(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-23-23 10:13 PM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 02:37 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
I never even implied that you needed to put all your time into it.

Just a few hours a month is pretty good if you ask me.
At this point in my life, it's not only impractical but effectively impossible. As I said, my living conditions aren't exactly conducive to much of a life outside campus.

But, even if it were practical to devote my time to such a cause, I still wonder why it is relevant to the discussion at hand. We're not arguing my personal morals here, we're arguing the various intricacies of abortion and its related issues.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 02:44 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
No, we're arguing opinions.
...which still doesn't inherently involve my personal life in the discussion. Like I've said, I'm supplying my opinion just as you're supplying yours; why are you trying to turn it into something beyond that? You should be attacking the validity of what I say, not trying to distract by calling attention to what I do.

Edit to respond to Tommathy.

Originally posted by Tommathy
Arguing the ontology of the soul or of human life is far, *far* removed from the practical realities of birth and motherhood.
Practical realities take a backseat to the higher authority of Morality. It may not be "practical" for an unwed mother to give birth to a child she'd rather not have, but that's not a valid argument for her to not be morally obliged to do so.

Originally posted by Tommathy
The primary concern of any discussion on abortion should be to find the causes for the *need* of such action, and possible remedy.
You're being a bit ambiguous - specifically, what "action" are you making reference to?

Originally posted by Tommathy
One should not take away one option without offering another.
If you remove the option of abortion, you're left with any number of options concerning what to do with the child once it's been born. It is literally impossible to offer some alternative course of action prior to actual childbirth, but that's a restriction placed by the workings of modern science; if it is someday possible to gestate a child outside the womb, it would certainly be the alternative you're looking for.

(edited by Silvershield on 04-22-06 01:51 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 03:46 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
I planely, just don't care, I do not believe in morality, because morality is whimsical. I do not base my life around being "Holier than thou." because I know I'm the same organic flesh as everyone else. My life makes little difference to the world and to the grand scheme of things. All I can do is try to make life easier for those around me and myself, everyone deserves forgiveness and understanding.

I might not like what someone does, but I know that if I get caught up in what they do, I'm forgetting who they are. You see the multitude of women having abortions as just that. I think about how every single persons circumstance is different and how passing judgment on whether I think their actions are right or wrong is ignorant.

If you feel your only option is to say abortion is wrong and want to get rid of it, go ahead, but I believe it is "morally" correct that you learn why every single person wants to have an abortion rather than have that child.
Having a strong sense of morality give me a holier-than-thou attitude? I disagree - never in this thread, nor in any other thread, nor in any situation if real life, have I ever considered myself sinless and perfect. I don't claim the right to argue against abortion because I am personally free from any sort of fault, I claim that right because I see an injustice being done that is being passed off as the "right to choose."

Whatever the source of my opinion, whatever life experiences led me to form it, the point of a discussion is to address a person's words and not take into account anything beyond that.

In any case, how does my disapproval of an act qualify as disapproval of the person who's committed the act? I detest drugs and alcohol, but I do not have a single friend who doesn't smoke, drink, or do both; by your estimation, I shouldn't be associating myself with a single one of those people, because I don't agree with their actions. And that's ludicrous, obviously. I've never expressed any sort of disapproval of people who get abortions, but I have and always will detest the act that they involve themselves in. Don't make it out to be something that it isn't.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 04:06 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
I still don't fit your definition of "holier-than-thou."

Anyhow, why don't you go ahead and restate the point of your last post in more certain terms. To see if I "missed" it.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 04:58 PM, in y goodbai thar wisdom teeth Link
I remember this topic coming up a while back.

All I have to say after getting two of my wisdom teeth pulled is, if I were inclined to do some sort of drug, nitrous oxide would be my drug of choice. Heh heh.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 06:20 PM, in y goodbai thar wisdom teeth Link
Originally posted by Rydain
What exactly is nitrous like, anyway?
I wish I had some sort of personal point of reference but, judging from my friends' descriptions of the effects of various drugs, it resembles marijuana or mushrooms. What I remember was having a sense of time, though it was terrible distorted. Voices all registered, and I knew what each person (the dentist, his assistant, others around the office) was saying, but they seemed to be saying very unusual things. In retrospect, and to the best of my memory, they were speaking of completely normal things, carrying on casual conversation or talking to a patient over the phone or asking me to open wider, but it seemed bizarre at the time. There was strange music playing, too.

All in all, a great time .
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 06:33 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
Yeah, you do. You believe you're morally correct and other's aren't, that you're trying to correct an "injustice" as you put it, and you're trying to do it from a moral stand point, that (guess what!?), involves religion.
By your rationale, nobody anywhere has any right to ever question anything, period. Because, if that person is not entirely sinless himself, he cannot address the sins of others.

I do believe I'm morally correct in this specific instance. You'd be hard pressed to find a single person anywhere who doesn't think that they are right and somebody else is wrong about something. My argument is not, and never was, "I am free of fault so therefore I am entitled to boss other people around." It's always been a matter of witnessing an occurance that I find morally reprehensible - that is, the act of abortion - and arguing against it. Just like you (that's a general "you," not you specifically) might be opposed to America's presence in Iraq, and would be willing to make a case against it.

And, by the way, being pro-life does not necessarily have to be a religious-derived point of view. Whether my own stance on the matter is derived from my religion - and, for the record, I really don't know whether it is or not - is irrelevant. In any case, a person doesn't need to be religious whatsoever to respect the sanctity of life.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Morality is an opinion. If you want to get into it, so is justice. To kill a murderer can be considered justice, but really, is it? What is justice?
I disagree to a large extent. I won't go so far as to say that morality and justice are a purely black-and-white issue but, to use a classic example, if a person came from a culture in which murder was accepted or even somehow encouraged, and that person entered our society and began committing murder, would you hold him blameless just because it's what's right to him? There is definitely a constant set of values, though each person might approach the definition of those values differently.


Originally posted by Dracoon
This is talking about generlazation, which you're doing when you try to proclaim anything is wrong. You act like all abortion is morally wrong, sometimes it is the best option.
The only time abortion is the best option is in the terribly infrequent circumstance of a woman's life being saved by allowing the baby to die. And I've already accounted for that situation far earlier in this thread.

Aside from that case, I am certainly generalizing and "acting like all abortion is morally wrong." Because I firmly believe that it is.

Originally posted by Dracoon
This is a snide remark at the idea of morallity as a whole. It is impossible to be morally correct, because you're never right, you just think you're right.
Again, I disagree. Like I said, morality is far from black-and-white, but to just throw your hands up in the air and proclaim that there is truly no right and wrong in this world is to be out of touch with reality.

Originally posted by Dracoon
I wrote that so you'd break it up into multiple points while reading that, since I expected you to do that like you did with everything else.
Why do you say that like it's a bad thing? It's a hundred times easier for a person to follow what I'm talking about when I separate quotes rather than leaving them in one big block.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 08:37 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
First part: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I'll say it again: never in this thread have I cast judgement on a person for the actions he or she commits. However, I will very readily question those actions. If a person were not entitled to take issue with something that he sees happening in this world, there would never be any sort of commentary on society and nothing would ever improve. A person should not frivolously criticize a wartime leader because that person is not sinless himself, but he should be encouraged to criticize the war that the leader is waging, or criticize the leader's political policies.

You're confusing my arguments against the act of abortion as an argument against those people who support or commit abortion. The two are not equivalent.

Originally posted by Dracoon
And you need to read the definition of "holier-than-thou", not just look at it, read it, comprehend it. It doesn't imply that you'd think you were without sin, that would just be an extreme case of it.
I don't understand why I'm holier-than-thou if I see a problem in our world and make a case against it. My argument does not involve any aspect of my personal life, nor does it ever refer to my own sinlessless, it simply aims to address the act of abortion. You're continually warping my argument into something that it isn't.

Originally posted by Dracoon
And it wouldn't be "holier-than-thou" since people who do not have a religion, don't really have anything they believe to be holy.
You're the one who brought the phrase "holier-than-thou" into this in the first place.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Second Part: No, I wouldn't hold him blameless, just because it is moral to kill someone where he is from doesn't mean it is acceptable here, moral or not. That just shows that morality is whimsical. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
So, if you were socially obliged to commit murder if you traveled to this hypothetical person's homeland, you would do so? You think that his native morality is just as "correct" as yours is? I fully recognize cultural differences, and think that the contrast between different societies makes ours a rich and diverse world, but I know where to draw the line.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Third Part: If I could predict every possible situation that would happen in the world, I would be the richest man alive.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Originally posted by Dracoon
One life for another is a fair trade though, right? Making one person miserable so two people can be miserable is great logic.
One life for another might be a fair trade if a woman who does not get an abortion dies. She isn't trading her life away when she carries a child to full term, she's trading away her convenience. It's not a case of one life for another, it's a case of one life being saved and the other life, the one that is responsible for the child in the first place, being compromised but hardly taken.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Fourth Part: Right and wrong do not exist. Just who you affect and how you affect them. Right and wrong are just words to catagorize an action depending on how it affects people. If the effect is negative, it usually ends up being catagorized as wrong, but it can change easily with time. If a principle is whimsical, why believe in it like it is an absolute?
You're entering an abstract and very subjective realm. I'll follow in your line of logic and say that, if an action affects others negatively, it is wrong. Murder affects others negatively. Therefore, murder is wrong. That's not an ideal that will change with time - murder will always affect people negatively, and it will therefore always be wrong. So, without extending our discussion any further, we can conclude that the wrongness of murder is an absolute moral value, because its negative effect on people will never change.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-22-06 11:48 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
You're condemning people to something they don't want to do. Your judgement would be for them not to do it, you're passing judgement on how they should live their lives, that's judgement to me.
You can't judge how someone "should" do something. You can only judge what exists in the present, what is there in front of you. I might having a certain opinion on how a woman should handle her pregnancy, but you still fail (and will continue to fail) to illustrate how I am judging anyone. You can't make a word mean something it doesn't.

Originally posted by Dracoon
[You're holier-than-thou b]ecause you've been doing it on the standpoint of morality.
The reason why I don't approve of abortion is irrelevant. The only information of relevance is that I am not painting myself as a superior, sinless figure - that would be the prerequisite for me to be called "holier-than-thou," I think, not the fact that my argument is based around morality.

Originally posted by Dracoon
You're religious. That has been shown again and again. I'm religious, but of a much different sort.
So, any person who is religious is, as a necessary accompaniment, holier-than-thou?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Look at the terrorist in 9/11, they were raised extremist and they took their ideas to the maximum. Now I personally believe it is a bad act because it hurts a lot of people, but I was raised differently.
They were raised in a society that exalts homocidal fanatics, so they are therefore immune to any judgement of right versus wrong? I'd say that the society they were raised in is as immoral as the individuals are, if it was indeed their societal upbringing that guided their actions. "They're different" does not equal "they're just as right as we are" - were the Nazis of World War II justified in their genocide of six millions Jews and several million others just because they had a different sense of morality?

Originally posted by Dracoon
No life for a life is a fair trade, never. No two people have equal value.
Then you think it's fair, if a choice needs to be made between saving the mother's life or saving her prenatal child's, to choose the child's life? What exactly is your criterion for determining whose life has greater value?

Originally posted by Dracoon
You took this out of context with my original post, which was: [...]
Your original post, as it was written, was difficult to understand and was not tied closely enough to the rest of what you'd said for it to appear as a relevant idea.


Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Dracoon
Everyone's life means different things to them, your life might be your wallet, your car, your house, your body, your buisness (in case of a prositute), or your financial secruity. (since people are too lazy to work two jobs to pay for things.) One life for another is a fair trade though, right? Making one person miserable so two people can be miserable is great logic.


Yes, some people have materialistic views on life and you could very well be taking their life away by forcing them to have a child.
Let's distinguish "life" in a literal sense from "life" in a figurative sense. To force a mother to have a child might end her figurative life, but it will hardly threaten her literal life. And, I think the latter is far more important.


Originally posted by Dracoon
Murdering someone who is surpressing people has a good effect on thet surpressed. What now?
But it has a bad effect on the person who's been murdered. What now?

Originally posted by Jomb
Under-population by humans is not a problem anywhere in earth SilverShield, and the very idea is laughable. Just because there are enough resouces to take care of everyone does'nt mean we are'nt overpopulated, when we take up virtually all the land and displace the other animals to support ourselves thats still over-population.
Show me numbers to prove that overpopulation is such a dire issue.

Even if it is a pressing matter, trying to justify abortion by arguing that it will control populations is a bit ridiculous to me.

Originally posted by Jomb
Yes, abortion is disgusting, what's your point? The way many kinds of livestock are killed is also quite disgusting. homosexual sex to a straight man can be quite disgusting. Many things which happen in the world are disgusting, does'nt mean they are equivalent to murder.
Livestock are not human. Homosexual sex, as viewed by a straight man, might be "gross" disgusting but is not "morally reprehensible" disgusting - two different senses of the word.

Originally posted by Jomb
You and I have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a life. To you it is the mechanical processes of the body.
No, because a zygote certainly exhibits no mechanical process. To me, a human soul constitutes a human life, but since I can't really argue on that basis, I've been pointing out that human DNA constitutes a human life.

Originally posted by Jomb
You characterize [abortion] as if it something which is being done on a whim.
I've never done that. Point me to some statement of mine that has even suggested that every woman who's having an abortion is doing it "on a whim."

Originally posted by Jomb
I've not yet met someone who was pro-life who did'nt have a strong religious slant to it which they will not back down on or even really listen to other viewpoints on.
I'm not backing down because my arguments have yet to be sufficiently discredited.

And I am "really listening" to other viewpoints. I don't know how I'd be responding in such depth if I wasn't.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 02:58 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Abortion is not the answer to over-population, birth-control is. But when we are not at all in need of more people, actually quite the contrary, the loss of a potential human is not such a dire thing.
You said it yourself, birth control is the solution to overpopulation. I'll support that statement any day. But I disagree when you say the loss of a single human is not such a dire thing. (I know you said "potential human" but, as far as I'm concerned, it's a full-fledged human). Do militaries not expend a great amount of resources and hours to seek out a single downed pilot who's trapped in enemy territory? Do rescue services not continue near-futile searches just in the hope of saving one more life? Societal standards suggest that even a single human life is worth quite a bit.

Originally posted by Jomb
"Livestock are not human" - to me a tiny mass of dividing cells is not human either, which is the crux of our disagreement.
Yep, that's the base of it.

Originally posted by Jomb
I've known some men who would consider homosexual sex as equal or more reprehensible than abortion.
They've got their priorities wrong.

Originally posted by Jomb
A zygote is the epitome of mechanical processes, it is just one long chain of cell-divisions, like clockwork.
A zygote is the single cell that results from the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Once it's divided, it's an embryo.

Originally posted by Jomb
So its about a soul? Thats a religious concept, which is what i thought you were agruing about in the first place. Prove to me that i have a soul or that anyone has a soul. Where is my soul located? How much does it weigh? What does it look like? How does a zygote have one, but not a convicted murderer, a cow, or a gorilla? If i cloned you would your soul split in two? Or would one clone simply not have a soul? If one did'nt have a soul would it be morally ok if i killed him?
I took special care to point out that, while my own personal motivation for holding life in such high esteem is the presence of a soul, that's not the ground I'm arguing on.

Originally posted by Jomb
DNA is not life to me. It is a sequence of amino acids. Theoretically, with enough technology and raw materials it could be manufactured.
DNA isn't life to me, either. The various scientifically-approved signs of life - metabolism, growth, etc. - are what constitute life in my eyes. But a given organism's genetic code will define whether it is human life, which would in turn indicate whether it is eligible for the protection afforded to any other human.

Originally posted by Jomb
you said: "It is not her right to have her cake and eat it too, so to speak: she's involved herself in the act willingly, and must bear the consequences", which suggests that women are out fucking for jollies then saying "oh, i'm pregnant, but i can just have an abortion, no biggie!"
I don't know how my statement suggests that at all.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Do you speak english?
Your previous butchering of the definition of the word "judge" would lead me to ask the same question of you.

Originally posted by Dracoon
I'm going to act like this is a serious question.
Good, because it is a serious question. You said, "You're religious. That has been shown again and again," and used that as a justification to call me "holier-than-thou." The two are only incidentally related - one does not require the other, nor does one preclude the other.

Originally posted by Dracoon
No, when someone is religious but can't put their feelings behind them to let an action go that doesn't harm them and condemns other people's behavior, since you know, you ARE how you act, then they're being "holier-than-thou".
If I were not a religious person, or if nobody here were aware that I am, not a single thing I've said so far in this thread would have changed. I haven't argued my position from a religious standpoint, ever. The fact that I am religious outside the discussion of abortion is completely irrelevant.

Even so, just because an action doesn't harm me doesn't mean that the action is harmless. If I walk down the street and see a person getting mugged, I'm not being harmed at all by the event, but I would still step in to stop it. In fact, I would say that it is the mark of a virtuous person to take action rather than stand by the wayside when an event does not affect him directly yet has an adverse effect on others.

Originally posted by Dracoon
NO, LEARN HOW TO COMPARE THINGS TO OTHER SITUATIONS AND APPLY IT WITH BASIC KNOWLEDGE, DO THE CAPS HELP?

Look, you're justified to yourself, they're justified to themselves. NO ONE ELSE FUCKING MATTERS IN BOTH OF YOUR CASES. What if their ideas were right and you were in the wrong?
The only thing the caps help with is making you a bit more obnoxious than you are otherwise.

I don't see how who's right and who's wrong makes any difference in this case, considering that the issue was one of whether one group actually can be right and the other wrong. It was never an issue of who actually is right and who actually is wrong.

Originally posted by Dracoon
First) If the baby has no brain, it has no value as a being.
How do you justify this statement?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Potential doesn't matter or we could all be convicted of potential murder.
The baby doesn't have "potential" to become a human being, it is a human being. It has the potential to grow into an adult, perhaps, but its status as a human is not potential but actual.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Second) I would choose the mother's life so she could, guess what, have another baby at a later time.
And that second baby would have, guess what, a genetic code that is entirely unique from the first. It would be a completely distinct being. That child that's been murdered isn't being given a second chance if the mother gets pregnant again - its mother has conceived a completely new child. The first one's chance is through.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Third) There is no criteria, I can't judge human value.
If you can't judge human value, how are you able to propose that no two human lives have the same value in the first place?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Silvershield
Your original post, as it was written, was difficult to understand and was not tied closely enough to the rest of what you'd said for it to appear as a relevant idea.
Do you know english, etc.
Yeah, the best way to account for your own ambiguity is to insult the person who can't understand it.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Silvershield
Let's distinguish "life" in a literal sense from "life" in a figurative sense. To force a mother to have a child might end her figurative life, but it will hardly threaten her literal life. And, I think the latter is far more important.
Let's not, because of so many values that happen in a literal sense of life compared to the figurative sense of life is astronomical. If you're intelligent you can preserve your way of life, however at any point, you may die in a literal sense. Life is Life, no matter what life it is.
No, life in a figurative sense is not life in a literal sense. When I fail a test and I say "My life is over!" I don't drop dead on the spot. When that mother who has the child finds that it makes her life more difficult, and she says "My life is over!" she doesn't drop dead on the spot, either. But, if an abortion is carried out, that child quite literally drops dead on the spot. If the options are to end a literal human life but preserve a figurative one (by allowing the mother to maintain the quality of life she is used to), or to preserve the literal life but hinder the figurative one (by forcing the woman to, at most, endure nine months pregnant and then surrender the child for adoption [because she isn't forced to do any more than that]), I choose the latter.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Ok, so you just further proved that justice can't exist, because now murder (your absolute wrong) does both right and wrong.
Fine, if my logic has proved that justice doesn't exist, then I guess that's how it is. I was never arguing justice in the first place. It's morality that we've been discussing, and the two are pretty different concepts.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:44 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
I'm addressing points as they are presented to me. I know that, if I were to neglect a point, even if it's because I've seen it earlier in the thread, I'd likely get accused of "avoiding" it.

Edit:
...by the way, I'm not making any snide remarks of my own volition. I know well enough that to snipe at one's opponent rather than attacking his words is bad form, and I'm only responding in kind when witty little insults are thrown at me.

(edited by Silvershield on 04-23-06 02:46 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:49 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
He'll say the same thing as in, he'll claim that I was the first one to hurl a personal insult? Read the thread, it speaks for itself.

It's probably better off if any thread I'm involved in past four pages or so gets locked, because that seems to be the point that people like to sneak little flames into their posts.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 03:52 AM, in Online dating? Link
It's often not an issue of too-high standards, but of personal obstacles. I hadn't the least bit of contact with a girl until I was just about 17, and that wasn't because I was too picky but because I was shy and reserved around the opposite sex. I still am, just for the record, but after having a girlfriend I've realized that it's not a big a thing as I'd made it out to be.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 04:21 AM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Dracoon
You know, I'm going to stop arguing with you after this post, you just go in circles and when a point is brought up, you act like the person who brought up the point wrote it wrong, or you just interpret it as something completely different.
I'm not going in circles because I enjoy spending twenty minutes writing on an Internet message board, I'm going in circles because, in trying to respond to everything that you say, I often find myself responding to the same argument that's written a different way each time.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Good day sir, you will be a great polotician, but you will make a crappy person to have any sort of polotical conversation with.
I'd say the same to you.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Originally posted by Silvershield
Your previous butchering of the definition of the word "judge" would lead me to ask the same question of you.


Yet you've never given a counter definition to say I was wrong, by default, that would mean I was right.
Ok, you used the word "judge" in the following context:

"You're condemning people to something they don't want to do. Your judgement would be for them not to do it, you're passing judgement on how they should live their lives, that's judgement to me."

That statement of yours was intended to prove that, through the arguments I've made in this thread, I am guilty of judging people (specifically, women who have abortions). However, your statement lacks basic grammar insomuch as your misuse of the word "judgement" makes it an invalid sentence. My preference would be for women not to get abortions, and I'm expressing a preference for women to carry babies to full term; by substituting "judgement" in each case where "preference" (or an equivalent word) would rightfully appear, you are making it appear as if I am passing judgement. But, passing judgement on a person and expressing a preference for how that person should behave are two ideas that don't even approach one another in meaning.

Originally posted by Dracoon
One who believes that nothing is holy cannot be holier-than-thou was the point. I've said that before.
The phrase "holier-than-thou" does not contain the word "holy" as a reference to any sort of religious affiliation. It's a figure of speech that is roughly equivalent to calling somebody self-righteous, and you certainly couldn't argue that in order to be self-righteous you need to be religious as well.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Yes your thoughts on the subject would've changed if you weren't religious. Religion makes you who you are. Yes, you have, you had a small argument with Ziff about Catholic cannon. Yes, because there is always a reason why you'd believe it was immoral.
I don't know how else to put it, especially because I've said the same thing several times, but the source of my disapproval of abortion makes no difference. A discussion of this sort is intended to explore a given topic, not to look into the reasons why a participant feels the way he does about that topic.

Originally posted by Dracoon
If you see someone getting mugged on the streets, you call the damn cops. If that mugger pulls out a gun you're going to end up being mugged too.
Alright, apparently my analogy was flawed, but that doesn't change its meaning (which should've been clear enough anyway): just because an act does not harm me does not mean that the act does not harm somebody, and it is respectable for a person to intervene in the act even if it does not harm him personally.

Originally posted by Dracoon
(Which you never gave a real answer too besides the whole "Only when the mother's life is endangered.")
Because I feel that, unless the mother's life is endangered, there is no justifiable circumstance for an abortion to take place. If you wish to give me specific examples of when a woman might want an abortion, I'd be happy to tell you why I don't believe it's the best course of action.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Morallity/justice (which really is just an eye-for-an-eye in this day and age)/virtue (or rashness in that situation) are not always correct and lead to limiting factors in society as a whole. Especially when morality is so ill-defined and changes depending on who you ask.
Morality is definitely ill-defined in most cases, but I think there are certain times when a moral value is inarguable and undeniable.

Originally posted by Dracoon
You started it by believed abortion is wrong. Which is selfish and is an opinion. Yeah, it's selfish, you heard me, you'd think it'd be selfless to defend those who can't defend themself, but not in this case. Reality conquers ideas.
What do I gain by a woman having that child instead of aborting it? How is it selfish of me to encourage her to choose one course over the other, when I am not personally affected either way?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Genetically it is unique, but the reason we're special is because of our brain, other wise we're just equal to some apes.
Not much to be said here. I believe we are unique because we are human, you believe we are unique because we can think. Difference of opinion.

Originally posted by Dracoon
Genetically yes, but every snow flake is different too, and they all end up as water in the end.
I'm missing the point of this analogy. Care to spell it out for me?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Because no two people have lived the same life and have gone through the same experiences. Duh.
Who's to say a person's life experiences give that person's life more or less value than anyone else's?

Originally posted by Dracoon
Yeah, the best way to ease yourself of your own ambiguity is to not take in the factor of context and basic writing styles.
Oftentimes your ambiguity is simply because you fail to preview a post before you submit it, as is evidenced by missing or mispelled words and similar errors that make your points occasionally harder to understand.

Originally posted by Dracoon
For all you know, that failing grade on your test might drive you to suicide. Parenthood can lead to insanity and that is certainly a mental death.
I guess a consequence of failing a test might be to commit suicide, but that doesn't make my statement of "My life is over!" any more true.

Originally posted by Dracoon
And again, you didn't take into account: Models, prositutes, and materialistic people. Sure it isn't a majority, but if you make any exception, other people will demand exceptions.
I didn't take those into account because I don't understand what a person's profession or degree of materialism has to do with the value of a human life.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 05:16 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
I knew, as soon as I hit "Submit Reply," that someone would take issue with my mention of Nazis. Godwin's Law is in reference to the arbitrary mention of Hitler or Naziism - it hardly applies when the analogy is valid and relevant.

Edit because I have to learn to preview my posts even when they're two sentences long.

Edit again to correct my previous edit tag! OCD AHHH!!

(edited by Silvershield on 04-23-06 04:18 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 07:46 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Usernoname
A fetus's right to live does not give it the privilege to use another human body against their will. That would be giving the fetus a right above what born human beings have. It would be giving a fetus the right to use a born adult's body as a means for his/her survival! Replace the word fetus by adult in the last phrase and notice how insane that sounds?

Analogy: Let's say your cousin is dying and needs something from your body, a kidney. The odds are shown low and he needs one from his family. He wants you to go do a check up to see if it matches with his. Does your cousin have the right to take a kidney from you if he needs it to survive? Withouth your permission? No, it's your body you have no obligation to donate anything; even to save a life.

The ideal would be that the fetus could be able to live on it's own even if removed from the body of the mother, but we all know that's not the case in our current world. So as long as the embryos and fetuses are stuck upon relying on another's body to grow into a potential human being, they have no right equal to that of a mother or a born human being.
Once that child has been born, his parents are lawfully obliged to expend their own personal resources to preserve its life. A parent who does not feed, clothe, and otherwise care for his child is one that will be prosecuted as a criminial. Why is the mother not bound by that same obligation before the child is born?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 09:08 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Usernoname
That child, once born, is free from the physical bondage it depended on to live and that prevented it from being free to be taken care by anyone else. Take that child and leave it to the care of someone else and it will be fine; unlike before, there isn't that unique person who the baby needs to survive.
Whether it is to be done by the biological mother or not, a child has the lawfully enforced right to be cared for. Likewise, a fetus should have that right to be taken care of, because it is a being that is incapable of doing so itself. Just because the biological mother is the only one capable of doing so doesn't diminish that child's right.

Originally posted by Usernoname
Once the baby is born, if the parents decide they don't want the baby, they can always give the baby up for adoption. I doubt a woman would go through labor, have the baby and just leave it there to die. That sort of thing only happened when abortion was made illegal.
Abortion has been legal in American for a long time, and the story of a child thrown in a dumpster and left to die is still frequent enough to contend with your statement.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-23-06 11:38 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Usernoname
Mind pointing out this law?
I hardly have knowledge of the specific legislation that compels parents to care for their children, but it certainly exists. A child that is physically abused, either violently or through the failure to provide food or healthcare, is grounds for legal action on the parents. If I knew how to go about finding the exact law that backs such action, I'd have cited it.

Originally posted by Usernoname
A baby can be left at a hospital and it will be taken care of. A fetus needs to stay in a womans body for 9 months. There's a difference. It does diminish that child's rights because it attacks HER rights to her body. Just like someone holding a loaded gun in a persons face loses some rights by attacking the victims rights.
But, as she was the one who initiated the situation (by involving herself in a sexual act), it is her rights that should be diminished, not those of the child who is innocent of any wrongdoing. Just like that person holding the gun, the woman is the one who brought about the scenario that would call for one party's rights to be diminished, which makes her the party whose rights are vulnerable.


Originally posted by Silvershield
Frequent enough? It surely isn't the same magnitude it was back then.
Frequent enough meaning, it still happens. Your phrasing suggested that it is no longer a crime that is ever commited, period.

Arwon, I think Skydude explained - far more eloquently than I'll be able - why the Hitler analogy was valid. To paraphrase his earlier post, if I'd used a point of comparison less severe than the Nazi party, it could be considered an exception. I wouldn't needed to continually increase the severity of the analogy, each time having it considered an exception, until some accepted model of absolute evil - Hitler and the Nazis, traditionally - came up.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-24-06 05:06 PM, in Online dating? Link
Originally posted by D3stiny_Sm4sher
Anyway, you DO realize when I said New York, I meant the STATE, right? Not the city.

The college I go to is a Christian Liberal Arts college, and, as expected, most of the girls here are so conservative that dating is pretty much a bad thing to them, and yet, they all want husbands before they leave.

Don't ask me how that works. They somehow expect Mr. Perfect to fall into their lap and for everything to work out peachy keen, I guess.
Life isn't like that most of the time.
Not to get off topic, but a quick aside...

That's my dream school! I'm in New York at a school with Catholic roots that tries to pass itself off as a currently Catholic-influenced institution, but I'm really disappointed in how little the student body reflects that ideal. I think, of the various people I know here, maybe three are virgins (using that as some indicator of conservative values). And only one of them is a girl.

Out of curiousity, where do you go?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 04-25-06 01:03 AM, in Sexual orientation. What a load of bull. Link
Originally posted by Vyper
My argument exactly.
Ditto.

But, since I have a conservative political leaning, expressing that identical point of view makes me a gay-hating bigot.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.299 seconds; used 517.23 kB (max 678.90 kB)