Town Heretic

That would fit with the 'person hood' theory since her state of person is fully at hand, she would be the primary life to preserve. I cases, such as rape, it gets more complicated, since the mother's revulsion to the preceding act, is not grounds for terminating the life of an innocent.

From this I would have a problem denying that a fetus, at any stage, is not a person, so I would have to object on moral grounds; knowing I would only support it on economic grounds.

Do you think anyone on TOL thinks about it from an economic perspective? I wonder about it, as the reality is, many who would otherwise live would be unwanted and likely to live a marginal life, on welfare and medicaid.
For me, those who find them wanting abortion usually do not have the common sense to manage using proper contraceptives. Considering this and our less than motivating adoption laws, I cannot see much hope for many who are aborted, thus, it becomes mainly a moral issue.
As a moral issue I would be against it providing I was fully convinced by the potential person-hood' argument. As it stands, I find myself being a hypocrite stating I am against all abortion, or would allow abortion under some personal circumstances, such as rape. My only logical position is to either be against it in all situations, or be for it in the first trimester, being that the 'potential person-hood' argument is not valid.

Maybe too many scrums have had an effect...

:liberals:

His shtick is just the same ole...

Oh, the "liberal" card is flung about on here more often then pig swill in a farm...the logical disconnect regarding the vote for/not against Clinton/Trump was laughable if not altogether unsurprising...

Your wife sounds cool, you should emulate.

Inflated, bloated, the royal "we" etc...as you know, he stepped over the bounds a long time ago.

Was this on your Quixote's thread? I've just noticed that posts have been removed from it so I can guess what Stripe's posts would have amounted to...

No, there was some confusion on that a few months ago...

You can call it a game. I'd prefer to think of it as an honest contest of ideas. Unlike a remark made in a place where I might not see it and then cannot answer it. That wasn't up to your standards, rm.

There is no and can be no presumption of innocence in a non-criminal proceeding. It's a mistake Mitch McConnell knew better than to make as a lawyer when he cried for its loss from the floor.

The state is the accuser where that presumption exists and it exists to protect us from the might and resources of that state turned against us. To presume where the state is only an interested party, is to also to presume the other party to be crazy or a liar without any particular justification.

Emotions don't enter into it. You just have to understand what the presumption and burdens serve and why they're there. And why they don't and can't be present in a hearing of that sort.

I saw your post and as per usual we completely disagree so, instead of playing the parsing game with you I left it alone. It is safe to say I believe in the presumption of Innocence & the Burdon of proof which has not been met in any way thus far, and you think with feelings and the absence of evidence clearly, how else could you arrive at your conclusions? We disagree and that is that why waste both of our time by a back and forth is how I saw it. Sorry, that was & is how I feel. :e4e:

None at all, so why the need for verification?

:think:

"Those people should probably find someone else to talk to or invest themselves in raising their bar, because I'll water a bit, illustrate to help, and even revisit a thing if called upon, but when I'm dealing with people who don't really respond differently to simplicity or complexity, to illustration and/or explanation, who don't give any indication that they're invested in understanding regardless, who habitually misrepresent either effort, well, I'm going to suit myself and write at my conversational level without regard for theirs. That may seem impenetrable, but it isn't."

Exactly so. I struggle to match the expectations of the reader often. I also find it nearly impossible to dilute my words to the point of making them meaningless to my own mind.

I saw where that was going before the punchline although it was still funny...

:chuckle:

What argument? :cheers:

Look at his constant "we" garbage. He's a pompous...well, you know what I think of the guy after what I'd told you about certain things. You're embarrassing him and he has to respond with his usual to save face and zealots aren't renowned for critical thinking and reasoning as it is...

You're in my spot...

:liberals:

Well, fun with flags was always a winner...

No wonder Billboard admen took a pass on it...

:chuckle:

I believe you already have...

John Steinbeck would just love the "unhinged" thread...

:freak: