Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

Prevention is everything.

And when the woman orders abortion pills over the internet, putting the abortionist out of reach of Irish law? Your only criminal is the woman who took the pill. Should she face 14 years in prison?

100cent

Lurkio wrote: »

Would you care to explain? Are you suggesting she not have sex?

There's many ways to skin a cat. Are you suggesting endentured sex slavery?

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

And when the woman orders abortion pills over the internet, putting the abortionist out of reach of Irish law? Your only criminal is the woman who took the pill. Should she face 14 years in prison?

As I've said more than once now, imprisoning women serves little purpose in these instances, in my view.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

As I've said more than once now, imprisoning women serves little purpose in these instances, in my view.

So what point is there in being a law threatening such incarceration?

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

So what point is there in being a law threatening such incarceration?

Again, to act as a prevention measure to make abortionists think twice before setting up their chambers of death in this country.

A measure thats worked beautifully in my view.

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

Again, to act as a prevention measure to make abortionists think twice before setting up their chambers of death in this country.

A measure thats worked beautifully in my view.

Do you see the unborn as equal to anyone of us living folk posting here tonight?

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

Again, to act as a prevention measure to make abortionists think twice before setting up their chambers of death in this country.

A measure thats worked beautifully in my view.

You continue to dance around my question rather than answer it. If you would rather not answer it then by all means feel free, just let me know that's your intent so that I don't repeat myself needlessly.

100cent

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you see the unborn as equal to anyone of us living folk posting here tonight?

Equal to you and I. Yes.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

You continue to dance around my question rather than answer it. If you would rather not answer it then by all means feel free, just let me know that's your intent so that I don't repeat myself needlessly.

Life gets messy sometimes. If this is causing you upset maybe you should leave the conversation.

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

Equal to you and I. Yes.

Okay, this is what I don't understand. If I was to kill any of the posters here I'm sure you would want to see me punished for that. Why is the unborn not worthy of the same justice? If we are all equal in your opinion, and the opinion of most anti abortion voices, why not extend that equality across the board?

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

Life gets messy sometimes. If this is causing you upset maybe you should leave the conversation.

You seem to have a very loose definition of a conversation.

100cent

eviltwin wrote: »

Okay, this is what I don't understand. If I was to kill any of the posters here I'm sure you would want to see me punished for that. Why is the unborn not worthy of the same justice? If we are all equal in your opinion, and the opinion of most anti abortion voices, why not extend that equality across the board?

Because we, as a nation, made a call that though both mother and baby have equal rights to life, where there is a direct physical threat to a mother's life, the pregnancy can be terminated. The intention of said termination being to save the mother's life.

Thats where we're at.

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

Because we, as a nation, made a call that though both mother and baby have equal rights to life, where there is a direct physical threat to a mother's life, the pregnancy can be terminated. The intention of said termination being to save the mother's life.

Thats where we're at.

That's not what I asked you

robdonn

eviltwin wrote: »

That's not what I asked you

Seems to be a trend.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

You seem to have a very loose definition of a conversation.

Okey dokey.

100cent

eviltwin wrote: »

That's not what I asked you

Thats the answer you're going to get.

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

Thats the answer you're going to get.

Then you have to understand why people will find it hard to take your position seriously.

100cent

eviltwin wrote: »

Then you have to understand why people will find it hard to take your position seriously.

You can find any justification you like to dismiss me.

It takes nothing from my right to openly advocate for life, support our nation's stance against the evils of abortion and my continuing advocacy for life into the future.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

You can find any justification you like to dismiss me.

It takes nothing from my right to openly advocate for life, support our nation's stance against the evils of abortion and my continuing advocacy for life into the future.

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

Charter & Rules

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

You can find any justification you like to dismiss me.

It takes nothing from my right to openly advocate for life, support our nation's stance against the evils of abortion and my continuing advocacy for life into the future.

But you come across as a hypocrite. I can't take your view that the unborn are equal seriously if you can't answer a simple question.

Lurkio

100cent wrote: »

There's many ways to skin a cat. Are you suggesting endentured sex slavery?

Bit surprised you can't answer. Surely you've thought such scenarios through while reasoning out your "pro life" stance?

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

Charter & Rules

If you want to engineer a ban to prevent me from expressing uncomfortable views for you, go right ahead.

100cent

eviltwin wrote: »

But you come across as a hypocrite. I can't take your view that the unborn are equal seriously if you can't answer a simple question.

I did answer you. I'm human. A complex mixture of many elements that may and I'm sure do come across as imperfect and hypocritical at times.

Sue me.

100cent

Lurkio wrote: »

Bit surprised you can't answer. Surely you've thought such scenarios through while reasoning out your "pro life" stance?

You've yet to flesh out your flimsy scenario. Needs a bit more work methinks. By all means come back to me when ready.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

If you want to engineer a ban to prevent me from expressing uncomfortable views for you, go right ahead.

You seem to be inventing a lot of ill will against you that does not exist, nobody is wishing you banned.

My only hope is to highlight that the point of these forums is for discussion, not simply repetition of one's own viewpoint. So when you are asked a question it is advised to either answer the question being asked, or simply state your intent to not answer it.

What you have chosen to do is side-step the question, repeatedly, which is dishonest. Perhaps you have a strong affinity for circles that the rest of us do not share, but it is not conducive to a good conversation. Perhaps the conversation is frustrating you, as your increasingly glib responses appear to indicate?

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

You seem to be inventing a lot of ill will against you that does not exist, nobody is wishing you banned.

My only hope is to highlight that the point of these forums is for discussion, not simply repetition of one's own viewpoint. So when you are asked a question it is advised to either answer the question being asked, or simply state your intent to not answer it.

What you have chosen to do is side-step the question, repeatedly, which is dishonest. Perhaps you have a strong affinity for circles that the rest of us do not share, but it is not conducive to a good conversation. Perhaps the conversation is frustrating you, as your increasingly glib responses appear to indicate?

This reminds me of many in today's society who demand their wishes come true. Anything that doesn't match their expectations, the toys come out of the pram.

You need to learn to appreciate that nuance and different perspectives exist.

You won't always get what you want.

I answered all questions tonight as I saw fir, from my perspective.

You seem offended by my answering style, while I am grossly offended by any viewpoint that advocates for killing unborn babies.


I have to get over it and move on.

A lesson some in today's 'want it now' society would do well to consider.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Charter & Rules
3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

I'm not convinced the rules are intended to force posters to answer barrages of questions in the fashion they've been thrown out over the last few pages or be removed from the 'conversation' though. IRL any 'conversation' conducted the way this has been would look more like a McCarthy Hearing, not a debate!

100cent

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not convinced the rules are intended to force posters to answer barrages of questions in the fashion they've been thrown out over the last few pages or be removed from the 'conversation' though. IRL any 'conversation' conducted the way this has been would look more like a McCarthy Hearing, not a debate!

Very true. But as I said, I'm used to 'Liberals' being quite intolerant when they hear things that makes them feel uncomfortable. )

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

This reminds me of many in today's society who demand their wishes come true. Anything that doesn't match their expectations, the toys come out of the pram.

You need to learn to appreciate that nuance and different perspectives exist.

You won't always get what you want.

I answered all questions tonight as I saw fir, from my perspective.

You seem offended by my answering style, while I am grossly offended by any viewpoint that advocates for killing unborn babies.


I have to get over it and move on.

A lesson some in today's 'want it now' society would do well to consider.

What demands have been made of you? You were simply asked to answer a question or have the courtesy to say that you won't, but instead you have chosen to answer an easier question asked by nobody.

But perhaps this is simply a misstep in what could become a beautiful friendship, my offence of advocating for the killing of unborn babies, as you put it, not withstanding.

So I'd be more than happy to move on from the topic and answer any questions you may have.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

What demands have been made of you? You were simply asked to answer a question or have the courtesy to say that you won't, but instead you have chosen to answer an easier question asked by nobody.

But perhaps this is simply a misstep in what could become a beautiful friendship, my offence of advocating for the killing of unborn babies, as you put it, not withstanding.

So I'd be more than happy to move on from the topic and answer any questions you may have.

You ask a question, I answer, you don't like the answer and threaten me with forum rules.

Very immature to be honest.