Hellrider,
At last we are getting somewhere, you are conceding that I was not judgemental but have in fact been complaining about my sarcasm. It suddenly all becomes clear, at least I hope it is, since you have failed to actually show me in what way I have judged Forscher…again. I consider it intellectual cowardice to ask other posters to back up a point that you are failing or unable to make yourself.
See my reply to Abaddon on this issue. Only a ...intelectually challenged person...would fail to see that even though we, as humans, sometimes have to weigh ethical principles towards eachother, and then, as a result, choosing to lay more wight on the one than the other, this does not excuse our behaviour, nor does it establish a presedence for ridding ourselves of the ethical principle that in some situations are outweighed by other principles. The fact that both you and Abaddon continue to harp on this, even though I have offered an explanation that is considered as legitimate among all philosophers and others that write and do research on ethical questions, is just ...beyond me.
So you are also arguing that "Only a ...intelectually challenged person" would fail to agree with your opinion. Well how on earth could I possibly disagree with you when you are backed up by "all philosophers and others that write and do research on ethical questions". I take it you are going to provide some evidence of that? Of course a truly intellectual person like yourself wouldn’t engage in merely ad hominem attacks when they cannot win an argument would they?
Which is exactly why the abortion-board should be back.
Why? So that people who aren’t "intelectually challenged". I.e people who agree with your extremist views can sit in judgement on other people.
Personally, I hate to use fanciful words and expressions when it is clear as day that these terms and expressions are designed with an agenda. Much better to just call a spade a spade.
Unlike your "pro-abortion" statement, that wasn’t designed with an agenda? You should really be more honest with yourself.
??? Say what? So none of my arguments are relevant, because they are based on a position you do not take? Well, the exact same thing could be said the other way!
All your other arguments on the issue of your entitlement to an opinion are irrelevant since they are not based on a position that I take, they are based on your assumptions.
My position is that you are entitled to an opinion on the subject, so your arguments that you are entitled to an opinion are irrelevant to this argument since I agree that you are entitled to an opinion.
And I am just shocked beyond belief that you are intelectually unable to realize this.
I do understand the legal and ethical issues behind this issue, and I would agree that a foetus does have value just not the same value as an adult human. Do you now wish to debate the case for abortion on legal grounds? Up to now you have indicated you didn’t wish to argue it on legal grounds. The ethics of the matter are for individuals to determine within the context of the current legal status of abortion. As I have repeatedly stated it is my opinion that it is up to individuals to choose not for someone else to choose for them.
those lefties
politically correct utrage
(and ironically, an argument that isn`t considered politically uncorrect when worded by liberals)
Just some of the occasions where you have attempted to use the term liberal and pc in a derogatory way. After all we are agreed on calling a spade a spade, so why the act of innocence, why not admit that you are using these terms with your own agenda?
