e: You are trying the classic debating ploy of not arguing what I said, but arguing what you wish I had said.
M: This would just be more noise except finally finally finally you attempt to make a case in the following:
e: Too bad you're wrong again. Big shock. If you were able to read for compehension you would see that I said that the very large social problems caused by these children are of greater concern to me then if a blob of ectoplasm is sad while it circles the drain. That is very different from what you keep writing. It's a lot easier to debate something when you get to make up the other side's position, huh? I guess I should try that sometime.
M: Let's look again at the original:
"I think people have allowed the abortion debate to fall into semantics for far too long. Who cares what trimester a baby is considered "alive" in? Is there a certain day somewhere in the second trimester where killing a fetus suddenly becomes wrong? Of course not.
You know what? I think abortion is murder, and I'm still pro choice. The social problems caused by all those unwanted babies would be way more of a concern to me then how sad a pile of ectoplasm is when it's flushed down the hospital drain.
Pro life advocates condemn abortion, and then decry the presence of broken families and unwanted children. Hypocrites. Pro choice people do an elaborate gay dance to try and make some sort of artificial distinction when a person begins in order to salve their guilty consciences. Hypocrites. Embrace abortion for what it is... an incredibly useful tool for limiting the amount of unwanted, unloved, and uncared for children."
So you think you said "if a blob of ectoplasm is sad while it circles the drain"? Look carefully at your statement and tell me if the logical reading of it is not:
The social problems caused by all those unwanted babies would be way more of a concern to me then how sad a pile of ectoplasm is to me when it's flushed down the hospital drain. Are you referring to how sad you would feel or the theoretical question of whether a fetus has feelings about being flushed down the drain. It seems rather obvious to me that a fetus can't react emotionally to its own death since it is not conscious of itself as a self which leaves only you as the person who could have such feelings. I think that perhaps if you were referring to the fetus itself that the incomprehension on my part if true, was in the poor expressiveness of the writing rather than reading incomprehension. Rather than write ambiguously you could say something like this:
The social problems caused by all those unwanted babies would be way more of a concern to me then any theoretical remorse a pile of ectoplasm might feel for itself when it's flushed down the hospital drain.
e: Of course, you know that's not what I wrote. Or... for your sake I hope that you know that. If not, you are either being deliberately ignorant or are simply unable to understand relatively simplistic writing.
M: On the contrary, your clarity is rather poor.
e: Please, go incorrectly refrerence some more documents in a vain attempt to sound smart or less full of ****** though. I'll be waiting.
Read. For. Comprehension.
M: M: Please think more when you construct a sentence. Write for clarity.
I made my original criticism of your post right after you posted it and nowhere in your arguments up till now did you specifically restate your case to address this issue in this way. Your reply first was about me evoking the Nazis. Then you said this:
"I on the other hand, fully accept that we're killing something that will become a person (or already is?) but I do not see a significant enough downside to it so that it would outweigh the obvious benefits. Murder is not bad to me because murder is intrinsically (sp?) bad, but because it is bad for social order and stability."
This is right in line with my interpretation of what you were saying. Murder is OK because you don't see significant enough down sides compared to benefits. Every person who murders his wife thinks that, no? You simply build on sand because there is no core values to your thinking. You are the center of your morality. Only you and what you think is right.
But of course this new meaning, if in fact it was your original intention, for the above reasons, and not just a late invention, opens a different can of worms. It's ok to kill something that will not regret dying. I guess by that token it was ok to kill Christ.
Your notion of utility and social order and stability are really quite hideous. It is clear that you have not the intellectual capacity or honesty to look at the implications. The notion that your vision is realistic is a sham. Bu bye!
M: This would just be more noise except finally finally finally you attempt to make a case in the following:
e: Too bad you're wrong again. Big shock. If you were able to read for compehension you would see that I said that the very large social problems caused by these children are of greater concern to me then if a blob of ectoplasm is sad while it circles the drain. That is very different from what you keep writing. It's a lot easier to debate something when you get to make up the other side's position, huh? I guess I should try that sometime.
M: Let's look again at the original:
"I think people have allowed the abortion debate to fall into semantics for far too long. Who cares what trimester a baby is considered "alive" in? Is there a certain day somewhere in the second trimester where killing a fetus suddenly becomes wrong? Of course not.
You know what? I think abortion is murder, and I'm still pro choice. The social problems caused by all those unwanted babies would be way more of a concern to me then how sad a pile of ectoplasm is when it's flushed down the hospital drain.
Pro life advocates condemn abortion, and then decry the presence of broken families and unwanted children. Hypocrites. Pro choice people do an elaborate gay dance to try and make some sort of artificial distinction when a person begins in order to salve their guilty consciences. Hypocrites. Embrace abortion for what it is... an incredibly useful tool for limiting the amount of unwanted, unloved, and uncared for children."
So you think you said "if a blob of ectoplasm is sad while it circles the drain"? Look carefully at your statement and tell me if the logical reading of it is not:
The social problems caused by all those unwanted babies would be way more of a concern to me then how sad a pile of ectoplasm is to me when it's flushed down the hospital drain. Are you referring to how sad you would feel or the theoretical question of whether a fetus has feelings about being flushed down the drain. It seems rather obvious to me that a fetus can't react emotionally to its own death since it is not conscious of itself as a self which leaves only you as the person who could have such feelings. I think that perhaps if you were referring to the fetus itself that the incomprehension on my part if true, was in the poor expressiveness of the writing rather than reading incomprehension. Rather than write ambiguously you could say something like this:
The social problems caused by all those unwanted babies would be way more of a concern to me then any theoretical remorse a pile of ectoplasm might feel for itself when it's flushed down the hospital drain.
e: Of course, you know that's not what I wrote. Or... for your sake I hope that you know that. If not, you are either being deliberately ignorant or are simply unable to understand relatively simplistic writing.
M: On the contrary, your clarity is rather poor.
e: Please, go incorrectly refrerence some more documents in a vain attempt to sound smart or less full of ****** though. I'll be waiting.
Read. For. Comprehension.
M: M: Please think more when you construct a sentence. Write for clarity.
I made my original criticism of your post right after you posted it and nowhere in your arguments up till now did you specifically restate your case to address this issue in this way. Your reply first was about me evoking the Nazis. Then you said this:
"I on the other hand, fully accept that we're killing something that will become a person (or already is?) but I do not see a significant enough downside to it so that it would outweigh the obvious benefits. Murder is not bad to me because murder is intrinsically (sp?) bad, but because it is bad for social order and stability."
This is right in line with my interpretation of what you were saying. Murder is OK because you don't see significant enough down sides compared to benefits. Every person who murders his wife thinks that, no? You simply build on sand because there is no core values to your thinking. You are the center of your morality. Only you and what you think is right.
But of course this new meaning, if in fact it was your original intention, for the above reasons, and not just a late invention, opens a different can of worms. It's ok to kill something that will not regret dying. I guess by that token it was ok to kill Christ.
Your notion of utility and social order and stability are really quite hideous. It is clear that you have not the intellectual capacity or honesty to look at the implications. The notion that your vision is realistic is a sham. Bu bye!
Facebook
Twitter