gcthomas
New member
I do wish we'd sent Bin Laden a strongly worded book to set him to rights. Those bombs and Marines were so ineffective and expensive...
Is America great?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I do wish we'd sent Bin Laden a strongly worded book to set him to rights. Those bombs and Marines were so ineffective and expensive...
noguru
Well-known member
You cannot reason with the unreasonable.
"The darkness never goes from some men's eyes."
I sometimes wish that unreasonable people had that tattoo on their foreheads. So that reasonable people could step out of the way and let them kill each other off. But you see reasonable people have a bit more of a sense of civic responsibility and we realize that in letting unreasonable people fight without limits, since they are often well concealed until its too late, there is a lot of collateral damage to others around them.
Do you then believe killing a child is rational and unemotional??
noguru
Well-known member
:wave2:
You are an idiot, my friend. If you sincerely arrived at that question from my posts. I am glad you are not in the US.
I have seen first hand the damage that abortion can do, as I tried very hard to change the decision a gf made in high school. Only to find out later that the child was probably not even mine. But I still would have raised the child as my own. If you think there is no emotion in such a decision you are even more of a fool than I originally thought.
Another thing of which you should be aware is that "rational" does not mean the absence of emotion. It means the ability to put emotion into proper perspective. But since you are emotionally unstable and swing wildly between poles because your emotions are an unruly wind, you are not aware of this reality.
A very good friend of mine from college is from Chile. Her parents decided to leave Chile in the 60s and come here. It is good that you switched places with them.
With all due respect you stated:
Since you accused a poster of making an "irrational emotionally overcharged argument" by logical inference you are proposing your own argument is "rational" and "not emotional" so my conclusion is understandable.
Nonetheless, it would appear you see abortion as somewhat emotional, but maybe not to the level of other persons.
As far as your claim about being "rational" in the face of emotional issues, this reminds me of a saying:
“Everyone has a plan until they’ve been hit.” Joe Louis
I've got a copy of Bartlett's myself. This post doesn't address what I said.
My problem is that I have a four year old who is usually nearby and eating or playing if I'm taking a minute to write and when there's no reason to suspect, no preamble or disclaimer, warning that a graphic image of that sort is coming it opens him and those like him to the possibility of viewing it.
That's irresponsible conduct. A spoiler is all you'd need to make the point and use the image while protecting those who should be.
It doesn't address your post if we assume that the censure of the objectionable material is done without a "questionable" purpose.
In fairness, it was strongly worded.
lain:"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt
What? I wanted in.
oly:
noguru
Well-known member
An ambiguous quote by Joe Louis is your defense?
:rotfl:
I'll say it again. You are an idiot.
Your argument here is not even cohesive. I am not debating the emotional nature of any argument, especially in regard to abortion. I am questioning a certain methodology used by some that attempts to wipe reason out of a persons mind by an excessively strong appeal to emotion. That was my first point, and one you have not addressed yet with all your empty words. It seems that only people who are easily seduced by such a strategy find it an acceptable way to frame an argument.
Last edited:
noguru
Well-known member
Or anyone who does not already know what an aborted fetus looks like can just do a google image look up. I do not think anyone here is debating what an aborted fetus looks like, do you?
Well I'm glad you've never been punched in the face. For those of us who have had this displeasure let's say it does provoke an "emotion". Now you know how I feel when a child is killed and a fellow Christian minimizes the importance.
BTW, no need to get emotional and call anyone names. :wave:
gcthomas
New member
So you appeal to emotion rather than present a rational case because ... someone one punched you in the face?
How hard did they hit you to damage the reasoning centres of your brain?
Deep down a lot of folks who hold signs like this are a little happy when they upset kids. I've seen the look on their face, Town--you won't be able to persuade me otherwise. These ghouls are pleased as punch once they've both shocked and horrified someone. The younger, the better.
Making light of killing others is not rational nor reasonable, sorry.
gcthomas
New member
It depends on the moral status of the 'others'.
Can you make a moral case for a week old foetus without reference to rights of wider groups? Just make the case for the foetus.
I will when you can establish the fetus is not a human being.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Its much more difficult to establish fetus's as people with right's, before there heart start's to beat. Thats at about two-to-three week's after conception, not 1.
Daniel
gcthomas
New member
I've made my case on several other threads, but I can give you the summary. Like many Christians in the middle ages, I don't consider an early foetus to be sufficiently developed to contain a personality (or soul, for Christians). Without a personality it is not a person (= human being). So it does not have the moral status of an extant person. Considering a person to have rights therefore does not necessarily extend that protection to the foetus, unless it can be shown that it might have such a personality that qualifies it as a person.
Your turn.
There is no scientific validity for this claim. Please post anything that you believe supports this nonetheless.