[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

It's called an "analogy." I'm sure your favorite dictionary makes a mention of it.

No it's called drama queening.

Go back a couple of pages, and then you'll really see how far from the subject this thread can get. I'd say I put this thread back on track.

No, you did nothing but add hyperbole and treat your bizarro beliefs as fact. For example your whole "Abortion is morally correct" silliness.

The "convenience" and "selfishness" arguments are amusing, but if you were to go up a few posts you'll see I demolished them already.

Add deluded to that list. You didn't demolish anything. Using your own personal belief system, and treating it as fact, isn't demolishing anything. It's what others including me have said, hyperbole.

You may have gotten away with it in other forums, but not this one.

You are in a different league here. We don't pander to silliness. (Well not when we are expected to take it seriously)

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There you go again acting like your bizarro "moralism" are facts.

Abortion is morally right! :AAHAHAHA

Seems like the one that accuses others of being fuzzy, is being fuzzy himself.

Here's what he really said:

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Abortion is a moral right.

[Kevin]

Buseman it's meaning the same thing. It would have to be MORAL to be a MORAL right.

In other words.
For something to be a moral right, it has to be moral in the first place.

Fuzziness indeed.

[Busemann]

"abortion is morally right" implies that the act is always the right thing to do.

"abortion is a moral right" implies that the option to do so should be a right, but not that the act itself always is right.

it is a moral right for a president to grant immunity to a felon, but it isn't necessarily morally right to do so. It all depends on the circumstances.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No it's called drama queening.

No, you did nothing but add hyperbole and treat your bizarro beliefs as fact. For example your whole "Abortion is morally correct" silliness.

Add deluded to that list. You didn't demolish anything. Using your own personal belief system, and treating it as fact, isn't demolishing anything. It's what others including me have said, hyperbole.

You may have gotten away with it in other forums, but not this one.

You are in a different league here. We don't pander to silliness. (Well not when we are expected to take it seriously)

I deassemble your arguments point by point, demonstrating their inconsistencies, and you completely ignore the criticism. You can't counter the criticism, so you don't even try.

However, you completely re-state, over and over again, the same 2 ideas:
1) my arguments are hyperbole, and 2) I treat my beliefs as facts.

You might as well copy'n'paste those two points in every post until your cmd-v keys give out. Because that's all you seem to plan on saying anyway.

As for "not getting away with it," what are you planning to do about it? Just say "hyperbole" until the end of time? Gee, that'll stop me!

And this isn't "a different league." It's four guys with the collected vocabulary of a chimp.

If your "league" is the best the anti-abortion movement can provide, legal abortion is clearly here to stay.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

"abortion is morally right" implies that the act is always the right thing to do.

"abortion is a moral right" implies that the option to do so should be a right, but not that the act itself always is right.

it is a moral right for a president to grant immunity to a felon, but it isn't necessarily morally right to do so. It all depends on the circumstances.

Depends on how it's said. It's not as cut and dry as you are painting it oh sir.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I deassemble your arguments point by point, demonstrating their inconsistencies, and you completely ignore the criticism. You can't counter the criticism, so you don't even try.

No, you reply to my post with hyperbole, as OTHERS have pointed out. That is called being DISHONEST.

However, you completely re-state, over and over again, the same 2 ideas:
1) my arguments are hyperbole, and 2) I treat my beliefs as facts.

You might as well copy'n'paste those two points in every post until your cmd-v keys give out. Because that's all you seem to plan on saying anyway.

Tell you what, you stop doing it, and I wont HAVE to use those words. I don't WANT to use those words (And I am not the ONLY ONE that has told you this)

That seems to be the ONLY WAY you can argue. Not with facts, but made up hyperbole treated as fact. Don't like being busted for it? DON'T DO IT.

As for "not getting away with it," what are you planning to do about it? Just say "hyperbole" until the end of time? Gee, that'll stop me!

No, we will just make fun of you till you stop. Ask Monique. She does it too.

Are you two related?

And this isn't "a different league." It's four guys with the collected vocabulary of a chimp.

If your "league" is the best the anti-abortion movement can provide, legal abortion is clearly here to stay.

Why? Because we wont argue with facts that don't exist?

Why should we waste our time?

Start discussing things in a honest, non-drama-queening manner, and we will talk.

Fact is, if your "cause" was so JUST, you wouldn't have to use hyperbole to defend it.

The fact that you do says a lot.

[lpkmckenna]

I've decided to go back and look at some of the things you've said in the past, since everything you've said in the last 6 posts or so is "hyperbole" and "personal beliefs."

Originally Posted by Kevin

We have different definitions of human.

We really don't know much when "life" actually begins.

We have guesses however.

My stance is, unless we are for DAMNED sure, we shouldn't be doing it.

Actually, the "onus of proof" demands that if you can't prove it's murder, you can't expect people not to do it.

And we do know when life begins. But the fact that life has begun is morally insignificant.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Where I stand? I wouldn't fight either way. I wouldn't be upset if it was banned, nor would I go "march" if it isn't.

I think it's legal murder.

And you're ok with that? Do you have any beliefs worth sticking up for? Are there any murders that upset you? Or do you just sit on your throne, wagging your finger disapprovingly?

I think you're being disingenuous. (In other words, you're lying.) You want to see abortion banned, but you don't want to take responsibility for it yourself. That's cowardice.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Birth control isn't killing babies. Birth control is stopping a baby from even being conceived.

This is completely untrue. Birth control pills on the market today include "abortifactant" elements that cause miscarriages after implantation. Thus, if the pill doesn't stop the conception, and doesn't stop the implantation, it causes a miscarriage. The woman won't even know. She'll just seem to have a heavier than normal menstral flow.

The truth is, most women using the pill for an extended length of time have probably already had an abortion and don't know it.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well if you don't want kids, GO GET FIXED! There is your solution. You wont have kids, and wont have to kill any because you don't want them.

This is a barbarian's idea of a solution. This issue isn't whether a woman wants to have kids ever, but whether she wants one now.

If a politician or ethicist said this kind of thing in public, his career would be over before lunch.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No need to be selfish.

Sometimes you need to think of others, sometimes you need to think of yourself. In the case of abortion, there is no "other" to be concerned about.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Are you saying women have abortions to "prove something to their peers?"

No, I'm saying they get pregnant to prove something to their peers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I've decided to go back and look at some of the things you've said in the past

Something I asked you to do pages ago, something you claimed you already did.

Actually, the "onus of proof" demands that if you can't prove it's murder, you can't expect people not to do it.

Um, it is ending a living growing human life. No one is denying this in this thread. Not even the pro-choicers.

And we do know when life begins.

No, no we do not. We have a GUESS.

But the fact that life has begun is morally insignificant.

Again, more of your personal bizarro opinion treated as fact.

Sometimes I don't even think you realize when you do this. It has become so ingrained in your communication style, it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.

I don't know if it's because out of insecurity that you feel the need to treat your personal opinions as fact, or you are for the sake of arguement, attempting to push them off as such, hoping we will take your word for it. Either way, that simply doesn't cut the mustard.

BTW if you must got back and reply to things I did say before. Do it in ONE POST. Not several. You'll get flamed for doing that. Just a tip.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

And you're ok with that? Do you have any beliefs worth sticking up for? Are there any murders that upset you? Or do you just sit on your throne, wagging your finger disapprovingly?

More hyperbole. I feel things are going to happen regardless of anything I say or do. People will be responsible for their own actions. I am ALL ABOUT free will. I am NOT about deluding the issues or sugar-coating them to be something they are not.

I don't believe abortion should be legal. I AM pro-life. But you wont see me bombing abortion clinics, or standing outside them with picket signs.

I think you're being disingenuous. (In other words, you're lying.) You want to see abortion banned, but you don't want to take responsibility for it yourself. That's cowardice.

Huh? Did you not see what I wrote in the posts I made? I said I would have NO PROBLEM with abortions being banned. I am not going to make a BIG DEAL of it either way. What will happen will.

Dig?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

This is completely untrue. Birth control pills on the market today include "abortifactant" elements that cause miscarriages after implantation. Thus, if the pill doesn't stop the conception, and doesn't stop the implantation, if causes a miscarriage. The woman won't even know. She'll just seem to have a heavier than normal menstral flow.

I am speaking about THE PILL as most of us know it. If such a thing does happen, and they aren't telling the patients, I smell a big ole lawsuit. That would be aborting without consent.

And not all PCP do this..

The truthg is, most women using the pill for an extended length of time have probably already had an abortion and don't know it.

I'd love to see some statistics on this. If this is true, I know lots of women that are going to be rich.

This is a barbarian's idea of a solution.

Yes, and sucking the body's of growing living babies out of a mother is not barbarian at all!

more hyperbole.

This issue isn't whether a woman wants to have kids ever, but whether she wants one now.

And SHE HAS THAT CHOICE BEFORE SHE GETS PREGNANT.

If a politician or ethicist said this kind of thing in public, his career would be over before lunch.

Um no, they have. You haven't been paying attention. They just didn't say it as I did.

Sometimes you need to thing of others, sometimes you need to thing of yourself. In the case of abortion, there is no "other" to be concerned about.

More personal opinions that are baseless, treated as fact

When are you going to quit this? Can you even?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, you reply to my post with hyperbole, as OTHERS have pointed out. That is called being DISHONEST.

Tell you what, you stop doing it, and I wont HAVE to use those words. I don't WANT to use those words (And I am not the ONLY ONE that has told you this)

That seems to be the ONLY WAY you can argue. Not with facts, but made up hyperbole treated as fact. Don't like being busted for it? DON'T DO IT.

Time for a history lesson, chump.

I said:

Arguing about the life of the unborn versus the woman's life is pointless. The woman is a full person with dreams, ambitions, friends and family who love her, and so on. The unborn have none of those things, except for the busy-bodies who care about fetuses. But those same busy-bodies are ready to sacrifice the lifetime goals of the woman out of their own desire to control the lives of others.

Then Chuckit said:

It takes a lifetime of inaction to gestate a baby? My goodness, this changes everything. Back when I took health class, it was popularly believed that a woman was only pregnant for nine months and even during that time was still capable of performing most tasks.

I think you're possibly being a little hyperbolic.

So I torn Chuckit's statement to shreds:

Imagine for a moment what you're suggesting. IIRC, there are about 1.5 million abortions a year in the US. Do you see 1.5 million adoptions of those children? Every year?

Most women who have abortions are in their teens and twenties. These people are already having an immense difficulty meeting the financial requirements of their dreams. Post-secondary education is an huge financial commitment, and the large numbers of drop-outs indicate how hard the struggle is. That's before being a mother at the same time.

What are the lives of single mothers like? Do they typically finish their education? No, so they flip burgers. How about their children? Do they go on to have hugely successful educations and carreers? Not if their single mothers can't save money because they flip burgers.

This issue is unequivocal. Denying legal abortion is denying young women their future, and cementing them and their children into poverty.

Do a search on the economic status of single mothers versus married mothers. Those numbers are not "hyperbole." That's an accounting of shattered dreams.

I smacked down Chuckit so hard he still hasn't gotten up.

Then ebuddy said this:

ABC link to breast cancer, abortions performed by "doctors" in less than sterile clinics, depression, increase in child abuse (attributed to depression), STDs, AIDS, juvenile crime rate, children born into poverty, and increase in teen births are all attributed to a que sara sara sense of morality that leads to a carte blanche on irresponsibility. We then end up with the absurd argument of; "truth and morality are relative and I want your help in funding and propogating what is generally immoral and irresponsible behavior." It clearly affects us all. By this reasoning, if you saw a woman getting raped outside your home you clearly wouldn't stop him from raping her. Afterall, it's not your body, it's not your choice in the matter, it doesn't affect you.

And I torn him apart with this:

Oh rubbish. Firstly, all those medical assertions have little or no supporting evidence. But that doesn't stop pro-lifers from asserting their "truth" regardless.

Second, crime rates and poverty are far higher among families led by young single mothers than any other group. Read the book Freakonomics. The author clearly demonstrates that the dropping crime rates since the 70's are attributable to legal abortion.

As for depression: there is no link. Depression has a strong physiological basis. Remember, depression is also extremely common among women who've had children. It's called post-partum depression, and it causes problems leading up to infantcide and suicide of new mothers.

Arguing that abortion is bad since it can cause depression is like arguing that giving birth is bad because it can cause depression

and this:

This is the stupidest f'n argument I've ever encountered concerning abortion.

The reason I'm opposed to to anti-abortion laws is so women can control their own lives and bodies. You would have to be some kind of f'n idiot not to see that rape is also taking control of a woman's life and body away from her. I am for legal abortion and against rape for the same reason. Grow the hell up.

ebuddy is still smarting from the whuppin' I gave him. He hasn't gotten up either.

However, you thought ebuddy's post was cool. You said this:

I see ebuddy just smacked your hyperbole down lpkmckenna, I don't need to.

The truth is: I have slaughtered the simple-minded statements of you and your cohorts. I clearly demonstrated ebuddy is an f'n tool, but you think he "smacked [my] hyperbole."

You and your cohorts are among the least capable debaters I've ever encountered.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, we will just make fun of you till you stop. Ask Monique. She does it too.

Are you two related?

Monique and I have nothing in common. I haven't made a single argument similar to hers. The fact you see otherwise denotes your failure to recognize key differences in substance.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why? Because we wont argue with facts that don't exist?

You claim abortion is murder. This is a fact that doesn't exist.

The fact that you supported ebuddy's unscientific claims about cancer and depression demonstrates your complete disinterest in anything resembling truth. You think the more "facts" you can claim, and the more "allies" you have, the more right you are. Sorry to tell you, but truth isn't about democracy or made-up medical statistics.

Your claims are little more that "false belief," while mine are "true belief." If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can recommend some Plato to read.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Monique and I have nothing in common. I haven't made a single argument similar to hers. The fact you see otherwise denotes your failure to recognize key differences in substance.

WRONG AGAIN! The quality of BOTH your blatherings is quite similar. YOU just can't see past your ego.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Y3a

No, I'm saying they get pregnant to prove something to their peers.

Sure, they deliberately f'k up their future to show off.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Time for a history lesson, chump.

No history lesson needed. Now you are being a pretentious silly person. That will also get you made fun of in here.

As a matter of fact, I would throw away all your debate crutches you've used in other forums.

So I torn Chuckit's statement to shreds:

I smacked down Chuckit so hard he still hasn't gotten up.

And I torn him apart with this:

and this:

ebuddy is still smarting from the whuppin' I gave him. He hasn't gotten up either.

However, you thought ebuddy's post was cool. You said this:


The truth is: I have slaughtered the simple-minded statements of you and your cohorts. I clearly demonstrated ebuddy is an f'n tool, but you think he "smacked [my] hyperbole."

You and your cohorts are among the least capable debaters I've ever encountered.

There you go with the hyperbole again.

Are you so insecure that you need to exaggerate in such a "my cock is bigger than yours" type of way?

You didn't do any such thing. You did EXACTLY what you did to me. Take your personal opinion, claim it was fact, and then exaggerated.

That isn't "smacking down" that isn't "tearing stuff into shreds" that is typing out hyperbole that means nothing.

It's verbal masturbation. It ads nothing to the discussion. The only person that gets anything from it is you.

Monique and I have nothing in common. I haven't made a single argument similar to hers.

No, you haven't made a similar post. But you BOTH USE hyperbole aka bizarro exaggerations treated as fact in your arguement.

The fact you see otherwise denotes your failure to recognize key differences in substance.

More silliness.

You claim abortion is murder. This is a fact that doesn't exist.

No, I claim to believe abortion is murder. Not everyone in this forum agrees. Everyone in this forum however cept you, believe it is ending a life.

The fact that you supported ebuddy's unscientific claims about cancer and depression demonstrates your complete disinterest in anything resembling truth. You think the more "facts" you can claim, and the more "allies" you have, the more right you are. Sorry to tell you, but truth isn't about democracy or made-up medical statistics.

You would know abut made-up medical science. You seem to make it up as you go along.

Your claims are little more that "false belief," while mine are "true belief." If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can recommend some Plato to read.

More pretentiousness.

You aren't the first cock-sure person that has though they'd come in here and "show us"

I am sure you wont be the last.

No wonder the other forum got annoyed with you.

You need to learn some people skills.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Sure, they deliberately f'k up their future to show off.

Gee now you get it. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE LABELED AS STUPID. See how it connects with the point of the KIND of people who get most of the abortions!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

You and your cohorts are among the least capable debaters I've ever encountered.


Monique and I have nothing in common. I haven't made a single argument similar to hers. The fact you see otherwise denotes your failure to recognize key differences in substance.


You claim abortion is murder. This is a fact that doesn't exist.

The fact that you supported ebuddy's unscientific claims about cancer and depression demonstrates your complete disinterest in anything resembling truth. You think the more "facts" you can claim, and the more "allies" you have, the more right you are. Sorry to tell you, but truth isn't about democracy or made-up medical statistics.

Your claims are little more that "false belief," while mine are "true belief." If you don't know what I'm talking about, I can recommend some Plato to read.

lpmckenna, you will quickly learn that "debate" on this forum has very little, if anything, to do with the Aristotelian conception of debate most of the Western world knows. The idea of a debate based on suppositions, arguments, and counter-arguments in a polite, civil fashion is lost on most people here in this forum. This is true regardless of their stance on abortion or any other issue. Most people here in this forum--and I think in life in general--argue from a personal, emotional viewpoint so they can't even begin to comprehend how to argue from a dis-passionate, logical viewpoint. So, don't get your hopes up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Y3a

WRONG AGAIN! The quality of BOTH your blatherings is quite similar. YOU just can't see past your ego.

Yup, s what happens when peple come in here all pretentious like to "show us"

when he starts getting smacked down for his straw-men arguements, he starts getting worse

[hyteckit]

All women drinking coffee or soda during their pregnancy and has a miscarriage needs to be locked up for manslaughter. All women drinking coffee or soda during their pregnancy needs to be charged with child/fetus/embryo endangerment automatically and will have their child taken away once they are born.

Coffee makers, coffee shops, and a soda company all need to be sued for not providing enough warning that consumption of their products causes abortion or miscarriages.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

lpmckenna, you will quickly learn that "debate" on this forum has very little, if anything, to do with the Aristotelian conception of debate most of the Western world knows. The idea of a debate based on suppositions, arguments, and counter-arguments in a polite, civil fashion is lost on most people here in this forum. This is true regardless of their stance on abortion or any other issue. Most people here in this forum--and I think in life in general--argue from a personal, emotional viewpoint so they can't even begin to comprehend how to argue from a dis-passionate, logical viewpoint. So, don't get your hopes up.

You are one of the biggest nit pickers in this forum about the silliest things that derail threads in a heartbeat. I wont go into your habit of trolling and baiting people. (This post is a good example)

For you to support him, which by the way isn't using polite or civil fashions of debate himself shows you aren't really concerned with such a thing. But posting ad-hominems and flames to those you don't see as being on "your side"

Yes dc, you are that transparent.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

All women drinking coffee or soda during their pregnancy and has a miscarriage needs to be locked up for manslaughter. All women drinking coffee or soda during their pregnancy needs to be charged with child/fetus/embryo endangerment automatically and will have their child taken away once they are born.

Coffee makers, coffee shops, and a soda company all need to be sued for not providing enough warning that consumption of their products causes abortion or miscarriages.

You know if being pro-choice was a noble thing, it's supporters wouldn't have to use hyperbole to defend it.

So far, that is all I have seen in here lately

[hyteckit]

That's great Kevin. You learn a new word "hyperbole".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

That's great Kevin. You learn a new word "hyperbole".

I'll also add sarcastic ad-hominems to that list.

Seems to be the case with any thread about abortions.

When things aren't going the way the "pro-choicers" want it to go, it started getting exaggerated and the ad-hominems come out.

And when they get busted for it they start crying fOWL "WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT!?"

well because you keep doing it.

I wont expect dcmacdaddy to come down on YOU for it though.

[hyteckit]

Hmm... I don't know the term "ad-hominems".

[hyteckit]

What I said is not an hyperbole.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Hmm... I don't know the term "ad-hominems".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominems

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What I said is not an hyperbole.

Yes, indeed it was.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominems

That's great. Guess I learned a new word.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Something I asked you to do pages ago, something you claimed you already did.

I did, before I started posting in fact. But only now have I decided to rebutt your distorted thinking, since you're not saying anything meaningful now.

And my full sentence was "I've decided to go back and look at some of the things you've said in the past, since everything you've said in the last 6 posts or so is "hyperbole" and "personal beliefs."

Gee, how HONEST of you, to yank my words out of context.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um, it is ending a living growing human life. No one is denying this in this thread. Not even the pro-choicers.

Killing != Murder. Even first year logic students know that.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't know if it's because out of insecurity that you feel the need to treat your personal opinions as fact, or you are for the sake of arguement, attempting to push them off as such, hoping we will take your word for it. Either way, that simply doesn't cut the mustard.

That's called "psychologizing." You're not a shrink, so you're not qualified to make assessments of people's "insecurities." The fact you do so indicates your lack of quality arguments.

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW if you must got back and reply to things I did say before. Do it in ONE POST. Not several. You'll get flamed for doing that. Just a tip.

Keep your tips. Your advice isn't worth much to me.

Flamed? So what? I'll post as many posts as I like. If the mods don't like it, they'll say so.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't believe abortion should be legal. I AM pro-life. But you wont see me bombing abortion clinics, or standing outside them with picket signs.

Uh, pick a side and stick with it, will ya? Do you remember this exchange?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
You're not just supporting a control over you own wife/gf's pregnancy, but a law over every women's pregnancy. You're arguing to ban all "birth control" abortions, whether the baby is yours or not. So your argument is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Kevin
No, that isn't what I said. You haven't read the thread like I asked. You are making statements that I simply don't respect. Keep doing it and your mouth will be full of foot.

I read this and looked back more closely. I found you said this:

My stance. People are going to do what they want regardless. It's part of free will.

I just wish people would stop using it as birth control, and actually admit to what they are actually doing instead of all this "feel good" terms they throw at you to sugar coat killing a living being.

Sounded like a "keep it legal" stance to me. But you've all over the map, really.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Huh? Did you not see what I wrote in the posts I made? I said I would have NO PROBLEM with abortions being banned. I am not going to make a BIG DEAL of it either way. What will happen will.

Dig?

Gee, that sounds like ambivalence to murder to me. I mean, it's not like murder is a BIG DEAL or anything?

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am speaking about THE PILL as most of us know it.

You clearly don't know much about it.

Originally Posted by Kevin

If such a thing does happen, and they aren't telling the patients, I smell a big ole lawsuit. That would be aborting without consent.


And not all PCP do this..

I'd love to see some statistics on this. If this is true, I know lots of women that are going to be rich.

Actually, it's very well known. I first heard about it in pro-life literature, and have seen it mentioned many times since. Given that the government regulates patents in the US, the state already knows about this. Any lawsuit would get laughed out of court.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes, and sucking the body's of growing living babies out of a mother is not barbarian at all!

No, it isn't. And that statement was still barbarian, and you don't deny it. I'll assume you agree then.

Originally Posted by Kevin

When are you going to quit this? Can you even?

Why should I. You clearly don't understand why I'm here arguing with you about it. I don't expect to convince you.

So what do you suppose my purpose here is?

[hyteckit]

It's not a hyperbole, cause it's already happening with alcohol in some states.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9805/24/fetal.syndrome/

Hmm.. South Dakota again.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/fas/a/aa990527.htm

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No history lesson needed. Now you are being a pretentious silly person. That will also get you made fun of in here.

Uh, so?

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, I claim to believe abortion is murder. Not everyone in this forum agrees. Everyone in this forum however cept you, believe it is ending a life.

I haven't denied that it's taking a life. The unborn are alive. That killing just isn't a murder.

And there you go again with that "what's popular is what's true" statement.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You would know abut made-up medical science. You seem to make it up as you go along.

Got any examples of that. Or you just like making stuff up as you go along?

Originally Posted by Kevin

You aren't the first cock-sure person that has though they'd come in here and "show us"

I am sure you wont be the last.

They gave up trying to convince you. That's not why I'm here.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No wonder the other forum got annoyed with you.

The other forum didn't get annoyed with me. I think I was well liked. I went to another Canadian forum to keep in touch with most of them there.

The admin banned me for making fun of him. That's not the same thing. But that's twice now you've made that silly statement. And probably won't be the last.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You need to learn some people skills.

So I can get along with you? What would I bother?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I did, before I started posting in fact.

You may have READ it, but obviously you injected your own context into it. Because after reading your last post, it's clear you didn't understand what I was saying. Now, that isn't a personal attack, that is just saying you may be confused with what I said. Which is no big deal. We all do it frm time to time.

But only now have I decided to rebutt your distorted thinking, since you're not saying anything meaningful now.

More silly pretentious chest pounding. You mean you've decided to TRY to. So far your track record isn't that good. And for me to "say anything meaningful" I have to have something meaningful to discuss first. Your personal opinion stated as fact, believe it or not is in no way meaningful. Nor does it "rip apart" other people's opinions. They are just that. Opinions.

You seem to think this is a sport.

And my full sentence was "I've decided to go back and look at some of the things you've said in the past, since everything you've said in the last 6 posts or so is "hyperbole" and "personal beliefs."

And you said you had done that already. Remember?

Gee, how HONEST of you, to yank my words out of context.

I didn't take your words out of context. You didn't word your post clear enough to support what you were trying to say.

Killing != Murder. Even first year logic students know that.

I said ending a life. And you are now splitting hairs. That's a straw-man arguement

That's called "psychologizing." You're not a shrink, so you're not qualified to make assessments of people's "insecurities." The fact you do so indicates your lack of quality arguments.

Actually I wasn't TELLING you that is why you did it. I was making a guess. Had I been TELLING you, AKA treating my opininion as fact, like YOU do, you would have a point. But since I did not. You don't

Keep your tips. Your advice isn't worth much to me.

Flamed? So what? I'll post as many posts as I like. If the mods don't like it, they'll say so.

I was just trying to help you out. No need to be rude. And they will say so.

Uh, pick a side and stick with it, will ya? Do you remember this exchange?

Not everything is black and white. Just because I am against abortions doesn't mean I have to bomb abortion clinics.
[quote]
I read this and looked back more closely. I found you said this:

Sounded like a "keep it legal" stance to me. But you've all over the map, really.

Well it doesn't matter what it SOUNDS like to you. I am telling you what it IS. And you are arguing with me on what I think. As if you know better. That's silly. It seems to me you will argue about anything. Just make it up as you go along.

Gee, that sounds like ambivalence to murder to me. I mean, it's not like murder is a BIG DEAL or anything?

Again, it can SOUND like anything you wish it to. That wont make it true. Just because I am not acting like a protest spaz doesn't mean I am being ambivalent.

You clearly don't know much about it.

Well like I said, educate us.

Actually, it's very well known. I first heard about it in pro-life literature, and have seen it mentioned many times since.

Well show us! I didn't ask you to repeat what you heard. Lets see some content!

No, it isn't.

Again, you taking your personal BIZARRO opinion and treating it as fact. I assure you, you wont find many supporters of that from this place. Not even from the pro-choicers.

And that statement was still barbarian, and you don't deny it. I'll assume you agree then.

You can assume what you want. You will anyhow. But we all know what assuming does.

Why should I. You clearly don't understand why I'm here arguing with you about it. I don't expect to convince you.

Ah and there is the ad-hominem. Tsk tsk.

So what do you suppose my purpose here is?

I have no clue. So far it seems to be trolling. You tell us.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Uh, so?

So that shows you really don't care about discussing anything. Just being a troll. When you act as such people wont take you seriously. And it usually ends up you getting the same thing you got int the last forum.

You'll then have to go to another forum, write a new thread about how another forum banned you and how unfair it was. And then the cycle begins again.

I haven't denied that it's taking a life. The unborn are alive. That killing just isn't a murder.

Yes, that is your OPINION. We know this.

And there you go again with that "what's popular is what's true" statement.

No, I never said true. Stop projecting. I was just letting you know how bizarre your stance was compared to most pro-choice people. That is all.

Got any examples of that. Or you just like making stuff up as you go along?

Uh, most of your posts where you claim your personal opinion is fact? Something we've been going over for awhile now.

They gave up trying to convince you. That's not why I'm here.

Then why are you here? Tell us.

The other forum didn't get annoyed with me. I think I was well liked. I went to another Canadian forum to keep in touch with most of them there.

Then why were you banned? Mods don't just ban people because "they don't like them"

The admin banned me for making fun of him. That's not the same thing. But that's twice now you've made that silly statement. And probably won't be the last.

I think I'll send an email to said mod.

So I can get along with you? What would I bother?

It doesn't seem like I am the only one you can't get along with now does it?

[Kevin]

It's not a hyperbole, cause it's already happening with alcohol in some states.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9805/24/fetal.syndrome/

Hmm.. South Dakota again.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/fas/a/aa990527.htm

Ah my bad. I apologize hyteckit. You were correct.

Isn't very good for lpkmckenna's arguement. But you are correct non-the-less.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

lpmckenna, you will quickly learn that "debate" on this forum has very little, if anything, to do with the Aristotelian conception of debate most of the Western world knows. The idea of a debate based on suppositions, arguments, and counter-arguments in a polite, civil fashion is lost on most people here in this forum. This is true regardless of their stance on abortion or any other issue. Most people here in this forum--and I think in life in general--argue from a personal, emotional viewpoint so they can't even begin to comprehend how to argue from a dis-passionate, logical viewpoint. So, don't get your hopes up.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You are one of the biggest nit pickers in this forum about the silliest things that derail threads in a heartbeat. I wont go into your habit of trolling and baiting people. (This post is a good example)

For you to support him, which by the way isn't using polite or civil fashions of debate himself shows you aren't really concerned with such a thing. But posting ad-hominems and flames to those you don't see as being on "your side"

Yes dc, you are that transparent.

Umm Kevin, what are you talking about here?

How could I possible be supporting "him"? I have neither agreed nor dis-agreed with his/her stance on the issue. (BTW, is lpmckenna a "him" or a "her"?)

lpmckenna made a post about people not arguing in a logical fashion, and, since s/he is new here, I replied to inform him/her that s/he should not expect that from the majority of people in this forum. How is that to be construed as supporting him/her?

Also, how is my post to be construed as posting an ad-hominem attack or a flame towards "those [I] don't see as being on [my] side"? My reply to lpmckenna had nothing to do with the topic at hand--I have already made my stance on this issue known, several times in this thread alone--and focused merely on the process, not substance, of the current debate going on this thread.

How is any of what I said considered to be supporting of lpmckenna or attacking or flaming anyone else?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

lpmckenna made a post about people not arguing in a logical fashion, and, since s/he is new here, I replied to inform him/her that s/he should not expect that from the majority of people in this forum. How is that to be construed as supporting him/her?

1. lpmckenna wasn't arguing in a logical fashion. So him saying such a thing was kinda hypocritical. Is that particular post the only post you read in said thread?

You'd have thought if you had read the other ones as well, you'd also tell him he was also being the same way.

Given that I took it for granted (my bad I know) you read his other posts, making such a statement looked indeed like you were siding with him. If you were not, I apologize. I know your stance on abortion though BTW.

If someone throughout the thread I was reading was being rude, and arguing in a illogical fashion, then made a post complaining about others doing it, I surely wouldn't reply to him agreeing that the forum can be like that. Or that you wont get a logical response. I would ask him why he was doing it too.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

1. lpmckenna wasn't arguing in a logical fashion. So him saying such a thing was kinda hypocritical. Is that particular post the only post you read in said thread?

You'd have thought if you had read the other ones as well, you'd also tell him he was also being the same way.

Given that I took it for granted (my bad I know) you read his other posts, making such a statement looked indeed like you were siding with him. If you were not, I apologize. I know your stance on abortion though BTW.

If someone throughout the thread I was reading was being rude, and arguing in a illogical fashion, then made a post complaining about others doing it, I surely wouldn't reply to him agreeing that the forum can be like that. Or that you wont get a logical response. I would ask him why he was doing it too.

lpmckenna IS arguing in a logical fashion, though. Some of his side comments are rude and in-appropriate but the method and process of his arguments--how he formulates and advances them--is completely logical in the traditional sense of the word.

As for siding with him, while we both have the idea of wanting some form of abortion being kept legal, we differ certainly in the details as to how that would be done. More important, we differ in WHY we want abortion to be kept legal. And that is a much more significant disparity than a quibble over how abortion is kept legal.

[Kevin]

lpmckenna IS arguing in a logical fashion, though. Some of his side comments are rude and in-appropriate but the method and process of his arguments--how he formulates and advances them--is completely logical in the traditional sense of the word.

No, treating your personal opinions as fact, when they are not is not a logical at all! That is how he formulates his arguements. "I BELIEVE THIS, AND I THINK IT'S FACTUAL, SO YOU ARE WRONG! NEXT!"

That isn't logical at all.

For his arguement to be logical, we would have to assume what he calls facts as facts.

And since I am not going to self-delude It's not.

"My opinion differs from yours, so you are wrong" isn't logical at all. It's dishonesty.

[hyteckit]

A mentally challenged woman who pleaded guilty to simple manslaughter on Monday for causing the death of her newborn child last year was jailed yesterday morning when a Superior Court judge revoked bail after learning the woman was pregnant.

http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...603110376/1001

Well, I don't think she deserves to have children.

[Kevin]

That is another story that also isn't very good for lpkmckenna's "facts"

[hyteckit]

I think new laws need to be pass to prohibit anyone from having children unless they have a license - a license to raise a child.

Forget abortion. Forget birth control pills. All US citizen's need to have the tubes tied. F*ck personal freedom. Only after they got their child bearing license, can they have their tubes untied.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Yes, because abortion doctors and pregnant women go on raping sprees and bank heists all the time.

You seemed to have missed the point here and began laughing at your own lack of reading comp. IMHO, this is not very funny and warrants a trip to an adult tutor. Suffice it to say, irresponsible sex leads to a great many things including abortion.

Oh rubbish. Firstly, all those medical assertions have little or no supporting evidence. But that doesn't stop pro-lifers from asserting their "truth" regardless.

Somehow you thought this addressed any of the numerous points I've made. There are compelling connections to all of the above. ABC link to breast cancer; toward the end of a full term pregnancy, those cells are "terminally differentiated" through a still largely unknown process and are ready to produce milk. Differentiated cells are not vulnerable to carcinogens. However, should a pregnancy be terminated prior to cell differentiation, the woman is left with abnormally high numbers of undifferentiated cells, therefore increasing her risk of developing breast cancer. It is widely accepted that a woman who carries full term at a younger age is less likely to have breast cancer later in life. 27 out of 35 nationally accredited studies have affirmed the connection including the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Depression; I can read for you account after account of women who've regrettably had an abortion and in fact feel guilt and a vast amount of depression for that decision. This is years after the fact, not during the normal course of post-partum. The fact that there are those who've had an abortion and do not feel guilt does not supercede the fact that many have and do feel guilt. Over 60% of women electing to have an abortion already have one or more children. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect declared a child protection emergency to protect these children and at the top of their list is teaching parents the "value" of children. I wonder why the "value" of children would be in question lpkmckenna? Is it possible as a culture we don't value life? Is it possible that abortion legalization has fostered a mentality that terminating a pregnancy is not that big a deal? Is it possible for you to look beyond a blinded partisan ideal of rights to consider the implications of some freedoms? I think it's responsible to do just that.

Conversely, while I'm not as quick to insult as you, I found the acorn argument to be patently absurd and in fact rubbish of the highest order. I addressed your point each in kind. I'm sorely dissappointed at your lack of substantive data here. So you can pop in here as if you know it all and have presented something new to the discussion, the only fresh aspect of your style is the unique level of absurdity you bring to the table. I guess in that you win. Otherwise, more of the same tired, debunked and senseless arguments lodged since the early 70's.

Second, crime rates and poverty are far higher among families led by young single mothers than any other group. Read the book Freakonomics. The author clearly demonstrates that the dropping crime rates since the 70's are attributable to legal abortion.

I love this argument. So a child by virtue of the socio-economic conditions of the parents is deemed a criminal in advance and issued a death sentence. ??? I've never argued whether or not genocide is an effective means of lowering the crime rate, I believe it's reprehensible to even cite such a statistic. Now, on to the mistaken notion in and of itself;
In economics, new theories based on innovative research are almost immediately tested to see if they can be replicated, and in Levitt’s case what quickly emerged were counterstudies that questioned his methods and conclusions. Professor Ted Joyce of City University of New York found that incidents of homicide by perpetrators in age groups too old to have been affected by legalized abortion declined faster than murders by younger perps. John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and John Whitley of Adelaide University in Australia noted that research on the legalization of abortion suggested that it actually increased illegitimate births and single-parent families. They concluded that rather than decrease crime, legalized abortion probably contributed slightly to its increase. It is also worthy to note that single motherhood has increased, teen births has increased. All mentioned and left unaddressed in my prior post. If single motherhood and teen motherhood directly correlate with the crime rate, and single mothers and teen births are in fact exponentially more likely today than they were just prior to Roe V. Wade, how does he or you make this claim?

The most compelling reply you'll have here is another laughy face no doubt.

As for depression: there is no link. Depression has a strong physiological basis. Remember, depression is also extremely common among women who've had children. It's called post-partum depression, and it causes problems leading up to infantcide and suicide of new mothers.

Interesting you should bring up suicide. I hadn't even included suicide stats in my findings. Two related studies investigating rates of suicide attempts following abortion lend support to the STAKES study. In South Glamorgan Hospital (Great Britain) for example, suicide attempts were made by 8.1 per 1,000 women who had abortion, compared to 1.9/1,000 [1.009] among those who gave birth. A University of Minnesota study found a 0.4 percent rate of suicide attempt among teens who had not aborted in the preceding six months, but a 4 percent rate among those who had.

Another little laughy face maybe???

Arguing that abortion is bad since it can cause depression is like arguing that giving birth is bad because it can cause depression.

Hehe, that's funny. Wait a minute, maybe not. I presented several statistics to back my claim. What did you bring? Oh, that's right. You brought the intellectual's best friend. Emoticons. Try again.

if you think your tax-dollars shouldn't fund abortion, I have no problem with that. We are way overtaxed anyways.

I'm glad to see you address at least one of my points.

This is the stupidest f'n argument I've ever encountered concerning abortion.

You claimed an indifference to what is not your business. Murder down the street may not be your business in your eyes. I believe it is. The argument is wholly relevant evidenced by your inability to address it.

The reason I'm opposed to to anti-abortion laws is so women can control their own lives and bodies. You would have to be some kind of f'n idiot not to see that rape is also taking control of a woman's life and body away from her. I am for legal abortion and against rape for the same reason.

Apparently you've equated some ambiguous age to your concerns. How do you know the aggressive sex you're seeing is not some twisted S&M endeavor? It's not really your business is it?

Grow the hell up.

While kind of feeble and indicative of someone without an argument, this is perhaps the most well thought-out statement you've made in this thread.

If a politician or ethical theorist made this argument in public, his career would be over the next day.

...and somehow the ol' acorn argument is more profound??? Good thing you are neither a politican or ethical theorist as well. Your confusion between the profundity of human life and the seed of an oak tree wreak of lacking common sense.

For consistency sake, those laws should be replaced. Causing a miscarriage should be treated the same as causing any other bodily but non-lethal harm.

Thankfully, most disagree. I find the correct answer usually lies somewhere in the mad-middle as opposed to either of the fringe ideals.

I've already stated, those laws are inappropriate. No one deserves jail for using drugs or selling sex. The criminal justice system should focus on crimes that have real victims.

Real victims like those contracting STDs or AIDS? So... let's legalize these things to get a better ideal of victim count right?

Nothing is "in the hands of nature." Human being control their own destiny, not "nature." That's what medical abortion is all about. By you argument, if I did something stupid like step on a rusty nail, I don't deserve a tetnus shot because my "destiny in the hands of nature."

This is perfect. It's like playing poker with someone who has a flinch. Each time I see a little laughy face, it means the statement I just read is absurd. Here you've equated accidentally stepping on a rusty nail with consensual sex. Grow the hell up!

If you think life is sacred from conception, don't have one. Feel free to tell people its wrong. That's all fine. But leave each woman to make that decision for themselves.

There are a great many societies throughout history who've left complex ethical dillemmas in the hands of those with personal agendas. What happens in these societies is archaic practices like partial birth abortions, slavery, and genocide. At some point, someone must stand up for the feeble and vulnerable among us. More women agree with me than disagree that this is no longer merely an issue of women's bodily rights. There are rights of others to protect as well. The decision for life has already been made albeit an irresponsible act.

Let me explain to you what a liberal democracy is all about, since you lack the knowledge.

Public matters are decided democratically. Private matters are decided individually.

This is the whole issue. Read that again until you understand it. I'll wait.

I can't even tell what this point is supposed to be addressing. How did I give you the impression that I don't understand how democracy works??? Liberal Democracy, otherwise understood as Rule of Law and/or Constitutional democracy affords rights to the minority. There are liberal rights that are Constitutionally guaranteed. They can also be granted by statutes or individual cases and/or precedent. Liberal democracy can be loosely defined by any personal ideal including Marxism, Socialism, or even in extreme cases anti-capitalism. It should be noted that a side benefit of a liberal democracy discourages a mob-rules mentality, it is not designed to exclude the majority as often mistaken. I simply stated that I have more accountable representation at the local State level, not the Federal level. I believe these complex social decisions should be made at the State level. So does SD. I'm curious how this will play out.

Ok, I'm assume you understand those words. Now we'll apply them:

*hint; if you're going to attempt to patronize me there are some things you should know first. Come armed with data. Data tells the story, not feeble analogies like acorns. Make sure your rebuttals are relevant, otherwise you're just rambling. I'll wait for you to grasp these concepts.
-
-
-
-

Private matters include things like: what you choose to read, what you do in your bedroom, how you spend your own money, what religion you decide to belong to (if any). Abortion is also a private matter. It makes absolutely no difference whether the majority of people believe it is wrong or not.

As you'll see in the coming months, it does matter and it'll affect you soon enough. This may give you pause for thought. Hey, that's all I've ever wanted.

The west has never advocated a system of "total democracy." Private matters are to be left in the hands of each citizen individually. That includes abortion.

This is where your debate falls flat. There is general disagreement on what constitutes a private matter. There are those that believe once nature has taken its course at the inception of the life of another, that life is worthy of Constitutional protection regardless of what you and three other people happen to believe.

The state may try to make abortion illegal - and claim they have the democratic right to do so - but MORALLY, the government is in the wrong.

Right now, the decision has been made at the Federal level. I believe it is MORALLY wrong for the government to make this decision. Either way, a moral imposition is at play. We just may have differing compasses for gauging morality.

In the same way, the state may try censor books

Here, there is no question of another life.

enslave people

Here the decision has been made that slavery is morally reprehensible because it affects the life of another. Slavery has been deemed illegal. i.e. let's try to stay on topic here if at all possible.

torture prisoners - and claim they have the democratic support of citizens to do so - but MORALLY, the government is in the wrong.

Here the decision has been made that torture is morally reprehensible because it affects the life of another. Torture has been deemed illegal. i.e. let's try to stay on topic here if at all possible.

Right and wrong have nothing to do with what's popular.

An overwhelming majority disagree.

Public matters are decided democratically. Private matters are decided individually. That's called "liberal democracy."

The life of another is in question, this moves the issue from private to public. Private behavior is private behavior, but becomes public when the life of another is in question.

[Kevin]

BTW lpkmckenna
If you are still watching. THAT was a smackdown.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

profound stuff

*smackdown*

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

lpmckenna, you will quickly learn that "debate" on this forum has very little, if anything, to do with the Aristotelian conception of debate most of the Western world knows. The idea of a debate based on suppositions, arguments, and counter-arguments in a polite, civil fashion is lost on most people here in this forum. This is true regardless of their stance on abortion or any other issue. Most people here in this forum--and I think in life in general--argue from a personal, emotional viewpoint so they can't even begin to comprehend how to argue from a dis-passionate, logical viewpoint. So, don't get your hopes up.

I actually agree with this statement dcmacdaddy. I was disheartened at the tone of lpkmckenna. His indictment of immaturity fell on deaf ears. I browsed upward and found statements like; "he's still recovering from the butt-whoopin'", "I tore his thread to shreds" etc... indicating everything, but an ability to have civil disagreement. He'll soon understand that those with lives may take some time to respond. He'll likely take the same amount of time in his response. Am I to assume he's still reeling from the immense butt-whoopin' administered???

However, when the gloves come off they come off. When lpkmckenna makes the claim that somehow many here are intellectual lightweights, he fails to recognize the fact that I've ended more threads than he's participated in.

I look forward to his next emoticon-infested reply. Personally, I'd recommend sticking with the iPod forum where things are a little less challenging.

[Monique]

When it comes to their guns and their dollars those conservative anti-choice people are all for freedom and non government intervention.

But, they cannot respect a woman or her choices because that would mean they would become human beings.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

When it comes to their guns and their dollars those conservative anti-choice people are all for freedom and non government intervention.

But, they cannot respect a woman or her choices because that would mean they would become human beings.

Who are you talking to?

[Spliffdaddy]

When it comes to their lack of personal responsibility, those liberal pro-abortion people are all for freedom and non government intervention.

But they cannot respect the fact that having an abortion kills a human being.

[Monique]

And the anti-choice people cannot face the fact that they want women to bleed to death in hotel rooms and kitchens and in back alleys.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm glad you don't represent the conservatives in this forum (or anyplace else).

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

When it comes to their lack of personal responsibility…

…The more I think about it, their stance has nothing to do with protecting "innocent" lives, but everything with jealously making sure that people who don't follow their ethos are punished (for their lack of self–censorship).

It's enough to make ya wanna puke.

Keep 'em comin'.