Does the Public Understand Roe v Wade?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

In retrospect this was a great call.

Really? What was so inflammatory? I didn't call anybody names.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Really? What was so inflammatory? I didn't call anybody names.

Don't play dumb.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Don't play dumb.

Not trying to. Would you consider taking an unpopular stand on a controversial subject to be inflammatory, even if the purpose was not to actually aggravate anyone?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not trying to. Would you consider taking an unpopular stand on a controversial subject to be inflammatory, even if the purpose was not to actually aggravate anyone?

when you call people who have abortions murderers....you're going to aggravate people.

When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, while pretending to be an altar boy...you're going to aggravate people.

In other words, you're a douchebag. Ooops, guess I lost the argument.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49362203...-get-abortion/

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

when you call people who have abortions murderers....you're going to aggravate people.

When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, while pretending to be an altar boy...you're going to aggravate people.

In other words, you're a douchebag. Ooops, guess I lost the argument.

I focused on the argument and did not try to insult anyone. Is the terminology incorrect? How else do you classify the action, except by calling it murder, if life does begin at conception?

If life does not begin at conception - no murder has occurred. The door of course swings both ways. Do you have a counter-argument, devoid of insults, upon which to prove this point?

I would suggest that the aggravation stems from an emotional reaction to the possibility, however remote, that maybe I'm right. That means that abortions those people know of might have been murders after all. That's a tough thing to accept.

The insult didn't win the argument for you - you didn't expect it to I'm sure.

[Dahoss]

We've gone over this before. And everytime we do I try and remind you that it is not the black and white issue you try and make it. There is a lot of gray area to look at.

I guess my question is why does it matter to you what someone else does with their body if you aren't impacted by it financially?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

We've gone over this before. And everytime we do I try and remind you that it is not the black and white issue you try and make it. There is a lot of gray area to look at.

I guess my question is why does it matter to you what someone else does with their body if you aren't impacted by it financially?

It's a complex issue - of course.

The black and white part comes from trying to make a decision between two outcomes: to terminate or not. We have only two options, so to make that decision eventually dark gray is called black and near white is called white. With broader options than two such polar opposites, it would not be so black and white.

As to why I care: I'm not trying to sound like a "altar boy" here - but it's just concern for innocent life.

Different situation, but for capital punishment, now, in 2012, I believe that DNA evidence should be used to make sure that an innocent person is not executed. Similar reasoning - we have the ability to take a life and we need to NOT do that to non-capital offenders.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I focused on the argument and did not try to insult anyone. Is the terminology incorrect? How else do you classify the action, except by calling it murder, if life does begin at conception?

If life does not begin at conception - no murder has occurred. The door of course swings both ways. Do you have a counter-argument, devoid of insults, upon which to prove this point?

I would suggest that the aggravation stems from an emotional reaction to the possibility, however remote, that maybe I'm right. That means that abortions those people know of might have been murders after all. That's a tough thing to accept.

The insult didn't win the argument for you - you didn't expect it to I'm sure.

oh yeah, i'm sure that's exactly what it is. it's purely visceral.

as for 'counter-argument', you've yet to produce an argument. one would be hard-pressed to actually logically argue something based on opinion only. and even tho the supreme court presented the first trimester as a measuring stick, so to speak, i'm sure that would hold no more water with you than to mention viability.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not trying to. Would you consider taking an unpopular stand on a controversial subject to be inflammatory, even if the purpose was not to actually aggravate anyone?

it's not taking a stand for your beliefs that's the problem. it's not inflammator to explain why you feel how you do.
calling people murderers, trying to make others live by your rules-that's inflammatory. you see, having a right is one thing....you can choose whether or not to engage in whatever right you are free to exercise. a right being in existence doesn't mean a single person will ever be forced to exercise that right.
take that right away-well, you're potentially affecting a lot of people, aren't you? and you're trying to take away that right because of your opinion. how does your opinion hold more weight than mine, or anyone's?
as for calling people murderers, how does that further your argument? what do you hope to gain by that? who made you the arbiter?