I am going to help you through this again, Greg. If you will make a point of reading a little more carefully, I will appreciate it.
I SAID:
I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about RIGHTS; In particular the RIGHT to be left alone, the RIGHT to ones own thoughts, and the RIGHT to ones own body.
YOU SAID:
Talk about obfuscation. First, abortion is precisely what we are talking about. The Rights we are talking about pertain directly to whether it is permissible to kill an unborn child. Since even you seem to agree, that killing children is immoral, it is not surprising that you would avoid the central question. In that context your " I am talking about RIGHTS" statement is entirely circular, since it assumes that which is in question ( is the unborn child a person?).
MY COMMENTS:
1). I guess you didn't read what I said?! LOL!
2). "Since even you seem to agree". Thank you, Greg for the "even", but you are wrong. No, I don't agree that killing a child is ALWAYS immoral. Take your time, please!
3). The "I am talking about RIGHTS" statement assumes a question?? It doesn't even ask a question, nevermind assume one. It is a simple statement of fact. If it confuses you, so what?
I SAID:
Abortion is a value judgement. It can be moral or immoral. People seldom use their RIGHTS in the optimum way; They fail to seek value--they abuse their bodies. They KILL themselvesprematurely...but this is their RIGHT.
YOU SAID:
People do indeed kill themselves, but if they kill their two year old they will be prosecuted for murder. Abortion is not a value judgement, it is the killing of a child. I to support PBA but again your assuming the unborn are not entitled to their own PBA aren't you? I found your response to Tim instructive.
MY COMMENTS:
1). Your first sentence is incorrect. If you change "will" to might it will be correct--even though it has no relevance to my post.
2). Your remark that "abortion is not a value judgment" is incorrect. My paragraph was only referring to value judgements--in particular, the value one attaches to the aborting of a foetus. Your remark that it is the "killing of a child" is incorrect. Abortion refers to the killing of a fetus--which can only occur before birth.
3). Your remark that I am "assuming the unborn are not entitled to their own PBA" is correct, although it was not part of the discussion. I don't think the fetus has a RIGHT to be killed. It is a strange question you have introduced however; If the fetus did have a RIGHT not to be born...how would it communicate that desire to the medical profession?
I SAID:
Yes, I support the RIGHT to PBA. And do you understand that that is different than favoring, as you put it?
YOU SAID:
Look up favor, then look up support, then explain to me how that statement gets you off the hook. Truth is, you favor/support the willful killing of an unborn child for any reason, at any time, up to and including, so called partial birth abortions. Couching that in terms of Rights, is just semantical BS.!
MY COMMENTS:
1). You just said a lot of things that I didn't say. I have copied them above so you can compare. Now let me take one of your large hands and help you out here, Greg: Firstly, I just said I didn't favor PBA, so you are tilting at windmills and sparring with shadows. Follow me slowly...I SUPPORT the RIGHT to go to war (for certain moral reasons). I DO NOT "favour" war of any kind. If I had my way there would be no war on earth, and no PBA. Unfortunately, (at this point in evolution), morality demands both of these moral principles be exercised. I hope this analogy helps you through your confusion.
You know, Greg, if you are looking for ways to misunderstand others--you will always be able to find them. The secret is to stop trying to create areas of disagreement just to satisfy ego demands. There is always enough disagreement between people without inventing any more.
I SAID:
Do you wish to start fudging RIGHTS, and make it totally a numbers game--or a dice game of snakes and ladders? Do you wish the losers of these games to assist in their own burial, as reason is murdered and bulldozed over with the garbage of mindlessness? Do the concepts of life and freedom have no inherent value to you?
If this is the case, then how dare you object when they come with machetes to take out your family; Because, don't you know; Without REASON as the supreme tool of value--you are only as innocent as the amount of ammunition you can carry.
YOU SAID:
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the preceding two paragraphs. Totally out of left field. Do you read these tirades of yours before you post them?
MY COMMENTS:
1). My words here were some poetic rhetoric around the philosophical issues of RIGHTS. Basically, there are jungle rights where cunning and power are the basic criteria and where there is only inequality which results in a random pattern of life and death, and where those that DO manage to live use only POWER as the criterion for what we term justice; And then there are civilized RIGHTS which are fairly recent in origin, and are always in danger of reverting once again to jungle rights.
You did not know what I was talking about (and thank you for being mature enough to admit it). It is not essential that you understand these things, and I would not worry about it were I you. It will be looked after.
I SAID:
So you decide that you can enter a woman's body without permission to operate on a foetus; Or you commandeer her body to prevent her taking any substance that might affect the foetus from developing into a human person.
YOU SAID:
"I have never said anything about forced operations, and as far as preventative measures to insure the safety of the unborn child, again you simply beg the question of the humanity of the unborn. Would you be in favor of restraining a mother from injecting a newborn child with heroin..."
MY COMMENTS:
1). My "you" here is a reference to the practical consequences that might follow from a belief (held by "you") that the mother could not abort the foetus. There would be a practical consideration as to how the "rights" of the foetus would then be safeguarded by the type of force used against the mother who continued to believe that her body was her body, and that she had the RIGHTS to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A mother who continued to believe this, and to defy whatever social measures were put in place to force the birth of the fetus--would obviously create some social conflict, and some strong feelings.
2). As to your question as to whether I would favor the injecting of a newborn child with heroin--I believe that is only allowed by the medical profession when it is considered a health measure. It is illegal for an untrained parent to do so, and is (in fact) termed child abuse. Perhaps others here can help you with information as to the medical administration of drugs for health reasons.
I SAID:
Then one day you are told that 25% of all abortions are miscarried. You recognize that much of this is caused by improper habits of eating, drinking, smoking, as well as the stresses of poverty, guilt, fear, etc.
YOU SAID:
You did try to correct this obvious brain freeze so I'll leave it at that.
MY COMMENTS:
1). You don't appear to understand this excerpt. The original post makes the meaning clear. It was setting up the arguments re: the assumption of an average joe having the "rights" to a fetus in a stranger's body, and what kind of necessary social policies might be instituted to ensure that the egg (from the moment of conception) was given equal or greater status (in social "rights" terms) as the mother. Again, it is not essential that you understand this.
I SAID:
This, of course, is not enough; You must also control their sexual behaviour, and have someone from the State present during all occasions of sexual intercourse. You find out that IUD's work by flushing the ovum out of the F Tube preventing it from attaching itself to the uteral lining. You deal with this. As well--You make oral sex a crime once again, and you reassert the penalties of the church for this murder of the human that God is attempting to make.
Do you understand that when you ignore the RIGHT to ones body, you open the door to all these things: to slavery, to torture, to anything? Do you appreciate that when you abandon reason, you embrace mindless power?
YOU SAID
Talk about mindless abandonment of reason. How did we get to oral sex? In case you didn't notice, I am not the Catholic Church, I'm not even Catholic, so let's stick to the program OK?
MY COMMENTS:
1). Apparently, the only part of this you did not understand was the reference to oral sex. I don't understand it all that well myself, so perhaps it is really important.
2). Sorry, I wasn't aware that the Catholic Church was immune from inclusion in the program. Probably, your secretary forgot to send me a copy.
I SAID:
I am happy that people like yourself raise their voices and make their points. We all need to be reminded that compassion is what puts the human in human beings, and respect for life in any form should be taught from square one. But there can be no respect for life without respecting reason and RIGHTS.
YOU SAID:
Very high sounding words, but that's all they are to you, just words.
MY COMMENTS
1). Your statement is untrue. This has been my consistent position for many years. I respect life in all forms, and I respect reason and RIGHTS, too.
I SAID:
What is the difference between 7 minutes before birth and 7 minutes after? Well, certainly not as much as 7 months before birth, or seven years, or seven centuries. Once the foetus leaves the mother's body, and becomes a distinct and separate human person, we call it BIRTH. We say that a separate individual has come into existence. We call it being BORN. It happened to you; It happened to me. Almost all human eggs, and almost all human sperm, do not get to become human persons--to not get to be BORN. They have life--just as your hair and your skin has life-- and the DNA is human. With modern techniques your skin has the potential to become millions of human beings. The potential: Everything that is not in the present is potential. IS NOT does not equal IS.
YOU SAID
Finally we get some substance. So birth it is? That is your line of personhood. So partial birth abortion for any reason, not just extreme cases, should be allowed because the entity that is killed is not a "distinct and separate human person". Therefore sex selection is just as valid a reason as physical or mental disabilities, Correct?
MY COMMENTS:
1). Yes, birth is my line of personhood. I agree with my peers.
2). As regards your assumption that sex selection is a valid reason for PBA, I cannot make that moral judgment for you. The RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the RIGHT to make both moral and immoral choices, and to take the consequences of the moral judgement of the justice arm of the society in which one lives. It will serve no purpose for us to take this discussion into the particular as regards the changing mores and laws of society.
I SAID:
I am surprized that you would insist that a human person begins at conception. This is not what society believes
YOU SAID:
No, it is a simple biological fact. What society believes, is quite irrelevant to this. Are you saying we should tailor our beliefs to what society believes in the face of the biological facts?
MY COMMENTS:
1). You may think that what society believes and has translated into law is irrelevent--but I think your belief is a reckless one. You might not like it, but society is above the Church; And it provides a rational basis for people to live together in cooperation, equality, and peace.
I SAID:
Although this has sometimes been the position of the church, it was more commonly thought (by those who believed in a soul) that the first trimester was a vegetable soul, and the human soul was only formed when the foetus became animated usually synonymous with quickening. Other Christian beliefs used human appearance (limbs, digits, etc.) As an indication of a soul. Plato believed the embryo and soul were formed in the earth. This was a common belief shared by your psalmist (supposedly David, wasn't it?). How many married and unmarried women did he get pregnant?
YOU SAID:
Fascinating, how someone who constantly uses the argument against God, that superstition , must relinquish, in the face of scientific facts, would try to turn the same argument on it's head, when it seemed useful to do so.
MY COMMENTS:
1). My comment had nothing to do with science (although I think most would agree that science is a valid argument against superstition); My comment was simply a short explanation that the biblical superstition which you quoted out of the context and meaning of the psalm, was indeed a common superstition amongst pre-scientific peoples.
I SAID:
Greg, your values are far too righteous for the group you profess devotion to. How do you take moral stands before your peers, when the God you follow killed 70,000 people (many of them infants, and many of them pregnant women carrying potential persons)--just to punish David for counting the people in a census...to punish DAVID--who had no more feeling for people than a cat has for a mouse. Oh well, carry on.
Oh, BTW, most of the bible is pro abortion--even leaving aside God's orders to kill foetuses, and so forth. Would you like to share with us what gives you the RIGHT to think for yourself, and to go against the majestic thought of these primitive humans who believed that water was held in the sky by the firmament, and that the windows of heaven were what allowed the rain water to come through??
YOU SAID
Well here we are at the end of the post and just how much substance did we find???????
Precious little, Oh there is lot's circular reasoning, question begging, and emotive pleading, but where's the beef Solon. We now know that you favor/support killing of unborn children for any reason at any time, right up to and including the process of giving birth. By trying to defend the indefensible, you have placed yourself into the grave danger of becoming a lightweight. You call me a "liar, and anti-christ" all I can say to that is if the shoe fits, then wear it my friend, wear it.
MY COMMENTS:
1). As to your comment that I "favor/support killing of unborn children for any reason at any time, right up to and including the process of giving birth"--that is an outright mis-statement of fact which you are making knowingly and vindictively. I have never said I favoured killing any living thing, and you damn well know it.
2). You don't take compliments very well. Too bad. |
