12-Year-Old Stuns Pro-Choice Teacher and School with Pro-Life Presentation

Others may think God plays a large part in this, but unfortunately I am not religious and do not think of this in regards to religious beliefs. Personally I don't think it is right, but if a situation were to arise where it would benefit somehow, then it should be acceptable. But in your case as you've stated, screwing up once and month and terminating the life of a human and using it as a novelty is irresponsible (in sexual contexts of course) and is immoral.

I have never said I have abortions done once a month, I said that would be costly. I have done it three times, but all three times, it was a mutual decision by myslef and whoever I got pregnant.

I am pro-choice! Look at the world today, if majority of the rapist, murders and drug dealers were aborted, it would be a safer place. Look at the prisons in your state, most inmates came from low-income, Single parent homes, ever thought "what if the mom had aborted and waited until she was in a position to have and CARE for children.

Allowing children to be born in broken homes hurt them more than help them.
 
I have never said I have abortions done once a month, I said that would be costly. I have done it three times, but all three times, it was a mutual decision by myslef and whoever I got pregnant.

I am pro-choice! Look at the world today, if majority of the rapist, murders and drug dealers were aborted, it would be a safer place. Look at the prisons in your state, most inmates came from low-income, Single parent homes, ever thought "what if the mom had aborted and waited until she was in a position to have and CARE for children.

Allowing children to be born in broken homes hurt them more than help them.

And that would be a valid argument if there weren't other options. Like....adoption. As it stands, your argument is fallacious (and not valid) because it ignores that option.
 
I will respond (seriously) to something you have said. I never said at any point that I agreed or disagreed with any of his actions. Let's make that distinction. Don't let me not telling a grown man how he should live his life confuse you about my thoughts on the subject. If you read my 1st post on this subject it was a question to Lincolnx2, asking him how he felt about having those abortions. I even pm'd him on the subject do to the fact my sister and her husband and my sister-n-law have spent thousands of dollars trying to have kids unsuccessfully......just for clarification sake.....
As far as being stubborn......You sound like my wife!:D

That is a great post, just because you don't condemn someones actions dosent mean you condone it.

You really do need to grow up. All you ever do is come on here and bait. You never offer anything of substance and only drag down the debate.

How about you go play somewhere else and leave the adults in peace.
Can I stay and play? :rolleyes:
 
so now you know why God created sex, but have no understanding of the adoption system in this country? What a joke.

I doubt you have ever read a bible. You clearly don't know why God created sex (it was for much more then just procreation).

How about you stop distorting the bible and religion to meet your own ends before you get smacked down.



And that is where you show your lack of maturity, responsibility and morals. Any decent person would first be concerned about the baby, not themselves. Only exceedingly self-centered, immature and irresponsible people would first be concerned about themselves.

Baby Jesus, you are wasting you time responding to me, if you cant tell I am done responding to you. Last time I checked debates didn't involve name calling and personal attacks, you and St. Peter Jr (Fossten) are notorious for that.
 
That is a great post, just because you don't condemn someones actions dosent mean you condone it.

No, it just means you have no moral backbone and will tolerate the intolerable.
 
Baby Jesus, you are wasting you time responding to me, if you cant tell I am done responding to you. Last time I checked debates didn't involve name calling and personal attacks, you and St. Peter Jr (Fossten) are notorious for that.

Sorry, we actually value life. How absurd of us to think that way and not tolerate your disguesting, selfish actions. Maybe we should appoligize to the BTK killer for passing judgement on his actions as well. :rolleyes:

Besides, you are consistently making dishonest and decietful arguments. Weather or not you are going to debate doesn't mean that I cannot point out the dishonesty and deciet inherent in your arguments.
 
Classic foxpaws distortion. You subtly are broadening the scope from what I was originally talking about. I was talking about liberal and conservative constitutents, not society as a whole.
Sorry - if you look I was talking about the 'norm' of people who believe in abortion rights... not society. However, I can see how you might think I was broadening - But, I do think that you have the wrong idea when it comes to 'liberal constituents'. You seem to think that all liberal constituents are that little faction to the far left - they aren't shag. There is a great big section that isn't that extreme. Just like there is a great big section of the right constituents that aren't NRLs. I don't know where you got the idea that the left is all huddled way on one side, with no moderation. That is a very wrong impression.

It isn't like 'A' - the people who believe how NOW believes isn't the entirety of liberals. It is like 'B' only a portion of liberals think like NOW, or belongs.

nowchart.jpg


So, since you avoided this by finding something to contest – how do you believe the ‘norm’ of society as a whole views this subject?

Conservatives want to have that debate and are being shut out. You can see this going all the way back to Roe. The court decision effectively shut down debate on this and took the issue off the table. Otherwise, momentum was moving toward a vote on an amendment on this issue. But the left shut that down and instead got their will imposed on society through dishonest and unconstitutional means

Put the amendment on the table – move it through. That is your option now. You can argue to high heaven that the court shouldn’t have heard Roe vs Wade, but it did, quit crying. So now you have options – get it overturned, or work on an amendment. Where is that momentum – get it fired back up. And quit whining, if you need to find out what whining is, this is classic right whining… Otherwise, momentum was moving toward a vote on an amendment on this issue. But the left shut that down and instead got their will imposed on society through dishonest and unconstitutional means. So, if the will of the people is to change it, get out there and rally the people. That is what you get to do, it is your right, work for it.

Have you Shag – have you gone to your representative and senator and laid this on the table? Do you even know what your representatives believe or how they would vote in this instance? You might have, but, if not – get out there and do something about it.

"Anti-choice" is misleading term that has been proven to be perpetuated by NOW and certian areas of the MSM. Just ask Tammy Bruce who as head of the LA chapter of NOW sat in on various meetings where NOW members (even at the national level) talked with the media about "strategy" and getting them to use certian terms like "anti-choice" to describe pro-lifers in their reporting.

And ‘pro life’ is a misleading term that has been proven to be perpetuated by anti abortionists. Most are not ‘pro life’ when it comes to life outside the womb. Many of them support war (obviously anti life), the death sentence, look the other way when it comes to health care for the needy which will save lives, etc. It is a very misleading label. However it quickly implies that the ‘other side’ is ‘pro death’. How PR-ish…

"Pro" or "anti" anything in this debate are a bit leading, but in some instances they are honest and in some they are decietful.
Yes it is, and by pointing out the death sentence analogy you finally got that didn’t you shag?

One is an innocent life in no uncertian terms. One is a life that has (in most likelyhood) commited a murder and is in no way innocent and deserving of justice.
One is very obviously a human being, the other is a fetus, not yet defined in the constitution as a human being, or something we afford 'rights' to.

Sorry, we actually value life.

And you say you value life - life as defined by your terms shag, correct? Life may not include a convicted serial killer... or an Islamic terrorist - right? You don't value those lives - right? Not in the same way you value a 1 month old fetus...

Get that amendment passed.

And the whole ‘created sex for procreation’ hahahahahahahaha. On all sides – that is sooo funny.

If God created sex just for procreation for humans this would have solved itself long ago. But, let’s face it – it feels great (thank God) – so, we have this little problem…
 
Or just maybe I don't feel its my place to do so.
I won't push my moral compass on anybody.

Good thing most of society doesn't take that attitude. Otherwise murders and theives would be running the streets, good people would be left to fend for themselves and we would have complete anarchy.:rolleyes:

Every law, at it's core, is a moral that is imposed on society.
 
Good thing most of society doesn't take that attitude. Otherwise murders and theives would be running the streets, good people would be left to fend for themselves and we would have complete anarchy.:rolleyes:

Every law, at it's core, is a moral that is imposed on society.

What lincolnx2 has done is legal.
You don't like it....fine, but he has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
So its not my place to push my morals on him.

What is so hard to understand about that?
 
The pathetic part of this is the way the "educated adults" judging this

competition behaved. Regardless of your personal views on the current

culture of death everyone in this country is supposed to have the right to

free speech. This right doen't exist just for the things you want to hear

about, but also for the things you cannot stand to hear about. Like what was

said or not, regardless of who created the speech, she had every right to

say it and those who want to shut her up need to look at themselves and

wonder why they need to control the speech of others. That is the road to

tyranny.

Free speech is the issue here, not if you support abortion as a birth control device.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What lincolnx2 has done is legal.
You don't like it....fine, but he has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
So its not my place to push my morals on him.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You hypocritically push your morals on everyone here with every smug comment you make. You are critiquing me for judging him, which is inherently a judgement of me on your part. I am doing nothing illegal, but you are judging me just the same.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Clearly you view tolerance as a more important value then respect for life. Of course, an exception to tolerance is made when the person being intolerant is a conservative, right?

Any critique of someone as being intolerant is inherently intolerant.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You can tolerate everything but intolerance, right?
 
Sorry - if you look I was talking about the 'norm' of people who believe in abortion rights... not society.

Yeah, and you were riffing (in post #91) off of what I said in post #75 and can be traced back through this post of yours to what I originally said in post #65 Which was this:
The "right wing crazies who firebomb clinics" are very rare and very small part of the conservative constituency. The crazies in support of abortion (under the misnomer of "pro-choice") are the norm for liberal constituents. You are comparing the exception on one side to the norm on the other.
The original scope of this part of the conversation was always what is the norm on the two sides of the isle; defined as liberal/conservative constituents in post #75.

In post #91, you decietfully try to broaden the scope and reframe the debate. Sorry you are not allowed to do that. It is dishonest and unjustified.

However, I can see how you might think I was broadening - But, I do think that you have the wrong idea when it comes to 'liberal constituents'. You seem to think that all liberal constituents are that little faction to the far left - they aren't shag. There is a great big section that isn't that extreme. Just like there is a great big section of the right constituents that aren't NRLs. I don't know where you got the idea that the left is all huddled way on one side, with no moderation. That is a very wrong impression.

It isn't like 'A' - the people who believe how NOW believes isn't the entirety of liberals. It is like 'B' only a portion of liberals think like NOW, or belongs.

nowchart.jpg

Actually that little image you made up is more accurate in describing the left vs the right. The left would be the dark blue circle, representing the number of extremist on this issue on the left. The right would be the light blue circle with the little dark blue section representing the extremists on this issue on the right.

As you set it out, your characterization in those two circles is only supported by spectulation, wishful thinking and denial of certian facts. Whereas my characterization is supported by the histortical facts.

As Calabrio pointed out, the radicals on the right are exceedingly rare. Whereas the radicals on the left are the norm; but most of them are more discrete about it (you don't need to be agressive and "in-your-face" to be a radical).

Obama is a prime example. Like most all liberal politicians, he is exceedingly two faced. He talks as if he is reasonable and even lies to gain broad acceptance; but his actions, in no uncertian term, support infanticide. The liberal voting record on this is pretty telling too.

They only way you can look at the facts and reach your conclusion on this is to ignore substance of their actions and only look at the style in what they say.

So, since you avoided this by finding something to contest – how do you believe the ‘norm’ of society as a whole views this subject?

I am not avoiding this. It is irrelevant to the debate because it is only based on specuation. There is no accurate information out there to suggest what society's view as a whole on abortion are. Every poll that asks any question on this is introducing a large enough amount of systematic error to make the poll irrelevant. You cannot ask a question on this subject without it being, in some way, a leading question.

Besides, this question looks very much like a leading question, and given your habitual distortion and two-faced nature, I am not inclined to answer it.

You want me to answer it, demonstrate to me that I am wrong, and that you are not two-faced but are in fact trustworthy in some sense.

Put the amendment on the table – move it through. That is your option now. You can argue to high heaven that the court shouldn’t have heard Roe vs Wade, but it did, quit crying.

There you go again, further taking me out of context and then smearing me. I am not "whining" and you know it. That point was in an argument I was making (which you conveniently ignored) about how the left is dishonest and underhanded in getting their agenda through. They don't do it by convincing the people, they do it by manipulating the system to force their agenda on society, weather society wants it or not.

You are being exceedingly dishonest here, again, and you know it . It is why you have no credibilty here and why I personally don't trust you; you are exceedingly two-faced and dishonest.

However, everytime you do something like this, you prove me right about the left. You wanna prove me wrong, then start being honest and aboveboard in your debating. Until then, every time you respond, you prove me right.

So now you have options – get it overturned, or work on an amendment. Where is that momentum – get it fired back up.

The left effectively killed that momentum in the 1970's. However, you are seeing it start to come up again in North Dakota right now.

And quit whining, if you need to find out what whining is, this is classic right whining… Otherwise, momentum was moving toward a vote on an amendment on this issue. But the left shut that down and instead got their will imposed on society through dishonest and unconstitutional means. So, if the will of the people is to change it, get out there and rally the people. That is what you get to do, it is your right, work for it.

The will of the people then was much different then it is now. It has been over a generation since Roe. In that time, another generation of people have been indoctrinated by the liberal schools, MSM and pop culture. The chances of getting that momentum again are slim.

It is pretty shrewd of the left to kill the momentum then and through dominance in pop culture, academia and the media work to ensure that society's values change in such a way that the momentum would never reach those heights again.

It is also rather telling that you would smear conservatives as whining when a political organization imposes their will on society in a totalitarian fashion. Would you call the Cambodian's whiners when they complained about Pol Pot? What about Jews when they complained about Hilter?

But you have no problem ripping Bush a new one for "trampling on the constitution" and "taking away people's rights" through the Patriot Act.

Your argument here show a blatant hypocritical double standard on your part. If liberals are in power, you have no problem with them imposing their agenda on society. But when conservatives are in power, if they are even accused (without evidence) of doing anything that might be taking away people's rights, you are all over them.

Your argument here is obviously disingenuous at best.:rolleyes:

And ‘pro life’ is a misleading term that has been proven to be perpetuated by anti abortionists. Most are not ‘pro life’ when it comes to life outside the womb. Many of them support war (obviously anti life), the death sentence, look the other way when it comes to health care for the needy which will save lives, etc.

And now you are flat out lying!!!
None of them "support war". That is an exaguration that goes to the level of obvious mischaracterization and you know it. War is, at best, a necessary evil. You are lying here.

I have pointed out to you the difference between life in a mothers womb and when it comes to the death penalty. That same difference applies to war.

There is a definate distinction between innocent life and guilty. And there is nothing inconsistent about it, especially if you understand where that view comes from. But that would mean you would actually have to understand the conservative point of view, and you can't be expected to do that.

Life is a protected right in the constitution. That is based in the idea of natural rights from John Locke which is originally based in Christianity and the bible.

However, both the bible and the constitution in different ways don't view it as an absolute right. That right becomes forfeit if you take another life.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about the idea of respecting life in the womb and supporting the death penalty unless you intentionally ignore that distinction. You have willingly done so and mischaracterized the conservative position here. You are lying about the conservative position.

It [pro-life] is a very misleading label. However it quickly implies that the ‘other side’ is ‘pro death’. How PR-ish

But you have gone beyond simply "implying" in this thread to out and out calling pro-lifers "anti-choice".

If it is so dishonest, why do you use the impled label from the rhetoric on the leftist side of this issue?

More disingenuous arguments...

One is very obviously a human being, the other is a fetus, not yet defined in the constitution as a human being, or something we afford 'rights' to.

And we have more dishonesty. It is not defined as a life in the constitution because there is no definition of life. So you are asserting, by implication, that a fetus is not a life.

But since life is not defined in the constitution, I am not a life by that argument. Your logic is flawed.

And you say you value life - life as defined by your terms shag, correct? Life may not include a convicted serial killer... or an Islamic terrorist - right? You don't value those lives - right? Not in the same way you value a 1 month old fetus...

More mischaracterization and lies. That seems to be a trend or yours here.
 
You hypocritically push your morals on everyone here with every smug comment you make. You are critiquing me for judging him, which is inherently a judgement of me on your part. I am doing nothing illegal, but you are judging me just the same.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Clearly you view tolerance as a more important value then respect for life. Of course, an exception to tolerance is made when the person being intolerant is a conservative, right?

Any critique of someone as being intolerant is inherently intolerant.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You can tolerate everything but intolerance, right?

I have never said anything about you, or that you are intolerant.
I told nightriddah I liked his post and explained why.

So its not my place to push my morals on him.

Or just maybe I don't feel its my place to do so.
I won't push my moral compass on anybody.

You read into it what you want Shag.
I was just saying how I live my life.

I answered every time you quoted me and explained myself.
If you have a problem with that....so be it.
 
I am sorry that you guys have never gotten caught up in the moment and had sex without a condom, I know you all abstained from having sex until you were married.
Actually my son was born unexpectedly. Although we were married, we certainly weren't ready for a child. But murdering him was unthinkable. You certainly didn't seem to hesitate.
 
And, you sort of avoided the rape issue once Foss called you on it... You don't need to line up with Foss's extreme views. It is OK to say that the woman doesn't have to serve a lifetime sentence because she got raped.
Are you so obtuse as to fail to see the straw man argument you just brought up? Certainly you aren't that boneheaded.

So you must be engaging in dishonest debate again.
 
Shag, at best most of your logic could be described as ‘circular’.

You rarely actually answer a talking point, instead you say “You want me to answer it, demonstrate to me that I am wrong, and that you are not two-faced but are in fact trustworthy in some sense.” or something similar.

I will never be trustworthy in your eyes – so you never have to answer anything I pose to you, even though it is relevant within the discussion.

How the majority stands regarding abortion rights is relevant, even though you try to dance around it…

And the norm on the left aren’t radical – you can keep stating that and stating that, and you will continue to be wrong. I imagine most people who read this know you are wrong about this. They have friends who are liberal, they have family members who are liberal, they all know many liberals, and they aren’t radical.

Continue to rant about this – I encourage it. It makes the right seem irrational and illogical. Because it is irrational and illogical. Note - this is paragraph 6

Or, maybe I have been wrong about you Shag, and you are way right. The extreme right (or left) sees all of the opposing side as bad, evil, and completely wrong. It is part of the definition of ‘extreme’.

America isn’t extreme, but it knows it when it sees it.

And you keep ranting about my (fill in the blank with many descriptive, derogatory terms) – fine, rant all you want to. I am not afraid to let others look at both of our sides and judge. Plus, I don’t have to resort to calling or labeling you as ‘dishonest, two-faced, untrustworthy, lying, cheating, ‘uncreditable’, flawed, and whatever else is the demeaning term of the day to call foxpaws. I have no need to answer in kind. I let my arguments and rational stand on its own without having to lower myself to your level.

As Calabrio pointed out, the radicals on the right are exceedingly rare. Whereas the radicals on the left are the norm; but most of them are more discrete about it (you don't need to be agressive and "in-your-face" to be a radical).
And radicals on the right are rare??? Only if you are right. There are plenty. Just because you happen to agree with them doesn’t mean that they are ‘rare’. Could it mean that they are more palatable to you – because you are right – probably. Just as left radicals might be more acceptable to me because I am liberal. But to say that radicals on the right are extremely rare, and that they are the norm on the left… once again – refer to paragraph 6 – I appreciate the reaffirmation of the fact that by continuing to brand and belittle the entire left the right is slowly killing itself.

The left effectively killed that momentum in the 1970's. However, you are seeing it start to come up again in North Dakota right now.

The will of the people then was much different then it is now. It has been over a generation since Roe. In that time, another generation of people have been indoctrinated by the liberal schools, MSM and pop culture. The chances of getting that momentum again are slim.

Great – let North Dakota take the lead – it was squashed here in Colorado last election.

You try now to blame schools and msm – fine, place blame, it is much easier than actually admitting that maybe, most people would rather the government not get involved in this issue.

It is pretty shrewd of the left to kill the momentum then and through dominance in pop culture, academia and the media work to ensure that society's values change in such a way that the momentum would never reach those heights again.

So, now you admit that society’s values have changed – great – then you can just stop with all this debate. Society will dictate… Society changes all of the time shag. That is why we have amendments, to accommodate that change. Heck, they can even be repealed when society swings back in the other direction.

So, as you said society currently doesn’t have the momentum to look at changing the laws. So, society has enforced its morals – as you so often point out that it is allowed to do (your post #135) – correct?

But you have no problem ripping Bush a new one for "trampling on the constitution" and "taking away people's rights" through the Patriot Act.

Yes, I did. And you better believe I fight to this day to get rid of that disgusting act. And if liberals want to start getting rid of constitutional rights, I will be all over them. For instance - I hate any idea that the fairness doctrine may be reinstated – and I will rip liberals if they allow that to happen.

There is a definate distinction between innocent life and guilty. And there is nothing inconsistent about it, especially if you understand where that view comes from. But that would mean you would actually have to understand the conservative point of view, and you can't be expected to do that.
And, shag life is life – I believe in the death penalty. However, I believe we are killing a human being when we enforce that penalty. I don’t try to pretend that it is a ‘different’ type of life then others. They may be guilty of a crime, but the definition of life does include them. They breathe, they have cognizant thought, they are human beings, by any definition you can imagine. You start to categorize ‘life’ into different buckets – guilty – innocent – hateful – precious – whatever. You are destroying human life when that person is put to death. I believe that society has made that decision that it is apropos to end that human life. But I don’t try to justify it by making it some sort of ‘lesser’ life with the whole ‘guilty/innocent’ standard.

But you have gone beyond simply "implying" in this thread to out and out calling pro-lifers "anti-choice".

I would love to get rid of the labels – let’s get rid of pro-life, it isn’t a good descriptor, and it does imply ‘pro-death’ Shag – I do know how rhetoric works on both sides, why do you think I kept calling it ‘anti-choice’? You could I suppose call it pro 'womb' life, pro 'fetal' life, or pro 'zygote' life, but the generic term 'life' doesn't work here. I was really tired of seeing anti-abortion being stated as pro-life. However, is pro-choice a good descriptor, rather than pro-abortion? I am personally anti-abortion for myself, however, I do not suppose to inflict my religious beliefs onto anyone else, I believe they have a right to choose. So, I am ‘anti-abortion’ personally, but I do believe in the current state of affairs that women should have a choice – I am ‘pro choice’. Since this whole thread has the words “Pro-Life” in the title, I felt that if that label were thrown up constantly, that the other label had a place in the debate as well…

Shouldn’t it be stated – “12-Year-Old Stuns Pro-Choice Teacher and School with Anti-Abortion Presentation”

One is very obviously a human being, the other is a fetus, not yet defined in the constitution as a human being, or something we afford 'rights' to.
And we have more dishonesty. It is not defined as a life in the constitution because there is no definition of life. So you are asserting, by implication, that a fetus is not a life.

But since life is not defined in the constitution, I am not a life by that argument. Your logic is flawed.

Shag - I am saying that if you want fetal life to be protected in the constitution you have change the constitution to define it as a human being, a 'person' or something we afford 'rights' to.

The constitution uses ‘born’ as the point where citizenship begins – and rights ensue thereafter, we afford rights after you are born. There isn’t anything in the constitution that defines any rights to anyone who hasn’t been ‘born’ (naturalization of course, but that is different, fetuses couldn’t be naturalized).

There are laws that define birth – Bush’s law for instance, but it will be difficult to get beyond birth as a definition of when rights begin within the constitution, unless an amendment is passed that defines it differently. You will need to define life in the constitution, and make sure that rights occur with the beginning of 'life' whatever that point ends up being. Currently you are afforded rights at birth - not at conception.

You are afforded rights, based on your citizenship - the fact you were 'born' or 'naturalized'. If you want that to be based on a definition of life - you will need to have an amendment to do that.

More mischaracterization and lies. That seems to be a trend or yours here.

No doubt… I thought I would just save you the time Shag - and just place this at the end of my post - so, everyone would be warned that everything above was 'mischaracterzation and lies'
 
Actually that little image you made up is more accurate in describing the left vs the right. The left would be the dark blue circle, representing the number of extremist on this issue on the left. The right would be the light blue circle with the little dark blue section representing the extremists on this issue on the right.

Do not create new legends for my charts - draw your own please :p
 
And if liberals want to start getting rid of constitutional rights, I will be all over them. For instance - I hate any idea that the fairness doctrine may be reinstated – and I will rip liberals if they allow that to happen.
I haven't seen you comment in the HR 45 thread. Or do you favor some rights over others?
 
Perhaps we would be served better by defining just what a "liberal" and a "conservative" are and at what point they become "left wing" and "right wing". I think I may fall into "right wing liberal", or perhaps "left wing conservative".

One of the main purposes of any species on this planet is reproduction, like it or not that is what we are all programed for. Those who fail to reproduce fail to exist. They also fail to support their tribe and so they should be ostracized from it.

Children have never been a convenience to those who have them and raise them,(I know, I come from a large family and have three children), but they are required for our future. To say you don't wish to have children because they are inconvenient or you can't raise them like royalty stirkes me as a bit hedonistic.

Killing the unborn strikes me as being on a different level than killing adults who have proven they are deadly to society or killing people who are intent upon killing you to further their own ends. Throughout history humans have had no compulsion against killing other humans for all kinds of reasons, so women killing babies for no other reason than being pregnant can give you stretch marks is no surprise. That so many people support this is.

Why do you support killing the unborn should be the question. Supporting their chance to live should require no defense at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shag, at best most of your logic could be described as ‘circular’.

If that is the case, then demonstrate how. I don't think you can do it without mischaracterizing me in some fashion. People have tried in the past to accuse me of making fallacious arguments but can never give me the courtesy I extend them in making the argument specific enough to be disprovable. You gonna do the same?

You rarely actually answer a talking point, instead you say “You want me to answer it, demonstrate to me that I am wrong, and that you are not two-faced but are in fact trustworthy in some sense.” or something similar.

If a talking point is fallacious then it is not worth considering and not worth answering. To do so would be to legitimize it, re-enforce that type of argument and drag down the debate to the point of the "truth" and what is "right" simply being determined by who can make the more clever and/or convincing argument; not by who can make the most reasonable and logical one. They are two distinctly different things.

Rest assured, if you make a logical argument (or repeat a logical talking point) and I will "answer" it.

Most all of what I type, being reactive, is very content dependant. So what was the context of that quote? Or did I even actually say that?

The quote you cite was in response to asking something that is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are trying to change direction in some fashion.

As far as the trust thing goes, you have earned that distrust. I gave you a chance when you first showed up and cut you a lot of slack (arguably more so then many conservatives here) and you know it. Your own actions hung you.

I will never be trustworthy in your eyes – so you never have to answer anything I pose to you, even though it is relevant within the discussion.

And this is based on nothing I said.

When you start asking questions that aren't really on topic and don't connect them to the topic first, a person has to trust that the ultimate point you are going for is honest and tied to the point at hand and not. It could very easily be a means to change the focus of the debate and/or to decietfully trap you into agreeing to something you don't agree with (fallacy of many questions). Unless I trust you are not going for one of those decietful possibilities (and I don't), it would be foolish of me to answer that question as you worded it. You need to show how it is related to the topic in a substantive (and not merely tangential) way.

How the majority stands regarding abortion rights is relevant, even though you try to dance around it…

How?

And the norm on the left aren’t radical – you can keep stating that and stating that, and you will continue to be wrong. I imagine most people who read this know you are wrong about this. They have friends who are liberal, they have family members who are liberal, they all know many liberals, and they aren’t radical.

By I am not simply "stating that and stating that". I have provided examples, including the effective head of the party; Barak Obama who are radical on this and try to misrepresent their record.

Your claim the the norm on the left is not radical is "proven" simply by "stating it and stating it", which is a textbook proof by assertion fallacy.

Continue to rant about this – I encourage it. It makes the right seem irrational and illogical. Because it is irrational and illogical. Note - this is paragraph 6

Actually it is not, and most people can see that. I have given enough examples to meet the "proponderance of evidence" burden of proof.

You have simply provided assertions to prove your point.

Or, maybe I have been wrong about you Shag, and you are way right. The extreme right (or left) sees all of the opposing side as bad, evil, and completely wrong. It is part of the definition of ‘extreme’.

now here is an argument to marginalize me and my point. Ad hominem circumstancial?

Weather or not I am "extreme right" doesn't say anything about weather or not my point is accurate.

And you keep ranting about my (fill in the blank with many descriptive, derogatory terms) – fine, rant all you want to. I am not afraid to let others look at both of our sides and judge. Plus, I don’t have to resort to calling or labeling you as ‘dishonest, two-faced, untrustworthy, lying, cheating, ‘uncreditable’, flawed, and whatever else is the demeaning term of the day to call foxpaws. I have no need to answer in kind. I let my arguments and rational stand on its own without having to lower myself to your level.

If it was simply insults to distract from the debate and dishonestly marginalize you that would be one thing.

But it is logical conclusions about you based on habitual actions you have taken on this forum. The fact that it is insulting is tangential.

And, weather you realize it or not, this does come across as nothing more then your own passive agressive attempt at an ad hominem abusive argument.

Weather or not I am being in some way "childish" or "rude and insulting" or whatever, is irrelevant. What matters is that what I say is accurate. You aren't attacking the accuracy of what I say, you are attacking the manner in which I say it.

And radicals on the right are rare??? Only if you are right. There are plenty.

Then you can provide more examples then "right wing firebombers"; examples that are closely tied to conservatism.

Just because you happen to agree with them doesn’t mean that they are ‘rare’.

And just because you disagree with them doesn't make them "radical". You would do well to keep that in mind.

Here are a few definitions of radical (as it relates to this debate):
  • marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional
  • tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
  • of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change
  • advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

Conservatism, at it's core, is defined by tradition. Hard to be radical when your ideology is tradition based and inherently adverse to unknown change (precautionary principle).

On the other hand modern, egalitarian liberalism, as a political philosophy is utopian based. Always striving for a better world then we currently have. It is defined by change from the known to the unknown. Very easy to be radical with that ideology.

Could it mean that they are more palatable to you – because you are right – probably. Just as left radicals might be more acceptable to me because I am liberal. But to say that radicals on the right are extremely rare, and that they are the norm on the left… once again – refer to paragraph 6 – I appreciate the reaffirmation of the fact that by continuing to brand and belittle the entire left the right is slowly killing itself.

Again, I have given examples as to why the left is radical and shown that they have a philosophical predisposition to radical change. I have show that the right has a philosophical predisposition against radical change and that the only "radical" group you cite on the right is very isolated and not in any way the norm (something you admit).

You keep trying to prove that one side isn't dominated by radicals so the other side must not be either. That is a non sequiter. Weather or not one side is or isn't dominated by radical is irrelevant to weather the other side is or isn't dominated by radicals.

Your "proof" is to simply try to marginalize anyone making that argument as "illogical". You need to show that the argument is illogical (be specific, cite examples) not simply label the person or point of view as illogical.

Before you try to claim that I do what I just laid out, I always attack the argument as illogical then draw a conclusion about the person or side making the argument. You are starting out by attacking the perspective and people, not the argument.

To date, the only "proof" you have offered concerning the argument is proof by assertion in the form of a vague and unfounded assertion that the argument is illogical then start claiming that the perspective (and thus the person arguing it) is illogical. You need to demonstrated that the argument is illogical, not simply give speculation about the perspective meaning that the conclusion is not drawn logically.

You try now to blame schools and msm – fine, place blame, it is much easier than actually admitting that maybe, most people would rather the government not get involved in this issue.

Yep. I'm just being petty and immature, so my argument should be rejected because of that. :rolleyes:

So, now you admit that society’s values have changed – great – then you can just stop with all this debate. Society will dictate… Society changes all of the time shag. That is why we have amendments, to accommodate that change. Heck, they can even be repealed when society swings back in the other direction.

Society's views have changed, but it is unclear as to where. And the problem is that society is not and has not dictated their views on this. The left works to keep that from happening. When society did dicated their views, the left put a stop to that by judicial fiat in the Roe v. Wade decision.

I have always said that abortion should be put up for an amendment. The left constantly works to make sure that doesn't happen.

So, as you said society currently doesn’t have the momentum to look at changing the laws. So, society has enforced its morals – as you so often point out that it is allowed to do (your post #135) – correct?

Again, society hasn't enforced anything. The left has circumvented society in this case (as they usually do in imposing their agenda).

That is the problem. The right wants to have that discussion and debate in society and ultimately let society determine things. The left is working to circumvent the will of society and impose their will on society. It is they way the Democrat party works.


And if liberals want to start getting rid of constitutional rights, I will be all over them.

They have and you aren't.

And, shag life is life – I believe in the death penalty. However, I believe we are killing a human being when we enforce that penalty. I don’t try to pretend that it is a ‘different’ type of life then others. They may be guilty of a crime, but the definition of life does include them. They breathe, they have cognizant thought, they are human beings, by any definition you can imagine. You start to categorize ‘life’ into different buckets – guilty – innocent – hateful – precious – whatever. You are destroying human life when that person is put to death. I believe that society has made that decision that it is apropos to end that human life. But I don’t try to justify it by making it some sort of ‘lesser’ life with the whole ‘guilty/innocent’ standard.

So any right is absolute and it cannot even be taken away with due process. Justice be damned. Weather you realize it or not, that is what you just justified.

No right is absolute and any right can be taken away through due process. That is the point of having a court system; to impose impartial justice. If a "right to life" cannot be taken away in certian instances given certian actions, then no right can be taken away.

No right in the constitution is absolute. Any and all rights can be taken away through due process, per the constitution. So you are cherry picking the right to life as an absolute here and effectively rejecting justice in regards to it.

It is not a simple catagorization or an arbitrary line by the right (as you imply). That line is justifed by the whole concept of justice, to reject that line out of hand is to reject justice (at least in certian instances).

However the line you draw in the reverse (death penalty "OK"/ right to life in the womb "not OK") is rather arbitrary.


I would love to get rid of the labels – let’s get rid of pro-life, it isn’t a good descriptor, and it does imply ‘pro-death’ Shag – I do know how rhetoric works on both sides, why do you think I kept calling it ‘anti-choice’?

I never said get rid of labels. It helps you know where someone is coming from. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" may not be the most accurate discriptors, but they are the ones everyone knows and accepts, and the ones we are going to use. Most people can see through the spin inherent in them. However "anti-choice" is not accepted by everyone and is a slanderous label (to an implied mischaracterization of the position).

Shag - I am saying that if you want fetal life to be protected in the constitution you have change the constitution to define it as a human being, a 'person' or something we afford 'rights' to.

Same thing when it comes to "substantive rights" including a "right to choose". Unless you can simply get activist courts to rewrite the constitution for you.

The right wants to have that vote by society (in the form of an amendment process), the left has worked for longer then I have been alive to avoid that vote.
 
Perhaps we would be served better by defining just what a "liberal" and a "conservative" are and at what point they become "left wing" and "right wing". I think I may fall into "right wing liberal", or perhaps "left wing conservative".

"Liberal" and "conservative" are ideologies.

"Left wing" and "right wing" are discriptors to identify where a person or idea falls on the "liberal/conservative" ideological spectrum. They tend to be more at the ends on the spectrum then the center.

Most people don't really have a good understanding of the ideologies. They only know the ideologies by their positions (which can be as much a reflection of the party and constituents) then by their philosphical assumptions and underpinnings (which is what ideology is).

Here is a real good definition of American conservatism (conservatism is unique to each country it is in). That site offers this definition of liberalism as well (which you should read to better understand what American conservatism is and is not). You might want to seek out other sources too, but you need to understand that there is a lot of distortion concerning the ideologies. Many people either don't fully understand the ideologies, or intentionally mischaracterize certian aspects of ideologies (or the ideology all togeather) to smear that ideology or put it in a good light. Keep in mind, modern american conservatism is rooted in classical liberalism.
 
Titan,

You might want to look at Shag's definition of 'liberal' with a bit of caution... it is from Conservative Resources, so there may be a slight back room agenda there.

Liberal as defined by the dictionary...
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

The very best definition of liberal I have ever read was by JFK (certainly a liberal) you can find it here, as part of his acceptance speech in the 1960 presidential election.

I wouldn't assume to point you in the direction of a good definition of conservative, I am sure my viewpoint would be colored.

I find it odd that a conservative would take it upon themselves to give you good source for how a liberal should be defined.

That sort of shows you the difference right there between conservative and liberal. ;)
 

Members online

Back
Top