|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: Utter crap. The killing of babies at term is a universally abhorrent idea. You do not actually believe what you are saying. Unless, of course, you're a psychopath. In which case you're right, but need close watching. You and Faith and Marc are really fond of saying really stupid stuff it seems. And yes, I actually believe what I say but it seems you are still incapable of actually reading what I post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: And in the US, the law current reflects what I consider to be a proper balancing. After the point at which we know the embryo is viable, we don't allow abortions unless a proper balancing is done. And the decision is based on more than just some timeline and is made not by folk posting in forums but by the individuals involved in that specific case; the mother, possibly father and the medical people. What MY opinion might be is really not relevant and decisions need to be made based on the specifics of each case not some blanket timeline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Tangle writes: Percy and Jar disagree with that law. Bullshit and just more utter dishonesty and misrepresentation from you. Neither Percy or I have said we disagree with that law. You really need to learn how to read. What we have said is that the decision should not be simply based on a timeline, that we do not have sufficient information, that we are not the people to make such decisions and that our personal opinions do not matter and are irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
Again, please learn to read. I also did not say I agreed with the law. What I said was that I do not have, and cannot have sufficient information to have an informed opinion and that I really should not have any opinion on the subject in general. And the law is not based on a simple timeline but rather on the total sum of information available to the mother, possibly father and the medical staff in that particular instance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: So the only opinion you have about a woman deciding to kill her unborn baby 1/10 of a second before it is born is that you have no opinion. But 1/10 of a second later you do? Or do you not? Yet more utter dishonesty from you it seems. The topic is abortion, not killing. Once a child is born it is impossible to abort it. And yes, as I have said, I have no opinion on the issue and should have no opinion on the issue and no one other than the mother, possibly the father and the medical staff involved in that particular instance should have an opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The topic is abortion, not killing.
Tangle, why do you insist on repeating your misrepresentations? AbE: And yet again. Once a child is born it is impossible to abort that child. And also once again, my opinion is, and should be, irrelevant. Edited by jar, : see AbE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: But if you insist, you think it ok to abort a foetus 1/10 second before birth but that it is wrong to kill a baby 1/10 of a second afterwards? Yet more dishonesty from you. Please learn to read. I try to use little words for you but it doesn't seem to help. What I have said, and what I continue to say, is that on the subject of abortion my personal opinion is irrelevant and rightly should have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of any abortion; and that decisions related to abortion should be made by the mother, possibly the father and the medical staff involved in that particular instance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: So you feel that its entirely up to the woman if she kills/aborts her baby 1/10 of a second before birth and you feel ok with that? And you continue to misrepresent what I have said. Classic Cult of Ignorance dishonesty from you. No that is not anything I have said or even implied. So let me repeat what my position has been yet again and this time, please try to read slowly. What I have said, and what I continue to say, is that on the subject of abortion my personal opinion is irrelevant and rightly should have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of any abortion; and that decisions related to abortion should be made by the mother, possibly the father and the medical staff involved in that particular instance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
Again, that has been asked and answered. It is impossible to abort a child that has already been born. And again, 1/1000 or 1/100 or 1/10 or 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 seconds after a birth I still feel such decisions need to be made by the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff involved in that particular instance; my opinion is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant, to the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: So would you argue against there being a law that dictates any decisions? Again, no. I have not said that either. But the decision should be as unique as the situation and the only folk that have all the knowledge about that particular instance are the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff involved in that one particular instance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And as I have repeatedly pointed out, that has nothing to do with the topic and yet again, 1/1000 or 1/100 or 1/10 or 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 seconds after a birth I still feel such decisions need to be made by the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff involved in that particular instance; my opinion is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant, to the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: Given your refusal to answer my question I'm going to take an enormous leap and say that you do not think it's right to kill a new born baby. And indeed, that you might even call it murder, like the law does. So now I'd like to know what it is about a new born that is so different to the same baby 1/1000 of a second earlier such that the mother can kill it with impunity. If you wish to play semantics, I"m happy to use the phrase 'abort it with impunity'. I have answered your questions and answered them repeatedly. You really need to learn how to read. So I will once again post my answer. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, that has nothing to do with the topic and yet again, 1/1000 or 1/100 or 1/10 or 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 seconds after a birth I still feel such decisions need to be made by the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff involved in that particular instance; my opinion is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant, to the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: You have repeatedly avoided answering a direct question that is critical to the discussion. Once again you seem to me simply misrepresenting what I have said, but I do agree that until you learn to read we will not be able to get any further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: Just a reminder, I've asked you what the difference is between a new born baby and one just before birth that allows one to be killed at the whim of the mother but not the other. (Feel free to substitute 'abort' for kill as appropriate for you.) And I have answered those questions and will repeat the answers for you yet again. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, that has nothing to do with the topic and yet again, 1/1000 or 1/100 or 1/10 or 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 seconds after a birth I still feel such decisions need to be made by the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff involved in that particular instance; my opinion is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant, to the issue. Please stop misrepresenting what I say or think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: If there was a law and/or decision that was presented to society via a question on a ballot regarding whether or not there should be a concise rule regarding when the right to abort a fetus stops, would you agree that it was a necessary law and social responsibility or would you vote against making such a law? "Would I agree that it was a necessary law?" Unless I had the full text and exact wording of the law there is no way I could even guess if it was a necessary law. "Would I vote against making such a law?" Unless I had the full text and exact wording of the proposed law there is no way I could even guess if if I would vote against such a law. BUT... again, what I think personally is and should be irrelevant to the question of abortion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024