<strong>" Your first two questions are ignorant and do not address the issue. "
Oh, but I think they are a big part of the issue! But nice dodging! </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a friend who told me he found out that he was not planned. To him that was a sad thing for him personally but he is doing just fine. Dave Thomas started the Wendy's Hamburger Chain and he was adopted. Do not paint a wide picture about a future of doom and gloom for those who may not be "wanted".
That is why your questions are ignorant.
To secure added integrity to my last post I want to say it is not only liberals who I address with my closing statement of my last post but all political leanings that any individual may hold towards who wink at and support abortion. It is not only a liberal thing and I wanted to clear that up.
They don't address the issue because what someone may or may not grow up to be is irrelevant to the issue of PBA being legal or not. We can't allow PBA on the bases that the children may grow up to be antisocial.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since I have to register to read the times it's a safe thing to quote without me finding something in the article to refute you. But, from what you've quoted it still says nothing about them not having to find proof. Which seems to be in other articles I've read on CNN like :
"Mr. President, to conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program. "
<strong>They don't address the issue because what someone may or may not grow up to be is irrelevant to the issue of PBA being legal or not. We can't allow PBA on the bases that the children may grow up to be antisocial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since I have to register to read the times it's a safe thing to quote without me finding something in the article to refute you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God I posted a login for you
login: aimember
pass: aimember
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
But, from what you've quoted it still says nothing about them not having to find proof. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhhh you're as thick as the French. 1441 requires Iraq to bring it all forward to the UN. Hold their hand and say "It's here and there and there" Blix reported they are not doing that. _______ breach?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Which seems to be in other articles I've read on CNN like :
"Mr. President, to conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program. "
Sounds like they're looking for proof to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They shouldn't have to look for the proof. Iraq is supposed to bring it to the UN. That are not. _______ breach?
" You can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Why is that so hard for people to understand? But by no means do either the states or the union have the right to take away the right of the people to choose for themselves whether to continue a first-trimester pregnancy. "
They always seem to over look the word " choice " in that term.
Shawn, whether I "set it up" or not, I still am going to look to those truly knowledgeable and qualified in these matters over celebrities and the like.
And Ms. Sarandon (and others sharing her opinions) certainly are not being kept from having their side heard. She has a powerful voice and stage to shout it from. A nice little perk from being a famous entertainment figure.
Still doesn't change anything really.
I can set people up to knock them down all I want if the mood strikes me. She doesn't represent or speak for me and my views.
But thanks anyway for more lessons in how to post. I'll be sure to file them in the appropriate place.
(you quoted my entire post - kinda long and covering several areas - just to mention the Sarandon thing? Just quote that one section if you want )
<strong>You can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Why is that so hard for people to understand?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's because people today cannot hold two seemingly contradictory statements in their mind at the same time. There is nothing wrong with the above statement. A person can feel utter contempt for those that have abortions and find the act to be utterly repugnant yet can also feel that it would be wrong to forcefully impose his or her sense of morality on others. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about it.
Too many people judge books by their covers. Too many people will immediately conclude that two concepts that only SEEM contradictory are naturally mutually exclusive.
They shouldn't have to look for the proof. Iraq is supposed to bring it to the UN. That are not. _______ breach?
Don't be like the French.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the login. Sorry I didn't notice. However it changes nothing. What's your obsession with the French? About the " shouldn't have to look for proof......like I said good thing you're not in charge.
Thanks for the login. Sorry I didn't notice. However it changes nothing. What's your obsession with the French? About the " shouldn't have to look for proof......like I said good thing you're not in charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He sure like to criticize other countries but can't handle those pesky foreigners criticizing his.
Also, if you have the title of the New York Times article, you can search google news for it and read it without having to deal with logging in.
I am in no way trying to derail this thread into an abortion thread. I respect the original author of the thread. I was responding to what tonton said.
What I will say on the matter is this:
We have safty standards for autos as to ensure safety to as high a level as is attainable when put into practice by auto manufacturers and speed limits set by authorities as to ensure public safety. Is this a waste of time simply because some will still die in auto accidents? No. It is done to protect the public to the best that we can as a society. We have anti-lock brakes, air bags, crumple zones, and lowered speed limits in place in many cases to promote the safety of the public and to reduce needless deaths due to traffic accidents. Yes some will continue to die as is seen by all. The logic of making abortion legal because people will still perform them in a non-legal way if it were not a legal practice is weak. What an utter weak argument. We as a society do not stop our efforts to improve via technology and regulations the task of looking out for drivers and passengers simply because it can be said "well,,, people will still die in auto related accidents" That is a nonsense filled and wrong logic to apply. Nothing is different with the abortion issue with those who promote adoption and reject the notion of abortion being needed as a method of birth termination simply for a means of an un-ready or ill-prepared mother to dispose of her responsibilities as a birth giver to her un-born child. Are there exceptions to rule? of course. If the life of the mother is at risk I support the mother's right to defend her life. Much after that we are making excuses to murder needlessly.
<strong>Shawn, whether I "set it up" or not, I still am going to look to those truly knowledgeable and qualified in these matters over celebrities and the like.
And Ms. Sarandon (and others sharing her opinions) certainly are not being kept from having their side heard. She has a powerful voice and stage to shout it from. A nice little perk from being a famous entertainment figure.
Still doesn't change anything really.
I can set people up to knock them down all I want if the mood strikes me. She doesn't represent or speak for me and my views.
But thanks anyway for more lessons in how to post. I'll file them in the appropriate place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You posted a strawman argument, Pscates. That's created when you misrepresent things then knock the stuffing out of them. Susan Sarandon is not Colin Powell's equal by any stretch of imagination. So OF COURSE you'd rather listen to him than some lay-activist. Mentioning some anti-war person of more credibility would have knocked your argument to smithereens.
God. If I ever did that in a debate tournament I'd be dead so to speak.
There really is no way to resolve this abortion issue. All sides conflict as to when they feel abortion becomes murder. Some feel that the day after pill is murder and others have no problem with third trimester abortions. What it really comes down to is who will forcefully impose their will on others. If the pro-choicers get continue to get their way, those that are anti-choice still have the right to let every little zygote live. Anti-choicers can still preach on and on and try to convince as many people as they want to use alternate methods of progeny disposal. Anti-choicers still retain all of their rights.
If the anti-choicers win the battle, they effectively say that their opinion matters more than anyone else's and screw those that disagree. Your right to dissent is hereby revoked.
So, are you for freedom or fascism? Choice or anti-choice?
"80 000 women die each year from complications following unsafe abortions (Table 2 and Figure 3). Unsafe abortion is, therefore, a leading cause of the almost 600 000 maternal deaths estimated to occur each year. Globally one in eight pregnancy-related deaths, an estimated 13%, are due to an unsafe abortion."
The article goes on to say that there are virtually no deaths due to unsafe abortion in North America, "where abortion is legal, safe and relatively accessible". Now you're going to take that away? Are you so ignorant that you think outlawing abortion will convince all women not to abort?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we should hand out clean needles for drug addicts. as a matter of fact we should buy them their drugs to feed their habit as to prevent honest hard working people the heartache of finding themselves the victom of theft and other crime commited as a by-product of drug habit support?
I could go on and on with example after example how the government or society "could" support and give benefits to all kinds of actions because if the government or society were to practice the business of "helping" to support choices made by people as to reduce harm to others it would somehow reduce the harm factor in each case.
So you are for a big nanny state that supports all the ill choices and not only supports but promotes and facilitates the practices as such to minimize the harm to society? Sounds like a big nanny state to me.
You can do all that you want and we will help you do it. Drum Roll.... and the icing on the cake is.... your consequences are null and void because we the nanny state will help you to manage your ill choices?
Come on. Why not advocate responsibility? Self-control? Why not promote healthy alternative choices?
Why co-sponsor all poor choices?
This is a big divide between many liberals and many conservatives.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
So we should hand out clean needles for drug addicts. as a matter of fact we should buy them their drugs to feed their habit as to prevent honest hard working people the heartache of finding themselves the victom of theft and other crime commited as a by-product of drug habit support?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Mentioning some anti-war person of more credibility would have knocked your argument to smithereens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand. I just can't find one that doesn't make me want to stuff cotton into my ears and jump off a cliff.
But seriously, I've been watching the news all this time, Shawn, on all the 24/7 cable channels, the networks, reading opinion pieces (print and online) and I'm quite aware of credible, knowledgeable anti-war types and their opinions and stand on the subject. I don't know their names (nobody outside Washingon, DC and/or journalistic/academic circles probably does either), so I say "Sarandon" or "Asner" or "Penn" as a visible, vocal and well-known opponent over the many less-known, faceless former military members, professors, activists, authors, policy wonks, diplomats, retired State Department people, think tank types, etc. I see appearing on shows lately.
And let's be honest: your average person (particularly a teen or more shallow star-struck type who subscribes to People because they want to keep up with who Julia Roberts is banging) is probably more influenced (or impressed) by a well-known Hollywood or music industray anti-war voice than any of the above types I talk about. If I don't know most of these people's names - and I tend to keep up on things pretty okay - your average joe type on the street isn't going to know - or care - what some person they've never seen (from some organization they've never heard of) has to say.
You should know, as much as anyone, the majority of people don't know their butt from a can of corn, nor do they delve TOO deep into things if they don't absolutely have to. But wrap it up, put a Hollywood face on it and it goes down much smoother.
Ms. Sarandon paid for airtime preceding the address last night, so she is kind of putting herself out there and is representing that other side. So she's fair game, as it were.
And they're all getting their say and voicing their side. But I've seen plenty of them and they haven't convinced ME, you know?
Again, I don't agree with their take on it, that's all.
I believe - and agree with - how the President presented things last evening.
If the anti-choicers win the battle, they effectively say that their opinion matters more than anyone else's and screw those that disagree. Your right to dissent is hereby revoked.
So, are you for freedom or fascism? Choice or anti-choice?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I am for freedom but not freedom to murder. It is very simple BR. If some nut down the street thinks it is his right to dissent and murder all the cats in the neighborhood that dissent is revoked also. This is not about fascism at all it is about a respect for ethics and humanity. It is about self-control and the value of life.
Comments
Oh, but I think they are a big part of the issue! But nice dodging!
<strong>" Your first two questions are ignorant and do not address the issue. "
Oh, but I think they are a big part of the issue! But nice dodging!
I have a friend who told me he found out that he was not planned. To him that was a sad thing for him personally but he is doing just fine. Dave Thomas started the Wendy's Hamburger Chain and he was adopted. Do not paint a wide picture about a future of doom and gloom for those who may not be "wanted".
That is why your questions are ignorant.
To secure added integrity to my last post I want to say it is not only liberals who I address with my closing statement of my last post but all political leanings that any individual may hold towards who wink at and support abortion. It is not only a liberal thing and I wanted to clear that up.
Fellowship
<strong>
It's a good read.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since I have to register to read the times it's a safe thing to quote without me finding something in the article to refute you. But, from what you've quoted it still says nothing about them not having to find proof. Which seems to be in other articles I've read on CNN like :
"Mr. President, to conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program. "
Sounds like they're looking for proof to me.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>They don't address the issue because what someone may or may not grow up to be is irrelevant to the issue of PBA being legal or not. We can't allow PBA on the bases that the children may grow up to be antisocial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott, Scott, Scott,
This is just naive.
<strong>
Since I have to register to read the times it's a safe thing to quote without me finding something in the article to refute you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God I posted a login for you
login: aimember
pass: aimember
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
But, from what you've quoted it still says nothing about them not having to find proof. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhhh you're as thick as the French. 1441 requires Iraq to bring it all forward to the UN. Hold their hand and say "It's here and there and there" Blix reported they are not doing that. _______ breach?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Which seems to be in other articles I've read on CNN like :
"Mr. President, to conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program. "
Sounds like they're looking for proof to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They shouldn't have to look for the proof. Iraq is supposed to bring it to the UN. That are not. _______ breach?
Don't be like the French.
They always seem to over look the word " choice " in that term.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
And Ms. Sarandon (and others sharing her opinions) certainly are not being kept from having their side heard. She has a powerful voice and stage to shout it from. A nice little perk from being a famous entertainment figure.
Still doesn't change anything really.
I can set people up to knock them down all I want if the mood strikes me. She doesn't represent or speak for me and my views.
But thanks anyway for more lessons in how to post. I'll be sure to file them in the appropriate place.
(you quoted my entire post - kinda long and covering several areas - just to mention the Sarandon thing? Just quote that one section if you want
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>You can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Why is that so hard for people to understand?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's because people today cannot hold two seemingly contradictory statements in their mind at the same time. There is nothing wrong with the above statement. A person can feel utter contempt for those that have abortions and find the act to be utterly repugnant yet can also feel that it would be wrong to forcefully impose his or her sense of morality on others. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about it.
Too many people judge books by their covers. Too many people will immediately conclude that two concepts that only SEEM contradictory are naturally mutually exclusive.
<strong>
They shouldn't have to look for the proof. Iraq is supposed to bring it to the UN. That are not. _______ breach?
Don't be like the French.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the login. Sorry I didn't notice. However it changes nothing. What's your obsession with the French? About the " shouldn't have to look for proof......like I said good thing you're not in charge.
<strong>
Thanks for the login. Sorry I didn't notice. However it changes nothing. What's your obsession with the French? About the " shouldn't have to look for proof......like I said good thing you're not in charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He sure like to criticize other countries but can't handle those pesky foreigners criticizing his.
Also, if you have the title of the New York Times article, you can search google news for it and read it without having to deal with logging in.
What I will say on the matter is this:
We have safty standards for autos as to ensure safety to as high a level as is attainable when put into practice by auto manufacturers and speed limits set by authorities as to ensure public safety. Is this a waste of time simply because some will still die in auto accidents? No. It is done to protect the public to the best that we can as a society. We have anti-lock brakes, air bags, crumple zones, and lowered speed limits in place in many cases to promote the safety of the public and to reduce needless deaths due to traffic accidents. Yes some will continue to die as is seen by all. The logic of making abortion legal because people will still perform them in a non-legal way if it were not a legal practice is weak. What an utter weak argument. We as a society do not stop our efforts to improve via technology and regulations the task of looking out for drivers and passengers simply because it can be said "well,,, people will still die in auto related accidents" That is a nonsense filled and wrong logic to apply. Nothing is different with the abortion issue with those who promote adoption and reject the notion of abortion being needed as a method of birth termination simply for a means of an un-ready or ill-prepared mother to dispose of her responsibilities as a birth giver to her un-born child. Are there exceptions to rule? of course. If the life of the mother is at risk I support the mother's right to defend her life. Much after that we are making excuses to murder needlessly.
Fellowship
<strong>Shawn, whether I "set it up" or not, I still am going to look to those truly knowledgeable and qualified in these matters over celebrities and the like.
And Ms. Sarandon (and others sharing her opinions) certainly are not being kept from having their side heard. She has a powerful voice and stage to shout it from. A nice little perk from being a famous entertainment figure.
Still doesn't change anything really.
I can set people up to knock them down all I want if the mood strikes me. She doesn't represent or speak for me and my views.
But thanks anyway for more lessons in how to post. I'll file them in the appropriate place.
You posted a strawman argument, Pscates. That's created when you misrepresent things then knock the stuffing out of them. Susan Sarandon is not Colin Powell's equal by any stretch of imagination. So OF COURSE you'd rather listen to him than some lay-activist. Mentioning some anti-war person of more credibility would have knocked your argument to smithereens.
God. If I ever did that in a debate tournament I'd be dead so to speak.
If the anti-choicers win the battle, they effectively say that their opinion matters more than anyone else's and screw those that disagree. Your right to dissent is hereby revoked.
So, are you for freedom or fascism? Choice or anti-choice?
<strong>Fellowship - some statistics:
According to the <a href="http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/MSM_97_16/MSM_97_16_chapter5.en.html"; target="_blank">World Health Organization</a>:
"80 000 women die each year from complications following unsafe abortions (Table 2 and Figure 3). Unsafe abortion is, therefore, a leading cause of the almost 600 000 maternal deaths estimated to occur each year. Globally one in eight pregnancy-related deaths, an estimated 13%, are due to an unsafe abortion."
The article goes on to say that there are virtually no deaths due to unsafe abortion in North America, "where abortion is legal, safe and relatively accessible". Now you're going to take that away? Are you so ignorant that you think outlawing abortion will convince all women not to abort?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we should hand out clean needles for drug addicts. as a matter of fact we should buy them their drugs to feed their habit as to prevent honest hard working people the heartache of finding themselves the victom of theft and other crime commited as a by-product of drug habit support?
I could go on and on with example after example how the government or society "could" support and give benefits to all kinds of actions because if the government or society were to practice the business of "helping" to support choices made by people as to reduce harm to others it would somehow reduce the harm factor in each case.
So you are for a big nanny state that supports all the ill choices and not only supports but promotes and facilitates the practices as such to minimize the harm to society? Sounds like a big nanny state to me.
You can do all that you want and we will help you do it. Drum Roll.... and the icing on the cake is.... your consequences are null and void because we the nanny state will help you to manage your ill choices?
Come on. Why not advocate responsibility? Self-control? Why not promote healthy alternative choices?
Why co-sponsor all poor choices?
This is a big divide between many liberals and many conservatives.
Fellowship
<strong>
So we should hand out clean needles for drug addicts. as a matter of fact we should buy them their drugs to feed their habit as to prevent honest hard working people the heartache of finding themselves the victom of theft and other crime commited as a by-product of drug habit support?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. In fact, we should simply legalize drugs.
<strong>
Why co-sponsor all poor choices?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should one poor choice be a life sentence?
Also, do you oppose the morning after pill?
<strong>Mentioning some anti-war person of more credibility would have knocked your argument to smithereens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand. I just can't find one that doesn't make me want to stuff cotton into my ears and jump off a cliff.
But seriously, I've been watching the news all this time, Shawn, on all the 24/7 cable channels, the networks, reading opinion pieces (print and online) and I'm quite aware of credible, knowledgeable anti-war types and their opinions and stand on the subject. I don't know their names (nobody outside Washingon, DC and/or journalistic/academic circles probably does either), so I say "Sarandon" or "Asner" or "Penn" as a visible, vocal and well-known opponent over the many less-known, faceless former military members, professors, activists, authors, policy wonks, diplomats, retired State Department people, think tank types, etc. I see appearing on shows lately.
And let's be honest: your average person (particularly a teen or more shallow star-struck type who subscribes to People because they want to keep up with who Julia Roberts is banging) is probably more influenced (or impressed) by a well-known Hollywood or music industray anti-war voice than any of the above types I talk about. If I don't know most of these people's names - and I tend to keep up on things pretty okay - your average joe type on the street isn't going to know - or care - what some person they've never seen (from some organization they've never heard of) has to say.
You should know, as much as anyone, the majority of people don't know their butt from a can of corn, nor do they delve TOO deep into things if they don't absolutely have to. But wrap it up, put a Hollywood face on it and it goes down much smoother.
Ms. Sarandon paid for airtime preceding the address last night, so she is kind of putting herself out there and is representing that other side. So she's fair game, as it were.
And they're all getting their say and voicing their side. But I've seen plenty of them and they haven't convinced ME, you know?
Again, I don't agree with their take on it, that's all.
I believe - and agree with - how the President presented things last evening.
I'm allowed to do that.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
If the anti-choicers win the battle, they effectively say that their opinion matters more than anyone else's and screw those that disagree. Your right to dissent is hereby revoked.
So, are you for freedom or fascism? Choice or anti-choice?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I am for freedom but not freedom to murder. It is very simple BR. If some nut down the street thinks it is his right to dissent and murder all the cats in the neighborhood that dissent is revoked also. This is not about fascism at all it is about a respect for ethics and humanity. It is about self-control and the value of life.
Fellowship