Now, on to what a human is. Sure, you may have defined, biologically, what a human is, but what mentally? emotionally? philosophically? And as you are all well aware of, there is more to the abortion debate than simple biology.
Crabs, I know you advocate greatly that people should have personal freedom and we should not get into people's personal lives. They should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn't impinge on the lives of others. I think you take that a bit too far with staying out of the way of the examples I asked about last night. If the mother gives birth to a child and the child is still attached by the umbilical cord, you feel the mother can do what she want with the child. The baby can breathe on it's own, it can now receive nourishment from other sources, but you still feel the mother can decide to have it killed? It seems like it goes against your feeling that it's okay unless it threatens another person's right to live. Doesn't the baby have a life now which the mother would be threatening?
what part of "none of my fucking business" didn't you understand? I don't "support" parents teaching their children certain things, but I don't make laws against it...because it's none of my fucking business. None of my business means I neither support or reject it...it means it's none of my business. If I don't think adults should drink milk, should I try to outlaw it?
By saying it isn't your business you are saying it is just fine and dandy to you.
Now, on to what a human is. Sure, you may have defined, biologically, what a human is, but what mentally? emotionally? philosophically? And as you are all well aware of, there is more to the abortion debate than simple biology.
Damon, I doubt there will be one universal definition of what a human is mentally, emotionally, philosophically. Too many perspectives and cultures to come to one universal meaning.
Then it is a dead human being and you are back at square one What idiotic thing are you trying to say here?
That's opinionated, for I don't view it as barbaric
Thanks for the admission that you are amoral.
obviously you lack the necessary tools to have this debate. There is nothing to debate. It is about killing children.You committ numerous fallacies in your weak debating style, and do nothing to further your point of view. Damn you are one big fricking jackass. I am not debating, dumb shit.
I don't need to try again, jackass. I said what I meant.
yes, and you did nothing to prove your point of view. You only strengthened others by putting your ignorance on display
The truth is the truth. Abortionists want to hide that truth.
you are the one who would rather throw insults like jackass, idiot, and immorally than actually debate the topic
The baby can breathe on it's own, it can now receive nourishment from other sources, but you still feel the mother can decide to have it killed? It seems like it goes against your feeling that it's okay unless it threatens another person's right to live. Doesn't the baby have a life now which the mother would be threatening?
which is why I posed the question of whether it can survive on its own
By saying it isn't your business you are saying it is just fine and dandy to you
no, he's not. Just because I'm pro choice doesn't mean I would want any girl I've gotten pregnant to necessarily have an abortion.
Damon, I doubt there will be one universal definition of what a human is mentally, emotionally, philosophically. Too many perspectives and cultures to come to one universal meaning.
exaclty, which is why it should be discussed, and hopefully those of us here mature enough to debate this could come to consensus
Thanks for the admission that you are amoral.
by the moral code I ascribe to, it is not, so I am not being amoral. Try again
There is nothing to debate. It is about killing children.
no, it isn't, and the fact that you still fail recognize it as a multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject
Damn you are one big fricking jackass. I am not debating, dumb shit.
what's the title of this thread? what do you think you are doing by throwing out these propositions that abortion is amoral/immoral? That's debate, smart guy
which is why I posed the question of whether it can survive on its own
Damon, no baby can survive on it's own. None of us here were born with the motor skills or physical ability to keep ourselves alive. Babies need others to feed it and care for it while it grows, until it reaches a certain point when it can survive on its own
exaclty, which is why it should be discussed, and hopefully those of us here mature enough to debate this could come to consensus
If we debate and come to a consensus, does that make what we come up with correct? Would scholars feel we were right? What if Jethro and a good friend of his debated and came up with something? I doubt you would likely agree with them. If middle school kids debated it, if two bushmen from Africa debated it, would we agree with them?
exaclty, which is why it should be discussed, and hopefully those of us here mature enough to debate this could come to consensus That isn't the topic here.
by the moral code I ascribe to, it is not, so I am not being amoral. Try again
I don't need to try again. I know what you are.
no, it isn't, and the fact that you still fail recognize it as a multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject It isn't a "multifaceted issue." That you see that it is multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject.
what's the title of this thread? what do you think you are doing by throwing out these propositions that abortion is amoral/immoral? That's debate, smart guy I don't give a damn what the title of this thread is. That isn't what I am doing here, jackass.
Damon, no baby can survive on it's own. None of us here were born with the motor skills or physical ability to keep ourselves alive. Babies need others to feed it and care for it while it grows, until it reaches a certain point when it can survive on its own
My apologies, I meant without the aid of life support machines
I can't help you, dude. You are lost.
I'm afraid you are, swimming in a mess of ad hominems and weak arguments
What ignorance? I'm ignorant becuase I find abortion appaling? I am ignorant becuase I find people like you amoral and disgusting? That isn't ignorance
no it isn't, and it wasn't what I was referring to
There is nothing to debate. Killing innocent children is not debatable.
defining children and killing in this situation, however, is
But you would have no problem with it. Which makes you amoral.
no, it doesn't, not by the moral theory I ascribe to.
I'm afraid you are, swimming in a mess of ad hominems and weak arguments Frankly, dude, I don't give a damn what you think. Your point of view is meanignless to me.
Get a dictionary and look up amoral, pal
Like I said I don't give a damn about what you think. To me your point of view and, for that matter, your entire existence is meaningless to me. I guess that isn't entirely true becuase it is apparent that you are a tool of evil.
If you had the power, what would you be willing to compromise in the spirit of reducing the number of abortions, if that is indeed a goal worth settling on. In return, what will you give?
If we debate and come to a consensus, does that make what we come up with correct? Would scholars feel we were right? What if Jethro and a good friend of his debated and came up with something? I doubt you would likely agree with them. If middle school kids debated it, if two bushmen from Africa debated it, would we agree with them?
for all intents and purposes for this debate here
That isn't the topic here.
but surely you can see how it realtes to the topic at hand
I don't need to try again. I know what you are.
you believe what I am, you know nothing for certain about me, save there are a few bits and bytes of information that I apparently typed on the interent. And even you don't know that for sure
It isn't a "multifaceted issue." That you see that it is multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject.
it is more than just "killing children" as you so eloquently put it. When you realize that, you will be able to have an adult conversation
I don't give a damn what the title of this thread is. That isn't what I am doing here, jackass.
My apologies, I meant without the aid of life support machines
If the baby doesn't need life support machines and the mother doesn't take care of it, the mother could be seen as killing the baby, right? If the baby needs life support machines, then I would think more than the mother can make decisions on the baby's life. The father could say something. Wouldn't the doctors have a moral obligation too, to try and save the child?
Frankly, dude, I don't give a damn what you think. Your point of view is meanignless to me.
probably because it makes too much sense for someone of your limited intelligence capacity to understand
Like I said I don't give a damn about what you think. To me your point of view and, for that matter, your entire existence is meaningless to me. I guess that isn't entirely true becuase it is apparent that you are a tool of evil.
if it is meaningless to you, you would respond with such vitriol towards me.
and Mill, nor anyone else remotely intelligent, would refer to one who holds the opposite POV a "tool of evil"
I believe the problem lies in the education before the abortion. Many times, people are not made aware of other options they may have. Most of the circumstances surrounding these abortions are the result of ignorance on the parents.
So, if you want to lower abortion numbers, do a better job of educating people. This includes the often controversial sex education that most pro-lifers oppose
you believe what I am, you know nothing for certain about me, save there are a few bits and bytes of information that I apparently typed on the interent. And even you don't know that for sure Yes i do know, unless of course you admit you have been lying.
it is more than just "killing children" as you so eloquently put it.
bThat is all that it is about.
When you realize that, you will be able to have an adult conversation When you realize the butchery that you advocate then you will be grown up.
I don't give a damn what the title of this thread is. That isn't what I am doing here, jackass.
uh, yes, it is
I am not debating you, jackass, I am attacking you. Damn you are dumb.
If the baby doesn't need life support machines and the mother doesn't take care of it, the mother could be seen as killing the baby, right?
yes, that's called negligence
If the baby needs life support machines, then I would think more than the mother can make decisions on the baby's life. The father could say something. Wouldn't the doctors have a moral obligation too, to try and save the child?
Depending on the doctor's moral code, maybe. Ethically, and most assuredly professionally, yes, considering the parents of the child do not refuse medical treatment for the child, as is their right.
Yes i do know, unless of course you admit you have been lying.
no, you know nothing about me. Sad, really, that continue to attempt to think you do.
That is all that it is about.
no, it isn't
When you realize the butchery that you advocate then you will be grown up.
I don't advocate butchery, I advocate a women's right to her body
I am not debating you, jackass, I am attacking you. Damn you are dumb.
by that sentence alone, you have confirmed you are attempting to debate me, even if you don't realize it. You also manage to squeeze in two fallacies into one sentence. Congratulations, you are the most logically challenged person I know
"I believe the problem lies in the education before the abortion."
Education is great, but I'm giving you a chance to put an end to the culture war.
To do that, you have to compromise.
Make Third Trimester abortions Illegal. Twentty four hour waiting period and parental notification. Some kids will get the hell beat out of them by angry Dads, but it is a medical procedure, and hospital would let parents know their kid is having an appendectomy.
In return, abortion legal in first two trimesters.
By saying it isn't your business you are saying it is just fine and dandy to you.
how do you get from "none of my business" to "advocating" and thinking it's just fine and dandy?
can we assume that if you feel that what two consenting homosexuals do is none of your business, than you advocate it?
do you advocate everything that you feel isn't your business? and do you feel that everything that you do that is nobody else's business is automatically advocated by everyone else.
that I feel it's none of my business in no way states that I advocate or think it's fine and dandy or anything of the sort...it means that it's none of my fucking business!
You damn prohibitionist need to keep you fucking noses out of what other people choose to do with their own bodies.
You conservatives claim you want a smaller, less intrusivegovernment. But in reality, you want to use the government to intrude into people's bodies and to make decisions that should be none of your fucking businessfor them.
I see your position has now changed from abortion is evil to Damon is evil. This is classic It is apparent the two are inseperable.
You damn prohibitionist need to keep you fucking noses out of what other people choose to do with their own bodies. That isn't what it is about. It is about killing human beings and the delight or indifference some people take in it.
bodine, do you think it's any of your business if a parent teaches their child that there is no such thing as God? Is that something you have a say in?
I'm not talking about acceptability or support. I'm trying to make something workable.
And decisions like this are made in a functioning society all the time.
There is nothing workable on this issue. It is about sanctioning the killing of unborn children. A moral person cannot say, well it is okay to butcher children under certain circumstances but not under other circumstances. The butchery of children is wrong under all circumstances.
bodine, do you think it's any of your business if a parent teaches their child that there is no such thing as God? Is that something you have a say in?
If you can't make a distinction between killing children and teaching children then you are hopeless. But I have known you are hopeless for a long time.
If you can't make a distinction between killing children and teaching children then you are hopeless. But I have known you are hopeless for a long time.
I'm not trying to make a distinction. I'm trying to find out if you consider EVERYTHING to be your business?
bodine, do you think it's any of your business if a parent teaches their child that there is no such thing as God? Is that something you have a say in?
And no one could make a rational case that people supporting the war in Iraq would be in favor of that.
if you support the war and you support dropping bombs, you support that happening, because you know it will happen. They even have a name for it...collateral damage.
I'm still trying to understand how we get from "none of my business" to "support and advocate", but one can support and advocate a war and not support or advocate the killing that comes along with it.
"if you support the war and you support dropping bombs, you support that happening, because you know it will happen. They even have a name for it...collateral damage."
Now, you're being a left-wing dogmatic version of jethro.
if you support the war and you support dropping bombs, you support that happening, because you know it will happen.
Huge difference between precision bombing aimed at the opposition and accidentally and regrettably getting an innocent child compared to a medical procedure aimed at getting the innocent child only.
Now, you're being a left-wing dogmatic version of jethro.
that was my point...that if the logic that thinking something is none of my business equates to support and fine and dandy, then certainly that same logic needs to be applied to supporting the war and all that entails.
Now, on to what a human is. Sure, you may have defined, biologically, what a human is, but what mentally? emotionally? philosophically? And as you are all well aware of, there is more to the abortion debate than simple biology.
Another piece of disgusting filth.
I don't need to try again, jackass. I said what I meant.
Those pictures are outta line, Rich. Go back and delete them.
No they are not out of line.
This is what happens when people start talking abortion and they can't control themselves. It just escalates until it gets petty and nasty.
The truth is the truth. Abortionists want to hide that truth.
Crabs, I know you advocate greatly that people should have personal freedom and we should not get into people's personal lives. They should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn't impinge on the lives of others. I think you take that a bit too far with staying out of the way of the examples I asked about last night. If the mother gives birth to a child and the child is still attached by the umbilical cord, you feel the mother can do what she want with the child. The baby can breathe on it's own, it can now receive nourishment from other sources, but you still feel the mother can decide to have it killed? It seems like it goes against your feeling that it's okay unless it threatens another person's right to live. Doesn't the baby have a life now which the mother would be threatening?
what part of "none of my fucking business" didn't you understand? I don't "support" parents teaching their children certain things, but I don't make laws against it...because it's none of my fucking business. None of my business means I neither support or reject it...it means it's none of my business. If I don't think adults should drink milk, should I try to outlaw it?
By saying it isn't your business you are saying it is just fine and dandy to you.
Now, on to what a human is. Sure, you may have defined, biologically, what a human is, but what mentally? emotionally? philosophically? And as you are all well aware of, there is more to the abortion debate than simple biology.
Damon, I doubt there will be one universal definition of what a human is mentally, emotionally, philosophically. Too many perspectives and cultures to come to one universal meaning.
Then it is a dead human being and you are back at square one What idiotic thing are you trying to say here?
That's opinionated, for I don't view it as barbaric
Thanks for the admission that you are amoral.
obviously you lack the necessary tools to have this debate. There is nothing to debate. It is about killing children.You committ numerous fallacies in your weak debating style, and do nothing to further your point of view. Damn you are one big fricking jackass. I am not debating, dumb shit.
I don't need to try again, jackass. I said what I meant.
yes, and you did nothing to prove your point of view. You only strengthened others by putting your ignorance on display
The truth is the truth. Abortionists want to hide that truth.
you are the one who would rather throw insults like jackass, idiot, and immorally than actually debate the topic
The baby can breathe on it's own, it can now receive nourishment from other sources, but you still feel the mother can decide to have it killed? It seems like it goes against your feeling that it's okay unless it threatens another person's right to live. Doesn't the baby have a life now which the mother would be threatening?
which is why I posed the question of whether it can survive on its own
By saying it isn't your business you are saying it is just fine and dandy to you
no, he's not. Just because I'm pro choice doesn't mean I would want any girl I've gotten pregnant to necessarily have an abortion.
Damon, I doubt there will be one universal definition of what a human is mentally, emotionally, philosophically. Too many perspectives and cultures to come to one universal meaning.
exaclty, which is why it should be discussed, and hopefully those of us here mature enough to debate this could come to consensus
Thanks for the admission that you are amoral.
by the moral code I ascribe to, it is not, so I am not being amoral. Try again
There is nothing to debate. It is about killing children.
no, it isn't, and the fact that you still fail recognize it as a multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject
Damn you are one big fricking jackass. I am not debating, dumb shit.
what's the title of this thread? what do you think you are doing by throwing out these propositions that abortion is amoral/immoral? That's debate, smart guy
which is why I posed the question of whether it can survive on its own
Damon, no baby can survive on it's own. None of us here were born with the motor skills or physical ability to keep ourselves alive. Babies need others to feed it and care for it while it grows, until it reaches a certain point when it can survive on its own
There is nothing to debate. Killing innocent children is not debatable.
exaclty, which is why it should be discussed, and hopefully those of us here mature enough to debate this could come to consensus
If we debate and come to a consensus, does that make what we come up with correct? Would scholars feel we were right? What if Jethro and a good friend of his debated and came up with something? I doubt you would likely agree with them. If middle school kids debated it, if two bushmen from Africa debated it, would we agree with them?
exaclty, which is why it should be discussed, and hopefully those of us here mature enough to debate this could come to consensus That isn't the topic here.
by the moral code I ascribe to, it is not, so I am not being amoral. Try again
I don't need to try again. I know what you are.
no, it isn't, and the fact that you still fail recognize it as a multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject It isn't a "multifaceted issue." That you see that it is multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject.
what's the title of this thread? what do you think you are doing by throwing out these propositions that abortion is amoral/immoral? That's debate, smart guy I don't give a damn what the title of this thread is. That isn't what I am doing here, jackass.
Damon, no baby can survive on it's own. None of us here were born with the motor skills or physical ability to keep ourselves alive. Babies need others to feed it and care for it while it grows, until it reaches a certain point when it can survive on its own
My apologies, I meant without the aid of life support machines
I can't help you, dude. You are lost.
I'm afraid you are, swimming in a mess of ad hominems and weak arguments
What ignorance? I'm ignorant becuase I find abortion appaling? I am ignorant becuase I find people like you amoral and disgusting? That isn't ignorance
no it isn't, and it wasn't what I was referring to
There is nothing to debate. Killing innocent children is not debatable.
defining children and killing in this situation, however, is
But you would have no problem with it. Which makes you amoral.
no, it doesn't, not by the moral theory I ascribe to.
Get a dictionary and look up amoral, pal
I'm afraid you are, swimming in a mess of ad hominems and weak arguments Frankly, dude, I don't give a damn what you think. Your point of view is meanignless to me.
Get a dictionary and look up amoral, pal
Like I said I don't give a damn about what you think. To me your point of view and, for that matter, your entire existence is meaningless to me. I guess that isn't entirely true becuase it is apparent that you are a tool of evil.
Damon:
Middle ground. I do believe there is some.
In an old debate here, a few parties reached a rough balance on abortion
If you had the power, what would you be willing to compromise in the spirit of reducing the number of abortions, if that is indeed a goal worth settling on. In return, what will you give?
If we debate and come to a consensus, does that make what we come up with correct? Would scholars feel we were right? What if Jethro and a good friend of his debated and came up with something? I doubt you would likely agree with them. If middle school kids debated it, if two bushmen from Africa debated it, would we agree with them?
for all intents and purposes for this debate here
That isn't the topic here.
but surely you can see how it realtes to the topic at hand
I don't need to try again. I know what you are.
you believe what I am, you know nothing for certain about me, save there are a few bits and bytes of information that I apparently typed on the interent. And even you don't know that for sure
It isn't a "multifaceted issue." That you see that it is multifaceted issue shows your utter ignorance of the subject.
it is more than just "killing children" as you so eloquently put it. When you realize that, you will be able to have an adult conversation
I don't give a damn what the title of this thread is. That isn't what I am doing here, jackass.
uh, yes, it is
My apologies, I meant without the aid of life support machines
If the baby doesn't need life support machines and the mother doesn't take care of it, the mother could be seen as killing the baby, right? If the baby needs life support machines, then I would think more than the mother can make decisions on the baby's life. The father could say something. Wouldn't the doctors have a moral obligation too, to try and save the child?
Frankly, dude, I don't give a damn what you think. Your point of view is meanignless to me.
probably because it makes too much sense for someone of your limited intelligence capacity to understand
Like I said I don't give a damn about what you think. To me your point of view and, for that matter, your entire existence is meaningless to me. I guess that isn't entirely true becuase it is apparent that you are a tool of evil.
if it is meaningless to you, you would respond with such vitriol towards me.
and Mill, nor anyone else remotely intelligent, would refer to one who holds the opposite POV a "tool of evil"
Rick 5/4/04 8:03am
I believe the problem lies in the education before the abortion. Many times, people are not made aware of other options they may have. Most of the circumstances surrounding these abortions are the result of ignorance on the parents.
So, if you want to lower abortion numbers, do a better job of educating people. This includes the often controversial sex education that most pro-lifers oppose
you believe what I am, you know nothing for certain about me, save there are a few bits and bytes of information that I apparently typed on the interent. And even you don't know that for sure Yes i do know, unless of course you admit you have been lying.
it is more than just "killing children" as you so eloquently put it.
bThat is all that it is about.
When you realize that, you will be able to have an adult conversation When you realize the butchery that you advocate then you will be grown up.
I don't give a damn what the title of this thread is. That isn't what I am doing here, jackass.
uh, yes, it is
I am not debating you, jackass, I am attacking you. Damn you are dumb.
If the baby doesn't need life support machines and the mother doesn't take care of it, the mother could be seen as killing the baby, right?
yes, that's called negligence
If the baby needs life support machines, then I would think more than the mother can make decisions on the baby's life. The father could say something. Wouldn't the doctors have a moral obligation too, to try and save the child?
Depending on the doctor's moral code, maybe. Ethically, and most assuredly professionally, yes, considering the parents of the child do not refuse medical treatment for the child, as is their right.
Like I said it wasn't entirely true becuase you are an advocate of evil.
Yes i do know, unless of course you admit you have been lying.
no, you know nothing about me. Sad, really, that continue to attempt to think you do.
That is all that it is about.
no, it isn't
When you realize the butchery that you advocate then you will be grown up.
I don't advocate butchery, I advocate a women's right to her body
I am not debating you, jackass, I am attacking you. Damn you are dumb.
by that sentence alone, you have confirmed you are attempting to debate me, even if you don't realize it. You also manage to squeeze in two fallacies into one sentence. Congratulations, you are the most logically challenged person I know
"I believe the problem lies in the education before the abortion."
Education is great, but I'm giving you a chance to put an end to the culture war.
To do that, you have to compromise.
Make Third Trimester abortions Illegal. Twentty four hour waiting period and parental notification. Some kids will get the hell beat out of them by angry Dads, but it is a medical procedure, and hospital would let parents know their kid is having an appendectomy.
In return, abortion legal in first two trimesters.
Acceptable to you?
Anyone else want to chime in?
As if the above is debate. The truth is there is no debate on this issue. It is about good versus evil and you have taken the side of evil, dude.
Yes, I have horns, a pitchfork, and 666 on my forehead. I'm so evil!
Like I said it wasn't entirely true becuase you are an advocate of evil.
I see your position has now changed from abortion is evil to Damon is evil. This is classic
the usual false accusations made by the butchers.
too funny. Christian pro-lifers are often opposed to sex education in schools. You can't have it both ways
how do you get from "none of my business" to "advocating" and thinking it's just fine and dandy?
can we assume that if you feel that what two consenting homosexuals do is none of your business, than you advocate it?
do you advocate everything that you feel isn't your business? and do you feel that everything that you do that is nobody else's business is automatically advocated by everyone else.
that I feel it's none of my business in no way states that I advocate or think it's fine and dandy or anything of the sort...it means that it's none of my fucking business!
You damn prohibitionist need to keep you fucking noses out of what other people choose to do with their own bodies.
You conservatives claim you want a smaller, less intrusivegovernment. But in reality, you want to use the government to intrude into people's bodies and to make decisions that should be none of your fucking businessfor them.
As if the above is debate. The truth is there is no debate on this issue. It is about good versus evil and you have taken the side of evil, dude.
Yes, I have horns, a pitchfork, and 666 on my forehead. I'm so evil!
Like I said it wasn't entirely true becuase you are an advocate of evil.
I see your position has now changed from abortion is evil to Damon is evil. This is classic
the usual false accusations made by the butchers.
too funny. Christian pro-lifers are often opposed to sex education in schools. You can't have it both ways
You advocate butchery. You won't admit it but by implication you do.
Rick 5/4/04 8:15am
very acceptable, and has been my position
do you advocate everything that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?
or do you even think that other people have things that are none of your business?
Do you think your nose belongs in every aspect of other people's lives or what?
and if you think that there are things that ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, do you believe that means that you ADVOCATE them?
To do that, you have to compromise.
......
In return, abortion legal in first two trimesters.
Acceptable to you?
You don't believe that will end the war, do you?
No, I don't. But it could be a start.
Helluva lot more rational than what's going on, here.
I see your position has now changed from abortion is evil to Damon is evil. This is classic It is apparent the two are inseperable.
You damn prohibitionist need to keep you fucking noses out of what other people choose to do with their own bodies. That isn't what it is about. It is about killing human beings and the delight or indifference some people take in it.
Willing to make a countermove, jethro?
Helluva lot more rational than what's going on, here.
A discussion that presupposes that there is some level of killing unborn children that is acceptable is not rational.
Willing to make a countermove, jethro?
No. Morally there can be no compromise on this issue.
"A discussion that presupposes that there is some level of killing unborn children that is acceptable is not rational. "
I'm not talking about acceptability or support. I'm trying to make something workable.
And decisions like this are made in a functioning society all the time.
bodine, do you think it's any of your business if a parent teaches their child that there is no such thing as God? Is that something you have a say in?
I'm not talking about acceptability or support. I'm trying to make something workable.
And decisions like this are made in a functioning society all the time.
There is nothing workable on this issue. It is about sanctioning the killing of unborn children. A moral person cannot say, well it is okay to butcher children under certain circumstances but not under other circumstances. The butchery of children is wrong under all circumstances.
bodine, do you think it's any of your business if a parent teaches their child that there is no such thing as God? Is that something you have a say in?
If you can't make a distinction between killing children and teaching children then you are hopeless. But I have known you are hopeless for a long time.
ALLcircumstance?
You mean like war?
because I've seen some pictures of children (actual born ones) from Iraq that were pretty damn brutal.
I'm not trying to make a distinction. I'm trying to find out if you consider EVERYTHING to be your business?
just answer the question.
bodine, do you think it's any of your business if a parent teaches their child that there is no such thing as God? Is that something you have a say in?
"because I've seen some pictures of children (actual born ones) from Iraq that were pretty damn brutal."
And no one could make a rational case that people supporting the war in Iraq would be in favor of that.
And a rational person would not post gruesome pictures that say:
Rich T supports this, and this and so forth.
if you support the war and you support dropping bombs, you support that happening, because you know it will happen. They even have a name for it...collateral damage.
I'm still trying to understand how we get from "none of my business" to "support and advocate", but one can support and advocate a war and not support or advocate the killing that comes along with it.
"if you support the war and you support dropping bombs, you support that happening, because you know it will happen. They even have a name for it...collateral damage."
Now, you're being a left-wing dogmatic version of jethro.
if you support the war and you support dropping bombs, you support that happening, because you know it will happen.
Huge difference between precision bombing aimed at the opposition and accidentally and regrettably getting an innocent child compared to a medical procedure aimed at getting the innocent child only.
that was my point...that if the logic that thinking something is none of my business equates to support and fine and dandy, then certainly that same logic needs to be applied to supporting the war and all that entails.
I'm sorry, but we already KNOW that there will be innocent casualities. We even have a name for them.
hey Dan, is anyone going to explain to me how you guys are getting from "none of my business" to "support" and "fine and dandy"?
do you think that everything that is none of your business has your support and you are fine and dandy with it?
OK, Dan:
We've heard from jethro. Would you accept the compromise agreement on the table?
What about you, crabs.
Damon says he's in.