Right to Life Ethical Considerations

quote:

---

Sometimes I feel the problem is that you are not used to professional debate where a person must look several steps ahead and deal with permutations.

---

Looking several steps ahead?That's what you think you are doing when you willfully misrepresent my current stated position?LOL!What a beautiful contortion!

Clear your mind and calm yourself. There will not be one insulting comment to you or schraf in this entire post. I never meant to imply such a thing about you. The point being made was that you hate the position that the world has thrust upon women. As part, and remember I am only saying part, of your overall argument, you and schraf both included an argument which involved the injustice nature casts on women. It is anything but hating women.2ice correctly identified that background dimension of one of your arguments, which acts much like a hidden premise.It is certainly not wrong to make the argument, but it does not work against a position which assumes that a fetus is a person. The expectations pressed upon women (if expecting them to carry a child) really do happen to others as well... as was noted. Thus there is no arguing how much a woman must go through just to take a fetus to term, as long as one holds the presumption it is a person. This just isn't true and I hope you take a second look. Within this thread I am in pretty close agreement with both of your positions, and much more so than 2ice or jug.What I have done is pointed out flaws in portions of your arguments/positions. That does not mean I am against you and in fact (where I come from) what I have done is a sign of being helpful. It will only help you build stronger arguments.In fact, if you notice what I posted to 2ice I actually turned it around to show that he was in error when addressing your usage of person. What it ultimately boiled down to was that both sides were talking past each other in certain segments of the debate. I think outside of those portions, your case was stronger. You were suspended for language violations, that's all. There's no language issue here so I'm sure you won't be. If you get suspended for the above, I'll complain.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

1) What did I misrepresent when I posted the link to the abortion article (from 2006) which is a longitudinal study that examines flaws in previous studies, shows that there were revious studies that found harm, and itself found indication of mental harm?Unless you are going to claim that your position was evidence is accumulating abortion may have negative mental health impacts, and that the orgs like the APA are relying on flawed studies, the article I and 2ice provided are BOTH adequate counters you need to deal with.If you could at least explain where that involved a misrep, all of this might make sense.2) If you do not understand that you are currently arguing with 2ice exactly what I started dealing with when I first posted, and both of you are taking the positions I predicted, then I might point out that you were mistaken about what I was saying and NOT the other way around.I still don't understand WHY I am supposed to want to misrepresent your position, much less which positions are being misrepped. But I do know it sure is easy to toss the allegation around to fend off someone in debate. It is a simple trick and one frowned upon as just a waste of time.In the end all it takes when someone misrepresents your position is to state what your position is. It doesn't take several posts as you seem to be asserting. And it doesn't take any animosity.I mean that's the trippy part, you could easily skip over any misreps I might include and deal with the parts which are pertinent... at the very least raw data and reviewed studies.Instead you continually argue about me.Your slip is showing.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You really think that's what he was saying? Read again, Holmes.

quote:

---

This is your view and your issue. It is where all your anger comes from. Everything you say shouts that you hate what a womans body is and you take it out on others. The fact that women bare children is unfair to you. Your cynical non human view of the birth experience is as far to the right as they get. Care to challenge that claim? Run for any public office and speak as you have here...

​

Again...a shout that a fact of what it is to be a human female abhors you. Therfore you choose to deny it. You hate the fact that sex makes babies and women get "stuck" with it. To fix this injustice unborn children are not human to you. Emotional detachment.

---

And for you to agree with that bullshit: and tell him how "wonderful" he summed me up is just unconscionable. Disgusting. And futher proof, as if any was needed, that you're not here to do anything except disagree with Schraf and I. Maybe you could make that a little clearer by refraining from telling our opponents how "wonderful" they are when they smear us with these incredible ad hominems. Holmes, if this is what you intended, then your writing borders on the incompetent. (I'm beginning to have very little difficulty indeed believing that you held a science position within the federal government. Your incredible communication gaffes would fit right in with the Bush administration.) Your post was an almost panting affirmation of every smear 2B had just leveled at me. "Dead on the money", you called it.Really? You think it's "dead on the money" to say that I hate women because they can do something I can't? You think it's "dead on the money" to say that I hate children and I want them all aborted? Because that's exactly what you agreed with in your post.Against my better judgement, I'll assume for the moment that what you're saying now is what you intended then. But I would reccommend that you discontinue your participation in this debate. You're an absolutely incompetent writer and your amazing communication errors are a distraction. Seriously, I've never met anyone as bad at this as you would have us believe. It's becoming much, much easier to believe that you're simply lying - that you said exactly what you intended to say then, and you're simply backpedalling from it now to avoid sanction.Honestly I don't know why the admins let you play this game as long as you have. Probably they're not reading your posts, either. I guess I should go back to not doing that, too.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Why bother, Holmes? You've already shown how you deal with a detailed catalogue of your distortions - you ignore it.

I'm soory, I was unclear.When I said, "That's what you think you are doing when you willfully misrepresent my current stated position?", I did not mean that you were misrepresenting my current position in this thread.I really have no idea if you are or aren't, since I haven't really read your posts to me. I just scroll on by. Honestly.What I meant was more generic; you think that you are making predictions about my future arguments in any debate by distorting the argument I am currently making.Another way to describe this tendency of yours, holmes, is to say that you create strawmen of my arguments.Then, you refuse to be corrected, insisting over and over again that your (usually hyperbolic) strawman is valid to the argument at hand.You don't do this with every single point in every single post, but you do it consistently enough for me to be turned right off of debate with you, permenently.

One cannot remove religion. All belief is religion. Wether organized and recognized or not. The difference in concepts is obvious. I ask ...what are the motivations for the concepts.
I will lay out mine.
People are responsible for thier actions. I hold myself accountable for all I do.
I have a great respect for parenthood.
I am acutely aware of the value of a child and that parenting is building a human. Watching the light go on is amazing. My parents were married 56 years. The value of family is fundmental. I recognise the wonderfully rock solid foundation to life it can provide. Nothing compares. From this comes a great respect of choosing to be a parent.
One respects those that can give of themselves so fundamentally.
Life becomes complete when you share yourself this way. Nothing can truly compare to it.
From this respect for family and the focus on devoting ones self to building a human I have a fundamental respect for life from beginning to end. All this makes me see sex as much more than just fun. It starts the whole process. The choice to have sex has deeper meaning.
It carries with it the responsibility to raise what you started.
This entire philosophy has me place great value on a child to be. Just as we place great value on a new born infant who is an adult to be.
There is no break in the chain. All the links are important. Lose respect for one and all respect is lost.
For two people to engadge in behavior that allows an unintended pregnancy is showing great disrespect to themselves and the unborn child. Aborting the child because of selfish inconvenience is disrespectful to humanity and life.
Sex education is a joke without these fundamentals. Most abortions are had by teens and young adults who have not a clue the depth of meaning. They have much to learn about themselves and the value and meaning of life.
I hope to have people see the value of and have respect for what they take part in creating instead of a horrible burdon. To understand the amazing and wonderful potential of what they decide to throw away. Teach things of value such as this in school instead of just how to have sex. There is way to much focus on sex and little to none on the meaning and implications of the act.
The quality of a living being is a matter of perspective.
Blacks,Jews,Gentiles,Women,child sweat shops,ect.
My values are rock solid. I am emotionally attached because it is what it means to truly experience being human. The minute you detach things lose thier deeper meaning. The only way to reach a deeper meaning is to invest yourself. Emotional detachment is fear of pain.... Being afraid to feel what it is to be human.

Then a man should not be held responsible for any fetus he does not want. Quite the double standard. This is not a correct interpretation of the poll. I am one who would uphold abortion in many ways. It does not mean I agree with abortion.
The poll represents much more than your simplistic interpretation.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. RESPONSIBILITY. The buck stops here.Your comparrison of a fetus to a kidney is laughable.
As I said. A kidney is not a human and never will be one. An unwanted child is created out of ignorance or inhumane indifference. Those two parties are soley responsible for the unborn child. DNA can prove that.
No one created the physical situation that gave rise to the need for the kidney. If a person was the cause for kidney failure the law would hold them responsible. I know what I see. The bubness speaks for itself. A simple observation of motivations displayed by your view. Nothing more. Shall I go back and list your many foibles? They are your staple.

This was your first

Second

I might have actually contiued the conversation if you would have refrained from the childish slut comments. Third

There have been a number of things you have said that convey a "dark" demeanor, if you will. The above are your own words. recognise them?

Yeah this is you. In all your glory

Oh look, imagine that.