Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My point is, if you wish to discuss the merit of what I posted, that is fine. Just don't spin it into anything more than what it is.
I don't believe that I've discussed YOUR opinion of abortion in this thread at all, so I fail to see how I've spun or attempted to put a spin on anything you've written. As such, your admonishment about spinning would be "presumptive" wouldn't it?
Not presumptive at all. One need look no further than your initial response to Abbey. However, it was not meant as an admonishment .... merely a parameter.
If you will refer to post #31 in this thread you will find that I, in fact, did. This appears to be another presumption on your part. Refresh my memory...isn't there a term for someone who admonishes someone for committing an offense of which they themselves are guilty?
Really?
You're trying to compare murder to abortion...as a matter of fact, although I'm not sure if you have or not, I have seen abortion called murder by posters on this board. This logically leads to the conclusion that you consider women who get abortions to be murderers and makes my question a valid one.
Edited to add:
I did a search and you have indeed said that women who have an abortion have committed pre-meditated, 1st-degree murder.
You ask a question, then answer it yourself.
So, to quote Missileman: If you already know the answer, why ask? And by supposedly already knowing the answer, it invalidates the question.
Now, in reference to my so-called "admonishment," let's look at the context in which you use the term "murder" in post # 31. Rather accusatory, if you ask me.
Lastly, I have not admonished you for anything. Not even a good try.
Oh look ... it's "Mr Giggles."
I'm dodging NOTHING, Howdy Doody. I made the EXACT same statement Missileman claims Abbey is making. He seems to be more worried with what she said than with the statement itself.
Either way, I don't see what that has to do with "Mr Wild-n-Crazy Guy" from the peanut gallery.
I could care less if you consider abortion to be murder. You're wrong, but entitled to your opinion. My questions to Abbey weren't about her calling abortion murder, but rather about her statement about murderers being born with an innate motivation to kill.
The peanut gallery, hehe, that must have been funny 40 years ago.
If you're not dodging, then why did you not answer the quesion directly?
1. I am not wrong.
2. I don't see Abbey's statement about murderers being born with an innate motiviation to kill as anything but what it is. You're applying it to her comment concerning abortion.
So, do you think murderers are born with an innate motivation to kill?
Some probably, but very few, IMO. My question was trying to determine if Abbey believes that women who get abortions (murderers by her own definition) get pregnant on purpose so they can fulfill this innate motivation to kill.
Exactly. And it was to THAT I responded. I didn't read THAT into what she posted.
To anyone who disapproves of ESC research:
Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?
If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.
You must spread some Reputation around before dinging that moron CharlestonChad again.
lol...i love jim's features
But I did. And because I disagree that abortion is murder, I am trying to see just how far those who believe it is are willing to go when trying to equate your average scumbag who breaks into a house and kills an old man with a couple shots to the head to a woman who terminates her pregnancy. If you believe that they are the same thing, are you willing to argue that both are motivated by this supposed innate need to kill and are you willing to argue that a woman who gets an abortion should be executed?
Until a fetus has developed to the point where it can be considered a human being, no, I don't think they are the same thing.You think they are not the same thing?
In other-other words, abortion is a sin, not a crime.In other words, morally, there is no difference. Legally there is.
Until a fetus has developed to the point where it can be considered a human being, no, I don't think they are the same thing.
In other-other words, abortion is a sin, not a crime.
Woman has an abortion -- not each and every, but most -- to escape the responsibility for the consequences of her irresponsible actions. She places her selfish desires above those of another human life.
Until a fetus has developed to the point where it can be considered a human being, no, I don't think they are the same thing.
While I disagree with your opinion of what is considered a human being, you are entitled to it.
However, it is ignoring logic to disavow the fact that a fetus is an unborn human being. Any argeument otherwise is an argument of convenience, not fact nor logic.
In other-other words, abortion is a sin, not a crime.
But they think sin should be legislated against. What amuses me is then they ask in what way they are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Oh welll...
Anyway, have a good night.
Any evidence of that, or are you just making assumptions?
However, it is ignoring logic to disavow the fact that a fetus is an unborn human being. Any argeument otherwise is an argument of convenience, not fact nor logic.
There are quite a few more "uns" that apply to a fetus that figure into why it isn't an "unborn human being" until it develops to a certain point.
