Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: TESTING. ONE, TWO
America's Debate > Forum Information > Test Posts
Google
The Red Wolf
SORRY IF ANYBODY IS HAVING A REAL DISCUSSION ON HERE. BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION - IT SAID IF I WANTED TO TEST SOMETHING THAN TO DO IT HERE. APOLOGIES.
Google
kevmo
I can't post this on the forum discussion because it has become too long.

I had to break up my reply because the error message said that I more than the allowed number of quotes...



QUOTE
Your refusal to engage in honest debate on this issue is getting irritating.

It looks like we both have the same viewpoint on that. Each of us looks at the other in the same way.



QUOTE
Firstly, Laci's law is a specific state law.

Exactly. That's what examples are all about.


QUOTE
Other states have variations of such a law, or no such law at all. Secondly, in many of those cases, these laws were put into place by anti-abortionists so that they could then turn around and with mock-astonishment proclaim that 'look, there IS legal precedent'!

Anti-abortionists, huh? No longer prolifers, eh? If you honestly think that was why these laws were put into place, "so that they could then turn around and with mock-astonishment proclaim " something, then you are dishonest or intentionally blinding yourself idealogically. The reason was to extend legal protection to those human life forms. Simple enough, but your idealogy drives you to see complications that do not exist.


QUOTE
Thirdly, you should READ Laci's law. It explicitly, in the text of the law, excludes abortion. Oh well.

Of course it does. It also extends protection to unborn babies. I see it as a good start.




QUOTE
These are not "sickening and outdated philosophical approaches", they are in fact modern and universal medical and biological facts.

With all due respect, that's one of the stupidest things you've written in this exchange. I wrote what my own motivation was due to and you presume to tell me that they are not, that my own motivations aren't my own? Maybe it was just poor writing, rather than stupidity. If you're taking issue with my approach, then it could have been written better, so let's give you the benefit of the doubt that it's what you meant. I'm fine with whatever the medical and biological facts are -- we just need a place where those facts are accepted here at ad.gif and move on with it. My proposal incorporates those as facts, whatever the facts actually are.


QUOTE
Just because you dont seem to understand them does not alter their reality. There is no life form until the 23rd or 24th week, and as such nobody is being killed.

You're so idealogically blinded that you fail to see the common ground between us. Fortunately for us and lurkers, there are facts in dispute and they can be determined. When does life begin is the main fact we can determine, and then (just maybe) we cab actually get around to debating my proposal.


QUOTE
Society has caught up. Abortion used to be illegal everywhere, then there came progress, and now the vast majority of the first world has realized the rights of the actual completely outweigh imaginary non-rights of the potential.

Fascinating sentence. Laci's law is not imaginary, those rights do exist for preborn humans. Again there is common ground when you say that some rights of the "actual" outweigh those of the "potential". Such rights need to be defined in our society, extended to the preborn so we can save as many as we can, and as a society we can have more respect for these dying babies who are being sacrificed on the altar of choice.



QUOTE
Society has gained respect for the individual, in this case the woman, saying she has the right to her own body.

Her own body does not have 4 eyes, 4 ears, 2 noses and 2 mouths. As society gains more respect for that second individual, it seeks to extend rights to him or her.

QUOTE
It is not a coincidence that the lagalization of abortion was a direct outgrowth from the emancipation of women in first world society. And thank God for that.

Well, we haven't made much progress on the religion side of this issue, so let's just leave it out if you can thank God for dead babies.



QUOTE
So all those women leaders of countries and those women majorities in houses of parliament or legal chambers or all those women supreme court justices in the 1970s overpowered the rest of the country with their majoritarian representation in the corridors of power and forces abortion to be legal throughout the first world?

Non sequitur


QUOTE
Get real. Abortion is legal because society stopped treating women like second class citizens and gave them right over their own bodies, and it was men in power across the first world who gave them that right. And the background for that was the simple and universally accepted laws of biology and judgement of medical professionals that a foetus before the 24th week is NOT a life form,

Right here is the main point of our entire dispute. I think I will copy it and put it at the top to highlight it. We have a relatively straightforward disagreement over a factual issue. It IS a life form, it's just not a viable one. It doesn't suddenly become a life form in the 24th week, it was a life form well before that. It does relatively suddenly become a Viable life form, but you've conflated these two terms.


QUOTE
and as such does not exist as an individual to be 'killed'. It is EXACTLY because science and medicine rules on this issue, and almost every other first world country is, perhaps not 'more enlightened', but certainly more enlightened in this area.

It does exist as an individual life form. The rest of your nonsense on enlightenment doesn't make sense, you're probably just getting tired or something.



QUOTE
Firstly, "pro-life/pro-baby killing"? Seriously? Tell you what. Every time you call me or any pro-choice person "pro-baby killing" I will publicly label you as "Pro rape". OK? That sound fair?

Maybe you should choose something that makes more sense. Your writing is getting more and more disjointed at the end.




QUOTE
After all you are in favour of removing rights from women, so it is just as reasonable a logical leap for me to conclude you are in favour of women being raped, as it is for you to claim I am in favour of the killing of babies. How's that sound you pro-rapist? Of course I really dont want to engage in such a flagrantly dishonest, deliberately insulting and pointlessly infantile tactic, so I would ask that YOU knock it off yourself.

No, I really do view these as babies, so I'm sticking to my tactics. I do not favor removing rights from women, because there are 2 beings considered here, one of which is a woman and the other of which could become a woman, so I'm extending the right to life to that baby. It is a position which INCREASES the rights in our society, not decreases.







QUOTE
QUOTE(kevmo)
I would allow biologists to weigh in on whether or not zygotes are a life form and when life begins -- it strikes me that it is well accepted in biology that life begins at conception.


Well, all I can repeat is, it strikes you wrong. Period.


You do not know what you are talking about.
http://www.arizonarighttolife.org/userfile..._conception.pdf



QUOTE
Those opposed to abortion believe The government should tell a person, and by person I mean actual, real person under the law, what they can and cannot do with their person, and trying to remove their rights over their own body, just as was done during the era of slavery.

Oh, it couldn't possibly be that those opposed to abortion see that babies are getting killed, oh no that can't possibly be the case... It HAS to be that it's millions of people who have a thing about telling women what to do with their bodies... What a crock.



QUOTE
Thankfully we have progressed as a society beyond such things. Oh, and as I explained,There are NOT two bodies, there is a single body until 24 weeks, at which point it can then be argued there are two distinct life forms: not before.

So in the 22nd week, it's not a life form? Another crock.



QUOTE
Clearly you have absolutely no idea what the word 'viable' means. Viability was NEVER ascribed to 5 or 6 year olds.

It was before common law England before the rule of law gave rights to individuals and the practice of infanticide was brought to a close, IIRC. The common law from England was much of the basis for our legal viewpoints in the court system, including for abortion. I think I read it in this article, but it's 60 pages long and you have to search each individual page, so I don't have time to verify. Knock yourself out.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m687...2/ai_n24998794/
Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence
Issues in Law & Medicine, Fall, 2006 by Charles I. Lugosi
ABSTRACT: The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings. The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so.


QUOTE
Once again I am forced to suggest you return to study a little bit about basic human biology, it might assist you in your (hopefully) future attempts to debate this topic honestly.

Well, finally at the end of this long dialog. I have no intention of answering any further long-winded hornswaggling. If the biology you speak of is truly 9th grade level stuff, then there should be zero biologists who hold to this tenet. Simply googling for biologist + "life begins at conception" + phd gives 80,000 hits. There's more than enough to show you're wrong on this. That is the central point of dispute between us, and fortunately for all it is a dispute of fact. So there's no reason to continue the argumentum ad nauseam approach. If you continue it, I will simply let you have the last word. There are 2 basic things for us to discuss -- the dispute in fact of when a life begins, and my original proposal. Anything other than that is a matter of diminishing returns on my time, basically not worth it, so you can have the last word in that vast territory of dispute that are not the 2 salient items.

entspeak
QUOTE(kevmo @ Sep 22 2009, 01:09 AM) *
I can't post this on the forum discussion because it has become too long.

I had to break up my reply because the error message said that I more than the allowed number of quotes...


I've since replied in that thread, so you can now copy this back in there as a new post. smile.gif
Abs like Jesus
Testing, testing, testing...

TESTING, testing, testing...

thumbsup.gif
Lesly
I see you lurking there ALJ! I hope you start posting again! thumbsup.gif
ironhead
Testing.
pj4xtrader
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 22 2009, 01:31 AM) *
QUOTE(kevmo @ Sep 22 2009, 01:09 AM) *
I can't post this on the forum discussion because it has become too long.

I had to break up my reply because the error message said that I more than the allowed number of quotes...


I've since replied in that thread, so you can now copy this back in there as a new post. smile.gif


Testing one two,

QUOTE(kevmo @ Sep 22 2009, 01:09 AM) *
I can't post this on the forum discussion because it has become too long.

I had to break up my reply because the error message said that I more than the allowed number of quotes...



QUOTE
Your refusal to engage in honest debate on this issue is getting irritating.

It looks like we both have the same viewpoint on that. Each of us looks at the other in the same way.

testing one two,

QUOTE
Firstly, Laci's law is a specific state law.

Exactly. That's what examples are all about.

testing, one two,

QUOTE
Other states have variations of such a law, or no such law at all. Secondly, in many of those cases, these laws were put into place by anti-abortionists so that they could then turn around and with mock-astonishment proclaim that 'look, there IS legal precedent'!

Anti-abortionists, huh? No longer prolifers, eh? If you honestly think that was why these laws were put into place, "so that they could then turn around and with mock-astonishment proclaim " something, then you are dishonest or intentionally blinding yourself idealogically. The reason was to extend legal protection to those human life forms. Simple enough, but your idealogy drives you to see complications that do not exist.

testing, one two

QUOTE
Thirdly, you should READ Laci's law. It explicitly, in the text of the law, excludes abortion. Oh well.

Of course it does. It also extends protection to unborn babies. I see it as a good start.




QUOTE
These are not "sickening and outdated philosophical approaches", they are in fact modern and universal medical and biological facts.

With all due respect, that's one of the stupidest things you've written in this exchange. I wrote what my own motivation was due to and you presume to tell me that they are not, that my own motivations aren't my own? Maybe it was just poor writing, rather than stupidity. If you're taking issue with my approach, then it could have been written better, so let's give you the benefit of the doubt that it's what you meant. I'm fine with whatever the medical and biological facts are -- we just need a place where those facts are accepted here at ad.gif and move on with it. My proposal incorporates those as facts, whatever the facts actually are.


QUOTE
Just because you dont seem to understand them does not alter their reality. There is no life form until the 23rd or 24th week, and as such nobody is being killed.

You're so idealogically blinded that you fail to see the common ground between us. Fortunately for us and lurkers, there are facts in dispute and they can be determined. When does life begin is the main fact we can determine, and then (just maybe) we cab actually get around to debating my proposal.


QUOTE
Society has caught up. Abortion used to be illegal everywhere, then there came progress, and now the vast majority of the first world has realized the rights of the actual completely outweigh imaginary non-rights of the potential.

Fascinating sentence. Laci's law is not imaginary, those rights do exist for preborn humans. Again there is common ground when you say that some rights of the "actual" outweigh those of the "potential". Such rights need to be defined in our society, extended to the preborn so we can save as many as we can, and as a society we can have more respect for these dying babies who are being sacrificed on the altar of choice.



QUOTE
Society has gained respect for the individual, in this case the woman, saying she has the right to her own body.

Her own body does not have 4 eyes, 4 ears, 2 noses and 2 mouths. As society gains more respect for that second individual, it seeks to extend rights to him or her.

QUOTE
It is not a coincidence that the lagalization of abortion was a direct outgrowth from the emancipation of women in first world society. And thank God for that.

Well, we haven't made much progress on the religion side of this issue, so let's just leave it out if you can thank God for dead babies.



QUOTE
So all those women leaders of countries and those women majorities in houses of parliament or legal chambers or all those women supreme court justices in the 1970s overpowered the rest of the country with their majoritarian representation in the corridors of power and forces abortion to be legal throughout the first world?

Non sequitur


QUOTE
Get real. Abortion is legal because society stopped treating women like second class citizens and gave them right over their own bodies, and it was men in power across the first world who gave them that right. And the background for that was the simple and universally accepted laws of biology and judgement of medical professionals that a foetus before the 24th week is NOT a life form,

Right here is the main point of our entire dispute. I think I will copy it and put it at the top to highlight it. We have a relatively straightforward disagreement over a factual issue. It IS a life form, it's just not a viable one. It doesn't suddenly become a life form in the 24th week, it was a life form well before that. It does relatively suddenly become a Viable life form, but you've conflated these two terms.


QUOTE
and as such does not exist as an individual to be 'killed'. It is EXACTLY because science and medicine rules on this issue, and almost every other first world country is, perhaps not 'more enlightened', but certainly more enlightened in this area.

It does exist as an individual life form. The rest of your nonsense on enlightenment doesn't make sense, you're probably just getting tired or something.



QUOTE
Firstly, "pro-life/pro-baby killing"? Seriously? Tell you what. Every time you call me or any pro-choice person "pro-baby killing" I will publicly label you as "Pro rape". OK? That sound fair?

Maybe you should choose something that makes more sense. Your writing is getting more and more disjointed at the end.




QUOTE
After all you are in favour of removing rights from women, so it is just as reasonable a logical leap for me to conclude you are in favour of women being raped, as it is for you to claim I am in favour of the killing of babies. How's that sound you pro-rapist? Of course I really dont want to engage in such a flagrantly dishonest, deliberately insulting and pointlessly infantile tactic, so I would ask that YOU knock it off yourself.

No, I really do view these as babies, so I'm sticking to my tactics. I do not favor removing rights from women, because there are 2 beings considered here, one of which is a woman and the other of which could become a woman, so I'm extending the right to life to that baby. It is a position which INCREASES the rights in our society, not decreases.







QUOTE
QUOTE(kevmo)
I would allow biologists to weigh in on whether or not zygotes are a life form and when life begins -- it strikes me that it is well accepted in biology that life begins at conception.


Well, all I can repeat is, it strikes you wrong. Period.


You do not know what you are talking about.
http://www.arizonarighttolife.org/userfile..._conception.pdf



QUOTE
Those opposed to abortion believe The government should tell a person, and by person I mean actual, real person under the law, what they can and cannot do with their person, and trying to remove their rights over their own body, just as was done during the era of slavery.

Oh, it couldn't possibly be that those opposed to abortion see that babies are getting killed, oh no that can't possibly be the case... It HAS to be that it's millions of people who have a thing about telling women what to do with their bodies... What a crock.



QUOTE
Thankfully we have progressed as a society beyond such things. Oh, and as I explained,There are NOT two bodies, there is a single body until 24 weeks, at which point it can then be argued there are two distinct life forms: not before.

So in the 22nd week, it's not a life form? Another crock.



QUOTE
Clearly you have absolutely no idea what the word 'viable' means. Viability was NEVER ascribed to 5 or 6 year olds.

It was before common law England before the rule of law gave rights to individuals and the practice of infanticide was brought to a close, IIRC. The common law from England was much of the basis for our legal viewpoints in the court system, including for abortion. I think I read it in this article, but it's 60 pages long and you have to search each individual page, so I don't have time to verify. Knock yourself out.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m687...2/ai_n24998794/
Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence
Issues in Law & Medicine, Fall, 2006 by Charles I. Lugosi
ABSTRACT: The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings. The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so.


QUOTE
Once again I am forced to suggest you return to study a little bit about basic human biology, it might assist you in your (hopefully) future attempts to debate this topic honestly.

Well, finally at the end of this long dialog. I have no intention of answering any further long-winded hornswaggling. If the biology you speak of is truly 9th grade level stuff, then there should be zero biologists who hold to this tenet. Simply googling for biologist + "life begins at conception" + phd gives 80,000 hits. There's more than enough to show you're wrong on this. That is the central point of dispute between us, and fortunately for all it is a dispute of fact. So there's no reason to continue the argumentum ad nauseam approach. If you continue it, I will simply let you have the last word. There are 2 basic things for us to discuss -- the dispute in fact of when a life begins, and my original proposal. Anything other than that is a matter of diminishing returns on my time, basically not worth it, so you can have the last word in that vast territory of dispute that are not the 2 salient items.
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.