And once again, jethro, in his no doubt mighty wisdom, has gone on with the personal attacks. He refuses to acknowledge and he and his kind have perpretrated many crimes that could in themselves be classified as BUTCHERY and yet feels totally qualified to label where he will. He is the example of what happens when you live an unexamined life.
Your full of it. You have no idea whether I "live an unexamined life." My guess is you actually have such a life. I can't see how you could believe all the nonsense you seem to do otherwise. What I hate is people like you. You disgust me no end.
<
<Only at the end of the first trimester does it become irrefutably human rather than chimpanzee.>>
This makes no sense logically, medically or any other way. I understand exactly what you are trying to say, but the fact remains that it becomes a human and ONLY a human.
I do support abortion rights but I refuse to accept any twisted logic that tries to deny that abortion is anything other than killing a potential human being.
I look at my boy and I think sometimes that he could have been aborted. Then I think of what a loss that would have been. When you think in those terms you can't help but oppose abortion and feel that anyone supports it is selfish or evil.
<
<That until a certain point in any human pregnancy, the cells can be manipulated to become many other things, because we share so many genes with so many other creatures and that, is a Fact.>>
And I fully understand that and think it's very interesting but what does it have to do with abortion? Unless it's an excuse to say that abortion in the first trimester isn't really killing a human entity.
Jethro honey...everyone (regardless of who they may be) is entitled to express their opinion and their beliefs...and they are neither right nor wrong when doing so.
Jethro honey...everyone (regardless of who they may be) is entitled to express their opinion and their beliefs...and they are neither right nor wrong when doing so.
I think it is rediculously-funny and to be expected, from our resident simpleton.
While simpleton may be intended as an insult, it's not entirely inaccurate. Jethro's arguments from what I've seen do tend to have a singular, bottom-line focus to them. If one tries to get into the deeper, more philosophical aspects of the argument, they'll likely get a response akin to "But you're killing human babies!" as to Jethro nothing else seems to matter and is just a way to subterfuge away from the real issue. After a while it can get frustrating as a good debate will have a bit of back and forth to it and get both parties thinking in some new directions and challenging the other's thoughts, encouraging them to more fully discover their own position. But if one person just keeps going back to the same mantra, then such growth is stifled and the debate tends to become unsatisfying in the end.
But after all, it is the reason why this board exists, to get a dose of the rediculously-funny, from Jethro.
Which then becomes the result when the above happens. If people can't get debate, they'll go for entertainment, amusing themselves with how freakishly single minded some people become, or trying to get the person cornered and forced into contradicting themselves so the others can laugh at their misfortune. Sometimes this even happens when one person isn't necessarily dogmatic, but rather a group of people have been debating the same points for too long so that they already know every point, counterpoint, and refutation of the others that there's really nothing left to argue except the arguments themselves. People will use familiarty to try and trip someone up as the only intellectual exercise that remains.
So what I don't understand is if Bill Fold recognizes Jethro's entertainment value, why would he call for his dismissal? There is no argument without an opposing point of view. And if you're offended by an insult like "You're always wrong," well then, your momma wears combat boots too! So nyah. Insults only have as much weight as you give them. Unless you believe you actually are always wrong, then such a statement should be seen as funny rather than hurtful.
As for Jethro, he has his belief that a fetus equates to a human and there's no way to really prove that wrong. With that belief, abortion would be murder, and one can't fault him for being passionate about what in his mind equates to state-endorsed infanticide. But logically there's a problem with his debating style. If one is really so passionate about this, then I would have to believe that your primary goal ought to be to win others to your side rather than alienate everyone who even slightly disagrees with you with insults. I mentioned to Kit earlier that it doesn't help the pro-choice argument to say it's only about the mother and totally ignore the fact that what some people consider to be a child is being killed. Likewise it doesn't help the pro-life argument to utterly dismiss the rights of the mother. To say they don't matter is an extreme and ridiculous position to take that is all too easily dismissed by anyone who does have even a bit of sympathy for the mother. So it seems to me if Jethro really wanted to stop abortions, he'd do better trying to explain his own position better rather than simply dismissing other people's opinions.
Man, you make up the rules as you go along now, don't you?
Who doesn't? Even the Constitution has been amended several times. It's hard to come up with the perfect plan from the outset. Sometimes you have to go with your instinct and sort it all out later.
I recognise that there's a potential human life in the womb, but I am not willing to put its life, which may not happen, over and above those of she who is already here.
Look at it this way - if she does not wish to have the baby, she could be strapped down into a hospital bed and forcefed etc to make damn sure she will have the baby. Sounds pretty doesn't it? Except for the hardware, there's no essential difference between jethro's view and that scenario.
If the pregnant woman does something that might, only might mind you, injure the fetus - shall we lock her up to prevent her from a. smoking, b. drinking alcohol, or c. taking medications/drugs?
If she doesn't want the baby and the father does -can he have her placed into scenario one above and forced to bear his child?
My point is that if the woman's rights to her body are not paramount, then all of these scenarios become acceptable. In each case you have reduced the woman, a human being, to a machine existence - dear jethro - butchery can come in many forms and killing hearts, minds and souls also qualifies.
The question remains - how far are you willing to go?
Not nonsense, Jethro -- she's just taking your position to its logical extremes. How would you force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to carry to term?
Seems to me Jethro's obvious answer would be to make it illegal. But we all know outlawing it doesn't really put an end to it. And if we know someone plans on killing someone, it is possible to have restraining orders put in place or even detain the person making the threats. So it's not really so crazy to think that if you knew someone was planning on having an abortion that the "moral" thing to do would be to keep them under restraint and force them to have the child. After all, isn't the "inconvenience" of the mother secondary to the life of the child?
Not nonsense, Jethro -- she's just taking your position to its logical extremes. How would you force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to carry to term?
(You WOULD force her, wouldn't you, Jethro?)
No she has a choice to follow the law or break it.
exactly. outlawing it will not make it go away. just as easily as someone could take out a contract on someone else's life to bypass any restraining order, they could literally take one out on themself to be beaten.
After all, isn't the "inconvenience" of the mother secondary to the life of the child?
Yes. That's one thing I agree with Jethro on. A woman makes the choice when she spreads her legs. The time for choices isn't when someone elses life is involved.
jethro, its the same argument that's used for legalising marijuana, or just about anything else. there are 2 things you can do when you have something legalised. 1) you can tax it. 2) you can regulate it.
criminalise abortions and you lose number 2 (as i assume that number 1 is not currently done), while gaining *nothing* except more overcrowding in prisons, and more unwanted children in society. it will go on wherever, and whenever, and being illegal, it'll be even more difficult to find people who have had or will have them.
i've said it before here. as the method of birth control abortion has become it is for the most part wrong. and if, as you've said, you can see the difference between an abortion in the name of saving the mother's life, and an abortion for the sake of birth control, that makes you a rare pro-lifer, and i applaud your ability to make that distinction. far, far too many can't.
and if, as you've said, you can see the difference between an abortion in the name of saving the mother's life, and an abortion for the sake of birth control, that makes you a rare pro-lifer, and i applaud your ability to make that distinction. far, far too many can't.
Nonsense. Most pro-lifer's agree that if the mother's life is in danger then it should be a choice.
So the proabortion argument seems to be since people will break the laws anyway then we should do away with all laws.
Kind of actually. If you're someone who believes in absolute rights and wrongs you may not agree with this, but I would say the value of any law lies in it's ability to make society a better place to live. We have laws against murder and theft because to have a society where such activities can be done freely is not the sort most of us would like to live in. Making laws against these things doesn't stop them entirely, but it does make life better on average for the citizens of that society, with the exception of those who break the laws.
But now if you make abortion illegal, are you making society a better place? You have women who are forced to bear children they don't want, or seek dangerous methods of abortion in dark places. And some who will be imprisoned for their choice. For that segment of society, life has been made worse. And for whom is it better? The children who are born to parents that don't want them or can't support them?
Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." A fetus that has not yet developed a brain can not think. Thus they're not even capable of lamenting the end of their existence for they never really were to begin with. Something like 40% or more of all fertilized eggs never make it to being born anyway. Why do we need to force women to endure something like that in an effort to change that number only slightly? So a law banning abortion would not make society a better place or increase the overall happiness.
Yes. That's one thing I agree with Jethro on. A woman makes the choice when she spreads her legs. The time for choices isn't when someone elses life is involved.
So your position is that sex is for procreation only? Because it's not just single mothers who seek abortions. Sometimes married women do as well because the family can't support another child. Or maybe a couple just doesn't want children. And contraceptives aren't completely effective. So logically, anyone who didn't want another child would simply have to abstain from sex.
Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." A fetus that has not yet developed a brain can not think. Thus they're not even capable of lamenting the end of their existence for they never really were to begin with.
There are many alive today that are not aware of their existence. Their brain never developed or their brain turned to mush.
So your position is that sex is for procreation only?
Not even close. However, I'm well aware of the consequences of sex and would take responsibility for my actions..
Because it's not just single mothers who seek abortions.
I agree and marital status is irrelevant.
Sometimes married women do as well because the family can't support another child.
I think that's hogwash. There's always room for one more in the case of accidents. Maybe Susie and Johnny will just have to do without their yoga classes and their SUV.
Or maybe a couple just doesn't want children.
Once again, if you're going to have sex you better be willing to face the consequences.
And contraceptives aren't completely effective.
Ditto. Once again it goes back to taking responsibility for your actions.
So logically, anyone who didn't want another child would simply have to abstain from sex.
Or accept responsibity for their actions. Personally I'd give up sex before I would abort.
what if it wasn't her choice? many women are raped every day, should we force them to have a baby?
Rape cases account for a very small # of abortions. Although I would legally allow abortions in the case of rape, I personally couldn't go through with it. I couldn't murder a child simply because of the actions of someone else.
Take another look "after the first trimester" Have you found the spot? Good! Now perhaps you will actually say something indicative of thought.
And once again, jethro, in his no doubt mighty wisdom, has gone on with the personal attacks.
He refuses to acknowledge and he and his kind have perpretrated many crimes that could in themselves be classified as BUTCHERY and yet feels totally qualified to label where he will. He is the example of what happens when you live an unexamined life.
Your full of it. You have no idea whether I "live an unexamined life." My guess is you actually have such a life. I can't see how you could believe all the nonsense you seem to do otherwise. What I hate is people like you. You disgust me no end.
Abortion is an ABOMINATION....
Kansas Lawmakers Vote to Challenge Legalized Abortion
<
<Only at the end of the first trimester does it become irrefutably human rather than chimpanzee.>>
This makes no sense logically, medically or any other way. I understand exactly what you are trying to say, but the fact remains that it becomes a human and ONLY a human.
I do support abortion rights but I refuse to accept any twisted logic that tries to deny that abortion is anything other than killing a potential human being.
A person can really only support abortion if they believe in some twisted logic so that they can pretend it is not the taking of a child's life.
I look at my boy and I think sometimes that he could have been aborted. Then I think of what a loss that would have been. When you think in those terms you can't help but oppose abortion and feel that anyone supports it is selfish or evil.
I believe that the woman's rights are paramount.
gotcha bill. i was completely ignoring the ability to replace the cell nuclei.
fold's defense of abortion: Since a scientist can manipulate the genetic material abortion is okay.
<
<That until a certain point in any human pregnancy, the cells can be manipulated to become many other things, because we share so many genes with so many other creatures and that, is a Fact.>>
And I fully understand that and think it's very interesting but what does it have to do with abortion? Unless it's an excuse to say that abortion in the first trimester isn't really killing a human entity.
You are a supporter of abortions, fold. Come on admit it. You would like all women to have them, wouldn't you?
Use your ignore feature.
Why don't you get rid of fold, instead?
You would like all women to have them, wouldn't you?
I can't decide if this more ridiculous or more funny.
enjoy!
fold, there is nothing more ridiculous than you. It is amazing how wrong you are on just about everything.
Jethro honey...everyone (regardless of who they may be) is entitled to express their opinion and their beliefs...and they are neither right nor wrong when doing so.
How are you doing Lisa Douglas ? good to see you again. :o)
Jethro honey...everyone (regardless of who they may be) is entitled to express their opinion and their beliefs...and they are neither right nor wrong when doing so.
Why don't you tell that to fold, Lisa?
Why don't you guys grow up and quit fighting like little girls?
No offense to little girls intended.
Point the posts out to me please.
That's what I thought.
::sigh::
Where did you see me & Jethro personally go after each other?
Both of you need to get some skin or leave or something.
I've told ya both, use the frickin' ignore button. You just won't listen. You'd both rather complain to me, put me in the middle, them blame me.
I've had it. Leave me the hell alone.
You and Jethro are constantly at each other. Neither is innocent and neither is more guilty than the other.
I'm tired of getting e-mails, I'm tired of getting messages, I'm tired of people questioning my every frickin' move.
Therefore I created a place where you and Jethro could go at it away from the rest of us.
I'll suggest one last time that you add each other to your ignore lists, otherwise take it there.
Thank you for your attention.
actually, bill, i'd half expect with what lance has posted here that he'd read it, and laugh his ass off.
You're doing just fine, THX.
I think it is rediculously-funny and to be expected, from our resident simpleton.
While simpleton may be intended as an insult, it's not entirely inaccurate. Jethro's arguments from what I've seen do tend to have a singular, bottom-line focus to them. If one tries to get into the deeper, more philosophical aspects of the argument, they'll likely get a response akin to "But you're killing human babies!" as to Jethro nothing else seems to matter and is just a way to subterfuge away from the real issue. After a while it can get frustrating as a good debate will have a bit of back and forth to it and get both parties thinking in some new directions and challenging the other's thoughts, encouraging them to more fully discover their own position. But if one person just keeps going back to the same mantra, then such growth is stifled and the debate tends to become unsatisfying in the end.
But after all, it is the reason why this board exists, to get a dose of the rediculously-funny, from Jethro.
Which then becomes the result when the above happens. If people can't get debate, they'll go for entertainment, amusing themselves with how freakishly single minded some people become, or trying to get the person cornered and forced into contradicting themselves so the others can laugh at their misfortune. Sometimes this even happens when one person isn't necessarily dogmatic, but rather a group of people have been debating the same points for too long so that they already know every point, counterpoint, and refutation of the others that there's really nothing left to argue except the arguments themselves. People will use familiarty to try and trip someone up as the only intellectual exercise that remains.
So what I don't understand is if Bill Fold recognizes Jethro's entertainment value, why would he call for his dismissal? There is no argument without an opposing point of view. And if you're offended by an insult like "You're always wrong," well then, your momma wears combat boots too! So nyah. Insults only have as much weight as you give them. Unless you believe you actually are always wrong, then such a statement should be seen as funny rather than hurtful.
As for Jethro, he has his belief that a fetus equates to a human and there's no way to really prove that wrong. With that belief, abortion would be murder, and one can't fault him for being passionate about what in his mind equates to state-endorsed infanticide. But logically there's a problem with his debating style. If one is really so passionate about this, then I would have to believe that your primary goal ought to be to win others to your side rather than alienate everyone who even slightly disagrees with you with insults. I mentioned to Kit earlier that it doesn't help the pro-choice argument to say it's only about the mother and totally ignore the fact that what some people consider to be a child is being killed. Likewise it doesn't help the pro-life argument to utterly dismiss the rights of the mother. To say they don't matter is an extreme and ridiculous position to take that is all too easily dismissed by anyone who does have even a bit of sympathy for the mother. So it seems to me if Jethro really wanted to stop abortions, he'd do better trying to explain his own position better rather than simply dismissing other people's opinions.
Man, you make up the rules as you go along now, don't you?
Who doesn't? Even the Constitution has been amended several times. It's hard to come up with the perfect plan from the outset. Sometimes you have to go with your instinct and sort it all out later.
Goodbye Bill Fold. I've had enough.
If I can get along with Repo I can get along with anyone.
No offense Repo, we just have a history.
Come back when you get some thicker skin. Until then I don't want you here.
I don't think I have sent you even one e-mail JT.
I recognise that there's a potential human life in the womb, but I am not willing to put its life, which may not happen, over and above those of she who is already here.
Look at it this way - if she does not wish to have the baby, she could be strapped down into a hospital bed and forcefed etc to make damn sure she will have the baby. Sounds pretty doesn't it?
Except for the hardware, there's no essential difference between jethro's view and that scenario.
If the pregnant woman does something that might, only might mind you, injure the fetus - shall we lock her up to prevent her from a. smoking, b. drinking alcohol, or c. taking medications/drugs?
If she doesn't want the baby and the father does -can he have her placed into scenario one above and forced to bear his child?
My point is that if the woman's rights to her body are not paramount, then all of these scenarios become acceptable. In each case you have reduced the woman, a human being, to a machine existence - dear jethro - butchery can come in many forms and killing hearts, minds and souls also qualifies.
The question remains - how far are you willing to go?
Nonsense.
Not nonsense, Jethro -- she's just taking your position to its logical extremes. How would you force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to carry to term?
(You WOULD force her, wouldn't you, Jethro?)
Seems to me Jethro's obvious answer would be to make it illegal. But we all know outlawing it doesn't really put an end to it. And if we know someone plans on killing someone, it is possible to have restraining orders put in place or even detain the person making the threats. So it's not really so crazy to think that if you knew someone was planning on having an abortion that the "moral" thing to do would be to keep them under restraint and force them to have the child. After all, isn't the "inconvenience" of the mother secondary to the life of the child?
Not nonsense, Jethro -- she's just taking your position to its logical extremes. How would you force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to carry to term?
(You WOULD force her, wouldn't you, Jethro?)
No she has a choice to follow the law or break it.
If she breaks the law then she must pay the penalty. It isn't difficult even for simpletons.
exactly. outlawing it will not make it go away. just as easily as someone could take out a contract on someone else's life to bypass any restraining order, they could literally take one out on themself to be beaten.
So the proabortion argument seems to be since people will break the laws anyway then we should do away with all laws.
After all, isn't the "inconvenience" of the mother secondary to the life of the child?
Yes. That's one thing I agree with Jethro on. A woman makes the choice when she spreads her legs. The time for choices isn't when someone elses life is involved.
jethro, its the same argument that's used for legalising marijuana, or just about anything else. there are 2 things you can do when you have something legalised. 1) you can tax it. 2) you can regulate it.
criminalise abortions and you lose number 2 (as i assume that number 1 is not currently done), while gaining *nothing* except more overcrowding in prisons, and more unwanted children in society. it will go on wherever, and whenever, and being illegal, it'll be even more difficult to find people who have had or will have them.
i've said it before here. as the method of birth control abortion has become it is for the most part wrong. and if, as you've said, you can see the difference between an abortion in the name of saving the mother's life, and an abortion for the sake of birth control, that makes you a rare pro-lifer, and i applaud your ability to make that distinction. far, far too many can't.
and if, as you've said, you can see the difference between an abortion in the name of saving the mother's life, and an abortion for the sake of birth control, that makes you a rare pro-lifer, and i applaud your ability to make that distinction. far, far too many can't.
Nonsense. Most pro-lifer's agree that if the mother's life is in danger then it should be a choice.
So the proabortion argument seems to be since people will break the laws anyway then we should do away with all laws.
Kind of actually. If you're someone who believes in absolute rights and wrongs you may not agree with this, but I would say the value of any law lies in it's ability to make society a better place to live. We have laws against murder and theft because to have a society where such activities can be done freely is not the sort most of us would like to live in. Making laws against these things doesn't stop them entirely, but it does make life better on average for the citizens of that society, with the exception of those who break the laws.
But now if you make abortion illegal, are you making society a better place? You have women who are forced to bear children they don't want, or seek dangerous methods of abortion in dark places. And some who will be imprisoned for their choice. For that segment of society, life has been made worse. And for whom is it better? The children who are born to parents that don't want them or can't support them?
Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." A fetus that has not yet developed a brain can not think. Thus they're not even capable of lamenting the end of their existence for they never really were to begin with. Something like 40% or more of all fertilized eggs never make it to being born anyway. Why do we need to force women to endure something like that in an effort to change that number only slightly? So a law banning abortion would not make society a better place or increase the overall happiness.
Most pro-lifer's agree that if the mother's life is in danger then it should be a choice.
i'm just going with my experience, jethro. you're the first.
Yes. That's one thing I agree with Jethro on. A woman makes the choice when she spreads her legs. The time for choices isn't when someone elses life is involved.
So your position is that sex is for procreation only? Because it's not just single mothers who seek abortions. Sometimes married women do as well because the family can't support another child. Or maybe a couple just doesn't want children. And contraceptives aren't completely effective. So logically, anyone who didn't want another child would simply have to abstain from sex.
A woman makes the choice when she spreads her legs.
what if it wasn't her choice?many women are raped every day, should we force them to have a baby?
Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." A fetus that has not yet developed a brain can not think. Thus they're not even capable of lamenting the end of their existence for they never really were to begin with.
There are many alive today that are not aware of their existence. Their brain never developed or their brain turned to mush.
So your position is that sex is for procreation only?
Not even close. However, I'm well aware of the consequences of sex and would take responsibility for my actions..
Because it's not just single mothers who seek abortions.
I agree and marital status is irrelevant.
Sometimes married women do as well because the family can't support another child.
I think that's hogwash. There's always room for one more in the case of accidents. Maybe Susie and Johnny will just have to do without their yoga classes and their SUV.
Or maybe a couple just doesn't want children.
Once again, if you're going to have sex you better be willing to face the consequences.
And contraceptives aren't completely effective.
Ditto. Once again it goes back to taking responsibility for your actions.
So logically, anyone who didn't want another child would simply have to abstain from sex.
Or accept responsibity for their actions. Personally I'd give up sex before I would abort.
what if it wasn't her choice? many women are raped every day, should we force them to have a baby?
Rape cases account for a very small # of abortions. Although I would legally allow abortions in the case of rape, I personally couldn't go through with it. I couldn't murder a child simply because of the actions of someone else.
So your position is that sex is for procreation only?
No. Just that if she gets pregnant she should take the responsibility for that not abort the child for convenience.
No. Just that if she gets pregnant she should take the responsibility for that not abort the child for convenience.
Perhaps she should, but saying you think she should, and saying she has no choice in the matter at all are two very different things.
Perhaps she should, but saying you think she should, and saying she has no choice in the matter at all are two very different things
I am not sure what the above means but if abortion were illegal she should have a choice to follow the law or break it.