|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:20 pm
NewAgeLink I don't agree with the term 'Pro-Choice' because a) I believe abortion to be murder and so b) "Pro-Choice" seems like "for the choice to murder." (While I understand that this is not so from a legal, secular perspective, I have trouble adapting my mind.) Well, that's nice. But if you can't keep your mental weaknesses out of your posts, you shouldn't be posting. NewAgeLink And finally, I believe "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion" is simpler and clearer than "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life," as pro- you're for it, and anti- you're against it, and everyone knows about the abortion controversy by now. (In other words, I'm trying to cut down on all the verbiage. I want to keep it simple.) Except, as I already said, it isn't simpler or clearer becuase people aren't pro-abortion. We're pro-keeping-abortion-legal. Don't bastardize my position's name simply because you don't agree with it. We actually are pro-choice. We want people to be able to choose. And frankly, you aren't really "pro-life" until you can prove that a fetus is a person. You're "pro-birth". But you know, out of sheer politeness I'm willing to let you be called whatever the hell you want, and I suggest you do the same. NewAgeLink To be so literal that 'Pro-Abortion' means 'for aborting every child' is idiotic, and it seems that's your problem half the time: you want to be excruciatingly literal; a "either 100 or 0, 1-99 do not exist" sort of thing. And your problem is that you are a remarkably poor thinker. Are we set now?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:22 pm
Sinner Why would a fetus who was only alive for a month or so not have a soul, whereas a baby who was alive for a year does? I've wondered that myself, and frankly I don't know, as I've often wondered, "What happens to those who die before they a) know about God or b) can understand God?" For example: I. retards without enough mental capacity II. people who have yet "to hear The Good News" (i really hate that phrase.) III. babies IV. small children etc... You have brought something into perspective for me, though; thank you... I need to read more about limbo and all of that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:25 pm
Wow, Sinner, you're a p***k. Either apologize or leave; I'm sick of tolerating your animosity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:26 pm
NewAgeLink Sinner Why would a fetus who was only alive for a month or so not have a soul, whereas a baby who was alive for a year does? I've wondered that myself, and frankly I don't know, as I've often wondered, "What happens to those who die before they a) know about God or b) can understand God?" So, can we conclude that your "idea" is pretty dumb? NewAgeLink You have brought something into perspective for me, though; thank you... I need to read more about limbo and all of that... No, you need to read more philosophy about what defines a "person". Once there is a set definition of what is or isn't a person, the abortion issue is pretty much concluded, from a religious perspective as well as a political one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:28 pm
Quote: So, can we conclude that your "idea" is pretty dumb? No, as no one has yet brought sufficient evidence against "my "idea"." Quote: NewAgeLink You have brought something into perspective for me, though; thank you... I need to read more about limbo and all of that... you need to read more philosophy about what defines a "person". Once there is a set definition of what is or isn't a person, the abortion issue is pretty much concluded, from a religious perspective as well as a political one. I really don't think any human can define what it is to be human; only one greater than a human could objectively do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:30 pm
NewAgeLink Quote: So, can we conclude that your "idea" is pretty dumb? No, as no one has yet brought sufficient evidence against "my "idea"." Really? Didn't I just point out that you can't explain a massive part of it? NewAgeLink I really don't think any human can define what it is to be human; only one greater than a human could objectively do that. And why would you "think" something like that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:34 pm
NewAgeLink Wow, Sinner, you're a p***k. Either apologize or leave; I'm sick of tolerating your animosity. See, now you've hurt my feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:37 pm
Sinner Didn't I just point out that you can't explain a massive part of it? No, you merely brought up a great contrasting parallel. No one has yet brought evidence against the notion that God doesn't give souls to children that won't make it past the womb. Sinner NewAgeLink I really don't think any human can define what it is to be human; only one greater than a human could objectively do that. And why would you "think" something like that? Why did you put think in quotations? And because it's a bit like the expression, "You can't see the forest for the trees." Now apologize or leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:42 pm
NewAgeLink Sinner Didn't I just point out that you can't explain a massive part of it? No, you merely brought up a great contrasting parallel. No one has yet brought evidence against the notion that God doesn't give souls to children that won't make it past the womb. No one needs to, you haven't given any evidence to support your idea. It's a "What if?" and nothing more. NewAgeLink Why did you put think in quotations? No reason. NewAgeLink And because it's a bit like the expression, "You can't see the forest for the trees." Wait, so you're basing a major philosophical concept off of a lame expression that you can't even connect to this idea except with "it's a bit like"? Dude. Yeah, I think not. You were at least as rude to me as I was to you (after all, you were the only one to outright insult the other), so you don't have any moral high ground here. You're no better than me, just less right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Sinner NewAgeLink And because it's a bit like the expression, "You can't see the forest for the trees." Wait, so you're basing a major philosophical concept off of a lame expression that you can't even connect to this idea except with "it's a bit like"? Actually, I felt it very appropriate; I'm sorry you missed it entirely. We cannot judge what it is to be human simply because WE are human. Sinner Yeah, I think not. You were at least as rude to me as I was to you, so you don't have any moral high ground here. You're no better than me. (I snipped out the BS; hope you don't mind.) You've been far ruder than I've been; why do you think so many don't like you? and I don't want this to become a flamefest, either; I'm sorry I offended you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:56 pm
NewAgeLink Actually, I felt it very appropriate; I'm sorry you missed it entirely. "Missed it"? I replied to it. I also pointed out that it was rather stupid. NewAgeLink We cannot judge what it is to be human simply because WE are human. Wow, that's exactly what you said earlier. And lemme guess, if I ask you to back it up, you're going to say because it sounds vaguely similar to an expression that may not even apply here (again)? NewAgeLink (I snipped out the BS; hope you don't mind.) "hope you don't mind"? Are you serious? And I thought I was arrogant. NewAgeLink You've been far ruder than I've been; why do you think so many don't like you? You thought I didn't know the answer to that? See, at least I come out and admit that I act like an arrogant jerk. And once again, you're the only here who actually insulted me. Unless you consider being called "not a very good thinker" an insult. Which I would, I suppose, but I'm funny like that. Even so, you called me a p***k. Which I don't mind, but it makes you look rather ridiculous when you pretend you have the high ground. NewAgeLink I'm sorry I offended you. Yeah, keep dreaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 pm
Sinner NewAgeLink We cannot judge what it is to be human simply because WE are human. if I ask you to back it up, [can you?] If you can't sit back and contemplate that for a minute and understand what I just said, then there's no point in continuing this issue. And as you do not feel like apologizing to me, I am asking you for the third time to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:15 pm
NewAgeLink If you can't sit back and contemplate that for a minute and understand what I just said, then there's no point in continuing this issue. There's a difference between "understanding" and "well, that's not entirely stupid". I understand what you're getting at. But that doesn't make it any more correct. NewAgeLink And as you do not feel like apologizing to me, I am asking you for the third time to leave. Two plus two will always equal four. But since I've learned by now to avoid subtlety when dealing with you, isn't it rather ridiculous to think that if you've already asked twice, things will change the third time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:20 pm
Sinner I understand what you're getting at. But that doesn't make it any more correct. 'kay, so we have different opinions. Moving on. Sinner NewAgeLink And as you do not feel like apologizing to me, I am asking you for the third time to leave. isn't it rather ridiculous to think that if you've already asked twice, things will change the third time? What's rather ridiculous is me having to edit each of your posts because of the hositility they contain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:25 pm
NewAgeLink Sinner I understand what you're getting at. But that doesn't make it any more correct. 'kay, so we have different opinions. Moving on. So you make a claim, I ask you to back it up, you do so ever so badly and I call you on it, then your reponse is "OMG IT WAS MY OPINION!!!"? Yeah, what are you doing trying to actually disuss things? That's more out of place than Chris Rock at a KKK rally. NewAgeLink What's rather ridiculous is me having to edit each of your posts because of the hositility they contain. Oh, jeez, you got me there! Oh my, your moral high ground is so stable! You amuse me greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
