Today's election results

[silverscreenselect]

Leave religion out of it. What makes your belief right or even scientifically logical? It is just word play. Admit it. Then we can negotiate.

You're the one engaging in wordplay here. You want everyone to accept your premise, which is not universally shared in the legal, medical, scientific, or academic world, before you begin to negotiate. That's like you saying, "Admit the moon is made of cheese and then we can negotiate whether it's red or green cheese."

[wbtravis007]

Is a prepubescent child a human being? Can they reproduce? They have the potential.

You misunderstand. A "prepubescent child" is already a human being. The ability to procreate isn't the issue.

Ear, don't get into the trollboy habit of just glancing and frantically looking for a contradictory response.

Are you saying that I really don't believe what I'm saying, and am just "prooftexting"?

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass...

But what is it that makes that fertilized zygote a human being? You may believe that it is, but others believe that it isn't. What makes your belief right?

What else could it be? Could it end up being a coffee cup? A Kangaroo? It is a cell mass with a purpose. Just as a prepubescent child is a cell mass with a purpose. What is the difference? It is a human being from the moment it is fertilized. It can't be anything else.

Leave religion out of it. What makes your belief right or even scientifically logical? It is just word play. Admit it. Then we can negotiate.

Ok. I’ll admit it.

Now, what’s your compromise?

[earendel]

If you're justifying the killing of an unborn baby by parsing "Human" as opposed to "Human Being" ... I feel sorry for you.

That's your prerogative, of course, but the distinction has to be drawn. What is the difference between a fertilized zygote and any other cell in the body? Both have the requisite number of chromosomes, etc. Both are "life", but why is one "human" and one not?

[earendel]

What else could it be? Could it end up being a coffee cup? A Kangaroo? It is a cell mass with a purpose. Just as a prepubescent child is a cell mass with a purpose. What is the difference? It is a human being from the moment it is fertilized. It can't be anything else.

"End up" is exactly the point. A fertilized zygote will "end up" as a human being, of course, just as an acorn will end up as an oak tree. But neither is one at the start.

Leave religion out of it. What makes your belief right or even scientifically logical? It is just word play. Admit it. Then we can negotiate.

Unfortunately that isn't really possible - I think you'll find that the majority of those who are in the anti-abortion camp are basing their arguments on religion, not science.

[flockofseagulls104]

What else could it be? Could it end up being a coffee cup? A Kangaroo? It is a cell mass with a purpose. Just as a prepubescent child is a cell mass with a purpose. What is the difference? It is a human being from the moment it is fertilized. It can't be anything else.

"End up" is exactly the point. A fertilized zygote will "end up" as a human being, of course, just as an acorn will end up as an oak tree. But neither is one at the start.

Leave religion out of it. What makes your belief right or even scientifically logical? It is just word play. Admit it. Then we can negotiate.

Unfortunately that isn't really possible - I think you'll find that the majority of those who are in the anti-abortion camp are basing their arguments on religion, not science.

What is your proof that science is more valid than religion? Especially today's politically tainted science. Do you think that mankind knows everything about everything at this point? That's pretty arrogant of mankind and has gotten it into a lot of trouble throughout history.

[earendel]

What is your proof that science is more valid than religion? Especially today's politically tainted science.

Proof is the provenance science, not religion, and is based on fact. That doesn't necessarily make it more valid (keep in mind I'm a believer). However strong belief may be, it is subjective.

Do you think that mankind knows everything about everything at this point? That's pretty arrogant of mankind and has gotten it into a lot of trouble throughout history.

No, and why would you even ask such a question?

[earendel]

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass, and consider that human being in the abortion equation, then perhaps the two sides can come to reasonable compromises.

OK, let's see where this line of thinking leads. For the sake of argument, let's agree on your proposal as stated above. What, then, does this say about in-vitro fertilization, which, as you may know, involves harvesting a woman's ova and combining them with sperm cells. One or more of the resulting fertilized zygotes is implanted into the woman's uterus. But what happens to those that aren't implanted. By your reasoning, each one is a human being. Should they then have the right to live? Should they be represented by an attorney when the lab either discards them or freezes them? Where is the reasonable compromise?

[flockofseagulls104]

What is your proof that science is more valid than religion? Especially today's politically tainted science.

Proof is the provenance science, not religion, and is based on fact. That doesn't necessarily make it more valid (keep in mind I'm a believer). However strong belief may be, it is subjective.

Do you think that mankind knows everything about everything at this point? That's pretty arrogant of mankind and has gotten it into a lot of trouble throughout history.

No, and why would you even ask such a question?

I believe we are talking semantics here, not science. Why is a fertilized egg labeled a 'cell mass' or whatever and when does it become a human being? What is the line THEY have defined? IMO opinion, it is arbitrary label, not scientific.

[flockofseagulls104]

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass, and consider that human being in the abortion equation, then perhaps the two sides can come to reasonable compromises.

OK, let's see where this line of thinking leads. For the sake of argument, let's agree on your proposal as stated above. What, then, does this say about in-vitro fertilization, which, as you may know, involves harvesting a woman's ova and combining them with sperm cells. One or more of the resulting fertilized zygotes is implanted into the woman's uterus. But what happens to those that aren't implanted. By your reasoning, each one is a human being. Should they then have the right to live? Should they be represented by an attorney when the lab either discards them or freezes them? Where is the reasonable compromise?

I don't know. That is one thing that will have to be discussed from the viewpoint that human life begins at conception. I never said the compromises would be easy.

[wbtravis007]

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass, and consider that human being in the abortion equation, then perhaps the two sides can come to reasonable compromises.

OK, let's see where this line of thinking leads. For the sake of argument, let's agree on your proposal as stated above. What, then, does this say about in-vitro fertilization, which, as you may know, involves harvesting a woman's ova and combining them with sperm cells. One or more of the resulting fertilized zygotes is implanted into the woman's uterus. But what happens to those that aren't implanted. By your reasoning, each one is a human being. Should they then have the right to live? Should they be represented by an attorney when the lab either discards them or freezes them? Where is the reasonable compromise?

I don't know. That is one thing that will have to be discussed from the viewpoint that human life begins at conception. I never said the compromises would be easy.

ICM!

Knew it.

And probably every other person on this board did, too.

[Beebs52]

OK, let's see where this line of thinking leads. For the sake of argument, let's agree on your proposal as stated above. What, then, does this say about in-vitro fertilization, which, as you may know, involves harvesting a woman's ova and combining them with sperm cells. One or more of the resulting fertilized zygotes is implanted into the woman's uterus. But what happens to those that aren't implanted. By your reasoning, each one is a human being. Should they then have the right to live? Should they be represented by an attorney when the lab either discards them or freezes them? Where is the reasonable compromise?

I don't know. That is one thing that will have to be discussed from the viewpoint that human life begins at conception. I never said the compromises would be easy.

ICM!

Knew it.

And probably every other person on this board did, too.

I dint CM. It is something to consider. I said I agreed with the rape, incest, health of mom or baby thing. I do think that involves a personal decision on mother's part, and dad's. It does involve terminating a life. So. There ya are. It's not a chortle decision.

[wbtravis007]

I don't know. That is one thing that will have to be discussed from the viewpoint that human life begins at conception. I never said the compromises would be easy.

ICM!

Knew it.

And probably every other person on this board did, too.

I dint CM. It is something to consider. I said I agreed with the rape, incest, health of mom or baby thing. I do think that involves a personal decision on mother's part, and dad's. It does involve terminating a life. So. There ya are. It's not a chortle decision.

Are you really thinking that I was suggesting that these are “chortle decisions?” If so, let me assure you that I’m not.

That’s not what I was chortling about at all.

[Beebs52]

ICM!

Knew it.

And probably every other person on this board did, too.

I dint CM. It is something to consider. I said I agreed with the rape, incest, health of mom or baby thing. I do think that involves a personal decision on mother's part, and dad's. It does involve terminating a life. So. There ya are. It's not a chortle decision.

Are you really thinking that I was suggesting that these are “chortle decisions?” If so, let me assure you that I’m not.

That’s not what I was chortling about at all.

I don't know what your chortle was about then.

[flockofseagulls104]

ICM!

Knew it.

And probably every other person on this board did, too.

I dint CM. It is something to consider. I said I agreed with the rape, incest, health of mom or baby thing. I do think that involves a personal decision on mother's part, and dad's. It does involve terminating a life. So. There ya are. It's not a chortle decision.

Are you really thinking that I was suggesting that these are “chortle decisions?” If so, let me assure you that I’m not.

That’s not what I was chortling about at all.

What were you chortling about? I hope it's not what I think it is.

[wbtravis007]

I dint CM. It is something to consider. I said I agreed with the rape, incest, health of mom or baby thing. I do think that involves a personal decision on mother's part, and dad's. It does involve terminating a life. So. There ya are. It's not a chortle decision.

Are you really thinking that I was suggesting that these are “chortle decisions?” If so, let me assure you that I’m not.

That’s not what I was chortling about at all.

I don't know what your chortle was about then.

Ear asked questions. He couldn’t or wouldn’t answer them.

Who here didn’t know that he wouldn’t?

Couldn’t help but chortle about it.

Sorry that that caused wadding.

[Beebs52]

Are you really thinking that I was suggesting that these are “chortle decisions?” If so, let me assure you that I’m not.

That’s not what I was chortling about at all.

I don't know what your chortle was about then.

Ear asked questions. He couldn’t or wouldn’t answer them.

Who here didn’t know that he wouldn’t?

Couldn’t help but chortle about it.

Sorry that that caused wadding.

He actually did say the compromise discussion thing...
And, was that a panties in a wad remark?

[Beebs52]

Plus, I love me some sarcasm, but you rarely express what you actually believe about what's being discussed.
ICM

[flockofseagulls104]

I don't know what your chortle was about then.

Ear asked questions. He couldn’t or wouldn’t answer them.

Who here didn’t know that he wouldn’t?

Couldn’t help but chortle about it.

Sorry that that caused wadding.

He actually did say the compromise discussion thing...
And, was that a panties in a wad remark?

You had your chance to show yourself as a serious person. Now you show yourself as nothing but a troll who sticks his bullshit in just to be annoying. Which is all you ever have been. You really should just go away. Go to the main forum and be annoying there. You have nothing to say that is of any value.
In a debate, there would be a lot of questions to be answered before that came up. And the answers depend on what had been decided before that point. I'm not explaining that to you, you have no dog in this hunt anymore, you gave it away.

[wbtravis007]

Ear asked questions. He couldn’t or wouldn’t answer them.

Who here didn’t know that he wouldn’t?

Couldn’t help but chortle about it.

Sorry that that caused wadding.

He actually did say the compromise discussion thing...
And, was that a panties in a wad remark?

You had your chance to show yourself as a serious person. Now you show yourself as nothing but a troll who sticks his bullshit in just to be annoying. Which is all you ever have been. You really should just go away. Go to the main forum and be annoying there. You have nothing to say that is of any value.
In a debate, there would be a lot of questions to be answered before that came up. And the answers depend on what had been decided before that point. I'm not explaining that to you, you have no dog in this hunt anymore, you gave it away.

Well… there you go again.

[wbtravis007]

Plus, I love me some sarcasm, but you rarely express what you actually believe about what's being discussed.
ICM

If you’re asking, I’ll say that, compared to where we are now, I’d prefer what we had before Roe v Wade was overturned.

So, I’d be fine with codification of Roe until something better would be effectuated.

Of course, though, I’m always open to hear about better alternatives.

[flockofseagulls104]

Plus, I love me some sarcasm, but you rarely express what you actually believe about what's being discussed.
ICM

If you’re asking, I’ll say that, compared to where we are now, I’d prefer what we had before Roe v Wade was overturned.

So, I’d be fine with codification of Roe until something better would be effectuated.

Of course, though, I’m always open to hear about better alternatives.

Roe vs Wade was bad law. That was known from the start. It was completely unconstitutional, and was struck down by the Supreme Court when it was challenged. You may say, and I agree with you, that it was stuck down on a political basis. But it was instituted on a political basis as well. That is the way it has always been. Nothing is perfect. So we are where we are. Any codification will be like that as well.

Travis gets some kind of kick pointing out that I don't have all the answers. I have always said that I know that I don't know what I don't know. And I am always suspicious of those who pretend to know what they don't know. But until some reasonable people on both sides get together and agree on what should be done and what can be done on this issue, it will always be like it is on this board. "My argument is the only way to go, and your argument is crap. You are stupid". but this time on a state-by-state basis.

That is what I proposed on this forum, and travis pretended to take me up on it, on the pretense that it would make me look false and disingenuous. Instead, it exposed him as being that. My mistake was assuming he was a reasonable person.

I thought it would be a good exercise, on this forum - where it means absolutely nothing- to engage in this debate, and see if we could come up with a workable solution to this issue between two people who represent only their own personal viewpoint on this subject. Both sides would have to give something, but in the end be comfortable with the end result. I don't know if it's possible.

Again, I know I don't know what I don't know. Maybe I am crazy. But I thought it would be a more useful and valuable use of this little space on the internet and the time I choose to spend here than engaging in the never ending tit for tat that this space is.

[kroxquo]

Plus, I love me some sarcasm, but you rarely express what you actually believe about what's being discussed.
ICM

If you’re asking, I’ll say that, compared to where we are now, I’d prefer what we had before Roe v Wade was overturned.

So, I’d be fine with codification of Roe until something better would be effectuated.

Of course, though, I’m always open to hear about better alternatives.

Roe vs Wade was bad law. That was known from the start. It was completely unconstitutional, and was struck down by the Supreme Court when it was challenged. You may say, and I agree with you, that it was stuck down on a political basis. But it was instituted on a political basis as well. That is the way it has always been. Nothing is perfect. So we are where we are. Any codification will be like that as well.

Travis gets some kind of kick pointing out that I don't have all the answers. I have always said that I know that I don't know what I don't know. And I am always suspicious of those who pretend to know what they don't know. But until some reasonable people on both sides get together and agree on what should be done and what can be done on this issue, it will always be like it is on this board. "My argument is the only way to go, and your argument is crap. You are stupid". but this time on a state-by-state basis.

That is what I proposed on this forum, and travis pretended to take me up on it, on the pretense that it would make me look false and disingenuous. Instead, it exposed him as being that. My mistake was assuming he was a reasonable person.

I thought it would be a good exercise, on this forum - where it means absolutely nothing- to engage in this debate, and see if we could come up with a workable solution to this issue between two people who represent only their own personal viewpoint on this subject. Both sides would have to give something, but in the end be comfortable with the end result. I don't know if it's possible.

Again, I know I don't know what I don't know. Maybe I am crazy. But I thought it would be a more useful and valuable use of this little space on the internet and the time I choose to spend here than engaging in the never ending tit for tat that this space is.

One thing you said here intrigues me. When Roe was over turned, there was discussion that it was returning the question of abortion to the states where it belongs. I don't know if that was your personal position, but there many on the right saying that. Now, however, many on the right (including the new Speaker of the House) are advocating for a nation wide ban on abortion, or at least severely restricting it on a nation-wide basis. How do you reconcile the state authority argument with this?

[flockofseagulls104]

One thing you said here intrigues me. When Roe was over turned, there was discussion that it was returning the question of abortion to the states where it belongs. I don't know if that was your personal position, but there many on the right saying that. Now, however, many on the right (including the new Speaker of the House) are advocating for a nation wide ban on abortion, or at least severely restricting it on a nation-wide basis. How do you reconcile the state authority argument with this?

I don't. I think it's another bad idea. One side imposing their will over everyone when they have the power to do so. It will only last until they lose their majority, then the other side will impose their will. In our formative days as a nation, we got our most enlightened leaders together to hash out agreements to difficult questions. That is how our Constitution came into being.

My solution, which I know has zero chance of ever happening, is to do the same thing with this question. Put together a select group of people acceptable to all sides of the issue and have them come up with a solution, if possible. Another thing I don't know is: If a compromise is found, will this fit into a Constitutional amendment so it can't easily be undone by the next regime? It is supposed to be done in our Congress, but we keep electing a lot of unreasonable and irrational people with their own agendas to represent us, and this endless fighting, backbiting, corruption and finger-pointing is the result. Kind of like this bored. But those are the only kind of people who run. Reasonable and rational people are not attracted to the Washington circus.

[wbtravis007]

Plus, I love me some sarcasm, but you rarely express what you actually believe about what's being discussed.
ICM

If you’re asking, I’ll say that, compared to where we are now, I’d prefer what we had before Roe v Wade was overturned.

So, I’d be fine with codification of Roe until something better would be effectuated.

Of course, though, I’m always open to hear about better alternatives.

Roe vs Wade was bad law. That was known from the start. It was completely unconstitutional, and was struck down by the Supreme Court when it was challenged. You may say, and I agree with you, that it was stuck down on a political basis. But it was instituted on a political basis as well. That is the way it has always been. Nothing is perfect. So we are where we are. Any codification will be like that as well.

Travis gets some kind of kick pointing out that I don't have all the answers. I have always said that I know that I don't know what I don't know. And I am always suspicious of those who pretend to know what they don't know. But until some reasonable people on both sides get together and agree on what should be done and what can be done on this issue, it will always be like it is on this board. "My argument is the only way to go, and your argument is crap. You are stupid". but this time on a state-by-state basis.

That is what I proposed on this forum, and travis pretended to take me up on it, on the pretense that it would make me look false and disingenuous. Instead, it exposed him as being that. My mistake was assuming he was a reasonable person.

I thought it would be a good exercise, on this forum - where it means absolutely nothing- to engage in this debate, and see if we could come up with a workable solution to this issue between two people who represent only their own personal viewpoint on this subject. Both sides would have to give something, but in the end be comfortable with the end result. I don't know if it's possible.

Again, I know I don't know what I don't know. Maybe I am crazy. But I thought it would be a more useful and valuable use of this little space on the internet and the time I choose to spend here than engaging in the never ending tit for tat that this space is.

Oh no! I’ve been “exposed!”

Your recap of our exchanges is weird, but typical. It seems to happen often.

I doubt that anyone will be distracted from remembering your previous inane and embarrassing posts in this thread (and the other related one that you started) by your mischaracterizations of mine now, but I understand why you would go to so much trouble to try to justify those posts now anyway.

Not that anyone else would do that, but I understand why you do.

[Beebs52]

I sorta agree, wb. It's all sound and fury. Is this a guy thing? Seems to be quien es mas macho.