is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by cacophony

which is why i'm done with the conversation. if he's not even going to make a teeny effort to try to comprehend my point, which really means he's not reading anything i'm writing, then what's the point.

i get tired of investing effort into debates when people are too lazy to read and just keep parroting their point as though i'm on ignore.

Well, for what it's worth, I really did find your points to be quite eye-opening. They are appreciated.

[dubman]

cacophony demeans isilirunite's ability to comprehend actually being pregnant and what it means.
how unreasonable
especially considering how extremely relevant that is.
oh hey did we just get to the crux of the issue or was the response just a highly defensive appeal to ridicule.

[IsiliRunite]

I read everything she said, and I comprehend it just fine. She has said nothing to reconcile my belief that a pregnant woman, sick or not, has a human being inside of her that she does not have the right to kill. Even in the interest of her own health. I apologize for having concise principles that can't be talked around...

Quite simply... I do not support the right to conduct an abortion in which the mother contracts a condition via pregnancy that will kill her after the babies are delivered. Yes, that means a full-grown adult woman is going to have to die, sooner or later, in an otherwise normal attempt to bring another life into the world. This risk will always be present and unavoidable. Sometimes there are no 'right' answers. Sometimes people have to die. There are circumstances in which aborting can save more than it destroys ie aborting babies when both the mom and babies would otherwise die, but the specific examples we are talking about did not include that circumstance.

I ask you now... was there anything I missed? I'll gladly continue this discussion with someone who wants to contend my beliefs. Who knows, they may or may not change. Please attack my thoughts, and not my ability to conduct them.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I read everything she said, and I comprehend it just fine.

Then why have your last few posts so wildly misprepresented what she's said? I mean you actually claimed that Cacophony argued "a fetus is a unique human being (with civil liberties?) but also...that ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health", despite the fact that she repeatedly made comments about how complications for both the mother and the fetus need to be considered, as well as the long-term effects that carrying a baby to term despite said complications could potentially have on both parties.

Perhaps what you're misconstruing is Cacophony's central point that legislating away the right of a woman to retain abortion as an option would have catastrophic consequences on the health of mothers who find themselves in these difficult situations. But no one here, Cacophony included, has denied that having an abortion clearly involves taking control of the life of the fetus. In fact, she even went so far as to say that given the choice, she would have traded her own life for her twins in the face of the complications she personally experienced. Clearly, this stance indicates that she recognizes the impact her choice would have had on all parties. So if you can quote an instance of that point being made - that "ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health" - then I'll gladly concede.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

She has said nothing to reconcile my belief that a pregnant woman, sick or not, has a human being inside of her that she does not have the right to kill. Even in the interest of her own health. I apologize for having concise principles that can't be talked around...

Well that may be, and you're entitled to hold whatever beliefs you like, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that you're arguing your point by employing blatant misrepresentations of the points being made by others which, unfortunately, makes it difficult to continue any kind of meaningful dialogue.

[IsiliRunite]

I asked a clarifying question. I think ya'll took it as a statement.

ME: ...'pro-choicers' view the fetus as an extension of the female form while 'pro-lifers' view the fetus as its own entity with its own rights.
COCOPHONY: wrong. so very very wrong.
ME: so you think a fetus is a unique human being (with civil liberties?) but also believe that ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health? [NOTE: "only taking control of your own health" = "not taking control of another person's health as well"]

I thought some of her views could contradict each other depending on her beliefs, but she never actually clarified what her beliefs were. I'm not even sure what she thinks a fetus is... that's not an insult, I just have no idea what I'm discussing with who I'm discussing it with. If I use a question mark, that means I would actually like an answer. CONFUSING, I KNOW! She could have said, "No you're totally wrong" and that would have been more constructive.

I appreciate her perspective on pregnancy just as much as the next fully developed fetus, but I don't feel like I know her reasoning well enough to discuss it in a debate.

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by stimpee

Do you want to ban the morning-after pill also? how about contraception? Would you like no-sex-before-marriage to become law? Should people only have sex to pro-create? Where do you draw the line? Just how much freedom and civil liberty do you restrict in order to impose "moral values"?

I notice these questions werent answered. Dont have to be if you dont want to. Like when does it become "another life" inside a woman? At conception?

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Sean

The issue is that you're arguing your point by employing blatant misrepresentations of the points being made by others which, unfortunately, makes it difficult to continue any kind of meaningful dialogue.

the issue is that he's not remotely interested in debating or discussing it. he's firm in his arrogance and his only interest in participating is to hammer people with the righteousness of his opinion.

i'm long past the age when i felt compelled to hold a one sided debate with someone who has no clue what that entails.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by stimpee

notice these questions werent answered. Dont have to be if you dont want to. Like when does it become "another life" inside a woman? At conception?

i did answer the questions near the end of page two, unless you were referring to isilirunite. i believe that a child is a seperate being at conception, and is undoubtedly a seperate life by 22 days when its own heartbeat begins.

banning the morning after pill would be iffy, both legally and morally. the technicalities involved in banning that pill would be so difficult to add to the list of banned drugs by the DEA... and to have it enforced? it would result in such a government expansion that i can't say i would be for it. ideally, it would grow to be socially unacceptable so that people can choose to not use it, rather than an outright government ban.

contraception i would never ban because it prevents this whole problem in the first place. if everyone used condoms (and i know they don't work 100% of the time) the rate of abortion would decrease dramatically. contraception is morally fine in my eyes because it does not kill a child that is alive, it prevents the situation from happening. i think using contraception is very wise, and teens should be taught to use it, rather than being taught about abstinence only to get an abortion later.

i believe that before an independent life is conceived, the sperm and oocytes are the property of the individual and can be managed as they see fit, which is why banning sex except for procreation is the over-the-edge part of your slippery slope argument. i never once argued that morality should be dictated to the individual. i do not think gambling is a good idea, however, i don't think it should be banned because it's the individual's right to do whatever they wish with their property. i also believe that credit (usury) is forbidden in the bible, therefore i don't use it, but i wouldn't think about telling everyone else that they could not. i think getting involved smoking pot is a terrible idea, but i think it should be legalized. where in my positions do i want to 'dictate morality'? i think every life should be treated as equal under the law, including the life of the unborn child.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I asked a clarifying question. I think ya'll took it as a statement.

ME: ...'pro-choicers' view the fetus as an extension of the female form while 'pro-lifers' view the fetus as its own entity with its own rights.
COCOPHONY: wrong. so very very wrong.
ME: so you think a fetus is a unique human being (with civil liberties?) but also believe that ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health? [NOTE: "only taking control of your own health" = "not taking control of another person's health as well"]

I thought some of her views could contradict each other depending on her beliefs

When your "clarifying question"...

so you think a fetus is a unique human being (with civil liberties?) but also believe that ending the life of said fetus is only taking control of your own health?

...is followed immediately by this sentence...

"you're gonna have to resolve that contradiction before i bother typing anything else."

...then you've just transformed your "clarifying question" into an accusation. You're demanding she defend a position that she never took. In fact, it's a position that you and you alone have introduced, so I don't see why she should be forced to defend it.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

but she never actually clarified what her beliefs were. I'm not even sure what she thinks a fetus is... that's not an insult, I just have no idea what I'm discussing with who I'm discussing it with. If I use a question mark, that means I would actually like an answer. CONFUSING, I KNOW! She could have said, "No you're totally wrong" and that would have been more constructive.

Interesting you should be explaining to us how to be constructive. In my opinion, "constructive" would've been an actual request for clarification rather than a demanding accusation. "Hey Cacophony, at what point do you consider a fetus it's own, separate, living entity?" Something along those lines would probably ellicit a more informative response.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I appreciate her perspective on pregnancy just as much as the next fully developed fetus, but I don't feel like I know her reasoning well enough to discuss it in a debate.

Fair enough.

[IsiliRunite]

In retrospect, it was a contradiction that I perceived, and not one she explicitly said herself. To be fair, "wrong. so very very wrong," in response to my statement lead me to believe the pro-choice portion of my statement was in fact the opposite of reality. I don't think anyone here would disagree with the statement that pro-lifers view the fetus as its own entity. Coincidentally, I can't conceive of a middle ground between a fetus being an extension female form or a unique being, so the "wrong. so very wrong" statement lead me to believe I picked the wrong orientation with respect to pro-choicers' views. I'm still trying to get things straight upstairs... Sorry for the miscommunication I guess. So I guess I'll have to throw out the question, "When does a fetus become a person?" "Is aborting a baby not the most un-motherish thing, biologically, that a mother can do?"

I'm really not THAT arrogant. I'll admit that I've been more eager than others to get to the meat of what there is to discuss.