Person or not a person?

[Temujin]

Well, of course I agree with this! I never claimed that being pro-choice means allowing people to "choose" to commit crimes!

And by the way----using a gun for self defense is not violence. Violence involves attacking another person and attempting to seriously hurt them or kill them for whatever reason. If a gun or other weapon is used in an attack, then it would be an act of violence. But the use of a gun or other weapon to repel an attack is not violence. That is legitimate self-defense.

Self defense involves the use of force, even deadly force to repel or stop the attack. The reason I feel the need to point this out is becasue the left doesn't seem to grasp the distinction between self-defense and violence. Some of the most radical left do not even believe we have the right to defend ourselves if we are attacked! The lawyer prosecuting Kyle Rittenhouse actually argued with a straight face "Sometimes we have a duty to just take the beating." Yeah---no. Whatever you believe about Rittenhouse--assuming you know what I am referring to---we do not have a duty to take a beating.

The point is----self defense with a weapon like a gun is not violence. Defense is not violence.

This much is true. I never said pro-choicers want to deny people these rights.

Then why can't you say what you are really about? THAT is my point! Why speak in euphemisms? Why not say "Yes, I am pro-abortion, and proudly so! I would tell a woman to have an abortion at any time, for any reason, and I would do it twice on Sunday!"

The fact that abortion supporters have to speak in euphemisms says something. They are dishonest.

And yes, I agree that pro-lifers are really about abortion too. I can't stand it when people start talking about a "Consistent Life Ethic" becasue that is a Red Herring. It allows abortion supporters to change the subject so they don't have to talk about abortion.

Then stop with the euphemisms! Just say "I am pro-abortion, and twice on Sunday!" At least then--you will be honest.

No it isn't. I never claimed that being pro-choice means supporting the right to choose to commit crimes. You say the examples I have. None of those examples involve committing crimes.

Correct! Suppose I support the use of the death penalty--and--suppose---I grant that this makes me a hypocrite. So what? It has nothing to do with abortion. It would not follow abortion is justifiable becasue I support the death penalty. It would just make me a hypocrite.

The reason pro-lifers coined the term "pro-life" was becasue abortion supporters insist on speaking in euphemisms like "choice" as if choice was the issue. If abortion supporters would just be honest and say "Yes, I am pro-abortion, and twice on Sunday" then pro-lifers could rightly say they are "anti-abortion."

I do not at all grant that this is the case. You are comparing apples and oranges for starters. This, not to mention that no one who supports second amendment rights supports the right to use a gun for the purposes of violence or to break the law. But even if I grant your argument, that does not prove that pro-lifers are wrong about abortion, sir. Abortion is the issue here.

Frankly, I don't believe that you are this obtuse, so presumably you are being deliberately odurate. If I was pro abortion, I would indeed be advising women to have abortions. If I was anti-abortion, I would be advising women not to have abortions. As it is I am pro-choice. I am telling women that I will support them whether they choose to have an abortion or not. An also I will do my damnedest to ensure that they have a choice.

There are some posters here too thick to understand the difference between being in favour of abortion and being in favour of the ability to choose abortion. I don't think that you are one of them. I think that abortion is a necessary evil in society, the least worst option. I am not in favour of it any more than I am in favour of amputation or nuclear weapons. I am in favour of women having the ability to choose abortion, should they feel it is the best option for them, since I can never be in a position to make that decision myself, I should not be trying to take it away from them.

 

[BMS]

Frankly, I don't believe that you are this obtuse, so presumably you are being deliberately odurate. If I was pro abortion, I would indeed be advising women to have abortions. If I was anti-abortion, I would be advising women not to have abortions. As it is I am pro-choice. I am telling women that I will support them whether they choose to have an abortion or not. An also I will do my damnedest to ensure that they have a choice.

There are some posters here too thick to understand the difference between being in favour of abortion and being in favour of the ability to choose abortion. I don't think that you are one of them. I think that abortion is a necessary evil in society, the least worst option. I am not in favour of it any more than I am in favour of amputation or nuclear weapons. I am in favour of women having the ability to choose abortion, should they feel it is the best option for them, since I can never be in a position to make that decision myself, I should not be trying to take it away from them.

romish isnt being obtuse or obdurate at all. Had you considered the problem may be with your ideology seeing as you cant communicate with most of the forum

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Frankly, I don't believe that you are this obtuse, so presumably you are being deliberately odurate. If I was pro abortion, I would indeed be advising women to have abortions. If I was anti-abortion, I would be advising women not to have abortions. As it is I am pro-choice. I am telling women that I will support them whether they choose to have an abortion or not. An also I will do my damnedest to ensure that they have a choice.

Suppose I use this exact same logic with racism and bigotry. "I will not advise someone against, racism and bigotry, I will not advise someone for it. I will support them whether they choose to be a racist and a bigot or not. I am pro-choice. I will do my damnedest to ensure they have a choice. Personally, I am not a racist or a bigot, but I mustn't ever tell someone else what they have to be, nor sit in judgement of their choices."

Know any minorities that would buy the logic that "I am neither racist, nora bigot. I am pro-choice is all!"

You are lucky this isn't Shawshank and that I am not the warden. Otherwise I would give you 30 days in the hole for calling me obtuse! The obdurate remark would buy you another 30 days! Please tell me you are not so "obtuse" that you do not know the movie reference!

There are some posters here too thick to understand the difference between being in favour of abortion and being in favour of the ability to choose abortion.

Strikes me as synonymous for the reason I mentioned above. Abortion supporters don't like that, but facts do not care about opinions and feelings.

I don't think that you are one of them. I think that abortion is a necessary evil in society, the least worst option. I am not in favour of it any more than I am in favour of amputation or nuclear weapons. I am in favour of women having the ability to choose abortion, should they feel it is the best option for them, since I can never be in a position to make that decision myself, I should not be trying to take it away from them.

Again, using this logic with racism and bigotry: "I think racism and bigotry and necessary evils in society. We cannot stop people from being racists or bigots. They will find a way anyway. I am in favor of choice, not racism, and not bigotry."

Again, sir, no minority would buy the idea that someone is just for choice, but themselves is neither racist nor a bigot. Why should I buy that logic when it concerns abortion?

 

[Temujin]

Suppose I use this exact same logic with racism and bigotry. "I will not advise someone against, racism and bigotry, I will not advise someone for it. I will support them whether they choose to be a racist and a bigot or not. I am pro-choice. I will do my damnedest to ensure they have a choice. Personally, I am not a racist or a bigot, but I mustn't ever tell someone else what they have to be, nor sit in judgement of their choices."

Know any minorities that would buy the logic that "I am neither racist, nora bigot. I am pro-choice is all!"

You are lucky this isn't Shawshank and that I am not the warden. Otherwise I would give you 30 days in the hole for calling me obtuse! The obdurate remark would buy you another 30 days! Please tell me you are not so "obtuse" that you do not know the movie reference!

Strikes me as synonymous for the reason I mentioned above. Abortion supporters don't like that, but facts do not care about opinions and feelings.

Again, using this logic with racism and bigotry: "I think racism and bigotry and necessary evils in society. We cannot stop people from being racists or bigots. They will find a way anyway. I am in favor of choice, not racism, and not bigotry."

Again, sir, no minority would buy the idea that someone is just for choice, but themselves is neither racist nor a bigot. Why should I buy that logic when it concerns abortion?

But, obviously and as you know very well, we are not talking about racism and when it comes to racism, I am not pro choice. Nor am I pro choice when it comes to homophobia or child abuse. There is, in my view, no excuse for those behaviours ever. Racism, homophobia and child abuse are not necessary evils. They are unnecessary evils which we need to remove from society.

This is not the case with abortion, which is necessary, essential in my view, in any modern civilised society. You seem to have a problem selecting analogies that make any sense whatsoever. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and has been for decades. Comparing it with racism is economical with the truth. Instead of finding false analogies, just deal with what I am saying. I am pro choice about abortion. I am pro choice about all other medical procedures. I am pro choice about consensual sexual activity. If you must use an analogy, pick one that actually fits what pro choice means.

 

[BMS]

Suppose I use this exact same logic with racism and bigotry. "I will not advise someone against, racism and bigotry, I will not advise someone for it. I will support them whether they choose to be a racist and a bigot or not. I am pro-choice. I will do my damnedest to ensure they have a choice. Personally, I am not a racist or a bigot, but I mustn't ever tell someone else what they have to be, nor sit in judgement of their choices."

Know any minorities that would buy the logic that "I am neither racist, nora bigot. I am pro-choice is all!"

You are lucky this isn't Shawshank and that I am not the warden. Otherwise I would give you 30 days in the hole for calling me obtuse! The obdurate remark would buy you another 30 days! Please tell me you are not so "obtuse" that you do not know the movie reference!

Strikes me as synonymous for the reason I mentioned above. Abortion supporters don't like that, but facts do not care about opinions and feelings.

Again, using this logic with racism and bigotry: "I think racism and bigotry and necessary evils in society. We cannot stop people from being racists or bigots. They will find a way anyway. I am in favor of choice, not racism, and not bigotry."

Again, sir, no minority would buy the idea that someone is just for choice, but themselves is neither racist nor a bigot. Why should I buy that logic when it concerns abortion?

Great post!!!

 

[BMS]

But, obviously and as you know very well, we are not talking about racism and when it comes to racism, I am not pro choice. Nor am I pro choice when it comes to homophobia or child abuse. There is, in my view, no excuse for those behaviours ever. Racism, homophobia and child abuse are not necessary evils. They are unnecessary evils which we need to remove from society.

This is not the case with abortion, which is necessary, essential in my view, in any modern civilised society. You seem to have a problem selecting analogies that make any sense whatsoever. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and has been for decades. Comparing it with racism is economical with the truth. Instead of finding false analogies, just deal with what I am saying. I am pro choice about abortion. I am pro choice about all other medical procedures. I am pro choice about consensual sexual activity. If you must use an analogy, pick one that actually fits what pro choice means.

He was comparing choice. That you dont like choice being associated with racism is you posturing as though your choices trump other peoples choices
That doesnt work. Romish has 'gotcha'

 

[BMS]

But, obviously and as you know very well, we are not talking about racism and when it comes to racism, I am not pro choice. Nor am I pro choice when it comes to homophobia or child abuse. There is, in my view, no excuse for those behaviours ever. Racism, homophobia and child abuse are not necessary evils. They are unnecessary evils which we need to remove from society.

This is not the case with abortion, which is necessary, essential in my view, in any modern civilised society. You seem to have a problem selecting analogies that make any sense whatsoever. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and has been for decades. Comparing it with racism is economical with the truth. Instead of finding false analogies, just deal with what I am saying. I am pro choice about abortion. I am pro choice about all other medical procedures. I am pro choice about consensual sexual activity. If you must use an analogy, pick one that actually fits what pro choice means.

You are pro-choice for consenting father pre-pubescent son having sex. Wow.

By the way I suspect you will say it has to be legal. Lol

So a pre-pubescent son cant have sex with his father but he can choose what gender he is. These people are mentally ill

 

[romishpopishorganist]

But, obviously and as you know very well, we are not talking about racism and when it comes to racism, I am not pro choice. Nor am I pro choice when it comes to homophobia or child abuse. There is, in my view, no excuse for those behaviours ever. Racism, homophobia and child abuse are not necessary evils. They are unnecessary evils which we need to remove from society.

Um, you are missing the point, sir. Whether this is intentional on your part, or you really are this "obtuse" and "obdurate" only you know. Between you and I: I don't believe for one minute you are this "obtuse" and "obdurate." I think you are just trying to save face.

I am not attempting to argue the morality of racism and bigotry. I am attempting to show the flaws in your logic. When you take the logic you are using to promote abortion and you switch out the issue of abortion with racism and bigotry you immediately see why the idea of "I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion" is a bald faced lie. Pro-choice is pro-abortion. It amounts to the same thing. Pro-choice is just abortion supporters attempting to put a smiley face on evil and hoping people are too stupid, or--shall we say "obtuse" and "obdurate" to notice.

This is not the case with abortion, which is necessary, essential in my view, in any modern civilised society. You seem to have a problem selecting analogies that make any sense whatsoever. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and has been for decades. Comparing it with racism is economical with the truth. Instead of finding false analogies, just deal with what I am saying. I am pro choice about abortion. I am pro choice about all other medical procedures. I am pro choice about consensual sexual activity. If you must use an analogy, pick one that actually fits what pro choice means.

Sir, again, you cannot be this "obtuse" and "obdurate." I have been debating you for quite some time on this website. I am left to conclude that you know exactly what my point is, but are pretending not to get the point to safe face.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

romish isnt being obtuse or obdurate at all. Had you considered the problem may be with your ideology seeing as you cant communicate with most of the forum

One thing the left never does---is----consider that their ideology might be the problem. They will consider anything and everything else no matter how ridiculous.

 

[Temujin]

Um, you are missing the point, sir. Whether this is intentional on your part, or you really are this "obtuse" and "obdurate" only you know. Between you and I: I don't believe for one minute you are this "obtuse" and "obdurate." I think you are just trying to save face.

I am not attempting to argue the morality of racism and bigotry. I am attempting to show the flaws in your logic. When you take the logic you are using to promote abortion and you switch out the issue of abortion with racism and bigotry you immediately see why the idea of "I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion" is a bald faced lie. Pro-choice is pro-abortion. It amounts to the same thing. Pro-choice is just abortion supporters attempting to put a smiley face on evil and hoping people are too stupid, or--shall we say "obtuse" and "obdurate" to notice.

Sir, again, you cannot be this "obtuse" and "obdurate." I have been debating you for quite some time on this website. I am left to conclude that you know exactly what my point is, but are pretending not to get the point to safe face.

Bollocks. You are not using any logic at all. I want women to be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not themselves, within reasonable legal parameters. I don't want people to be able to choose to be racist. What's so difficult about that? You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Your play book consists of, if you cannot make a logical argument about abortion and choice ( which you cannot) then make an argument about something completely different like racism and pretend it's the same.

Oh and also of course, if someone makes your position look completely stupid, like for instance you claim that the human embryo is capable of rational thought, change the subject and never mention it again.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Bollocks. You are not using any logic at all. I want women to be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not themselves, within reasonable legal parameters. I don't want people to be able to choose to be racist. What's so difficult about that? You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Your play book consists of, if you cannot make a logical argument about abortion and choice ( which you cannot) then make an argument about something completely different like racism and pretend it's the same.

The LOGIC sir is the same. It is the LOGIC of your statement that I am going after.

Oh and also of course, if someone makes your position look completely stupid, like for instance you claim that the human embryo is capable of rational thought, change the subject and never mention it again.

I misspoke. I meant potential as you rightly pointed out.

Come on--you have never misspoken?

 

[BMS]

Bollocks. You are not using any logic at all. I want women to be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not themselves, within reasonable legal parameters. I don't want people to be able to choose to be racist. What's so difficult about that? You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Your play book consists of, if you cannot make a logical argument about abortion and choice ( which you cannot) then make an argument about something completely different like racism and pretend it's the same.

Oh and also of course, if someone makes your position look completely stupid, like for instance you claim that the human embryo is capable of rational thought, change the subject and never mention it again.

choice is choice, whether it be to choose racism or abortion. racism and abortion are apples and pears but choice for both is choice.
romish can and has made a logical argument about abortion and choice

 

[Temujin]

The LOGIC sir is the same. It is the LOGIC of your statement that I am going after.

The logic in one situation does not apply in the other, because the situation is different. You don't use the same logic choosing a house as a job as a marriage partner as an ice cream flavour. You are comparing apples with oranges, and getting lemons

I misspoke. I meant potential as you rightly pointed out.

Come on--you have never misspoken?

The pot is that if you substitute potential for capacity, then you have no argument. The question is, what is it about a foetus now, that makes it a person now. Your answer that it has potential to be a person in the future, something we all agree is true. In other words, you have no answer.

 

[BMS]

The logic in one situation does not apply in the other, because the situation is different. You don't use the same logic choosing a house as a job as a marriage partner as an ice cream flavour. You are comparing apples with oranges, and getting lemons
The pot is that if you substitute potential for capacity, then you have no argument. The question is, what is it about a foetus now, that makes it a person now. Your answer that it has potential to be a person in the future, something we all agree is true. In other words, you have no answer.

Yes it does. The choice applies to both. You can choose apples or not, and you can choose oranges or not. You can exercise your choice with both.
You are trying to impose your ideology to determine logic.
Also its no good proposing the foetus has the potential to be a person in the future on the one hand, when pro choice abortion is thd very thing denying its future. The foetus will only become a person without pro choice abortion.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The logic in one situation does not apply in the other, because the situation is different. You don't use the same logic choosing a house as a job as a marriage partner as an ice cream flavour. You are comparing apples with oranges, and getting lemons

BMS replied to this better than I could have. Read that post.

The pot is that if you substitute potential for capacity, then you have no argument. The question is, what is it about a foetus now, that makes it a person now. Your answer that it has potential to be a person in the future, something we all agree is true. In other words, you have no answer.

What of unconscious people? They have the potential for rational thought. But being unconscious they cannot exercise that potential.

 

[Temujin]

BMS replied to this better than I could have. Read that post.

I find that unlikely. You are not that incompetent.

What of unconscious people? They have the potential for rational thought. But being unconscious they cannot exercise that potential.

Which is precisely why the potential for rational thought is a lousy reason to make someone a person. It's your argument. You should be defending it not attacking it.

 

[Temujin]

BMS replied to this better than I could have. Read that post.

You mean this?

"Yes it does. The choice applies to both. You can choose apples or not, and you can choose oranges or not. You can exercise your choice with both.
You are trying to impose your ideology to determine logic."

None of it makes any sense whatsoever. You made the observation that if someone is pro choice in abortion, then they should logically be pro choice in racism. That observation is obviously untrue. You further stated that the logic that underpins pro choice in abortion, also under pons one's approach to racism. That is also obviously untrue. It's nothing to do with ideology, except insofar as one's moral outlook will colour how one looks at racism and abortion, but there's absolutely no reason to suppose that anyone treats both subjects the same. Most people are none racist, on both the pro choice and Pro-life position. There wil also be some racists in both camps. Your analogy doesn't work. It needs either abandoning or reworking, and my little stalker isn't up to the job.

 

[BMS]

You mean this?

"Yes it does. The choice applies to both. You can choose apples or not, and you can choose oranges or not. You can exercise your choice with both.
You are trying to impose your ideology to determine logic."

None of it makes any sense whatsoever. You made the observation that if someone is pro choice in abortion, then they should logically be pro choice in racism.

We didnt make that observation..the observation is that choice is choice regardless of what is being chosen. Something being chosen is a choice

You have critisized your own assumption

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Which is precisely why the potential for rational thought is a lousy reason to make someone a person. It's your argument. You should be defending it not attacking it.

No, it isn't a bad argument.

That is why I use the word "POTENTIAL" rather than "HAS" or "HAVE."

Anything human always has the "POTENTIAL" for rational thought. THIS is what separates us from every other living thing on the planet. This is why the unborn child is not just an extension of the mother. This is also what differentiates the child from the other bodily organs.

 

[Temujin]

No, it isn't a bad argument.

That is why I use the word "POTENTIAL" rather than "HAS" or "HAVE."

Anything human always has the "POTENTIAL" for rational thought. THIS is what separates us from every other living thing on the planet. This is why the unborn child is not just an extension of the mother. This is also what differentiates the child from the other bodily organs.

Nope. As I have said, my son works with people who do not have the potential for rational thought, whose cognitive ability is less than a raven or a dolphin. These are people too. I certainly recognise them as such. I prefer my paradigm to yours.