[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
- Funny stuff…liberals always rationalize abortion by stating things like: “You conservatives don’t want to feed them when they’re born” or “If you only cared about certain o t h e r lives which are being lost in foreign soil…”
Ha…ha they just can’t speak directly to the issue and ever come out on top.
2.What was really funny to me was that I got to your comment after having read these excellent posts of Varqanir’s, which speak directly to the issue with no mention of feeding or foreign soil:
- I’m not attempting to complicate, but to simplify for the benefit of everyone. In order for us to accept the syllogism “murder is wrong. Abortion is murder, therefore abortion is wrong,” you would have us accept your premise that murder is wrong.
This is perfectly acceptable to me, as long as I know how you define murder. I gave you my definition. You disagree, as is your prerogative, but then rather than provide an alternate definition, you inform me that the definition of that which I am expected to agree is wrong, is irrelevant.
I propose that the act of killing is not malum in se. In fact, I would go so far as to say that under some circumstances, even murder (by my earlier definition) is not always “wrong,” in a ethical sense.
If, for example, I were to encounter Osama bin Laden in a cafe in Kabul, and were then to follow him into a dark alley, pull out my .45, and perforate his skull with bullet holes, I would have committed a malicious, unlawful, premeditated killing of a human being.
Was I “wrong” to do so? I say that I was not.
But then, you say you don’t like my first definition, so I will try another one.
If murder is defined as “the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse,” then I will agree that it is always wrong.
Why? Because it cannot, by definition, be justified or excused.
Convince me that abortion is unlawful, that it is unjustifiable, and that what is killed is without question a human being, and you will convince me that it is wrong.
-
And:
-
I once saw a sign at the tattoo parlor in Bangkok, where I got my first tattoo. It said, “people with tattoos don’t care that people without tattoos don’t have tattoos.”
I don’t care if I never influence another person on this board to change their opinion regarding abortion, because neither their opinion, the future vice-president’s opinion, or the Supreme Court’s opinion are going to affect me in the slightest.
I am never going to get an abortion, nor do I ever plan to pay to have the procedure done on anyone I know. That is the extent of my anti-abortion stance.
Call me a cold-hearted bastard if you wish, but I personally see no purpose in working to deny a woman the right to have one, if, after weighing all the options she is convinced that it is in her best interest to do so.
You evidently see a purpose. This is obviously an issue of monumental importance to you. Outstanding. More power to you. I would not presume to tell you that your position is wrong, and that mine is the only possible right one, nor would I presume to try to get you to change your position, even if such a thing were possible over the internet.
You go your way, I’ll go mine. I promise not to murder any unborn infants while you’re not looking.
- Are you meaning to make a joke, Mick? If so, good one! I laughed and laughed. If not, then, er…
[/quote]
Oh dear Mick you are making a fool of yourself. You still don’t get it and EmilyQ seems to be too busy making fun of you (which you just don’t get) to really point it out. As the good samaritan I am let me help you out.
I have numbered parts of the above to make it simple for you to follow.
-
This is your post that EQ has quoted.
-
This is Eq’s post. Pointing out what to expect next. Notice the words ‘these’ and ‘posts’ they are pluralised i.e you can expect her to post more than one post of Varqs.
-
This is V’s first quoted post.
-
This is where EQ is saying 'the following is another of Varqs post.
-
This is Varqs next quoted post.
-
This is EQ responding to your original post (see 1). Here she is saying that your post (1) is bogus and she has posted 2 (3 & 5) examples to back up her theory. She at no time attributed the last of Vs posts to you.
I think perhaps you should admit you were wrong as you demanded of EQ.
