Russia&Abortion

[raja]

I usually try to avoid heavy sardonic comments in an argument because it is arbitrary and useless. The presence of sarcasm in my last two posts is meant to illustrate the lack of seriousness in your approach to be insulting. When all one can do is take a cheap shot at a person's format or grammer, rather than content, then it is apparent you have nothing more intelligent to invite to this issue. Whether it is a few multi-thought, sloppily typed sentences that is your problem or not, needless to say, it is completely and utterly irrelevent to this topic. It also demonstrates your inablity to have an intellectual argument.

Since you compare the process of aborting an unborn human as having the equal moral significance to brushing hair or drinking alcohol in moderation, it is quite clear that our difference in opinion speaks for itself. I have, on the other hand, demonstrated the principle backing up the concept that humans do biologicaly containt instinctive natural morals. What differs, here between you and I, is the fact that you would not place abortion under the "anti-murder" instinct or moral, while I do place it there.

Although, I suppose speaking in technical terms, abortion would be considered murder because it is one human putting an end to another, whether they are a living human organism or an almost fully developed child. The fact is, you're ending a life that is not your's. Still, we differ in opinions here and so be it. Assuming my intelligence is less then yours from a few unproofread, misguided sentence structures is not only juvenile but ignorant as well. So I suppose it's pointless to continue this argument with you any further (unless you object), because, except for my display of Natural Law and the technicalities of murder, the rest of this issue lies within opinion, (which I'm sure you agree on). And our opinions are contrasted. Period.

[remedios]

I usually try to avoid heavy sardonic comments in an argument because it is arbitrary and useless.

Sure you do.

The presence of sarcasm in my last two posts is meant to illustrate the lack of seriousness in your approach to be insulting.

Huh??? Excuses, excuses.

When all one can do is take a cheap shot at a person's format or grammer, rather than content, then it is apparent you have nothing more intelligent to invite to this issue.

That wasn't a cheap shot at your grammar, hon, it was a serious attempt to get you to write more clearly, as your posts are incomprehensible as written.

It should not surprise you that I twiddle my thumbs and become irritated when someone, in response to a request for explanation, posts incoherent gobblygoook that they've cut and pasted from 3 different sources.

i.e., had you expressed yourself clearly, we'd have long moved on.

Whether it is a few multi-thought, sloppily typed sentences that is your problem or not, needless to say, it is completely and utterly irrelevent to this topic.

Not when the sentences in question make what you're trying to say nonsensical.

It also demonstrates your inablity to have an intellectual argument.

If you can not explain it more clearly, I have to assume that you don't understand it yourself.

I have, on the other hand, demonstrated the principle backing up the concept that humans do biologicaly containt instinctive natural morals.

You MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT.

What differs, here between you and I, is the fact that you would not place abortion under the "anti-murder" instinct or moral, while I do place it there.

What about murdering the cow??

Assuming my intelligence is less then yours from a few unproofread, misguided sentence structures is not only juvenile but ignorant as well.

I asked you to re-write your post because it was unclear. If you are unable to do that, the ONLY logical conclusion is that you do not really understand what you wrote.

So I suppose it's pointless to continue this argument with you any further (unless you object) . . .

Nope. I'll just chalk up another one.

[raja]

"It should not surprise you that I twiddle my thumbs and become irritated when someone, in response to a request for explanation, posts incoherent gobblygoook that they've cut and pasted from 3 different sources."

--It does not surprise me that you twiddle your thumbs and become irritated...if I had trouble understanding key factors (that were posted in full explanation) in a long interpreted concept I'd get irritated as well. That's just too bad I guess.

" What about murdering the cow??"

--what about murdering a cow? That has it's issues as well but unfortunately I mentioned abortion, not killing a cow...I guess those two on paper can get confusing to some people.

"You MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT."

--I most certainly have in my "abortion after rape" post. Also i would like to add that the frontal lobe of the brain, where all cognative, and high thinking takes place includes the ability for a human to distinguish what's wrong and right...forgot to include that earlier.

[remedios]

. . . if I had trouble understanding key factors (that were posted in full explanation) in a long interpreted concept I'd get irritated as well.

Actually, it apparently does not register on your radar when you don't understand something. Apparently your response to not understanding something is to wander blithely on, believing you do, in fact, understand.

Ignorance is bliss.

--what about murdering a cow? That has it's issues as well but unfortunately I mentioned abortion, not killing a cow. . .

Except your entire argument against killing an unwanted, unborn child is that it's in the childs best interest to live, or, alternatively, that the child can feel pain.

Both of which are true of the cow.

Ding, ding, ding, next argument please.

--I most certainly have in my "abortion after rape" post.

Too bad simply saying things or willing them to be true can't compensate for atrocious grammar, poor articulation of ideas, and a near complete lack of understanding of the subject matter of which one speaks.

[capitolreq2]

WAY TO GO remedios!!! You are absolutely on point with everything you have posted. I especially like the fact that non of the social conservatives on this site can argue(effectively) against the fact that their viewpoints on life are inherently flawed and hypocritical. It is not suprising that those who tried to make a "point" gave up when the time came to make a valid arguement. Conservatives are great at one liners, but when it comes to debate, the viewpoints are as meandering as their philosophy. They will twist an issue around until it's non-sensical and serves their best selfish purposes. Ignorant confusion is why many so many uneducated gravitate to the right. thanks again for your posts. It has been extremely enlightening(and entertaining!)

[MO]

I quit arguing with the emotional feminazi because:
a. She was pompous and insulting, much like yourself.
b. She never bothered to register.
c. She kept throwing out ridiculous straw men, like her insistence that it is hypocritical to support any military action and also be against the wholesale slaughter of the innocent. I'd say wanting to be merciful to murderers and spare evil dictators and supporting the practice of killing babies is pretty hypocritical.

You have made it quite clear that you don't like us. You posted in the bar about us wasting out time. Yet you have taken the time to register here not once, not twice but three times and have been twice banned. I think that's pretty sad and I'll pray for you. If you want to debate than fine but knock it off with the condescending b.s.

[MO]

Ignorant confusion is why many so many uneducated gravitate to the right.

Oh the irony!

[Malebolgia]

MO said:

Oh the irony!

...of you insistent ignorance!

[ImNotBenny]

Malebolgia,

You're crazy as a road-lizard.

-BENNY-