Can this guy get any dumber? As it turns out, yes.

[DukeLeto]

I can't believe you can morally say that it is as bad/worse to destroy a cluster of non-sentient cells than it is to take the lives of 13,000 productive members of society.

And IIRC, you guys are the ones throwing around the "sanctity of life" shit.

[Wolf]

You should take a moment to calm down. My point still stands; life is sacred, and in bad situations, we must do our best to preserve life. The war in Iraq is only justified if the lives lost prevent an even greater multitude of lives from being lost. And I still do not know, or pretend to know, what is right in Iraq. I have said, and I will keep saying, that it will be a long time from now before we know whether or not we did the right thing. With regards to abortion, I can argue that your ball of semi-sentient cells is a seperate, undeveloped human entity, with its own, unique, DNA and genetic code. Unlike its mother. Killing it, whatever it is, is still destruction.

Now, if you've been paying attention to me, you will see why these beliefs coincide.

I have said that I believe in abortions of necessity, right? Where if both mother's and child's lives are threatened, for example. I also say that a war to prevent an even greater catastrophe is also justified. Don't you see the similarity? It is making the best of a bad situation. It is choosing the lesser of two evils.

And, now, if you do truly read what I say, you will see that I do not pretend that abortion or war is a good thing. Both, in my eyes are evils. Sometimes, however, they can be the lesser of two evils. But, because of this, we must never let them become accepted; we must never let them become the norm. I still have a license to throw around my "sanctity of life" bullshit, because I am willing to take a risk of it will save lives. Now, I do not pretend to know that this is the situation in Iraq, it may very well be, or it may very well not be, but that is how I would go about justifying it.

As I said before, the fact that he supports killing in war while pointing out how you support killing in abortion makes killing itself no less wrong. *EDIT: And by even arguing this point with me, you have proven that you doubt yourself; you have come close to admitting that abortion is killing.

[DukeLeto]

*EDIT: And by even arguing this point with me, you have proven that you doubt yourself; you have come close to admitting that abortion is killing.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Hold on.  I TRIED to get off this topic.  And what do you do?  You claim you've beaten me and that I'm retreating.  So what you're saying is that by merely existing, I am wrong?

How typical.

[Wolf]

Nope, not all. I never said anything of the sort. And if you wanted to end it, you could have chosen not to refer to my feelings for human life as "bullshit."

When you're response to my saying "Abortion is killing" is "Well.... you also support killing," what does that imply to you? To me, it implies that you admit that abortion is killing, but so is war, therefore I am a hypocrite. Up above, I explained why that is not a valid argument.

Oh, and I never claimed to have beaten you. All I did was claimed to have caused you to doubt yourself, which, judging by your wish for me to look at a "conscience counter," I am fair in assuming.

Is there anything besides my last line, which was a bad idea to add in as an EDIT, I admit, that you wish to dispute?

[DukeLeto]

OK:

1. The Iraq war saved no lives.  All it did was take them.  It had nothing to do with the "lesser of two evils", unless you consider oil and conquest more important than human life, in which case your entire argument seems pretty stupid.

2. You keep saying you have feeling for "human life" in all this, which means you are completely missing my point: Life begins at birth.

3. Abortions can be necessary in some circumstances: To prevent the mother, child, or both from dying at birth, to help those who have been victims of crimes and as a result, have not had a choice about becoming pregnant, for those who cannot healthily bear children, physically or mentally, etc.  (I realize you understand this, but I'm not so certain Gunwounds does.)

4. No matter how much you try to say otherwise, you do NOT know better than the mother.  You cannot be in that position, you cannot know what it is like (although neither can I, of course).  If the mother honestly believes she cannot properly support her child, and that she cannot bear the emotional and physical stress, then she should be able to get an abortion.

5. Expanding on the previous point, Gunwounds claims that, basically, rather than getting abortions or whatnot, they should either (a) be added to the ever-lengthening adoption que or (b) be dumped on the government, to be propped up by rapidly disappating social programs.

6. And finally, to be blunt, we have a serious overpopulation problem as it is.  A lot of nations are considering limiting the number of children to one or two per family, and some already have such laws.  Yet you want to force people to have more children against their will?  Uh, pardon me if I don't follow...

[Wolf]

Finally.

1. I did not claim that it was. Read my posts carefully, "The war in Iraq is only justified if the lives lost prevent an even greater multitude of lives from being lost." The Iraqi war is only justified. I do not claim that it is, I only claim that this is what will justify it. And you do not know the full story, and neither do I. We are both unfit to use Iraq as an example. If you want, I will use World War II as an example. We killed millions of people, German and Japanese. Yet, in doing so, did we not save the lives of untold millions? That is an abortion on a species-wide scale. The point I was trying to make was that, assuming that Iraq was a situation in which the lives saved were greater than the lives lost, such a situation is similar to abortions of necessity. Do not call my arguments "stupid", either. You have shown me a lack of common courtesy twice, and it will not be long before I decide to reply to you in kind.

2. I disagree. Is a baby not alive a day before birth, even though it is physically identical to a baby at birth? What of premature births, are they prematurely alive? And, if not alive, what are they, dead? Life begins at conception; an organism with unique, human DNA and genetics is now alive. I do not understand your argument for "life at birth." Since, a moment before birth, the baby is identical to how it will be a moment later, yet, one moment it is alive, and the other it is not? This is incomprehensible to me.

3. I agree with you.

4. I never said I did know better than the mother. This is the second time you have put words in my mouth (the Iraqi war piece). I will not tolerate it again. And do not continue to argue this point; I do not know what is best for the mother, and neither do you.

5. Gunwounds is entitled to his opinions. He should respond to this, not me. However, abortions or no, I feel that government aid should be increased anyway.

6. I know you mean well. Nonetheless, this can lead to such inhumanity... If overpopulation is such a problem, what's wrong with the war in Iraq? We have too many people as it is! 14,000 dead is bad because it's too few dead. No. Human beings are not fit to judge when and how other humans shall die. A fetus is a unique human entity with uniqe genetic patterns and DNA. We do not have the right to destroy it. Just as we do not have the right to destroy our children. To put it simply, I never want a law in place whose justification for existence is the "cutting down" of the human population.

I apologize if I have offended you, sometimes I get extremely frustrated, as I have been saying the same things over and over again... and have been rewarded only with what seems to be disrespect. Do not attempt to insult me, I do not care if it makes you feel better, and I do not care if you want a reaction out of me or if you think it will help your arguments. It is childish, and I will not tolerate it.

EDIT: But, I do greatly appreciate your responding to my points.

[GUNWOUNDS]

5. Expanding on the previous point, Gunwounds claims that, basically, rather than getting abortions or whatnot, they should either (a) be added to the ever-lengthening adoption que or (b) be dumped on the government, to be propped up by rapidly disappating social programs.

Prisons are overcrowding so lets stop sending people to jail too while we are at it.

Look man you are just spewing myths to make people think that adopted kids are growing up in some "Oliver Twist" Style Orphanage...hardly... first of all if the kids dont get adopted they are going to grow up as "wards of the state".

[DukeLeto]

Gunwounds, the biggest flaw in you argument is such:  Banning abortions will not keep them from happening.  It will just result in more deaths due to the conditions they will be performed in.  Laws are not a magic wand to control the populace.  Murder and theft are ilegal, yet there are millions of cases of each every year.  The UN expressly denied support for Bush to invade Iraq, but he did it anyways.

Go ahead and encourage people not to have abortions.  Take out ads.  State your points.  Get on debate shows.  State the facts.  Encourage alternate ways, such as adoption.  I'm fine with that.  Better than fine even; I'd support you.  But then you should let the final decision fall to the parent(s).  If they still feel they need an abortion, then so be it.  I would even support a bill that limits partial birth abortions, as long as you leave exceptions for medical necesssity.  The PBA Ban Act of 2003 did not leave those exceptions, though, which is why I oppose it.

Oh yeah, and about them becoming "wards of the state":  Well, the state has a bad habit of losing children (the huge "DCF's lost children" thing here in Florida not too long ago, for example) or being unable to properly support them.  When the associated social programs are properly funded, it will be a different matter.  But right now, they'd almost be better off aborted than in the hands of the awful state programs.

I'm sure you mean well; but I'm not sure you fully understand all the possible consequences of an across-the-board ban on abortion.

[Ninja_Sher]

My favorite "We are here to bring chaos to the country".  What he corrected himself afterwards with was "We are here to bring peace to the country in chaos".  At least he caught himself that time.

Or is it "Profit is what we want, that is our imperative, that is our directive", with profit they brought chaos, pretty much ordos type do not you think, he he  ;D.

EDIT : I do not know if you guys think this way, but I think that bush attacked Iraq knowing there is no risk of being hit back, whereas if they would attack N Korea ( who really have stockpiles of WMD ) they make bushe's life hell.

[Wolf]

I think I'm pretty satisfied with DukeLeto's last comments. Productive debate.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes Duke you are the only pro-choice person (if thats what you are... dont want to pigeon hole you)

[nemafakei]

I think he was referring more to the argument in the previous paragraph to which you've omitted to reply.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I think he was referring more to the argument in the previous paragraph to which you've omitted to reply.

i'm sorry what exactly are you talking about? I have not omitted anything.

[nemafakei]

"Oh yeah, and about them becoming "wards of the state":  Well, the state has a bad habit of losing children (the huge "DCF's lost children" thing here in Florida not too long ago, for example) or being unable to properly support them.  When the associated social programs are properly funded, it will be a different matter.  But right now, they'd almost be better off aborted than in the hands of the awful state programs."

You reading the same post as me?

This previous paragraph.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"Oh yeah, and about them becoming "wards of the state":

[nemafakei]

It attempts to show that there are implications you've not considered. It's not relevant to the point he's making whether or not you're calling for a ban on abortions for medical reasons, only that you're calling for a ban on those done for social and financial reasons. You've attacked an inaccuracy (in absolute terms) in an adjectival phrase irrelevant to the rest of the sentence, but failed to respond to the actual point he was making. Which, given you're one of those to whom he's adressing the point, seems a little petty.

[Edric O]

How did we go from Iraq to abortion? (this is a rhethorical question, by the way)

It seems I've been missing a lot here. I'll try to catch up. To begin with, I will answer to the last posts made by Gunwounds waaaaaay back on page 1 (when we were still talking about Iraq):

If you're really afraid that another nation might attack you, station troops at their borders and tell them not to try anything funny. That's how things have always been done.

That doesnt work when the enemy is overseas.  That doesnt work when the enemy is a guerilla warfare terror organization.

Its been stated a million times... conventional warfare/ rules of engagement do not apply here.

Bizarrae enemies require unusual tactics.

But the enemy is not a "guerilla warfare terror organization". The enemy is Iraq, a conventional enemy with conventional armies. You know the difference between Iraq and Al Qaeda, right? And the argument that "Iraq is overseas" is also flawed. Most of Iraq's neighbors are your allies, and you already have plenty of troops on their territory. It would have been a simple matter to move them to the Iraqi border.

No its more like the  neighbors/police/swat teams busting into the  "Columbine Kids" houses and going into their rooms and finding the mini-bombs and shotguns and rifles and pistols they were planning on taking to school the next day to commit the murders.

Finding "mini-bombs and shotguns and rifles and pistols"? Sorry pal, but you haven't found a trace of WMD's, so this comparison doesn't add up. It's more like the police busting into some kids' home, not finding any kind of weapons at all, but still claiming that the weapons must be in there somewhere and continuing the search - while a few blocks down the road, the real Columbine Kids are preparing their attack unhindered.

Sure, the kids would scream and yell that their "sovereignty" and privacy was invaded... but it would have been worth it to save lives.  However this didnt happen and so the kids went to school the next day and killed tons of students and teachers.

This draws interesting paralells between foreign policy and domestic security. Would you like to give the government the right to bust into any home - and perhaps keep a watchful eye on all citizens - in order to "prevent crime" and "save lives"?

Also back to the Pearl Harbor incident.... what if we intercepted radio transmissions from the Japanese and we found out that they were planning an attack on Pearl Harbor.... would it then be ok to attack the aircraft carrier that had the bombers docked?  Would it be ok then? Is an intercepted military transmission enough?  Or do we have to wait for them to blow us up first?  Or do we have to wait for them to launch? or do we have to wait for them to invade our airspace?  I think a good commander would say that it would be best to ground the bombers before they even took off.

Sure, if you actually intercepted their transmissions and know for sure that they are going to attack. But this wasn't the case with Iraq. You didn't "intercept transmissions" - you had no proof and no reason to believe that Iraq was planning any military action against you. In fact, the war proved that their army was in shambles. They were clearly not in a position to make any shady plans.

You dont just do a pre-emtive strike becase someone else has a weapons.  How if someone has weapons AND that someone hates you AND you have been attacked already by people with ties to that person AND that person would love to see you dead, AND that person has hired someone to try to assassinate your father AND that person has a horribe track record AND the person has killed other people before AND the person has invaded other people's territory before AND that person tortures his own people ...... the breaking point gets hit somewhere.

Except for the "killing your dad" part, this is a perfect description of the USA from the Soviet point of view. So would they have been justified to launch a pre-emptive strike at you?

Finally a rational and reasonable person is going to say ... fuck it... i am tired of your shit and they are gonna whoop that persons ass.

You cannot "indirectly" fuck with someone forever... eventually they will cut through  the bullshit and come after you.

Good thing we didn't have such "rational" and "reasonable" people with their fingers on nuclear buttons during the cold war... or we'd be sitting in a radioactive wasteland right now.

YES AND I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT THE TWIN TOWERS WAS A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE.  ALSO OSAMA DETONATING A BOMB IN WASHINGTON WOULD BE A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE AS WELL.

No, they weren't, and it wouldn't be. The 9/11 attack was a PUNITIVE strike. Bin Laden was trying to "punish" the "infidels" - not trying to destroy their ability to attack him. A "pre-emptive" strike is when you aim to weaken (or outright disable) the enemy's capacity to mount an attack against you. A punitive strike is when you only seek to inflict damage on the enemy, preferabely civillian damage.

THERE ARE PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKES WITH ILL INTENTIONS AND THOSE WITH GOOD JUSTIFICATIONS.

I agree. The war in Iraq belongs to the former category.

I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH A JUSTIFIABLE PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE PREVENTING AN ILL-JUSTIFIED PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK FROM EVER OCCURING.

By that logic, you should launch a pre-emptive strike on every nation on Earth and conquer the entire world, just to be on the safe side.

Using WMD would have caused EVERY UN Nation to take up arms against Iraq GUARANTEEING THEIR DEFEAT...

Fine. So they should have used WMD's only in the last moment, when defeat was inevitable. But they didn't use them even then. Why?

And more importantly, why build WMD's in the first place, if you never plan to use them - not even when you face total defeat?

If Saddam really was so scared of the international backlash caused by using WMD's, then he probably hasn't built any WMD's in the first place.

Besides, you'd have to be an idiot to believe you can have a Vietnam-style situation in Iraq. Vietnam was covered in dense jungle, full of hiding spots. Iraq is mostly open desert. Obviously, Saddam was not stupid enough to believe he could fight in the desert the same way the Vietnamese fought in the jungle.

[Wolf]

Again, as I see it, the only real arguments that might've justified the war in Iraq were Saddam Hussein's gross human rights abuses and terrorist ties. Not ties to al Qaeda, but ties to groups such as Ansar al-Islam, for example, which was based in Iraq. However, I will concede that the matter of WMDs in Iraq will not be satisfactorally settled for some time. Any war is a messy thing, as is this one. Because of that, there are too many possibilities. Maybe the WMDs were destroyed in the 9+ months that Iraq had to prepare for invasion. Maybe the WMDs were spirited out of the country. Perhaps they have been, and still are, hidden within the country somewhere. Again, perhaps Saddam (who admitted he had weapons in the 90s) disarmed them between then and now. It will take years for us to know the whole story. Until then, let's not assume they are there or they are not there.

[Edric O]

Iraq is a big country. It is theoretically possible that WMD stockpiles are buried in a nondescript place somewhere in the middle of the desert, which can't be found in a million years if you don't know the precise co-ordinates.

However, we have a principle in matters of criminal law: the accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

If you accuse a person of murder, it's not up to him to prove his innocence. It's up to you to prove that he's guilty. Similarly, if you accuse Saddam of having WMD's, it's not up to him (or anyone else) to prove that the WMD's don't exist. It's up to you to prove that they exist. If you can't prove that, then you have no case - and Saddam is legally innocent of all WMD charges.

The human rights and murder charges are another matter entirely... I certainly agree that they justify the war in Iraq, but they were NOT the original justification for the war. Bush supporters are trying to rewrite history by saying they went in for Iraqi freedom. But it was in fact made pretty clear that the official reason for the war were the WMD's.

Also, only the UN should have the power to start wars of liberation, because it's immensely dangerous to allow a single country to "liberate" whoever it pleases... how long until it "liberates" someone from a democratic government?

[Wolf]

Yeah, no kidding, I can certainly see how that power might be abused. And I agree with you that the UN should be the body that decides these matters. The only problem I can see with this is when the UN intentionaly overlooks situations where it should get involved. Just like one nation abusing the power of liberation, the UN may as well. And abuse can come in the form of invading a democratic nation, or not invading a totalitarian nation.

I also think that while the WMD issue was touted as the first priority, I do remember President Bush talking about Saddam Hussein's gross human rights abuses as justification for the war. He didn't ignore it -- even though it wasn't his topmost priority.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It attempts to show that there are implications you've not considered. It's not relevant to the point he's making whether or not you're calling for a ban on abortions for medical reasons, only that you're calling for a ban on those done for social and financial reasons. You've attacked an inaccuracy (in absolute terms) in an adjectival phrase irrelevant to the rest of the sentence, but failed to respond to the actual point he was making. Which, given you're one of those to whom he's adressing the point, seems a little petty.

And the reason i did not take his "wards of the states getting lost so its better for them to be aborted" argument and address it individually is because it is one example of failure out of innumerable examples of success.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Edrico i have no problem with your logic or your assumptions.... they are all very reasonable.

However I do not like how you only look at it from one side.

[nemafakei]

And again the point of my post is simply ignored.

[Wolf]

Yep. That's how I feel often.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yep. That's how I feel often.

Except ... you are the only one who has the right to feel that way because people blantantly ignore you Wolfwiz....