The Battle Begins

[PearlWatson]

 

[moevillini]

I think you're just a mass of cells, but it would still be a tragedy if someone killed you. I also think I'm just a mass of cells, but I'm not so sure of the tragedy if I'm killed.

why not? are you just a straw man or something?

 

[PearlWatson]

So, abortions being more prevalent among the poor is supposed to work against them?

I thought race was the key quality that worked against it, but how could you think it was fine to kill off children because their parents were poor? Some of the most brilliant people this world has to offer were born into poverty.

Every abortion is a tragedy, regardless of whether the child would have been brilliant or not. How shameful that you would use an attribute like brilliance as if it would affect teh worth of the person inside. I wonder if you have a little eugenicist inclinaiton inside you? That would explain your eagerness to connect them with the most evil government of the past 100 years.

This exchange was interesting.
Apparently you thought pushing abortion among the poor was a good thing. Then when I question this remark all the sudden you change into self righteous mode where every abortion is a tragedy.
Then you "wonder" if I have a eugenicist in me because I was "eager" to connect them to an evil government.

Liberal logic amuses me.

 

[One Brow]

The liberals who were proclaiming "Jesus was a community organizer" on behalf of B.O. were not Christians.

Proof?

 

[One Brow]

Eugenicists, and their pseudoscience, were directly responsible for the death of millions.

Yawn. Repeating yourself without adding anything new.

The whole reason consensus is invoked is because there is no reproducible results. Darwiniacs, Warmites, Eugenicists all fit into this category.

Since "Darwiniacs" and "Warmites" are undefined and likely fictitious groups, there is nothing to agree or disagree with here.

The following prophecy is explanatory with its predictive power: "God thinks the world is too wicked so he is gonna rapture the good ones just prior to end.

I see no explanation and no prediction, just a lot of handwaving.

why not? are you just a straw man or something?

I generally don't hold my life as valuable as those of random strangers. I'm neurotic, probably.

This exchange was interesting.
Apparently you thought pushing abortion among the poor was a good thing.

The poor didn't need to be pushed into anything. They wanted control of their ability to reproduce. Many people would rather provide well for one or two children than provide less for five or six.

Then when I question this remark all the sudden you change into self righteous mode where every abortion is a tragedy.

Specifically in response to your notion that the tragedy was the loss of "Some of the most brilliant people this world has to offer". It doesn't matter whether the abortion is of a brilliant person or not, to me. Nothing self-righteous about it, just a personal value.

Then you "wonder" if I have a eugenicist in me because I was "eager" to connect them to an evil government.

You confused cause and effect. I thought you were eager to eugenicists to an evil government because you have eugenicist leanings you are likely ashamed of, and so you want to make it seem that "liberals" have them too. Sorry, I'm not fooled by that. If you don't want to own up to your own feelings, as revealed by your word choice, fine. Trying to convince me that the feelings belong to someone else will be futile.

Liberal logic amuses me.

It's easier to laugh than to understand.

 

[PearlWatson]

Yawn. Repeating yourself without adding anything new.

You acknowledged that eugenics led to marriage laws in the U.S., but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge that eugenics led to twin experiments and euthanasia despite that Mengel worked for a eugenics institute and that eugenic doctors controlled who would be eliminated from the gene pool and provided the methods to do it. Your position is not logically consistent.

I see no explanation and no prediction, just a lot of handwaving.

The prediction is that people will be raptured. The explanation for this is that the world is too wicked for these good people to remain any longer.

I generally don't hold my life as valuable as those of random strangers. I'm neurotic, probably.

I don't believe the first assertion.

The poor didn't need to be pushed into anything. They wanted control of their ability to reproduce. Many people would rather provide well for one or two children than provide less for five or six.

Eugenicists want abortion clinics readily available in the poor areas so they have the opportunity to help euthanize themselves from the gene pool.
Those seeking abortion aren't really known for their desire to control their ability to reproduce. They've pretty much failed at that.

Specifically in response to your notion that the tragedy was the loss of "Some of the most brilliant people this world has to offer". It doesn't matter whether the abortion is of a brilliant person or not, to me. Nothing self-righteous about it, just a personal value.

You confused cause and effect. I thought you were eager to eugenicists to an evil government because you have eugenicist leanings you are likely ashamed of, and so you want to make it seem that "liberals" have them too. Sorry, I'm not fooled by that. If you don't want to own up to your own feelings, as revealed by your word choice, fine. Trying to convince me that the feelings belong to someone else will be futile.

How would you know the abortion killed a brilliant person or not? You've just supported the "right" of a woman to commit a tragedy. I don't support any such elective tragedies, so if one of us has eugenic leanings it would be you.

It's easier to laugh than to understand.

I understood and then I laughed.

 

[One Brow]

You acknowledged that eugenics led to marriage laws in the U.S., but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge that eugenics led to twin experiments and euthanasia despite that Mengel worked for a eugenics institute and that eugenic doctors controlled who would be eliminated from the gene pool and provided the methods to do it. Your position is not logically consistent.

Actually, I merely refuse to acknowledge that eugenics had any effect on the Nazi decision to commit genocide. Switching your goalposts back and forth is fun, I'm sure, but not an effective argument style.

The prediction is that people will be raptured. The explanation for this is that the world is too wicked for these good people to remain any longer.

A predction requires a timeline and precision to tell whether it has definitiely occured or not, and an explanation requires a mechanism. Prophcies do not use either.

I don't believe the first assertion.

OK.

Eugenicists want abortion clinics readily available in the poor areas so they have the opportunity to help euthanize themselves from the gene pool.

Then they are morons. Very few people who have abortions will never have children in their lives.

Those seeking abortion aren't really known for their desire to control their ability to reproduce. They've pretty much failed at that.

Many of them take all reasonable precautions during sex, many do not. Why is that relevant?

How would you know the abortion killed a brilliant person or not?

Why does it matter if the person is brilliant or not? Again, your inner eugenecist leanings are peaking through the surface.

You've just supported the "right" of a woman to commit a tragedy. I don't support any such elective tragedies, so if one of us has eugenic leanings it would be you.

Odd, as you are the one bringing up the notion of "brilliant", as if that should affect the decision, while I'm maintaining that all lives are equally valuable.

I understood and then I laughed.

You also failed to show any understanding in your post, and if yu did understand, construed the meaning of my post incorrectly in a deliberate fashion. Saying you misunderstood was the kinder interpretation.

 

[moevillini]

Those seeking abortion aren't really known for their desire to control their ability to reproduce. They've pretty much failed at that.

just curious, how many women have you personally spoken to who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy? do you know for certain what their personal circumstances were at the time they made that choice?

 

[PearlWatson]

just curious, how many women have you personally spoken to who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy? do you know for certain what their personal circumstances were at the time they made that choice?

Does that matter?

I know they failed to control their ability to reproduce, if they didn't want to reproduce.

 

[PearlWatson]

Actually, I merely refuse to acknowledge that eugenics had any effect on the Nazi decision to commit genocide.

A predction requires a timeline and precision to tell whether it has definitiely occured or not, and an explanation requires a mechanism. Prophcies do not use either.

Sure they do. A prophecy was just made about the exact date of the rapture...I would call that a precise timeline. The mechanism for the rapture is to be "caught up" or "taken away."

Why does it matter if the person is brilliant or not? Again, your inner eugenecist leanings are peaking through the surface.
Odd, as you are the one bringing up the notion of "brilliant", as if that should affect the decision, while I'm maintaining that all lives are equally valuable.

Wow, you value all dead babies you supported the elective tragic killing of. Good on you.

You also failed to show any understanding in your post, and if yu did understand, construed the meaning of my post incorrectly in a deliberate fashion. Saying you misunderstood was the kinder interpretation.

It doesn't matter if YOU thought I misunderstood.

 

[moevillini]

just curious, how many women have you personally spoken to who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy? do you know for certain what their personal circumstances were at the time they made that choice?

Does that matter?

I know they failed to control their ability to reproduce, if they didn't want to reproduce.

wow, so men have absolutely nothing to do with human reproduction, it's all on the woman? So if a woman has not undergone a sterilization procedure (perhaps by having her uterus removed since that's almost the only 100% effective way to ensure she can't become pregnant) then she's failed to control her ability to reproduce? That's what you seem to be saying.

Almost all birth control methods (other than certain types of sterilization) have some degree of failure. Even abstinence is not guaranteed to prevent a pregnancy since choosing abstinence provides no protection against sexual assault. Without getting bogged down in value judgments and pointless and damaging attempts to assign blame, I believe that a woman who finds herself facing an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to terminate that pregnancy, at least within the first 16-18 weeks or so. I'll admit that my views get fuzzier beyond that point.

Obviously, you seem to feel that none of that matters one iota. If a woman gets pregnant even though she has an IUD, or if the condom breaks or whatever, it's her own damn fault - she either should not have sex at all or she should have had her uterus removed.


Plus I feel very strongly that it is a privacy issue for the woman, and the "state" does not have the right to interfere.

 

[One Brow]

Sure they do. A prophecy was just made about the exact date of the rapture...I would call that a precise timeline. The mechanism for the rapture is to be "caught up" or "taken away."

1) That was not a prophecy, although it was a prediciton.
2) Being "taken away" is a description, not a mechanism.

Wow, you value all dead babies you supported the elective tragic killing of. Good on you.

Life is full of tragedies, and sometimes presents us only with the opportunity to choose the tragedy we will endure.

It doesn't matter if YOU thought I misunderstood.

I agree, it doesn't matter. It was merely the kinder interpretation than assuming you were outright lying.

 

[PearlWatson]

1) That was not a prophecy, although it was a prediciton.
2) Being "taken away" is a description, not a mechanism.

Okay it was a religious theory then.
Taken away is a description of the mechanism of rapture.

 

[PearlWatson]

Actually, I merely refuse to acknowledge that eugenics had any effect on the Nazi decision to commit genocide.

Willful ignorance.

 

[PearlWatson]

wow, so men have absolutely nothing to do with human reproduction, it's all on the woman? So if a woman has not undergone a sterilization procedure (perhaps by having her uterus removed since that's almost the only 100% effective way to ensure she can't become pregnant) then she's failed to control her ability to reproduce? That's what you seem to be saying.

Almost all birth control methods (other than certain types of sterilization) have some degree of failure. Even abstinence is not guaranteed to prevent a pregnancy since choosing abstinence provides no protection against sexual assault. Without getting bogged down in value judgments and pointless and damaging attempts to assign blame, I believe that a woman who finds herself facing an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to terminate that pregnancy, at least within the first 16-18 weeks or so. I'll admit that my views get fuzzier beyond that point.

Obviously, you seem to feel that none of that matters one iota. If a woman gets pregnant even though she has an IUD, or if the condom breaks or whatever, it's her own damn fault - she either should not have sex at all or she should have had her uterus removed.


Plus I feel very strongly that it is a privacy issue for the woman, and the "state" does not have the right to interfere.

So you wanted me to acknowledge that some who make the decision to have an abortion tried to control their ability to reproduce but failed? Okay you have that acknowledgement.
Do you support the state interfering in partial birth abortion to protect innocent life?

 

[One Brow]

Willful ignorance.

More like knowledge of the nature of humans. People committed genocides for centuries before there were eugenics.

 

[One Brow]

Do you support the state interfering in partial birth abortion to protect innocent life?

Actually, that interference endangers innocent life (the life of the woman) by forcing upon her a sub-optimal procedure, without protecting the life of the fetus in any way (since the abortion happens by other means). It perfectly examplifies the pro-life movement in that regard.

 

[moevillini]

So you wanted me to acknowledge that some who make the decision to have an abortion tried to control their ability to reproduce but failed? Okay you have that acknowledgement.

seems to me you're still assigning "blame" to the woman for having ended up pregnant.

Do you support the state interfering in partial birth abortion to protect innocent life?

whose is the innocent life? I'd rather leave the value judgments out of the discussion of such an open ended question.

And I generally believe the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus or unborn child. I might modify that stance in specific situations however.

 

[PearlWatson]

seems to me you're still assigning "blame" to the woman for having ended up pregnant.

She is a willing participant unless she is raped.

whose is the innocent life? I'd rather leave the value judgments out of the discussion of such an open ended question.

And I generally believe the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus or unborn child. I might modify that stance in specific situations however.

So whether a baby is innocent is a value judgement?

You admitted to fuzzy views after 16-18 weeks so I was seeing if you were willing to clarify. I guess not. Never mind, I was just curious.

 

[PearlWatson]

More like knowledge of the nature of humans. People committed genocides for centuries before there were eugenics.

So what. They committed this genocide because of their eugenic beliefs.