Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Way to prove my point.

I see, so only the libs can use that copout... I get it..

What copout?

That this post is the work of a supposedly mature adult?

This is why I said generally. Do your homework and look up the definition of generally. Here's some help www.google.com or you can use www.dictionary.com ...

[HAL 9000 96]

That is pretty hilarious. Two days straight and Joe 'gets' liberals more than they get themselves. Way to go hero.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Way to prove my point.

I see, so only the libs can use that copout... I get it..

What copout?

That this post is the work of a supposedly mature adult?

This is why I said generally. Do your homework and look up the definition of generally. Here's some help www.google.com or you can use www.dictionary.com ...

I wonder if when Hal does it on a daily basis that you would feel the same way?

Your comments illustrate exactly what I wanted to happen. Your hypocrisy in full form. Its only "adult" to make those posts when a lib does it.

That is pretty hilarious. Two days straight and Joe 'gets' liberals more than they get themselves. Way to go hero.

As long as you're happy, thats all that matters.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Joe was instructed to check out the definition of viability. So are you at this point.

Particularly, the difference between prenatal and postnatal viability- the dependence is biologically different and yes, the baby can go to 7-11 for its food after birth... J/K- but it can receive nutrition from other places. Joe is merely being unsurprisingly obtuse.

I know what viable means. With the mothers life not in danger there is some moral questions to be asked when you proceed with the abortion and if you want to ignore them because of some biologically difference go ahead but thats not me.

No- that's again using the tails of the distribution to justify an argument that realistically isn't even being made.

Its your opinion of what dictates morality that you wish to use to impose upon others. The biology merely defines the legal aspect of things, because that's the law and that's how biology is.

We dictate our morals on people who take others peoples lives, right? We are imposing our beliefs on this person, how is that ok with you, I mean after all who am I to dictate what I think is right or wrong. The point I am making is just because law allows it doesnt mean its right and because I think that woman should not have this option does not make me wrong. I used murder as a example and I dont see it same as a abortion so no need in going down the abortion is not murder road.

Edited October 14, 2009 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Joe, your idea of what constitutes rational debate is about equivalent to this guy's concept of engineering physics.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If Joe weren't so ignorant of reality and facts, he'd be one hell of a troll

[_Simpson_ 250]

1

Edited October 14, 2009 by _Simpson_

[HAL 9000 96]

Way to prove my point.

I see, so only the libs can use that copout... I get it..

What copout?

That this post is the work of a supposedly mature adult?

This is why I said generally. Do your homework and look up the definition of generally. Here's some help www.google.com or you can use www.dictionary.com ...

I wonder if when Hal does it on a daily basis that you would feel the same way?

Your comments illustrate exactly what I wanted to happen. Your hypocrisy in full form. Its only "adult" to make those posts when a lib does it.

That is pretty hilarious. Two days straight and Joe 'gets' liberals more than they get themselves. Way to go hero.

As long as you're happy, thats all that matters.

I don't need VJ to influence my mood or to use as a keypound arena- even when my POV doesn't make sense.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Joe, your idea of what constitutes rational debate is about equivalent to this guy's concept of engineering physics.

Its not a debate when I'm pointing out blatent hypocrisy. And everyone here knows it. HAL does the www.google.com post on a daily basis, but I'm "not an adult" if i do it. I suppose thats because libs have no standards for themselves, but conservatives do, so therefore we're really the ones breaking the rules because you have no rules.

Way to prove my point.

I see, so only the libs can use that copout... I get it..

What copout?

That this post is the work of a supposedly mature adult?

This is why I said generally. Do your homework and look up the definition of generally. Here's some help www.google.com or you can use www.dictionary.com ...

I wonder if when Hal does it on a daily basis that you would feel the same way?

Your comments illustrate exactly what I wanted to happen. Your hypocrisy in full form. Its only "adult" to make those posts when a lib does it.

That is pretty hilarious. Two days straight and Joe 'gets' liberals more than they get themselves. Way to go hero.

As long as you're happy, thats all that matters.

I don't need VJ to influence my mood or to use as a keypound arena- even when my POV doesn't make sense.

Well at least you admit that they don't. Admission is the first step.

If Joe weren't so ignorant of reality and facts, he'd be one hell of a troll

*yawn* another worn out copout.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Joe, your idea of what constitutes rational debate is about equivalent to this guy's concept of engineering physics.

Its not a debate when I'm pointing out blatent hypocrisy. And everyone here knows it. HAL does the www.google.com post on a daily basis, but I'm "not an adult" if i do it. I suppose thats because libs have no standards for themselves, but conservatives do, so therefore we're really the ones breaking the rules because you have no rules.

There isn't a debate - because all you have are partisan talking points and the sort of BS you just wrote above.

Grow up, Joe.

I say again - grow up.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It would be a copout if in the 11 pages of this thread you were able to once articulate an intelligent point. Or if you were able to succesfully defend your own points. Instead, you're just spouting nonsense. You are the immutable being, incapable of processing ideals different from your narrow mindset.

[HAL 9000 96]

Whom else would it affect? A fetus isn't exactly a viable individual. The sperm donor/father? Sure- and I think it would be logical to argue that things could be clarified where the sperm donor could be liberated of all responsibility (including right to custody later on). Which would address Joe's incongruous daddy-support obligation.

So yeah, that's huge.

Viable individual?, not sure exactly what you mean by that but what changes after the child is born. The child is still just as dependent on mother.

Joe was instructed to check out the definition of viability. So are you at this point.

Particularly, the difference between prenatal and postnatal viability- the dependence is biologically different and yes, the baby can go to 7-11 for its food after birth... J/K- but it can receive nutrition from other places. Joe is merely being unsurprisingly obtuse.

I know what viable means. With the mothers life not in danger there is some moral questions to be asked when you proceed with the abortion and if you want to ignore them because of some biologically difference go ahead but thats not me.

No- that's again using the tails of the distribution to justify an argument that realistically isn't even being made.

Its your opinion of what dictates morality that you wish to use to impose upon others. The biology merely defines the legal aspect of things, because that's the law and that's how biology is.

We dictate our morals on people who take others peoples lives, right? We are imposing our beliefs on this person, how is that ok with you, I mean after all who am I to dictate what I think is right or wrong. The point I am making is just because law allows it doesnt mean its right and because I think that woman should not have this option does not make me wrong. I used murder as a example and I dont see it same as a abortion so no need in going down the abortion is not murder road.

'Regular'' murderers don't gestate, just to clarify. Unless, of course, we want to accept Joe's definition of abortion as murder that isn't legally sound at this point.

This entire argument is based on people's take on morality- and defining things that are not completely accurate in the meantime. People that use ignorant arguments like Joe often cannot grasp the basics behind these concepts, and therefore, cannot make accurate representations of how 'individuality' and biology are interrelated.

If the argument was I'm against abortion (the procedure) on most grounds because an 8-celled zygote has a beating heart, then... even if it were completely incorrect, there'd be room to discuss with rationality on board. Unfortunately, when the misinterpretation of fact impedes a rational discussion- you can see the result with keypounding above.

As I've stated to you before- I, and many people that favor abortion RIGHTS, are not particularly keen on celebrating abortions. Only an idiot would make statements to the contrary.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Look forward to replying to this but I got to get going, I will be back

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Joseph, you know what they say about arguing with idiots.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another winning contribution from Mr Strike.