Things I Learned from the GOP Debates...

Darla said:
I don't know, I don't feel like I do that. I don't really read much of what men say about abortion, I might have just read over it.
Click to expand...

So let's extrapolate from your previous statement that you have no right to press your morals onto another.

If I believe that an infant isn't a person, or a child, that means that when I kill it you wouldn't judge me because my belief was different than yours? There have been societies in the past that believed that the "soul" didn't enter a child until they could communicate with words. Often they wouldn't even name a child until they reached such a point and it wasn't a loss of a person if they had to ditch the kid or if the kid died of natural causes.

They draw the line in a different place than you do. If you honestly believed that the fetus was the exact same thing as the infant what possible moral argument could you make for its death other than to save the life of another?
 
Damocles said:
Because I have never argued that it is a "person" or "child".

Why do you always assume my argument rather than listen to it?

So let's extrapolate. If I believe that an infant isn't a person, or a child, that means that when I kill it you wouldn't judge me because my belief was different than yours?

They draw the line in a different place than you do. If you honestly believed that the fetus was the exact same thing as the infant what possible moral argument could you make for its death?
Click to expand...

No, I think that's pushing it to the point of absurdity. It's like saying, well you believe that Bob down at the bank exists, and you talk to him, what makes it crazy for someone else to believe that fairies exist and talk to them? One is a demonstrable fact, one is a belief. There is no getting around that.

What some people "believe" is of no interest to me. All kinds of people believe all kinds of things.

Here is what I know; men are not going to be in the position to tell women, who make up the majority in this country, that after they are raped by one of them, they have to bear the child of the rapist. And if they continue to try and put themselves in that position, they are going to find out what can happen to the miniority, when they get uppity.
 
Darla said:
Damo, that you are even under the impression that most women could have an "open mind' so someone like Brownback who wants to force them to carry a pregancy resulting from a rape to term, shows that no matter what you might thing, you're still somewhat out of touch on this.
Click to expand...
My point isn't that you have to agree. But seeing another's position isn't "evil" either. I know you won't agree with my position, but I can at least understand your position.

If only those who agree with you are "in touch" then that is not a sign of an open mind. I'd expect it of a religious leader, I would not of a person who prides themselves on their open mind.
 
Damocles said:
My point isn't that you have to agree. But seeing another's position isn't "evil" either. I know you won't agree with my position, but I can at least understand your position.

If only those who agree with you are "in touch" then that is not a sign of an open mind. I'd expect it of a religious leader, I would not of a person who prides themselves on their open mind.
Click to expand...

I freely admit my mind is closed to the possibility of forcing a raped woman to bear the child of her rapist.
 
Darla said:
No, I think that's pushing it to the point of absurdity. It's like saying, well you believe that Bob down at the bank exists, and you talk to him, what makes it crazy for someone else to believe that fairies exist and talk to them? One is a demonstrable fact, one is a belief. There is no getting around that.

What some people "believe" is of no interest to me. All kinds of people believe all kinds of things.

Here is what I know; men are not going to be in the position to tell women, who make up the majority in this country, that after they are raped by one of them, they have to bear the child of the rapist. And if they continue to try and put themselves in that position, they are going to find out what can happen to the miniority, when they get uppity.
Click to expand...


And they would say the same using pictures of fetuses, that it is a "clear fact" that such a belief should be held.

:shakes head:

Moral certitude based on "facts" such as that are not, in fact, certain at all.
 
Darla said:
I freely admit my mind is closed to the possibility of forcing a raped woman to bear the child of her rapist.
Click to expand...
As is mine. I just believe in removing the fetus with an attempt to save its life rather than directed action to kill it.
 
Damocles said:
Because I have never argued that it is a "person" or "child". And in this one specifically stated that I was re-expressing his statement and never made any statement that I was expressing my personal belief.

Why do you always assume my argument rather than listen to it?

So let's extrapolate. If I believe that an infant isn't a person, or a child, that means that when I kill it you wouldn't judge me because my belief was different than yours?

They draw the line in a different place than you do. If you honestly believed that the fetus was the exact same thing as the infant what possible moral argument could you make for its death?
Click to expand...
Yet again, personal moral conviction is fine. Trying to force everyone else to obey one's own personal moral conviction is not.
 
uscitizen said:
And that is a cause of concern for me as to the future direction of our country...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that Brownback has even a remotely realistic chance of becoming president or I'd be talking about him a lot more than I do. The fact is, though, that he was elected to the Senate. That's some scary sh*t, that is: I'd almost rather have a convicted murderer in there than this clown.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Yet again, personal moral conviction is fine. Trying to force everyone else to obey one's own personal moral conviction is not.
Click to expand...
People do so all the time, when it reaches consensus. Attempting to change the consensus is not "evil", nor even new. You work to change consensus to match your morals, they work to do the opposite. Such as in gay marriage. We'd agree that it isn't "right" (moral conviction) to deny them access to such a societal contract, they disagree and work to keep consensus on that one.
 
Damocles said:
People do so all the time, when it reaches consensus. Attempting to change the consensus is not "evil", nor even new. You work to change consensus to match your morals, they work to do the opposite. Such as in gay marriage. We'd agree that it isn't "right" (moral conviction) to deny them access to such a societal contract, they disagree and work to keep consensus on that one.
Click to expand...
Working to change consensus is fine. Trying to convince individuals to eschew the behavior of which you disapprove is fine. Attempting to legislate compliance with that proscription is not fine.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Working to change consensus is fine. Trying to convince individuals to eschew the behavior of which you disapprove is fine. Attempting to legislate compliance with that proscription is not fine.
Click to expand...
Legislation is simply the expression of that consensus. This argument denies the participation of voters in the process.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I don't believe that Brownback has even a remotely realistic chance of becoming president or I'd be talking about him a lot more than I do. The fact is, though, that he was elected to the Senate. That's some scary sh*t, that is: I'd almost rather have a convicted murderer in there than this clown.
Click to expand...

Me neither, but the fact that people suck up and endorse his crap is what worries me.
 
Damocles said:
I will say it again, as I have in the past.

If one truly believes that it is a child in the uterus then there is no reasonable moral argument to allow its deliberate ending other than to save the life of another. This was his argument, though not particularly well expressed.

One would not take the son/daughter of a rapist and, because their father was a rapist, give them the death penalty.

That another doesn't believe that it is a child doesn't take away the validity of the argument based on his belief.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree.


I don't think an embryo is a child.

I don't think a woman should be forced by any government to bear a rapist's child.

I don't think overweight, white men in legislatures should be substituting their opinion on woman's uteruse's, over the opinons of doctors and the women themselves.
 
Cypress said:
We'll have to agree to disagree.


I don't think an embryo is a child.

I don't think a woman should be forced by any government to bear a rapist's child.

I don't think overweight, white men in legislatures should be substituting their opinion on woman's uteruse's, over the opinons of doctors and the women themselves.
Click to expand...
Once again, it was not an expression of my own opinion on the matter. As you should know.

It was an expression of an idea that I believe, in my own pride, to be better expressed than by pointing at my stomache and pretending I have a uterus.

In fact, if you continue reading the thread, you can see again the beginning of the expression of my belief on the subject.
 
Darla said:
I hesitate to ask this, but, what do you plan on doing with this fetus Damo?
Click to expand...
Attempting to save it after removal and thus expanding research into ex-utero incubation, working toward the end to give true choice to women rather than solely the choice of being an incubator, or killing.
 
The day the GOP overturns the right to personal privacy expressed in Roe v. Wade, Damo, is the day you're going to have to start looking for a new party.

Because, that's the day the republican party becomes an instant, permanent minority in the country. Count on it.


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top