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
South Bend is the Selma for this era
Topic Started: May 11 2009, 02:13 PM (925 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
May 12 2009, 02:43 AM
Mikhailoh
May 12 2009, 01:33 AM
PL, I don't think anyone is calling for prison sentences for women who abort. Simply that abortion on demand no longer be lawful.
In other words, a participant in a murder shouldn't be charged with the crime of murder.

[Note for IT, who has a penchant for misinterpreting every statement: I don't believe that an unborn fetus is a human being. I don't believe that abortion is killing a human being. Therefore, I don't believe abortion is murder. I am merely following along Mik's line of argument. I know that's awfully hard for you to understand, in the BizzaroWorld in which you live, but do try.]

I thought you had said that at some point during development, the fetus becomes a human being. Are you know saying that until the baby is actually born it is not a human being? What is it 2 seconds before it enters the birth canal?

And if the fetus is not a human being, then why is abortion so emotionally damaging to the woman, as you stated last week? Root canals and appendectomies and hysterectomies and haircuts and manicures are not emotionally damaging. Why should abortion be emotionally damaging if it is just a surgical procedure akin to taking out an unwanted mass like a lumpectomy?

At least try to be consistent and present a consistent position, Quirt, before accusing others of not dealing with the "reality" (I use the term analogously) of Quirtland.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Taking up Dewey's point here, are you saying that for all 2000 years of the Catholic Church's history, where the church has consistently and constantly taught against abortion from the very earliest days, it has all been a smoke screen to deflect attention from child abuse?

Wow, PL. That would just be bizarre.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pianolicious
Senior Carp
Yes IT that would be bizarre if it was indeed something i had said. But it wasn't. You are the king of the "Gee PL is this what you mean? Because if it is you're wierd" fallacy.
Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 12 2009, 10:58 AM
Taking up Dewey's point here, are you saying that for all 2000 years of the Catholic Church's history, where the church has consistently and constantly taught against abortion from the very earliest days, it has all been a smoke screen to deflect attention from child abuse?

Wow, PL. That would just be bizarre.
It doesn't make sense, neither does his comment about thinking like an adult being against church teachings, neither does anything else he's said about the church. I offered a link to The Gospel of Life, published in 1995, as an offer into the Catholic view of the value of human life (i.e., it's not a smokescreen in a mass conspiracy).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Pianolicious
May 12 2009, 11:03 AM
Yes IT that would be bizarre if it was indeed something i had said. But it wasn't. You are the king of the "Gee PL is this what you mean? Because if it is you're wierd" fallacy.
What didn't you say? IT is speaking about your allegations of the church's pro-life position being a smokescreen.

Pianolicious
 
The church needs this distraction. Personally, I think the pro-life movement is a smokescreen to make the church appear to value life in spite of a culture of child exploitation over the past century or four.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 12 2009, 10:39 AM
Really, Quirt, I understand why you are so angry at me, and so intent on trying to dismiss me as delusional or unprincipled or a hypocrite or inconsistent or not dealing in reality, but this thread is fairly emblematic of your own patterns of not dealing with the reality of what someone is actually saying. I can see why you would find that frustrating and the cause of anger, and why you have to lash out at your opponents.

If you find it hard to have a discussion with someone for whom reality is only a sometimes concept, maybe you should try some medicine to stop the voices inside your own head -- they are the real problem, not the external world.



I thought you had already demonstrated your convincingly dismal lack of skill for pretend pyschoanalysis. You really ought to stick to architecture and the esoterica of metaphysics and other innocuous intellectual putterings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pianolicious
Senior Carp
Musicasacra: you need to brush up on basic math.

In relation to Dewey's point 1, Keyes went there to be arrested by his own admission. There is a free speech zone and he chose to go to another area of the campus. There's not much room for conversation when their only purpose in being there was to get their picture in the paper.

In relation to Dewey's Point II, See Point I about free speech zones. I didn't invite Obama to the school. I don't know why the Catholic church invited Obama but doesn't want him to come but leaves the invitation open and won't rescind it. No University President is all-powerful. If the church really wanted to rescind the invite, they would have by now. They are publicizing the opposition to save face. Or perhaps they know that a leader is about more than single-issue voters would believe. Maybe they are starting to realize that they can get some traction for their cause by inviting the world's most powerful pro-choice advocate to their school.

Problems get solved one of two ways: either through dialog or pretending it doesn't exist. The former works. The latter has cost them big bucks. Maybe they are trying alternatives? Maybe it's increasing money in the offering plate. I don't know but if they can keep one black man off campus, why are they having such a dilly of a time of it keeping another one off?

Maybe they plan on arresting HIM when he arrives? That would be something to write home about.
Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I just want to go on record as saying that I get angry and frustrated when anyone calls an unborn baby a fetus. I understand that is the technical term, that it is medically accurate and that it saves two syllables and all, but I feel it devalues human life.

I'd also like to go on record as saying I do not enjoy Quirt and IT's arguments. It is just so high school debate class with name calling thrown in.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Kincaid
May 12 2009, 11:23 AM
I just want to go on record as saying that I get angry and frustrated when anyone calls an unborn baby a fetus. I understand that is the technical term, that it is medically accurate and that it saves two syllables and all, but I feel it devalues human life.

I'd also like to go on record as saying I do not enjoy Quirt and IT's arguments. It is just so high school debate class with name calling thrown in.
Hooray, Kincaid, I couldn't have said it better! Now with the combined thread killing power that we both possess, I predict this thread will die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Pianolicious
May 12 2009, 11:03 AM
Yes IT that would be bizarre if it was indeed something i had said. But it wasn't. You are the king of the "Gee PL is this what you mean? Because if it is you're wierd" fallacy.
Then explain your views. Here you said:

Quote:
 
The church needs this distraction. Personally, I think the pro-life movement is a smokescreen to make the church appear to value life in spite of a culture of child exploitation over the past century or four.


Should I just modify that "ever since the Council of Trent"? Since 1600 the church has been advocating against abortion but systematically and institutionally raping children?

The problem with your views is that the Church has constantly taught in favor of pro life from its inception. The Church became more vocal about it in the late 60s and early 70s when abortion was moving toward legalization. The prolife movement per se is forty years old, yet the child abuse crimes only came to light in the early 2000s. Also, the vast majority of those cases have (one would hope) come to light, and been adjudicated and settled. So it makes no sense that the Church is using the prolife platform as a smoke screen.

You have not presented a coherent history to sustain your claim that the Church is using the prolife platform as a smoke screen. Merely stating things as if they were true doesn't cut it.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Pianolicious
May 12 2009, 11:18 AM
Musicasacra: you need to brush up on basic math.

In relation to Dewey's point 1, Keyes went there to be arrested by his own admission. There is a free speech zone and he chose to go to another area of the campus. There's not much room for conversation when their only purpose in being there was to get their picture in the paper.

In relation to Dewey's Point II, See Point I about free speech zones. I didn't invite Obama to the school. I don't know why the Catholic church invited Obama but doesn't want him to come but leaves the invitation open and won't rescind it. No University President is all-powerful. If the church really wanted to rescind the invite, they would have by now. They are publicizing the opposition to save face. Or perhaps they know that a leader is about more than single-issue voters would believe. Maybe they are starting to realize that they can get some traction for their cause by inviting the world's most powerful pro-choice advocate to their school.

Problems get solved one of two ways: either through dialog or pretending it doesn't exist. The former works. The latter has cost them big bucks. Maybe they are trying alternatives? Maybe it's increasing money in the offering plate. I don't know but if they can keep one black man off campus, why are they having such a dilly of a time of it keeping another one off?

Maybe they plan on arresting HIM when he arrives? That would be something to write home about.
My math is fine, thanks.

I assume the rest of your message is addressed to everyone else since I wasn't talking to you about Keyes or ND.

I was talking about your allegation on page 1 that the Catholic church is using pro-life views as a smokescreen. And you made that statement before Dewey addressed you with his points that you're referring to.
Pianolicious
 
The church needs this distraction. Personally, I think the pro-life movement is a smokescreen to make the church appear to value life in spite of a culture of child exploitation over the past century or four.

I specifically said that was wrong, read this link to The Gospel of Life to get some insight.

Now, if you are saying I misinterpreted your statement, that you accept the Church is truly pro-life and isn't using those beliefs as a smokescreen, then that's fine, I'm glad to hear it. What are you saying now?

And I am glad to hear you don't think the Vatican is satanic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Renauda
May 12 2009, 11:09 AM
ivorythumper
May 12 2009, 10:39 AM
Really, Quirt, I understand why you are so angry at me, and so intent on trying to dismiss me as delusional or unprincipled or a hypocrite or inconsistent or not dealing in reality, but this thread is fairly emblematic of your own patterns of not dealing with the reality of what someone is actually saying. I can see why you would find that frustrating and the cause of anger, and why you have to lash out at your opponents.

If you find it hard to have a discussion with someone for whom reality is only a sometimes concept, maybe you should try some medicine to stop the voices inside your own head -- they are the real problem, not the external world.



I thought you had already demonstrated your convincingly dismal lack of skill for pretend pyschoanalysis. You really ought to stick to architecture and the esoterica of metaphysics and other innocuous intellectual putterings.
You really ought to stick to dealing with things that you can control. ("things Rennie can control" does not equal "what IT chooses to opine upon").
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Kincaid
May 12 2009, 11:23 AM
I'd also like to go on record as saying I do not enjoy Quirt and IT's arguments. It is just so high school debate class with name calling thrown in.
Thanks, Kincaid, I will work to try to keep to the topic of conversation and keep personalities out of this. Mea culpa.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
As always, name calling is not necessary (but I really don't mind it when it's between two that can dish it out and take it). The real gripe is that you guys seem more fixated on winning the argument than on getting something resolved or understood or "hashed out" for want of a better word.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Kincaid
May 12 2009, 11:42 AM
The real gripe is that you guys seem more fixated on winning the argument
That is impossible...it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
May 12 2009, 03:15 AM
Mikhailoh
May 12 2009, 02:54 AM
Disingenuous at best. What we are talking about is making elective abortion illegal. Making it legally murder is a totally separate issue.
Please. You're just trying to duck the consequences of your own philosophical beliefs, because the consequences are unacceptable.

1. Is a fetus a human being?

2. Is it a crime to kill a human being?

3. When you kill a human being intentionally, is the crime called murder?

Which of those three questions would you not answer "Yes" to?

I recognize that it leads you to a place you don't want to be. Too damn bad. At least have the honesty to recognize that, under the existing legal framework, your belief system would lead you to that place.

IT, it appears, would change the legal system to deal with the fact that the belief system leads to unacceptable legal consequences. But that too would have societal consequences ... refusing to punish some forms of murder cheapens life, too.
Not at all Quirt. The law regularly allows for mitigation. It is a jurisprudential question as to how the laws are written and enforced to best promote the common good, which is why the law is as complex as it is. You seem to be advocating a structuralist approach to law -- that would be your prerogative, but it is not the only commonly acceptable approach to jurisprudence.

One can certainly make a cogent argument that from conception a fully human being exists in the womb that is undergoing a continuous process of development; that it is a crime to intentionally kill innocent human beings; and that such a crime is aptly called murder; without being forced to conclude that the mother aborting the child has the same legal culpability and should suffer the same legal penalty as the doctor who performs abortions with full medical knowledge and a presumed financial interest.

Once the law admits of mitigation then it is a judgment of reason as to how the law and the common good are best served. You might advocate a draconian approach to any and all infractions against the law -- again that would be your prerogative -- but it is an error to insist that such an approach is the only way to best serve the common good, which is the final goal of all law.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 12 2009, 11:29 AM
You really ought to stick to dealing with things that you can control. ("things Rennie can control" does not equal "what IT chooses to opine upon").
IT could also help matters if he made a concerted effort to be a little less condescending in his interpersonal communications with others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Renauda
May 12 2009, 11:59 AM
ivorythumper
May 12 2009, 11:29 AM
You really ought to stick to dealing with things that you can control. ("things Rennie can control" does not equal "what IT chooses to opine upon").
IT could also help matters if he made a concerted effort to be a little less condescending in his interpersonal communications with others.
Rennie could try to rewrite that without being condescending himself, although IT thinks he will fail.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
So you now want to be referred to as Socrates?

Make up your mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Renauda
May 12 2009, 12:12 PM
So you now want to be referred to as Socrates?

Make up your mind.
non sequitur.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Arguing against the Catholic stance on pro-life by using their history of sexual abuse is a straw man. You might as well say that they administer missions, and Catholic Charities as a cover up.
The history of the church doesn't bear that out, and it makes no logical sense.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 12 2009, 12:18 PM
Renauda
May 12 2009, 12:12 PM
So you now want to be referred to as Socrates?

Make up your mind.
non sequitur.
Makes perfect sequitur. Think about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
May 12 2009, 11:57 AM
QuirtEvans
May 12 2009, 03:15 AM
Mikhailoh
May 12 2009, 02:54 AM
Disingenuous at best. What we are talking about is making elective abortion illegal. Making it legally murder is a totally separate issue.
Please. You're just trying to duck the consequences of your own philosophical beliefs, because the consequences are unacceptable.

1. Is a fetus a human being?

2. Is it a crime to kill a human being?

3. When you kill a human being intentionally, is the crime called murder?

Which of those three questions would you not answer "Yes" to?

I recognize that it leads you to a place you don't want to be. Too damn bad. At least have the honesty to recognize that, under the existing legal framework, your belief system would lead you to that place.

IT, it appears, would change the legal system to deal with the fact that the belief system leads to unacceptable legal consequences. But that too would have societal consequences ... refusing to punish some forms of murder cheapens life, too.
Not at all Quirt. The law regularly allows for mitigation. It is a jurisprudential question as to how the laws are written and enforced to best promote the common good, which is why the law is as complex as it is. You seem to be advocating a structuralist approach to law -- that would be your prerogative, but it is not the only commonly acceptable approach to jurisprudence.

One can certainly make a cogent argument that from conception a fully human being exists in the womb that is undergoing a continuous process of development; that it is a crime to intentionally kill innocent human beings; and that such a crime is aptly called murder; without being forced to conclude that the mother aborting the child has the same legal culpability and should suffer the same legal penalty as the doctor who performs abortions with full medical knowledge and a presumed financial interest.

Once the law admits of mitigation then it is a judgment of reason as to how the law and the common good are best served. You might advocate a draconian approach to any and all infractions against the law -- again that would be your prerogative -- but it is an error to insist that such an approach is the only way to best serve the common good, which is the final goal of all law.
Of course you are free to treat some human beings as less worthy of the protection of the law than others. I never expected you to be intellectually consistent, so this surprises me not at all.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
We've been down this road before and not all that long ago. But it seems to me that what Ivorythumper is implying or circumlocuting is that owing to the mental and physiological stress of an unwanted pregnancy women are probably not capable of good judgement and are easy victims for pro-choice activists and storefront abortion doctors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Renauda
May 12 2009, 01:33 PM
We've been down this road before and not all that long ago. But it seems to me that what Ivorythumper is implying or circumlocuting is that owing to the mental and physiological stress of an unwanted pregnancy women are probably not capable of good judgement and are easy victims for pro-choice activists and storefront abortion doctors.
That's a reasonable theory, but it proves way too much. If you assume that anyone under severe stress is not capable of good judgment, then any family member of a terminal patient who puts that patient out of his or her misery shouldn't be prosecuted either, and I'm fairly certain that IT would not suggest a blanket immunity from prosecution for such people. I could probably come up with several more like circumstances.

It's also fairly insulting to 50% of the planet to assume that mental and physiological stress could cause them to commit excusable murder.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3