (such as slavery and the right of a woman to control her own body) that ought to be decided on a national level.

More childish logic. If there isn't a greater level of wisdom at the national level, then why ought the decision be made on the national level?

Clearly you implied that local rednecks were unable to properly decide upon the issue of slavery, and just as clearly you implied that the dynamic of the local prejudiced moron also applied to the issue of abortion.


Try to deal with what I actually say...and if you have to make stuff up, save it for someone like yourself.

Disappointing to say the least. I have dealt with what you have actually said. If you contend that I have not that it should be a simple thing to point out the clear discrepancies without the juvenile vitriol.

Quote:
What questions are fit for the local dunces to decide?


The questions that are not of great moment.

So how else might one interpret this response? Unimportant questions can be resolved by locals; important questions must be resolved at the national level. Does the national level have some magical quality of which I'm not aware? Since you seem to have indicated that your are not saying there is greater wisdom at the national level, just what are the qualifications of the national level to decide, over locals, these issues?

Quote:

You have completely ignored my argument that the federal dunces have repeatedly made decisions with which you would disagree, and insist that they are somehow the sages of the country.


The federal government has indeed made many decisions with which I would disagree...especially since it has been dominated by the bozos now in power.

I have never insisted that they are the sages of the country. In fact, I think the current crop are a bunch of goddam idiots.

Why do you make so much stuff up, Finn? Can't deal with what actually is being said????

What are you actually saying Frank????


Quote:

What you and your confreres actually mean is that you want to have important issues decided by a tiny, elite band of Judges who agree with you.


I mean what I actually wrote...and none of this made up crap was in there.

Sorry Frank, but you may be the only person on earth who considers your comments to be so clear and precise that they brook no interpretation.

I think important issues should be decided by the law.

And since you don't think that important issues should be decided locally, you obviously do not consider local law to be legitimate.

Now you can respond indignantly that I have "made crap up," but try, if you can, to square your comments:

Abortion, like slavery, should be decided at the national level.

It is important that issues should be decided by the law.


How can anyone read these comments and not conclude that you dismiss local laws?




Quote:
Should the Supreme Court veer to the Right with the addition of Alito, oh how you will squeal about the power of five men to decide the fate of the country, just as many of you did when the SC's decision meant Bush beat Gore in 2000.


Whatever the Supreme Court decides will be just fine with me. Alito and Roberts seem like decent guys...but then again, so did Scalia. I hope they do not overturn Roe v. Wade...but if they do...it will be the law and I will respect it.


Quote:
If you are unable to articulate your position beyond a broad slogan, and insist on supporting it only with vitriol, so be it.


I really prefer not to take lessons on how to articulate my positions from someone who has as much trouble in that regard as you do...but I certainly thank you for attempting to do so. I do feel about it as I might if Karl Rove decided to lecture me on how to keep my body trim.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:13 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Frank,

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8118/mirror0tz.jpg

If you have one of these things (they call them mirrors BTW) around your house, ya might just want to take a good long look in it and ask yourself something. "Just who ARE YOU to decide for everyone else what their motives are or that they are wrong? Who ARE YOU to tell someone they are lying (which you certainly do by implication) to you about why they are doing what they are doing?"


I enjoy looking in a mirror. I see a fairly decent looking guy...a guy I know to be one of integrity...a trustworthy person...a person who tells the truth and who keeps his nose out of where it does not belong.

If you want to try to sell the nonsense that you people are not motivated by your silly religion on this issue...do so. Providing laughs is a good thing...and trying to sell that bit of garbage is about as laugh provoking as anything else I've seen in this forum.

And, since you mentioned that "by implication" I am saying you are lying when you suggest that bit on nonsense...let me be even more forthcoming for you, ole friend. IT IS MY OPINION THAT YOU PEOPLE ARE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH ON THAT MATTER.

Hope that was of help.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:16 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
A typically vacuous and pathetic response Frank: "What I say is obviously correct and only a moron would question it! I'm not going to support my rant with rationale because I doubt you would understand."


You want "vacuous and pathetic responses" Finn...read your own before posting. They are all excellent examples of "vacuous and pathetic" responses.

"I know you are, but what am I?" Funny how your arguments seem to relate so closely to the back and forth of children.

Quote:
It reminds me of much earlier days when a kid, who was scared to death of fighting an opponent, walked away with the (attempted) sneering comment: "I'd fight you, but I'd probably kill you."


Anyone who thinks I would walk away from an argument is either blind, crazy, or an idiot. I'll leave the choice to you.

Then engage in debate Frank and not
the sort of childish blather of which you've become so fond.


Quote:
Why do you presume that there is greater wisdom at the national level than the state or local level?


I never said there is "greater wisdom" at any level. I said there are some questions of great moment (such as slavery and the right of a woman to control her own body) that ought to be decided on a national level.

More childish logic. If there isn't a greater level of wisdom at the national level, then why ought the decision be made on the national level?

Clearly you implied that local rednecks were unable to properly decide upon the issue of slavery, and just as clearly you implied that the dynamic of the local prejudiced moron also applied to the issue of abortion.


Try to deal with what I actually say...and if you have to make stuff up, save it for someone like yourself.

Disappointing to say the least. I have dealt with what you have actually said. If you contend that I have not that it should be a simple thing to point out the clear discrepancies without the juvenile vitriol.

Quote:
What questions are fit for the local dunces to decide?


The questions that are not of great moment.

So how else might one interpret this response? Unimportant questions can be resolved by locals; important questions must be resolved at the national level. Does the national level have some magical quality of which I'm not aware? Since you seem to have indicated that your are not saying there is greater wisdom at the national level, just what are the qualifications of the national level to decide, over locals, these issues?

Quote:

You have completely ignored my argument that the federal dunces have repeatedly made decisions with which you would disagree, and insist that they are somehow the sages of the country.


The federal government has indeed made many decisions with which I would disagree...especially since it has been dominated by the bozos now in power.

I have never insisted that they are the sages of the country. In fact, I think the current crop are a bunch of goddam idiots.

Why do you make so much stuff up, Finn? Can't deal with what actually is being said????

What are you actually saying Frank????


Quote:

What you and your confreres actually mean is that you want to have important issues decided by a tiny, elite band of Judges who agree with you.


I mean what I actually wrote...and none of this made up crap was in there.

Sorry Frank, but you may be the only person on earth who considers your comments to be so clear and precise that they brook no interpretation.

I think important issues should be decided by the law.

And since you don't think that important issues should be decided locally, you obviously do not consider local law to be legitimate.

Now you can respond indignantly that I have "made crap up," but try, if you can, to square your comments:

Abortion, like slavery, should be decided at the national level.

It is important that issues should be decided by the law.


How can anyone read these comments and not conclude that you dismiss local laws?




Quote:
Should the Supreme Court veer to the Right with the addition of Alito, oh how you will squeal about the power of five men to decide the fate of the country, just as many of you did when the SC's decision meant Bush beat Gore in 2000.


Whatever the Supreme Court decides will be just fine with me. Alito and Roberts seem like decent guys...but then again, so did Scalia. I hope they do not overturn Roe v. Wade...but if they do...it will be the law and I will respect it.


Quote:
If you are unable to articulate your position beyond a broad slogan, and insist on supporting it only with vitriol, so be it.


I really prefer not to take lessons on how to articulate my positions from someone who has as much trouble in that regard as you do...but I certainly thank you for attempting to do so. I do feel about it as I might if Karl Rove decided to lecture me on how to keep my body trim.


No.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:04 am
The question was: "Do you know any pro lifers who think abortion for any reason or at any time should be outlawed?"

And again DTOM responds
Quote:
i don't understand what part you aren't getting here.

i am pro-choice. and though i do not believe in or approve of third trimester or partial birth, i cannot make that decision for a pregnant woman.

it is not black and white as some would like to make it.

if i were to say, "yes. third tri and partial should be outlawed", we both know that it would be done in the same stupid way that so. dakota is attempting. i.e., no concern for the health of the mother. life only. no exceptions. period.

so in the view of the pro-lifers of s.d., mrs. dtom's health is of no concern to them. you can bet your bottom dollar that it is to her.

which simply illustrates my opinion that the pro-life agenda does not continue it's concern for the fetus post-partum.


As you can see you still didn't answer the question.

I had a reason for asking the question because it blows a lot of holes in some of your 'religious nut' theory for prolifers. Prolifers, at least all I know, DO care about the life and health of the mother. No prolifer I know wants to see all abortion outlawed. I believe every last one of us, except maybe an occasional 'drive by poster' does believe that a pregnancy can and should be ended if the life of the mother is at stake or if her health is significantly jeopardized. And I believe none of us would presume to judge a woman who ended the rare pregnancy resulting from incest or rape though one of the members did choose to allow the baby life even then.

And since almost all foster parents, adoptive parents, children's homes, boys and girls ranches, etc. are run and staffed by people of faith, you can't show a 'religious nut' factor of 'no concern for the fetus post partum.' Of course post partum, the baby is no longer a fetus. And in the mind of prolifers, that fetus is a human being for some time pre partum.

I haven't seen any of the prolifers here applaud the South Dakota law. I, for one, am on the record as opposing it because it is too extreme. I especially regret that they went that route because it almost forces the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional. I do not accept, however, that reasonable restrictions on abortion in the second and third trimester need to be anywhere near as draconian or unreasonable.

The bottom line for me is that babies should not have to die so that grown ups can be careless, irresponsible, and/or not have to be inconvenienced.
Prolifers believe the baby is a baby, just a very young one, from the time it begins to grow in the mother's womb. And despite how much some want to believe that is not a growing baby, prolifers are not likely to be convinced. For us it is two lives to consider, not one.

Finn, a pro-choicer by instincts I believe, started this thread with a willingness to take a second look at the abortions provided to the same woman two, three, four, six, eight times. It is a reasonable debate to have and, if conducted reasonably, might even be able to achieve a compromise that we all could accept as reasonable.

It won't happen with prolifers accusing prochoicers of being 'baby killers' and we don't do that. And it won't happen with prochoicers accusing prolifers of 'wanting to deny women of their rights', operating from a position of religious idiocy, or any other uncomplimentary terms that have been attached to us in these debates.

Prolifers are much better at focusing on the issue. Everybody else seems to want to focus on the prolifers and everything else but the issue.

But thank you for the hug and chicken soup. I needed them badly. Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:13 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And since almost all foster parents, adoptive parents, children's homes, boys and girls ranches, etc. are run and staffed by people of faith,


Is that really so in the USA? (Just wondering.)
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:21 am
No it is not Walter. I don't know where Foxfyre has his/her
information, but they're certainly unfounded.

In fact, I encountered that most people working in child protective services, and related fields were adopted themselves and can emphasize and understand these
children very well.

I am an adoptive parent and not of faith. So, there is proof
already, that Foxfyre's theory is not true.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:55 am
I don't believe "almost all" is the same as "all". There are always exceptions, but for the most part, Foxfyre is correct.

It could also depend on what definition "people of faith" Foxfyre is using. I doubt she means devout nuns.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:57 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And since almost all foster parents, adoptive parents, children's homes, boys and girls ranches, etc. are run and staffed by people of faith,


Is that really so in the USA? (Just wondering.)


"Almost all" I believe is traditionally understood to allow for exceptions. But yes, Walter, I believe this to be true in the USA. Perhaps the 'vast majority" would be better than 'almost all'. But then when you consider that 90+% of Americans ARE people of faith, it would almost have to be that way wouldn't it?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:28 am
That's certainly different.

Here in Germany, almost all of such are of - in the American view - 'liberal', from (here) conservative voters to Greens.


I'd never got the idea that faith or religion had anything to do with foster parents, adoptive parents, children's homes, boys and girls ranches, etc - all most act according to the law(s), that's it.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:54 am
Foxfyre wrote:

It won't happen with prolifers [sic] accusing prochoicers[ sic] of being 'baby killers' and we don't do that.






http://www.emmitsburgdispatch.com/2003/October/lifechain.jpg
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:57 am
Foxfyre wrote:
. And it won't happen with prochoicers [sic] accusing prolifers [sic] of 'wanting to deny women of their rights'


I guess not since that is exactly what you are attempting to do. But you will never do it.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:59 am
Foxfyre wrote:


Prolifers [sic] are much better at focusing on the issue.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Abortion
  3. » Page 43
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 02:38:06