Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill

[giblets]

You seem to think there are situations in which people should get abortions.

As I've said many many times in this thread the reason the anti-abortion crowd wants people to adhere to their views is because they think people who get abortions are murdering people.. That's a perfectly reasonable justification for wanting to ban something--because it is ending human life. Your unwillingness to recognize this fairly simple concept is astounding.

If there were no situations in which people should get abortions, there would be no point in making them available. The people who are best qualified to decide whether they should have an abortion are the pregnant women.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry Elok, but just this once...

I attacked Elok's argument and you for wholeheartedly agreeing with it. If you felt that my characterization of the argument was wrong, then you should have said so. But you said nothing even close to it. Instead, you attempted to apply unattributed characteristics to me (those you expressedly portrayed as negative) that are not supported by any statements I've thus made in this thread. Hence, my critique of your bland use of ad hominem.

So you attacked two people who said society was too individualistic these days by saying they had a medieval viewpoint, which was followed by one of those two people jocularly suggesting that perhaps he should refer to you as a Randian (ie, an embodiment of hyper-individualism) and you are at a loss of why ("not supported by any statements")?

Seriously?

[DaShi]

I clearly stated why you did it. And hiding behind the "I was just joking" is so lame.

[DaShi]

Just put me on ignore and you and Elok and go back to being butt buddies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The freedom to make money has helped create so much wealth that the end of starvation is finally conceivable, something that wasn't the case for most of human history. Of course there should be some limits on the freedom to make money but overall it's been a smashing success.

Do you believe that various European countries have ended the "freedom to make money"? Obviously they aren't as hung up on hyper-individual rights which leads many in the US react in shock and panic when the term "socialist medicine" is mentioned. I'm not saying Europe is some dreamland, but I am saying they understand the concept of us being together in a society better than the US does.

Furthermore, if "of course there should be some limits on the freedom to make money", why not limits on other freedoms? Where does the difference come into play?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I clearly stated why you did it. And hiding behind the "I was just joking" is so lame.

You really believe that I think you are a Randian?! Or is this more deliberate obtuseness?

[DaShi]

No, as I said before, you simply prefer to use ad hominem rather than address the issue at hand. See your above post.

Really, you and Elok are painfully inept at this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your post of no surprise that we'd be embracing medieval thinking is a classic case of ad hominem. Shall I bring out the pot & kettle picture again?

[giblets]

Do you believe that various European countries have ended the "freedom to make money"? Obviously they aren't as hung up on hyper-individual rights which leads many in the US react in shock and panic when the term "socialist medicine" is mentioned. I'm not saying Europe is some dreamland, but I am saying they understand the concept of us being together in a society better than the US does.

Furthermore, if "of course there should be some limits on the freedom to make money", why not limits on other freedoms? Where does the difference come into play?

If this is about "being in a society", a fetus isn't part of society. The only relationship it is able to form is a parasitic relationship with its host.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That, of course, is a matter of opinion.

(FWIW, that definition may also apply to children prior to, say, 6 months old?)

[DaShi]

I attacked Elok's argument and you for wholeheartedly agreeing with it. If you felt that my characterization of the argument was wrong, then you should have said so. But you said nothing even close to it. Instead, you attempted to apply unattributed characteristics to me (those you expressedly portrayed as negative) that are not supported by any statements I've thus made in this thread. Hence, my critique of your bland use of ad hominem.

[DaShi]

That, of course, is a matter of opinion.

(FWIW, that definition may also apply to children prior to, say, 6 months old?)

Most everything in this thread is a matter of opinion.

[giblets]

I attacked Elok's argument and you for wholeheartedly agreeing with it. If you felt that my characterization of the argument was wrong, then you should have said so. But you said nothing even close to it. Instead, you attempted to apply unattributed characteristics to me (those you expressedly portrayed as negative) that are not supported by any statements I've thus made in this thread. Hence, my critique of your bland use of ad hominem.

Some people, unlike embryos, have sensitive feelings

[DaShi]

Feelings. Bah, just a whole bunch of trouble.

[regexcellent]

If there were no situations in which people should get abortions, there would be no point in making them available. The people who are best qualified to decide whether they should have an abortion are the pregnant women.

That doesn't change the fact that IF IT IS MURDER THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE!