Quote from: Seawolf on September 09, 2011, 06:37:22 AM
Well stated.

I know deep down they know I'm right.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 06:54:47 AM
Hell, can you even ever concede a good point well made? 

It's impossible to make a good point when you're condoning murder.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 06:54:47 AM
C'mon, Solar!  I have in this thread, without ever defending the practice of abortion,
laid out three unassailable arguments, using the arguments that you all provided,
to prove to you or anyone else that the impregnator gains no legal say in the woman's
decision whether to keep or abort her fetus.  You haven't even really addressed those
arguments head on, let alone put a dent in or defeated them. Yet you seem to be claiming
victory. Must all these discussions go this absurd route?  Must I constantly be forced into
absurd replies in the hope of pointing out the absurdity of some of your claims? Can you
ever re-evaluate your own position in the light of new evidence, logic or argument?
Hell, can you even ever concede a good point well made?  Do you even want real debate?

Good point?
What that men are evil and incompetent, and women are somehow held to a higher standard and deserve more rights?
The right to be judge, jury and hangman, and the man has no recourse in saving an innocent life?
You mean those points?

You libs just don't get it, but then I'm not surprised, you can't think for yourselves.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:21:59 AM
That's sounds good.  It isn't true, but it sounds good.
First of all, I'm not condoning murder.  I'm not even condoning abortion.
Second, my argument was whether or not the pregnant women loses her rights
and then whether or not her impregnator gains say over her merely by the fact that
he impregnated her.  I have yet to hear anyone here adequately address those points.

By couching murder as a "right" you condone it.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:21:59 AM
That's sounds good.  It isn't true, but it sounds good.
First of all, I'm not condoning murder.  I'm not even condoning abortion.
Second, my argument was whether or not the pregnant women loses her rights
and then whether or not her impregnator gains say over her merely by the fact that
he impregnated her.  I have yet to hear anyone here adequately address those points.

WOW, you are so brainwashed, you make this all about rights, yet there is no mention of a babies right to life.
How hypocritical can you libs get, is there no limit to your devotion of eugenics?

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:26:14 AM
Sometimes even I just can't save a bad argument from itself.

And still you somehow managed to make it worse.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:31:46 AM
I'm not discussing the morality of abortion,
nor am I discussing anyone's devotion to eugenics.
I am discussing an argument that y'all made that you
obviously cannot remember, describe or defend.  My bad.

Of course you're not discussing those points, facts that happen to be the core of the topic.
But we don't want facts getting in the way of your point, now do we?

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:31:46 AM
I'm not discussing the morality of abortion,
nor am I discussing anyone's devotion to eugenics.
I am discussing an argument that y'all made that you
obviously cannot remember, describe or defend.  My bad.

When you refer to murder as a "woman's right" you are discussing morality.

How is making abortion legal for all women racist? That makes absolutely no logical sense. What we have here is a purely emotional, almost hysterical argument.

Quote from: Harry on September 09, 2011, 07:39:54 AM
When you refer to murder as a "woman's right" you are discussing morality.

As soon as you bring the word "murder" into it you are discussing the law, not morality.

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 07:46:03 AM
As soon as you bring the word "murder" into it you are discussing the law, not morality.

When I want your worthless opinion, I'll troll for it.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:21:59 AM
That's sounds good.  It isn't true, but it sounds good.
First of all, I'm not condoning murder.  I'm not even condoning abortion.
Second, my argument was whether or not the pregnant women loses her rights
and then whether or not her impregnator gains say over her merely by the fact that
he impregnated her.  I have yet to hear anyone here adequately address those points.

The idea seems to be that a living mass within the woman is a part of the woman's body. If that is the case, then one can argue about abortion as if only the woman's body is affected. Problem is, the living mass inside the woman has an independent DNA code than the woman. Now it's been a while since biology, but last I remember, our body was made up of cells each of which carries the same DNA code. I doubt that a cell taken from the fetus contains the exact same DNA code as a cell from the mother's lungs, stomach, brain, or any other organ which is a part of her body.

Hence the difficulty in reconciling both sides. One side considers the woman is the only one with rights, the other considers the rights of the child.

Quote from: Harry on September 09, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
When I want your worthless opinion, I'll troll for it.

Oh sorry. I thought that's what you were doing. But it's not an opinion. The law decides what is murder and what isn't.

Unless of course you agree with those people who say that "Meat is Murder" and would support their right to make you a vegetarian, that is.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:54:56 AM
Even if I accept those facts at face value, if they are irrelevant to the discussion,
then yes, I will reject them out of hand.  Throughout this thread, y'all have demonstrated clearly
why it is that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and why you are now and have been for a century
losing this argument.  People like me are trying to stop the need for or practice of as many abortions
as possible, while people like you are trying to take away peoples' rights in the name of a misguided cause.
I have constantly, since you have first read any post by me on this topic, argued against the practice of abortion.
However, I have tried to make at least some of you realize the error or your logic, beliefs and methods, while at the
same time defusing the political arguments that have become the screaming points that have replaced the real discussion.

Still, I get ridiculous statements of unsubstantiated opinion stated as if they are precious nuggets of unvarnished truth
and no real discussion of the facts of the matter, so much so, that y'all are still angrily unaware that I am on your side
in this debate, although I am unwilling to allow your hyperbolic rhetoric to stand for me or mine when it comes to this issue.
As I said, the debate can rage on while the abortions continue, and you can claim victory in a discussion which you sadly
were never even truly a participant, while you crazily blame me for preferring abortions to redwood decking or some such.

Rave on!

Defending the executioner is an awful odd way to claim you are against murder.
Learn a little history on the subject, but the only way to do that is to lose the lib blinders and look at it in a clear perspective.

The only, and I mean Only reason the left backs abortions sponsored by the State, is to control the population of minorities and the poor.

This has absolutely nothing to do with rights of women, she is only a tool in their fight for eugenics.

Quote from: CubaLibre on September 09, 2011, 07:49:09 AM
The idea seems to be that a living mass within the woman is a part of the woman's body. If that is the case, then one can argue about abortion as if only the woman's body is affected. Problem is, the living mass inside the woman has an independent DNA code than the woman. Now it's been a while since biology, but last I remember, our body was made up of cells each of which carries the same DNA code. I doubt that a cell taken from the fetus contains the exact same DNA code as a cell from the mother's lungs, stomach, brain, or any other organ which is a part of her body.

Hence the difficulty in reconciling both sides. One side considers the woman is the only one with rights, the other considers the rights of the child.

A transplanted lung or heart is a part of the recipient's body. It has a completely different DNA code.

I've still not gotten a clear answer on what rights a fetus actually has, aside from this vague right to life which doesn't actually exist in our constitution.