Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

Abortion is deliberate.
Abortion is done knowingly.
Abortion is done intentionally.
Abortion kills the unborn human.

So, having admitted all that, how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

I'll ask it again -- "how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

Seth, if you would be so kind as to answer the question posed.

I told you, my position is that of the Socratic interlocutor. I do not generally espouse my personal opinions as such because that affects my ability to engage in the sometimes difficult
Socratic dialog that moves towards knowledge because I'm free to respond to the dialog without being accused of 'flip-flopping' on an issue. I choose to remain neutral, which preserves my ability to argue ANY side of the issue, as the debate may require in order to move forward.

[Forty Two]

Abortion is deliberate.
Abortion is done knowingly.
Abortion is done intentionally.
Abortion kills the unborn human.

So, having admitted all that, how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

I'll ask it again -- "how do those admissions effect the issue of whether and when abortion (or some abortions) should be legal or illegal?

Seth, if you would be so kind as to answer the question posed.

I told you, my position is that of the Socratic interlocutor.

I do not recognize that position. That's not a position on the issue. That's you placing yourself outside of discussion, as if you are controlling and guiding it from above. You aren't.

I do not generally espouse my personal opinions as such because that affects my ability to engage in the sometimes difficult
Socratic dialog that moves towards knowledge because I'm free to respond to the dialog without being accused of 'flip-flopping' on an issue. I choose to remain neutral, which preserves my ability to argue ANY side of the issue, as the debate may require in order to move forward.

You are not neutral, not in the least. The idea that you would claim to be such is laughable. Nothing you have written expresses or implies neutrality in any way, shape or form. You are aggressively against at least one side of the argument, and you make no bones about that in your posts, and you never espouse the opposite view.

You don't need to hide your view of an issue in order to argue the other side of it. I'll be happy to start a new thread about abortion in which you take the pro abortion on demand through birth side, and I'll take the abortions are always to be illegal side. Let's both argue the issues from different perspectives from which we have thus far been addressing it.

I submit that your claim to neutrality is just a cover for your desire not to respond to questions that are difficult for you to respond to. It's not a fair approach to discussions, and belies purpose unrelated to truth that is at the heart of your participation in discussions.

If you don't give me the courtesy of answering questions, then I'll no longer be answering yours. I hate when people do this to me. They ask question after question, and I give straight answer after straight answer. Then I pose a few in return, and they ignore them or simply refuse to answer. It's dishonest and impolite. Usually I get it from progressives and Marxists. They like to pose questions, but not give the courtesy of an answer in return. Liberals, moderates and conservatives tend to be fairer in this regard.

[Seth]

I told you, my position is that of the Socratic interlocutor.

I do not recognize that position. That's not a position on the issue. That's you placing yourself outside of discussion, as if you are controlling and guiding it from above. You aren't.

Recognize it or don't, that is, and pretty much has always been my position in every forum I've ever participated in for the last 20+ years. I'm neither "guiding" the discussion,nor am I "controlling" it. I follow the discussion where it goes and analyze the reasoning and logic of each post and respond to that reasoning with rebuttal that may (and usually is) an attempt to get the participants to think differently about the subject by encouraging them to examine their internal reasoning and logic in context with the debate. My goal is the journey towards knowledge, not necessarily the destination. My statements are often formulated to be contrary to the statements made by others precisely to elicit a give-and-take in the discussion. I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir, which is often seen in this sort of fora, so I quite often take contrarian positions in order to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That's what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who's been around me if this is the case.

I do not generally espouse my personal opinions as such because that affects my ability to engage in the sometimes difficult
Socratic dialog that moves towards knowledge because I'm free to respond to the dialog without being accused of 'flip-flopping' on an issue. I choose to remain neutral, which preserves my ability to argue ANY side of the issue, as the debate may require in order to move forward.

You are not neutral, not in the least.

Depends on the subject. I had a short discussion with a lady Capitalist in my Uber car the other day. It was fun, but it was short and not much emerged because we were in pretty much complete agreement. I have no interest in such conversations, they are boring.

The idea that you would claim to be such is laughable. Nothing you have written expresses or implies neutrality in any way, shape or form. You are aggressively against at least one side of the argument, and you make no bones about that in your posts, and you never espouse the opposite view.

Of course I'm against one side of the argument, that's the purpose and practice of Socratic dialog. Whatever you say, I challenge. That's how it works.

You don't need to hide your view of an issue in order to argue the other side of it.

I do here, and in the preceding fora, because I tried it your way once upon a time, long long ago, and what resulted was endless "That's not what you said last time," to which I'd have to respond "You're right, it's not, because this discussion is not that discussion and this thread is not some other thread and I reserve the right to be inconsistent between threads and OPs because that's how I keep conversations going and interesting."

So, I quit excusing myself for arguing as I choose to argue. I just do it that way, and you can take it or leave it. As most folks here know, I'm a "persona" presented here in order to stimulate debate and cannot be said to actually represent my own personal, individual non-debatorial feelings. I reserve those feelings, opinions and claims for my actual IRL friends and acquaintances, not random, faceless and unidentifiable personas I meet on the Internet. I've been burned way too many times to be that gullible any longer. If you want to know how I am IRL, then you have to get to know me IRL.

I'll be happy to start a new thread about abortion in which you take the pro abortion on demand through birth side, and I'll take the abortions are always to be illegal side. Let's both argue the issues from different perspectives from which we have thus far been addressing it.

I'm fine with that.

I submit that your claim to neutrality is just a cover for your desire not to respond to questions that are difficult for you to respond to.

When have I ever NOT responded to a question? I may respond with another question or an analysis of why the question asked is not fairly or rationally formed, but I very rarely simply ignore a question. I usually only do so when the questions become personal. Those questions I do not respond to because, well, any time I do respond openly or honestly about my personal situation or beliefs it's ALWAYS used by someone to attack me at some point with irrelevant ad hominem insults, as we've seen here on many occasions in this thread alone.

Therefore, I generally choose not to reveal private information because being candid here is rarely respected and often abused.

It's not a fair approach to discussions, and belies purpose unrelated to truth that is at the heart of your participation in discussions.

What purpose do you refer to?

If you don't give me the courtesy of answering questions, then I'll no longer be answering yours. I hate when people do this to me. They ask question after question, and I give straight answer after straight answer. Then I pose a few in return, and they ignore them or simply refuse to answer. It's dishonest and impolite. Usually I get it from progressives and Marxists. They like to pose questions, but not give the courtesy of an answer in return. Liberals, moderates and conservatives tend to be fairer in this regard.

You are welcome ask me any question you like, but I won't answer personal questions nor will I lock myself into a statement of personal belief that can be, and inevitably will be used as a point of personal attack by others. If I were to hypothetically "admit" to you that I am actually fully in favor of unlimited elective abortion then any time I argue the position against it that statement would be dredged up as a conversation-stopper and an attempt to impeach my present argument based on something I "admitted" was my true belief at some time or other. You might note that a couple of people here evidently keep an archive of my statements, or they spend a LOT of time searching decades of posts and millions of words I've written in an attempt to find something to impeach my current argument in an obvious ad hominem attack.

I've been dealing with that sort of "argumentation ad hominem" since I first posted to RDF many, many years ago and I don't play that game anymore. And that's the way it is.

I am happy to debate from a different side of the question, but only if you understand that it's merely a different aspect of my internet personal and may, or may not represent my true personal beliefs, and that I reserve the right to make statements that are contrary to, or diametrically opposed to previous statements made in other threads or fora. I will not be pinned down and pigeon-holed for the convenience of those who don't like my arguments, which tend to be controversial and appear "conservative" mainly because the vast majority of participants here are political leftists, most of whom take great umbrage at anybody espousing opinions contrary to their personal political and religious beliefs and dogmas. If that isn't perfectly obvious to you, you need to reread things with that in mind.

I've been doing this a long, long time and my methods and practices are pretty firmly set and they are set that way for very good reasons.

I'm sorry if you consider that not to be an honest attempt at conversation, but "honest conversation" is very hard to come by here, so I'm usually quite skeptical when someone wants to know my personal opinions because I've been burned time and time again by people who have done exactly that in the past.

So, we can discuss anything and we can agree to take specific sides of the debate, but you should not assume that anything I say can be held against me in the future because that's simply not how I participate here, and never will. The choice is up to you.

[DaveDodo007]

Haven't been following this thread but I hate the argument 'that it is only a couple of cells' so were you at one time, dipshit. So murdering someone when they are most vulnerable and voiceless is acceptable now. Baby killing cunts.

[Tero]

Seth not expressing personal opinion. Ha.

[mistermack]

Haven't been following this thread but I hate the argument 'that it is only a couple of cells' so were you at one time, dipshit. So murdering someone when they are most vulnerable and voiceless is acceptable now. Baby killing cunts.

Ummmm, don't you understand your own post? A couple of cells is a couple of cells.
How the fuck do you make that a baby?
Silly fucker.

[Seth]

Haven't been following this thread but I hate the argument 'that it is only a couple of cells' so were you at one time, dipshit. So murdering someone when they are most vulnerable and voiceless is acceptable now. Baby killing cunts.

Ummmm, don't you understand your own post? A couple of cells is a couple of cells.
How the fuck do you make that a baby?
Silly fucker.

Er, because they are human baby cells of course.

[mistermack]

Haven't been following this thread but I hate the argument 'that it is only a couple of cells' so were you at one time, dipshit. So murdering someone when they are most vulnerable and voiceless is acceptable now. Baby killing cunts.

Ummmm, don't you understand your own post? A couple of cells is a couple of cells.
How the fuck do you make that a baby?
Silly fucker.

Er, because they are human baby cells of course.

Er, wrong. They are human fetal cells, of course, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

[laklak]

You bake them inside a woman for about 9 months. It's like proofing bread dough, sort of.

[Seth]

Haven't been following this thread but I hate the argument 'that it is only a couple of cells' so were you at one time, dipshit. So murdering someone when they are most vulnerable and voiceless is acceptable now. Baby killing cunts.

Ummmm, don't you understand your own post? A couple of cells is a couple of cells.
How the fuck do you make that a baby?
Silly fucker.

Er, because they are human baby cells of course.

Er, wrong. They are human fetal cells, of course, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

Er, the key is that they are human, and alive, and part of a living human being. Duh.

[Seth]

You bake them inside a woman for about 9 months. It's like proofing bread dough, sort of.

And bread dough is never anything other than bread dough once combined into bread dough. It's not a rabbit that turns into bread dough, is it?

[mistermack]

Haven't been following this thread but I hate the argument 'that it is only a couple of cells' so were you at one time, dipshit. So murdering someone when they are most vulnerable and voiceless is acceptable now. Baby killing cunts.

Ummmm, don't you understand your own post? A couple of cells is a couple of cells.
How the fuck do you make that a baby?
Silly fucker.

Er, because they are human baby cells of course.

Er, wrong. They are human fetal cells, of course, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

Er, the key is that they are human, and alive, and part of a living human being. Duh.

Part of a human fetus. Not a human baby. But the bleeding obvious never was your strong point.
Even fetus is too strong. Two cells are technically a zygote, a fertilised egg that has split just once.

[surreptitious57]

I find it incredibly boring to preach to the choir which is often seen in this sort of fora so I quite often take contrarian positions in order
to expand my knowledge and understanding of the issues. That is what I do. My statements change as the discussion changes in order to
pose contrarian viewpoints that elicit more debate. You can ask anyone who has been around me if this is the case

When you were last asked to actually demonstrate this position you said there was no reason to do so
You clearly have forgotten that for that is the only explanation for you saying the total opposite here
Now if you want credibility as a serious debater then you cannot be posting contradictory statements

[Forty Two]

I told you, my position is that of the Socratic interlocutor.

I do not recognize that position. That's not a position on the issue. That's you placing yourself outside of discussion, as if you are controlling and guiding it from above. You aren't.

Recognize it or don't, that is, and pretty much has always been my position in every forum I've ever participated in for the last 20+ years. I'm neither "guiding" the discussion,nor am I "controlling" it.

If you are not guiding the discussion, then you're not a Socratic interlocutor. A person who is engaged in the Socratic method is teaching via Socratic interrogation. So, if you're not guiding, then you may be an interloctuor, but not a Socratic one.

[Seth]

Part of a human fetus. Not a human baby. But the bleeding obvious never was your strong point.
Even fetus is too strong. Two cells are technically a zygote, a fertilised egg that has split just once.

It's still a living human being. It's not "part of" anything, it's ALL OF a living human being, at all stages of development.