Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort?

Obviously not, if they were getting pregnant before they were ready to have kids.

Click to expand...

Because sex is only for reproduction, right. There is absolutely no pleasure invovled- and heaven forbid WOMEN enjoying sex. *faints*

At over six billion people, the whole ABORTION IS WRONG BECAUSE LIFE IS SOOO RARE AND PRECIOUS looks rather silly. (Sort of like the 'gays can´t reproduce so it´s WRONG' view, and hey, not many gay people are getting abortions! But that´s for a different thread, eh.)

Is it illegal for a woman who got pregnant by a man to have an abortion, even though he wanted a child?

Click to expand...

If he would grow a womb and carry the fetus himself in those cares. : D

Hello once again Mister Emu,

I rhetorically asked:
What's the name of this particular forum again?

General debates. We are however under the thread, "why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort". I was just wondering if there was a point relevant towards the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

Well...It's primarily relevant in illustrating ironic historical hypocrisy. Most of the "moral" arguments defending slavery found their roots in Scriptural justifications (tendered "State's rights" arguments were just a less odious red herring). I just find it amusing that some of the staunchest defender's of both slavery and segregation were "Bible-believing" Christians of their (respective) days. Just chalk those widely-held stances as "poor interpretations", I suppose.

And now, once more, we are confronted with good ole' "Bible-believing" Christians that declare "Abortion is murder!"...but same said adherents can't point to even one passage in the Bible that specifically addresses intentional pregnancy terminations.

To be sure, there are OT "fines" levied for causing a woman to spontaneously abort, but no mention of either "personhood" of the fetus, or any capital act of "murder" being perpetrated by the guilty parties in causing such an unwanted and spontaneous abortion.
[Some Christian adherents point to Jeremiah 1:5 as "proof" of personhood, but this only illustrates their lack of understanding within accurate context of what the passage is actually talking about (election).

Not directly related, but of similar bent, i find interesting irony in Ecclesiastes 11:5, in Scriptural attempts to limit man's understanding of nature, and the God he may claim for himself:
"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things."

Pretty fair to say that we have a decent idea of predicting which way the wind will blow with high degree of accuracy, and we surely do know and understand how "the body is formed in a mother's womb" (heck, we can even watch it "live", as it happens), so...maybe we can understand the "work(s)" of God after all...]

Additionally, even the Catholic Church has historically wavered upon the concept and "legality" of abortion:
*Circa 400. St. Augustine declares abortion, though a sin, is not murder since a fetus has no soul.
*1140. Canon law decrees abortion is murder only when the fetus is fully formed.
*1588. Pope Sixtus V decrees all abortion and contraception is murder.
*1591. Pope Gregory XIV annuls 1588 decree.
*1869. Pope Pius IX declares abortion at any stage is punishable by excommunication.
*1968. Pope Paul VI forbids all abortions and contraceptions, even for therapeutic reasons.
*1974. Vatican declares to abort a fetus is to risk murder and is a "grave sin."

Well, there you have it. Absolute "truth" and "moral" consistency regarding abortion according to the Catholic Church. Whence and whither shall the pendulum swing again...?

Citing the pianfully obvious, you said:

"That it was once settled law that a white male could own a black person as a piece of property."

Click to expand...

Of which, interestingly enough, in more secular societies of the day, such practices were reviled, and quite illegal. I note again with historical interest that it was the predominantly Christian societies that were the preeminent practitioners and greatest defenders of such inexcusable ignominies and cruelties.

The point was that appeals to settled law while to a degree are pertinent; settled law can and will change, especially when it goes against basic rights.

Click to expand...

Your point is taken, and acknowledged. My point is that I accept current law regarding rights of personal choice and privacy as they apply to legal abortion, and I have no interest (nor have encountered compelling argument) to alter that stance. You are more than welcome to pursue legal efforts to instigate change in such laws (as is your right as a citizen and person), but you will find me disinterested in your claims and arguments to effect such a change; and when called upon, I will expend all due effort and diligence to insure that such regressive religious crusades will ultimately fail and falter in every respect.

I once swore a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all it's enemies, either foreign or domestic; not to defend your personalized ideology, nor your individualized perspectives on religion, morality, or ethics. I will defend your right to believe what you choose to believe is your own version of "truth", but I will oppose any efforts to enact any religious dogma or erstwhile "faith-based" rationalizations as a matter of acceptable (and enforcable) pluralistic secular civic and criminal law.


I offered you:
If you'd like a more in-depth overview and history of constitutional origins and law, I recommend this resource as a favorite of mine:
[ http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/t...titutional.html ]


In effort to suggest lack thereof, you inquired:

"May I ask, was there supposed to be a link I click somewhere on the page that leads to the history of contitutional law origins?"

Click to expand...

Yes. You seemed cognizantly articulate enough to find the sub-headings (with "clickable links!" - woohoo!) of the "Articles of Confederation"; "The Federalist Papers"; and, "Letter of Transmittal, Federal Constitution, Sept. 1787" on the very same page I referenced.

My apologies if there was no "correct answer" link entitled:
"It is originates the morals of society".

Mischaracterizingly, you inferred:

Since you are disinclined to answer...

Click to expand...

Um, no. As I said, asked and answered. Either you didn't understand the answer; didn't like the answer; won't accept the answer; or you felt that you had the "secret answer" that I (surprise!) couldn't produce for your satisfaction...

Your "correct" answer was offered as:

"It is originates the morals of society"

Click to expand...

.

Wow. That's certainly succinct. It's also Jabberwocky. Would you care to offer something that makes a tad more sense, or elaborate upon such a profound and scintillating insight just a bit more? I'd settle for a comprehensible and structured sentence just to kick things off...after all, you twice insisted that I "answer the question", and your gibberish sentence is all I'm offered as illuminating "reward" for my concerted efforts?

(cont.)

Did you think I was going to say the Bible and the Ten Commandments?

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, yes (most other evangelical Christians suggest such unsubstantiated claims - what a refreshing change that you do not!).

Yet I note that you have not discounted either as formative foundations of constitutional law.
What say you?
Are they, or are they not?
If so, which laws within the Constitution (or predicated constitutional law) can be sourced from such stalwart icons of religious dogma? Do cultural concepts of murder and theft predate the Bible, or do they not?
If referenced/attributable Christian religious ideology is not a matter of constitutional law, then why should such specified (and deity commanded) aspects of sectarian religious dogma (absolute "truths" of morality) ever be incorporated into secular law?

I said:
Because established and precedent law (primarily) states that a fetus is not a person.

You replied:

But we are argueing the validity of said law.

Click to expand...

NO. You are. I'm not. I consider said law valid, and entirely acceptable. End of argument (from my end).

When I said:
Just a statement of fact. Statements of fact (in and of themselves) are not special pleading or (hopeful) appeals to emotion.

You replied:

No it would be a statement of fact to say that "the law states that fetuses are not persons". There is a difference between that and stating that you believe that fetuses are not persons.

Click to expand...

NO...illustrating a point of law is pointing to established fact. You choose to correlate statements of fact as statements of some erstwhile or contemporary moral/ethical "truth".

You may assert as a matter of "truth" that - say - "adultery is a sin"; but adultery is not, in fact, a prosecutable criminal offense under secular law.
Similarly, you may claim that "abortion is murder" (and by extension, a "sin"); but in fact, medically supervised pregnancy termination (under defined and limited standards of practice) is not a prosecutable criminal offense under secular law. That's a fact, above and beyond any assignations or claims of moral "truths".

You attempted to draw association where there was none in saying:

Both our claims are in the same boat. Law does not create fact. If the law said that the moon was indeed made of chesse, it would not make it so.

Click to expand...

You'll note, I have offered no claims. None. It is you that claims that a fetus has rights of personhood. I have simply reiterated precedented law as veritable fact (absent any declarations of morality and/or ethics as they may pertain to those laws). Banter semantics all you please.

Of course law doesn't "create" fact. It establishes enforceable law. To quote enforceable law is to quote established fact (not some existential "truth").


You said:

Hmmm? It is my position that unborn children are persons, I would indeed by overjoyed if this was the position held by the law as well. How is that disingenuous?

Click to expand...

Seriously? Because...you said:
"

See that is what I at least(and as far as I know other pro-life persons) am trying to get, legal distinction of personhood for unborn children.

Click to expand...

"

Hmmm. I'd like to take your comments at face-value. Really I would. But then...I'm a skeptic of the first order; and as relates to religious-based claims in objection to legalized abortion...quite cynical of anyone that claims to seek legal distinctions alone.

When I contemplate the varied proposed amendments to the Constitution intended to subvert (or otherwise invalidate) established contemporary legal constitutional precedent, my skeptical nature, and questions regarding dubious intent, are reinforced, to wit:
"ProLife Constitutional Amendment":
[ http://www.catholicplanet.com/prolife/amendment1.htm ]

Understand well when I say that I do not consider such evangelistic efforts as benign, or simplistically expressed faith-specific dogma (as retained by exercised right of religious expression or practice); such proponents of said referenced amendment would seek to prohibit and criminalize ALL: abortions (absent imminent death of the mother herself); contraceptive use of ANY kind (which, um, aid in prevention of unwanted pregnancies...um, hello?); Euthanasia, suicide, and assisted-suicide; and, human cloning. Their religious-based and predicated objections are noted accordingly; but not all religious or spiritual persons share identical moral/ethical dogmatic "values", and in no case should religious dogma ever become part-and-parcel of any objective, pluralistic secular law.

As previously offered: "Opposed to Abortion? Don't have one." Each citizen in the U.S. retains the protected right to exercise and practice the morals/ethics/dogma that they claim for themselves - but they retain NO right to impose their faith-based beliefs/opinions upon others as a matter of enforcable law under any circumstances.

I offered you:
But..hey, here's your opportunity to ally my skepticism, and pretend that you are a legislator that could introduce any law that would succinctly and unequivocally define when a "person" (or "unborn child") becomes a "person". Help restore my faith in candor. ;-)

You said:

How is this? Human life from the stage of fertilized ova retains the right to life.

Click to expand...

Good for you. Your candor is appreciated.

I said:
Sorry. It's your claim. Your burden of proof to provide the evidence that supports your own position.

You impugned (absent substantiation):

Your double standard for personhood is noted. If a five week old exhibits none of your earmarks of personality, and a five weeks to go unborn child exhbits none of your earmarks of personality, the only difference is location, and not anything to do with psychology, or the signs of personality at all.

Click to expand...

Mischaracterize my position however it pleases you. I don't care (really). Quibbling with my standards won't quantify/qualify your own.

(cont.)

(*wheeze*)

You want to claim that a blastula is a person? Fine. Provide the "proof" of substantiative merit for due consideration. What enforceable civic and human rights would you assign to a one-minute-old, undivided fertilized ovum? How would you measure/enforce such "personal" rights and protections of said ovum, especially when the prospective mother may not even be aware of her immediate "condition"?

Are miscarriages always "God's Will"? If a woman drinks, smokes, takes drugs, or otherwise engages in stressful/strenuous activities and subsequently (ignorantly and unintentionally) miscarries (perhaps evidenced as nothing more that normal menstrual flow), then how is a morally righteous society to justly prosecute such a wanton murderer (murderess?)? Does culpability of another's prospective personhood (and protected rights) begin at immediate cognizant awareness of pregnancy, or before? If so, just how is a responsible and righteous society to enforce such laws? Shall we pregnancy test every fertile woman in the U.S. every 15 days? Every 10 days? Every day? Would there be any other way to insure that "unborn babies" (in their very first hours of cell division) can be assured of their newfound constitutionally protected rights of personhood?

If an impregnated female aborts/miscarries in some apparent spontaneous/unexplained fashion (typically attributed [and/or apologized] to "God's Will"), then by what manner/measure of law or legal distinction should such instances be relegated/assigned to "God's Will"...versus some indefinite potential causation of poor/irresponsible personal behavior? Since law must deal in facts and evidence (and within parameters of established burdens of proof and reasonable doubt), how does either the prosecution/defense "prove" exculpatory divine "evidence" of any manifested/purposed supernaturally imposed "Will", compliments of a specific/unspecific deity?

Put another way:
If a visibly pregnant woman suffers an apparent "miscarriage", what is the state's role in determining cause? If it's determined that the prospective mother engaged in poor behaviors or habits, can the State "prove" that causality? By what means? If divinely "willed" miscarriage is offered as legal defense (after all, a "murder" may have taken place - a capital crime), how does the defense "prove" it's claim? Should the State engage in personal estimations of private choice and behavior, and to what extent? What is a satisfactory burden of proof regarding causation?
If a pregnant woman goes skydiving in her fifth gestational month, and her fetus spontaneously aborts upon hard landing, is she culpable for charges of murder, or poor behavior? Is a "God did it" defense in such a case legitimate, and if so, what scientific/forensic evidence can the defense produce to support such a claim (assuming that "divinely inspired/willed" miscarriages are in fact, a legal standard of acceptable exculpability)?
If a woman inexplicably and suddenly miscarries at 8 months, what legal investigations are incumbent upon the State to bring to bear upon the "murder suspect"? Is any and every aspect of her daily life from moment of conception to be fair game as potential evidence against the suspect mother?

"OK Missy.Explain where you were and what you were doing for every moment since you first learned you were pregnant. And don't leave out your activities prior to that knowledge either. After all, from the very moment of conception, whether you were aware of such or not, your "unborn child" had the very same rights and protections you have today...confess your guilt, you murderer."

What of the woman who illegally tries to purposefully (yet unsuccessfully) instigate a miscarriage of her own volition? If caught in the act, is she to be charged with "attempted murder"? If subsequently convicted, whom takes custody of the (as yet) "unborn child"? What measures can or must the State exercize to protect and insure the rights of the yet unborn child within the womb of the very same convicted "attempted murderer"?

What if a fertile woman is a known drug addict, drunkard, smoker, and professional stuntwoman? Does the State retain the right to intervene and prevent any potential criminal miscarriage before it occurs? If not, why not? Are not prospective/potential recidivist pedophiles subjected to exceptional monitoring standards; registration; even chemical castration?

What if a woman knowingly has AIDS, and chooses to become (or perhaps unwittingly becomes) pregnant? Is she liable for causation of a terminal health condition upon her "unborn child"? Certainly the "unborn child" has every protected right to expect protection from the State in preventing such a terminal disease, does it not?

And so on....
.........................


"personhood" - n;
"The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality"
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

As I have already illustrated, even identical DNA signatures (twins, triplets, clones, etc.) do not necessarily "confer distinct individuality".

Stating the obvious, you said:

"No one is forcing you to post."

Click to expand...

Nor do I feel any pressure to do so. I have plainly stated my opinion in the matter, and expressed my disinterest in "debating" the issue with any advocates of criminalizing abortion.

"Ok, ultimately, nothing is different in their potential."

Click to expand...

Your candor is once again appreciated.

You posed of me:

"One last question, were you on the supreme court in the 70's(I believe it was) would you have decided with the established law against abortion, or for it?"

Click to expand...

While I would claim no especial expertise of historical SCOTUS rulings/decisions/precedents...as a layperson with some interest and (minimal) erudition in such matters/proceedings (noting that even "experts" in constitutional law differ in their conclusions regarding the validity/merit of founding principles in support of Roe v. Wade) , I would offer that the rationale that supported the expressed majority opinion of the Court in it's rendered decision is one that would have concurred with then, and still do to this day. I would rather support the rights and liberties of those that are palpably extant, veritable, and imminently present "persons" - than those that are "potential" (at some point in time and realized due course) "persons" (whether manifested/undelivered by divine Will and intent, or not).

In conclusion, allow me to be plainly spoken and most clear. As a matter of law alone, I do not consider an ovum, blastula, or fetus in any stage of gestation an actual "person" entitled to equal or tantamount civil/human rights and protections. We have enough problems dealing with the walking/talking/thinking varieties of people, without having to lend further considerations for those that might or might not one day share such considerations and deferences afforded/guaranteed under secular law.

As you adequately expressed for yourself, I reiterate in kind my own position that morally, ethically, and (most important) legally...I do not consider any fetus (regardless of stage of gestation) a "person" due any legal distinctions or protections superior to, or in equal of, those of unquestioned and veritably cognizant "mothers".

Not then. Not now. Not ever.

Your claims are noted. Your appeals are heard. Your proffered evidence is nil, and your "proof" (of any "unborn child's" "personhood") is rooted in unsupported dogmatic religious conclusions alone.

You want me to embrace the prospect of criminalizing (once again) unwanted pregnancy terminations?
First, prove to me that your God is God.
Second, show me where your God says abortion is a sin against His Will.
Third, convince me that your God's Word is (or should be) applicable and enforceable, (to the exclusion/exception of all other faith-based beliefs) in a pluralistic and secular form of self-government.
Then...attempt to demonstrate why I should consider an undivided, 1 minute-old ova as deserving of the same rights and protections as the married and sexually consenting couple employing contraceptive barrier methods to explicitly and cognizantly prevent such unintended consequences - and why their "rights" should be minimized/ignored by some "person" they never intended to "create", nor can even see with the bedroom lights turned off.

If you can't fulfill my preceding requirements of abject acceptance and due consideration...then please allow your protestations and opinions to find other more willing ears as object of your righteous indignation...

...because, until you can or will, you're just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, and the wind is prevailing in your direction.

Aw Jocose, you didn't have to take down your avatar because of my comment.

[PART (thank goodness)QUOTE=s2a]Hello once again Mister Emu,

I rhetorically asked:
What's the name of this particular forum again?



You want me to embrace the prospect of criminalizing (once again) unwanted pregnancy terminations?
First, prove to me that your God is God.
Second, show me where your God says abortion is a sin against His Will.
Third, convince me that your God's Word is (or should be) applicable and enforceable, (to the exclusion/exception of all other faith-based beliefs) in a pluralistic and secular form of self-government.
Then...attempt to demonstrate why I should consider an undivided, 1 minute-old ova as deserving of the same rights and protections as the married and sexually consenting couple employing contraceptive barrier methods to explicitly and cognizantly prevent such unintended consequences - and why their "rights" should be minimized/ignored by some "person" they never intended to "create", nor can even see with the bedroom lights turned off.

If you can't fulfill my preceding requirements of abject acceptance and due consideration...then please allow your protestations and opinions to find other more willing ears as object of your righteous indignation...

...because, until you can or will, you're just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, and the wind is prevailing in your direction.[/PART QUOTE]


s2a, Hello!
We meet again; - where is that beer you offered to buy me ?

having dispensed with my disappointment of the fact that you must obviously be unable to visit me and partake of some libation, let's get to the nitty gritty.

I will not debate the particular points about abortion with you, because I have had experience of your finely tuned abilities of debating, and, to be frank, I have neither the stomach, nor the will, nor the time, to respond to your tantalisingly tortuous tautology.
Besides which, I am sure I would loose to your argument. You sure have a fine intellect; all I wish to do, in this post is to give my prosaic pedantry some rein, and just address a couple of points about the manner in which you treat fellow members.

I would, though, step in with a fairly gentle step to address your pervasive and persuasive prevarication during which time you litter the page with your vibrant verbosity - which includes sotto voce mutterings to your ego, about tiredness, the need of sleep - none of which is pertinent to the core of the debate.

It is about that aspect that I now wish to address you - and in particular, to your numerous Don Quixotian jousts at my friend Mr Emu's windmill of faith.

For your edification, I have highlighted the section of your deliberations with which I find fault.

We are not debating the existace or non existance of God again; the heading of this debate is :- Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort? .

If my Friend bases his stance on his faith, you have no right to once again turn the discussion onto your favourite 'Prove your God exists' theme. This is in the spirit that If and when, in your lengthy liturgy, you refer to written material, I would not ask you to provide evidence of the existence of the book itself; I think we are both well aware that that would be an absurd requirement.
"attempt to demonstrate why I should consider an undivided, 1 minute-old ova as deserving of the same rights and protections as the married and sexually consenting couple employing contraceptive barrier methods to explicitly and cognizantly prevent such unintended consequences - and why their "rights" should be minimized/ignored by some "person" they never intended to "create", nor can even see with the bedroom lights turned off."

Why should my friend be bound to submit to this demand of yours - You are the one who is asking - nay, demanding, that he substatiates his position in the argument. I think it might be much more apt for you to demonstrate whyyou shouldn't consider.......................................turned off."

Now for the final part: "If you can't fulfill my preceding requirements of abject acceptance and due consideration...then please allow your protestations and opinions to find other more willing ears as object of your righteous indignation...

...because, until you can or will, you're just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, and the wind is prevailing in your direction."

I would like to know why you consider yourself to be in such a position of such lofty aloofness as to Demand that my friend finds "other more willing ears as object of your righteous indignation..."

I contend that you presented your ears; My friend did not direct his comments at you in the beginning; you are the instigator of this doubtful debate, and now you offer my friend the opportun ity to find other ears ? - all I have to suggest to you is that you remove yours from the scene, if you find my friend's approach to this subject, based on his beliefs, to be full of righteous indignation, that you desist in your tactic of verbal assault, and find other suitable ears, in exchange for those of my Friend. Your thinly veiled abuse of my friend's beliefs, are not appreciated; your final :-
"...because, until you can or will, you're just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, and the wind is prevailing in your direction."

covers not my friend with uric waste, but does your own debating skills little justice.

I am, most faithfully yours,

Michel.

Hello MIchel,

You observed/inquired:

We meet again; - where is that beer you offered to buy me ?

having dispensed with my disappointment of the fact that you must obviously be unable to visit me and partake of some libation, let's get to the nitty gritty.

Click to expand...

Tell you what. Email me your home address, with your favored brew of choice (or subject to my own recommendation), and I'll see to it's prompt delivery for your salubrious enjoyment in the stead of our sharing adjoining ambient air in some dusky saloon.

"I will not debate the particular points about abortion with you, because I have had experience of your methods of debating, and, to be frank, I have neither the stomach, nor the will, nor the time, to respond to your tantalisingly tortuous tautology."

Click to expand...

Oh my.

Good for you. Avail yourself of the opportunity to personalize your commentaries in my regard, as opposed to addressing any merits of supportive argumentation offered in my stead. Impotent attempts to debase or impugn my personality, or characterize my alleged motives and demeanor, will no doubt provide persuasive and valid rebuttal to what I've actually said, versus your projections/allegations of self-promoting interest upon myself.

PS. You neglected to mention my own previously stated disinterest in debating abortion. Just fot the record...

PPS. While I acknowledge your estimations/critiques of my particular writing style, I would no more predicate the merits of your arguments on evinced editorial style alone...anymore than I would predicate Hawking's reflections on theoretical physics based upon his capacities to play volleyball.

If you want to assume the role of REF copy editor, I wish you well. I have professional experience in such trade, and am familiar with the accountabilities/responsibilities inherently attached.

In forthcoming diatribe below, you effort to impugn my infrequent forum contributions as deflective lies, and/or gratifying exhortations of self-aggrandizement. thereof I will leave to others to arrive at their own conclusions predicated on merit alone as to the "truth" of such allegations. But be advised, and know that it is unwise (and potentially hazardouos) to editorially critique others in qualified parsimony and abjectly expressed intent/meaning alone.

Do you really want to go there? Are you so confident that any and all statements you may offer are above any editorial scrutiny and correction? Do you wish to test my capacities and claims of experience in such minimal matters? I consider you no personal enemy of mine, nor do I bear any personalized animosity towards you in any way whatsoever (how could I?).

But, if you wish (and invite) a battle of such individual capacities of will and experience, (though unwise), I'll be pleased to indulge such examinations (in illustrating each and every instance of non sequitur and directly inappliable"off-topic" comment you may inject into an open discussion).

I cautioned you once that you have "no idea" of my capacities - I caution you once more, but no further. If you value and cherish your standing within this community, I entreat you most earnestly not to test my endurance or capacities in sustained intellectual/structured debate. Follow whatever subsequent course your conscience or "god" tells you to...but note that you have been duly cautioned. This is not a "dare", or a "double-dog" dare. It is what it is...a caution of final notice.

"I would, though, step in with a fairly gentle step to address your pervasive and persuasive prevarication during which time you litter the page with your vibrant verbosity - which includes sotto voce mutterings to your ego, about tiredness, the need of sleep - none of which is pertinent to the core of the debate."

Click to expand...

Nice applications of alliteration (though I would suggest, ill-used). I favor it's use from time to time...

Now, let's see about some of those lent inferences...

"Pervasive"? - As in, "spread throughout" (presumably within REF)? To date, I have submitted 99 posts (averaging less than 2.0 a day), instigating four topical threads (three if you don't count my introductory post). This does not strike me as an especially rife or "pervasive" level of participation/contribution. To your credit however, I would deem your presence in REF (standing as Moderator duly acknowledged) as "pervasive" - 7,645 posts to date in only 11 months (avg. 23.79 posts per day), instigating 438 threads of topical discussion. Impressive. What some might even deem as...pervasive.

"Persuasive" - As this is a forum of both discussion and debate (in hopes of providing more compelling and substantiative argument), that's the general idea when deliberating opposing viewpoints, to be...persuasive. Thanks.

"Prevarication" - Either you are calling me a liar (which is not nice, especially without some evidence to support such a nasty allegation or impugnation of personal character ), or deliberately provocative (again, absent referenced substantiation).

....................

Do I indulge my ego in posting here? Well duh...of course I do. How is my estimation of value or worth in contribution lessened or enhanced by your suggested qualifications? Allow me a moment of equal prospective evaluation to surmise any less (or more) of similar contributors herein.

Re: my introduced "issues" of fatigue (which are, as you note, no [topical] "issues" at all), my defense is that my offered commentaries reside within the realm of "train of thought" stylizations. I prefer to embrace "conversational" tones within "open", or "informal" forums of discussion. Rest assured, my "style" differs in substantiative and delineating qualities whilst engaging formal "debates" (wherein "freehand", or "train-of-thought" deliberations are generally frowned upon, and readily discounted absent directed substantiation and merit - I know, as I have been assigned moderator and arbiter of more than a few such structured intellectual debates).

If I share apsects of personalized conditions (fatigue, distraction, self-gratifying ego, etc.), I'll be pleased to qualify (for those that might be persuded otherwise) that such comments are not intended or offered as rationalized support or defense of articulated perspective.

Placing me upon a steed of straw, you said:

"It is about that aspect that I now wish to address you - and in particular, to your numerous Don Quixotian jousts at my friend Mr Emu's windmill of faith"

Click to expand...

Have at it (your insinuation that I suffer from irrationally delusional quests notwithstanding)...

For your edification, I have highlighted the section of your deliberations with which I find fault.

We are not debating the existace or non existance of God again; the heading of this debate is :- Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort? .

Click to expand...

Thank you for illustrating and reiterating that which is so readily obvious (I consider myself most redundantly edified).

You said:

"If my Friend bases his stance on his faith, you have no right to once again turn the discussion onto your favourite 'Prove your God exists' theme. This is in the spirit that If and when, in your lengthy liturgy, you refer to written material, I would not ask you to provide evidence of the existence of the book itself; I think we are both well aware that that would be an absurd requirement."

Click to expand...

I retain every enumerated right, and none are yours to dismiss or remove. Since there is no "book of atheism", I have no dogma to defend (nor claim to support). If any religious adherent "believes" that their faith proscribes an unwavering point-of-view regarding abortion, my first inking is to inquire as to what referenced dogmatic support they may offer in substantiation of their articulated view. If one claims (from a relativistically moral view) that "Abortion is murder", or "life (personhood) begins at conception" - from a purely religiously-derived perspective, offered as an immutable or undeniable "truth" - then all unbelievers request is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that such claims are indeed veritable and true beyond claims predicated upon religious faith alone. If you feel such burdens of proof are unreasonable or irrational, then you bear the burden to substantiate such claims beyond mere "faith" itself.

Arguments predicated on faith alone (or to religious dogmatic adherence) are still accountable to standards of reason and realistic/relativistic doubt (in predicated/argumentative debate/discussion). Par exemplar...this is why our justice system does not acknowledge criminal defenses predicated upon "God told me to do it" as legally acceptable (as opposed to "moral rationale"), or at least discernibly "justifiable" beyond any reasoned doubts.

(cont.)

I have no indefinitely "favorite" theme, especially none that insists any "proof" of any adherent's "god" (or supernatural, causal "thing"). Despite your empty efforts of mischaracterization of my position of disbelief, you lack any quotable instance wherein I might have suggested/demanded such "proof" (of divine existenece/causation) from others (otherwise, you would have readily quoted such).

You quoted me in saying:
"attempt to demonstrate why I should consider an undivided, 1 minute-old ova as deserving of the same rights and protections as the married and sexually consenting couple employing contraceptive barrier methods to explicitly and cognizantly prevent such unintended consequences - and why their "rights" should be minimized/ignored by some "person" they never intended to "create", nor can even see with the bedroom lights turned off."

In rebuttal, you offered:

Why should my friend be bound to submit to this demand of yours - You are the one who is asking - nay, demanding, that he substatiates his position in the argument. I think it might be much more apt for you to demonstrate whyyou shouldn't consider.......................................tur ned off."

Click to expand...

The enjoinder offered by myself is caveat-laden and evidentiary supplicated within the boundaries of the foundational argument presented. If a proponent of criminalization of abortion predicates their arguments and rationale upon religious dogma and beliefs, then it should be small matter to substantiate said arguments with compelling support and "proof". If abortion is a "sin" (against God), then at very least, persuade me that your God IS God (and that His decrees/commandments should be a part of secular/pluralistic law).

To assert two divergent ideological viewpoints as unassailable, universally applicable, and as ultimately moralistic "truths" is expected of (even incumbent upon?) "true believers" to not only defend, but to insistently project upon others - as both understandable and predictable - but such firmly held positions are not inviolate nor immutably beyond question or reproach in a secular/pluralistic society that ultimately employs reason (and reasonable doubt) in discerning mere claims from veritable fact.

The only "demand" I make is of proffered "extraordinary evidence" in support of "extraordinary" claims. Religious adherents of all walks and creeds assert that supernatural "souls" are resident amongst all sentient beings...yet not one shred of scientifically derived conclusions support such a claim.

Mister Emu is not "bound to submit" to any "proofs" that I may require to lend serious deliberative consideration of his stated ideological positions (point in fact, I consider Mr.Emu quite capable in his own regard, absent any proffered outside defense). I have simply stated what I require to lend such their due provision. Each may assert or establish their own parameters in evaluation of such claims. I presume to speak for no one but myself.

In quoting me, you concluded:

Now for the final part:
"If you can't fulfill my preceding requirements of abject acceptance and due consideration...then please allow your protestations and opinions to find other more willing ears as object of your righteous indignation ...because, until you can or will, you're just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, and the wind is prevailing in your direction."
I would like to know why you consider yourself to be in such a position of such lofty aloofness as to Demand that my friend finds "other more willing ears as object of your righteous indignation..."

Click to expand...

I retain the lofty aloofness of my own regard and consideration, and do not presume to speak of yours, or anyone else's. I have merely stated that I find and determine his "arguments" lacking in support of evidence as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"I contend that you presented your ears; My friend did not direct his comments at you in the beginning; you are the instigator of this doubtful debate, and now you offer my friend the opportun ity to find other ears ?"

Click to expand...

As you have inadequately and uninvitedly assumed the role of some "anti-Quixotic" Sancho in defense of your friend and erstwhile puritanly symbolic Windmill...in the sanctified virtual form of Mister Emu...I must regretfully inform you that:
1) I did not instigate this thread; you may apologize to Neo-Logic for your inaccuracy.
2) My initial contribution to this thread was post number #57 of [now] 126 considered replies.
3) As I stated in my initial post (within the thread in question):
"Typically, I don't enjoin discussions regarding abortion rights because arguments predicated upon appeals to logic rarely successfully overcome arguments predicated upon appeals to emotion. It's very difficult to overcome objections about how someone "feels" about an issue."
4) "In the beginning", Mister Emu most decidedly addressed my commentary directly, in post #58 no less...so your incorrect assertion is once again revealed as unfounded (and utterly inaccurate - just what does "prevarication" mean again?).

"- all I have to suggest to you is that you remove yours from the scene, if you find my friend's approach to this subject, based on his beliefs, to be full of righteous indignation, that you desist in your tactic of verbal assault, and find other suitable ears, in exchange for those of my Friend. Your thinly veiled abuse of my friend's beliefs, are not appreciated; your final :"

Click to expand...

"A wish is a dream your heart makes..."

You'll forgive me and understand if I don't shrink away at your hopeful request alone. I'm just a crazy heretical unbeliever, and whilst under the manipulative influence of Lucifer and Evil personified Himself, I just can't help myself.

You are welcome to exercise any "godly" powers as moderator to effect my departure beyond my consent. Feel free to offer whatever "evidence" you may cull to actualize and rationalize/justify such a wish amongst your REF moderator peers. Who am I, but a lowly "two-post-a-day" monetary supporter of said forum...compared to the intellectual might and conspicuous wisdom you bring to bear in conscientious deliberation against this forum's most egregious offenders of social behavior and proffered content?

PS. I never offer any "thinly veiled" abuses. Any commentaries offered are to be acknowledged at "face-value", and all sardonic/sarcastic/ironic references should be construed as purely intentional in apt application. I retain no inhibitions of erstwhile attempts in beating around any bush, burning or not.

You're welcome to consider my commentaries/rebuttals as "abusive", but know that your abject attempts of impugning characterizations "don't make it so", nor do your empty allegations of "verbal assault" earn merit beyond mere allegation. I will not be your performing monkey. Substantiate your allegations with veritable, referenced, and pointed (directly quotable and verbatim) supportive evidence of (my) transgressive behavior, or apologize for your unfounded allegations, and renounce your personalized allegations against my person. You may not like what I say, or how I say it...but this does not lend you free license to impugn my character willy-nilly without further consequence.

"...because, until you can or will, you're just pissing in the wind as far as I'm concerned, and the wind is prevailing in your direction."
...covers not my friend with uric waste, but does your own debating skills little justice.

Click to expand...

Thank you for summarily (and willfully) mischaracterizing the uniquely and directly expressed offered sentiment. The proffered colloquialism was tendered as due caution, in the sense that "faith-based" arguments offered in opposition to abortion rights are, in my estimation, akin to "pissing in the wind". (or, if you prefer, alliteratively, trying to "urinate up a rope").

Your estimation of whatever skills I may possess or evidence in debate are indeed minimal and light, in consideration of your prefacing remarks of your previous post.

PPPS.I encourage you to outline any personalized remarks in consideration of my person or behavior within REF in email or PM correspondence. You may not like or enjoy such public replies if you choose to indulge further attempts of excoriation, imposed shame, or guilt on my part. In such, you have my assurance of discretion and confidential reply.

s2a

My feelings on this are that abortion is wrong and that it should be made illegal as there are different options if something happens (e.g. rape) there is adoption as the main option. I support adoption because of the fact that my mother got pregnant with me at age 19 and could have aborted me or put me up for adoption but instead chose to keep me and love me despite the hardships it placed on her and my father. I feel that unless there is a VERY good reason to abort (e.g rape) then it shouldn't be done and even in cases of rape the child can be put up for adoption later. In the cases where ppl just screw around and get pregnant then they should own up to it and not have the option of abortion as it was their own stupidity and a baby doesn't deserve to pay for it. In conclusion I just feel that there are better options

Just my thoughts,

Alien_Youth

Neo-Logic said:

A second chance, what the hell is that? </sarcasm>

Click to expand...

Well you don't know what it is. You don't even want to give a living being a FIRST chance.

Hail to thee s2a!

I am sorry that I have upset you; that wasn't my intention. All I was trying to do was to lend my friend a helping hand, as one Christian to anyone who becomes half consumed in the quick-sands of your rhetoric.

I know that I know that there is little point in debate with you; You very obviously have such a fine mind, I can only read your posts to others in the same light that I would watch a matador 'manipulate' those poor bulls in Spain. I bow to your superb intellect; all I ask is to be allowed to pop in every now and then, on your chats, to say 'Hello' from the wings.......

Your kind offer to post me a drink would not be what I am after; what I would dearly love to do is to meet you in person - you must be......awsome.

P.S Enjoy the stage. You have earned your place there.
'Till we meet again, my friend.

Hello Michel,

You said:

I am sorry that I have upset you; that wasn't my intention. All I was trying to do was to lend my friend a helping hand, as one Christian to anyone who becomes half consumed in the quick-sands of your rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Your attempted characterization of my mood is noted as disingenuous at best. I am not especially "upset" (with either you, or what you have attempted to infer/imply). I offered clarity, and questioned your potential intent to pursue some regrettable course of editorial parsimony as lone rebuttal and defense of your own personalized perspective. I see that you have lent better discretion it's due course.

I know that I know that there is little point in debate with you; You very obviously have such a fine mind, I can only read your posts to others in the same light that I would watch a matador 'manipulate' those poor bulls in Spain. I bow to your superb intellect; all I ask is to be allowed to pop in every now and then, on your chats, to say 'Hello' from the wings.......

Click to expand...

Your disingenuous allowances for stylistic contributions heretofore notwithstanding, it is of little revelation or profound insight to note that neither your indulgence nor approval are requisite in posting one's own opinion, or substantiated rebuttal's (even my own) within this forum. As previously acknowledged, you retain the editorial power and discretion to exercise (or at very least, recommend) either removal, censorship, or outright banning of otherwise offensive/rude postings within REF.

Your inept and impotently attempted characterizations of my postings (as so much rhetorical "quicksand") are now part of virtual digitized record..but as my grandaddy used to say..."Sayin' it's so don't make it so".

If you will, allow each member to draw their own conclusions, absent your attempted colorizations/characterizations as to the merit/substance of what is actually said, versus what you wish to infer upon such.

Your kind offer to post me a drink would not be what I am after; what I would dearly love to do is to meet you in person - you must be......awsome.

Click to expand...

Indeed (and my offer was, and remains, genuine). Much misunderstanding, intolerance, and ignorance-laden fears are readily overcome and ameliorated by veritable "face-to-face" meetings and dialogues. In TRW, my Christian friends consider me to be (ironically) a "very good Christian"; absent those requisite beliefs of course. ;-)

Barring constructed and moderated "formal" debates, I find a good saloon providing frequently refreshed beverages the most pleasant forum in which to exchange and discuss divergent viewpoints.

P.S Enjoy the stage. You have earned your place there.
'Till we meet again, my friend.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your acknowledgment (if not especial resounding mod endorsement) of my participation within REF.

If I may offer, in kind consideration of your generous acknowledgment...some advice derived from an experienced venturer into forums such as REF.

Allow intelligent, articulate, and self-assured contributors (whether ascribed friend or avowed adversary) their own capacities for rebuttal and reply. You're most welcome to lend defense/support along the lines of "Joe is my friend, and I don't like the tone you're taking with him"...as such is your acknowledged right and privilege as a respected member of the community-at-large. Your earnestly entreated defense (of Mr. Emu) is noted, but not especially interesting, and certainly incompliant in any regard. In the specific case of Mister Emu, he is a noted Moderator and (nearly) one year member of this forum (with a "reputation beyond repute" as recognized by accumulated frubals). Mister Emu hardly strikes me as a forum "newbie", or someone due circumstantial deference as novice and inexperienced member and contributor herein (if I may be so bold to say, an evinced member of greater enhanced substance and skill than yourself - just observation, no personal insult intended).

To be sure, I always appreciate others that may lend defense/support of my stated positions in my extended absence, but I rarely rely upon or allow such testimonies to stand without supplanted/enhanced follow-up from my own individualized perspective. I settle for no less for myself, and expect no less of others.

The purpose of my lengthy introductory post to REF { http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=185180#post185180 } was, in part, to lend readily referenced foundation against future futive attempts to willfully mischaracterize or otherwise impugn my motives/rationale for participation with REF. I am whom I present myself to be, and I am most sincere representative of what I propose as my own personalized opinionated position within matters of legitimate/topical discussion/debate. I do not suffer fools gladly, nor for extended periods of time.

I have made my motives clear. I seek neither self-validation nor popular community support (though the latter is always appreciated ;-). I will either offer premised and substantiated viewpoint in thread initialization, or may otherwise lend opinionated commentary to topical threads initiated by others.

In as much, as I am most sincere (well, most of the time) in expressed viewpoint, I am unlikely to lend serious and considered deference to outright fools, abject "defenders of the faith", or respondents that offer little more than empty allegations and untoward inferences (absent any substantiation), amounting to little more than "I know this is 'off-topic', but...you're a ****; and here's why I think so...".

*yawn*

Yours is not the first (and most expectantly, not the last) proffered "rebuttal" commentary that states, in effect; "I'm not going to argue with you because (*insert rationale*), but...."; I have endured countless impotent attempts of guilt projection, rhetorical questionings, and outright character assaults in my many years of online (and vis-a-vis) "discussions". When I am demonstrably in error, I make best attempts to readily acknowledge (and within means, rectify) such.
(ie., [ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=209040#post209040 ].

Sadly (and most predictably from my own expectations) you would not even acknowledge (much less lend apology in error) my factual correction of your assertion that I instigated this thread in question (not to mention the other inaccuracies I illustrated for your reflection in the past). You inability or unwillingness to even indulge such a simple aspect of most circumspect culpability in tendering specious allegation merely reinforces the notion (that I now hold) that you retain less interest in actual forthright discussions, above any that you self-sevingly espouse regarding your own ideology/religion...absent/beyond any expressed/countering reason or doubt.

Your piety does you credit as testimony to your unwavering faith and expressed religious convictions, but these traits do not not serve you especially well in topics that challenge and question the very foundations upon which are predicated and asserted as "truth".

You once offered me "Namaste" in welcome to REF. While I might accede that such humility is a noble human endeavor (and ironically very "Christian"), I would question such unqualified humble reverence extended to any and all previously unmet and unknown strangers newly introduced in one's midst...[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste ]. Knowing what you think you know of me today, I wonder if you would again extend repeated sincere greeting and acknowledgment of:
"

The God in me greets the God in you
The Spirit in me meets the same Spirit in you

Click to expand...

"

The good-natured and hopeful part of me says, "well, of course"; the skeptical, cynical, and enhanced-experience part of my cumulative nature suggests a different conclusion...

I disagree with abortion .But I feel it is a persons individual right to decide what is right or wrong for themselves.They need to make that decision for themselves , and after they do one way or the other that is between them and God .Not me , them , and God.