When did I mention moral superiority? I haven’t used the words moral or immoral in this discussion at all, except to repeat you. The title has a question mark after it, indicating it is a question, not a statement. I’ve agreed with the court’s ruling twice. The only person here who is not debating is you. What is your problem, anyway? I doubt things, is that judgemental? Is expressing doubt of any kind with you a form of ‘gross posturing’?
My problem is pompous, posturing people, with bloated judgemental language, who demand to determine who will control my body.
I’ve done nothing of the sort, candida. I expressed my opinion about the Roe V. Wade decision, which was:
I then followed that opinion with the single reservation I had, which was essentially where to draw the line. After reading several posts, by those who chose to express their opinions, I agreed that the line had been drawn in the appropriate place. You have been flaming me from the beginning based solely on the fact that I expressed my opinion, which actually doesn’t differ from yours. I agree with your rights.
I’ve been flaming you!
Wonderful, Copaesthetic, really wonderful.
Look at the sequence of events on this thread and just who ‘flamed’ who.
I ‘interjected’ about my good fortune in being able to make my own decisions no matter the views of people of good or bad will and what happened, oh master of argument and arbiter of behavior?
Now, let’s see:
"Alright, this is the second ridiculous post we’ve had in here from a pro-choice guerilla warfare expert who likes to snub their nose at debate, and say “Whoo, hoo, I’m right and you’ll never know why!”
From then on, matey, your chances of being taken seriously quickly approached zero.
I see now that you’re right about the sequence of events candida. I was flaming you first, and I apologize. I was angry with you, and whoever else had posted, because I saw something that wasn’t there. I genuinely wanted to hear your opinion, and did say so in a later apology. Your initial remark seemed sarcastic at the time, and I’ve interpreted in wrong.
S’ok!
Gave me some real sarcasm opportunities at least.
Um, candida, at this point of reconciliation I’m hesitant to add this, but I’ve posted something bad about you, or rather several bad things, on a thread in GD about flaming. I have publically, recinded my remarks and admitted the mistake was mine. Just in case you run across it. . . you know. I apologize for that as well. I get, well, sensitive about things sometimes, and I thought you were drawing a conclusion about me that you weren’t really drawing. I’m really sorry about that.
I feel really bad about those other posts. See, I was engaged in a discussion in another thread with someone I disagreed with who kept presenting no evidence and just spouting rhetoric all the time, and I was really pissed off. Then I came in here, and saw your first post, and my pre-emptive flame was really just angry-speak for, “I’d really like to hear more people’s opinions.”, because obviously you and E-Sabbath had opinions, and I wanted to hear them. I honestly didn’t realize I was flaming you, because the anger wasn’t really directed at you in my head. Then, you reponded to my flame, and I was like ‘What the hell is her problem?’, because I didn’t remember flaming you. That’s when my second flame comes in. In my first flame I honestly thought I was asking for your opinion, and I was, just in the most belligerent way possible. I got testy with Lissa too, but realized my mistake faster and apologized quicker.
Riiiight. Pie all around, then?
-
What fun is a GD if everyone agrees and is happy?
-
It was Ray Milland’s head that was grafted on. Although in the case of either Rosie Greer or Ray Milland, I would have to say, yes, I would definitely be in favor of removing the head from my body. If removing either of these two heads is not a constiutional right, then it should be.
Now, on to my viewpoint, if anyone still cares:
-
Roe v. Wade was probably the best decision the court could come to, but I don’t believe that this is an issue that should be handled by the courts. IMO, this is an issue that needs to be settled by Constitutional Amendment.
-
I don’t have a good answer for when life begins, so I’ll have to go with viability as the dividing line for now. It’s not great, but life is full of grey areas, and you have to draw a line somewhere. As medical technology improves, we’ll adjust the lines or maybe we come up with better preventative solutions.
Sorry we all seem to agree. It’s like, ‘What if there was a war and nobody came?’. Anyway, I started out essentially in agreement with the justices decision, having been unable to refute the court. I presented what was left of my argument and it was later resolved to a reasonable degree.
However, Bright, what kind of amendment would you want? Maybe I’m mistaking what your saying, but if the interpretation of the constitution is that it supports the right to have an abortion, why amend?
I have no problem with the interpretation. What I have a problem with is that the judiciary is deciding what, IMO, is should be a legislative decision. By leaving such complex issues up to the court, we are abdicating our responsibility to govern. Since I don’t think the constitution speaks clearly to the issue, I think it should be amended.