Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Legal abortion comes to Latin America
Topic Started: Apr 24 2007, 09:04 AM (1,061 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Apr 26 2007, 08:23 AM
I would wager that if someone introduced legislation in Congress today that proposed banning any abortion performed by a doctor using a wire hanger, there would be a subset of the population, largely congruent with the "anti-partial-birth-abortion-ban" crowd, who would start marching in the streets protesting the outrageous stripping away of a woman's "right to choose," and that this legislation was the harbinger of taking us back to the dark ages.

no doubt. :rolleyes:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dewey
Apr 26 2007, 11:23 AM
They are relatively rare, but they are not performed only in the event that the mother's life is in danger - which is why all the uproar over the issue would seem to be baffling, unless the opposition is actually arguing to bolster something other than what its ban actually proposes.

After listening to this reported on Commie PBS, I was under the impression that the intent was to ban partial birth abortion even in the event that the mothers life was in danger.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Posting for informational content, not because I necessarily agree or disagree. From this week's New England Journal of Medicine, an editorial:

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court signaled a significant change in abortion jurisprudence. It held in Gonzales v. Carhart that a federal statute outlawing the use of "partial-birth abortion" is constitutional, even though many members of the medical community believe that the procedure should be available when it is the safest option for terminating a pregnancy. No exception was made for protecting a woman's health; only a threat to a woman's life would excuse the use of the procedure. Absent that excuse, a physician who knowingly performs an intact dilation and extraction (D&X) is subject to 2 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and monetary damages for psychological injury to the husband or parents of the pregnant woman.

later..

A so-called partial-birth abortion, or D&X, involves dilating the cervix, partially extracting the fetus, puncturing the skull while it remains in the uterus, and removing the brain tissue through suction, thus allowing for easy removal of the otherwise intact fetus through the birth canal. In cases in which the procedure is performed, it is usually done late in the second trimester of pregnancy, though in some cases it is used during the third trimester. D&X procedures are rare; in 2000, only 2200 were performed by 31 providers, accounting for 0.17% of all abortions in the United States that year. The more common abortion procedures are suction curettage (used in the first trimester) and dilation and evacuation (D&E), which is the most common procedure in the second trimester. D&E requires dismembering the fetus within the uterus, which poses risks of uterine damage or perforation from surgical instruments and sharp remnants of fetal bone.

later..

But the greatest uncertainty of all concerns the continued viability of any right to abortion in all but imminently life-threatening situations. The federal statute makes no distinction between pre-viability and post-viability abortions and bans the D&X procedure in both situations, even in cases in which physicians believe that the alternatives are more dangerous to a woman's health. The prospect that a woman's health might be endangered by limiting access to D&X procedures is deemed insufficient to qualify as an "undue burden." Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart endorses this conclusion, stating that it is "legitimate" because "a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb" and that "choosing not to prohibit [a brutal and inhumane procedure] will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life."

And thus the balance of interests shifts, with women's health no longer paramount but rather societal morality and the state's interest in life even before the point of viability outside the womb. For Justice Ginsburg, this vote signals an end to support for the central premises of Roe v. Wade: "In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

well, Moonie, if you are dense to the general meaning of "human being" then I doubt we can ever go anywhere. Since you are not able to comprehend the notion of a discrete individual that innately shares common characteristics with all others of the set "human", perhaps we should stop here.


I know what you mean, but i also know that what you mean is a statistical model, that the definition involves a degree of projection. That's why you can't define it, because it's just refers to statistically defined map.

Quote:
 

Some argue against animal torture because it hurts "us", not the animal. You perhaps would not distinguish between killing and eating a chicken, or killing and eating a carrot, from killing and eating your grandmother. Many of us would. Once one acknowledges a moral distinction between these acts, it becomes obvious that since killing is a more serious and permanent action than torture, if one can kill and eat a dog then torture is sort of straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Of course, if you allow for killing and eating your grandmother, then these would be morally equivalent actions.


Some would argue against animal torture because it hurts us? What ever those people are smoking, i want some of it.

As for your equivalence between grandmothers and carrots heaven knows where you get that from. As far i can see if one wants an objective kind of ethics, a non-arbitrary one then the net effect on all conscious observers is the only basis which can be found.

Since people who are tortured often beg to die that would seem to argue against the notion that death is worse. We all die, whether or not death is worse than torture for a given individual might be approached by considering whether the positive experiences after the torture are deemed to outweigh the torture itself. If not i suppose the person be better off dieing. However one must also factor in other influences the effect loved ones etc. etc.

Quote:
 

No, I am not saying something "mystically significant" comes into being, I am saying a human comes into being.


Defining an individual human how?

Quote:
 

Sperm + egg = TADA human being. It is nonsense to say nothing nothing nothing. Again, you make for a very boring interlocutor when such basic things need to be explained.


You still haven't understood what i'm saying.

Quote:
 

You are of course assuming that conclusion.


Assuming what conclusion? That evolution has fashioned with a hardwired response to babies? Seems pretty clear cut.

Quote:
 

It is clear from embryology that at some point after the spinal cord develops that the baby foetus is capable of sensing pain, responding to music, movement, etc. Even brain activity similar to dream state is recordable. Yet your system accords the foetus no moral import. Other than aesthetic, what is the problem with aborting and eating the foetus? Why the TADA once they are ex utero?


My system does infact accord the foetus "moral import", in the sense that the foetus experiences, i care about the net quality of experience.

In terms aborting then eating the foetus vs. just aborting the foetus, bar asthetics there is no difference at all.

Quote:
 

And some day those descendents will be judged as monstrous for eating vegetables. Not a very convincing argument


Only if we discover vegetables feel, but that seems unlikely, whereas animals do infact feel.

Quote:
 

No, because at that point something observable does happen to unify into a new separate and discrete entity that is measurably more than the "spetus" (a very problematic construct if I understand what you are hoping to argue).


Your answer is merely to repeadly assert this "entity" thing which absolutely identical to your previous "being" thing, why does fertilisation matter because then it becomes a being, then it becomes an entity. But that's completely arbitrary, reality doesn't care what words we use to describe it.

If we wanted to we could _equally say_ that a spetus evolves into a fertilised egg, and then fertilised egg evolves into a zooccyte, etc. etc. All that matters is that the information contained in the description matches reality. (The description is infact still not very good because we're massively glossing over all the different process that are included in this "evolve" term.)

This discrete thing is clearly just an arbitrary perspective, for if i want i can claim that the fertilsed egg is not a discrete thing at all, rather it is a collection of billions upon billions of molecules. That's not discrete at all. I mean you could define some spacial distribution function and then you could say look there are much more localised, the molecules of a fertilised egg are much closer to one another than the moelcules of a spetus, but so what? Why is that significant?

Quote:
 

Yes, and the property is fully innate in the zygote, just as the capacity for generation and ambulation and volition is. Which is why we can safely call the zygote a human being. Your jar of chemicals on the shelf does not have the capacity innate, which is why we don't call your jar of chemicals a "human". Seems so incredibly obvious to me, I can only wonder why not to you.


Fully innate? What is that supposed to mean?

Meaningless. In the properties of a zygote there is no suffering, there is not the faculty for suffering there is a set of atoms that are vibrating in a certain pattern. If a large number of chemical operations are performed on that pattern of interacting atoms then after a number of months a system who's properties includes the thing we call experience emerges.

Quote:
 

OK, as I said above, if you cannot even accept common definitions for what determines a human being from a jar of chemicals on your shelf, there is little point in continuing.


I accept the definitions, but they are just definitions they are just words. One can say the same thing, capture the same information with different definitions. If you can say something about the world using a certain set of definitions not another, even though both are informatically complete, both cover all the information that exists. Then the thing you are saying is not a property of the world is something you are projecting.

Quote:
 

The problem with that "spetus" as a morally significant (or equally insignificant) entity is that the spetus is not an "entity" -- it is separate parts, separate entities, and has no necessary interrelationship, whereas a conceptus does. You are really grasping at straws here, Moonie.


What do you mean when you say an "entity"? And what do you mean by "necesssary inter-relationship" necessary for what? If you define a system to include x,y and z, then x y and z are necessary for the system to exist.

An entity is what we say (usually though not always, based upon intuitive evolution statastical algorithims) it is. A cell is "separate parts" in the sense that one could describe it at a given point time in terms of atoms. The atoms themselves do not need any of the other atoms in the cell to "exist".

The key to grasp Ivory is that i'm saying that the concepts you use here that you speak of as if they are part of the world are just part of your head, are just maps of neurones. This "entity" stuff is not a property of the world. It's property of you. It's a projection. If it's not a projection it can't be dependent on one particular set of definitions. If I can describe all that atoms and interactions, all the pattern using a different set of definition _i must be able to reach the same conclusion_ but i can't in this case, because what you consider significant is just the map in your head.

I can talk quite happily about the reality that you are referring when you talk of fertilsed eggs, if what you mean by an "entity" is merely a certain spacial distribution then ok, but immediately then you can see the immediately obvious question of "why does that matter?"

Quote:
 

It does not matter what we call it. All that concerns me is that you and I are looking at the same thing, and you are unwilling or unable to determine that it is a discrete individual substance of human material and a human nature. You can logic chop all you want as to what "nature", "human", "being" etc are. Again, I am not interested in explaining common parlance, philosophical terms, and basic embryology to a guy who seems otherwise intelligent enough to not belabour conversations.


Discrete individual substance - it's made of spacially and temporally discrete atoms. You'd be hard pressed to find many examples more heterogenous than a cell.

I'm quite happy to look at a cell and ask what the properties are, and i'm quite happy to look at a spetus and ask what the properties, i'm quite happy to look at any region of reality, defining that region however one likes. What i'm not happy to do is pretend the viewing window that i'm defining, is the same kind of thing as what i'm seeing through the window.

Quote:
 

I have given you very precise reasons over and over again.


Oh yea very precise, what's a human "being"? A being that is human? What's a being? A entity. What's an entity? A being possibly? Yea the precision is astounding.

Quote:
 

Of course I did. I've already pointed out that the foetus is a discrete observable entity


What do you mean by discrete? A spetus is an observable "entity".

If you mean a specific spacial distribution function. Ok that's a reasonable definition. Now why does that matter? Why are you define ethics based on spatial distribution functions?

Quote:
 

Your worldview is much more susceptible to that. You try to create a new "being" out of a "spetus" that lacks any coherence. It is you who change the language so that you can destroy with impunity a human being because it does not meet your arbitrary definition of "personhood


There is just reality, it has properties, it can be described. Taxonomy is up to us, if you want to call something a "being" nature does not care.

Quote:
 

Since I don't accept your "ifs", and you don't comprehend that there is indeed a massive and observable difference between a zygote and a separate egg and sperm, or between any of those things and the same chemicals sitting in a jar on your shelf, then there is little common ground on which to proceed.


One can distinguish zygotes from unfertilised sperm and eggs, and one can distinguish the the point when the zygote has divided from the point before division, and make vast numbers of subsequent distinguishments.

Quote:
 

Of course I did. I've already pointed out that the foetus is a discrete observable entity, that you cannot claim of the spetus. I've also point out the observable characteristics that differentiate it from those same chemicals in a jar sitting on your shelf. It is not a question of "systems" as you are now trying to drag the conversation onto those grounds, but a question of "being" -- an existent and discrete entity.


I can set out the characteristics that seperate any point in chemical space from any other point, any collection of atoms (and that is all i mean by "system) from any other collection of atoms. Easy. If you want to use discrete you going to have give me a definition. And then you're going to have to explain why that definition is important in the context of ethics.

Quote:
 

OK, I will refrain from using the term "human being" and simply say that the fetus is a human. It is in a particular stage of development. It is always immoral to kill a(n innocent) human.

Let's not muddy things up with "being". Abortion kills humans. Full stop.


What do mean by human? Do you simply mean a certain set of sequences of DNA? For then my skin cells are human. Many of them die. Why are they less important than the fertilised egg? There is a set of chemical opertations which will turn them into a twin of me. Why don't they matter?

Quote:
 

If you can kill and eat a cow, and wear its hide on your feet, you can do anything you damn well please. I am against animal abuse because it cheapens life in general and is a disservice to our humanity. But do I think that crushing a monkey skull for improving medical practices of close headed injuries is wrong? No. Would crushing a Jew's skull for improving medical practices of close headed injuries be wrong? Yes.

The foetus certainly feels pain once the neurological system is developed. Yet you would have us morally free to salt poison, dice and slice, remove its head from the birth canal and stab it in the back of the neck with scissors (partial birth abortion)?

*That* is not something for ethical consideration?

No way man.


You don't really understand my position at all Ivory. Infact my position is somewhat more tentative than appears because i actually know the problems with the position and there problems atleast intuitively there are. It's just that there is no alternative, not if you're trying to get some kind of objective ethics. Your ethics is entirely subjective because you just take 5 axioms, of common behaviour and then call them good and then analyse everything form that stand point (actually you don't do that at all, but that's the idea anyway). But one could just choose some other 5 axioms. What metacriterea do you use to decide which observations of human behaviour to take as axioms? And why bother with having human behaviour as axiom forming in the first place?

The only option is to say "well that's intuitive" but then you are right back at square one because if someone finds something else intuitive you have no way of arguing they are incorrect, you are complete screwed, ethics becomes subjective again.

See that's why i take the ultra Ulitarian perspective and i ask about what is really there because i want to avoid that, i want to take something non-arbitrary. If one doesn't mind being arbitrary then there's no issue. If one doesn't mind saying i think humans are important because i do, and one accepts that this is necessarily subjective then ok. But if one ones to try and find an objective concept of ethics, that doesn't work.

The problem with speciesism is that it looks arbitrary in the same way racism was. Claws vs. hands :shrug:, skin colouration :shrug: intelligence :shrug:.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
But the greatest uncertainty of all concerns the continued viability of any right to abortion in all but imminently life-threatening situations. The federal statute makes no distinction between pre-viability and post-viability abortions and bans the D&X procedure in both situations, even in cases in which physicians believe that the alternatives are more dangerous to a woman's health. The prospect that a woman's health might be endangered by limiting access to D&X procedures is deemed insufficient to qualify as an "undue burden." Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart endorses this conclusion, stating that it is "legitimate" because "a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb" and that "choosing not to prohibit [a brutal and inhumane procedure] will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life."

And thus the balance of interests shifts, with women's health no longer paramount but rather societal morality and the state's interest in life even before the point of viability outside the womb. For Justice Ginsburg, this vote signals an end to support for the central premises of Roe v. Wade: "In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."


The balance of interests has shifted, but not in the way the writer would portary it. Medical science has redefined "viable" in much earlier terms than just a couple of decades ago. We are now enmeshed in a time when we routinely violate the principle of "first, do no harm" when it pertains to the viability of the fetus.

One makes a much weaker argument for abortion, when one has to destroy a life capable of living outside of the womb for the conveniance of the mother. The "partial-birth" procedure is most likely a first step, as the legal system further reviews the rights of those not yet born...if you can charge a man with murder for the traumatic death of a child in-utero, then that child possesses inalienable rights.

IMO, the only successful arguments for abortion will concentrate on the first trimester, or just after, when the procedure poses less risk to the patient and the viability of the fetus is non-existent.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Apr 26 2007, 10:34 AM
Dewey
Apr 26 2007, 11:23 AM
They are relatively rare, but they are not performed only in the event that the mother's life is in danger - which is why all the uproar over the issue would seem to be baffling, unless the opposition is actually arguing to bolster something other than what its ban actually proposes.

After listening to this reported on Commie PBS, I was under the impression that the intent was to ban partial birth abortion even in the event that the mothers life was in danger.

According to the AMA there is no medical advantage to partial birth abortion -- the opposition to the ban is an ideological opposition that shows the moral bankruptcy of the whole pro abortion position.

Quote:
 
(2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X  [see below = Partial Birth Abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient. 


Furthermore, the AMA notes that late term abortion generally not be done, and that the fetus not be sacrificed if at all possible to save the life of the baby.

Quote:
 
(4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery. 


However, the politics continue -- the AMA will not use the term "Partial Birth Abortion" since they claim
Quote:
 
(1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction" (or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA. 


Bizarre, since "medical terms" are common convention. It seems they are submitting to the pressure from the probort lobby and using new language that while is arguably technical only hides the grotesque reality of the procedure. The probort lobby wants to move away from that language since they realize that it is a losing cause. And the AMA is all too willing to accommodate them.


The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Moonbat
Apr 26 2007, 09:46 AM
What ever those people are smoking, i want some of it.

Me too.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
No you don't, you quit.

These two are just making stuff up for the sake of polemics. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what they're arguing over is unresolvable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonie: I well understand your position, and it seems that you have a deeply bifurcated consciousness. You are free to consider the human as a statistically mapped cluster of molecules. I suspect that your analytical reality (at least as you present it) has no real bearing on your experiential reality.

As I noted above, I will not labour commonly held definitions as to what "being", "entity", "nature", "humanity" etc are. Your systemic approach to spetus is just silly. It is like saying that the petrol in the tank at the petrol station is causative to running your motor, when unless that petrol is actually injected into the cylinder and ignited your car does not run. In denying that the fertilized egg is a distinct entity and is a proper subject of scientific inquiry in itself-- and I will not labor these things with you -- you are also denying that your engine is a distinct entity but can only be understood in terms of the whole system of production -- from the molecular production of fossil fuels to the refining process to the distribution system to the consumer purchase to the process of tanking up to the actual ignition. So much for auto mechanics and embryologists -- in your system they are not valid specializations.

As far as I can tell, you are not really interested in the question of the human at all, but rather in justifying the destruction of certain humans that do not satisfy your criteria for existence.

Whenever anyone has to go to the lengths that you do to allow for the destruction of human life and to attempt to justify it on "ethical" grounds, the notion of Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate immediately comes to mind that you are way overreaching the simple and solid moral position that innocent human life ought always be protected in whatever state of development or existence.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Apr 26 2007, 11:24 AM
No you don't, you quit.

These two are just making stuff up for the sake of polemics. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what they're arguing over is unresolvable.

So you really think that the human cannot be defined and that objective ethical considerations of human activity cannot be conscribed?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Where did I say that? I said you and Moonbat were just making things up to fuel your polemic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
Your ethics is entirely subjective because you just take 5 axioms, of common behaviour and then call them good and then analyse everything form that stand point (actually you don't do that at all, but that's the idea anyway). But one could just choose some other 5 axioms. What metacriterea do you use to decide which observations of human behaviour to take as axioms? And why bother with having human behaviour as axiom forming in the first place?


What five other axioms would you propose?

You seem willing to disregard the whole notion that what is good is considered in respect of the nature of the being. It is good for cows to eat only grass, it is not good for humans to eat only grass. Yet you deny "human nature" or "bovine nature" as a valid system for consideration of what is "good". Again, you just can't get away from ontology as much as you think it bizarre.

The "metacriteria" is that which promotes the good of the being. (Again, I will not belabour commonly understood words with you). Procreation, self survival, sociality, knowledge of the world outside of the self, procurement of goods that allow for health and happiness -- what is wrong with these criteria? They seem entirely essential to human existence and natural, normative, and salutary to the human condition.

As for laying a foundation for moral and ethical consideration, the axioms don't create the context, they define it (not necessarily exclusively or sufficiently, but necessarily). These axioms are not imposed extrinsically, but are constrained by our nature: no human can fail to be bound by them -- we must by our nature pursue goods, seek to know the truth, be inclined to live in society and survive and procreate.

Your criteria (avoidance of pain, pursuit of pleasure) is a problematically limited version of "pursue the good" (and avoid evil). As such, it does not take into account a whole host of other considerations that are necessary to create a well ordered society -- and that is the very purpose of law, to promote the common good for all humans.

So tell me what is your view of the purpose of the state, the role of law, the proper consideraton for whether a law is "valid" (you can define that as you will or suggest an alternative word), and what other five self evident axioms that better describe common human activity that you would propose to replace classical natural law theory.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Apr 26 2007, 11:56 AM
Where did I say that? I said you and Moonbat were just making things up to fuel your polemic.

What have I made up?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
More like, 'What have I not made up?'.

And now you're arguing with me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Apr 26 2007, 12:11 PM
More like, 'what have I not made up?'.

And now you're arguing with me.

Asking a question = arguing? Not my problem.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
No, it is your problem. You created an ethical dilemma out of nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
You are being obscure. I have no ethical dilemma, nor have I created any.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
So you admit then that you are in denial of making things up to fuel the polemic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Apr 26 2007, 12:22 PM
So you admit then that you are in denial of making things up to fuel the polemic?

Have you stopped beating your wife?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
That's an uncalled for and unscupulous ad hominem. I have never beat anyone, any animal or any vegetable in my life.

Why, it's beneath my human dignity to continue this sarcasm conversation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Apr 26 2007, 03:33 PM
  I have never beat anyone, any animal or any vegetable in my life.


At anything? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Don't worry, that response to stimuli in the AC biomachine will pass. :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Posted Image
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

These two are just making stuff up for the sake of polemics. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what they're arguing over is unresolvable.


I think much of it is resolveable, i mean much of it is infact resolved.That our intuitive concepts of the world are basically wrong is already beyond established.

The nature of ethics is not resolved, i will grant you that, but i think we are converging to a solution (not me and IT, but in terms of a long term view of social evolution etc.)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Sorry Moonbat, but my intuition tells me that there is no exclusively rational solution at all so long as there remains the duality as to whether humanity is intrinsically good or intrinsically evil. As Hermann Hesse wrote in Magister Ludi when describing faith and doubt, the two go together as do inhaling and exhaling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3