TopicsBoard archive Politics / Society / Religion: February 2008: Re: Earthwalker

Since the Abortion thread got closed (and why, btw?. Yes, we had bozos making the usually inane, inflamatory comments that have nothing really to do with the subject matter, but why not ban them instead of locking threads? *shrugs*. The level-headed people here should be able to discuss constroversial subject matter. Anyhow...)

I wanted to respond to Arthur's comments so I'll do so on a new thread.

>My own ideas [about abortion] have certainly been informed by the many cases I have known for many years about abused children. >Abused by their >mothers. Abused by their fathers. Abused by de facto boyfriends. Abused by stepfathers. Or stepmothers.
>
>The thing is, these are facts of life. We are not all ever-loving kindly, helpful, child adoring people. Some of us as parents >are not just woeful we are damnably awful, cruel monsters.
>
>Some of us as parents put lighted cigarettes on the bodies of babies. Ours. Some sexually and physically abuse our own >children.
>
>The stories about the life-long abuse of some children who died or were actually murdered in childhood make the most >heartbreaking heart wrenching stories of all. They are occurring every day in every country.
>
>Yet we say piously that it is better to have them live their short, miserable, suffering lives and be murdered before their >10th birthday or allowed to die in misery and distress, than it is to stop the tyranny before it has a chance to wreak its work.
>
>There was a little 9 year old girl here who starved to death a couple of weeks ago. She weighed 18 pounds when she died. She >had been locked up almost since the day she was born in a room where her parents never bothered to clean her bed - she was >lying in excrement and urine and filth. Her short life was one of suffering and misery. She'd had broken limbs from physical >abuse.
>
>It would truly have been better if that little girl had never been born. For her sake.
>
>There was a 6 week old child early this year whose father threw her into a wall and fractured her skull but before that he had >injured her so badly she had a damaged liver and a broken rib. At 6 weeks of age.\

Well, Arthur, certainly these examples offer very valid and vivid reasons why, in some instances, it seems better, even more humane, to abort a fetus. However, to me, these sad tales have an emotional attachement to them that causes us to sidestep the real issue, which is: at what point and under what circumstances is it okay to end the existence of a fetus, or, perhaps, other than a fetus?

You see, all these powerful arguments apply equally well to an infant that has already emerged from the womb (a point that such peoples as the Spartans justified plenty well). Is it not better to end an unwanted 6-month-old's life (a life that could result in tragedies such as you describe) than to be forced to care for it and allow it to survive?

There is a certain arbitrariness to it being murder to kill a 2-week old infant, when a couple months earlier (while it was still in the womb) it was not.

I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I don't think it should be done using emotional language such as you describe. In essence, it boils down to how much right does a woman have over her own body, and that's really the only logically defensible position. Should a woman be forced to carry something inside her body? That's the real heart of the issue. You see, when you talk of saving a entity from a tragic life by snuffing it out, well, can that not apply to all infants, the elderly (ala. Dr. Kavorkian), or indeed, anyone?

IMO, the debate is about a woman's right to her body. I, espcially being a man, am very hesitant to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, including whatever may be inside it. It's her body, not mine. That's where I draw my line

>These are questions for you. I do not need your answers.

I don't feel I gave you an answer, per se. I would like your commentary on what I just posted, however.

Cheers

Earthwalker is a cynic, typical of his kind. Look at the other things he claims to believe. Notice how he doesn't need your answers, he doesn't want to hear any answers. He wants to force his nonsense on everybody else. He uses terms like 'we' when he describes the heinous crimes against children. What does he mean 'we'? Maybe the likes of him, an empty and pitiful disgrace of a man, is party to such things, but I'm not and you're probably not either. I may think you to be a simple-minded irritant, but at least you're not living in such a sad little delusional state, well not THAT sad anyway. This is what happens to people when they don't know God, they become wretched. Now he'll go blubber about it for a while, then post something offensive. Maybe you can find him some scaffolding.

This is what
> happens to people when they don't know God, they become
> wretched.

Does that happen to everyone? If so, when should I expect that to happen to me? What are the early symptoms? Why are there so many Christians that are wretched if they know God?

when you look in the mirror you see two idiots?

Thank you for your answer. It's obvious that you thought carefully about what you were going to say, and you have answered my questions clearly and thoroughly.

not simply attack others as you do with, 'an empty and pitiful disgrace of a man', 'simple-minded irritant', 'living in such a sad little delusional state'. That is really supportive of your view on abortion? No, it's just another attack on a person making a statement he believes to be true, and he did so in a much more intelligent fashion than you've ever accomplished. All we get from you is 'God is great' and vile attacks on people who don't see life as you do. You certainly don't represent all Christians, thank God.

> not simply attack others as you do with, 'an empty and
> pitiful disgrace of a man', 'simple-minded irritant',
> 'living in such a sad little delusional state'. That is
> really supportive of your view on abortion? No, it's just
> another attack on a person making a statement he believes
> to be true, and he did so in a much more intelligent
> fashion than you've ever accomplished. All we get from
> you is 'God is great' and vile attacks on people who don't
> see life as you do. You certainly don't represent all
> Christians, thank God.

I knew a five-year old rambunctious little boy once, who, whenever he thought he needed attention or whenever things were not quite as he wanted them to be, just screamed a stream of expletives. It reflected on his parents. ;-)
With a grown-up we would say: on the company he keeps.

However, I think it's nice to encounter someone with a dry sense of the absurd. That seems to permeate the regulars here. It's always refreshing.

Suckerfish: "This user requested the deletion of this name. The name will be removed within the next couple of days."

The same old game. So he won't receive any entries on his guest book. LOL! What a nut case...

> He
> wants to force his nonsense on everybody else.

>> is ignored <<

> Now he'll go blubber about it for a while, then
> post something offensive.

You're so bad at this :-)
I already have two children. I don't need anymore problem children or those who behave childishly here. I had enough of your nonsense. My kindergarten days are over long time ago; time you grow up too.

<< Welcome to my "ignore" list >>.

he's gonna cry now

<< ignored >>

*glances at the fly, then ignores it*

> Earthwalker is a cynic, typical of his kind. Look at the
> other things he claims to believe. Notice how he doesn't
> need your answers, he doesn't want to hear any answers. He
> wants to force his nonsense on everybody else. He uses
> terms like 'we' when he describes the heinous crimes
> against children. What does he mean 'we'? Maybe the likes
> of him, an empty and pitiful disgrace of a man, is party
> to such things, but I'm not and you're probably not
> either. I may think you to be a simple-minded irritant,
> but at least you're not living in such a sad little
> delusional state, well not THAT sad anyway. This is what
> happens to people when they don't know God, they become
> wretched. Now he'll go blubber about it for a while, then
> post something offensive. Maybe you can find him some
> scaffolding.

1) Please break up your post into paragraphs. My eyes hurt after reading that.

2) Quit trolling and quit whining to Aardvark you mental case.

3) Why don't you go start a thread about whiners and people who can't hold their own?
Or perhaps a thread about how OFFENDED people get when they are told what fucking a-holes they are.

4) YOU are the angry one - what's the matter? Someone lit the fuse on your tampon today?

5) Calling you a pig-ignorant fuckwit isn't slander (or ever libel) if it's true.

6) Here is a question. What you have said which entails you to any kind of respect, or even attention, from those who read your rabid outpourings?

> This is what
> happens to people when they don't know God,

Your god resides between two book covers.

> >These are questions for you. I do not need your answers.
>
> I don't feel I gave you an answer, per se. I would like
> your commentary on what I just posted, however.

I am sorry that you didn't notice that the "I do not need your answers" remark was addressed to the author of the OP. Perhaps I should have said: "I do not your answers, Ace". But I thought it was pretty obvious that I was replying to him.

As a male I feel that abortion is none of my or the government's business.

And of course I agree with you. The more important basis of abortion is choice. This is an individual's right to do with her body as she so deems.

It is detestable that anyone would consider them-self an expert over my feelings and my choices - if I were a woman. Right to lifers enjoy the master role, undermining anyones choice to give birth or abort. These people have no business nor any rights to this control yet they continue their front of 'spirituality based control' the issue that becomes more an issue of continuing control over reproductive rights. May as well go back to the raping of 13 year old virgins to dominate that particular sect or tribe of people. Nothing changed just the point of dominance with a modern issue.

As a male I feel that abortion is none of my or the government's business.

On a practical level, what interest do I have in a child being born if its own mother doesn't want it? That sounds like a recipe for trouble in the future.

I am more than "pro-choice." I am pro-abortion. I think the option should be made available to every young girl so that she does not burden her life with an unwanted pregnancy. Study after study has shown that teenage mothers are headed for a life of poverty and degradation when a simple medical procedure could fix the problem.

You know, abortion should be made easier and more freely available. But so should contraception and the OBLIGATION for parents and kids to attend sex counseling classes together from a reasonable age. Now, in the UK for example, the age kids seem to be filling their rocks is about 12. And if they're thinking about f****** at 12 and we're not talking to them about it until they're 16, that's 4 years of self-education, fable and bullshit that needs to be undone.

The reason why this time my reply was more emotional is, because the "right of the woman to chose" argument, doesn't seem to work when we're discussing the issue with fundamentalists. So I tried a different approach.

I hope I made my position clear this time.

Regards.

> I am sorry that you didn't notice that the "I do not need
> your answers" remark was addressed to the author of the
> OP. Perhaps I should have said: "I do not your answers,
> Ace". But I thought it was pretty obvious that I was
> replying to him.

You're among the small handfull that I read every post I come accross. I tend to gloss over many others, in this case most likely including the one you responded to. So...sorry ;)

> The reason why this time my reply was more emotional is,
> because the "right of the woman to chose" argument,
> doesn't seem to work when we're discussing the issue with
> fundamentalists. So I tried a different approach.
>
> I hope I made my position clear this time.

Well I can certainly understand that. The fundies are one such group I tend to pay little heed to, especially when I see time and time again no headway is ever made with them. -ULT-, for example, is no different now that a year ago, despite all the valid arguments and evidence thrown at him. I don't waste my brain cells on the likes of him anymore.

Well, we're in agreement for the most part, as I figured would be the case. Although I am pro-choice, I don't relish the notion of the abortion procedure being a casual thing, certainly not as a primary means of birth control. I'm not advocating that it should be illegal or even hard to get, only that our cultures shouldn't be so lighthearted about it. Such smacks of irresponsibility and just seems uncouth and classless, IMO *shrugs* and the more we have of that...well, you know ;)

I have 5 kids (two of them on college) that are sucking me dry *lol*... ah if we had just made the other choice *kidding, kidding*

I have seen not one single valid argument or evidence from any of you, except that you're all ignorant fools. I pity your children, if they grow up to be like you they are surely doomed.

to support your side other than

> you're all ignorant fools.

you're side certainly has no credibility.

> I have seen not one single valid argument

Oh really? On occasion we have directly questioned you and your theology. But you refuse to be pinned down. Every time we approach your concept of god you move the goalposts. On other occasions where you have been directly challenged to explain inherent nonsense or contradictions in your statements, you have simply ditched the thread.

> or evidence from
> any of you

What do you mean by "evidence"? What would you accept as evidence?

> I pity
> your children, if they grow up to be like you they are
> surely doomed.

Just remember: To have kids, you'd have to reproduce first, and you're using the world's most efficient contraceptive: your personality.

May I ask you a couple of questions, please?

Do you foam at the mouth when you write these posts? Are you consumed by terrible, uncontrollable anger?

Are you, in fact, entirely without seriousness and enjoying sending us up? Admit it. You are really a Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge with a warped sense of humor.

> Oh really? On occasion we have directly questioned you and
> your theology. But you refuse to be pinned down. Every
> time we approach your concept of god you move the
> goalposts. On other occasions where you have been directly
> challenged to explain inherent nonsense or contradictions
> in your statements, you have simply ditched the thread.

He doesn't come here to discuss, he has no answers. He never did. He is the typical forum troll.

Just ignore him. That's what I'm doing from now on. The same treatment will be given to Ace (or Rocket2008) or whatever he calls himself these days. Enough of them. Time to bring some intelligence and serious discussions back to this board.

OK, also time for my holidays to start too! Back in a week or so!