XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime
XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:25:43 GMT, wrote:
==>"Statistics don't support or refute my position,
==>which simply is . . . a woman's body is her own,
==>anything growing inside it is her own, she
==>has the right to do with both what she likes
==>and everyone else should shut the hell up
==>and mind their own damn business.
==>Just so that I am not taken for a Christian
==>or a believer in any sort
==>of supernaturalism, I will repeat that I am
==>an atheist.
So am I. So what?
==>Your are certainly entitled to your position, quoted above.
==>It is very clear and succinct. It has a few flaws however.
Actually, a "position" can have no flaws. A statement
of purported *fact* may be flawed, but not a statement
of position. Get it?
==>A woman's arm and fingers are growing as part of her body.
==>Does she have the right to take them and strangle a person?
You're joking with this, right? It's too
ridiculous to respond to.
==>Perhaps you would object that you said "inside" and arms and fingers are not
==>inside of a person's body.
No, I would object that strangling a person is
rightly regarded as homicide. Ending the
gestation of a fetus is not, because a fetus is
not a person.
==> Hum, a brain grows inside a body.
==>What if woman takes her brain and devises a novel method of murder or a
==>novel method of
==>cheating people. Does she have the right to do it?
If you want to debate with me, you are going to
have to stick to the actual subject of the debate
and not advance analogies that would make a
five-year-old giggle. I really don't have the time
or patience to haggle over absurd non-sequiturs
as this.
==>You are also sloppy about the concept of inside. Technically a fetus
==>does not grow inside a woman's body. In actual fact any part of your
==>body that can be reached from the outside without crossing any bodily
==>boundary
==>is not inside. I know this is not the "common sense" view but it is in fact
==>correct.
I'm beginning to believe you are insane.
==>The correct definition of inside would rule out using the fetus as you want.
==>Of course you could reply that you meant attached to her body
==> not inside of it but that is not what you said.
According to this laughably childish illogic of
yours, a person's stomach in not "inside" his
body, because it can be reached through his
throat and esophagus without puncturing flesh.
If this is the type of argument you are trying to
make, this discussion is over, because I don't
waste my time debating with the mentally
challenged, or with nutcases.
==>You also seem to have stated your position badly. You said,
==>"she has the right to do with both what she likes". I thought that you
==>didn't
==>think that there were two persons involved.
You are not very honest, are you?
You can't win a debate by deliberately misstating your
opponent's argument. I said, "a woman's body is her
own, anything growing inside it is her own. . ."
Now, where did I say that "anything growing inside it"
means a "person?" Where did I say that "both" refers
to two people?
==> Your position is that there is
==>only one body
==>until the moment of birth.
See, you can get it right if you concentrate.
==> Yet, you said "both". It would seem
==>very unusual to say a similar thing about a woman's hand, that is,
==>that she has the right to do whatever she
==>wants with both her body and her hand.
And so she does -- as long as what she does with
her body and hand don't violate the rights of another
person.
Now, I've a suggestion for you. Take YOUR hand
and slap yourself hard upside the head. Perhaps
that will jar you into learning how to conduct an
intelligent debate without advancing ridiculously
flawed analogies and deliberately skewing the
meaning of what other people say.
--
Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner
than the birth of one more unwanted child.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
