[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

By the same logic, if it were legal to kill black people, you would still be able to live out your beliefs and not kill black people. Would that situation be acceptable?

As I've said, this comes down to the moral value of a fetus. If you believe it has the same moral value as a fully developed human, the "You don't have to get an abortion if you don't want one" argument sounds as absurd as "You don't have to kill black people."

That's a good point, but, to pursue your example, I think you'd agree that as a society, we've conclusively decided that our values say that it's wrong to kill black people. So your example is not about imposing values, it's about violating basic agree-upon values, which is why it sounds so ridiculous. I'd still maintain that it wouldn't be imposing values on anyone if you made it legal to kill blacks. Again, the reason it sounds so terrible is not because it's an imposition of values, it's because, as a society, we all agree that it's a terrible thing to do.

The fact is, laws against murder, or child molestation, or any other terrible thing you can think of that involves regulating people's behaivor, are an "imposition of values." They're just an imposition that we have agreed upon. If we made those things legal, we would be removing that imposition.

I think what your post shows is that there's nothing wrong per se with imposing our values through the law. Whether it's right or wrong depends on the specifics. But it's still undeniable that to have laws regulating abortion would "impose values," while to not have laws about it would not involved imposing values.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Most pro-life people view abortion as a human rights issue...

While a bit extreme... I could argue that "if you don't like abortions, don't get one" sounds very similar to "If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves"

Rubbish. Slaves have minds, but fetuses don't. Slaves are people, but fetuses aren't.

Slaves are people who are unfairly being treated as less-than-human. Fetuses are already less-than-human.

Abortion is a human rights issue. Laws against it violate a woman's right to liberty, security of person, privacy, and property (her body is her property).

It may also violate freedom of religion (as most religions permit it, and most pro-life organizations are really front-groups for the Christian Right anyways).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

As I said, just replace "abortion" with "killing black people" to see how your argument sounds to the other side. While pro-choicers don't want to impose their will on mothers, they do essentially want to impose it on fetuses.

"Impose on fetuses?" You can't "impose" on a fetus anymore than you can impose on a rock, an ant, or a shrub.

To impose is to force against someone's will. The fetus has no will to impose against. Your logic fails under examination.

[Monique]

So pro-lifer describe to me exactly what a feotus age 8 weeks looks like. And do not tell me it is a baby because if it was a woman would give birth to a toddler by the time it is 9 months old.

[Chuckit]

And once all parties agree that fetuses are equivalent to a rock, then you can form an argument on that premise. This is what I've been saying.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

As I said, just replace "abortion" with "killing black people" to see how your argument sounds to the other side. While pro-choicers don't want to impose their will on mothers, they do essentially want to impose it on fetuses.

I understand your position. I acknowledge this is almost the same thing (killing-wise), but there's still a little difference that one cannot ignore. I agree that in both cases, you are in fact terminating a life. However, did you "create" the black person? Does it "belong" to you? Are you talking about "your black"? I guess everyone has its own conception of where real "life" begins and nobody can change that. You have your vision, I have mine. Fine. However, if the mother-to-be has her own beliefs, why impose your vision? It's that part that irritates me. It's not up to you, nor is it up to me, to decide for a third person.

Like it has been pointed out before, the fetus has no conscience that it is living, thus you are not removing anything. And in most case, you are doing it a favor. Don't you think it's a bit cruel to force a fetus to live in a world in which he won't be happy? What about crack-baby? Rape? Violent mother who doesn't give sh!t about it? (okay there's social service for this, but don't deny they don't catch every case of abuse/neglect) and countless other reasons.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

"Impose on fetuses?" You can't "impose" on a fetus anymore than you can impose on a rock, an ant, or a shrub.

To impose is to force against someone's will. The fetus has no will to impose against. Your logic fails under examination.

You seem obsessed with the concept that a fetus isn't a human. When exactly does the fetus become a human?

[Chuckit]

I don't think you can say it's OK to kill it just because it's yours. A baby is yours — created by you —�just like when it was a fetus, but we somehow think it has a right not to be killed by its mother.

Like I've said, I think the difference is in the mind. I don't think killing a creature with no mind is as bad as killing a creature with a human mind.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

You seem obsessed with the concept that a fetus isn't a human.

Not obsessed. I insist on it because it's true. (Are you obsessed with the concept that the fetus is a human? Pot, meet kettle.)

Besides, the issue isn't really whether it's "human," but whether it's a "person" (morally and legally). From a strictly biological standpoint it is barely human, but from a neurological and psychological standpoint is isn't remotely human.

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

When exactly does the fetus become a human?

There is no such point. Life and reality do not provide ready-made cut-off points like this.

When is the point that the acorn becomes a tree? There is no such point. It gradually develops more and more traits of the tree over time. So it is with the unborn.

When humans make law, we are often forced to establish man-made cut-offs. Is a 16 yr old mature enough to drive a car? Is a 19 yr old mature enough to drink (the legal age in Ontario). Maybe, maybe not, but these man-made cut-offs are a reasonably good estimation.

For abortion, the best man-made cut-off time is birth, because it resolves the issue of women's liberty over her body at the same time as it resolves the issue of when a fetus becomes a legal person.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And once all parties agree that fetuses are equivalent to a rock, then you can form an argument on that premise. This is what I've been saying.

"All parties?" You have set an impossible standard.

Frankly, I don't care whether "all parties" agree or not. Convincing pro-lifers of the error of their ways is a waste of time.

The purpose of a debate is rarely to convince your opponent, but rather to convince your observers. Think of a courtroom. You aren't trying to convince the opposing lawyer, but the judge, the jury, and the observing public.

I'm not here to convince Kevin or Spliffdaddy or any other pro-lifer. I could care less about their opinions. I am using them to demonstrate the absurdity of their position to others.

[Monique]

It becomes a human being when it is out of the body of the woman.

If it was a full term pregnancy at 8 weeks; the million of women who have miscarriages would be mothers.

[Spliffdaddy]

"I'm not here to convince Kevin or Spliffdaddy or any other pro-lifer. I could care less about their opinions. I am using them to demonstrate the absurdity of their position to others."

lol.

When are you gonna start doing that?

So far it looks like your points have all been debunked - by folks on your side, no less.

[Rumor]

Here's a question for the Pro-Life crowd. Please take a minute to think about it.

Even with abortion illegal, it still will be done. That's a hard fact to deny.

Would you rather it be done in a unsafe manner, where the child and mother are at a greater risk of death?

Or

Would you rather it be done in a medical clinic by professionals, where the risk to both is greatly reduced?

If the concern is life, then putting both at risk seems invalidate the reasoning behind illegizing abortions, does it not?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Here's a question for the Pro-Life crowd. Please take a minute to think about it.

Even with abortion illegal, it still will be done. That's a hard fact to deny.

Would you rather it be done in a unsafe manner, where the child and mother are at a greater risk of death?

Or

Would you rather it be done in a medical clinic by professionals, where the risk to both is greatly reduced?

If the concern is life, then putting both at risk seems invalidate the reasoning behind illegizing abortions, does it not?

That is why I believe abortion should be kept legal.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So far it looks like your points have all been debunked

Not quite. Not even once. While I get many replies, I've yet to be refuted. My argument is stronger than the juvenile statements by you or Kevin or anyone posting here.

And in case anyone hasn't noticed, my viewpoint is the law of the law, in the US, Canada, and most of Europe. The fetus is a legal non-person. Far from being "debunked," my viewpoint is the law.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Not obsessed. I insist on it because it's true. (Are you obsessed with the concept that the fetus is a human? Pot, meet kettle.)

You state it like fact... and it is far from that.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Besides, the issue isn't really whether it's "human," but whether it's a "person" (morally and legally). From a strictly biological standpoint it is barely human, but from a neurological and psychological standpoint is isn't remotely human.

You said it... so now it is a human but not a "person"

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

There is no such point. Life and reality do not provide ready-made cut-off points like this.

Exactly... an acorn IS a tree... it is simply a baby tree. A fetus IS a human, it is simply a pre-born human.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

When is the point that the acorn becomes a tree? There is no such point. It gradually develops more and more traits of the tree over time. So it is with the unborn.

When humans make law, we are often forced to establish man-made cut-offs. Is a 16 yr old mature enough to drive a car? Is a 19 yr old mature enough to drink (the legal age in Ontario). Maybe, maybe not, but these man-made cut-offs are a reasonably good estimation.

For abortion, the best man-made cut-off time is birth, because it resolves the issue of women's liberty over her body at the same time as it resolves the issue of when a fetus becomes a legal person.

Interesting... your example completely falls apart under our current legal system. Pre-born children are routinely represented in homicide cases when a pregnant woman is killed. I guess if you want the child, it is a human... but if you don't want the child... it is just a lump of cells.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Not quite. Not even once. While I get many replies, I've yet to be refuted. My argument is stronger than the juvenile statements by you or Kevin or anyone posting here.

And in case anyone hasn't noticed, my viewpoint is the law of the law, in the US, Canada, and most of Europe. The fetus is a legal non-person. Far from being "debunked," my viewpoint is the law.

You might want to read up on "Fetal Homicide"
Currently, at least 34 states have fetal homicide laws...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

You seem obsessed with the concept that a fetus isn't a human. When exactly does the fetus become a human?

Just more of his rationalizing what is really going on.

He seems too keep forgetting about the whole treating his opinion as fact thing too.

Don't seem like he is going to stop doing it either.

Oh well.

[lpkmckenna]

I was clearly speaking of my opinion on abortion. The fact that fetal homocide laws are on the books is quaint, but irrelevant.

[Kevin]

Then speak as it were your opinion. Not fact. You claim another person's opinion is WRONG because your opinion differs.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The fact that fetal homocide laws are on the books is quaint, but irrelevant.

Quaint but irrelevant?

Please explain why this is irrelevant? Seems interesting that the fetus is legally a person... sometimes.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

You might want to read up on "Fetal Homicide"
Currently, at least 34 states have fetal homicide laws...

Yeah, and we have that federal "Laci's law" too. But the pro-lifers are the ones who support those laws, for obvious purpose. It's circular to use the fact that those laws exist to argue that a fetus is a person, because the reason they were put on the books in the first place was to make the argument that a fetus is a person.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah, and we have that federal "Laci's law" too. But the pro-lifers are the ones who support those laws, for obvious purpose. It's circular to use the fact that those laws exist to argue that a fetus is a person, because the reason they were put on the books in the first place was to make the argument that a fetus is a person.

Excellent rebuttal, BR.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

And in case anyone hasn't noticed, my viewpoint is the law of the law, in the US, Canada, and most of Europe. The fetus is a legal non-person. Far from being "debunked," my viewpoint is the law.

I have CLEARLY shown you where a fetus IS legally a person.

Thus, you have been debunked on this issue.

Doesn't sound like your "viewpoint is the law."

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Then speak as it were your opinion. Not fact. You claim another person's opinion is WRONG because your opinion differs.

Sounds like someone else that post around here...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Sounds like someone else that post around here...

Like? Show some examples?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah, and we have that federal "Laci's law" too. But the pro-lifers are the ones who support those laws, for obvious purpose. It's circular to use the fact that those laws exist to argue that a fetus is a person, because the reason they were put on the books in the first place was to make the argument that a fetus is a person.

Wait a second BRussell... you are using my comment out of context.

lpkmckenna said that: "The fetus is a legal non-person." and I showed him a clear case of where the fetus WAS in fact considered a person... legally. [spin it pro-life, pro-choice as you choose... but I clearly showed an example of existing laws that contradicted his previous post]

If anything, my example just highlighted how flawed lpkmckenna's original post was.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Excellent rebuttal, BR.

Hilarious...

You do realize that if I was using circular logic... so were you.. as you were the one bosting that "your viewpoint was the law"

Come to find out... it isn't.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I have CLEARLY shown you where a fetus IS legally a person. Thus, you have been debunked on this issue. Doesn't sound like your "viewpoint is the law."

Except that legal abortion is the law, and has been tested and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

These "fetal homicide" laws do not exist to prosecute fetal homicides. They were created simply for the pro-life movement to use as leverage in the abortion debate. Just like the new South Dakota law is not a real law, it exists only to re-visit the abortion issue with the new Supreme Court.

Your argument is circular reasoning, at best.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Wait a second BRussell... you are using my comment out of context.

lpkmckenna said that: "The fetus is a legal non-person." and I showed him a clear case of where the fetus WAS in fact considered a person... legally. [spin it pro-life, pro-choice as you choose... but I clearly showed an example of existing laws that contradicted his previous post]

If anything, my example just highlighted how flawed lpkmckenna's original post was.

Are there any examples of someone actually prosecuted under these "fetal homicide" laws? Or are these laws merely "horses must wear pants in public" type of laws?

[lpkmckenna]

Here's something relevant about "feticide" and abortion: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts.../20030528.html I found this on a pro-life page: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/R...speakUVVA.html

...laws treating feticide as murder do not need to define fetuses as persons. California's law is illustrative. It defines murder as the killing of a human being or a fetus. [emphasis mine]

Second, there is nothing especially troubling about permitting the law to define the word "person" differently for different purposes. Statutes routinely define various words, including "person," so that they will mean exactly what the legislature intends in a particular context. And even general constitutional language can be interpreted differently depending upon the context. Corporations, for example, are "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment in the sense that their property cannot be taken without fair processes, but not in the sense that they are entitled to vote on equal terms with natural persons.

Roe v. Wade said that states are not obligated to treat fetuses as persons. It also said that in a conflict with the constitutional liberty of a pregnant woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is capable of survival outside the womb, the fetus may not be given the same rights as the woman.

However, that certainly does not mean that there are no circumstances in which fetuses can be given legal protection. Again, it all depends on the context.

Consider another analogy. Cats and dogs are not "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet surely there is nothing constitutionally suspect about laws forbidding cruelty to animals, even though they limit the liberty of those who would perpetrate such acts of cruelty. Indeed, there would be no inherent constitutional problem with terming a malicious cat or dog killing "murder"-- though imposing too severe a sentence for that act might run afoul of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In sum, so long as respecting the rights and interests of fetuses does not conflict with the right of a woman to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy, there is no necessary contradiction between the abortion right established in Roe and feticide laws.

[Spliffdaddy]

Tell that to Scott Peterson. He's on death row for the killing of his wife and unborn child. 2 counts of murder.

Oddly enough, if Laci Peterson had killed the same unborn child - it would have been perfectly legal.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Like? Show some examples?

By the way, I was not referring to you.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=289082

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Here's something relevant about "feticide" and abortion: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts.../20030528.html I found this on a pro-life page: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/R...speakUVVA.html

Yes, California does say that... but many other states DO consider a fetus a person... but I'm sure they are just pandering to the pro-lifers...

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Are there any examples of someone actually prosecuted under these "fetal homicide" laws? Or are these laws merely "horses must wear pants in public" type of laws?

There you go... talking like you know what you are talking about.

Do a little research on Regina McKnight. She was convicted of murder in 2001 because she used cocaine during her pregnancy... causing the death of her unborn child.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

Check this link... many states aren't as clear cut as California. They don't support your argument... so I guess you just browse over it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor

By the way, I was not referring to you.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=289082

No specific examples.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Tell that to Scott Peterson. He's on death row for the killing of his wife and unborn child. 2 counts of murder.

Oddly enough, if Laci Peterson had killed the same unborn child - it would have been perfectly legal.

Indeed. Double standard.

We PRETEND it's not a human when the woman does it

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

There you go... talking like you know what you are talking about.

Do a little research on Regina McKnight. She was convicted of murder in 2001 because she used cocaine during her pregnancy... causing the death of her unborn child.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

Check this link... many states aren't as clear cut as California. They don't support your argument... so I guess you just browse over it.

What a great story! Now we send drug addicts who have still births to prison for murder? Who next? Smokers? Alcoholics? How stupid can it get?

In 1999 Regina McKnight a 22 year old native of Horry County went to the Conway hospital expecting to deliver her new baby. Instead, she suffered a stillbirth and five months later was arrested on charges of homicide by child abuse. In 1998, Ms. McKnight's mother was killed by a hit and run driver. Left without the support system on which she had relied, Ms. McKnight turned to drugs to ease her depression and grief. She became pregnant. Lacking access to support services, including mental health and drug treatment, she was unable to overcome her drug dependence. No amnesty policy existed at Conway Hospital and no offer of drug treatment was made prior to her arrest.

Ms. McKnight's first trial ended in a mistrial. Her second trial ended in a conviction and, Ms. McKnight who had no prior arrest history was sentenced to 20 years in prison suspended to 12 years. Ms. McKnight's conviction was based on the jury's acceptance of a medically disputed claim that her cocaine use caused the stillbirth. Leading medical groups, including the South Carolina Medical Association filed a friend of the court brief concluding that there was no evidence that her drug use was the cause of this stillbirth.

Here's the first page I encountered searching for "Regina McKnight." http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org...prmcknight.htm

Among those supported her appeal include:

South Carolina Medical Association
South Carolina Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
American Nurses Association
National Association of Social Workers
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Institute For Health and Recovery
The South Carolina Nurses Association
The American Society of Addiction Medicine
The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
South Carolina Primary Health Care Association

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Wait a second BRussell... you are using my comment out of context.

lpkmckenna said that: "The fetus is a legal non-person." and I showed him a clear case of where the fetus WAS in fact considered a person... legally. [spin it pro-life, pro-choice as you choose... but I clearly showed an example of existing laws that contradicted his previous post]

If anything, my example just highlighted how flawed lpkmckenna's original post was.

OK, I understand.

[lpkmckenna]

More about Regina McKnight:

Regina McKnight, a homeless drug addict with an IQ of 72, was convicted of committing "homicide by child abuse" after hospital workers detected cocaine in her system shortly after she gave birth to a stillborn girl in 1999.

South Carolina law defines a viable fetus as a "person." At 8-1/2 months, Ms. McKnight's stillborn daughter was considered a person under state law, and McKnight was charged with homicide for causing the death by ingesting cocaine while pregnant.

Lawyers for McKnight say she was grief-stricken by the stillbirth of the daughter she intended to name Mercedes. They say McKnight was addicted to cocaine and that there were no drug-treatment options available to her. In addition, they say McKnight suffered from two medical conditions which, independent of the cocaine use, could have caused the stillbirth.

That's from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1007/p02s01-usju.html

The US is notorious for it's unfair treatment of the mentally challenged, for minorities, for the homeless, and for not providing treatment for drug addicts. Poor Ms McKnight was all these things. No wonder she got the shaft.

Got any more people you'd like to kick when they are down, production_coordinator?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

More about Regina McKnight:



That's from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1007/p02s01-usju.html

The US is notorious for it's unfair treatment of the mentally challenged, for minorities, for the homeless, and for not providing treatment for drug addicts. Poor Ms McKnight was all these things. No wonder she got the shaft.

Got any more people you'd like to kick when they are down, production_coordinator?

Oh, so now I hate minorities, the homeless and mentally challenged. Have any other words you want to put in my mouth?

You asked for an example of a person convicted of fetal homicide. I gave one example from MANY. You in turn start name calling.

If you can't make rational posts, perhaps you should simply stop posting your rants as they simply highlight how foolish your personal point of view is.

Other pro choice people have given valid points, but you seem to have a uncanny ability to make completely baseless points, and back them up with playground name calling.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Oh, so now I hate minorities, the homeless and mentally challenged. Have any other words you want to put in my mouth?

You asked for an example of a person convicted of fetal homicide. I gave one example from MANY. You in turn start name calling.

If you can't make rational posts, perhaps you should simply stop posting your rants as they simply highlight how foolish your personal point of view is.

Other pro choice people have given valid points, but you seem to have a uncanny ability to make completely baseless points, and back them up with playground name calling.

I didn't say you, I said the US. (In fairness, Canada is little better.)

If you took offence, I am sorry. I did not intend to suggest you "hate minorities, the homeless and mentally challenged."

However, in regards to "baseless points," that's simply not true.

I said: The US is notorious for it's unfair treatment of the mentally challenged, for minorities, for the homeless, and for not providing treatment for drug addicts. Poor Ms McKnight was all these things. No wonder she got the shaft."

Then consider this. The Lt Governor of South Carolina, the same place that put a mentally challenged homeless woman in jail for having a still birth, seems to walk on water.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps...EWS01/60328013

South Carolina. What a nice, fair place.

Black, homeless, drug-problem, still birth: go to jail.
White governor, reckless driving on several ocassions, including going 101 mph: get off scot-free.

Did I mention he was a Republican? Or that he was charged in 2003 for reckless driving?

Bauer agreed to plea guilty to charges of driving too fast for conditions and disregarding a traffic control device in 2003 after he was charged with reckless driving. In that incident, a Columbia police officer reported that he felt Bauer was approaching him in an aggressive manner during the stop and drew his gun.

[Spliffdaddy]

So you get your ass kicked, change the subject, and proceed to show your true colors.

Typical.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Oh, so now I hate minorities, the homeless and mentally challenged. Have any other words you want to put in my mouth?

You asked for an example of a person convicted of fetal homicide. I gave one example from MANY. You in turn start name calling.

If you can't make rational posts, perhaps you should simply stop posting your rants as they simply highlight how foolish your personal point of view is.

Other pro choice people have given valid points, but you seem to have a uncanny ability to make completely baseless points, and back them up with playground name calling.

You know that is the very same thing I have been telling him.

He doesn't know how to honestly debate.

Hey Ipk, just maybe it's true?

You might want to look into it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

"All parties?" You have set an impossible standard.

Frankly, I don't care whether "all parties" agree or not. Convincing pro-lifers of the error of their ways is a waste of time.

The purpose of a debate is rarely to convince your opponent, but rather to convince your observers. Think of a courtroom. You aren't trying to convince the opposing lawyer, but the judge, the jury, and the observing public.

I'm not here to convince Kevin or Spliffdaddy or any other pro-lifer. I could care less about their opinions. I am using them to demonstrate the absurdity of their position to others.

So you're just preaching to the choir? You don't actually want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, just "use them" to boost your ego?

[FireWire]

Why is it so hard to understand that "we" don't want to change anyone's opinion. Damn it. We just want every party to stay in their own boundaries. Person A says "GO", person B says "NO". Perfectly fine. Just let person C makes her own decision, without interference.. Unless, of course, you want to impose your point of view, and that's applicable to both sides.

Admit it, you just want to create heat and tension, by talking in never-ending circles, in the hope that the other party will be so exasperated that they will snap and revert to worthless examples or arguments, in the hope that you will understand, and then you can point finger and pretend you won, by making the other party look like a fool.

Kevin: you don't have lesson to give to anybody on how to debate correctly, you should learn first. You're more interested in pinpointing and exposing others' flaws and errors than to genuinely discuss. You hold by your sole argument ad nauseam, and often refuse to participate further. (Not only in this thead alone, but in general).

Spliffdaddy: now that you admitted that you have nothing to do on a Mac board, and are in fact just here to argue, I think your say is a little bit diminished.

[Spliffdaddy]

And *you* have nothing to do with a debate about American legislation.

Or were you just stopping by to point fingers at members?

Nice link, btw.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

And *you* have nothing to do with a debate about American legislation.

At least, I "belong" on the forum. It's like if you were to join a beer-lover group, while you don't drink or like it, but start telling its members how they should think. I'm not saying you should leave: you are perfectly free to participate in whatever debate you want, but you should try not to get too involved, to moderate a little. Just my .02 $.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Nice link, btw.

Hehe yeah. It must have been deleted. I'll replace it when I find it: for now it's just a placeholder. I just didn't want to clutter up the message text with my personal message to you.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The purpose of a debate is rarely to convince your opponent, but rather to convince your observers. Think of a courtroom. You aren't trying to convince the opposing lawyer, but the judge, the jury, and the observing public.

Quoted for emphasis. What "pro-life" people don't realize, is that they are effectively imposing their opinion on others, because the outcome will be different if they intervene or not, while the opposite can not be said about "pro-choice". Example:

Without the law:
- outcome A (full gestation)
- outcome B (abortion)

With the law into effect:
- outcome A (full gestation)
- ... (you removed that option)

by legally removing an option, you effectively limit the person's ability to freely decide, thus you force her to obey your point of view, whether she agrees with it or not. Simple enough?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by FireWire

Why is it so hard to understand that "we" don't want to change anyone's opinion. Damn it. We just want every party to stay in their own boundaries.

But that is the question — is killing a baby within a woman's rights? If we are indeed talking about the death of innocent people here, then "staying in your own boundaries" is a deeply immoral thing to do. Imagine some act you actually think should be illegal (rape, murder) and then imagine someone saying what you just said in reference to that.

So yes, you do want to change people's opinion — you want them to think this is a situation in which it is acceptable to MYOB.

[Rumor]

One step forward, two steps back...

[Chuckit]

We come together because opposites attract.